SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 7 : July 25, 2018 : Vandenberg - DISCUSSION

[gongora]

DISCUSSION THREAD for Flight 7 of the Iridium NEXT missions.

Flight 7 successfully launched July 25, 2018 at 04:39 PDT / 11:39 UTC on a new Falcon 9 B1048 from SLC-4 at Vandenberg.  The first stage successfully landed on the drone ship JRTI.  Fairing recovery attempt was unsuccessful.

   Flight 7 will send all of its satellites into plane 5.

   NSF Threads for Iridium NEXT Flight 7: Discussion / Update
   NSF Articles for Iridium NEXT Flight 7:


See the Flight 1 Discussion Thread for more information and links to other Iridium Next threads and articles.

General information for Iridium flights 1-5 & 7-8
   Payload Mass: 8600kg for 10 satellites + 1000kg for dispenser = 9600kg
   Launch orbit: 625km, 86.66 degrees
   Operational orbit: 778km, 86.4 degrees

81 Satellites will be built for Iridium NEXT, with 66 being needed for a fully operational constellation.  All of the satellites will carry ADS-B aviation tracking hosted payloads for Aireon, and 60 of the satellites will carry AIS maritime tracking hosted payloads for exactEarth.


Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
   SpaceX News Articles (Recent)  /   SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews)
   SpaceX Dragon Articles  /  SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions)
   L2 SpaceX Section

[Kaputnik]

Do we know anything about the booster for this flight?

[gongora]

Do we know anything about the booster for this flight?

New booster, don't know serial number.

[Elthiryel]

https://twitter.com/Elthiryel/status/1001120220625408001

Elthiryel @Elthiryel

Hello @IridiumBoss! Is there already any NET date for the Iridium-7 launch?

https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1001144325521231872

Matt Desch @IridiumBoss

No, haven't provided a specific date , but iI'm expecting it in about mid to late July.

[vaporcobra]

I couldn't find an Iridium-8 thread, but Matt Desch said that Flight 8 was NET "September or early-October" in the Iridium-6 recap.

[Chris Bergin]

HAWTHORNE, Calif. – June 13, 2018. Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX's Iridium-7 mission from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The launch is targeted for no earlier than July. 

A Falcon 9 rocket will deliver ten Iridium NEXT satellites to low-Earth orbit (LEO).

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Announcement of L7 date/time imminent.  (Hint: shipping first two satellites to VAFB tomorrow...).  RTLS unlikely due to our mission profile.

https://twitter.com/iridiumboss/status/1007339109612912640

[Chris Bergin]

Iridium Release:

Iridium-7 Target Launch Date Announced

MCLEAN, Va. – June 15, 2018 – Iridium Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: IRDM) announced today that the seventh Iridium® NEXT mission has been targeted by SpaceX for launch on July 20, 2018, from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The Falcon 9 rocket will launch 10 Iridium NEXT satellites to low Earth orbit (LEO) from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California at approximately 5:12 am PDT (12:12 UTC). An exact instantaneous launch window time will be available closer to the launch date. As the second-to-last launch of the planned Iridium NEXT program, this mission will increase the total number of Iridium NEXT satellites in space to 65.

All 10 satellites for this mission will be deployed to Iridium orbital plane number 5 where they will go into operation immediately following a thorough testing and validation process.  The Iridium network is comprised of six polar orbiting planes, each containing 11 operational crosslinked satellites, for a total of 66 satellites in the active constellation. Once all the satellites from the Iridium-7 mission are operational, plane 5 will be the fourth orbital plane to be comprised entirely of Iridium NEXT satellites.  In total, 81 Iridium NEXT satellites are being built, with 66 in the operational constellation, nine serving as on-orbit spares and six serving as ground spares.

Iridium NEXT is the company's $3 billion, next-generation, mobile, global satellite network scheduled for completion in 2018. Iridium NEXT is replacing the company's first generation global constellation in one of the largest technology upgrades ever completed in space. It represents the evolution of critical communications infrastructure that governments and organizations worldwide rely on to drive business, enable connectivity, empower disaster relief efforts and more.

For more information about Iridium NEXT, please visit www.IridiumNEXT.com

[hopalong]

Sunrise in LA is 05:56 on the 20th July, so we may see some front lit exhaust trails in the western sky.

