-
#220
by
starhawk92
on 02 Feb, 2017 19:11
-
Can we just give everyone a participation trophy and stop the 1000th discussion of what was reused first?
I'm pretty sure it was the guy that first strapped a rock to a stick . . . pretty sure he ate two coconuts that night . . . .
-
#221
by
obi-wan
on 02 Feb, 2017 21:52
-
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it 
Won't be put in the Smithsonian. Is not Elon's style.
My understanding was that the Smithsonian would want SpaceX to build the exhibition hall along with donating the rocket. That's not Elon's style.
From discussions with conservators at Udvar-Hazy: they would love to have SpaceX hardware (Falcon/Dragon), but Elon wants the Smithsonian to buy them (and not at much of a discount). They can't/won't do that.
-
#222
by
abaddon
on 02 Feb, 2017 21:59
-
I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.
So, 134 successful (as far as getting into space) Shuttle flights, so 268 possible recovered boosters (some were lost), but you claim to have some information that none of the assemblies were ever the same? I mean, the argument is silly anyway (does swapping out a Merlin engine disqualify a SpaceX booster being classified as "reused"?), but demanding someone prove that never happened to disprove your argument is sillier.
In any case: I am done, apologies for the side track. Next I will go into another thread and start a debate on whether a particular flight was a "partial failure" or "success" or "success with lost secondary" or ... just for fun
.
-
#223
by
deltaV
on 02 Feb, 2017 22:30
-
From discussions with conservators at Udvar-Hazy: they would love to have SpaceX hardware (Falcon/Dragon), but Elon wants the Smithsonian to buy them (and not at much of a discount). They can't/won't do that.
I wonder if SpaceX approached the Smithsonian about buying their hardware or the Smithsonian approached SpaceX about donating hardware and SpaceX replied "no unless you pay X". If the former I think that would be bad taste on SpaceX's part. If the latter I think it would be in bad taste if and only if the asking price was substantially higher than the value that SpaceX would get from reusing the hardware.
-
#224
by
macpacheco
on 02 Feb, 2017 22:30
-
My understanding was that the Smithsonian would want SpaceX to build the exhibition hall along with donating the rocket. That's not Elon's style.
From discussions with conservators at Udvar-Hazy: they would love to have SpaceX hardware (Falcon/Dragon), but Elon wants the Smithsonian to buy them (and not at much of a discount). They can't/won't do that.
Falcon 9 stages are valuable for SpaceX. They shouldn't be wasting tens of millions in hardware. SpaceX already has enough publicity among those interested in space. Let people go to Hawthorne see a F9R in front of SpaceX HQ instead.
But I sure would prefer we not repeat discussions that should be had on generic Falcon 9 threads instead. This is repetition, aka NOISE.
Mods can we determine that Smithsonian discussions be off topic here. Feel free to delete my post if such determinations are made.
-
#225
by
envy887
on 03 Feb, 2017 00:12
-
I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.
So, 134 successful (as far as getting into space) Shuttle flights, so 268 possible recovered boosters (some were lost), but you claim to have some information that none of the assemblies were ever the same? I mean, the argument is silly anyway (does swapping out a Merlin engine disqualify a SpaceX booster being classified as "reused"?), but demanding someone prove that never happened to disprove your argument is sillier.
I never said that this Falcon 9 will be the first
re-used orbital booster rocket, but the
first to re-fly with the same serial number. As far as I can tell, every SRB was a new assembly of used and/or new segments, always with a new assembly serial number. So no particular SRB assembly was ever re-flown, although their parts were frequently reused. If one of the many knowledgeable Shuttle people here can show otherwise, I would love to see it.
And no, swapping an engine doesn't make a new Falcon 9, they can do that on the pad. If they sent it back to the production line, welded on a new LOX tank and octaweb, and sent it back out with a new serial number, it would be a new rocket assembly.
-
#226
by
Robotbeat
on 03 Feb, 2017 02:08
-
I would say it's fair to say that 80-90% of the "value" of STS was reused, similar to Falcon 9, yet it still was very expensive.
F9 has a chance of changing the game because it's the first stage that's being reused (thus theoretically less wear and tear), it's not crewed (usually), doesn't generally waste a lot of capability (like an enormous payload bay and large crew section) when just launching satellites, it most likely will exceed STS's launch frequency (which was at most 9 per year and usually less) and perhaps by a lot, and seems to be pretty cheap even when expendable.
