SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - SES-8 - DISCUSSION THREAD

[Rocket Science]

I hope they don't spending much, if any, time or resources making the camera picture look pretty.  They've been succeeding by focusing on the right things.  Every little bell and whistle you try to do adds complexity, costs engineering resources and focus, and risks failure from unintended consequences.

A standard “mini race-cam” like you see in NASCAR races. It has fresh clear film that moves across the lens. Simple, robust and easily available...

[rcoppola]

I hope they don't spending much, if any, time or resources making the camera picture look pretty.  They've been succeeding by focusing on the right things.  Every little bell and whistle you try to do adds complexity, costs engineering resources and focus, and risks failure from unintended consequences.

I respectfully disagree. Compare the first F9 webcast to this one. The production level went up threefold. They are putting more time and resources into these launch productions now. I have no doubt, especially with booster returns next year, they will continue to increase the quality of their live feeds.

[ugordan]

Even the venerable RocketCam (TM) isn't immune to contamination. Check out Opportunity rover launch, the camera got dirty immediately at SRB ignition due to backblast: www.youtube.com/watch?v=O78C3cFjgGQ

I wouldn't say this was the worst contamination on an F9, just that the lighting conditions made it look bad. Sun directly at the camera and a night launch at that.

[rickl]

So what was the deal with the on-screen countdown clock?  It was consistently running slow and had to race to catch up with the voice callouts every minute or so.  They gave up on it about 15 seconds before launch, and I noticed there was no elapsed time display after launch.

[ChrisWilson68]

So what was the deal with the on-screen countdown clock?  It was consistently running slow and had to race to catch up with the voice callouts every minute or so.  They gave up on it about 15 seconds before launch, and I noticed there was no elapsed time display after launch.

Like many people here, the launch clock expected schedule slips from SpaceX and was caught off guard when the slips didn't come.

[ugordan]

Like many people here, the launch clock expected schedule slips from SpaceX and was caught off guard when the slips didn't come.

LOL!

[QuantumG]

So what was the deal with the on-screen countdown clock?  It was consistently running slow and had to race to catch up with the voice callouts every minute or so.  They gave up on it about 15 seconds before launch, and I noticed there was no elapsed time display after launch.

Like many people here, the launch clock expected schedule slips from SpaceX and was caught off guard when the slips didn't come.

The on-screen clock is an accurate representation of the count down clock. See the attached tweets.

I'm guessing the quirk we saw was just latency in the streaming subsystems?

[Lars_J]

So what was the deal with the on-screen countdown clock?  It was consistently running slow and had to race to catch up with the voice callouts every minute or so.  They gave up on it about 15 seconds before launch, and I noticed there was no elapsed time display after launch.

The video was lagging the sounds by several seconds throughout most of the webcast.

[bartonn]

You have to differentiate between cost and price. I am pretty sure that the actual launch costs are not the same as the launch price advertised on their web site. I might even go out on a limb and assume that the actually paid sum for a launch is not the same as the value given at the web site 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume all of that is pure speculation on your part.  It's purely based on comparing SpaceX to other launch providers and not being able to believe SpaceX's costs could be lower.

SpaceX has, from the start, behaved differently from any other launch provider.  Why is it so hard to believe that different behavior can lead to different results?

According to this article, SES paid 'well under $60 million' for this launch:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37547ses-approves-satellite-shipment-for-falcon-9-launch-despite-questions
Granted, SES-8 is the first GEO mission of the Falcon 9, so the cost would naturally be somewhat lower.  Regardless of the advertised price on the spacex website, spacex's launch prices are significantly lower than other launchers.  Arianespace is reconsidering their launch prices as a result of spacex:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38331spacex-challenge-has-arianespace-rethinking-pricing-policies
Furthermore, I think that the 'sticker price' listed on the spacex website is more of a PR thing than an actual  cost listing, because other launch providers don't list costs on their website.  Additionally, the price listed on the spacex website is probably the lower bound of the possible costs for a mission.  (Think about automobile advertisements - generally the price for the base model is listed)

OK, let's take the automobile analogy.  Yes, they list the base model in their pricing, but it's a real price.  You can go in and pay that price and get that car if you want to.

