-
#80
by
stcks
on 05 May, 2017 17:38
-
If SpaceX quietly rolled out Block 4 hardware on the NRO launch, is there any possibility of ASDS return for this mission?
No
-
#81
by
envy887
on 05 May, 2017 18:58
-
If SpaceX quietly rolled out Block 4 hardware on the NRO launch, is there any possibility of ASDS return for this mission?
No
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
-
#82
by
old_sellsword
on 05 May, 2017 19:02
-
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
That's not true. The FAA licenses issued recently still call this vehicle "Falcon 9 v1.2" even though there have been three Block upgrades since v1.2 first flew.
What makes the fourth and fifth Block upgrades so special they need a new license?
-
#83
by
envy887
on 05 May, 2017 19:05
-
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
That's not true. The FAA licenses issued recently still call this vehicle "Falcon 9 v1.2" even though there have been three Block upgrades since v1.2 first flew.
What makes the fourth and fifth Block upgrades so special they need a new license?
For expended to ASDS changes, not block changes. The flight profile and hazard areas are very different.
-
#84
by
old_sellsword
on 05 May, 2017 19:07
-
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
That's not true. The FAA licenses issued recently still call this vehicle "Falcon 9 v1.2" even though there have been three Block upgrades since v1.2 first flew.
What makes the fourth and fifth Block upgrades so special they need a new license?
For expended to ASDS changes, not block changes. The flight profile and hazard areas are very different.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. And yes, I agree we would know about it by now.
-
#85
by
Lars-J
on 05 May, 2017 19:24
-
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
That's not true. The FAA licenses issued recently still call this vehicle "Falcon 9 v1.2" even though there have been three Block upgrades since v1.2 first flew.
What makes the fourth and fifth Block upgrades so special they need a new license?
No, V1.2 is block III. (first F9 was block I, v1.1 was block II) We are still waiting for the first block IV launch.
(unless I am mistaken)
-
#86
by
M.E.T.
on 05 May, 2017 19:33
-
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
That's not true. The FAA licenses issued recently still call this vehicle "Falcon 9 v1.2" even though there have been three Block upgrades since v1.2 first flew.
What makes the fourth and fifth Block upgrades so special they need a new license?
No, V1.2 is block III. (first F9 was block I, v1.1 was block II) We are still waiting for the first block IV launch.
(unless I am mistaken)
What is the reason for that? Remaining stock of Block III cores that needs to be used up first, or the lack of available Block IV cores? And for that matter, why not skip Block IV if Block V is already available? Or is it again a case of unused Block IV cores that need to be used up first?
-
#87
by
old_sellsword
on 05 May, 2017 19:34
-
Some things like FAA and FCC licenses would have to be modified, in addition to the launch vehicle. I believe we would have seen the FCC license by now.
That's not true. The FAA licenses issued recently still call this vehicle "Falcon 9 v1.2" even though there have been three Block upgrades since v1.2 first flew.
What makes the fourth and fifth Block upgrades so special they need a new license?
No, V1.2 is block III. (first F9 was block I, v1.1 was block II) We are still waiting for the first block IV launch.
That's how we
assume Blocks work. They're
definitely not as simple as that.
Correction. [SES-10] was a block 1 (crs8) and wont fly again. Block 3 boosters could have multiple flights before being retired.
-
#88
by
stcks
on 05 May, 2017 19:34
-
No, V1.2 is block III. (first F9 was block I, v1.1 was block II) We are still waiting for the first block IV launch.
(unless I am mistaken)
Its maddening that this isn't correct, but its not. What we now know (highly suspect I guess) from various inside sources is that the blocks I,II and III we've all be referring to are different revisions of v1.2.
-
#89
by
Lars-J
on 05 May, 2017 19:35
-
What is the reason for that? Remaining stock of Block III cores that needs to be used up first, or the lack of available Block IV cores? And for that matter, why not skip Block IV if Block V is already available? Or is it again a case of unused Block IV cores that need to be used up first?
