-
#960
by
saliva_sweet
on 06 Apr, 2017 14:51
-
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
-
#961
by
kevin-rf
on 06 Apr, 2017 15:05
-
I am seriously wondering if the pause we saw in webcast was nothing more than trying to interpret complex data. It just took a few seconds to process, which may look like something is wrong, but really is the strain of doing the complex math.
-
#962
by
cscott
on 06 Apr, 2017 17:01
-
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Also, SpaceX told us directly on L2 there was no anomaly? As we keep repeating?
-
#963
by
saliva_sweet
on 06 Apr, 2017 17:21
-
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Also, SpaceX told us directly on L2 there was no anomaly? As we keep repeating?
Not quite. They reiterated that the orbit was good, no shortfall, contract fulfilled, mission success. This is known and not debated. But it's perfectly possible to have a serious anomaly (failure almost) and still make "good enough" or even perfect orbit. Some ULA launches have been this way.
-
#964
by
abaddon
on 06 Apr, 2017 17:23
-
This is getting ridiculous. Please stop.
-
#965
by
Lar
on 06 Apr, 2017 17:42
-
This is getting ridiculous. Please stop.
Yes. Let's draw a line under this and move on. Don't make me make sure my delete button still works.
Edit: it does... Sigh.
-
#966
by
AncientU
on 06 Apr, 2017 21:38
-
Substantially less than half the cost of a new stage... their cost for a first stage is $35-40 M at most.
In absolute dollar terms, that's something between $15M and $20M. How does this compare to the absolute cost to refurbish a shuttle? (not the first one, but after they'd done a hundred...)
That's about $1M per week as a thumbrule, assuming manpower costs predominate.
-
#967
by
manoweb
on 07 Apr, 2017 06:38
-
SES-10 is now in GEO
Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?
-
#968
by
Jarnis
on 07 Apr, 2017 06:40
-
SES-10 is now in GEO
Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?
Yes, for sats that use chemical propulsion.
All-Electric sats take longer.
-
#969
by
watermod
on 07 Apr, 2017 12:23
-
They were clear it was the first case. "Good enough", in the tone used, meant under the nominal value, but within the range.
Please clarify 'within the expected range' or 'within the acceptable range'
The main clue for me is that NROL-76 is not postponed. Meaning no anomalous underperformance of the 2nd stage. And the fact that first stage landed seems to indicate there was no underperformance there either.
Now that NROL-76 and the next launch are postponed it gets interesting.
-
#970
by
Welsh Dragon
on 07 Apr, 2017 13:32
-
Unless you have publicly available information this is due to an anomaly of some sorts during SES-10, it means nothing in the context of this discussion.
-
#971
by
chad1011
on 07 Apr, 2017 13:52
-
Please see Lars post above... The orbit was acceptable to SpaceX and SES. NROL-76 is most likely a payload delay.
Yep, we've been waiting for the new date to become documented and now it is via L2 KSC/Cape scheduling.
NET April 30, same window.
Static Fire on April 26.
No reasons given, so likely the payload (which isn't talkative as we're talking about a NROL bird).
Edit: Add Chris's post
-
#972
by
baldusi
on 07 Apr, 2017 13:54
-
SES-10 is now in GEO
Already? Is it common for satellites to get into this orbit so quickly?
Yes, for sats that use chemical propulsion.
All-Electric sats take longer.
For highly experienced operators with experience on the platform, 10 days is normal. New platform or new operators usually take longer. 60 to 90 days is not unheard of.
-
#973
by
cscott
on 07 Apr, 2017 13:56
-
Yeah: F9=not classified, payload=classified. We've got good sources inside SpaceX. If we're not hearing anything about the reason, even in L2, it's because it's payload-related, as Chris suggests.
-
#974
by
Zed_Noir
on 08 Apr, 2017 09:08
-
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.
It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
-
#975
by
MP99
on 08 Apr, 2017 10:33
-
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.
It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
KSC + CCFAS - that's neat. Good spotting.
Cheers, Martin
-
#976
by
vanoord
on 08 Apr, 2017 20:02
-
The first two pairs of FH side boosters are - apparently - recycled F9 cores, so B1021 won't be alone in launching from both pads.
There's also potential for one of the Pad 39a F9 cores relaunching from LC40.
Edit: correct speling
-
#977
by
yokem55
on 09 Apr, 2017 02:01
-
The first two pairs of FH side boosters are - apparently - recycled F9 cores, so B1021 won't be alone in launching from both pads.
There's also potential for one of the Pad 39a F9?cores relaunching from LC40.
The booster from Iridium flight 1 might top them all - launch from both coasts.
-
#978
by
meekGee
on 09 Apr, 2017 15:21
-
It just dawn on me. That core 1021 is quite unique.
It might be the only piece of hardware to launched from both KSC & CCAFS to orbit along with 2 "carrier landings".
Booster recruitment:
Joins SpaceX, sail the seas, see the world!