But for a given model, the advertised price is generally more than what most people pay.  It's the upper bound in a bargaining game.  The last thing the auto dealer wants the buyer to know is how low they are willing to go with the price.

The same is true for airliners -- nobody pays the list price for a 747, and most customers get steep discounts.

Based on those analogies, the prices SpaceX lists should be upper bound on the prices customers pay, not lower bounds.

I hadn't considered the price from that point of view.  I guess the important point is that the price for the falcon 9 is variable.  Each contract is negotiated on a case-by-case basis with the price determined by various factors (mission risk/complexity, schedule delays, etc). 

Most importantly, Spacex's launch costs are lower than their competitors, and with a few more successful GEO missions, Spacex can show that their vehicles are a reliable alternative.  Spacex has the opportunity to take a rather large portion of the market.  I'm sure this successful mission has already done a lot to give other satellite operators confidence in the Falcon 9, and I bet the Spacex manifest will become even more crowded in the near future.

[Jim]

Based on those analogies, the prices SpaceX lists should be upper bound on the prices customers pay, not lower bounds.

Quite the opposite. 

[QuantumG]

Based on those analogies, the prices SpaceX lists should be upper bound on the prices customers pay, not lower bounds.

Quite the opposite.

Agreed. Was it you Jim, or someone else, who said "Integration Services" is the real price driver for launching a satellite?

[Jim]

Based on those analogies, the prices SpaceX lists should be upper bound on the prices customers pay, not lower bounds.

Quite the opposite.

Agreed. Was it you Jim, or someone else, who said "Integration Services" is the real price driver for launching a satellite?

List price is like buying a car with no accessories.  Don't even get a payload adapter.

[edkyle99]

Most importantly, Spacex's launch costs are lower than their competitors, and with a few more successful GEO missions, Spacex can show that their vehicles are a reliable alternative.  Spacex has the opportunity to take a rather large portion of the market. 

Who are the SpaceX competitors for GTO missions?  Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift the 5-6 tonners to GTO like Proton, Ariane, or Sea Launch Zenit.  It can't even lift one half of an Ariane 5 payload to GTO.  It can't match the big range of the EELVs, which can boost 6.7 tonnes (Atlas 5) or more than 11 tonnes (Delta 4) to GTO x 1,500 m/s, far more than Falcon 9 v1.1's probably 3.7 tonnes to the same energy orbit.  The SpaceX rocket seems to sit in its own category at the moment.

The only close competition seems to be Soyuz 2.1b/Fregat from Kourou, which can haul 3 tonnes to GTO, but this launch vehicle hasn't had GTO customers if I'm remembering correctly.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lars_J]

SpaceX does claim 4850kg to GTO - but the kind of GTO is of course not specified. (But then again I don't think most expected SES-8 to be delivered in a super synchronous GTO before it was revealed) And you shouldn't really include DIV-H in the comparison without also including FH.

But no LV has the exact same performance as another LV, so the "who are they competing against" argument can be use against anyone.

[e of pi]

Who are the SpaceX competitors for GTO missions?  Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift the 5-6 tonners to GTO like Proton, Ariane, or Sea Launch Zenit.  It can't even lift one half of an Ariane 5 payload to GTO.  It can't match the big range of the EELVs, which can boost 6.7 tonnes (Atlas 5) or more than 11 tonnes (Delta 4) to GTO x 1,500 m/s, far more than Falcon 9 v1.1's probably 3.7 tonnes to the same energy orbit.  The SpaceX rocket seems to sit in its own category at the moment.

It's quite capable of launching the typical size of an Ariane V secondary. I looked over the last 9 commercial Ariane 5 launches, and there were eight to ten payloads within Falcon v1.1's throw range (one launch had a smallish primary paired with a largish secondary such that both were within F9's range, but some were just a few hundred kg the other side of 4.8 tons to GTO). Many were on the scale of SES-8, which is quite clearly F9 class--in fact, it's listed at 3,170 kg on wikipedia, for what that's worth. (Idle note: 3.2 tons is almost dead-on Elon's previously suggested 30% payload loss associated with first stage reuse, meaning it could maybe fly these missions with a reusable first stage.)