[Norm38]

While it is understood that the increased ability of a Block 5 Falcon 9 launching an Iridium NEXT mission leaves enough performance margin and propellant to RTLS to Vandenberg, it is likely that environmental restrictions (seal nesting/mating season) or technical work on the landing pad at SLC-4W prevent Iridium NEXT-7 from attempting the first West Coast RTLS.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/spacex-ula-manifests-spacex-1st-rtls-vandenberg/

Oh come on!  So they can launch a rocket on 9 engines next to nesting seals, but they can't land the same rocket 10 minutes later on 3/1 engines?  Is it the sonic boom?

This says the wildlife at Vandy has been adjusting to the noise.  I think they worry too much.
https://lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/elephant-seals-return-to-vandenberg-air-force-base/article_60d47201-81f4-5ceb-a40e-89852991e8ec.html

[woods170]

While it is understood that the increased ability of a Block 5 Falcon 9 launching an Iridium NEXT mission leaves enough performance margin and propellant to RTLS to Vandenberg, it is likely that environmental restrictions (seal nesting/mating season) or technical work on the landing pad at SLC-4W prevent Iridium NEXT-7 from attempting the first West Coast RTLS.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/spacex-ula-manifests-spacex-1st-rtls-vandenberg/

Oh come on!  So they can launch a rocket on 9 engines next to nesting seals, but they can't land the same rocket 10 minutes later on 3/1 engines?  Is it the sonic boom?

I was originally trained to be a biologist. One thing I learned over the years is this: never argue with environmentalists. You'll lose.

[deruch]

While it is understood that the increased ability of a Block 5 Falcon 9 launching an Iridium NEXT mission leaves enough performance margin and propellant to RTLS to Vandenberg, it is likely that environmental restrictions (seal nesting/mating season) or technical work on the landing pad at SLC-4W prevent Iridium NEXT-7 from attempting the first West Coast RTLS.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/spacex-ula-manifests-spacex-1st-rtls-vandenberg/

Oh come on!  So they can launch a rocket on 9 engines next to nesting seals, but they can't land the same rocket 10 minutes later on 3/1 engines?  Is it the sonic boom?

This says the wildlife at Vandy has been adjusting to the noise.  I think they worry too much.
https://lompocrecord.com/news/local/military/vandenberg/elephant-seals-return-to-vandenberg-air-force-base/article_60d47201-81f4-5ceb-a40e-89852991e8ec.html

Yes, it's the sonic boom that is the major concern for wildlife impact.

Another, IMO more likely, reason is that it would necessitate a revised launch license to allow it.  The current license is explicitly limited to downrange recovery or ocean disposal.  And since there is only two Iridium launches left the effort to apply for such a change may not be considered worth it vs. just recovering the boosters on an ASDS for them.  Or, the lead time required for license changes may not have allowed for requesting such a change WRT Iridium 7.  Maybe that will be different for Iridium 8.

[catdlr]

[Launch Alert] July 20 Dawn Launch

Launch Alert
4:47 PM

For those of you who are hoping to see an impressive launch, here is an item I just posted at www.spacearchive.info:

"The next announced Vandenberg AFB rocket launch is a Falcon 9 on the morning of July 20. The vehicle is slated to lift off from Space Launch Complex-4E at 05:12 PDT and places Iridium NEXT satellites 56-65 into orbit. The first stage's bright flame could make the early portion of this launch visible for more than 120 miles. Liftoff occurs 54 minutes before Vandenberg AFB sunrise. A computer simulation by Rick Baldridge shows the rocket will climb into the sunlight at T+ 3 minutes 30 seconds. If so, this would create an impressive display as the rocket's exhaust is illuminated at high altitude by the sun and suspended in a deep twilight sky."

[ZachS09]

[Launch Alert] July 20 Dawn Launch

Launch Alert
4:47 PM

For those of you who are hoping to see an impressive launch, here is an item I just posted at www.spacearchive.info:

"The next announced Vandenberg AFB rocket launch is a Falcon 9 on the morning of July 20. The vehicle is slated to lift off from Space Launch Complex-4E at 05:12 PDT and places Iridium NEXT satellites 56-65 into orbit. The first stage's bright flame could make the early portion of this launch visible for more than 120 miles. Liftoff occurs 54 minutes before Vandenberg AFB sunrise. A computer simulation by Rick Baldridge shows the rocket will climb into the sunlight at T+ 3 minutes 30 seconds. If so, this would create an impressive display as the rocket's exhaust is illuminated at high altitude by the sun and suspended in a deep twilight sky."

