Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Iridium NEXT Flight 1 DISCUSSION (Jan. 14 2017)  (Read 336170 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • Liked: 778
  • Likes Given: 290
This video appears to show the core outside of the factory at Hawthorne:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BJu_irCDLjy/
« Last Edit: 08/30/2016 05:43 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • Liked: 778
  • Likes Given: 290
Looks like one of the cores shipped out

https://instagram.com/p/BJvxSJEhAUA/
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6201
  • Liked: 3981
  • Likes Given: 5491
Looks like one of the cores shipped out

https://instagram.com/p/BJvxSJEhAUA/

Any evidence that was Iridium heading east? (What remains on Crenshaw?)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22459
  • Liked: 778
  • Likes Given: 290
Any evidence that was Iridium heading east? (What remains on Crenshaw?)

The core that shipped had engines, the returned core did not per the attached image

https://www.instagram.com/p/BJs_x7yD1Px/
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1567
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 394
  • Likes Given: 1164
 :) Instead of the open-topped bus tours through Hollywood to see the "homes of the stars," some entrepreneur should start booking open-topped LA bus tours for space enthusiasts to sightsee the SpaceX "home of the rockets!"

(Elon and company may appreciate that just as much as the Hollywood celebrities do.)  :)
« Last Edit: 08/31/2016 10:54 PM by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium!

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 118
What will the be the likely launch time for this rocket after the AMOS event?   Six months from now?  Nine?

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1528
  • Likes Given: 4111
What will the be the likely launch time for this rocket after the AMOS event?   Six months from now?  Nine?
There is no way to know at this point.  It depends on how long it takes to determine the cause, what the cause is, if changes are required to the rocket or GSE, etc, etc.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Chris Bergin

IridiumIR
‏@IridiumIR IridiumIR
Confident SpaceX will resolve issues leading to this anomaly; ready to launch when they are.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 86
IMHO this misson is a likely candidate for the return to flight for Falcon-9 (or the Formosat-5 / Sherpa mission)

Offline vapour_nudge

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Australia
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 299
IMHO this misson is a likely candidate for the return to flight for Falcon-9 (or the Formosat-5 / Sherpa mission)
Agreed. What's your guess for the next launch? My money is on February

Offline Mike Jones

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Latvia
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 2
January 2017 seems a credible target

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1782
  • Likes Given: 3387
If the pad anomaly is quickly found to have been caused by a GSE or prop loading procedural issue (which I believe is possible), then we might even see Iridium launch as early as October.  If the anomaly was caused by an actual physical problem with engineering or manufacture of stage 2, then January may well be wildly optimistic.  You might be looking at RTF next Spring, or later, and it may be out of LC-39A and not VAFB.

IMHO, at any rate.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline 2megs

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 8
There are some interesting (but completely hypothetical) economics here: How much does Iridium stand to lose for each month of delay? Given that there's a currently-running production pipeline, what's the incremental cost of getting an extra 10 satellites out of that pipeline?

Somewhere between those two numbers and SpaceX's return-to-flight timeline, there's a cold business calculation where it's cheaper for the customer to accept a 1-in-9 (or 2-in-29, depending on how you want to score it) chance of paying for 10 more satellites if they can launch them today on "good enough" rockets.

Between SPX, VAFB, and the FAA that won't happen. But the economics of constellations do make for an interesting case where the customer is potentially the least concerned about reliability.

Offline Jirka Dlouhy

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Kladno, Czech Republic
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
I think, that is recomended make the static test without payload. After standard succesful test is possible to launch in september. Mistake was in fueling of second stage tank before test.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32329
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10983
  • Likes Given: 326
I think, that is recomended make the static test without payload. After standard succesful test is possible to launch in september. Mistake was in fueling of second stage tank before test.

No, the second stage has to be fueled.
a.  That is part of the test and not just the first stage engine firing
b.  That would be unflightlike environment

Offline Jet Black

I think, that is recomended make the static test without payload. After standard succesful test is possible to launch in september. Mistake was in fueling of second stage tank before test.

No, the second stage has to be fueled.
a.  That is part of the test and not just the first stage engine firing
b.  That would be unflightlike environment

Just curious here, would there be issues with firing it with the second stage unloaded i.e. potential problems caused by the acoustic environment and the second stage not being designed to experience that while empty?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3496
  • US
  • Liked: 2842
  • Likes Given: 1714
This is a mission thread, most of the recent posts would be more appropriate in the general Falcon discussion thread.

--

(Chris Note: Indeed. So any further on the recent posts, quote the post and respond in the general thread).
« Last Edit: 09/08/2016 03:26 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 118
There are some interesting (but completely hypothetical) economics here: How much does Iridium stand to lose for each month of delay? Given that there's a currently-running production pipeline, what's the incremental cost of getting an extra 10 satellites out of that pipeline?

Somewhere between those two numbers and SpaceX's return-to-flight timeline, there's a cold business calculation where it's cheaper for the customer to accept a 1-in-9 (or 2-in-29, depending on how you want to score it) chance of paying for 10 more satellites if they can launch them today on "good enough" rockets.

Between SPX, VAFB, and the FAA that won't happen. But the economics of constellations do make for an interesting case where the customer is potentially the least concerned about reliability.
You are leaving out the main two players in the Iridium saga.   They are Iridium's insurers and note holders for Iridium.
Prior to this SpaceX incident Iridium had stated a willingness to launch it's fleet as fast as it could to keep bond holders and bankers happy but their insurers were demanding 3 months between launches.   This suggests an Iridium economic tension that predates any SpaceX incidents and downtime.  This was how I was looking at Iridium on the market before Amos 6 and how I am still looking at Iridium.  That non-SpaceX or Iridium (directly) drama is the cold business calculation taking place with Iridium.  If I knew how it would play I would have bought options already.   These two players have not shown their hands.

Online launchwatcher

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 334
Prior to this SpaceX incident Iridium had stated a willingness to launch it's fleet as fast as it could to keep bond holders and bankers happy but their insurers were demanding 3 months between launches.
what I recall reading was that it was a delay of 3 months between the first launch and any subsequent launches which would allow the spacecraft design to be extensively tested in orbit -- and any necessary design changes applied to subsequent spacecraft.  You don't want to launch the entire constellation then realize that they don't actually work well enough to support the number of customers they need to remain a viable business...

I believe that the initial plan was to launch two Iridium satellites on a Russian launcher (Dnepr?), test them out for some number of months, then launch the rest nine or ten at a time on Falcon 9, but then the Dnepr launch fell through due to what seemed like petty international politics..   That would be better (if they don't quite work, you only have two bricks in orbit instead of ten) but even with a full F9's worth it's still only a small fraction of the total constellation.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2016 09:24 PM by launchwatcher »

Offline solartear

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5
From 2016 August: https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/03/first-two-iridium-next-satellites-shipped-to-vandenberg/

Quote
We’re excited for the upcoming first launch of Iridium Next .... , the satellites will complete three months of tests to check the health and function of spacecraft systems, ground and inter-satellite communications links, and tack-on instruments to track global air and maritime traffic.
...
After December, Iridium Next launches from Vandenberg should come every two months.

Tags: