-
#440
by
Jeff Lerner
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:11
-
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.
I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. 
I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
Do we know this for a fact ??....the payload must be insured...somewhere along SES found an insurance company to provide a policy for their payload on this special flight ..that policy is paid for with a insurance premium...if I was SES and agreed to be SpaceX first resusable stage one customer, I'd get SpaceX to not only pay the insurance premium but also offer a free ride on a future launch if things go badly....basically, if I was SES and this launch fails as a result of a stage one problem related to reuse, this mission doesn't cost me a dime...if I was SES...
-
#441
by
S.Paulissen
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:17
-
If you were SES you wouldn't be launching on a used rocket as there is no way SpaceX (or likely anyone else for that matter) would agree to those terms. This isn't a 'development/demonstration' flight, and even on 'development/demonstration' flights like Cassiope they had a paying customer that is responsible for their own payload.
-
#442
by
cscott
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:28
-
Nobody thinks SpaceX forgot about the tanks.
But 10 pages of discussion on NSF with lots of technical explanations of what might theoretically happen to the tank and why it will or won't matter would make for interesting reading.
You might be interested, but it would definitely be too much concern trolling for my taste. If we could have the discussion in terms of "these are the things SpaceX undoubtedly did to validate the tanks" it might be unobjectionable, but these sorts of discussions instead tend to bring out the worst armchair engineering and second-guessing.
-
#443
by
ChrisWilson68
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:33
-
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.
I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)
I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
Do we know this for a fact ??....the payload must be insured...somewhere along SES found an insurance company to provide a policy for their payload on this special flight ..that policy is paid for with a insurance premium...if I was SES and agreed to be SpaceX first resusable stage one customer, I'd get SpaceX to not only pay the insurance premium but also offer a free ride on a future launch if things go badly....basically, if I was SES and this launch fails as a result of a stage one problem related to reuse, this mission doesn't cost me a dime...if I was SES...
I agree with you that SES insures the payload.
But that doesn't mean they don't have any downside to a failure. They still have an opportunity cost when they can't make money from their new satellite, and insurance is likely to cover only the cost of the satellite, not all lost profit they could earn from it.
And the idea that they make SpaceX pay for the insurance really misses the point. What matters for SES is the total cost -- what they pay SpaceX plus what they pay for insurance.
For example, whether SES pays SpaceX $60 million and SpaceX pays the insurance company $10 million of that or SES pays the insurance but pays SpaceX $50 million makes no difference at all to SpaceX or SES.
-
#444
by
Kaputnik
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:35
-
I'm not sure why those of us who seem more concerned about this launch than others are being labelled as trolls.
I think SpaceX have done due diligence on the recovered boosters. I am not suggesting that somehow I know better, or that I think they have forgotten about something, or that the multiple hot fires and tanking cycles aren't relevant.
It is simply stating a fact that putting a stage of this size and type through a second flight has never been demonstrated yet. And there may be unknown unknowns waiting to rear their ugly heads. It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
-
#445
by
envy887
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:36
-
-
#446
by
Lar
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:39
-
James Dean Verified account @flatoday_jdean 3m3 minutes ago
Weather 70% "go" for SpaceX's new target launch time of 6pm ET Thurs., March 30, for SES-10 on flight proven F9. Window to 8:30pm.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/846360980904923136
I just like that not only SpaceX uses "flight proven"
-
#447
by
Req
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:45
-
I'm not sure why those of us who seem more concerned about this launch than others are being labelled as trolls.
I think SpaceX have done due diligence on the recovered boosters. I am not suggesting that somehow I know better, or that I think they have forgotten about something, or that the multiple hot fires and tanking cycles aren't relevant.
It is simply stating a fact that putting a stage of this size and type through a second flight has never been demonstrated yet. And there may be unknown unknowns waiting to rear their ugly heads. It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Who exactly does this need to be pointed out to? Are you making the post because you think you need to inform the public? And nobody has called you a troll(yet - keep posting), you've just generated a straw-man "we" for some reason, when the term has only been thrown around in reply to specific things that others have said.
Anyway... Back to the topic of "SES-10 with
reuse of CRS-8 Booster" - the bolded part implies what you're saying.
