-
#1620
by
yg1968
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:28
-
Haven't seen this posted, and this is great news as well. There was a third Objective
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/679218508224401408
Peter B. de Selding
SpaceX confirms successful Falcon 9 Upgrade 2d stage reignition after Orbcomm sats released - key for GTO telecom missions, where $$ lie.
Edit:
And now a full article on this Third Obejective @SpaceNews.
http://spacenews.com/falcon-9s-second-stage-restart-was-just-as-important-as-sticking-the-landing/
Does that mean that all GTO missions will land back at the landing site?
The Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket had already proved its ability to place telecommunications satellites into geostationary transfer orbit. But the energy needed to do so meant the rocket could not retain the fuel needed to return itself to a landing point. The Falcon 9 upgrade now makes that possible.
-
#1621
by
abaddon
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:37
-
Does that mean that all GTO missions will land back at the landing site?
What? No. It means that SpaceX has validated that re-ignition of the S2 engine, which is required for all GTO missions, works on the upgraded FT version.
-
#1622
by
Stan-1967
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:38
-
Even if it turns out the rocket body has metal fatigue or stress cracks that might prevent reuse, they still got back 9-rocket engines they could probably use again.
That's an interesting point. Elon has ruled out reusing the stage a a whole, but I would love to be able to track what happens to the engines- will they go into a pool like the SSMEs did, or will stages remain intact after assembly?
I'll post this here only because it relates to re-use of Merlin engines, which is part of the big picture of the ORB2/RTF flight.
I could see an interesting business if SpaceX made excess used Merlin 1-D's available very cheap for smallsat launches. Think of a Falcon 1e class vehicle ( 1.7m core, 80-100 klbs total vehicle mass) with the Merlin 1-D for S1 propulsion, and a Rutherford class electric pump fed 6k-10klb thrust S2 engine with ISP of 327+. Even the core could be outsourced like with Antares. Payload to orbit should be over 1000kg.
In that payload range I think it would outcompete something like Branson's LauncherOne with ability to put maybe 4 200kg class satellites into orbit on a single launch. It would be attractive for augmenting satellite constellations that do not require the larger capacity of a full F9/Atlas class launcher. The company would basicall go after the "tail" of the market that even a reusable F9 wont be much interested in. ( a possible flawed assumption depending on price when F9 is commercially re-usable at very low price)
I would keep the initial company very horizontal, like ULA/Orbital ATK until the smallsat launch market matures and proves itself before going vertical with inhouse production. The P&L would carry minimal overhead & low cost for propulsion and core operations, leaving the company as a integrator of hardware and payload. I'd launch out of LC-39C & have my primary operation very closeby. The P&L would be clean and weighted on individual costs of each launch, minimal operating & labor expense.
-
#1623
by
macpacheco
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:38
-
Should be a mix of barge and land landings. With upgrade to v1.2 a lot of expendable V1.1 GTO flights will now be recoverable.
And those that aren't will be upgraded to FHR.
FHR with v1.2 upgrades will be a formidable heavy launch solution even with all 3 sticks landing at the launch site.
-
#1624
by
abaddon
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:41
-
Does that mean that all GTO missions will land back at the landing site?
What? No. It means that SpaceX has validated that re-ignition of the S2 engine, which is required for all GTO missions, works on the upgraded FT version.
The SN article seems to suggest otherwise but it might be wrong:
The Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket had already proved its ability to place telecommunications satellites into geostationary transfer orbit. But the energy needed to do so meant the rocket could not retain the fuel needed to return itself to a landing point. The Falcon 9 upgrade now makes that possible.
"To a landing point", not "to land". Means land (for lighter GTO missions) or a barge (for heavier ones).
Very much TBD what the breaking point is going to be, but all indications are that heavier satellites will still require the barge.
-
#1625
by
yg1968
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:43
-
Yes, I know. I deleted my post once I re-read that sentence. I read it to quickly the first time. In any event, thanks for your answer.
-
#1626
by
Ohsin
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:45
-
Another image taken a short while ago:
Where is this?
It's doesn't look like LX-1. There is no tank there that we have seen, and little need for one.
These look like the mounts from the now abandoned ASDS base at Jacksonville.
SpaceX must have carried the stage via the crane. That should be great video if they show it.
edit: Less certainty, more questioning
Well you either have to bring the rocket to the ground mount, or the ground mount to the rocket. Since the rocket is not connected to the ground, and is only one piece, I vote for door #1.
I think this answers the question of why use a lattice crane - since they are track-mounted and can move while carrying a load. Or alternatively, can have a longer reach, and thus swing the rocket to the launch mount.
The photographer /u/jardeon on Reddit is saying it is LZ-1 and shared few other images from spot. He is on a boat full of press.
http://imgur.com/a/24B8aIf SpaceX ends up with few more recovered cores where are they likely to keep them?
-
#1627
by
vanoord
on 22 Dec, 2015 16:59
-
-
#1628
by
The_Ronin
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:01
-
-
#1629
by
meekGee
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:01
-
Another image taken a short while ago:
Where is this?
It's doesn't look like LX-1. There is no tank there that we have seen, and little need for one.
These look like the mounts from the now abandoned ASDS base at Jacksonville.
SpaceX must have carried the stage via the crane. That should be great video if they show it.
edit: Less certainty, more questioning
Well you either have to bring the rocket to the ground mount, or the ground mount to the rocket. Since the rocket is not connected to the ground, and is only one piece, I vote for door #1.
I think this answers the question of why use a lattice crane - since they are track-mounted and can move while carrying a load. Or alternatively, can have a longer reach, and thus swing the rocket to the launch mount.
The photographer /u/jardeon on Reddit is saying it is LZ-1 and shared few other images from spot. He is on a boat full of press.
http://imgur.com/a/24B8a
If SpaceX ends up with few more recovered cores where are they likely to keep them?
Nice pictures, but we still don't know what the sequence of events are...
I don't think the ground mount was brought into the scene. It's too many pieces, but who knows.
If it wasn't, then you need to get the rocket to the ground mount.
Either by swinging the crane, or by driving it. The swing radius is limited, and you have to be prepared for the eventuality that the rocket is at the wrong edge of the pad.
.. and what about the small pads? do they have a ground mount at each one? or do they have to drive it to a central location?
-
#1630
by
rcoppola
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:07
-
The heads of a few competitive launch companies are awfully quiet out there...
-
#1631
by
meekGee
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:10
-
The heads of a few competitive launch companies are awfully quiet out there...
Well it did come as a complete surprise...
-
#1632
by
NovaSilisko
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:12
-
New photos just posted on SpaceX's Flickr feed - https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos
Downloaded and clicked "Set Desktop Picture" 
Hmm. It looks like the upper part of the stage only has a light coating of soot. I wonder if it's as simple as what part of the tank is still cold from having all that LOX in it, even if it's not filled with LOX to that level.
-
#1633
by
gadgetmind
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:20
-
Well it did come as a complete surprise...
Well quite. Company with goal of reusable 1st stage lands first stage. Shocked faces all round.
It's kind of like the (apocryphal) tale of the CEO in court in 2000 due to company's computer systems crashing being asked by prosecution "When did you first become aware of the new millennium approaching?"
You either understand and embrace change or you get crushed by it. This is an active and conscious decision.
-
#1634
by
TrevorMonty
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:21
-
Should be a mix of barge and land landings. With upgrade to v1.2 a lot of expendable V1.1 GTO flights will now be recoverable.
And those that aren't will be upgraded to FHR.
FHR with v1.2 upgrades will be a formidable heavy launch solution even with all 3 sticks landing at the launch site.
I'm assuming the FH flights that have been booked are priced on a FHE as recovery was never guaranteed at time of booking.
With the more powerful F9 FT (v1.2) some of these FH can now be done on F9E or FHR. Either way launch cost should be less resulting in significant extra profit for SpaceX.
-
#1635
by
ugordan
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:32
-
I wonder if it's as simple as what part of the tank is still cold from having all that LOX in it, even if it's not filled with LOX to that level.
The boundary looks way too sharp to me to be a simple temperature gradient, IMHO only the actual LOX level at that point would explain it. Which would mean it has something to do with the LOX level at somewhere between supersonic transition and max-Q. Perhaps shaking off the majority of the ice and the places where the tank is still ultracold still have some time afterward to acquire a new thin layer before reaching way into the stratosphere. I'd bet on the transsonic phase myself. I don't know how significant aeroheating is on the cylindrical body, though.
-
#1636
by
Antilope7724
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:43
-
The heads of a few competitive launch companies are awfully quiet out there...
Use a green marketing scheme, "ULA stop trashing the marine environment. Recover and reuse those stages..."
-
#1637
by
rcoppola
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:54
-
-
#1638
by
rpapo
on 22 Dec, 2015 17:58
-
-
#1639
by
meekGee
on 22 Dec, 2015 18:04
-
Classic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.
If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.
