-
#140
by
dorkmo
on 13 May, 2017 14:35
-
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.
i think that the recovery half has been on the the half with the male latches. And i think this shows the female latches.
-
#141
by
OnWithTheShow
on 13 May, 2017 17:19
-
I would think that since they are flying the core expendable they wouldnt add the recovery hardware to the fairing either.
-
#142
by
macpacheco
on 13 May, 2017 17:43
-
The discussion of how much Inmarsat is paying for this launch is probably pointless, cause Inmarsat likely got an extra great deal cause SpaceX couldn't deliver as originally negotiated a FH launch within contract dates.
The originally negotiated price was probably a great one, giving the customer was signing up to launch on a paper rocket at that point, and the renegotiation into an expendable F9 launch just made the deal even sweeter.
Even if we knew the exact number, it would be meaningless as a basis for other launch contracts.
-
#143
by
mme
on 13 May, 2017 17:51
-
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.
I agree that in the future SpaceX will charge different rates for expendable missions and RTLS missions. I believe that at the moment SpaceX is offering a discount for flying on a flight-proven (TM) booster to accelerate adoption.
Inmarsat signed the deal years ago. They paid whatever they negotiated back then so I would not include recovery in the calculation. Plus I think it was originally suppose to fly on FH though I may be wrong.
-
#144
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 14 May, 2017 06:16
-
-
#145
by
Comga
on 14 May, 2017 19:37
-
-
#146
by
king1999
on 14 May, 2017 20:04
-
-
#147
by
cppetrie
on 14 May, 2017 20:17
-
#I5F4 rolling to the pad @InmarsatGlobal
https://twitter.com/m_ladovaz/status/863740942796193792
The rocket doesn't look like it's being kept horizontal.
Is it an issue of perspective?
I seem to remember discussion from CRS-10 maybe that the rocket doesn't need to be kept horizontal as it goes up the hill. It can be elevated slightly if needed in order to keep the nose from hitting the ground as it makes its way up, but otherwise it isn't elevated at all to maintain a horizontal orientation while on the incline. It can handle the slight negative loads that occur from being pointed downhill slightly.
-
#148
by
deruch
on 14 May, 2017 20:52
-
#I5F4 rolling to the pad @InmarsatGlobal
https://twitter.com/m_ladovaz/status/863740942796193792
The rocket doesn't look like it's being kept horizontal.
Is it an issue of perspective?
I seem to remember discussion from CRS-10 maybe that the rocket doesn't need to be kept horizontal as it goes up the hill. It can be elevated slightly if needed in order to keep the nose from hitting the ground as it makes its way up, but otherwise it isn't elevated at all to maintain a horizontal orientation while on the incline. It can handle the slight negative loads that occur from being pointed downhill slightly.
I would have thought that this might be more of an issue for the payload, especially if it has already been fueled. But maybe not or only payload specific.
-
#149
by
georgegassaway
on 14 May, 2017 21:01
-
I would think that since they are flying the core expendable they wouldnt add the recovery hardware to the fairing either.
Depends on whether they need 100% of the fuel onboard to get the desired orbit. If they needed only say 99.9% to do the job, then the leftover 0.1% of margin could be used for the extra mass of trying to recover one fairing half. And likely it would not even require 0.1% of the margin, since the extra mass would not be a lot (and the fairing is jettisoned shortly after staging), just pulling a reasonably seeming number (which I think likely errs on the side of being too high) out of thin air to get the idea across.
But if they need 100% to boost it as much as they can to depletion, then that's that.
Of course if they do plan so for this one, they would have sent one of the retrieval ships out days ago.
As well, since these are tests, they may not necessarily have had time to make changes/upgrades since the two previous flights with retrieval testing.
Reportedly the first one had some tangled lines and the 2nd one landed 4 miles off target, IIRC. Cycles of Design changes with new hardware installed for stuff like that don't tend to happen in days or weeks.
So even if this was an RTLS or ASDS landing flight, they might not have tried fairing retrieval. They don't need to keep shooting for a random 100% success of he original system that clearly is in need of more work after two attempts. Soft landings yes (huge accomplishment), but not accurate ones as they will need for the "Bouncy Castle" idea to be practical. They need to learn, figure out what to change, have the time to figure that out and make it, and install the improved version.
-
#150
by
BabaORileyUSA
on 15 May, 2017 11:41
-
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.
Yes, this was discussed. This mission is using a super-synchronous transfer orbit, well above GEO altitude.
-
#151
by
BabaORileyUSA
on 15 May, 2017 11:45
-
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.
Not *exactly* true! This is a minimal-residual shutdown mission. The orbit Inmarsat is paying for is determined by the *actual* flight performance of the Falcon-9; there is no "particular orbit" in this case, just a range of possibilities.
-
#152
by
edkyle99
on 15 May, 2017 13:41
-
The Inmarsat photos appear to show that this rocket is, like the NROL 76 vehicle, using the upgraded second stage.
- Ed Kyle
-
#153
by
manoweb
on 15 May, 2017 15:28
-
And how do you determine it's a different second stage, what kind of upgrades?
-
#154
by
yokem55
on 15 May, 2017 15:47
-
Launch weather forecast, now 90% GO:
Launch day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 10%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule
Delay day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 20%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule, Liftoff Winds
That's about as good as it gets. Should be a beautiful sunset launch.
-
#155
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 15 May, 2017 15:52
-
Launch weather forecast, now 90% GO:
Launch day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 10%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule
Delay day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 20%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule, Liftoff Winds
That's about as good as it gets. Should be a beautiful sunset launch.
Like the end of a Western - riding off into the sunset. In exactly the wrong direction.
-
#156
by
kevin-rf
on 15 May, 2017 16:08
-
Launch weather forecast, now 90% GO:
Launch day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 10%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule
Delay day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 20%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule, Liftoff Winds
That's about as good as it gets. Should be a beautiful sunset launch.
Like the end of a Western - riding off into the sunset. In exactly the wrong direction.
Isn't local sunset at 8:06 Eastern, we are not hoping for an extended hold are we?
-
#157
by
rpapo
on 15 May, 2017 16:10
-
Isn't local sunset at 8:06 Eastern, we are not hoping for an extended hold are we?
Even without a hold, the sun angle will be low and the backscatter light in the air less. Both of which make for good launch lighting conditions.
-
#158
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 15 May, 2017 16:10
-
Launch weather forecast, now 90% GO:
Launch day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 10%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule
Delay day probability of violating launch weather constraints: 20%
Primary concern(s): Cumulus Cloud Rule, Liftoff Winds
That's about as good as it gets. Should be a beautiful sunset launch.
Like the end of a Western - riding off into the sunset. In exactly the wrong direction.
Isn't local sunset at 8:06 Eastern, we are not hoping for an extended hold are we?
You are such a wet blanket
-
#159
by
northenarc
on 15 May, 2017 17:48
-
There seems to be only one webcast as with NROL-76, guess this means separate technical webcasts have been retired.
