-
#500 by gospacex on 28 Mar, 2017 18:26
-
Longer static test fire puts more load on the flame trench.
The peak load on it during launch is only some ~5 seconds.
-
#501 by FutureSpaceTourist on 28 Mar, 2017 19:10
-
Not sure what the 6:27pm refers to. GTO insertion?Quote
We launch again in two days! @SpaceX #Falcon9 will deliver the #SES10 communications satellite into orbit at 6:27 p.m. ET.
https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081 -
#502 by old_sellsword on 28 Mar, 2017 19:13
-
Not sure what the 6:27pm refers to. GTO insertion?
QuoteWe launch again in two days! @SpaceX #Falcon9 will deliver the #SES10 communications satellite into orbit at 6:27 p.m. ET.
https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081
Likely, this is what the the SES-9 press kit says:
00:27:07 2nd stage engine restarts
00:27:55 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-2)
Edit: Apparently unlikely, as the 45th has updated their website to 6:27pm as well. -
#503 by ChrisGebhardt on 28 Mar, 2017 19:59
-
Not sure what the 6:27pm refers to. GTO insertion?
QuoteWe launch again in two days! @SpaceX #Falcon9 will deliver the #SES10 communications satellite into orbit at 6:27 p.m. ET.
https://twitter.com/45thspacewing/status/846798843060654081
Likely, this is what the the SES-9 press kit says:
00:27:07 2nd stage engine restarts
00:27:55 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-2)
Edit: Apparently unlikely, as the 45th has updated their website to 6:27pm as well.
This would match comments this morning from Martin Halliwell regarding the FAA's opposition to closing down air space for more than 2hr chunks of time for commercial launches. Given a window close of 2030EDT, a 1827 EDT launch would make sense. -
#504 by cscott on 28 Mar, 2017 20:35
-
This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then. Maybe a three-engine landing burn again, and they'venever yetonly once been successful with that.
EDIT: from the launch log, only 4 attempts at multi-engine burns:
SES-9: 3-engine burn, unsuccessful.
JCSAT-14: 3-engine burn, successful.
Thaicom-8: 1-3-1 burn, successful. (Not a 3-engine *landing* burn AIUI.)
Eutelsat 117W: 3-engine burn, unsuccessful.
-
#505 by pb2000 on 28 Mar, 2017 20:39
-
Most of the successful GTO landings were 3 engine hoverslams.This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then. Maybe a three-engine landing burn again, and they've never yet been successful with that. -
#506 by Mader Levap on 28 Mar, 2017 22:33
-
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then.
It is very obvious from context that "fate" comment is about success of relaunch itself, not landing or anything else.
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
-
#507 by old_sellsword on 28 Mar, 2017 22:35
-
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate. -
#508 by cscott on 28 Mar, 2017 23:23
-
The same CEO who puts a four-leaf clover on every mission patch, and on some of his ships as well?
A wise engineer understands there are always "unknown unknowns".
If anything, the idea of fate (a preordained destiny we are not yet privy to) is more physics-plausible than the idea that painting a clover will affect that future. (But I would personally see the clover as an expression of humility and acceptance of fate, an "offering to the gods" acknowledging we are mortal, rather than a serious attempt to alter the outcome.)
-
#509 by cppetrie on 28 Mar, 2017 23:26
-
The same CEO who puts a four-leaf clover on every mission patch, and on some of his ships as well?
Exactly. When you're doing super complicated things that have to have a million things work just right it doesn't hurt to appeal to as many potential sources of success as possible.
A wise engineer understands there are always "unknown unknowns". -
#510 by iamlucky13 on 28 Mar, 2017 23:37
-
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Someone who has rapidly disassembled 5 rockets so far, the cheapest of which cost more than the average American will earn over their entire lifetime, *just might* be tempted to suggest in a casual comment on a social media site that it's somewhat difficult to control all the factors affecting the success of any given launch, resulting in apparent variability that seems as fickle as fate. -
#511 by cro-magnon gramps on 29 Mar, 2017 01:12
-
The same CEO who puts a four-leaf clover on every mission patch, and on some of his ships as well?
A wise engineer understands there are always "unknown unknowns".
If anything, the idea of fate (a preordained destiny we are not yet privy to) is more physics-plausible than the idea that painting a clover will affect that future. (But I would personally see the clover as an expression of humility and acceptance of fate, an "offering to the gods" acknowledging we are mortal, rather than a serious attempt to alter the outcome.)
And within that position of humility, a hope that said offering will find favor in the Land of The Ancestors...
A beautiful Pagan sentiment many thousands of years older than our present religions... if you don't mind, I'll be stealing that, with attribution to the writer...
Gramps
Edit,
I believe the actual impetuous to put the four leaf clover on SpaceX patches, etc. comes from Gwynne Shotwell, and is in memory of her ancestry... -
#512 by deruch on 29 Mar, 2017 01:53
-
He's clearly not putting the success of the rocket launch "in the hands of fate" (unless Fate happens to be the name of one of their QA managers), but he might be propitiating fate by not jinxing the launch and talking about its success as though it were a completely foregone conclusion.I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate. -
#513 by Donosauro on 29 Mar, 2017 02:06
-
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Someone who has rapidly disassembled 5 rockets so far, the cheapest of which cost more than the average American will earn over their entire lifetime, *just might* be tempted to suggest in a casual comment on a social media site that it's somewhat difficult to control all the factors affecting the success of any given launch, resulting in apparent variability that seems as fickle as fate.
Well said! -
#514 by Kaputnik on 29 Mar, 2017 06:09
-
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
Because it's hard to believe the CEO of a launch provider is putting a historic flight (or any flight) in the hands of fate.
Someone who has rapidly disassembled 5 rockets so far, the cheapest of which cost more than the average American will earn over their entire lifetime, *just might* be tempted to suggest in a casual comment on a social media site that it's somewhat difficult to control all the factors affecting the success of any given launch, resulting in apparent variability that seems as fickle as fate.
Six if you include F9R Dev1 -
#515 by Semmel on 29 Mar, 2017 08:12
-
The hot landing probably explains Elon's "fate" tweet from last week, then.
It is very obvious from context that "fate" comment is about success of relaunch itself, not landing or anything else.
I don't understand why so many people insists it totally must be something else.
I think the same way. I wrote this in the fairing recovery thread but it is just as applicable here:
I am pretty sure the fate comment is about the first stage reuse. It's the one thing that is disruptive of the launch industry. It's the one thing the success of SpaceX will hinge on. I mean not this flight particularly but reuse in general. This flight is the first occasion where proving reuse is possible and maybe even economic. Any other technical challenge like fairing reuse will not determine SpaceXs future. But reuse must work or SpaceX has failed. That's why (in my opinion) musk is talking about fate. -
#516 by FinalFrontier on 29 Mar, 2017 09:06
-
Since this launch will probably represent the start of a totally new chapter in spaceflight, or at least we hope, here are twenty things off the top of my head that have been learned through blood sweat and tears up to this point:
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
2. Building rockets is hard at first but gets semi-easier as a knowledge and data bases are developed. Also advancments in computer power and modeling help greatly.
3. Flight rationale is derived from how hard you test but far more by how much components fly.
4. Keep it simple stupid. The more complex a system is the more things can go wrong.
5. Building really big rockets eventually becomes easy, but making them economically viable is imuch harder (especially if you throw them away after use).
6. Throwing away complex and expensive vehicles after only one or a handful of uses doesn't work.
7. Government only spaceflight is a starting point but is not viable in the long term. Pushing the envelope for the sake of technology or pork does not work either (venture star, cxp and many more).
8. Government should provide the means and support to lead but cannot be the source of exploration.
9. Space must be made economically viable to access otherwise it will never be developed or accessed.
10. There are very compelling if not totally demanding reasons to explore and develop our solar system.
11. Winged lifting body vehicles or any vehicle requiring a complex heat shield that wastes much of its mass on the vehicle itself are not the way to go. They work (for leo) but require massive overhaul and bring extra complexity and risk, at least given current technology.
12. Wasted upmass is wasted money.
13. Rockets are not LEGO elements.
14. Politicians should not build rockets.
15. The commercial industry actually can do it (sometimes harder to believe than to see).
16. Re-usability is the key to the future of exploration if there is one to be had.
17. Human spaceflight is very very hard but it can be gradually made easier.
18. Space stations are very good ideas but building them in small pieces may or may not have been, the jury is still out.
19. We have alot more to learn.
20. Never give up.
Here's to everything so far, and yes this leaves alot out feel free to debate it. Really hope this thing works, if it does the theory is no longer theory. What comes next is how to make it more easily reproduce-able and capitalize on it, but the hardest part is the first shot. I really hope it works.
GO SPACEX
Edit/Lar: "13. Rockets are not legos." is fixed. That's my pet peeve, people. Get it right.
-
#517 by jpo234 on 29 Mar, 2017 10:22
-
1. Space is hard. Space will always be hard.
Once the technology is settled, it shouldn't be hard. I suspect that people initially thought the same about every new technological frontier. Once good solutions and practices are established, things become routine.
Airplanes are still highly complex systems, but once you have built thousands of them, it's just routine. -
#518 by Ben the Space Brit on 29 Mar, 2017 14:05
-
Weather is 80% go for tomorrow. Here's hoping everything goes to plan!
-
#519 by FutureSpaceTourist on 29 Mar, 2017 16:57
-
A key point from yesterday's SES briefing I haven't seen mentioned is why they think booster re-use is important. It isn't cost reduction, as satellite cost dwarfs launch cost, but more certainty on launch schedule and reduction in waiting time to launch. For this reason SES are looking at their other launches re-using boosters (assuming all goes well with SES-10).
