SES-8 success plots trajectory for future SpaceX possibilities

[Chris Bergin]

Bit of a round up of where things stand post SES-8.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/ses-8-success-trajectory-future-spacex-possibilities/

All positive news, so I doubt anyone will care too much for this.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Bit of a round up of where things stand post SES-8.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/ses-8-success-trajectory-future-spacex-possibilities/

All positive news, so I doubt anyone will care too much for this.

was that said with tongue firmly planted in cheek (cheeky ;-) )

That was an excellent article, as a great overview of the situation, now (Dec 20th forward, MAINTENANCE!!) and for the future... Thanks Chris, at least ONE person cares for it: me!! 

Gramps

[Nomadd]

 I've seen the reference to three missions needed to certify the F9 1.1 for NRO jobs,, but haven't seen the specifics. Since there are a lot more than three planned before the first NRO launch, how would a failure somewhere along the line affect that?

[cro-magnon gramps]

I've seen the reference to three missions needed to certify the F9 1.1 for NRO jobs,, but haven't seen the specifics. Since there are a lot more than three planned before the first NRO launch, how would a failure somewhere along the line affect that?

it doesn't look as though the NRO missions on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are tied to these 3 missions, but are Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); Perhaps someone in the know can expand on that;
 The specific part the 3 mission requirement plays is in the below quote

Quote from Article:
Notably, the SES-8 success also marked the second of three certification flights required to certify the Falcon 9 to fly missions under the EELV program. Once Falcon 9 is classed as certified, SpaceX will be eligible to compete for all National Security Space (NSS) missions.

Bold is mine;

[Jason1701]

Great article. I like how Chris lets the reader understand the emotions of what's happening, as in " the SES-8 satellite happily undergoing initial preparations for its life in geostationary orbit."

[Elmar Moelzer]

Interesting article and great info, Chris!
There I was hoping for a 4th launch this year, but I guess that is not going to happen.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I think it's unlikely that SpaceX will be capable of slipping Thaicom-6 off before the late December close-down of the Eastern Range. However, even if that one goes up in January with SpX-CRS-3 in February and Asiasat in March (to meet the NLT deadline imposed by the customer) it still would be an impressive performance on their part. The big question is: can they keep the reliability and launch rate up? That's a big 'TBD' right now.

All said, though, it will be interesting to see how Lockheed-Martin and Boeing respond to SpaceX if they get any NRO/national security payload contracts. There have already been governmental mutterings about the EELVs being too expensive. Because of this, I'd hope that ULA and its two suppliers would have teams working on how they can get their costs down to be price-competitive right now rather than later.

[Silmfeanor]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

[clongton]

No one will care too much for this? You're kidding, right?

When SpaceX launches and NSF reporting become so consistently textbook perfect that no one takes too much notice will be a goal to be coveted by both organizations. Textbook perfect article Chris. Critiquing it is now down to looking for grammar and spelling (lol). Seriously Chris - thanks for another piece of really good reporting.

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks Chaps! Glad you liked it.

[AncientU]

Focusing on the topic of OP (not to slight the article's quality at all), the trajectory is set for a financially viable space launch company, but SpaceX aspirations are much loftier.  I see the FH as the next boost to that trajectory -- establishing a second-to-none launch capability.  Next comes human space flight which puts them in a rarified category with Russia and China, at least until additional US programs come on line. Improving reliability (off to a good start in that direction) through these three stages -- over the next two years or so -- will raise their trajectory toward the loftier goals and should be their primary mission. 
 
Lower cost, reusability, new launch facilities, methlox engine, MCT (fuel depots -- taking the liberty to add my leading candidate missing from this list) need to be secondaries for those two years IMHO. But the SpaceX model seems to be (massive) parallel development, so we'll see ongoing investments in these capabilities. 

Just like SES launch, it's not over yet, just first stage was successful.

[AndyX]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

[mlindner]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think I've seen every major one released and no, none of them show relight.

The longest view of the first stage is by this video.