Both the first and second stages will have separated by T+210 seconds, which might be past the end of the first stage's partial boostback burn and about a minute into the second stage's first burn. So, when both stages are illuminated, the second stage's plume will start out huge.

[aero]

It may be more spectacular than that! Sunlight is refracted around the Earth so some rays of light will strike the rocket before it rises into direct light. I have no idea how high the rocket will be before the first refracted rays reach it but I think that the plume will start to brighten several, if not many seconds before reaching "sunrise."

[Star One]

While it is understood that the increased ability of a Block 5 Falcon 9 launching an Iridium NEXT mission leaves enough performance margin and propellant to RTLS to Vandenberg, it is likely that environmental restrictions (seal nesting/mating season) or technical work on the landing pad at SLC-4W prevent Iridium NEXT-7 from attempting the first West Coast RTLS.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/07/spacex-ula-manifests-spacex-1st-rtls-vandenberg/

Oh come on!  So they can launch a rocket on 9 engines next to nesting seals, but they can't land the same rocket 10 minutes later on 3/1 engines?  Is it the sonic boom?

I was originally trained to be a biologist. One thing I learned over the years is this: never argue with environmentalists. You'll lose.

In this case for good reason. Seems some posters need to take a wider view of things.

[Norm38]

I do take a wider view of things.  We don't launch rockets all up and down the coast, there's one location.  I wouldn't expect Vandy to be the only or the best seal habitat in California.  Second, what has the greater environmental impact?  Bringing the rocket back to land, or sending out the drone ship across hundreds of miles of ocean each time? How much ocean impact is that?
Once RTLS is happening, I would hope they aren't forcing barge landings for missions when they're not necessary.  We'll find out.

[mme]

I do take a wider view of things.  We don't launch rockets all up and down the coast, there's one location.  I wouldn't expect Vandy to be the only or the best seal habitat in California.  Second, what has the greater environmental impact?  Bringing the rocket back to land, or sending out the drone ship across hundreds of miles of ocean each time? How much ocean impact is that?
Once RTLS is happening, I would hope they aren't forcing barge landings for missions when they're not necessary.  We'll find out.

1. We don't know this was environmental delay.
2. There are very few rookeries left on the coast.
3. When I was growing up rivers literally caught on fire, the Santa Barbara beach was one big oil slick, we had "smog days" where we could not play outside because our lungs were burning and species where going endangered do to lead poisoning. Personally I'm OK if we're a little over cautious at times.

[guckyfan]

Maybe the concern is that engine noise ramps up more slowly than the sonic boom on return. I suggest putting speakers at the beach where the seals may be and have an announcement of the imminent boom to prepare them. Or assuming they don't speak english, any noise should do the trick.

[gongora]

The Vandenberg Landing Facilities thread is:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40443.0

This discussion really doesn't have anything to do with the Iridium missions.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Iridium Announces Updated Dates for Iridium-7 Launch and Second-Quarter 2018 Earnings Call 

MCLEAN, Va. – July 10, 2018 – Iridium Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: IRDM) announced today an updated launch date for the seventh Iridium® NEXT launch and as a result, a revised date for its second-quarter 2018 earnings call. The Iridium-7 mission is now targeting July 25, 2018 from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California with an instantaneous launch window of 4:39:26 am PDT (11:39:26 UTC). This updated schedule comes after SpaceX informed Iridium that more time was needed to prepare the rocket for launch.

If my calculations are correct, this means Iridium 7 will launch only 14 minutes after VA244!

[codav]

Static fire date?

If the launch date holds, static fire should happen today or tomorrow. VAFB static fires are always sneaky, most times we just get to know about it by the confirmation from SpaceX after the test.

[Robotbeat]

Iridium Announces Updated Dates for Iridium-7 Launch and Second-Quarter 2018 Earnings Call 

MCLEAN, Va. – July 10, 2018 – Iridium Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: IRDM) announced today an updated launch date for the seventh Iridium® NEXT launch and as a result, a revised date for its second-quarter 2018 earnings call. The Iridium-7 mission is now targeting July 25, 2018 from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California with an instantaneous launch window of 4:39:26 am PDT (11:39:26 UTC). This updated schedule comes after SpaceX informed Iridium that more time was needed to prepare the rocket for launch.

