-
SpaceX Falcon 9 : SES 11/Echostar 105 : Oct 11, 2017 : Discussion
by
gongora
on 15 Jul, 2016 21:11
-
DISCUSSION thread for SES 11/Echostar 105 mission.
NSF Threads for SES 11/Echostar 105 : Discussion /
Updates / L2 Coverage
September-October /
ASDS /
PartyNSF Articles for SES 11/Echostar 105 : SpaceX realign near-term manifest ahead of double launch salvo SES-11 Static Fire Article SES-11 Launch ArticleSuccessful launch October 11, 2017 at 6:53pm EDT (2253 UTC) on Falcon 9 with a reused booster (1031.2) from LC-39A at KSC. Successful landing on ASDS.Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight: SpaceX News Articles (Recent) /
SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) SpaceX Dragon Articles /
SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) L2 SpaceX Section
SES AND ECHOSTAR TO BOOST STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AT 105 DEGREES WEST WITH NEW SATELLITELuxembourg, September 4, 2014 – SES S.A. (NYSE Euronext Paris and Luxembourg Stock Exchange: SESG) announces a new cornerstone in its strategic partnership with EchoStar Corporation (NASDAQ: SATS) at the orbital position of 105 degrees West with the procurement of the new SES-11 satellite, also to be known as EchoStar 105.
SES-11 will be manufactured by Airbus Defence and Space based on the highly reliable Eurostar E3000 platform. The satellite will be launched into space in Q4 2016.
SES-11 will carry 24 Ku-band transponders as well as 24 C-band transponders (36 MHz equivalent).The spacecraft will have a separated mass of approximately 5,400 kg and an end of life budget for the payloads of approximately 12 kW.
The spacecraft's Ku-band capacity will replace the existing SES satellite AMC-15 at 105 degrees West, an orbital position where Echostar has been SES's anchor customer since 2006. The spacecraft's C-band capacity will also allow SES to provide replacement capacity for AMC-18 at 105 degrees West.
"The market for 50-state transponder capacity in North America has demonstrated significant growth for EchoStar Satellite Services over the past five years - the acquisition of EchoStar 105 renews our commitment to the fixed satellite services market in North America," EchoStar Satellite Services President Anders Johnson said. "The replacement of AMC-15, with the increased capability offered by EchoStar 105, will allow us to meet the evolving demand from our customers for enterprise, broadcast, and government services applications. We are pleased to work with Airbus Defence and Space to provide our customers with new, high power satellite capacity at this established orbital slot."
Stated Martin Halliwell, Chief Technology Officer of SES: "SES-11 is the 6th large satellite contract with our longstanding partner EchoStar. The new spacecraft will offer comprehensive coverage of the Americas, including Hawaii, Mexico, and the Caribbean, from a well-established orbital position. Together with EchoStar we look forward to a successful mission in collaboration with our reliable industry partner Airbus Defence."
For further information please contact:
Yves Feltes
Media Relations
Tel. +352 710 725 311
[email protected]
Follow us on:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SES_Satellites
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SES.YourSatelliteCompany
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/SESVideoChannel
Blog: http://en.ses.com/4243715/blog
Find pictures and videos under:http://www.ses.com/4245221/library
SES 11 Page on SES.comEchostar 105/SES 11 on Gunter's Space Page
-
#1
by
deruch
on 19 Jul, 2016 02:30
-
I was a bit confused, because it doesn't state in the release that SpaceX will be launching this one. But, SES's pdf overview for the S/C lists the Falcon 9 as the launch vehicle. So, if anyone else is wondering where the official info for that was, I'm linking a copy below.
Original found at:
http://www.ses.com/20044733/ses-11
-
#2
by
gongora
on 11 Dec, 2016 16:36
-
SAT-LOA-20160512-00047
Grant of Authority Effective Date: 12/07/2016
Launch and Operating Authority
SES Americom, Inc.
Nature of Service: Direct to Home Fixed Satellite, Fixed Satellite Service
On December 7, 2016, the Satellite Division granted, with conditions, authority to SES Americom, Inc. to construct and deploy the SES-11 space station at the 104.95° W.L. orbital location...
-
#3
by
zubenelgenubi
on 12 Dec, 2016 14:45
-
Cross posting from the
Arianespace launch schedule thread:
Arianspace launch schedule shows EchoStar XX launch as TBD in 2017. But EchoStar website (including investor documents) shows no info on EchoStar XX. Is it known by another name?
EchoStar XX satellite became EchoStar 105 / SES-11 and switched to Falcon-9 after an agreement to share the 105 West orbital slot with a single joint satellite. EchoStar XX designation could be reused in the future since the original EchoStar XX satellite was renamed.
-
#4
by
Norm38
on 16 May, 2017 19:29
-
Launch date for this could be only two months away now, 4th in line at the cape. Should get some payload news soon.
-
#5
by
envy887
on 16 May, 2017 19:32
-
Did SES ever confirm that this is going on a used booster?
-
#6
by
gongora
on 16 May, 2017 19:35
-
Did SES ever confirm that this is going on a used booster?
Last we heard (during the SES-10 press conferences), they said it was going on a new booster. The other two SES payloads this year were going to be candidates for reused boosters.
-
#7
by
gongora
on 20 Jun, 2017 19:46
-
With Intelsat 35e slipping a little and August dates for CRS-12 and OTV-5, the timing of this launch could get interesting.
-
#8
by
Orbiter
on 04 Aug, 2017 18:24
-
-
#9
by
vaporcobra
on 04 Aug, 2017 20:52
-
-
#10
by
tvg98
on 09 Aug, 2017 18:41
-
-
#11
by
vaporcobra
on 09 Aug, 2017 20:31
-
Peter B. de Selding
@pbdes
Launch of @EchoStar-105/@SES_Satellites-11 C/Ku/Ka-band sat on @SpaceX Falcon 9 now scheduled for "early 4th quarter," EchoStar says.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/895353459347570688
While arguably a bit optimistic, that could literally interpreted to mean October 1st, relating to the 4 day delay of CRS-12.
-
#12
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 20 Aug, 2017 09:09
-
-
#13
by
SmallKing
on 20 Aug, 2017 09:44
-
-
#14
by
deruch
on 23 Aug, 2017 00:48
-
-
#15
by
intrepidpursuit
on 23 Aug, 2017 20:05
-
The last previously flown stage never went back to McGregor but was refurbished at the Cape if I remember correctly. I would assume the same would be true for SES-11.
-
#16
by
old_sellsword
on 23 Aug, 2017 21:59
-
The last previously flown stage never went back to McGregor but was refurbished at the Cape if I remember correctly. I would assume the same would be true for SES-11.
Your assumption makes sense, but we did have someone claiming to be an employee state that 1035.2 stopped back in McGregor a while ago. I'm having trouble finding the post (to r/SpaceXLounge), and I'm thinking it was deleted by the submitter.
-
#17
by
clegg78
on 30 Aug, 2017 16:37
-
So if ULA keeps their new launch date of Sept 28th, what does this mean for the NET of Sept 27th for SpaceX?
One of the key reasons I am asking is I will be in Orlando for a conference that week so the potential of 2 launches while I am there is awesome
-
#18
by
wannamoonbase
on 30 Aug, 2017 17:00
-
So if ULA keeps their new launch date of Sept 28th, what does this mean for the NET of Sept 27th for SpaceX?
One of the key reasons I am asking is I will be in Orlando for a conference that week so the potential of 2 launches while I am there is awesome
Have a look at the Manifest thread. It's showing October now.
-
#19
by
zubenelgenubi
on 30 Aug, 2017 17:07
-
So if ULA keeps their new launch date of Sept 28th, what does this mean for the NET of Sept 27th for SpaceX?
One of the key reasons I am asking is I will be in Orlando for a conference that week so the potential of 2 launches while I am there is awesome
Crossposting:
Interesting that SpaceX is NET than 27th. Guessing SpaceX is going to have to move their date since I didn't think the eastern range could recycle between launch providers in under 24 hours?
No conflict--check the most recent iteration of the US Launch Schedule thread.
SES-11/Falcon 9 launch has been delayed to early October.
-
#20
by
Chris Bergin
on 31 Aug, 2017 19:41
-
Well, well. Apparently from 39A, which means 40 isn't close to ready and there's no chance of FH in November. Unless this is a default position and they can change it to 40.
SpaceX Opens Media Accreditation for EchoStar 105/SES-11 Mission
HAWTHORNE, Calif. – Aug. 31, 2017. Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX's EchoStar 105/SES-11 mission from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The launch is targeted for no earlier than October.
A flight-proven Falcon 9 will deliver EchoStar 105/SES-11 to a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO).
Members of the media who are interested in covering the launch must fill out this media accreditation form by 3:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 5.
More details on the mission and pre-launch media activities will be made available on a date closer to launch.
-
#21
by
gongora
on 04 Sep, 2017 20:41
-
[SpaceNews] SpaceX to launch shared EchoStar, SES satellite in OctoberBoth satellite operators originally anticipated the spacecraft launching in late 2016, but SpaceX’s September 2016 Falcon 9 explosion set the mission back about a year.
This is one of a couple late-2016 payloads that haven't flown yet. Every time SpaceX has a gap in their launch schedule some people seem to think they're waiting on payloads. They're not waiting on payloads, quite the opposite.
-
#22
by
rockets4life97
on 04 Sep, 2017 20:50
-
This is one of a couple late-2016 payloads that haven't flown yet. Every time SpaceX has a gap in their launch schedule some people seem to think they're waiting on payloads. They're not waiting on payloads, quite the opposite.
Does that mean this payload has been in storage for a year?
-
#23
by
gongora
on 04 Sep, 2017 21:06
-
This is one of a couple late-2016 payloads that haven't flown yet. Every time SpaceX has a gap in their launch schedule some people seem to think they're waiting on payloads. They're not waiting on payloads, quite the opposite.
Does that mean this payload has been in storage for a year?
We don't normally see any information on when a satellite is completed, but in May of last year they were still expecting a Q4 2016 launch, so it's probably been in storage at least 9 months if they didn't hit any production snags with it.
-
#24
by
gongora
on 07 Sep, 2017 03:44
-
I wonder where this is now. We need to get some of our ship trackers interested in Antonovs
-
#25
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 07 Sep, 2017 16:36
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
-
#26
by
AncientU
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:02
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
2nd and 4th of October (SES-11 and Iridium #3, respectively).
Could be start of something big...
-
#27
by
whitelancer64
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:18
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
2nd and 4th of October (SES-11 and Iridium #3, respectively).
Could be start of something big...
There were also 2 days between BulgariaSat-1 (6/23/17) and Iridium Next 2 (6/25/17)
-
#28
by
AncientU
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:30
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
2nd and 4th of October (SES-11 and Iridium #3, respectively).
Could be start of something big...
There were also 2 days between BulgariaSat-1 (6/23/17) and Iridium Next 2 (6/25/17)
Was referring to the fact that the 4th quarter is just beginning, and they have 8-10 launches potentially on manifest for rest of 2017. Starting with two launches in first four days makes reaching 20 for the year fairly realistic.
-
#29
by
gongora
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:34
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
Then it should be at the Cape already? I wonder which cleanroom it's in. Their main PPF got some damage from the last hurricane.
-
#30
by
vaporcobra
on 07 Sep, 2017 17:58
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
Then it should be at the Cape already? I wonder which cleanroom it's in. Their main PPF got some damage from the last hurricane.
And Hurricane Matthew was downright mild compared to predictions for Irma... Fingers crossed.
-
#31
by
whitelancer64
on 11 Sep, 2017 15:50
-
Spaceflight Now currently reports the launch date to be on October 2nd.
2nd and 4th of October (SES-11 and Iridium #3, respectively).
Could be start of something big...
There were also 2 days between BulgariaSat-1 (6/23/17) and Iridium Next 2 (6/25/17)
Was referring to the fact that the 4th quarter is just beginning, and they have 8-10 launches potentially on manifest for rest of 2017. Starting with two launches in first four days makes reaching 20 for the year fairly realistic.
Of those 8-10, I think only 6 have a reasonable chance of launching, that would give us a total of 18, which is still very good. Right now there's nothing for the rest of the month, and then it looks like it might be a two-launch October. We'll see how the schedule (and more importantly, the Florida winter weather) shapes up.
I see SES-11 / EchoStar 105, Iridium Next 3, Falcon Heavy Demo, Iridium Next 4, Koreasat 5A, Hispasat 30W-6, Paz, SES-16 / GovSat-1, Bangabandhu 1, and CRS-13 on the schedule, but I think the last 4 are very likely to bump to early 2018, but most likely a lot will depend on the weather.
-
#32
by
Comga
on 11 Sep, 2017 16:45
-
-
#33
by
gongora
on 13 Sep, 2017 16:05
-
-
#34
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 13 Sep, 2017 16:23
-
You started an update thread that seemed to strongly suggest an NET date of 20th October.
October 2?, 2017 on Falcon 9 with a reused booster (1031.2) from LC-39A at KSC. Probably an ASDS landing.
If I misread that, then my apologies.
-
#35
by
gongora
on 13 Sep, 2017 16:25
-
You started an update thread that seemed to strongly suggest an NET date of 20th October.
October 2?, 2017 on Falcon 9 with a reused booster (1031.2) from LC-39A at KSC. Probably an ASDS landing.
If I misread that, then my apologies.
October 2 (question mark). October 2 has been previously reported but there's that whole hurricane cleanup thing going on...
-
#36
by
vaporcobra
on 13 Sep, 2017 23:25
-
You started an update thread that seemed to strongly suggest an NET date of 20th October.
October 2?, 2017 on Falcon 9 with a reused booster (1031.2) from LC-39A at KSC. Probably an ASDS landing.
If I misread that, then my apologies.
October 2 (question mark). October 2 has been previously reported but there's that whole hurricane cleanup thing going on...
FWIW: "45th Space Wing Cdr Monteith expects launches to resume early Oct. with SpaceX/SES-11. Wing hosted Army 101st Airborne after Irma." courtesy of James Dean.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/907984047128944640
-
#37
by
John Alan
on 19 Sep, 2017 20:47
-
Am I correct in saying... No official confirmation yet this will not be an expendable S1 flight?...
My thinking is the barns are full and this payload is nearly at weight limit... so expendable it will be...
-
#38
by
gongora
on 19 Sep, 2017 20:57
-
Am I correct in saying... No official confirmation yet this will not be an expendable S1 flight?...
My thinking is the barns are full and this payload is nearly at weight limit... so expendable it will be...
It's probably ASDS (but I'd like to see some official word of that), I guess we'll find out if Block 4 makes any difference.
-
#39
by
vaporcobra
on 19 Sep, 2017 21:00
-
I'm with Gongora here. 5400kg vs 5300kg for SES-10, so I would be surprised if SpaceX didn't at least attempt an ASDS recovery.
-
#40
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 20 Sep, 2017 09:25
-
-
#41
by
rpapo
on 20 Sep, 2017 10:16
-
-
#42
by
John Alan
on 20 Sep, 2017 13:54
-
Thanks to all for the replies...
My thinking though... is S1#1031 is an almost year old block ?3? stage...yes?
SO... while putting Ti fins on it and trying to burn it down on an ASDS try makes some sense...
It's just as likely to be surplus and headed for scrap as the Block 5's start crowding the barns...
I guess we will find out soon enough...
-
#43
by
AncientU
on 20 Sep, 2017 14:56
-
Thanks to all for the replies...
My thinking though... is S1#1031 is an almost year old block ?3? stage...yes?
SO... while putting Ti fins on it and trying to burn it down on an ASDS try makes some sense...
It's just as likely to be surplus and headed for scrap as the Block 5's start crowding the barns...
I guess we will find out soon enough...
Headed for scrap after re-flight wear and tear is analyzed... got to get the booster back for that.
ASDS is my bet.
-
#44
by
2megs
on 20 Sep, 2017 15:21
-
Here’s SES press release:
Echostar 105/SES-11 Shipped from Toulouse to the Cape for SpaceX Launch
Written on 20 Sep 2017
With 12 days to go until the NET, I have to think that either:
1. The satellite was already there, and the press release just is late, or...
2. SpaceX+SES have gotten much faster at integration than the SpaceX payload guide suggests, or...
3. October 2 isn't realistic.
Anyone have any idea which?
-
#45
by
IntoTheVoid
on 20 Sep, 2017 15:28
-
Here’s SES press release:
Echostar 105/SES-11 Shipped from Toulouse to the Cape for SpaceX Launch
Written on 20 Sep 2017
With 12 days to go until the NET, I have to think that either:
1. The satellite was already there, and the press release just is late, or...
2. SpaceX+SES have gotten much faster at integration than the SpaceX payload guide suggests, or...
3. October 2 isn't realistic.
Anyone have any idea which?
From this very thread, only 11 posts ago...
[Spaceflight Now] Launch operators expect minimal delays from Hurricane Irma
SES officials said the SES 11/EchoStar 105 satellite weathered the storm without damage inside a SpaceX-owned clean room in a hangar near pad 40. If ground crews can resume work on the satellite within a few days, the payload could still be ready for liftoff in early October.
-
#46
by
crandles57
on 21 Sep, 2017 00:44
-
10 days (Sept. 29) to SpaceX Falcon 9 (SES-11) Static Fire...at 39A. Oct. 2 launch, then all hands on deck to prep 39A TEL for Falcon Heavy.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/910239656779943937dated 19 Sep 2017
Seems suggestive of move to SLC-40 even if followed by
You know I dare not call 40 until I see it on a schedule
-
#47
by
macpacheco
on 21 Sep, 2017 01:40
-
There's a distinct possibility that SES required an expendable full performance launch for this launch.
I'd say its 50/50 between ASDS recovery and expendable for full performance.
-
#48
by
ZachS09
on 21 Sep, 2017 04:15
-
There's a distinct possibility that SES required an expendable full performance launch for this launch.
I'd say its 50/50 between ASDS recovery and expendable for full performance.
I thought that SES-11/EchoStar 105 weighed 5,200 kilograms and Falcon 9's maximum payload to GTO while recovering the first stage was 5,500 kilograms.
