SpaceX (general discussion)

Launch in 12 minutes (assuming they don't cancel).

Landed at sea on barge.
 
Of note; They did MECO slightly earlier compared to JCSAT-14 which lowered downrange, sep velocity and they had more fuel to spare for landing. Since they had more fuel they did a single engine landing (30s burn) instead of the "traditional" and more efficient 1-3-1 burn for GTO. Next up is Amos-6 which will be the heaviest GTO satellite they have ever launched at 5500 kg, that one will do the 1-3-1 burn almost certainly.

Previously the heaviest GTO sat they have launched was SES-9. During that mission first stage turned into an ADM. (anti-droneship-missile)
 
flanker said:
During that mission first stage turned into an ADM. (anti-droneship-missile)
Click to expand...

That will probably be an actual market segment in the not too distant future.
 
Grey Havoc said:
flanker said:
During that mission first stage turned into an ADM. (anti-droneship-missile)
Click to expand...

That will probably be an actual market segment in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...

ADM customers to be Arianespace Space, ULA, and Boeing?

While the others only TALK of partial re-use capabilities -- with little enthusiasm for the paradigm shift speeding by them at break-neck speed -- SpaceX is working to get the entire launcher package back for re-use. Go get 'em, SpaceX! Elon Musk, the Jim Barns of the space-age!

David
 
merriman said:
ADM customers to be Arianespace Space, ULA, and Boeing?

While the others only TALK of partial re-use capabilities -- with little enthusiasm for the paradigm shift speeding by them at break-neck speed -- SpaceX is working to get the entire launcher package back for re-use. Go get 'em, SpaceX! Elon Musk, the Jim Barns of the space-age!

David
Click to expand...

Arianespace live in their own little arrogant buble;

“We believe what the customers are expecting is not a reused launcher,” he said. “I am convinced they would prefer to buy a new launcher than a second-hand launcher, but they want to reduce the cost. We are working intensely on cost reduction.”
Click to expand...

You know, the same way customers expect a new plane every time they use one. And a new car. And a new bike. And new horse. Also saying nonsense things like this;

So will the Ariane 6 be competitive?

“We have to be,” Charmeau said. “We will be competitive. We will use an Ariane 6 with competitive technologies, such as solid propulsion and cryogenic propulsion, which are more efficient than other ones.
Click to expand...

"Our rocket will have stuffz."

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/13/ariane-6-rocket-holding-to-schedule-for-2020-maiden-flight/

Ariane 6 price is not competetive *today*, with todays prices, so not sure how exactly they expect to be competetive 4-5 years from now.
 
... and their idea of reusability is to fly-back the engine. Period. AND suffering a ten-percent loss of Delta-V to achieve this stunt. A fools errand. Arianespace has their head firmly tucked up their .... err, ah .... their head stuck in the sand.

David
 
"We will use an Ariane 6 with competitive technologies, such as solid propulsion and cryogenic propulsion, which are more efficient than other ones."

Like everybody else? ???
 
A world first;

http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2016/22407810

Meanwhile Arianespace will continue to live in denial...

CRS-8 stage will be reused for this flight, price is about 30% off, possibly more since it is a first reflight.
 
So they use the term “flight proven” rather than “used”. Sort of like the car dealer saying “pre-owned”. I wonder if the price is set to $39.99M.
 
fredymac said:
So they use the term “flight proven” rather than “used”. Sort of like the car dealer saying “pre-owned”. I wonder if the price is set to $39.99M.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for used car dealers to start selling 'road proven' vehicles...

cheers,
Robin.
 
Keep in mind that the companies are now paying for the ride, not the rocket. You generally don't complain about flying on a used airliner or driving in a car that didn't just roll out of the factory.
 
This is great news, and I imagine as the first customer they'll be getting a pretty good rate. I do wonder to what degree this impacts insurance costs, and to what extent that cuts into then savings (until there are more successful 'flight-proven' turn arounds).
 
_Del_ said:
This is great news, and I imagine as the first customer they'll be getting a pretty good rate. I do wonder to what degree this impacts insurance costs, and to what extent that cuts into then savings (until there are more successful 'flight-proven' turn arounds).
Click to expand...

There also was “no material change” in the insurance rate compared to using a new Falcon 9 rocket, indicating insurers’ confidence in the launch vehicle, Halliwell said.
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-20160829-snap-story.html
 
Extra sucky part is the loss of Amos-6, insurance or not. Goddammit.

EDIT; Reports coming in that it might have been payload itself, hydrazine. Earmark this as speculation until we know more.
 
Just found this video on Youtube about the explosion.

https://youtu.be/gy5-X-shRRE

I really hope that no one was injured or worse killed during the explosion.
 
SpaceX says no casualties. The pad was cleared, as one would expect for a test fire.
 
Were they doing their standard pre-launch firing test?

Update: it looks like they were conducting the pre-launch firing test when the failure occurred.

