SpaceX F9 : RCM (RADARSAT) : Vandenberg : June 12, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[russianhalo117]

So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.

Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??

Thanks

That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/

They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time

Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.

No. Cost has nothing to do with it.

Remanifesting of Booster Cores will be in order if sticking with a reused core.

[Lar]

Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.

No. Cost has nothing to do with it.

Remanifesting of Booster Cores will be in order if sticking with a reused core.

Given that for block 4 they would sometimes take into account what mission was flown the first time, I'm not sure I would expect them to step away from that. Do you have a source?

[Jakusb]

So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.

Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??

Thanks

That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/

They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time

Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.

No. Cost has nothing to do with it.

Remanifesting of Booster Cores will be in order if sticking with a reused core.

Good to know 1050 was supposed to go West.
We still have 1052 and 1053, and very maybe 1055 (although getting more and more doubtful)...
One will have to go West, unless they are getting comfortable with flying cores a 3rd time.
In that case we have available 1047 and 1049.

In case they dare flying a core for 4th time, 1046 will have had plenty of time to get checked out.

My money is on either 1052 or 1053 being re-assigned to West coast duty...

[Jakusb]

So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.

Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??

Thanks

That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/

They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time

Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.

If cost was a big issue, they would get probably an even better deal if flying 1046 a fourth time..

Edit: If 1050 caused a delay, it would indicate that there is no obvious other solution than waiting for 1052 to launch CRS-17 frist? Or possibly 1051? If they really want a once-flown core..

[vanoord]

B1047.3 would be a candidate?

[pb2000]

As much as I detest using CBC as a spaceflight news source, they seemed to have confirmed that a launch in February is no longer in the cards, even going so far as to say "postponed ... indefinitely".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spacex-musk-radarsat-constellation-mission-falcon9-1.4977512

I'm guessing the indefinite bit, means they are going back into the queue to wait for a new or gently used booster.

[PM3]

http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/falcon-9-rocket-launch-radarsat?instance_id=2321

Falcon 9 • Radarsat C-1/2/3
...
[February 15, 2019] Vandenberg news, no earlier than March 9, if the core level is confirmed as B1046.4, it is the fourth flight of the same core level.

[crandles57]

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt

has Mar 6th

spaceflightfans seems down.

[Michael Baylor]

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt

has Mar 6th

spaceflightfans seems down.

Yes, but the source for that might also be spaceflightfans? I don't think March 6th is accurate. SpaceX has not opened media accreditation yet, and they typically would have done so by now.

[Steven Pietrobon]

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt

has Mar 6th

spaceflightfans seems down.

That's my website. I got the date from here, which got it from spaceflightfans! Now, I had thought it was 6 March, but going back to the post and the website, it says 9 March. Looks like I copied the date wrong. I'll change it to 9 March, although I don't put much faith in that date, since its from a Chinese web site with out any sources. Bing translation

"Vandenberg news, not earlier than March 9 (? ), if the core level is confirmed as B1046.4, it is the 4th flight of the same core class."

[PM3]

Agree that Chinese information on US launches is not that reliable. It's unlikely that Radarsat will launch on a 3rd or even 4th flight - there should have been boosters already available for that. Teslarati / Eric Ralph speculated that CSA has a contract for a low-worn booster for their billion dollars satellites.

What a difference a day of bad weather can make. On 6 March 2018, SpaceX could not recover B1044 (Hispasat). One spare booster missing, and this propagated through a year of launch schedule up to Radarsat, where no replacement was available for the crash-landed B1050.

[smoliarm]

Agree that Chinese information on US launches is not that reliable. It's unlikely that Radarsat will launch on a 3rd or even 4th flight - there should have been boosters already available for that. Teslarati / Eric Ralph speculated that CSA has a contract for a low-worn booster for their billion dollars satellites.

...

First, the launch contract for RSM was signed quite a bit ago, in 2013.
At that time there was no Falcon 9 v1.1 flying, let aside Falcon 9 FT with any of its *blocks*. Also, even the concept of "low-warn booster" pricing did not exist, it emerged couple years later. Also, the contract was originally made for the launch in 2018, five years in advance. Therefore, I suspect its language had a fair amount of freedom for both provider and buyer. And finally, in 2013 the advertised price for launch with Falcon 9 was $54 M, it was very inexpensive option at the time.