Production pipeline. And block V is not already available, it is said to be ready at the end of this year.
No, V1.2 is block III. (first F9 was block I, v1.1 was block II) We are still waiting for the first block IV launch.
(unless I am mistaken)
Its maddening that this isn't correct, but its not. What we now know (highly suspect I guess) from various inside sources is that the blocks I,II and III we've all be referring to are different revisions of v1.2.
Ugh.
Yes maddening, I stand corrected.
-
#90
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 05 May, 2017 21:38
-
The current FCC launch licenses for Florida extend into 2019 ... If regulators consider Block 4 and eventually 5 to be significant, there will probably be amendments to those licenses.
-
#91
by
gongora
on 08 May, 2017 19:11
-
-
#92
by
John Alan
on 09 May, 2017 14:40
-
-
#93
by
LouScheffer
on 09 May, 2017 15:27
-
DYK it takes 4 days to load the 2437kg of propellant mass needed to raise our #I5F4 satellite into orbit? Getting launch-ready at @SpaceX!
https://twitter.com/inmarsatglobal/status/861912275334172673
So roughly 40% of the mass is prop... (2437/6100)... Interesting... 
That does not seem like enough. 6100-2437 = 3663 kg. So burning all propellant at an ISP of 320 implies a total delta-V of 320*9.8*ln(6100/3663) = 1600 m/s. Assuming the same F9 performance as EchoStar, that's not enough to get into GEO (the lighter Echostar 23 had more than this to go to reach GEO), much less do any stationkeeping.
So either this is a more powerful F9, or they will need to do final orbit raising electrically.
-
#94
by
Craig_VG
on 09 May, 2017 16:20
-
That does not seem like enough. 6100-2437 = 3663 kg. So burning all propellant at an ISP of 320 implies a total delta-V of 320*9.8*ln(6100/3663) = 1600 m/s. Assuming the same F9 performance as EchoStar, that's not enough to get into GEO (the lighter Echostar 23 had more than this to go to reach GEO), much less do any stationkeeping.
So either this is a more powerful F9, or they will need to do final orbit raising electrically.
Well if they are doing a Super-Synchronous GTO and or reducing inclination they could possibly get it down to 1600, right? Also I think the total mass is actually more like 6070kg.
-
#95
by
cppetrie
on 09 May, 2017 16:23
-
Stephen C. Smith @SpaceKSCBlog 4m4 minutes ago
I spy with my @SpaceX eye ...
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/861977037107494915
Likely headed in for mating to 1st and 2nd stages ahead of Thursday's static fire? Should we expect to see it reemerge carrying its rocket sometime tomorrow?
-
#96
by
KaiFarrimond
on 09 May, 2017 16:48
-
Stephen C. Smith @SpaceKSCBlog 4m4 minutes ago
I spy with my @SpaceX eye ...
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/861977037107494915
Likely headed in for mating to 1st and 2nd stages ahead of Thursday's static fire? Should we expect to see it reemerge carrying its rocket sometime tomorrow?
Most likely the day later. Depends on what time the Static Fire is though
-
#97
by
John Alan
on 09 May, 2017 16:49
-
-
#98
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 09 May, 2017 16:55
-
-
#99
by
gongora
on 09 May, 2017 17:09
-
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/space/boeing_satellite_family/pdf/Bkgd_Inmarsat-5.pdf
IF I read the above right... this is an all electric bird...
That may be 2437kg of Xenon... 
It has a conventional apogee engine for the initial orbit raising and electric propulsion for the final orbit adjustments and stationkeeping.
I found this link on Gunter's site. I can't find a comparable page on the current Boeing web site.
Inmarsat 5PROPULSION
Liquid apogee engine 445 N
Stationkeeping Thrusters Xenon ion propulsion
Control Thrusters 4 x 22N (Axial) 4 x 10N (radial)
Yes maddening, I stand corrected.