[jabe]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

I have been  thinking along the same line for the past 6 years.  But then again that has been more true for previous launches.  I am wondering if one of the reasons, one of many, they are producing so many cores and engines is just in case the worst case happens.  Lay off a good chunk of work force until the situation improves.
It will be interesting how industry responds to a failure when ones happen. 
jb

[edkyle99]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

[sublimemarsupial]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

Not if they were testing the boost-back/RTLS burn instead of the max-q reduction burn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they actually do RTLS, wouldn't they want to do the boostback burn ASAP, to minimize the needed delta v to get the horizontal velocity to get the stage heading back to the launch site?

On flight 6 the first relight, the max-q reduction burn, appears to have happened just as the stage started to enter the atmosphere, allowing for some drag to settle the propellant. The second burn, the hoverslam burn, though unsuccessful, would have had even more drag to settle the propellant. But a boostback burn would be well above the atmosphere, so they would need some other method to settle the prop in the tanks, or have a clever baffling/zero-g prop management system in place. Since they did not test the zero-g prop settling on flight 6 (no boostback burn), I think it is a reasonable guess to say that is what they were testing on this flight, to get a data before the try to bring the stage back for real on CRS-3, especially since they only need to know whether the engines successfully relight and then they can be shut off, requiring only a very small amount of propellant.

[Avron]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, looking at the video there could have been a restart, but for a brief burst, half second or so, just to test the restart capability on this flight see 4:55

[meekGee]

I'll just point this out (was on L2 earlier)

The CASSIOPE mission also involved the first “boost back” test of the first stage, while sources note there was also a boost back test during the SES-8 mission, or at least the restart of the first stage post staging.

So, that's something new  Let the discussion and video analysis commence! Does any of the videos show a cloud of puff that looks different (some thrusters vs at least one M1D) from the others? I for one haven't been able to find it on any of the downrange videos.

I think that a relight would happen further downrange, several minutes after most of the videos lost sight of the stage.  We can clearly see post-separation maneuvering in preparation for a re-ignition.

 - Ed Kyle

Not if they were testing the boost-back/RTLS burn instead of the max-q reduction burn. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they actually do RTLS, wouldn't they want to do the boostback burn ASAP, to minimize the needed delta v to get the horizontal velocity to get the stage heading back to the launch site?

On flight 6 the first relight, the max-q reduction burn, appears to have happened just as the stage started to enter the atmosphere, allowing for some drag to settle the propellant. The second burn, the hoverslam burn, though unsuccessful, would have had even more drag to settle the propellant. But a boostback burn would be well above the atmosphere, so they would need some other method to settle the prop in the tanks, or have a clever baffling/zero-g prop management system in place. Since they did not test the zero-g prop settling on flight 6 (no boostback burn), I think it is a reasonable guess to say that is what they were testing on this flight, to get a data before the try to bring the stage back for real on CRS-3, especially since they only need to know whether the engines successfully relight and then they can be shut off, requiring only a very small amount of propellant.

I think they did not test the boost-back burn, but the re-entry burn (Again)
The difference is that with CASSIOPE they did re-entry with plenty of fuel as so could burn early and really slow down, whereas here they did it almost empty, and were trying to find out how long they could delay re-ignition before they lost the stage.

Minimizing the re-entry burn is very important as far as performance and economics go.  It's still the rocket equation.

[Jason Sole]

Great article again Chris! Although it does worry me if they lose one rocket, it could bring down the entire house of cards.

That is a risk. It's a risk for everyone, but I think SpaceX fans are more likely to act like a boy band splitting up, yelling "I never thought that would ever happen."

The higher you place something on a pedestal, the harder the fall.

You just don't get that risk with Atlas V.

[Lar]

I'm on Oahu today (rough duty but I needed the miles!) and in my room overlooking Diamond Head is a hair dryer. It says on the side that it is an 1650 watt dryer.

The article says that SES-8 produces about 5KW of power... Am I getting confused, or is this bird (typical of other birds in its size class in many ways) providing sophisticated communication services to a large chunk of Asia on... 3 hairdryers worth of electricity?

Modern electronics is awesome

The article was really superb, it puts so much of the story together in one easy to digest chunk. needs to be shared widely!