I think what likely happened is, in the course of their inspections and investigations, they basically tore it down to the structural frame.

That doesn't mean they'd do that to EVERY refurbishment ... or that a lot of the stuff taken off wasn't put back on it again.

So, yeah - after all is said and done, could be a fairly substantial amount of reflown material got shot into space ...

SpaceX has been awarded the contract to launch the X-37B experimental spacecraft built by Boeing. It will launch atop a Falcon 9 sometime in August 2017.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/06/u ... e-mission/

Previously flown Falcon 9 booster rolled into hangar at launch pad 39A, targeting June 17 launch of BulgariaSat-1. Gives a nice perspective of the size of the Falcon 9 rocket. From SpaceX Twitter:

Bagging the USAF's X-37B launch is quite an accomplishment for SpaceX.
I jotted down their launches [from a total of 55 incl. April] out to March next year according to spaceflight now.

June 17 - Falcon 9 • BulgariaSat 1
June 25 - Falcon 9 • Iridium Next 11-20
July 1 - Falcon 9 • Intelsat 35e
Late July - Falcon 9 • SES 11/EchoStar 105
July - Falcon 9 • Formosat 5
NET Aug. 1 - Falcon 9 • SpaceX CRS 12
NET Aug. 15 - Falcon 9 • OTV-5
August - Falcon 9 • Iridium Next 21-30
3rd Quarter - Falcon Heavy • Demo Flight
TBD - Falcon 9 • Koreasat 5A
3rd Quarter - Falcon Heavy • STP-2
October - Falcon 9 • Iridium Next 31-40
NET Nov. 1 - Falcon 9 • SpaceX CRS 13
December - Falcon 9 • Iridium Next 41-50
2018
March 20 - Falcon 9 • TESS
March - Falcon 9 • Crew Dragon Demo 1

Source: https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

JetBuddy wrote:

Previously flown Falcon 9 booster rolled into hangar at launch pad 39A, targeting June 17 launch of BulgariaSat-1. Gives a nice perspective of the size of the Falcon 9 rocket. From SpaceX Twitter:

Interesting that there are no landing struts on that booster - added before flight or is this a disposable launch...?

moo wrote:

Interesting that there are no landing struts on that booster - added before flight or is this a disposable launch...?

I'm not sure actually. It will launch a satellite to geostationary orbit, and the booster has been flown before. I would guess they add the landing struts when it's in the hangar.

SpaceX is really lowering costs...and forcing the competition for US government launches to reveal its monopoly costs. ULA is sticking it to the taxpayers...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06 ... ch-prices/

Although I believe SpaceX is selling below cost to grab market share.

QuarkFly wrote:

SpaceX is really lowering costs...and forcing the competition for US government launches to reveal its monopoly costs. ULA is sticking it to the taxpayers...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06 ... ch-prices/

Although I believe SpaceX is selling below cost to grab market share.

I believe ULA have been overcharging for a long time. With a monopoly they could do that.

I don't think SpaceX are selling their launches below cost, they've stated previously that they're using the money from the Falcon 9 launches and putting them in R&D for their Mars program. Unlike ULA (Boeing & Lockheed Martin), SpaceX doesn't have any other income than launch contracts.

Flyaround of SpaceX Falcon 9 Factory...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BVarZZSgfIP/

Amazing what happens with a little competition.

Planeflyer wrote:

Amazing what happens with a little competition.

Not really - the $422m quoted cost is for a class of launcher that SpaceX have yet to fly, so any comparisons are void.

Also, some customers value consistency over price, they can afford to not be price sensitive - when a military satellite is valued into the billions of dollars, the cost of the launch is less of a consideration. Falcon 9 has 36 launches with 33 successes, including one failure, one partial failure and one pad loss. Atlas V has 71 launches with one partial failure, and Delta IV Heavy has 8 launches with one partial failure.

moo wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Amazing what happens with a little competition.

Not really - the $422m quoted cost is for a class of launcher that SpaceX have yet to fly, so any comparisons are void.

Also, some customers value consistency over price, they can afford to not be price sensitive - when a military satellite is valued into the billions of dollars, the cost of the launch is less of a consideration. Falcon 9 has 36 launches with 33 successes, including one failure, one partial failure and one pad loss. Atlas V has 71 launches with one partial failure, and Delta IV Heavy has 8 launches with one partial failure.

Yes, but the Atlas series has 60 years experience behind it. That is the same logic trying to get a job but everyone requires 10 years experience, but no one new can get 10 years experience without already having 10 years experience.

The USAF knew they were getting fleeced, there just wasnt any other options. Even if SpaceX is charging $100m a launch, that is $300m savings every launch. Even if you have a 10% failure rate, that is $2.7B in savings over 10 launches. If a modern survillence satellite is around $1B and lost in a failure, that is still $1.7B in savings.