Second, as I recall RSM satellites are not that expensive, they do not belong to a "billion dollars satellites" class. The whole project cost may be something around that number (in Canadian $), but it includes R&D money, the cost of ground infrastructure and other "items", which are not satellites. If we are considering launch failure and evaluating possible losses - we are calculating REPLACEMENT cost, and it is typically much lower than the cost of the whole project.
Specifically, eoportal.org gives $110 M Cdn as a price tag for all three sats:
"Sept. 4, 2013: The Magellan Aerospace Corporation (Magellan) was awarded a contract of $110 million Cdn. From MDA for the manufacture of the three RCM spacecraft."
(the hyperlink to the source at eoportal does not work, here is the correct one)

The bottom line, IMHO:
There is no ground for speculations about "low-worn booster" thing existing in contract. It may be right, it may be wrong - we just do not know, and we have no evidence to support.

Hopefully this will change - eventually

[webdan]

Agree that Chinese information on US launches is not that reliable. It's unlikely that Radarsat will launch on a 3rd or even 4th flight - there should have been boosters already available for that. Teslarati / Eric Ralph speculated that CSA has a contract for a low-worn booster for their billion dollars satellites.

...

First, the launch contract for RSM was signed quite a bit ago, in 2013.
At that time there was no Falcon 9 v1.1 flying, let aside Falcon 9 FT with any of its *blocks*. Also, even the concept of "low-warn booster" pricing did not exist, it emerged couple years later. Also, the contract was originally made for the launch in 2018, five years in advance. Therefore, I suspect its language had a fair amount of freedom for both provider and buyer. And finally, in 2013 the advertised price for launch with Falcon 9 was $54 M, it was very inexpensive option at the time.

Second, as I recall RSM satellites are not that expensive, they do not belong to a "billion dollars satellites" class. The whole project cost may be something around that number (in Canadian $), but it includes R&D money, the cost of ground infrastructure and other "items", which are not satellites. If we are considering launch failure and evaluating possible losses - we are calculating REPLACEMENT cost, and it is typically much lower than the cost of the whole project.
Specifically, eoportal.org gives $110 M Cdn as a price tag for all three sats:
"Sept. 4, 2013: The Magellan Aerospace Corporation (Magellan) was awarded a contract of $110 million Cdn. From MDA for the manufacture of the three RCM spacecraft."
(the hyperlink to the source at eoportal does not work, here is the correct one)

The bottom line, IMHO:
There is no ground for speculations about "low-worn booster" thing existing in contract. It may be right, it may be wrong - we just do not know, and we have no evidence to support.

Hopefully this will change - eventually

Link is still wrong (extra chars). This should be correct:

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/magellan-aerospace-awarded-110-million-contract-for-radarsat-constellation-manufacture-512876591.html

[PM3]

Right, the number of (more than) a billion dollars refers to the whole Radarsat project, including operation; see CBC article.

Eric Ralphs speculation on boosters: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-next-west-coast-launch-indefinitely-postponed-failed-falcon-9-landing/

Although each rocket SpaceX builds can be quite different from each other in terms of general quirks and bugs, the only obvious difference between B1050 and any other flight-proven Falcon 9 booster in SpaceX’s fleet was its low-energy CRS-16 trajectory, something that would have enabled a uniquely gentle reentry and landing shortly after launch. In other words, likely out of heaps of caution and conservatism if it is the case, customers CSA and MDA may have requested (or contractually demanded) that SpaceX launch the Radarsat constellation on a flight-proven Falcon 9 with as little wear and tear as possible, in which case B1050 would have been hard to beat.

There is no ground for speculations about "low-worn booster" thing existing in contract. It may be right, it may be wrong - we just do not know, and we have no evidence to support.

The evidence is that the launch has been "indefinitely postponed" after the B1050 landing failure, though there should be some boosters available:

- B1046, third landing on 3 December 2018
- B1048, second landing on 8 October 2018
- B1049, third landing on 11 January, 2019

[smoliarm]

@PM3
Well yes - this is exactly what I call "no ground for speculation".
So, your first quote gives in my opinion a clear example of what a called (second quote) "may be right, may be wrong".
Let's see on this particular example where are the boundaries between facts and speculations:
FACTS:
*** B1050 landing failure is a fact;
*** The RSM launch was postponed (just "postponed", the "indefinitely postponed" - it is a CBC news type assessment, not a fact)
*** these two facts are obviously linked as cause and consequence.
That's it for facts.
Other things are speculative, or even wrong, including this one: "...though there should be some boosters available..."
- no, all these boosters DO NOT have status "available" - not anymore, not after the landing failure - just because they are of the SAME TYPE, and may have the SAME PROBLEM. They WILL be available, but after SpaceX finds the root cause and the applies the corrective actions - to prevent this type of failure in future.