I'm not sure what the cost of a secondary payload slot on an Ariane is, but it seems like for the right price that's the market for v1.1, and maybe even for F9R. As for competing for the primaries market, that's what Falcon Heavy is for, and it's coming.

[edkyle99]

SpaceX does claim 4850kg to GTO - but the kind of GTO is of course not specified.

As I understand it, that's to a 185 x 35,788 km x 27 deg orbit that would be about 1,800 m/s from GEO.  That should translate to 3.7 tonnes, plus or minus, to the Ariane/Proton, etc, transfer orbit equivalent 1,500 m/s from GEO.

 - Ed Kyle

[Jarnis]

I hope they don't spending much, if any, time or resources making the camera picture look pretty.  They've been succeeding by focusing on the right things.  Every little bell and whistle you try to do adds complexity, costs engineering resources and focus, and risks failure from unintended consequences.

I respectfully disagree. Compare the first F9 webcast to this one. The production level went up threefold. They are putting more time and resources into these launch productions now. I have no doubt, especially with booster returns next year, they will continue to increase the quality of their live feeds.

Indeed. The only bummer I had in their webcast was that it ended before spacecraft sep. Look at Ariane broadcasts, they follow the mission all the way until all payloads are deployed. They use the "dead air" during the coast to restart on GTO missions to air various promotional pieces, often from the owners and/or manufacturers of the payload spacecraft, sometimes doing interviews etc. The only downer with Ariane is that the controllers do it in French (granted, the commentator does translate the key calls)

When video feeds are lost they show a simple telemetry readout (altitude, velocity etc.) and a 3D rendered image of the spacecraft. Heck, I'd be happy with basic telemetry and the controller voice loop.

Yes, a longer broadcast and much more effort, but would sure beat hearing from Twitter that the restart went well (granted, they did tweet the key milestones timely which was a good substitute)

Still, don't get me wrong, SES-8 coverage was 10x better than some of the earlier efforts and if that's going to be how future coverage runs (from ~T-30min or ~T-15min to initial second stage cutoff, showing onboard camera footage and controller voices), it is already great stuff.

[cleonard]

Is there any word on actual performance for the stages or perhaps estimated residual fuel?   

[sdsds]

So it looks like 397 km by 79341 km at 20.55 degrees.

Is that about 5 m/s (or maybe 6) closer to a geostationary orbit than the target? Anything is good, but ... 1495 vs 1500 isn't much.

[anderp]

[ quote snip ]

Indeed. The only bummer I had in their webcast was that it ended before spacecraft sep. Look at Ariane broadcasts, they follow the mission all the way until all payloads are deployed. They use the "dead air" during the coast to restart on GTO missions to air various promotional pieces, often from the owners and/or manufacturers of the payload spacecraft, sometimes doing interviews etc. The only downer with Ariane is that the controllers do it in French (granted, the commentator does translate the key calls)

When video feeds are lost they show a simple telemetry readout (altitude, velocity etc.) and a 3D rendered image of the spacecraft. Heck, I'd be happy with basic telemetry and the controller voice loop.

Yes, a longer broadcast and much more effort, but would sure beat hearing from Twitter that the restart went well (granted, they did tweet the key milestones timely which was a good substitute)

Still, don't get me wrong, SES-8 coverage was 10x better than some of the earlier efforts and if that's going to be how future coverage runs (from ~T-30min or ~T-15min to initial second stage cutoff, showing onboard camera footage and controller voices), it is already great stuff.

I agree - especially since they actually had spacecraft events going on post-SECO1. Though as we didn't actually see any people on screen at the third launch attempt, it's possible they were planning to go back to Molly & John initially to fill time until relight / spacecraft sep but nixed the idea for the third attempt as they didn't want to spend the time getting them both ready for screen again just in case this attempt was scrubbed too.

I hope the next launch streams last longer - especially CRS-3, as it contains the first potential recovered first stage and AFAIK there's no reason they couldn't stream video from it as it relights & attempts to land?