-
#2160
by
Lars-J
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:24
-
Worst case scenario: a problem has been discovered at LC-39A that prevents holding a static fire there for the near future.
Best case scenario: SpaceX is planning to refly this core sooner that we think.
Middle case scenario. The LC-39 hangar is not yet finished, so it is temporarily moved to SLC-40.
But it does seem odd, given how close we are to the SES-9 launch.
-
#2161
by
Zed_Noir
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:29
-
Worst case scenario: a problem has been discovered at LC-39A that prevents holding a static fire there for the near future.
Best case scenario: SpaceX is planning to refly this core sooner that we think.
Middle case scenario. The LC-39 hangar is not yet finished, so it is temporarily moved to SLC-40.
But it does seem odd, given how close we are to the SES-9 launch.
So does the LC-39A hangar got the full GSE inventory?
-
#2162
by
Kabloona
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:30
-
Best case scenario: SpaceX is planning to refly this core sooner that we think.
With the rush over to LC-40...wouldn't it be interesting if SES said they wanted to put SES-9 on the recovered stage (based on a successful inspection and another static fire) for a $20M discount and SpaceX said yes?
-
#2163
by
ugordan
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:34
-
With the rush over to LC-40...wouldn't it be interesting if SES said they wanted to buy a ride on the recovered stage (based on a successful inspection and another static fire) for a $20M discount and SpaceX said yes?
I can't say that thought hasn't crossed my mind, but that would be an
extremely ballsy move by everyone and I'd consider it unlikely.
I'm thinking that maybe LC-39A isn't ready yet and they think they can get away with a quick LC-40 static fire campaign before the designated SES-9 core comes in. Given that they have their hands full with Jason-3 now, that doesn't leave a lot of breathing room at LC-40. Maybe reading between the lines this means SES-9 is delayed by more than a few days? Or maybe they are still having issues with subcooling prop and they'd like a core to test things (assumes SES-9 booster is not there yet)?
-
#2164
by
Kabloona
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:41
-
With the rush over to LC-40...wouldn't it be interesting if SES said they wanted to buy a ride on the recovered stage (based on a successful inspection and another static fire) for a $20M discount and SpaceX said yes?
I can't say that thought hasn't crossed my mind, but that would be an extremely ballsy move by everyone and I'd consider it unlikely.
Your alternative most likely, but meanwhile I'm hoping for some "extreme ballsiness."
-
#2165
by
DatUser14
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:45
-
What happened at 2:43 in the video? Some other flame from not the center engine a few seconds before descent.
-
#2166
by
Lars-J
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:46
-
What happened at 2:43 in the video? Some other flame from not the center engine a few seconds before descent.
When the legs are opening? That wider flame is the turbo-pump exhaust.
-
#2167
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:50
-
Maybe they have an upper stage sitting around, burning a hole in their pocket (figuratively speaking) and want to get this bird in the air?
Or maybe they put a nosecone on it and fly it by its lonesome all the way to orbit just for the heck of it. Should be easily capable of it, delta-v wise. (it has kick-butt mass fraction so could technically work as an expendable SSTO rocket)
Or fly it to the Karman Line and back, beating Blue Origin at their own game (first reuse).
...I'd be a little surprised if they can get SES-9 into orbit on a proven booster this quick, but I suppose if you could convince the insurance company to be flexible, it might work.
...most likely it's just going to be static-fired there, but this speculation is fun!
-
#2168
by
Kabloona
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:52
-
What happened at 2:43 in the video? Some other flame from not the center engine a few seconds before descent.
We've speculated elsewhere that the TEA/TEB ignition fluid gets injected into all 3 re-start engines at all three restarts, even though the landing burn uses only one engine.
Not sure if you're seeing that or the gas generator exhaust as Lars suggested.
-
#2169
by
abaddon
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:53
-
What makes the most sense is (as others have said already) that 39A isn't ready yet, and they figure they can squeeze it in before SES-9. Okay, that's fine.
However... what's the rush? Why not wait for 39A to be ready, or wait until after SES-9? I guess they'd have to wait for CRS-8 too, and then other flights... but still seems like there is a bit of a rush here to get it done before 39A is ready.
So... why the rush?
-
#2170
by
Kabloona
on 12 Jan, 2016 23:55
-
So... why the rush?
Because SES just made Elon an offer he can't refuse.
-
#2171
by
Oberon_Command
on 13 Jan, 2016 00:04
-
Maybe reusing the first stage was how they'd planned to meet that Jan 23rd date that was (briefly) posted?
-
#2172
by
Robotbeat
on 13 Jan, 2016 00:24
-
It certainly would silence the critics of reuse if they successfully launched SES-9 with this stage, just a ~month after it was recovered, then recovered the stage again from a barge. No more "but it took months and an army for Shuttle to be turned around..."
-
#2173
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Jan, 2016 00:26
-
Can the HIF accommodate two cores?
There's two cores in the Vandy HIF right now, so I'd say yep
-
#2174
by
Lars-J
on 13 Jan, 2016 00:38
-
Can the HIF accommodate two cores?
There's two cores in the Vandy HIF right now, so I'd say yep
But the SLC-40 HIF is much smaller... See these images. While two cores might *barely* fit, I don't see how you could fit two in there and get any work done.
In terms of their relative sizes: LC-39A HIF > SLC-4 (Vandy) HIF > SLC-40 HIF.
-
#2175
by
Toastmastern
on 13 Jan, 2016 00:44
-
Isn't the stage 1 and 2 for SES-9 at LC-40 since long? I thought so atleast, and that CRS-8 was tested at McGregor a week ago or so. I'm getting really curious what SpaceX is thinking right now.
-
#2176
by
Jim
on 13 Jan, 2016 01:01
-
Can the HIF accommodate two cores?
There's two cores in the Vandy HIF right now, so I'd say yep
Vandenberg's HIF was designed for heavies from the beginning
-
#2177
by
rcoppola
on 13 Jan, 2016 01:06
-
I heistate to even say it but there is another possibility. They eventually found something that needs to be replaced or fixed on the core before another firing and they need the fully functioning HIF at SLC-40 to do it.
After which they'll roll her back over to LC-39A for the SF.
-
#2178
by
Flying Beaver
on 13 Jan, 2016 01:07
-
Could they just immediately erect it on LC-40, do a static fire say Thursday or Friday, then just take it strait back to LC-39A?
-
#2179
by
Flying Beaver
on 13 Jan, 2016 01:08
-
...
is there a scenario where they'd just mothball the last 1.1?
I doubt it.
For SpaceX, that would be an awfully expensive dust collector. It's already built, and it would be good to get paid for it. Until they achieve RTF, their income stream is interrupted. Even though we haven't heard of them losing any customers, I think their accrual accounting doesn't permit them to recognize most of the income of the contracts already signed until they actually launch.
From a customer standpoint, unless they needed to have the extra performance of the v1.2, I would think the last v1.1 would be the preferable launch vehicle since it represents a lower risk than launching on the first v1.2. Remember, SES wanted to be the first customer on the v1.2 (maybe at a discount?), and now they are waffling. I think the waffling is due to combining the the risk from being first up with a v1.2 AND the risk surrounding the strut issue. Why push your luck?
V1.1FT, not V1.2