Let's assume they find a DESIGN FLAW in the B1050 incident, which is not very unlikely as they had so far 12 attempts with 10 successes and two failures. In this case they have to DESIGN the new pump system, TEST it and APPLY this modification to all cores in inventory. That's quite a time, that would definitely justify launches being "indefinitely postponed".
But that's a worst case, after all - 10 successes it's a good line.
So, a PRODUCTION FLAW is more likely in my view. But even in this case SpaceX need SOME TIME to return the status "available" to the cores in inventory. Indeed, first they need to check these cores for the same (or similar) flaws. Second, they need to decide if this production screw-up is 100% preventable OR they better add some redundancy to the system. And this justifies some launch delays just as well.

So, both these "scenarios" induce delays - just like in the speculation about low-worn booster requirement.
The only difference is that the two listed above - they are typical for this industry.

Basically there are two plausible explanation for a launch delay:
1. either customer does want low-worn booster
2. or SpaceX does not want to loose another booster
- and as I said, we have no ground/evidence to chose the right one.

[PM3]

Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)? Would they give that low priority to the Canadian Space Agency compared to the other customers?

Note that B1044 - which was equipped with landing legs and grid fins - was expended to serve the customer. They could haved saved it by just waiting for better weather.

[smoliarm]

Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)?

Because:
Both Iridium and Nusantara Satu are ASDS-type landings. The hydraulic pump failure occurred on a RTLS-type mission, which has different flight profile and different landing profile. So, it is not unreasonable to suggest this failure mode does not apply to ASDS. Yes, this is speculation - un-grounded - just like your variant. We both do not know the necessary facts (and never will).
In contrast, your last example, SpX-DM1, does not belong to the group for sure, because it's a high profile mission where the schedule - when set - does have very high priority. In other words, SpaceX will definitely prefer to risk the booster landing over another launch delay.

It seems to me you still missing the point (or, likely, I did not do good job with explaining it):
I am NOT trying to say my explanation is right, nor his explanation is wrong - no.
Neither I am trying to say my explanation is better than his.
I gave my variant just to show that his is not the only one.

[SolSystem]

FYI,

This was in one of my recent newsletters; "A document acquired by SpaceQ through the governments' Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) program, shows that the Launch Services Agreement was amended giving SpaceX the option to select a new or flight proven Falcon 9 first stage booster for the mission. SpaceX would likely want to use a flight proven booster to save costs."

The same document said the Canadian Space Agency was ok using a flight proven booster. The question is, are they willing to use a booster for the third or fourth time.

As for the Magellan contract, that was only for three bus's. The RCM program cost is over CAN$1B, making it the most expensive procurement in the last 15 years. It is very important to the government and they want these satellites safely in orbit, now.

I've been in contact with MDA many times on the possible launch date, they aren't saying a thing.

[Star One]

Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)?

Because:
Both Iridium and Nusantara Satu are ASDS-type landings. The hydraulic pump failure occurred on a RTLS-type mission, which has different flight profile and different landing profile. So, it is not unreasonable to suggest this failure mode does not apply to ASDS. Yes, this is speculation - un-grounded - just like your variant. We both do not know the necessary facts (and never will).
In contrast, your last example, SpX-DM1, does not belong to the group for sure, because it's a high profile mission where the schedule - when set - does have very high priority. In other words, SpaceX will definitely prefer to risk the booster landing over another launch delay.

It seems to me you still missing the point (or, likely, I did not do good job with explaining it):
I am NOT trying to say my explanation is right, nor his explanation is wrong - no.
Neither I am trying to say my explanation is better than his.
I gave my variant just to show that his is not the only one.

Maybe I am missing something but what exactly are you trying to get at here, as your post seems pretty circular and doesn’t really come to any clear conclusion? Getting to the end of your post I find myself little wiser of which point you’re trying to make then when I started reading it.

[PM3]

http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/falcon-9-rocket-launch-radarsat?instance_id=2321

Falcon 9 • Radarsat C-1/2/3
...
[February 15, 2019] Vandenberg news, no earlier than March 9, if the core level is confirmed as B1046.4, it is the fourth flight of the same core level.

Today this was reverted to NET March, with the comment (via Google Translate):

[February 22, 2019] The news was incorrect and the task is not earlier than March.