-
#49
by
macpacheco
on 21 Sep, 2017 04:21
-
There's a distinct possibility that SES required an expendable full performance launch for this launch.
I'd say its 50/50 between ASDS recovery and expendable for full performance.
I thought that SES-11/EchoStar 105 weighed 5,200 kilograms and Falcon 9's maximum payload to GTO while recovering the first stage was 5,500 kilograms.
That depends on which orbit SpaceX will target for the launch.
5,500 Kg is for recovery on a standard GTO-1800 m/s mission.
Target GTO-1600 m/s (or better) and recovery might not be possible.
That's what full performance means for a launch like that.
-
#50
by
zubenelgenubi
on 22 Sep, 2017 17:34
-
Cross-posting a re-post from the NROL-52 thread:
Re-posting some information re: time-proximate launches, originally from the TDRS-M thread.
Thank you again to Jim.
***
48 hours or less to re-configure the Eastern range.
Launches on October 5 and 7, both from KSC/Canaveral, are possible.
Re: TDRSS use/possible conflict of use as part of launch ops.
Atlas V and Delta IV use TDRSS; Falcon 9 does not.
NSF experts, please correct if I'm wrong:
1. Currently, it takes approximately 3 days to reconfigure the launch range between Canaveral/KSC launches. Correct?
2. Some, but not all United States launches use TDRSS during launch. Atlas V/Delta IV: yes; Falcon 9: no?
***
3. Launching TDRS-M from Canaveral on 8/10, followed by NROL-42 from Vandenberg, both on Atlas V's, is eminently do-able, yes?
4. Launching NROL-42 on Atlas V, from Vandenberg on 8/14, followed by launching Dragon, on Falcon 9, from KSC later on the same day--also possible? No interference between the launch assets?
5. Are there any personnel that will work 2, or all 3, of these launches?
Thank you in advance!
1. 48 or less
2. correct
3. yes, but not going to happen
4. yes
5. yes
-
#51
by
ZachS09
on 28 Sep, 2017 18:30
-
I haven't done this in 14 months, but I'll be recording video of the launch of SES-11/EchoStar 105 from one of Embry-Riddle's observation decks instead of covering the whole thing from start to finish.
Should be a picturesque view given that the university is 48.22 miles (77.6 kilometers) away from LC-39A.
-
#52
by
obi-wan
on 04 Oct, 2017 02:20
-
Since it's only a few days until flight, have we gotten any definitive word on whether SES-11 is going to be an ASDS recovery or full expendable?
-
#53
by
gongora
on 04 Oct, 2017 02:33
-
Since it's only a few days until flight, have we gotten any definitive word on whether SES-11 is going to be an ASDS recovery or full expendable?
It should be ASDS based on the mass (5200kg), and the FCC permit we think corresponds to this flight has ASDS landing. It's a similar mass to SES-10.
-
#54
by
Flying Beaver
on 04 Oct, 2017 04:02
-
Since it's only a few days until flight, have we gotten any definitive word on whether SES-11 is going to be an ASDS recovery or full expendable?
It should be ASDS based on the mass (5200kg), and the FCC permit we think corresponds to this flight has ASDS landing. It's a similar mass to SES-10.
Also Elon says so.
elonmusk Aiming for two rocket landings in 48 hours this weekend
-
#55
by
Eagandale4114
on 04 Oct, 2017 04:25
-
Since it's only a few days until flight, have we gotten any definitive word on whether SES-11 is going to be an ASDS recovery or full expendable?
It should be ASDS based on the mass (5200kg), and the FCC permit we think corresponds to this flight has ASDS landing. It's a similar mass to SES-10.
Also Elon says so.
elonmusk Aiming for two rocket landings in 48 hours this weekend
Direct link to the post:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZzchfKg07f/?taken-by=elonmusk
-
#56
by
vaporcobra
on 04 Oct, 2017 05:37
-
And FWIW, per Musk's 48 hours, the current schedule actually points to 36 38 hour back-to-back landings if schedules hold. Weather for the rest of the week at KSC is looking rainy and somewhat stormy, so upper level winds may be a bit rowdy. We'll see.
-
#57
by
Comga
on 04 Oct, 2017 16:04
-
And FWIW, per Musk's 48 hours, the current schedule actually points to sub-36 hour back-to-back landings if schedules hold. Weather for the rest of the week at KSC is looking rainy and somewhat stormy, so upper level winds may be a bit rowdy. We'll see.
Nit: Because of the time zone difference it's less than 38 hours
-
#58
by
Mike_1179
on 04 Oct, 2017 17:17
-
Hope this slows down or track on the western side of the cone.
-
#59
by
spacenut
on 05 Oct, 2017 04:49
-
When will SpaceX post the webcast information?
-
#60
by
Grendal
on 05 Oct, 2017 04:56
-
When will SpaceX post the webcast information?
About 18 to 24 hours prior to launch.
-
#61
by
HVM
on 05 Oct, 2017 07:59
-
Weather seems bad for tomorrow's launch of NROL-52. Which one get the launch day, if Friday is scrub too?
-
#62
by
SmallKing
on 05 Oct, 2017 08:10
-
Weather seems bad for tomorrow's launch of NROL-52. Which one get the launch day, if Friday is scrub too?
Both I thought
Bill NelsonVerified account @SenBillNelson 12h12 hours ago
More
Good news for Florida’s Space Coast. Just spoke w/ Air Force Gen. Monteith - he confirmed the Cape is ready to handle two launches in a day.
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/915671776356691969
-
#63
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 05 Oct, 2017 10:31
-
Weather seems bad for tomorrow's launch of NROL-52. Which one get the launch day, if Friday is scrub too?
I was wondering too. I don't know what it means, but the 45th have removed the link to the SES-11 weather forecast form their webpage (although the file is still accessable via
direct link).
-
#64
by
ClayJar
on 05 Oct, 2017 12:05
-
Hope this slows down or track on the western side of the cone.
Well, maybe not *directly* at Baton Rouge, if you don't mind.
-
#65
by
toruonu
on 05 Oct, 2017 12:36
-
Weather seems bad for tomorrow's launch of NROL-52. Which one get the launch day, if Friday is scrub too?
Both I thought
Bill NelsonVerified account @SenBillNelson 12h12 hours ago
More
Good news for Florida’s Space Coast. Just spoke w/ Air Force Gen. Monteith - he confirmed the Cape is ready to handle two launches in a day.
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/915671776356691969
Wait, two launches from different providers? That'd be news.
-
#66
by
SmallKing
on 05 Oct, 2017 12:43
-
Wait, two launches from different providers? That'd be news.
I'm afraid not. 45SW just updated the NROL52 weather forecast for the second attempt and deleted SES11s
-
#67
by
philw1776
on 05 Oct, 2017 14:12
-
Delayed till NET Wednesday per update post. "Engine issue" Possibly revealed in static fire.
-
#68
by
Wolfram66
on 05 Oct, 2017 15:12
-
-
#69
by
Lars-J
on 05 Oct, 2017 16:30
-
Yes NROL52 seems to be the reason here.
-
#70
by
envy887
on 05 Oct, 2017 16:35
-
Yes NROL52 seems to be the reason here.
SFN still says "a potential technical issue on the rocket."
-
#71
by
KaiFarrimond
on 05 Oct, 2017 17:43
-
When will SpaceX post the webcast information?
Usually a day before launch
-
#72
by
vandersons
on 05 Oct, 2017 18:18
-
Yes NROL52 seems to be the reason here.
The L2 thread has more info on it.
-
#73
by
king1999
on 05 Oct, 2017 18:49
-
Yes NROL52 seems to be the reason here.
SFN still says "a potential technical issue on the rocket."
Maybe it has something to do with being a reuse booster?
-
#74
by
ChrisC
on 05 Oct, 2017 18:53
-
Assuming they stick with Oct 11th, would the launch window still be the same 6:53-8:53 p.m. EDT?
-
#75
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Oct, 2017 20:09
-
Assuming they stick with Oct 11th, would the launch window still be the same 6:53-8:53 p.m. EDT?
Generally speaking, yes. It will be the same approximate time. Probably a window open 4 or so minutes earlier -- based on the window moving 5mins earlier when the launch moved from 2 Oct to 7 Oct.
-
#76
by
zubenelgenubi
on 07 Oct, 2017 10:11
-
Re: NROL-52 and this launch
If the Atlas V roll-back to the VIF for removal, replacement, and retesting of the LV telemetry transmitter, followed by rolling the Atlas V back again to the pad, takes more than 3 or 4 days,
And if there are no further changes to the SES 11 launch campaign,
Then this Falcon 9 will launch first.
-
#77
by
Stranger
on 07 Oct, 2017 11:31
-
-
#78
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 10 Oct, 2017 12:31
-
Re: NROL-52 and this launch
If the Atlas V roll-back to the VIF for removal, replacement, and retesting of the LV telemetry transmitter, followed by rolling the Atlas V back again to the pad, takes more than 3 or 4 days,
And if there are no further changes to the SES 11 launch campaign,
Then this Falcon 9 will launch first.
This now appears to be confirmed - revised
weather forecast for SES-11 launch tomorrow, with new
NROL-52 forecast for Saturday.
-
#79
by
EspenU
on 11 Oct, 2017 06:26
-
I noticed that the time from MECO to second engine start is 5 seconds. Iridium-3 was 13 seconds and SES-10 was 11 seconds.
The benefits of reduced coast time between stages is obvious, but I'm surprised they have managed to reduce the coast by more than 50% compared to the last SES mission.
Note that all numbers are taken from the mission press kits's.
-
#80
by
wardy89
on 11 Oct, 2017 09:42
-
I noticed that the time from MECO to second engine start is 5 seconds. Iridium-3 was 13 seconds and SES-10 was 11 seconds.
The benefits of reduced coast time between stages is obvious, but I'm surprised they have managed to reduce the coast by more than 50% compared to the last SES mission.
Note that all numbers are taken from the mission press kits's.
I might be totally wrong on this but i thought that the "long" coasts we have been seeing between MECO and 2nd stage ignition recently is purposely done so that the 1st stage has a chance to begin its flip, so that when the 2nd stage ignites the exhaust plume does less dames to the interstage and all the electronics housed within.
-
#81
by
EspenU
on 11 Oct, 2017 10:22
-
I noticed that the time from MECO to second engine start is 5 seconds. Iridium-3 was 13 seconds and SES-10 was 11 seconds.
The benefits of reduced coast time between stages is obvious, but I'm surprised they have managed to reduce the coast by more than 50% compared to the last SES mission.
Note that all numbers are taken from the mission press kits's.
I might be totally wrong on this but i thought that the "long" coasts we have been seeing between MECO and 2nd stage ignition recently is purposely done so that the 1st stage has a chance to begin its flip, so that when the 2nd stage ignites the exhaust plume does less dames to the interstage and all the electronics housed within.
I understand the reasoning. However, this flight has an ASDS landing, so it involves a flip.
In addition, the last expendable launch (Intelsat 35e) also had an 11 sec coast (again, the time is from the press kit, not from web cast measurements).
-
#82
by
deruch
on 11 Oct, 2017 10:27
-
I at one time tracked the amount of time allowed for stage separation from a bunch of press kits and I found that there was a large amount of variability in the listed times from one mission to the next. None of which seemed to agree with those observed in the actual webcasts. I don't think you can take the press kit timings as being accurate for that particular interval.
-
#83
by
wardy89
on 11 Oct, 2017 12:34
-
I noticed that the time from MECO to second engine start is 5 seconds. Iridium-3 was 13 seconds and SES-10 was 11 seconds.
The benefits of reduced coast time between stages is obvious, but I'm surprised they have managed to reduce the coast by more than 50% compared to the last SES mission.
Note that all numbers are taken from the mission press kits's.
I might be totally wrong on this but i thought that the "long" coasts we have been seeing between MECO and 2nd stage ignition recently is purposely done so that the 1st stage has a chance to begin its flip, so that when the 2nd stage ignites the exhaust plume does less dames to the interstage and all the electronics housed within.
I understand the reasoning. However, this flight has an ASDS landing, so it involves a flip.
In addition, the last expendable launch (Intelsat 35e) also had an 11 sec coast (again, the time is from the press kit, not from web cast measurements).
The press kit does say that they are approximate timings you would have to check the webcasts to see what the actual timing are. This flight will require a flip yes but because there is no boost back burn for this mission they aren't is so much of a rush to get it done perhaps?
As for Intelsat 35e perhaps flying expendable with that mission they ended up with more margin.
The other possibility is that it is a typo in the press Kit.
-
#84
by
Crispy
on 11 Oct, 2017 14:45
-
-
#85
by
envy887
on 11 Oct, 2017 16:31
-
Looks pretty clean for a used rocket.
-
#86
by
jpo234
on 11 Oct, 2017 22:05
-
LD giving the abort instructions.
If urgent, call "HOLD HOLD HOLD" over the net.
If non-urgent, brief the LD and a decision whether or not to abort will then be made.
Was this just an explanation of the abort procedure or was there an abort called?
-
#87
by
Rebel44
on 11 Oct, 2017 22:06
-
LD giving the abort instructions.
If urgent, call "HOLD HOLD HOLD" over the net.
If non-urgent, brief the LD and a decision whether or not to abort will then be made.
Was this just an explanation of the abort procedure or was there an abort called?
Just an explanation
-
#88
by
gongora
on 11 Oct, 2017 22:07
-
For all those who think SpaceX is waiting on payloads...
[SpaceflightNow] SES-11 Coverage
Halliwell said SES did not receive a significant financial discount from SpaceX in switching the SES 11/EchoStar 105 launch to a reused booster, but the agreement did result in an earlier launch date.
...
"We should have launched a year ago, Halliwell said. "We've been waiting for a launch for a long, long time."
...
Without taking the opportunity to fly on a reused rocket, Halliwell said it's likely the launch of SES 11/EchoStar 105 "would have been somewhat delayed because we would have had to wait for hardware to become available for us."
-
#89
by
Craig_VG
on 11 Oct, 2017 22:53
-
Some interesting yellow beams added to the T/E
-
#90
by
mvpel
on 11 Oct, 2017 22:57
-
I was wondering about those too. I wonder if it might be FH-related.
-
#91
by
clegg78
on 11 Oct, 2017 22:59
-
Back to using the aluminum grid fins? I thought for high energy entries like this they would be using Ti for all of them. These popped out much faster too so I am assuming block 3 mechanisms and such behind the fins?
-
#92
by
clegg78
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:01
-
Whoa that sucker was coming in HOT... never seen plasma come off the base like that!
-
#93
by
jimbowman
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:01
-
Scared me for a minute as well haha. All good.
-
#94
by
Jdeshetler
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:02
-
Boy, it's time for Block 5 booster......
-
#95
by
clegg78
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:02
-
That is amazing... that sucker was burning up coming in and still nailed it! I wonder how much of the gridfins were left?!
-
#96
by
Joffan
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:02
-
Wow, I thought that SpaceX had overcooked that one. But yet another great landing.
-
#97
by
whitelancer64
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:03
-
Some interesting yellow beams added to the T/E
Those held a strap for supporting the fairing for the X-37B launch. It may be used again for large or heavy payloads.
-
#98
by
catdlr
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:03
-
This mark's the first time two 1st stage Falcon's are on barges out on the ocean at the same time.
-
#99
by
clevelas
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:04
-
I thought for sure they'd lost it when telemetry cut out. Glad to see it on deck.
-
#100
by
mvpel
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:04
-
Must have roasted the video downlink! Maybe that's what one of those sparks flying was. Wow! I can't wait to see what it looks like in daylight.
-
#101
by
gideonlow
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:05
-
Wow, I thought that SpaceX had overcooked that one. But yet another great landing.
White-hot/glowing Grid Fins right when the video cut out! Another perfect landing. Great job SpaceX!!!
-
#102
by
Jdeshetler
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:05
-
Just like Ironman Movie without CGI......
-
#103
by
jimbowman
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:06
-
Was it just because it was dark out the heat on the grin fins was more visible? Was the Iridium launch using titanium?
-
#104
by
clegg78
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:06
-
Must have roasted the video downlink! Maybe that's what one of those sparks flying was. Wow! I can't wait to see what it looks like in daylight.
Could also be the amount of plasma that was wrapping around the stage probably caused the dropout... I am impressed the hardware on the bottom of the stage handled that... I wonder if they were doing some kind of different entry profile to test the edge scenarios of what these stages can handle in the build up to the Block 5? That definitely looked different than past high energy entries.
-
#105
by
Pete
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:08
-
I have the vague feeling that those gridfins are NOT going to be reusable!
That was the hottest entry I've seen yet.
-
#106
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:09
-
This mark's the first time two 1st stage Falcon's are on barges out on the ocean at the same time.
I think it’s the second time - there was BulgariaSat-1 and Iridium 2 in late June, also only 2 days apart.
-
#107
by
andrewsdanj
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:09
-
Holy glowing gridfins, batman! Sheesh that looked toasty.
-
#108
by
catdlr
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:09
-
This mark's the first time two 1st stage Falcon's are on barges out on the ocean at the same time.
I think it’s the second time - there was BulgariaSat-1 and Iridium 2 in late June, also only 2 days apart.
Ah, yes, thanks, FutureSpaceTourist.
-
#109
by
mvpel
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:10
-
Could also be the amount of plasma that was wrapping around the stage probably caused the dropout... I am impressed the hardware on the bottom of the stage handled that... I wonder if they were doing some kind of different entry profile to test the edge scenarios of what these stages can handle in the build up to the Block 5? That definitely looked different than past high energy entries.
I was thinking the same thing about the plasma, but then got worried when it didn't pick up again. Held my breath until I started hearing the descent callouts.
I was really amazed to see that it was showing 6,000 km/h when the entry burn ended, is that a record?
-
#110
by
Bargemanos
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:11
-
Wow, thought this one was lost.
Glad it landed..
One for the "i love space(x) and have no life books" (take no offend, i don't)wife))
-
#111
by
ehb
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:12
-
Was it just because it was dark out the heat on the grin fins was more visible? Was the Iridium launch using titanium?
Iridium was also aluminum
Was stated during the launch webcast due to lower energy trajectory.
