-
#120
by
DatUser14
on 12 May, 2017 01:35
-
Is this launch going to be webcast? If so, when?
It should, webcast usually starts at T-20 so at 19:00 EDT
-
#121
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 May, 2017 03:20
-
-
#122
by
Skyrocket
on 12 May, 2017 09:11
-
-
#123
by
Beittil
on 12 May, 2017 09:23
-
Probably because there is not a whole lot of design material left (anymore) of Falcon 9 without legs and fins
-
#124
by
tvg98
on 12 May, 2017 12:06
-
Not sure of this has been discussed yet, but it seems that the apogee will be at around 35,786 km. Considering this is SpaceX's largest payload to GTO yet, it will be interesting to see how close it can get to that target, and how that compares to Echostar-23.
-
#125
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 May, 2017 12:11
-
Just posted some nice encapsulation (and thus fairing) shots by Inmarsat:
InmarsatVerified account @InmarsatGlobal 23m23 minutes ago
@Boeing & Inmarsat satellite teams say goodbye to #I5F4 as it’s encapsulated into the payload fairing in prep for @SpaceX launch on 15 May 🚀
https://twitter.com/InmarsatGlobal/status/862994761405386753
I couldn't see any obvious signs of fairing recovery equipment, although even if SpaceX are doing a recovery attempt on this mission the pictures may be the wrong fairing half.
-
#126
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 12 May, 2017 13:14
-
Just posted some nice encapsulation (and thus fairing) shots by Inmarsat:
InmarsatVerified account @InmarsatGlobal 23m23 minutes ago
@Boeing & Inmarsat satellite teams say goodbye to #I5F4 as it’s encapsulated into the payload fairing in prep for @SpaceX launch on 15 May 
https://twitter.com/InmarsatGlobal/status/862994761405386753
I couldn't see any obvious signs of fairing recovery equipment, although even if SpaceX are doing a recovery attempt on this mission the pictures may be the wrong fairing half.
Funny, I was just going to ask how many people carefully scanned those pictures, not to look at the satellite but to check for recovery hardware. One shot does show a bit of the other half BTW.
-
#127
by
hrissan
on 12 May, 2017 20:06
-
Just posted some nice encapsulation (and thus fairing) shots by Inmarsat:
InmarsatVerified account @InmarsatGlobal 23m23 minutes ago
@Boeing & Inmarsat satellite teams say goodbye to #I5F4 as it’s encapsulated into the payload fairing in prep for @SpaceX launch on 15 May 🚀
https://twitter.com/InmarsatGlobal/status/862994761405386753
I couldn't see any obvious signs of fairing recovery equipment, although even if SpaceX are doing a recovery attempt on this mission the pictures may be the wrong fairing half.
Or no recovery because every kg counts on this mission?
-
#128
by
Jet Black
on 12 May, 2017 22:09
-
Or no recovery because every kg counts on this mission?
or the velocities/path the farings end up in make it unsurvivable.
-
#129
by
Dao Angkan
on 12 May, 2017 22:39
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
-
#130
by
cppetrie
on 12 May, 2017 22:43
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
As usual the customer is paying for their payload to be delivered to a particular orbit. If there is any leftover performance in the tank, SpaceX can do whatever they want with it. It's sorta like sending a package FedEx. You pay for it to be delivered on a particular day. What route they take to get it there and what else they do along the way is irrelevant to what you paid for so long as it gets where it's supposed to by the time it is supposed to.
-
#131
by
RDMM2081
on 13 May, 2017 00:44
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
Is there a concrete source for this statement that they are paying more, or just making an assumption based on the expendable launch?
-
#132
by
Dao Angkan
on 13 May, 2017 00:59
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
Is there a concrete source for this statement that they are paying more, or just making an assumption based on the expendable launch?
Purely assumption. I have no insider knowledge.
-
#133
by
RDMM2081
on 13 May, 2017 01:01
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
Is there a concrete source for this statement that they are paying more, or just making an assumption based on the expendable launch?
Purely assumption. I have no insider knowledge.
Thanks for clarifying, I wondered if there was an article I missed about the price of the launch.
-
#134
by
Dao Angkan
on 13 May, 2017 01:09
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
Is there a concrete source for this statement that they are paying more, or just making an assumption based on the expendable launch?
Purely assumption. I have no insider knowledge.
Thanks for clarifying, I wondered if there was an article I missed about the price of the launch.
Yes, sorry, I should have been clear that that was just my opinion.
-
#135
by
RDMM2081
on 13 May, 2017 01:36
-
Inmarsat are paying extra for expendable ... surely that means that SpaceX can't take the piss and add extra weight just to see what happens ... Inmarsat are paying for all the boost they can get.
Is there a concrete source for this statement that they are paying more, or just making an assumption based on the expendable launch?
Purely assumption. I have no insider knowledge.
Thanks for clarifying, I wondered if there was an article I missed about the price of the launch.
Yes, sorry, I should have been clear that that was just my opinion.
I think it's a reasonable assumption, and a question I would love to hear answered if anyone has a source that possibly could confirm or deny.
-
#136
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 May, 2017 07:16
-
I think it's a reasonable assumption, and a question I would love to hear answered if anyone has a source that possibly could confirm or deny.
I'm not so sure. We know SpaceX offer discounts for booster re-use but I've not seen any hints that SpaceX are yet reducing their prices for a new booster on the assumption that they'll get some re-use out if it. I'd be surprised if they are as the market for re-use isn't yet proven (although it's looking good). Also an expendable booster is a bit cheaper to make (legs etc aren't free).
-
#137
by
Flying Beaver
on 13 May, 2017 07:26
-
I think it's a reasonable assumption, and a question I would love to hear answered if anyone has a source that possibly could confirm or deny.
I'm not so sure. We know SpaceX offer discounts for booster re-use but I've not seen any hints that SpaceX are yet reducing their prices for a new booster on the assumption that they'll get some re-use out if it. I'd be surprised if they are as the market for re-use isn't yet proven (although it's looking good). Also an expendable booster is a bit cheaper to make (legs etc aren't free).
Hints, eh.
Inmarsat's payload is 6mt, thus they pay extra.
-
#138
by
Barrie
on 13 May, 2017 08:56
-
If the payloads being launched on F9 expendable were originally booked for FH, then I imagine they are paying somewhat less than the FH price would have been, but more than the standard F9 price.
-
#139
by
DOCinCT
on 13 May, 2017 13:33
-
Hints, eh.
Inmarsat's payload is 6mt, thus they pay extra.
The $62M is a 2018 price for a standard launch (assume recoverable Block 5).
In 2016 USAF signed a contract for a 2018 GPS launch $82.7M; 2nd GPS launch in 2019 has a contract price of $96.5M.
