-
#240
by
Brovane
on 24 Feb, 2017 22:10
-
I think this euphemism ("flight-proven") is alredy in use for quite a while...
It has been mentioned several times but it is nice to see it on an official notification for an impending launch.
-
#241
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 25 Feb, 2017 02:59
-
Personally I don't like the word "impending". Quite often it's followed by the word "doom"...
-
#242
by
dorkmo
on 25 Feb, 2017 07:18
-
Personally I don't like the word "impending". Quite often it's followed by the word "doom"...
perhaps theres some doom and gloom in the future for expendable rockets
-
#243
by
jfallen
on 03 Mar, 2017 14:11
-
Any chatter on a launch date for this one? EchoStar is set, so what should we expect for the range turn-around 2 weeks? It seems like that would put his with a NET of 26 March.
-
#244
by
JasonAW3
on 03 Mar, 2017 14:19
-
Personally I don't like the word "impending". Quite often it's followed by the word "doom"...
What about impending surprise party?
-
#245
by
ZachS09
on 03 Mar, 2017 15:44
-
Any chatter on a launch date for this one? EchoStar is set, so what should we expect for the range turn-around 2 weeks? It seems like that would put his with a NET of 26 March.
Sorry to say this, but I'm gonna expect a small delay that could push SES-10 into April. It's just like the last several missions.
-
#246
by
cwr
on 03 Mar, 2017 21:06
-
Any chatter on a launch date for this one? EchoStar is set, so what should we expect for the range turn-around 2 weeks? It seems like that would put his with a NET of 26 March.
Assuming that Echostar 23 launches on March 12th and CRS11 remains targeted at April 11th then allowing a 14 day pad turnaround it looks like there is a window from March 26-28.
However, this looks just like the scenario when CRS10 pulled rank over Echostar 23. I don't know the rules for this but it looks highly probable that the 26th-28th window is even less margin than that which produced the CRS10/Echostar 23 switch so I would suspect that SES 10 is probably going to be NET April 25th.
Any clarification of these rules appreciated
Carl
-
#247
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 08 Mar, 2017 21:25
-
-
#248
by
wannamoonbase
on 08 Mar, 2017 22:01
-
-
#249
by
Brovane
on 13 Mar, 2017 17:49
-
I don't think that the engines are a problem for a static fire, presuming that there is no damage to the plumbing or tank integrity. The issue is more overall soundness of the vehicle: Will the stage survive prolonged vibrations (IIRC, the main engine burn is ~150 seconds) plus the aerodynamic stresses transit through various atmospheric layers (in both directions) up to hypersonic speeds, both powered and unpowered? I can't blame SpaceX for checking every rivet and every joint twice at a microscopic level (and possibly with an x-ray) before risking a paying customer's payload!
SpaceX might not be just checking everything for making sure the LV is ready for a paying customer. I would hazard a guess that they are also checking everything for documentation purposes. They are building a database of what expected wear is. For example, Part-A is supposed to last X number of flights they still might check it for wear after every flight for a while to build up good documentation on what the expected rate of wear is. So this means their inspections might be going beyond just what is needed for a paying customer until they build a good library of reference.
-
#250
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Mar, 2017 19:05
-
People keep insisting on using one very specific thread for a general dilution into a more general topic. When that happens, people knock on my door, wait for me to open it, and then throw a pie in my face saying "I came here for SES-10...what's all this about history of reused stages. You've ruined my day, RUINED IT I TELL YOU".
Ok, perhaps not, but it feels like that when report to mods come in and act like we personally approved each and every post that was made here.
So, I've moved 24 posts (that went veering off into returned boosters - right through to Shuttle, etc.) into this more general thread.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39167.msg1653351#msg1653351This thread stays with SES-10 or I will tell the pie throwers to knock on YOUR door
-
#251
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 16 Mar, 2017 10:13
-
So, Echostar 23 is out of the queue. How soon can we expect SpaceX to give a launch date estimate for SES-10? I'm expecting to hear a time frame between 3/30 and 4/2 myself.
-
#252
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 16 Mar, 2017 10:19
-
So, Echostar 23 is out of the queue. How soon can we expect SpaceX to give a launch date estimate for SES-10? I'm expecting to hear a time frame between 3/30 and 4/2 myself.
Obviously the 27th has been pencilled in for a while. Post-launch pad inspection is usually a day or two after launch (hopefully, given night-time launch for Echostar, that will be tomorrow - 17th?). I wouldn't expect any revision to the 27th, if needed, until after the pad inspection. Hopefully there's minimal pad work required.
-
#253
by
Earendil
on 16 Mar, 2017 10:48
-
Depends also on what will happen to Delta IV and Atlas (OA-7) launches..
If all is well with these launches and 39-A has less damage than the 1st launch, 27th is feasable, given that the booster has been readied for 4 months
-
#254
by
NX-0
on 16 Mar, 2017 15:20
-
Since this mission is now Prime, when will we see an Update thread?
asking for a friend. :-P
-
#255
by
Craig_VG
on 16 Mar, 2017 20:39
-
Have we heard anything regarding if landing will be attempted on this mission?
(of course just the launch is historic enough, but it would be interesting to hear.)
-
#256
by
rcoppola
on 16 Mar, 2017 20:44
-
Have we heard anything regarding if landing will be attempted on this mission?
(of course just the launch is historic enough, but it would be interesting to hear.)
Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
-
#257
by
Craig_VG
on 16 Mar, 2017 20:47
-
Yes. At the recent Sat conference, Gwynne said they'd be recovering this one as well. They'll always recover unless mission is mass/orbit constrained like this past Echostar launch.
Thanks, I wasn't sure as 5300kg seems to be close to limits of recoverability.
-
#258
by
dnavas
on 16 Mar, 2017 20:50
-
Hard to believe in a March launch, given there has to be time for a static fire in there as well. The Pad would have to be practically pristine, no?
-
#259
by
ehb
on 16 Mar, 2017 21:03
-
It would be impressive if they can make the 27th, if not,
I wonder what the next range approved date would be or
if there is already a backup date that could be used.
Nevertheless, I'm psyched that this is the next one up.
1st reuse of an F9 & a drone ship landing...
If they get it back, analysis should provide useful interesting engineering data.
F9 23-2 anyone?