This SES-11 was obviously not a lower energy trajectory, so we can assume they are using (or rather burning) up their stock of aluminum ones.
-
#112
by
HVM
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:12
-
Yeah, those gridfins were bright as f@*k! And visible plasma.
-
#113
by
clegg78
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:13
-
I was thinking the same thing about the plasma, but then got worried when it didn't pick up again. Held my breath until I started hearing the descent callouts.
I was really amazed to see that it was showing 6,000 km/h when the entry burn ended, is that a record?
I am sure some of the spacex stats geeks around here will have that info soon! But yeah 6000 seems pretty quick. Also since they arent doing 3 engine landing burn attempts anymore (for now) They could be hunting for ways to trim down on the entry burn requirements by seeing how little they need to slow the stage down
"This one wasnt burned up that badly? Hmmm, cut the burn off another 2 seconds early and see what happens! Its just a block 3!"
-
#114
by
gideonlow
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:13
-
Must have roasted the video downlink! Maybe that's what one of those sparks flying was. Wow! I can't wait to see what it looks like in daylight.
Could also be the amount of plasma that was wrapping around the stage probably caused the dropout... I am impressed the hardware on the bottom of the stage handled that... I wonder if they were doing some kind of different entry profile to test the edge scenarios of what these stages can handle in the build up to the Block 5? That definitely looked different than past high energy entries.
The heating also seemed asymmetric, with the right-hand fin heating first. I haven't seen this level of detail in a GTO/ASDS launch/landing before, so maybe that wasn't new, but I think you're on to something.
-
#115
by
Rebel44
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:15
-
Could also be the amount of plasma that was wrapping around the stage probably caused the dropout... I am impressed the hardware on the bottom of the stage handled that... I wonder if they were doing some kind of different entry profile to test the edge scenarios of what these stages can handle in the build up to the Block 5? That definitely looked different than past high energy entries.
I was thinking the same thing about the plasma, but then got worried when it didn't pick up again. Held my breath until I started hearing the descent callouts.
I was really amazed to see that it was showing 6,000 km/h when the entry burn ended, is that a record?
During BulgariaSat-1 launch 1st stage was traveling at 6600km/h hen the entry burn ended.
-
#116
by
ulm_atms
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:15
-
Ready for a scary thought....BulgariaSat-1 was going ~600km/h faster at the end of the entry burn then this one!!
-
#117
by
Bargemanos
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:16
-
Correct me if i'm wrong but the deployment of the fins was rather early not?
-
#118
by
HankinNM
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:16
-
Did anyone have the audio on the livestream go out for a few minutes?
-
#119
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:17
-
It seems that telemetry (not just video) from the 1st stage was lost towards the end of the entry burn (?) and those monitoring had to use external sources to keep track of it (??).
Had that happened before AFTS on that stage had been safe, would it blew the stage up?
-
#120
by
ddeflyer
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:23
-
The sight as the video cut out really looked at first like things were going wrong, but I just watched the BulgariaSat-1 launch and it did about the same thing (lots of glowing and then video cutout) though with much much more lighting so it didn't look at absurdly crazy.
Imagine what it would look like on a pre-dawn launch; you could write a poem about "landing by plasma light"!
-
#121
by
rockets4life97
on 11 Oct, 2017 23:58
-
SES is one of SpaceX's most important commercial customers. They also seem fully on board the reused booster bandwagon. I expect SpaceX will be winning a large share of most future SES launches and most (if not all) will be un re-used boosters.
-
#122
by
skyguy
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:01
-
-
#123
by
Norm38
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:08
-
No, that's orbital sunset. The second stage popped up into sunlight but then the sun fell back down below the horizon.
-
#124
by
vaporcobra
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:18
-
An absolutely exceptional landing, IMHO. The plasma and white-hot grid fins were hard to believe.
-
#125
by
ulm_atms
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:32
-
On the bright side...this one doesn't seem to be leaning...
Looks like another stage that won't fly again.
Would be interesting if one of these 2x cores were used for the abort test of the dragon 2. If i remember right, only three engines are needed for the test. I think this core might make a good core for the abort test....and show a "sort of" third reuse.
Edit: Typo
-
#126
by
ddeflyer
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:41
-
If you think about it, the control algorithms must be awfully impressive to deal with the rapidly changing flight dynamics! They deal with essentially no atmosphere, supersonic thin through thicker atmosphere, transonic, and subsonic with three different control methods of varying power all of which substantially change over time. I mean, the rocket flies beautifully with the grid fins vaporizing during flight! Imagine how the system must deal with some fins producing more drag (but not predictable before hand) from worse and worse flow properties (due to some parts no longer being there). I mean, adaptive controls have been in flight systems for ages but its still amazing just how controlled these flights are with so much changing!
(Edited because autocorrect was having too much fun)
-
#127
by
Chris_Pi
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:50
-
That looked awfully toasty. Was wondering for a bit if the stage could handle losing a gridfin, But apparently either it didn't or can - It got back to the barge fine. Will definitely be interesting when it's back in port to see closer-up photos of the stage, Gridfins in particular.
-
#128
by
punder
on 12 Oct, 2017 00:56
-
Correct me if i'm wrong but the deployment of the fins was rather early not?
Seemed that way to me too.
Sorry, I know you all see this question way too much
but were these fins aluminum or titanium? I'm having a hard time believing aluminum would glow like a klieg light without utterly disintegrating.
-
#129
by
ulm_atms
on 12 Oct, 2017 01:02
-
Correct me if i'm wrong but the deployment of the fins was rather early not?
Seemed that way to me too.
Sorry, I know you all see this question way too much but were these fins aluminum or titanium? I'm having a hard time believing aluminum would glow like a klieg light without utterly disintegrating.
Aluminum 100%
-
#130
by
Chris_Pi
on 12 Oct, 2017 01:15
-
The titanium fins are slightly longer and cover the bottom-of-fin attach point protrusion on the body completely, Have a scalloped front face, And for the moment are unpainted and dark grayish instead of white.
As far as the glow, I'm halfway surprised I never saw big chunks blowing by the camera. Whatever ablative coating is used on them earned it's pay today.
-
#131
by
Rocket Science
on 12 Oct, 2017 01:37
-
I must say when I saw chunks flying off and then losing the down-link I thought we lost the stage but the tough old bird came through...
-
#132
by
rickl
on 12 Oct, 2017 02:00
-
Yes, when I saw the grid fins glowing so bright and then they lost telemetry, I thought they might have lost the stage.
It seems like they are experimenting with various entry and landing profiles to learn what they can get away with, and why not? They have plenty of stages to work with. It makes sense to me.
As an aside, on their webcasts, I wish they would show the Stage 1 telemetry on the left side of the screen and the Stage 2 telemetry on the right.
-
#133
by
meekGee
on 12 Oct, 2017 02:28
-
Correct me if i'm wrong but the deployment of the fins was rather early not?
Seemed that way to me too.
Sorry, I know you all see this question way too much but were these fins aluminum or titanium? I'm having a hard time believing aluminum would glow like a klieg light without utterly disintegrating.
The grid fins were not "White hot", since Aluminum, even when "red hot", is already without any strength.
There are two options:
A very over-exposed image show with a filter-less camera that picks up near infra-red, and so even the slightest glow in human-invisible wavelengths shows up as "white hot".
A thermal coating ablating while protecting the Aluminum underneath.
-
#134
by
Norm38
on 12 Oct, 2017 02:29
-
So when do they start introducing Inconel heat shields on these R&D flights? Like the titanium grid fins?
-
#135
by
meekGee
on 12 Oct, 2017 02:41
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
-
#136
by
yokem55
on 12 Oct, 2017 02:45
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
Regardless of if it can be reflown, they won't do any 3rd flights for anything as long as they have single flight cores hanging around everywhere or it makes more sense to fly/refly block 5 cores.
-
#137
by
ZachS09
on 12 Oct, 2017 03:12
-
Having arrived at one of Embry Riddle University's observation decks at 5:40 PM, I stayed there for over an hour while the Falcon 9 rocket launched the SES-11/EchoStar 105 satellite from 48 miles away.
Below this post is a video I made based on the footage I shot, using two royalty-free songs from incompetech, audio made from a mixture of previous SpaceX technical webcasts, footage from the SES-11/EchoStar 105 webcast, and stock footage from the JCSat 14 landing in May 2016.
Also took a few photos of the sunlit contrail afterwards.
-
#138
by
georgegassaway
on 12 Oct, 2017 03:27
-
Grid fins seemed to be extra-bright due to the camera exposure having adjusted for the very low ambient light levels (launched near sunset, coming down into mostly darkness).
And not "white hot" either. Overexposure of what in previous launches (re-entries) like this, looked to be red-hot to orange-hot when there was lots of background lighting of the sun-illuminated Earth.
-
#139
by
meekGee
on 12 Oct, 2017 03:36
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
Regardless of if it can be reflown, they won't do any 3rd flights for anything as long as they have single flight cores hanging around everywhere or it makes more sense to fly/refly block 5 cores.
With that I agree. Just got tired of all the internet experts declaring with such confidence (and no evidence) that "this landing was so rough, clearly the stage will never fly again".
These are the same people that also claim how uneconomical the whole endevour is.
