SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION

[JBF]

Since envy887 mentioned sooty booster I assumed he was referring to this one.
https://spacexnow.com/patches/ezekiel-10-3-17/SES-10.png
But I could be wrong.

I think everyone else was looking at the update thread.

We've got the patch!

I think you are all correct. Killing my original comment.

[baldusi]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

[wardy89]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?

[old_sellsword]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?

There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?

[BabaORileyUSA]

Just so that you are aware, my information regarding the sub-synchronous transfer orbit is dated 13 March 2017.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Eric Berger article on F9 booster re-use:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/there-and-back-again-spacex-to-make-history-by-re-flying-orbital-rocket/

[gongora]

Just so that you are aware, my information regarding the sub-synchronous transfer orbit is dated 13 March 2017.

From what source?

[ChrisGebhardt]

...And I suppose, even if SES-10 is range approved for the 27th, that if OA-7 is delayed past the 25th, NASA might bump SpaceX for ISS scheduling purposes. No?

If your primary customer asks you to defer the range for them to meet their complex schedule, I expect you do it. Especially if your launch is from their property.

Copying this over from the L2 thread to shed some light on this. 

So a couple of points here regarding how the range decisions are made, even when customers have approved dates.

1. It's in everyone's best interest to be a team player. While SpaceX clearly had the range approved for SES-10 on 3/27 (regardless of Atlas) and could have said "No.  We booked the range.  Tough cookies", it was in their best interest to agree to a two day slip to allow ULA, Orbital ATK, and NASA to launch the OA-7 mission to the ISS on 3/27 instead.  You don't want to be the player on the field that refuses to play well with others because sooner or later you're going to need the same type of consideration you're currently giving others.  Besides, if they had refused, it then would have gone to the 45th Space Wing for arbitration, and ULA/Atlas V/OA-7 would have won because...

2. Missions to the ISS tend to take priority over non-governmental flights.

3. What happened here was an internal discussion between all four companies involved along with the 45th Space Wing to determine how best to handle the Atlas V slip and still accommodate everyone.  Also, there was likely an understanding in place last week that should Atlas slip by a few more days, so too would SES-10 slip accordingly to keep Atlas/OA-7 the priority.

4. Keep in mind that these sorts of adjustments to the Range schedule happen all the time.  The reason this seems more pronounced is due to the short turnaround time between the launches.

[BabaORileyUSA]

They tried to recover SES-9, which was 5,271 Kg (twins with 10?) ...

SES-9 (Boeing) and SES-10 (Airbus) are not twins.

SES-10 is 5300kg into a GTO orbit
SES-9 was 5270kg into a GTO orbit

That seems close enough!

Except that SES-10 is *NOT* going into a GTO.  It is going into a sub-synchronous transfer orbit (i.e. - the apogee is significantly below GEO altitude).  SES-10 will probably use on-board propulsion to raise its apogee to GEO altitude before beginning the usual perigee-raising maneuvers to transition to GEO.  To quote Gunter Krebs: "As the satellite's mass is higher than the nominal GTO capacity, it will be put into a sub-geostationary transfer orbit by the launch vehicle."

I'd like to see how recent the source is for that.  If you look at the two GTO commsat campaigns (including AMOS-6) before and two (expected) after SES-10, you might notice SES-10 is the lightest of those 5 payloads.

I have confirmed with SpaceX that SES-10 WILL be deployed into a 3 rev/day, sub-synchronous transfer orbit.

[gongora]

I have confirmed with SpaceX that SES-10 WILL be deployed into a 3 rev/day, sub-synchronous transfer orbit.

That could be an interesting clue regarding how much they can launch with drone ship recovery using the current version of the booster and current loading procedures.

[baldusi]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?

There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?

AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?

[BabaORileyUSA]

I have confirmed with SpaceX that SES-10 WILL be deployed into a 3 rev/day, sub-synchronous transfer orbit.

That could be an interesting clue regarding how much they can launch with drone ship recovery using the current version of the booster and current loading procedures.

The same SpaceX source that confirmed a sub-synchronous transfer orbit just provided me with contradictory information.  The latest shows a slightly super-synchronous transfer orbit (the orbital Period of the transfer orbit changed from 8 hours, 4 minutes to 11 hours 34 minutes), and yes, they're talking about the same launch....

[WmThomas]

AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?

Weren't we informed that the AFTS was running (without command authority) on past launches that used the old FTS. So perhaps the Flight 23 core already had the AFTS hardware.

Or, if not, four months of rehab work could have involved installing AFTS, couldn't it?

[stcks]

The same SpaceX source that confirmed a sub-synchronous transfer orbit just provided me with contradictory information.  The latest shows a slightly super-synchronous transfer orbit (the orbital Period of the transfer orbit changed from 8 hours, 4 minutes to 11 hours 34 minutes), and yes, they're talking about the same launch....

11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.

[old_sellsword]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?

There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?

AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?

1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.

As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.

[baldusi]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?

There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?

AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?

1021-1 (CRS-8) definitely used manual FTS. However we have no reason to believe 1021-2 (SES-10) won't use AFTS, given they've had plenty of time to make it the primary system on that booster.

As far as we know, EchoStar 23 (which used 1030-1) was the final manual FTS to fly on F9 on the east coast.

I'm just saying that it might just have happened that the refurbishment of the core included, at least, the implementation of the new AFTS.

[hans_ober]

The same SpaceX source that confirmed a sub-synchronous transfer orbit just provided me with contradictory information.  The latest shows a slightly super-synchronous transfer orbit (the orbital Period of the transfer orbit changed from 8 hours, 4 minutes to 11 hours 34 minutes), and yes, they're talking about the same launch....

11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.

Identical performance to SES-9 would indicate that loading procedures hasn't hurt performance significantly. MECO velocity should confirm this.

[deruch]

The AFTS is on the upper stage, isn't some version of it required for the core to fly back (or forward to the ASDS)?

Is it not on both stages. If you listen to the stream i recall hearing a 1st stages AFTS safe call before the landing burn?

There is definitely an FTS on both stages, so why wouldn't both be an AFTS?

AIUI, the Flight 23 core still had the old "manual" FTS, the upper stage will feature the AFTS. I also understand that SES-10 will have an AFTS. So, was the F23 core upgraded to the AFTS, or will it still use the old FTS for the core landing part?

Per the Air Force, the AFTS was tested on 13 flights in "shadow mode" prior to being activated for primary FTS on CRS-10.  Ergo, assuming all those flights were on F9s, the booster for the SES-10 mission should already have all the necessary hardware/software in place for using AFTS.  The upper stage which is new obviously does.

The comment about the 13 previous missions was given by Gen. Monteith, 45th Space Wing Commander: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/

[mme]

...
11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.

Identical performance to SES-9 would indicate that loading procedures hasn't hurt performance significantly. MECO velocity should confirm this.

They tried to land SES-9 so there was propellent reserved for the boostback, re-entry and landing burns.

Edit: Never mind, somehow I thought I was on the EchoStar thread.

[envy887]

...
11h34m translates to a roughly 200 x 39000km x 28 degree orbit (assuming no plane change) which would put this at about GTO-1795. This is very much on par with SES-9.

Identical performance to SES-9 would indicate that loading procedures hasn't hurt performance significantly. MECO velocity should confirm this.

They tried to land SES-9 so there was propellent reserved for the boostback, re-entry and landing burns.

They are trying to land after launching SES-10, so those will be similar.