SpaceX Falcon 9 - Iridium NEXT Flight 1 DISCUSSION (Jan. 14 2017)

[yg1968]

We'll know better after the Static Fire and the launch attempt per how they will load this F9. One thing we have heard is they have an extra COPV installed now. I did - but it could have been a mistranslation - hear they will only go back to super chilled LOX when they've redesigned the COPVs. But I bet - based on this thread's evaluation of the comments - it's about the HELIUM not the LOX.

Edited that line to avoid confusion.

It's a different issue but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX decides not to use super chilled LOX for commercial crew flights.

[feynmanrules]

Yes but there is also this part:  "as well as returning helium loading operations to a prior flight proven configuration based on operations used in over 700 successful COPV loads."

What does this mean?

believe it's something to effect of "none of our previous He COPVs failed in this exact way using an older procedure, so we're falling back to this procedure".   And 700# is (# of copvs per flight that didn't fail this way * of load/unloads for those flights * # of flights).

[Rocket Science]

We'll know better after the Static Fire and the launch attempt per how they will load this F9. One thing we have heard is they have an extra COPV installed now. I did - but it could have been a mistranslation - hear they will only go back to super chilled LOX when they've redesigned the COPVs. But I bet - based on this thread's evaluation of the comments - it's about the HELIUM not the LOX.

Edited that line to avoid confusion.

It's a different issue but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX decides not to use super chilled LOX for commercial crew flights.

Will they then go fully expendable for the first crewed flights?

[Lar]

We'll know better after the Static Fire and the launch attempt per how they will load this F9. One thing we have heard is they have an extra COPV installed now. I did - but it could have been a mistranslation - hear they will only go back to super chilled LOX when they've redesigned the COPVs. But I bet - based on this thread's evaluation of the comments - it's about the HELIUM not the LOX.

Edited that line to avoid confusion.

It's a different issue but I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX decides not to use super chilled LOX for commercial crew flights.

Will they then go fully expendable for the first crewed flights?

I think maintaining two processes, even if one of them is the "old" one, is unlikely. It increases failure probabilities. But what tech will be used for commercial crew is offtopic for this thread. Let's wait and see what changes in procedure are visible to us (for this first flight) first, eh?

[Kansan52]

Reading various posts, this seems to the result.

The LOV was caused due to the attempt to load more helium than earlier launches with a procedural change to start with cooler helium (denser). The extra COPV will allow for more helium (maybe).

This will not change the LOX loading at all.

Other possible failure modes were uncovered. New designs may allow SX to resume safely the procedure that failed with LOV.

How far off is this recap?

[jpo234]

Reading various posts, this seems to the result.

The LOV was caused due to the attempt to load more helium than earlier launches with a procedural change to start with cooler helium (denser). The extra COPV will allow for more helium (maybe).

This will not change the LOX loading at all.

Other possible failure modes were uncovered. New designs may allow SX to resume safely the procedure that failed with LOV.

How far off is this recap?

My understanding of the changes was, that SpaceX tried to optimize the timing of the tanking to increase the launch window, not to squeeze more helium into the bottles.

[wardy89]

The way i read the update was that they have changes the COPV configuration to allow for warmer helium to be loaded, and reverting to a older proven helium load operation. I think that if they were dropping densified LOX they would have specifically stated that as it would be a significant change.

But on the off change if they were to switch back to boiling point lox would it require any launch vehicle modifications?

[watermod]

It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

[gongora]

It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.

[watermod]

It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.

Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

[Jcc]

It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.

Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

The Iridium and CommeX business models, as far as we have been led to believe, should be different enough that they don't step on each other, in that Iridium does direct to handset satcom, whereas Commex would be IP traffic to fixed stations.

[wannamoonbase]

Has anyone seen a time for the launch window on Sunday?

[Orbiter]

Has anyone seen a time for the launch window on Sunday?

18:28:07 UTC per Iridium CEO.

[watermod]

It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.

Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

The Iridium and CommeX business models, as far as we have been led to believe, should be different enough that they don't step on each other, in that Iridium does direct to handset satcom, whereas Commex would be IP traffic to fixed stations.

I am holding my breath as to how "fixed" a phased array antenna is in practice.   Say attached to the top of a vehicle and usable after a quick setup when parked to a WiFi wireless device like a cellphone? This would mean no communication while actually mobile but...

[Robotbeat]

Very fixed. The antenna has to track things which are constantly moving in the sky. They're used on airplanes to get you satellite internet today.

[gongora]

This thread is not for the SpaceX internet constellation.  There are at least two other active threads for that.

[Robotbeat]

It's worth pointing out that at CoB Friday Iridium was way down, trading at $9.60/share.
IRDM.

It's still higher than it was for almost all of 2016.

Expectation of launch had driven it up close to $12.00.   When it didn't happen it went down with the largest drop the week before new year.  Logic (which might be wrong as it's a market.) suggests a turn in direction.   
Closest  near-term analog was DGI which shot way up with successful launch of their #4 sat.   It crawled from $18 up to about $29.50 at the launch and then close to 32 in the days that followed.  Now it has dropped down to the 29 range.
Iridium is more complicated as it will take 8 launches to achieve their new network.   With 3 months between launches that will be awhile. SpaceX's own network might start launching before Iridium's is complete.  That would complicate their business plan.

The Iridium and CommeX business models, as far as we have been led to believe, should be different enough that they don't step on each other, in that Iridium does direct to handset satcom, whereas Commex would be IP traffic to fixed stations.

Youve convinced me. The CommX requires a pizza box sized antenna. Iridium just something the size of a handset.

[mainmind]

Weather not looking good for the 8th at Vandenberg
https://www.google.com/search?q=vandenberg+afb+weather+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Jan 8 - 50% chance of rain
Jan 9 - 80% chance of rain
Jan 10 - 10% chance of rain

edit: correct spelling of Vandenberg - Thanks, Jim. Percentages were for correct location, though https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USCA0629:1:US lists percentage for the 8th as 30% instead of 50.

[northenarc]

 So, any chance the static fire will happen today?

[cscott]

So, any chance the static fire will happen today?

Apparently the FAA is dragging their feet. That might be the hold up.