More: well now I'm not so sure.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/01/explosion-at-falcon-9-launch-pad/
An explosion occurred at 9:07 a.m. EDT (1307 GMT) this morning at Cape Canaveral's launch complex 40 where a SpaceX rocket was scheduled to undergo a test fire of its nine Merlin main engines prior to a planned launch on Saturday, carrying the Amos 6 communications satellite, owned by Spacecom Ltd. of Israel.

"Was scheduled" might mean the explosion occurred even before the firing began. We'll just have to wait for details.
 
They were, but the explosion apparently occurred at T-3 minutes as well, so the issue is quite unknown at the moment, with speculation that it could have been a satellite hydrazine leak or GSE / Falcon 9 LOX fueling leak.
 
fredymac said:
Just saw a news blurb that said it occurred during propellant loading.
Click to expand...

This is certainly shocking news. To have happened during propellant loading, it sounds really strange.
 
Yes, it was loading fuel when it happened, NOT during the ~3s engine fire itself.

Video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ

S2 then S1, then payload decided to join too.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336
 
flanker said:
Yes, it was loading fuel when it happened, NOT during the ~3s engine fire itself.

Video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ

S2 then S1, then payload decided to join too.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/771395212304277504

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/771394161756942336
Click to expand...

No doubt we will get to know what the cause of the explosion was. Amos 6 was reportedly worth $200 million (£150 million).
 
in short press statement at SpaceX webpage

they confirm that Second Stage Lox tank explode during fueling für static test firing
and that Rocket and Payload were destroy

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
 
Michel Van said:
in short press statement at SpaceX webpage

they confirm that Second Stage Lox tank explode during fueling für static test firing
and that Rocket and Payload were destroy

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
Click to expand...

Which was all already posted in this thread...

Satellite was not insured for SF and travel, just after T+0s.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409425475174400

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/771409983074426881
 
merriman said:
Did another Helium tank get loose in there?

David
Click to expand...

unclear
seems the explosion happen somewhere at umbrical connector for fueling Liquid oxygen into second stage tank
CrSmYqbUsAA3pFi.jpg
 
Not really, just things we can guess/assume from the videos and pictures. Nothing official yet. But it looks bad, strongback top is bent heavily and i suspect they might even launch their RTF from Pad 39A or Vandenberg (depending on payload) before LC-40 is back up and running.
 
Michel Van said:
merriman said:
Did another Helium tank get loose in there?

David
Click to expand...

unclear
seems the explosion happen somewhere at umbrical connector for fueling Liquid oxygen into second stage tank
CrSmYqbUsAA3pFi.jpg
Click to expand...

Using intersection point of lens flarer lines to determine point of light intensity. Pretty slick. Sure does suggest point of ignition. Well done, sir.

David
 
It appears that it was insured, just in a somewhat non-standard way as maritime cargo, rather than the usual launch insurance. (They did have a launch insurance policy but it doesn't kick in until ignition.) The maritime cargo coverage should reimburse them for the satellite but it may not include the actual launch services, and Spacecom is saying that SpaceX owes them for the launch because they did not deliver the contracted service. I can see their point.
 
I could see how SpaceX would owe them a refund for the launch (assuming they'd already been paid) but not for the cost of the satellite. I'd think somebody's insurance would cover the cost of the satellite.
 
sferrin said:
I could see how SpaceX would owe them a refund for the launch (assuming they'd already been paid) but not for the cost of the satellite. I'd think somebody's insurance would cover the cost of the satellite.
Click to expand...

On that score, via the New York Times:
The Florida accident is also rippling through the insurance market. Insuring the risk of getting a satellite into space comes in two stages. The preflight insurance is intended to mainly cover the risk of damage to the rocket and satellite on their way to the launchpad. Premiums are a fraction of a percent.

Launch policies, which take effect when the rocket is fired up, are costly, ranging from 5 to 15 percent historically.

But the Falcon 9 exploded during a prelaunch test. So launch policies did not kick in. And the insurance payout will fall on the roughly two dozen preflight insurers.

Richard Parker, managing director of Assure Space, an underwriting agency, is waiting to see the cause of the explosion. If it is a design or manufacturing flaw or an operational error, launch rates for SpaceX flights may well go up. His firm had underwritten a launch policy on last week’s flight at 6 percent, he said.
Click to expand...

All those insurers will be looking to claw back their losses from SpaceX. And like SpaceCom, they will have a very good case, especially if design and/or manufacturing faults are uncovered.

Not to mention SpaceCom will certainly now go for additional damages in light of this:
One business casualty of the explosion is the $285 million sale of Space Communications, an Israeli satellite operator, to a unit of a Chinese company, Xinwei Technology Group. That deal hinged on the launch of Spacecom’s Amos-6 satellite, an Israeli design.

The satellite was insured, but because of the explosion, Spacecom’s five-year contract with Facebook and Eutelsat Communications of France to supply internet access to people in sub-Saharan Africa was canceled.

Spacecom’s stock price fell 9 percent on Thursday, and another 34 percent on Sunday. In a news conference on Sunday, Spacecom executives said they were trying to renegotiate the deal with Xinwei and exploring other options.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom