SpaceX Falcon 9 : SES-12 : June 4, 2018 : Discussion

[tyrred]

That's 538 Merlin 1D flights without a hitch.

Today also marks exactly 8 years since the first F9 lifted off.

Happy Birfday, Falcon 9!  You're getting to be so strong and smart, we're so proud of you

Congratulations to Spacex, SES, the range, everyone involved.  Good show!

[The Vorlon]

Was it me or did the camera focus go wonky at spacecraft separation?  The new batch of cameras have not been too robust.

[Kasponaut]

It wasn't you!

And yes the quality of the video from the onboard cameras from SpaceX have lately been getting worse I think.
Either it is wonky (as in out of focus) or wobbly.

This is sad I think - and it is unprofessional.

I hope this is something that Elon deals with sooner rather than later. Surprised it hasn't been fixed already.

[MATTBLAK]

That's 538 Merlin 1D flights without a hitch.

Today also marks exactly 8 years since the first F9 lifted off.

Happy Birfday, Falcon 9!  You're getting to be so strong and smart, we're so proud of you

Congratulations to Spacex, SES, the range, everyone involved.  Good show!

Almost without a hitch - there was that first stage engine explosion/failure in flight a few years ago during a night launch. But the mission was completed nonetheless.

[smndk]

It wasn't you!

And yes the quality of the video from the onboard cameras from SpaceX have lately been getting worse I think.
Either it is wonky (as in out of focus) or wobbly.

This is sad I think - and it is unprofessional.

I hope this is something that Elon deals with sooner rather than later. Surprised it hasn't been fixed already.

Could it be related to the Remote Sensing License issues? Could they be limited as to which quality camera equipment they are allowed to use? Haven't the quality been poor since after Iridium-5?

[JamesH65]

It wasn't you!

And yes the quality of the video from the onboard cameras from SpaceX have lately been getting worse I think.
Either it is wonky (as in out of focus) or wobbly.

This is sad I think - and it is unprofessional.

I hope this is something that Elon deals with sooner rather than later. Surprised it hasn't been fixed already.

Why is it unprofessional? Since video has little or no relevance to the actual mission, it's mainly there simply to gratify the watching public, there's no real incentive to make it super HD cinema quality. In fact, it would cost more. Maybe its simply not worth it to SpaceX to spend the money?

[MATTBLAK]

Hasn't there been some sort of new FAA regulations about HD cams on rockets lately?

[Herb Schaltegger]

That's 538 Merlin 1D flights without a hitch.

Today also marks exactly 8 years since the first F9 lifted off.

Happy Birfday, Falcon 9!  You're getting to be so strong and smart, we're so proud of you

Congratulations to Spacex, SES, the range, everyone involved.  Good show!

Almost without a hitch - there was that first stage engine explosion/failure in flight a few years ago during a night launch. But the mission was completed nonetheless.

That was CRS-1 back in October 2012. It was a Merlin 1C.

[Kasponaut]

It wasn't you!

And yes the quality of the video from the onboard cameras from SpaceX have lately been getting worse I think.
Either it is wonky (as in out of focus) or wobbly.

This is sad I think - and it is unprofessional.

I hope this is something that Elon deals with sooner rather than later. Surprised it hasn't been fixed already.

Why is it unprofessional? Since video has little or no relevance to the actual mission, it's mainly there simply to gratify the watching public, there's no real incentive to make it super HD cinema quality. In fact, it would cost more. Maybe its simply not worth it to SpaceX to spend the money?

Why would it not be in Spacex interest to have good quality video of their rockets *at work*?
Why should they downgrade the video/camera quality? To save money? I don't think so - the difference in price would be VERY small compared to the total coast of launching the rocket.

[LouScheffer]

That would be Inmarsat-5, mass 6086 kg, orbit 385 x 70134 x 24.5^o.   That was a burn-to-depletion.

Since this one has lower mass, and a lower apogee, the performance must be going towards inclination reduction.  This choice appears driven by the satellite - at the press conference, SES said the apogee is near the spacecraft limit.  However,  the performance is very similar.  Starting from a 300 km, 27^o parking orbit, by applying 2775 m/s (Inmarsat above) you can get:
    300 x 70,000 x 24.5^o with 1577 m/s to go, or
    300 x 58,000 x 22.3^o with 1588 m/s to go.

Compared to Inmarsat, dropping the payload to 5384 from 6086 should give 220 m/s more.  But it looks like a targeted shutdown, not a burn to depletion.  If we assume this leaves 1% of the fuel, and the second stage burns for 500 seconds, that's 5 seconds of operation, or something like 250 m/s at the final acceleration of 5G.  So the two effects should roughly cancel.  But we also have the Block 5 second stage.  Extra thrust would seem to have little effect since the second stage gravity losses are small, but better ISP or lower stage mass could help.  But by how much is not clear.

Considering all these factors and making a lottery-quality guess, I predict the final orbit will be:
  300 x 58,000 x 21.7^o with 1582 m/s to go.

New SpaceTrack orbit elements:

2018-049A - 210/58276km/25.94°
2018-049B - 248/58599km/26.03°

0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 43488U 18049A   18154.96373084 -.00000300  00000-0  00000+0 0  9991
2 43488  25.9437 162.9782 8150421 167.9495 242.6112  1.29134293    08
0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 43489U 18049B   18154.96899447 -.00000303  00000-0  00000+0 0  9991
2 43489  26.0255 162.7695 8149247 168.3195 245.9397  1.28158002    00

Huh - not much inclination change.  Assuming a circular 200 km, 27^o parking orbit, that's 2710 m/s to the specified orbit.  There is about 1640 m/s to go to GEO.

That's less delta-V (2710 vs 2775 m/s) than InMarSat had with a significantly heavier payload (where you would expect 220 m/s more from the mass difference).    The only explanation I can see for this is the margin for a targeted shutdown must be quite big, at least 300 m/s.   Theoretically, the customer could have asked for this inclination for some reason, but that seems unlikely to me since they launch similar satellites from Kourou, giving much lower initial inclinations.

At the very least, it appears the Block 5 second stage does not have any big improvement in performance.

[Welsh Dragon]

It wasn't you!

And yes the quality of the video from the onboard cameras from SpaceX have lately been getting worse I think.
Either it is wonky (as in out of focus) or wobbly.

This is sad I think - and it is unprofessional.

I hope this is something that Elon deals with sooner rather than later. Surprised it hasn't been fixed already.

Why is it unprofessional? Since video has little or no relevance to the actual mission, it's mainly there simply to gratify the watching public, there's no real incentive to make it super HD cinema quality. In fact, it would cost more. Maybe its simply not worth it to SpaceX to spend the money?

They spent the money on better quality video before, so they must have thought it was worth it. Question is why they apparently changed their minds on this.

[Johnnyhinbos]

I thought the camera issue has already been pretty well discussed. 

I think a shift towards the infrared spectrum was part of it, along with a cheaper imager.

[WindnWar]

That would be Inmarsat-5, mass 6086 kg, orbit 385 x 70134 x 24.5^o.   That was a burn-to-depletion.

Since this one has lower mass, and a lower apogee, the performance must be going towards inclination reduction.  This choice appears driven by the satellite - at the press conference, SES said the apogee is near the spacecraft limit.  However,  the performance is very similar.  Starting from a 300 km, 27^o parking orbit, by applying 2775 m/s (Inmarsat above) you can get:
    300 x 70,000 x 24.5^o with 1577 m/s to go, or
    300 x 58,000 x 22.3^o with 1588 m/s to go.

Compared to Inmarsat, dropping the payload to 5384 from 6086 should give 220 m/s more.  But it looks like a targeted shutdown, not a burn to depletion.  If we assume this leaves 1% of the fuel, and the second stage burns for 500 seconds, that's 5 seconds of operation, or something like 250 m/s at the final acceleration of 5G.  So the two effects should roughly cancel.  But we also have the Block 5 second stage.  Extra thrust would seem to have little effect since the second stage gravity losses are small, but better ISP or lower stage mass could help.  But by how much is not clear.

Considering all these factors and making a lottery-quality guess, I predict the final orbit will be:
  300 x 58,000 x 21.7^o with 1582 m/s to go.

New SpaceTrack orbit elements:

2018-049A - 210/58276km/25.94°
2018-049B - 248/58599km/26.03°

0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 43488U 18049A   18154.96373084 -.00000300  00000-0  00000+0 0  9991
2 43488  25.9437 162.9782 8150421 167.9495 242.6112  1.29134293    08
0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 43489U 18049B   18154.96899447 -.00000303  00000-0  00000+0 0  9991
2 43489  26.0255 162.7695 8149247 168.3195 245.9397  1.28158002    00

Huh - not much inclination change.  Assuming a circular 200 km, 27^o parking orbit, that's 2710 m/s to the specified orbit.  There is about 1640 m/s to go to GEO.

That's less delta-V (2710 vs 2775 m/s) than InMarSat had with a significantly heavier payload (where you would expect 220 m/s more from the mass difference).    The only explanation I can see for this is the margin for a targeted shutdown must be quite big, at least 300 m/s.   Theoretically, the customer could have asked for this inclination for some reason, but that seems unlikely to me since they launch similar satellites from Kourou, giving much lower initial inclinations.

At the very least, it appears the Block 5 second stage does not have any big improvement in performance.

Is it possible they have reserved fuel in the second stage to do a disposal burn after a long coast?

[macpacheco]

13 reflights and counting.
It's amazing how quickly this is progressing !
Keep this up SpaceX !
Awesome !

[envy887]

That would be Inmarsat-5, mass 6086 kg, orbit 385 x 70134 x 24.5^o.   That was a burn-to-depletion.

Since this one has lower mass, and a lower apogee, the performance must be going towards inclination reduction.  This choice appears driven by the satellite - at the press conference, SES said the apogee is near the spacecraft limit.  However,  the performance is very similar.  Starting from a 300 km, 27^o parking orbit, by applying 2775 m/s (Inmarsat above) you can get:
    300 x 70,000 x 24.5^o with 1577 m/s to go, or
    300 x 58,000 x 22.3^o with 1588 m/s to go.

Compared to Inmarsat, dropping the payload to 5384 from 6086 should give 220 m/s more.  But it looks like a targeted shutdown, not a burn to depletion.  If we assume this leaves 1% of the fuel, and the second stage burns for 500 seconds, that's 5 seconds of operation, or something like 250 m/s at the final acceleration of 5G.  So the two effects should roughly cancel.  But we also have the Block 5 second stage.  Extra thrust would seem to have little effect since the second stage gravity losses are small, but better ISP or lower stage mass could help.  But by how much is not clear.

Considering all these factors and making a lottery-quality guess, I predict the final orbit will be:
  300 x 58,000 x 21.7^o with 1582 m/s to go.

New SpaceTrack orbit elements:

2018-049A - 210/58276km/25.94°
2018-049B - 248/58599km/26.03°

0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 43488U 18049A   18154.96373084 -.00000300  00000-0  00000+0 0  9991
2 43488  25.9437 162.9782 8150421 167.9495 242.6112  1.29134293    08
0 TBA - TO BE ASSIGNED
1 43489U 18049B   18154.96899447 -.00000303  00000-0  00000+0 0  9991
2 43489  26.0255 162.7695 8149247 168.3195 245.9397  1.28158002    00

Huh - not much inclination change.  Assuming a circular 200 km, 27^o parking orbit, that's 2710 m/s to the specified orbit.  There is about 1640 m/s to go to GEO.

That's less delta-V (2710 vs 2775 m/s) than InMarSat had with a significantly heavier payload (where you would expect 220 m/s more from the mass difference).    The only explanation I can see for this is the margin for a targeted shutdown must be quite big, at least 300 m/s.   Theoretically, the customer could have asked for this inclination for some reason, but that seems unlikely to me since they launch similar satellites from Kourou, giving much lower initial inclinations.

At the very least, it appears the Block 5 second stage does not have any big improvement in performance.

Wasn't Inmarsat 5 F4 a MRS instead of GNC commanded shutdown? SES-12 looks like a GNC shutdown since it's so close to the target orbit.

[JimO]

Good chance of Nigeria-region observation of sunlit plume, I'm checking regional media.

UPDATE -- too close to sunrise in Nigeria, better luck [but lower in SE sky] farther west along the coast, Accra or Abidjan.


It was raining in Abidjan, and partially cloudy in Accra, so it's beginning to look like this visual opportunity didn't come together.

[wannamoonbase]

13 reflights and counting.
It's amazing how quickly this is progressing !
Keep this up SpaceX !
Awesome !

Agreed, the reflights are excellent.  Soon to be most of the flights.

Seems we have reached the cadence we can expect to see for the next 18 months or so.  An average of 2 per month covers their manifest.  Until there are new customers or StarLink starts flying.

StarLink doesn't appear anywhere SpaceX site manifest yet, not that they need to show it.  At some point there will be FAA and FCC filings that I'm sure the sleuths on here will dissect quickly.

[tomk052]

Since video has little or no relevance to the actual mission, it's mainly there simply to gratify the watching public ...

I respectfully disagree.
IMO, the internal cameras were never there "to gratify the public". If that were the case, then they would have been placed on the outside of the vehicle, showing much more dramatic scenes.

The cameras were placed there for the engineers. If something went wrong (i.e., a rapid, unplanned disassembly), they would have provided excellent primary evidence or corroboration of other sensor's data.

Since video has little or no relevance to the actual mission, it's mainly there simply to gratify the watching public, there's no real incentive to make it super HD cinema quality. In fact, it would cost more. Maybe its simply not worth it to SpaceX to spend the money?

I have no inside information, but I think that it is very likely that the reduced resolution of these cameras is part of the accommodations reached with the US gov't over the idiotic "got to ask our permission to launch Hi-Def cameras" fiasco.

If I am right about this, it would have cost SpaceX a bunch of money (nothing is cheap in this business!) in order to reduce the resolution.!

[The Vorlon]

It looked like the payload camera was working fine until the bump at s/c sep--then it was knocked out of focus, with the earth and anything closer going out of focus, as well at the image moving a little.

Make no mistake, that camera is not there for those of us playing along at home.  We are just lucky we get to see what happens.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Went to a site visit of the Speedcast teleport in Mawson Lakes organised by the AIAA Adelaide Section yesterday. Got to see two brand new 9 m dishes and the equipment room that will be used specifically for SES 12, so the engineers there were glad to hear of the successful launch.