SpaceX Falcon 9 - Inmarsat 5 F4 - May 15, 2017 - DISCUSSION

[stcks]

If SpaceX quietly rolled out Block 4 hardware on the NRO launch, is there any possibility of ASDS return for this mission?

No

[envy887]

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.

[old_sellsword]

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?

[envy887]

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.

[old_sellsword]

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.

[Lars-J]

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)

[M.E.T.]

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?

[old_sellsword]

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.

[stcks]

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.

[Lars-J]

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.

[Herb Schaltegger]

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.

[gongora]

Space Intel Report: Inmarsat reports Boeing-caused jump in US government revenue

With less than two weeks before the launch, Pearce still declined to commit to a permanent location for the fourth GX satellite but said it would operate first over Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

[John Alan]

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...   

[LouScheffer]

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.

[Craig_VG]

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.

[cppetrie]

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?

[KaiFarrimond]

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

[John Alan]

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.

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... 

[Ben the Space Brit]

IF I read the above right... this is an all electric bird... 
That may be 2437kg of Xenon... 

That would be more than 2x Dawn's MPS prop load or, if you prefer, enough to send Immarsat 5 F4 to Saturn. 

[gongora]

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 5

PROPULSION
Liquid apogee engine    445 N
Stationkeeping Thrusters    Xenon ion propulsion
Control Thrusters    4 x 22N (Axial)     4 x 10N (radial)