-
#60
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Aug, 2016 12:59
-
SES told Jonathan Amos it was was CRS-8....
Jonathan Amos @BBCAmos 5m5 minutes ago
@NASASpaceflight @iainkun That's what SES told me: April 2016 mission to re-supply ISS. Has to be CRS-8. Any change to that, let me know ;-)
-
#61
by
AncientU
on 30 Aug, 2016 13:11
-
At 5300kg to GTO, this will most likely final flight of this booster. Even if they recover to barge it may not fly again.
Not sure there is evidence for that.
The 'life leader' (0024) is being refired many times, and improvements to the operation have been implemented.
I suspect they are catching these GTO flights with an intent to reuse the boosters and not just collect data.
SES quote, if read literally, might be a hint:
Halliwell told investors this year that SES wanted to be the first commercial satellite operator to fly the same rocket twice.
SES-10
and 11?
-
#62
by
envy887
on 30 Aug, 2016 13:25
-
The LA Times article says
The landed first-stages go through extensive testing at Cape Canaveral, including careful inspections of the entire booster, and individual engine tests in Texas. The engines are then put back in the vehicle. Before launch, the booster will undergo a static test fire.
I don't see anything about a full stage firing at McGregor. The "static test fire" will on-pad at LC-40 per normal SpaceX procedure.
The BBC article says:
This drone ship, appropriately named Of Course I Still Love You, then brought the rocket stage into port, from where it was sent to the SpaceX testing facility in McGregor, Texas.
The booster was put on a stand and its nine engines fired again to prove their flight worthiness.
IIRC, the only used booster to be fired at McGregor was the JCSAT-14 stage. Do we have any record of the CRS-8 stage on the way to McGregor or being fired there? Maybe someone can ping @BBCAmos to see how he confirmed it.
-
#63
by
Mader Levap
on 30 Aug, 2016 13:38
-
Why BBC says "second-hand"? This is nonsense. SpaceX still owns and operates that booster.
-
#64
by
e of pi
on 30 Aug, 2016 13:40
-
SES quote, if read literally, might be a hint:
Halliwell told investors this year that SES wanted to be the first commercial satellite operator to fly the same rocket twice.
SES-10 and 11?
As far as I know, that was from February during the leadup to the SES-9 launch, when the implication would have been reusing the SES-9 core for this SES-10 flight. Since that failed, I guess they're taking the next landed core--CRS-8 (and one with a less-aggressive original entry profile). While SES might have an interest in reusing the core from SES-10 on a third flight if it lands successfully again, I think it's worth avoiding reading too much into an older statement.
-
#65
by
gongora
on 30 Aug, 2016 14:21
-
This is is probably just my optimism at work but, if SES-10 has its own boost motor (presumably expended after GOI), then SpaceX might be able to negotiate a lower S/C Sep altitude and thus save a little prop for the attempted core recovery. Even if F9-023 isn't in a reflyable condition after the mission, examining the first booster to fly and recover twice would be a scientific and engineering goldmine.
Why do I think that this is possible? Because SES have been talking about flying SES-10 on a recycled booster for a while. They may have been planning on this and had the spacecraft assembled appropriately.
This will be the lightest of their next few GTO payloads. Do you think they should negotiate reduced performance for all of them?
-
#66
by
OnWithTheShow
on 30 Aug, 2016 14:30
-
I too am interested if we know the current whereabouts and travel history of this core. As far as I know it never left the cape. Was CRS 8 the core we saw sans engines in the 39a hanger photo? If so then the engines being shipped for separate testing story is plausible. But then unless they reassemble at the cape and ship the whole thing to McGregor (or reinstall engines in Tx) this will be the first core without a integrated test fire as in Texas, right (as part of the individual launch campaign at least)? Be interesting to see if we can tell if all the engines are used or whether some are new (center engine?).
-
#67
by
abaddon
on 30 Aug, 2016 14:39
-
This will be the lightest of their next few GTO payloads. Do you think they should negotiate reduced performance for all of them?
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
Also, don't forget the forthcoming "final" (final) [final?] thrust increase to the Fuller-Thrust version of the F9, that will likely help minimize the margin for recovery as well.
Certainly will be interesting to see what kind of orbits these upcoming birds end up in, although it will all be completely overshadowed by the previously-flown aspect of this particular flight...
-
#68
by
robert_d
on 30 Aug, 2016 14:43
-
SES told Jonathan Amos it was was CRS-8....
Jonathan Amos @BBCAmos 5m5 minutes ago
@NASASpaceflight @iainkun That's what SES told me: April 2016 mission to re-supply ISS. Has to be CRS-8. Any change to that, let me know ;-)
Chris how do you want to split the core versus mission discussion?
Seems like there may be some inevitable duplication.
-
#69
by
nisse
on 30 Aug, 2016 14:50
-
-
#70
by
gongora
on 30 Aug, 2016 15:02
-
It sounds like they've probably pushed the launch date back from October, the releases today are mentioning Q4 and "late this year".
-
#71
by
gongora
on 30 Aug, 2016 15:18
-
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
-
#72
by
DanseMacabre
on 30 Aug, 2016 15:29
-
It sounds like they've probably pushed the launch date back from October, the releases today are mentioning Q4 and "late this year".
FWIW Q4 *is* October and can also be called "late this year".
-
#73
by
envy887
on 30 Aug, 2016 15:29
-
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
-
#74
by
bstrong
on 30 Aug, 2016 15:48
-
The performance is already "reduced" compared to what the F9 could do fully expendable. The additional reduction to give the booster a better chance to land is quite a bit smaller. And we don't really know what the estimated performance of the F9 was when these contracts were negotiated.
SpaceX shouldn't have to negotiate performance reductions to fly on a "flight-proven" vehicle. It should provide the same performance as a new core.
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
I think that abaddon's point was that these contracts were likely originally negotiated assuming F9v1.1 performance, which may be less than what they gave to SES-9 as a way of making up for launching delays. There's no reason to assume they will give that same performance to the rest of the payloads.
-
#75
by
abaddon
on 30 Aug, 2016 16:10
-
The performance reduction would be for recovery margins, and have nothing to do with whether a core is new or flown.
Yes, exactly.
-
#76
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 Aug, 2016 16:18
-
Why BBC says "second-hand"? This is nonsense. SpaceX still owns and operates that booster.
That wouldn't be Jonathan, that would be some bright eyed, bushy tailed subeditor. When I was mass media, I used to hate subeditors playing with headlines and angles. It's a joy to be able to write your own headlines and angles here....just a shame no subeditor is there to catch the grammar farts! #Irony
Also, I do think it's the CRS-8 stage, but the McGregor test fire reference was a mistaken identity with the JCSAT-14 booster in the BBC article.
PS I want to write an article about it, but I want to be able to write more than what everyone already knows per the releases.
-
#77
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 30 Aug, 2016 16:20
-
Luxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle!
)
-
#78
by
bstrong
on 30 Aug, 2016 16:23
-
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
-
#79
by
envy887
on 30 Aug, 2016 16:26
-
I'm perplexed by the disconnect between the facts that SES was able to negotiate a discount for being the first customer on a "flight-proven" stage, but the insurance companies didn't charge a higher premium. Something is being mispriced.
Or, the insurance underwriters don't think there's a substantial difference in risk between the new and flown booster.
)