If my calculations are correct, this means Iridium 7 will launch only 14 minutes after VA244!

...for those who haven’t memorized these things, that’s an Ariane 5 Launch.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Copying from the updates thread:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1020520790108672000?s=19

SpaceX
@SpaceX
Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete— targeting July 25 launch of Iridium-7 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

[Wolfram66]

More Cryptic symbology in mission patch?
Red = obvious
Blue = maybe
V for Plane 5

[Joffan]

More Cryptic symbology in mission patch?
Red = obvious
Blue = maybe
V for Plane 5

10 whiskers alluding to the 10 satellites (orbital tracks?)
General launch flame effect on the fur
Reference to howling at the moon = satellite.
Black star, gap yet to be filled = launch 8

(the white stars are all the same size so I don't know which is launch 7 )

[RubberToe]

Does the fairing recovery ship only try and capture a single fairing? If so, what happens to the other one? Will there ever be two recovery ships to capture both halves?

RT

[envy887]

Does the fairing recovery ship only try and capture a single fairing? If so, what happens to the other one? Will there ever be two recovery ships to capture both halves?

RT

Yes. It splashes and get fished out of the ocean. Probably, but we don't know yet.

[cscott]

Does the fairing recovery ship only try and capture a single fairing? If so, what happens to the other one? Will there ever be two recovery ships to capture both halves?

RT

See https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46033.0

[RubberToe]

Does the fairing recovery ship only try and capture a single fairing? If so, what happens to the other one? Will there ever be two recovery ships to capture both halves?

RT

See https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46033.0

Thanks, I read a story on another site about the ship departing to catch the fairing and there was no mention in the entire story about the fact that there were two fairings and only one ship. It seemed like an oversight in the story.

Looking forward to seeing at least one fairing captured tomorrow if all goes well.

RT

[deruch]

Does the fairing recovery ship only try and capture a single fairing? If so, what happens to the other one? Will there ever be two recovery ships to capture both halves?

See https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46033.0

Thanks, I read a story on another site about the ship departing to catch the fairing and there was no mention in the entire story about the fact that there were two fairings and only one ship. It seemed like an oversight in the story.

Looking forward to seeing at least one fairing captured tomorrow if all goes well.

Maybe a bit of jargon confusion.  There is only one fairing.  But that fairing separates into 2 distinct halves which come down independently.  The ship is currently only attempting to catch a single half and, supposing both halves survive, will probably fish the second half out of the water. 

[Lar]

Murkiest/darkest successful landing pic yet?

[WindyCity]

It was a perfect launch. Just not picture perfect. Congrats, SpaceX!

[SciNews]

Main events of the launch and landing

View of the first stage on the droneship and Iridium-7 satellites deployment

[docmordrid]

More Cryptic symbology in mission patch?
Red = obvious
Blue = maybe
V for Plane 5

10 whiskers alluding to the 10 satellites (orbital tracks?)
General launch flame effect on the fur
Reference to howling at the moon = satellite.
Black star, gap yet to be filled = launch 8

(the white stars are all the same size so I don't know which is launch 7 )

Arctic wolves? IIRC they're carrying Aireon hosted payloads for NAV Canada. 10 whiskers on the wolf, 10 satellites, 10 Aireon paylods.

[cscott]

Any wild speculation as to why the lights went out on the ASDS? My theory is just that the cameras were set to auto-exposure, and the one bright/hot bit of flame/metal (depending if the camera was IR or visible) was irising everything down, and it gradually fixed itself over the next 30 minutes as the flame burnt out/metal cooled down.

But also possible that someone switched off the landing lights on the ASDS by accident, or something like that? I don't think 30min is enough time for the support ship landing crew to board, so it probably wasn't something that got toasted or would need to be fixed by a human.

[HarryM]

Looked great from here in Paso Robles, esp at stage separation the plume and vapor was making a really beautiful flower-like pattern in the binoculars. Could also see the reentry burn of stage 1 though it was behind some trees and partially obscured. The rocket plume is a rather pretty orange color, makes it quite visible esp in low-light. 

[Jet Black]

How bad was the wind shear around Mr Stephen?

[cscott]

How bad was the wind shear around Mr Stephen?

From the fairing recovery thread:

[...] high winds (16 knots) and waves (2-6 meters in the area). This was found using www.windy.com

But those are surface-level winds I believe.  Wind shear refers to a sudden change in wind speed vs altitude; I don't think there's public data on that.  SpaceX would have released weather balloons from their support ships to get that data.