So, you know, had to point out the obvious.
-
#140
by
llanitedave
on 12 Oct, 2017 03:38
-
If you think about it, the control algorithms must be awfully impressive to deal with the rapidly changing flight dynamics! They deal with essentially no atmosphere, supersonic thin through thicker atmosphere, transoceanic, and subsonic with three different control methods of varying power all of which substantially change over time. I mean, the rocket flies beautifully with the grid fins vaporizing during flight! Imagine how the system must deal with some fins producing more drag (but not predictable before hand drag) from worse and worse flow properties (due to some parts no longer being there). I mean, adaptive controls have been in flight systems for ages but its still amazing just how controlled these flights are with so much changing!
Somebody did their calculus homework in school!
-
#141
by
deruch
on 12 Oct, 2017 04:27
-
It seems that telemetry (not just video) from the 1st stage was lost towards the end of the entry burn (?) and those monitoring had to use external sources to keep track of it (??).
Had that happened before AFTS on that stage had been safe, would it blew the stage up?
No, that's exactly one of the benefits of AFTS. It doesn't matter if the ground receives zero telemetry from the rocket so long as the rocket can still "compute" its position. Then the AFTS just determines that the rocket's position and vectors aren't violating any of the preloaded safety rules.
-
#142
by
yokem55
on 12 Oct, 2017 04:37
-
42967/2017-063A: 309 x 40519 km x 27.89 deg
42968/2017-063B: 313 x 40517 km x 27.88 deg
Using
this calculator I get a detla-v to GEO of 1773m/s. Right on target.
-
#143
by
Kaputnik
on 12 Oct, 2017 08:24
-
I was thinking the same thing about the plasma, but then got worried when it didn't pick up again. Held my breath until I started hearing the descent callouts.
I was really amazed to see that it was showing 6,000 km/h when the entry burn ended, is that a record?
I am sure some of the spacex stats geeks around here will have that info soon! But yeah 6000 seems pretty quick. Also since they arent doing 3 engine landing burn attempts anymore (for now) They could be hunting for ways to trim down on the entry burn requirements by seeing how little they need to slow the stage down "This one wasnt burned up that badly? Hmmm, cut the burn off another 2 seconds early and see what happens! Its just a block 3!"
I'm sure Chris G's article said this was a three engine landing burn.
-
#144
by
joncz
on 12 Oct, 2017 11:06
-
The titanium fins are slightly longer and cover the bottom-of-fin attach point protrusion on the body completely, Have a scalloped front face, And for the moment are unpainted and dark grayish instead of white.
As far as the glow, I'm halfway surprised I never saw big chunks blowing by the camera. Whatever ablative coating is used on them earned it's pay today.
The aluminum fins also have these longitudinal ribs:
-
#145
by
vanoord
on 12 Oct, 2017 11:41
-
I'm sure Chris G's article said this was a three engine landing burn.
I don't think we saw the landing burn, but my understanding has been that the stage lands on a single engine, even if three have been lit during the burn - they are ramped up and down 1 engine / 3 engines / 1 engine, hence the description as a 1-3-1 burn.
To me, that makes sense as a change in throttle level on a single engine gives a less aggressive thrust change, particularly at the point of touch-down - and from memory, the attempts to touch down with three engines lit haven't been particularly easy viewing.
That said, a quick skip through the recent landings is pretty inconclusive, as the moment of landing is either not seen either due to video drop-out on the ASDS - or from too far away for RTLS.
-
#146
by
Robotbeat
on 12 Oct, 2017 11:41
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
Regardless of if it can be reflown, they won't do any 3rd flights for anything as long as they have single flight cores hanging around everywhere or it makes more sense to fly/refly block 5 cores.
Exactly.
Doesn't make sense to reuse this stage, perhaps, but doesn't mean it can't be done.
-
#147
by
hans_ober
on 12 Oct, 2017 14:32
-
I'm sure Chris G's article said this was a three engine landing burn.
I don't think we saw the landing burn, but my understanding has been that the stage lands on a single engine, even if three have been lit during the burn - they are ramped up and down 1 engine / 3 engines / 1 engine, hence the description as a 1-3-1 burn.
To me, that makes sense as a change in throttle level on a single engine gives a less aggressive thrust change, particularly at the point of touch-down - and from memory, the attempts to touch down with three engines lit haven't been particularly easy viewing.
That said, a quick skip through the recent landings is pretty inconclusive, as the moment of landing is either not seen either due to video drop-out on the ASDS - or from too far away for RTLS.
IIRC the callout from landing burn start to us seeing the booster exhaust on the barge was ~10s, which makes it a 3 engine landing burn.
Single engine landing burns take around 30 seconds, 3 engine ones take around 10-15.
I'm guessing the reason for starting with one engine (1-3-1) is to decrease the jerk on the stage, but more importantly improve stability. The 2 side engines are off axis, and if one starts faster than the other (or even fails to start), you've got a large off axis thrust that would require a quick gimbal correction, and result in the rocket veering off course. While this might be tolerable for the boost back and reentry burns (since they can always correct), it will be close to impossible to correct when dealing with the very tight margins of a 3 engine burn: they've gotta deal with vertical velocity, horizontal velocity, pitch and position the stage over the ASDS in ~10 seconds. Any off axis thrust will make it veer off course and require additional fuel to correct - something that do not have.
They probably shutdown the 2 outer engines at the end of the 1-3-1 for accuracy. It's difficult to do a suicide burn when accelerating at 4.5Gs (since distance is the double integral of acceleration.. at 4.5Gs, a fraction of a second puts them off by a couple of meters - so they crash hard, or end up hovering).
-
#148
by
hans_ober
on 12 Oct, 2017 14:40
-
Ready for a scary thought....BulgariaSat-1 was going ~600km/h faster at the end of the entry burn then this one!!
Bulgariasat entered at ~1.8kms. Normal GTO MECO velocity is usually around 2.3km/s, split between ~2.1km/s horizontal & 1 km/s vertical components.
Any idea what the velocities were on the early experimental flights they did with F9 where the stage broke up as soon as it hit the atmosphere (early recovery days)? Bulgariasat reentry points to them being able to do >2km/s reentries with Ti gridfins.
The main factor here is the vertical velocity: prior to the reentry burn they're probably doing >1km/s which makes the stage hit the atmosphere too quickly. Reduce that, and they'll be able to use the larger grid fins to make F9 a lifting body and bleed off even >2.5km/s horizontal velocity.
They'll need this for FH. Core will probably MECO >3km/s, so as long as they reduce vertical velocity during the reentry burn, they'll manage to bleed off the horizontal velocity without any problem.
-
#149
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 12 Oct, 2017 14:49
-
... so as long as they reduce vertical velocity during the reentry burn, they'll manage to bleed off the horizontal velocity without any problem.
I don’t know that that follows axiomatically. The longer the stage is bleeding off velocity through the atmosphere, the longer it’s exposed to heating; that can affect the bulk prop temps and the overall temp regime inside the octoweb, which affect startup of the engine for landing. Further, the longer the stage is being heated by high speed atmospheric flight, the more net heat load the structure is exposed to; you don’t want your composites and grid fin hydraulics to get too hot either.
So yeah, core landings will be a balancing act of many factors and will almost certainly be pretty sporty, aside from very light payloads when SpaceX trajectory designers have lots of prop to burn for slower entry and longer landing burns.
-
#150
by
dedead
on 12 Oct, 2017 17:30
-
Hello,
I'm here for the 1st time at Cape Canaveral.
Do you know when the drone ship is planned to go back at the port with the first stage ?
-
#151
by
envy887
on 12 Oct, 2017 17:44
-
Hello,
I'm here for the 1st time at Cape Canaveral.
Do you know when the drone ship is planned to go back at the port with the first stage ?
It usually takes 3 or 4 days IIRC, so I'd expect it Saturday or Sunday.
-
#152
by
abaddon
on 12 Oct, 2017 17:52
-
Hello,
I'm here for the 1st time at Cape Canaveral.
Do you know when the drone ship is planned to go back at the port with the first stage ?
Welcome to the forum! I'd suggest following this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766, which is specific to tracking the ASDSs (ASDI?).
-
#153
by
dedead
on 12 Oct, 2017 18:28
-
Thank you
-
#154
by
Prettz
on 12 Oct, 2017 18:34
-
Was it just because it was dark out the heat on the grin fins was more visible? Was the Iridium launch using titanium?
Iridium was also aluminum
Was stated during the launch webcast due to lower energy trajectory.
This SES-11 was obviously not a lower energy trajectory, so we can assume they are using (or rather burning) up their stock of aluminum ones.
I got the impression that they
reeeally didn't care too much if they got this old booster back or not.
Or, that there was a risk of not getting the booster back anyway, and they didn't want to risk losing the titanium fins for no reason.
-
#155
by
nacnud
on 12 Oct, 2017 18:58
-
Oh come on, don't be daft. The stage is worth $$$, just the engines alone are probably worth the recovery attempt. So they didn't use the titanium fins, well if they have the aluminum fins knocking around and they're good for one used only at these entry velocities then why not use them?