-
#448
by
Brian45
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:47
-
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
-
#449
by
Req
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:52
-
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
They are using the Thaicom-8 core as a booster for the first Falcon Heavy launch. This core consumed most or all of a leg's crush core during a barge landing which caused it to lean, then it walked around on the deck due to wave action for something like a week, encountering the rail several times rather than falling overboard. Can we please put this to rest?
-
#450
by
ChrisWilson68
on 27 Mar, 2017 16:56
-
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
Why do you assume they need to do something to stress the structure of the stage?
If Boeing builds a new aircraft and they fly it once, they don't then put the fuselage in a test stand and do structural tests on it before flying it a second time.
There's nothing magical about a second flight of a structure that makes it particularly likely to fail.
-
#451
by
Steve D
on 27 Mar, 2017 17:02
-
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.
Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.
BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
Those guys are way too busy to be reading every post in this forum. Not putting down this forum, but people have time to work or they have time to play around on the forum. Not both.
-
#452
by
Negan
on 27 Mar, 2017 17:05
-
It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Seems like you just argued how much more assurance a flight proven booster provides.
Edit: As in a part failed on its first use.
-
#453
by
Jim
on 27 Mar, 2017 17:12
-
It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.
If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Seems like you just argued how much more assurance a flight proven booster provides.
Not really, it was a second stage problem. Second stages are not reused, have only one engine and operate 70% of the time to orbit.
-
#454
by
Brian45
on 27 Mar, 2017 17:32
-
Actually, the airplane analogy is exactly correct. They didn't know about the seriousness of stress cracks in 737's until one of them RUD'd (partially) in flight around Hawaii. I know those cracks came from pressurization cycles, but the lesson is still there to be learned. When you stress a structural body with use, it makes sense to examine the structure before using it again until confidence is reached.
I suspect that when Boeing first flys a new model of an airplane, they do take that plane into the "shop" and look at it under a close microscope to find any stress issues. After a number of flights and examinations they gain confidence that they know where to look for problems. After that process, they move on to production. Seeing as how this is the first re-launch of a booster for SpaceX, the first one to be subjected to the stress of a launch after being launched and landed, two very stressful events, it only makes sense that this would be an issue the engineers there would look at.
Again, I'm sure SpaceX considered my concern (not because it was mine or was expressed in this forum). Is there anywhere at this website that has discussions about this issue? I've looked through the "Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles" section and don't seem to find any information on this.
-
#455
by
feynmanrules
on 27 Mar, 2017 17:59
-
Brian makes a good point- in typical jim line-of-thinking- "you never know until you've done it."
The rocket will succeed or not. Both companies know the risks and whatever happens they'll learn.
Life and life and launches will go on.
That said I'm curious about new mexico spaceport being dropped from plans. A couple of years ago musk suggested they'd likely fly recovered boosters from SPA first prior to customer relaunch. Obviously they're more confident this step is not absolutely necessary...
Since SpX grasshopper testing never moved to SPA even though they're still paying a lease... Wasn't sure if virgin's incident and delays made SPX rethink investing in SPA vs Boca (where they have more control) or 39a (more established space ecosystem). Absent SPA they could've done a customer-less flight elsewhere if needed.... that they're not and that SES is risking some serious bank here.... they likely have convincing data showing this is the best path for all involved.
We'll know in a couple of days... whatever happens will be loud and exciting!
-
#456
by
Lars-J
on 27 Mar, 2017 18:00
-
Again, I'm sure SpaceX considered my concern (not because it was mine or was expressed in this forum). Is there anywhere at this website that has discussions about this issue? I've looked through the "Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles" section and don't seem to find any information on this.
Then I suggest you go ahead and start a thread, the "SpaceX Reusable Rockets Section" seems like an appropriate area for it. (You seem have a lot that you want to discuss about this, perhaps your can get a discussion going)
-
#457
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 27 Mar, 2017 18:02
-
Static fire was longer than usual 3secs -- in line with longer static fire (5 secs) on previous SES mission by SpaceX.
-
#458
by
Brian45
on 27 Mar, 2017 18:04
-
Glad the static fire went well, now on to launch!
Good idea - I'll try to start a new thread over at the refurbishment section. Thanks
-
#459
by
hans_ober
on 27 Mar, 2017 18:06
-
Any reason for the longer burn? Special request by SES?
Does it result in better data being collected (vs a 3 second burn)? If yes, why not make 5 second burns standard?