[HarryM]

You can go to https://www.ventusky.com/ and play around with it. I looked at today's data for @5:00 am and noticed, there was a 16MPH wind from NNW at ground level in the general area where the fairings might come down. Play with the altitude for wind and at about 4200M it leveled off. Then at 9000M it was coming from the S at 20MPH. Not official of course but interesting to look at...

[edkyle99]

This was the 40th Falcon 9 v1.2, a number that includes the AMOS 6 launch vehicle destroyed prelaunch on SLC 40 on September 1, 2016.  It was the 31st consecutive success since AMOS 6, and the 39th success in 39 actual launches. 

 - Ed Kyle

[abaddon]

In a similar vein, it has now been over two years since a planned F9 landing attempt was unsuccessful, excluding the FH center core failure and the Hispasat 30W-6 launch in March where a landing was not attempted due to weather.  The last landing failure of a single-stick F9 was during the ABS-2A/Eutelsat 117 West B launch June 15th 2016 where the first stage ran out of fuel just above the deck of the drone ship.  Since then, there have been thirteen successful drone ship landings, ten successful pad landings (nine missions), and nine flights in which no landing was attempted.  Of the flights in which no landing was attempted, three were due to the payload requiring the booster be expended, six were due to the booster being end of life, and one was due to weather.

[OneSpeed]

Any wild speculation as to why the lights went out on the ASDS?

The most recent nightime droneship landing I can find is JCSAT-16, in which the ASDS deck lights are definitely on before the rocket arrives. However, for Iridium-7, there don't appear to be any significant light sources on the ASDS, rather the illumination is from the rocket plume above. Once the engine is shut down, the only light source remaining is the residual burnoff. So, rather than going out, perhaps the deck lights were not turned on for the landing?

[Alexphysics]

On Iridium 3, the last night landing, JRTI had the lights on too, but the light of the fire after the landing burn shutdown was brighter than those lights so it's hard to notice them. Link to the minute of the landing

[cscott]

Any thought wrt switching from color cameras to B&W IR cameras?  The image from Iridium 7 looks like IR to me.

[ugordan]

Any thought wrt switching from color cameras to B&W IR cameras?  The image from Iridium 7 looks like IR to me.

Camera fallback to b/w in low light conditions.

[bjornl]

... nine flights in which no landing was attempted.  Of the flights in which no landing was attempted, three were due to the payload requiring the booster be expended, six were due to the booster being end of life, and one was due to weather.

That quite literally does not add up 

[OneSpeed]

Any thought wrt switching from color cameras to B&W IR cameras?  The image from Iridium 7 looks like IR to me.

Camera fallback to b/w in low light conditions.

Not sure about that. The colour image from later in the Iridium-7 broadcast appears to be shot from a different position.

[ugordan]

Any thought wrt switching from color cameras to B&W IR cameras?  The image from Iridium 7 looks like IR to me.

Camera fallback to b/w in low light conditions.

Not sure about that. The colour image from later in the Iridium-7 broadcast appears to be shot from a different position.

It's also obvious from the skyline that daylight was coming at that point, almost an hour after landing.

[ugordan]

Seriously, rewatch the landing again

and at 29:16 into the stream the camera switches to color as the engine plume illuminates the area.

[Kansan52]

The digital cameras we use here tend to respond to IR (try aiming a remote control at your phone camera and push a button on the remote).

The still shot above appears to be showing a high amount of IR (heat) being shown by the camera.

[srcln]

Seriously, rewatch the landing again [youtube vid]

and at 29:16 into the stream the camera switches to color as the engine plume illuminates the area.

Definitely. Note the fire suppression piping at bottom right turns from grey to bright red once enough light is available.

[mn]

... nine flights in which no landing was attempted.  Of the flights in which no landing was attempted, three were due to the payload requiring the booster be expended, six were due to the booster being end of life, and one was due to weather.

That quite literally does not add up 

Maybe one case had two reasons

[Johnnyhinbos]

It's quite common to have cameras revert to B&W in low light situations then switch to color as light permits. I have to keep instructing my divers to keep out of the cave areas during live diver communication programs for the public because of this issue (they take a hardwired HD camera on an umbilical with two way communications on a full face mask to interact with the visitors, with the video projected on two 10' diagonal HD screens).