-
#156
by
Orbiter
on 12 Oct, 2017 19:04
-
My shot from Playalinda Beach
-
#157
by
meekGee
on 12 Oct, 2017 19:25
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
Thaicom 8 weighed only 3 tonnes. The other reused boosters flew LEO missions first, then launched heavier-than-Thiacom 8 satellites to GTO.
Remember NROL 76? LEO mission, stage reportedly mothballed after LZ 1 landing. What about JCSAT 16's stage, scrapped after a GTO launch? I count at least five stages retired, mothballed, or scrapped to date out of 15 stages recovered to date, six if B1031.2 ends up retired.
- Ed Kyle
Maybe, but the re-entry was hot, and all the experts lined up and declared it a total loss because of the rough touch-down.
It wasn't.
There's no argument that early recovered F9s are less likely to refly. That's obvious. If only because there are more recovered stages that options to re-fly.
But this will clearly change - SpaceX has only re-flown 3 times this year. The direction it's heading, especially with more advanced revisions of F9, is clear...
-
#158
by
cambrianera
on 12 Oct, 2017 19:32
-
Any idea what the velocities were on the early experimental flights they did with F9 where the stage broke up as soon as it hit the atmosphere (early recovery days)?
MECO for v1.0 was something like 10 M, while for v1.1 was given as 6 M.
Someone can chime in with better number for specific cases.
-
#159
by
Comga
on 12 Oct, 2017 19:38
-
(snip)
But this will clearly change - SpaceX has only re-flown 3 times this year. The direction it's heading, especially with more advanced revisions of F9, is clear...
You realize, surely, how amusing it is that you can even make this statement "only re-flown 3 times".
The direction is clear, as you say.
An unrelated observation and question:
The bright grid fins are too uniform and white to be glowing. They are most likely illuminated and overexposed.
The second stage flew into sunset around 8 minutes after launch, with the last of the refracted sunlight at ~8:18.
Does anyone know at what time stamp the first stage went back into shadow/sunset?
The video cuts out when the stage was at 19.4 km altitude, according to the display. Was it sunlit?
-
#160
by
saliva_sweet
on 12 Oct, 2017 20:02
-
Remember NROL 76? LEO mission, stage reportedly mothballed after LZ 1 landing.
I doubt that one was mothballed due to excessive wear.
The bright grid fins are too uniform and white to be glowing. They are most likely illuminated and overexposed.
Certainly looks like they're glowing to me. It's looks more intense than previous flights and they are indeed overexposed because it's dark.
-
#161
by
cscott
on 12 Oct, 2017 21:19
-
(snip)
But this will clearly change - SpaceX has only re-flown 3 times this year. The direction it's heading, especially with more advanced revisions of F9, is clear...
You realize, surely, how amusing it is that you can even make this statement "only re-flown 3 times".
The direction is clear, as you say.
An unrelated observation and question:
The bright grid fins are too uniform and white to be glowing. They are most likely illuminated and overexposed.
The second stage flew into sunset around 8 minutes after launch, with the last of the refracted sunlight at ~8:18.
Does anyone know at what time stamp the first stage went back into shadow/sunset?
The video cuts out when the stage was at 19.4 km altitude, according to the display. Was it sunlit?
I thought this, too, based on the sunset we saw in the stage 2 video, but I did some mental geometry and realized that the stage 2 camera was pointing west (at the setting sun) while the stage 1 camera during the re-entry burn was almost certainly pointing east (away from the sun). So it's possible we were seeing illumination, but we certainly weren't seeing the glare from the sun itself.
I look forward to seeing photos of the stage in port. Since the landing was successful, I expect that the fireworks were a combination of overexposure, glowing plasma, and ablated-as-designed thermal protection. But we'll soon find out!
-
#162
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 12 Oct, 2017 22:22
-
(snip)
But this will clearly change - SpaceX has only re-flown 3 times this year. The direction it's heading, especially with more advanced revisions of F9, is clear...
You realize, surely, how amusing it is that you can even make this statement "only re-flown 3 times".
The direction is clear, as you say.
An unrelated observation and question:
The bright grid fins are too uniform and white to be glowing. They are most likely illuminated and overexposed.
The second stage flew into sunset around 8 minutes after launch, with the last of the refracted sunlight at ~8:18.
Does anyone know at what time stamp the first stage went back into shadow/sunset?
The video cuts out when the stage was at 19.4 km altitude, according to the display. Was it sunlit?
They looked glowing AND over-exposed to me, what with the visible plasma and sparks flying off the base of the rocket right around that time. But what do I know?
It'll be interesting to see some high-res photos of the fins during stage off-loading at the port.
-
#163
by
georgegassaway
on 12 Oct, 2017 23:42
-
If I was given the task of trying to get a 3rd flight out of the existing Falcons, my choice would be to use boosters that had "gentler" re-entries both times such as RTLS and SOME ASDS landings that had a better/softer r-re-entry phase than some others.
Is there even a twice-flown Falcon that has had a gentle re-entry on both flights?
I take the re-flown boosters that have been used for GTO launches for flight #2, with the "hot" re-entries, to be a huge indication they do not intend to fly those a third time.
IIRC, none of the one-flight Falcons that flew GTO and had a hot re-entry, has even been used twice.
Admittedly the word "yet" has a small percentage of being applicable.
Given the change to Block 5 coming "soon" (tm), not looking too likely they have much incentive (or intent) to refly the existing previously Falcons beyond twice, given the ones left unprotected outdoors.
-
#164
by
vaporcobra
on 12 Oct, 2017 23:43
-
(snip)
But this will clearly change - SpaceX has only re-flown 3 times this year. The direction it's heading, especially with more advanced revisions of F9, is clear...
You realize, surely, how amusing it is that you can even make this statement "only re-flown 3 times".
The direction is clear, as you say.
An unrelated observation and question:
The bright grid fins are too uniform and white to be glowing. They are most likely illuminated and overexposed.
The second stage flew into sunset around 8 minutes after launch, with the last of the refracted sunlight at ~8:18.
Does anyone know at what time stamp the first stage went back into shadow/sunset?
The video cuts out when the stage was at 19.4 km altitude, according to the display. Was it sunlit?
They looked glowing AND over-exposed to me, what with the visible plasma and sparks flying off the base of the rocket right around that time. But what do I know? It'll be interesting to see some high-res photos of the fins during stage off-loading at the port.
Yep. We ought to hold judgement until we've seen how the fins fared. We already have BulgariaSat-1 to compare with, so there can be little doubt that closeups will likely determine just how roasted 1031's fins got.
-
#165
by
Jcc
on 13 Oct, 2017 00:13
-
If I was given the task of trying to get a 3rd flight out of the existing Falcons, my choice would be to use boosters that had "gentler" re-entries both times such as RTLS and SOME ASDS landings that had a better/softer r-re-entry phase than some others.
Is there even a twice-flown Falcon that has had a gentle re-entry on both flights?
I take the re-flown boosters that have been used for GTO launches for flight #2, with the "hot" re-entries, to be a huge indication they do not intend to fly those a third time.
IIRC, none of the one-flight Falcons that flew GTO and had a hot re-entry, has even been used twice.
Admittedly the word "yet" has a small percentage of being applicable.
Given the change to Block 5 coming "soon" (tm), not looking too likely they have much incentive (or intent) to refly the existing previously Falcons beyond twice, given the ones left unprotected outdoors.
I suspect that the reason they have not reused stages from GTO missions it that they have not had to, because they have more recovered stages than customers willing to fly on one so far. They are still gathering data, and building up confidence. Probably some of the GTO stages could be reused, buy why do it if you have enough low energy stages? Soon they will be flying Block 5, which presumably will take the heat better and provide more confidence in reuse, even from GTO, and also more customers will opt for reused stages.
-
#166
by
meekGee
on 13 Oct, 2017 00:22
-
(snip)
But this will clearly change - SpaceX has only re-flown 3 times this year. The direction it's heading, especially with more advanced revisions of F9, is clear...
You realize, surely, how amusing it is that you can even make this statement "only re-flown 3 times".
The direction is clear, as you say.
An unrelated observation and question:
The bright grid fins are too uniform and white to be glowing. They are most likely illuminated and overexposed.
The second stage flew into sunset around 8 minutes after launch, with the last of the refracted sunlight at ~8:18.
Does anyone know at what time stamp the first stage went back into shadow/sunset?
The video cuts out when the stage was at 19.4 km altitude, according to the display. Was it sunlit?
They looked glowing AND over-exposed to me, what with the visible plasma and sparks flying off the base of the rocket right around that time. But what do I know? It'll be interesting to see some high-res photos of the fins during stage off-loading at the port.
You can't make aluminum glow while still maintaining any semblance of strength..
Either there's a hefty amount if insulation and ablative shielding (and then the aluminum is fine), or the cameras don't have IR filters, and we're seeing a faint glow in NIR, since it is so dark.
And, fins are interchangeable.
We have no evidence as to how rough the landing was.
-
#167
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 13 Oct, 2017 01:02
-
They looked glowing AND over-exposed to me, what with the visible plasma and sparks flying off the base of the rocket right around that time. But what do I know? It'll be interesting to see some high-res photos of the fins during stage off-loading at the port.
You can't make aluminum glow while still maintaining any semblance of strength..