But it's more than fair to say that STS's reuse was at least on the same level as F9's, and a very good case can be made it was much more ambitious than F9's reuse is.
-
#227
by
Lar
on 03 Feb, 2017 04:36
-
Yes... boosters going to museums and what it might cost whom... is off topic for discussion of a specific booster, until and unless that booster is tagged as museum bound via an announcement by someone that would know. No deletion needed if straightening up and flying right happens.
PS, did you really have to ask?
-
#228
by
jfallen
on 15 Feb, 2017 14:45
-
I am surprised there is not more news on this. With echostar moved left, is there a projected date for this. It seems like it could go as early as 10 March based on the turn-around time planned between the next two launches.
-
#229
by
gongora
on 15 Feb, 2017 15:42
-
I am surprised there is not more news on this. With echostar moved left, is there a projected date for this. It seems like it could go as early as 10 March based on the turn-around time planned between the next two launches.
They haven't done one launch yet from the pad. Let's see how that one goes before we worry too much about the exact dates of the next couple launches.
-
#230
by
deruch
on 17 Feb, 2017 14:13
-
I am surprised there is not more news on this. With echostar moved left, is there a projected date for this. It seems like it could go as early as 10 March based on the turn-around time planned between the next two launches.
They haven't done one launch yet from the pad. Let's see how that one goes before we worry too much about the exact dates of the next couple launches.
More particularly, let's see how quickly they can turn that new pad around. Are the mods to TEL and retract procedure going to help them recycle the pad/GSE faster than they could at SLC-40?
-
#231
by
gongora
on 17 Feb, 2017 14:43
-
-
#232
by
jfallen
on 19 Feb, 2017 16:15
-
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
-
#233
by
DOCinCT
on 19 Feb, 2017 17:05
-
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
If they hit their 2 week turn aound time that Jessica mentioned several times, that would be a NET of March 15 (assuming Echo 23 launches before the end of this month).
-
#234
by
Star One
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:03
-
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
If they hit their 2 week turn aound time that Jessica mentioned several times, that would be a NET of March 15 (assuming Echo 23 launches before the end of this month).
If being the most important word here. I believe it when I see it.
-
#235
by
Jcc
on 19 Feb, 2017 18:51
-
From Jessica Jensen, Dragon mission manager, SpaceX at the CRS-10 outbrief. First reusable of a stage 1 is SES 10 which is scheduled for March.
If they hit their 2 week turn aound time that Jessica mentioned several times, that would be a NET of March 15 (assuming Echo 23 launches before the end of this month).
If being the most important word here. I believe it when I see it.
She said "about" 2 weeks to the next launch, which would push Echostar 23 to March 4th or 5th. Making Feb 28 would beat the 2 week turnaround, which they may do.
-
#236
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 22 Feb, 2017 22:59
-
SpaceX Opens Media Accreditation for SES-10 Mission
Press Release From: SpaceX
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX’s SES-10 mission from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch is targeted for no earlier than March.
A flight proven SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will deliver SES-10 to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO).
SES-10 will replace AMC-3 and AMC-4 to provide enhanced coverage and significant capacity expansion over Latin America. The satellite will be positioned at 67 degrees West, pursuant to an agreement with the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru), and will be used for the Simón Bolivar 2 satellite network.
Members of the media who are U.S. citizens or Permanent Resident Aliens (green card holders) and interested in covering the launch must fill out this media accreditation form by 5:00 p.m. ET, on Wednesday, March 1.
Requesting accreditation is not required of media who hold current annual press credentials issues by Kennedy Space Center, but it is appreciated for planning purposes.
For launches from LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center decides which media are credentialed to cover launches, not SpaceX. Please keep in mind, simply making the request in a timely fashion does not guarantee the request will be granted. Please be sure to provide all the information included on the SpaceX form. SpaceX typically obtains confirmation that these requests are approved about 48 hours prior to launch.
More details on the mission and pre-launch media activities will be made available at a later date closer to launch.
// end //
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=50472
-
#237
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 24 Feb, 2017 09:25
-
-
#238
by
Brovane
on 24 Feb, 2017 16:17
-
I like the terminology.
"A flight proven SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will deliver SES-10 to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO)."
-
#239
by
Mader Levap
on 24 Feb, 2017 19:32
-
I think this euphemism ("flight-proven") is alredy in use for quite a while...
.