Anyway - I'm in the "no lights were on to begin with" camp...

[abaddon]

... nine flights in which no landing was attempted.  Of the flights in which no landing was attempted, three were due to the payload requiring the booster be expended, six were due to the booster being end of life, and one was due to weather.

That quite literally does not add up 

I wasn't counting the one due to weather in the total, as previously mentioned.

[Comga]

Iridium-7’s Falcon 9 is now being moved to land! I’ll be live streaming recovery on Instagram if you want to follow along. instagram.com/neonheatdisease

https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1023303668412497921

It looks like SpaceX is still using the “old” firstvstage hoisting cap on the west coast.
The new one on the east coast has four cables being used today to retract the Block 5 legs on the Telstar 19 Vantage launch first stage, along with other new features not yet understood.

[kdhilliard]

Pictures from Reddit user Spacexman_spiff of the legless, finless B1048, ...

How unusual is it for them to remove the grid fins from a recovered core while it is still vertical?

[cscott]

Pictures from Reddit user Spacexman_spiff of the legless, finless B1048, ...

How unusual is it for them to remove the grid fins from a recovered core while it is still vertical?

I don't think we've seen very many Ti grid fins, so it may not be clear what is "expected".

[envy887]

Pictures from Reddit user Spacexman_spiff of the legless, finless B1048, ...

How unusual is it for them to remove the grid fins from a recovered core while it is still vertical?

Post in the Updates thread says it went down and back up. Maybe they brought it down to take off the fins? Perhaps they need the fins for another booster?

[Helodriver]

Pictures from Reddit user Spacexman_spiff of the legless, finless B1048, ...

How unusual is it for them to remove the grid fins from a recovered core while it is still vertical?

I don't think we've seen very many Ti grid fins, so it may not be clear what is "expected".

SpaceX has pulled grid fins from standing boosters before in the port of LA. After Iridium 3 at least two of the four aluminum fins were removed within two days of recovery.  I shot an image of that with a low light camera. Left and right fins are gone, leaving only the mount.  Not sure if the one hidden behind was removed as well.

[Alexphysics]

This booster will be going directly to Vandy for reuse in September on the SAOCOM 1A mission so they need to take the grid fins out of the booster to put it on the road truck transporter which has the upper ring around where the grid fins are. The transporter in Florida attaches the ring on the upper part of the interstage so the grid fins don't need to be removed. Also the booster had the grid fins removed when they did that weird tilt with it.

[cscott]

@Alexphysics seems to have the right answer.

I'll just add that Al fins were not reusable: they needed to be replaced for every flight AFAIK.  So procedures with Al fins don't necessarily have implications for Ti fins.

On the other hand, the fins are physically in the same place, so the implications are valid when you're talking about transport requirements, as @Alexphysics is.

[matthewkantar]

I think the Al fins were reused at least some of the time, as I recall seeing photos of patched up webbing on one.

[Steven Pietrobon]

I couldn't make out some of the dark pictures posted in the updates thread, so I've enhanced them to see what's there.

[catdlr]

I couldn't make out some of the dark pictures posted in the updates thread, so I've enhanced them to see what's there.

Seems like the two large clamps holding down the stage requires the legs to be off.

[cscott]

I suspect not all the transport infrastructure has migrated to block 5 forms yet, esp on the west coast.

[cwr]

@Alexphysics seems to have the right answer.

I'll just add that Al fins were not reusable: they needed to be replaced for every flight AFAIK.  So procedures with Al fins don't necessarily have implications for Ti fins.

On the other hand, the fins are physically in the same place, so the implications are valid when you're talking about transport requirements, as @Alexphysics is.

That is not correct - Al grid fins were reusable unless re-entry destroyed the TPS and the Al fin.
As I recollect it, a GTO launch would require the TPS to be replaced but whether the Al fin needed replacing
depend on where they were in the learning/experimentation curve.
Whereas LEO launches just required TPS replacement, at least after they had determined the basic
re-entry/landing formula.

Maybe this is actually what cscott meant by "not reusable". I posted this because I read his post as "a new Al fin was required for each launch". Sorry if this was a waste of time.

Carl

[Rondaz]

I reviewed the status of the Iridium first generation satellites. Their active deorbiting is held up as an example of best practice. However, at the end of the retirement process,  only 65 of the 95 have reentered (68%).

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1200293153112121345