Either there's a hefty amount if insulation and ablative shielding (and then the aluminum is fine), or the cameras don't have IR filters, and we're seeing a faint glow in NIR, since it is so dark.
Well, wait just a minute - we've seen similar "glow" from aluminum fins on other GTO landings and then recovery photos have shown localized charring and even complete burn-through of some web segments when they got back to port. So, whatever the source of the glow seen on the camera (ablating coatings, aluminum heating, IR filter removed from camera, all of the above in varying proportion ...) until we see photos, we're all talking out of our asses.
And, fins are interchangeable.
We have no evidence as to how rough the landing was.
No dispute on either one of those things, nor did I even mention them.
Your argument about whether or not this core COULD be reused (not to be confused with WILL it be reused) isn't with me. For the record though, I'm in the camp of "won't be" simply because SpaceX has more recovered cores than they have customers for, with Block 5 coming RealSoonNow®
-
#168
by
cscott
on 13 Oct, 2017 01:16
-
There is an ablative coating on the aluminum grid fins.
-
#169
by
meekGee
on 13 Oct, 2017 01:32
-
They looked glowing AND over-exposed to me, what with the visible plasma and sparks flying off the base of the rocket right around that time. But what do I know? It'll be interesting to see some high-res photos of the fins during stage off-loading at the port.
You can't make aluminum glow while still maintaining any semblance of strength..
Either there's a hefty amount if insulation and ablative shielding (and then the aluminum is fine), or the cameras don't have IR filters, and we're seeing a faint glow in NIR, since it is so dark.
Well, wait just a minute - we've seen similar "glow" from aluminum fins on other GTO landings and then recovery photos have shown localized charring and even complete burn-through of some web segments when they got back to port. So, whatever the source of the glow seen on the camera (ablating coatings, aluminum heating, IR filter removed from camera, all of the above in varying proportion ...) until we see photos, we're all talking out of our asses.
And, fins are interchangeable.
We have no evidence as to how rough the landing was.
No dispute on either one of those things, nor did I even mention them.
Your argument about whether or not this core COULD be reused (not to be confused with WILL it be reused) isn't with me. For the record though, I'm in the camp of "won't be" simply because SpaceX has more recovered cores than they have customers for, with Block 5 coming RealSoonNow
I was mostly saying that an aluminum fin that is as white as it appeared will basically melt away.
It takes very low temps to render aluminum useless.
-
#170
by
envy887
on 13 Oct, 2017 01:59
-
I was mostly saying that an aluminum fin that is as white as it appeared will basically melt away.
It takes very low temps to render aluminum useless.
That isn't aluminum glowing white... it's SPAM burning off.
-
#171
by
meekGee
on 13 Oct, 2017 02:09
-
Which was my point, responding to posts about "white hot fins".
-
#172
by
Prettz
on 13 Oct, 2017 02:17
-
Oh come on, don't be daft. The stage is worth $$$,
Is it? After they tear it down, how many parts can they reuse in a new block 5 booster?
My bet is that, getting this one back, the additional data points after inspection will be more valuable than the hardware. I would be pleased to be proven wrong on that, though.
just the engines alone are probably worth the recovery attempt.
My impression was block 5 will only use the new improved engines. They want to fly the complete system several times before it flies Dragon 2. Is this not the case?
-
#173
by
Treasurer
on 13 Oct, 2017 04:09
-
Descent into Hell (reentry burn music video) :-)
-
#174
by
Patchouli
on 13 Oct, 2017 05:52
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
Thaicom 8 weighed only 3 tonnes. The other reused boosters flew LEO missions first, then launched heavier-than-Thiacom 8 satellites to GTO.
Remember NROL 76? LEO mission, stage reportedly mothballed after LZ 1 landing. What about JCSAT 16's stage, scrapped after a GTO launch? I count at least five stages retired, mothballed, or scrapped to date out of 15 stages recovered to date, six if B1031.2 ends up retired.
- Ed Kyle
I wonder if they'll implement some sort of third stage for GTO launches so they can avoid running the first stages as hard?
I remember reading the F9 upper stage weighs close to four metric tons dry so even a simple third stage could make a big difference.
-
#175
by
ZachS09
on 13 Oct, 2017 12:36
-
I wonder if they'll implement some sort of third stage for GTO launches so they can avoid running the first stages as hard?
I remember reading the F9 upper stage weighs close to four metric tons dry so even a simple third stage could make a big difference.
Probably never going to happen. The second stage has enough energy to take a small payload beyond Earth's gravity.
-
#176
by
John Alan
on 13 Oct, 2017 14:01
-
I wonder if they'll implement some sort of third stage for GTO launches so they can avoid running the first stages as hard?
I remember reading the F9 upper stage weighs close to four metric tons dry so even a simple third stage could make a big difference.
Probably never going to happen. The second stage has enough energy to take a small payload beyond Earth's gravity.
The fix for that need is SpaceX charge more for edge of recovery GTO with a hefty discount (incentive) if the customer would just put bigger tanks on the Kick motor of the satellite...
Put another way... take whatever payload mass Block 5 can comfortably put to GTO with ASDS recovery that gives back a S1 in reusable condition... And then incentivize with the launch price sheet that if they want heavier, then they have got to take on more and more of the delta/v to reach final station on orbit...
Instead of Geo-1800m/s typical, and for the same price, we will loft your heavier bird to GEO-2000... or 2200 or 2400, or 2600... Each is a heavier bird at each delta/v point...
End result is the customer puts an integrated "third stage" on the payload and away we go...
I don't have the Quote handy... But GS of SpaceX was quoted in the recent past, saying that inquiries to do just that are ongoing, in discussing new future launches on F9...
IF the customer decides later to take their bird and launch with someone else instead (contract opt out)
Then they just adjust the prop fill to fit the other carrier (A5 was what I was thinking when I wrote that)...
-
#177
by
yokem55
on 13 Oct, 2017 14:02
-
Looks like another stage that won't fly again. There have been 12 first stage recovery flights this year, but only three of them were GTO missions and all three were first stage reflights (using "used" first stages). My guess is that these are R&D flights on the reuse side that won't see their stages used again (the SES-10 and Bulgariasat stages have been retired or mothballed). They would have been expendable flights otherwise. The other three GTO missions this year were expendable missions.
A bit of a weenie roast after this landing!
- Ed Kyle
People have been saying that on every core that comes down a little stressed.
Remember Thaicom 8?
Not sure what the point is, but it's a popular refrain.
Thaicom 8 weighed only 3 tonnes. The other reused boosters flew LEO missions first, then launched heavier-than-Thiacom 8 satellites to GTO.
Remember NROL 76? LEO mission, stage reportedly mothballed after LZ 1 landing. What about JCSAT 16's stage, scrapped after a GTO launch? I count at least five stages retired, mothballed, or scrapped to date out of 15 stages recovered to date, six if B1031.2 ends up retired.
- Ed Kyle
I wonder if they'll implement some sort of third stage for GTO launches so they can avoid running the first stages as hard?
I remember reading the F9 upper stage weighs close to four metric tons dry so even a simple third stage could make a big difference.
It's unlikely to pencil out money wise. The cost of developing and flying a 3rd stage just to avoid hot reentries would be better spent improving the resilience of the first stage in hot reentries.
-
#178
by
Comga
on 13 Oct, 2017 18:45
-
Looks like they caught the reentry burn at 1:14 into the video.
A really cool view of the plumes.
The first stage is remarkably visible for almost the duration.
(Edited: Thanks mod!)
There is a woman in the background confidently stating that the first stage is going to burn up after releasing the second stage.
I think that if the videographer had understood what he was seeing, the view of both stages for such a duration, he would have focused more on the two small objects instead of the static smoke trail.
Still all in all, pretty nice view.
-
#179
by
Alastor
on 17 Oct, 2017 11:49
-
On this last picture, we can see that the hydrolic lines from the thruster have been disconnected.
We are witnessing them preparing the removal of the container.
The operations that are likely to follow IMO are cleaning of the area, replacing of damaged hydrolic lines and other auxiliary equipment, probably removal of crispy Octograber and only then placing the new containers and reconnecting everything to go back to operational status.
Time depending, we may see improvements made to mitigate the risks of such an incident happening again (or maybe we won't see them, but I'm pretty sure they don't want their ASDSes catching on fire (more than reasonable whan you land a freaking candle like an F9 on it I mean ...
), even if it's a rare occurrence and fairly limited damage).
-
#180
by
Targeteer
on 17 Oct, 2017 20:55
-
42967 ECHOSTAR 105/SES 11 2017-063A 1554.82min 0.59deg 40493km 35667km
-
#181
by
Raul
on 18 Oct, 2017 05:57
-
Epoch time: Tue Oct 17 2017 17:16:45 GMT
42967 ECHOSTAR 105/SES 11 2017-063A 1436.41min 0.0819deg 35655km 35929km
0 ECHOSTAR 105/SES 11
1 42967U 17063A 17290.71997064 .00000092 00000-0 00000+0 0 9997
2 42967 0.0819 247.0706 0032501 124.8499 131.8904 1.00250004 88
but were these fins aluminum or titanium? I'm having a hard time believing aluminum would glow like a klieg light without utterly disintegrating.
