SpaceX Falcon 9 : SES 11/Echostar 105 : Oct 11, 2017 : Discussion

[saliva_sweet]

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.

[cscott]

(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!

[Herb Schaltegger]

(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.

[georgegassaway]

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. 

[vaporcobra]

(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.

[Jcc]

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.

[meekGee]

(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.



   

[Herb Schaltegger]

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®

[cscott]

There is an ablative coating on the aluminum grid fins.

[meekGee]

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.

[envy887]

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.

[meekGee]

Which was my point, responding to posts about "white hot fins".

[Prettz]

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?

[Treasurer]

Descent into Hell (reentry burn music video) :-)

[Patchouli]

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.

[ZachS09]

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.

[John Alan]

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)...

[yokem55]

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.

[Comga]

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.

[Alastor]

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).