Anyways, im fairly confident the X-37B is simply a satellite chassis that can return to Earth, refuel, update a few parts or swap to new surveillance gear and launch again. So the satellite is now cheaper, and that launch is way cheaper, you have both systems reusable, and the X-37B is probably more maneuverable if threatened, or could even de-orbit and be relaunched when safe.

If you risk nothing, you gain nothing.

C'mon Moo everyone except for Other launch providers are better off w SpaceX in the market. And if SpaceX does indeed expand the entire space business even their competitors may proper.

Markets are wonderful things.

As usual we have a bunch of people replying to me as if I just dissed their girlfriends front teeth on her wedding day.

I'm not dissing SpaceX - I am pointing out that there are reasons other than price that come into consideration when you are not a price sensitive customer.

Yes, the Atlas has 60 years experience behind it - diddums to SpaceX, who don't have that experience and as a result have a lower success rate than the one that does. Thats not a negative over all, everyone has to learn somehow, but it is what it is, and if you aren't price sensitive then you may want to commit to using a more expensive, statistically more reliable launcher until the other launcher makes its launch statistics look better.

Yay, SpaceX is "disrupting" the launcher market, good for it, doesn't mean everyone has to treat them like X Factor winners - they need to get there on launch statistics, and they will get there on launch statistics, eventually. The Ariane5 lost a few customers early on in its program when it had a few failures (2 full and 2 partial failures in 14 launches) - it then went on to a further 78 launches without a hitch for a total of 93 launches, making it one of the most reliable launchers around. But it did lose customers early on because of those launches...

Really, stop thinking I have an issue with SpaceX - I do not. I have an issue with the worship of SpaceX, with the idea that just because they are new on the scene, that their launch success rate can be forgiven and everyone should use them simply because they are cheaper.

I would love to see SpaceX succeed - I'm waiting for the Falcon Heavy launch later this year* for them to demonstrate even more capability than they already have done.

But I'm also sane enough to realise that price ain't everything when it comes to launches.

*may not be later this year...

The USAF knew they were getting fleeced, there just wasnt any other options. Even if SpaceX is charging $100m a launch, that is $300m savings every launch. Even if you have a 10% failure rate, that is $2.7B in savings over 10 launches. If a modern survillence satellite is around $1B and lost in a failure, that is still $1.7B in savings.

That doesn't mean a blind thing if each of those 10 satellites is mission critical and simply must be put into orbit - you may save $1.7Billion and lose one (or more, you are after all gambling with the odds here...), but you've lost one satellite you simply can't afford to lose, the issue here isn't money, its capability and reliability...

Thats my entire point. Stop waving the savings around, they often aren't a critical part of the decision tree here.

Moo, the point I was trying to make is that customers, now that SpaceX is viable, have choices that they never had before.

And while you make a good point that it is too early to SpaceX in the hall of fame I think we can all agree that they have achieved milestones almost every expert claimed was impossible.

And done it as a private company.

Game changing applies to SpaceX.

Planeflyer wrote:

Moo, the point I was trying to make is that customers, now that SpaceX is viable, have choices that they never had before.

Never disputed that.

And while you make a good point that it is too early to SpaceX in the hall of fame I think we can all agree that they have achieved milestones almost every expert claimed was impossible.

Never disputed that either.

And done it as a private company.

Nor that. Although they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago if they hadn't won the Nasa contracts... Musk, while visionary, often has issues with cash flow in his tech companies, sometimes coming within hours of having to declare bankruptcy (Tesla, SpaceX...) before finding an angel investor.

Game changing applies to SpaceX.

But only where the game is being played by the rules that SpaceX is changing - sometimes there are house rules, or favoured customer rules...

moo wrote:

The USAF knew they were getting fleeced, there just wasnt any other options. Even if SpaceX is charging $100m a launch, that is $300m savings every launch. Even if you have a 10% failure rate, that is $2.7B in savings over 10 launches. If a modern survillence satellite is around $1B and lost in a failure, that is still $1.7B in savings.

That doesn't mean a blind thing if each of those 10 satellites is mission critical and simply must be put into orbit - you may save $1.7Billion and lose one (or more, you are after all gambling with the odds here...), but you've lost one satellite you simply can't afford to lose, the issue here isn't money, its capability and reliability...

Thats my entire point. Stop waving the savings around, they often aren't a critical part of the decision tree here.

But if you launch 9/10 successfully the cheaper launches save enough money for launch no. 11. It isn't that difficult to build another satellite, especially if you already built 10 of them. Additionally, most programs stretch out over years and are rarely expected to become operational immediately.
You might have a better point if we're talking about single satellites like most scientific payloads. It would have been quite awful if Rosetta or Cassini had crashed. Then again, even a 10% failure rate isn't that bad.
Crewed flights, obviously, can not follow such considerations. I am not arguing that reliability is worthless and it can obviously command a premium but the question is how many customers are willing to pay how much.

mxaxai wrote:

moo wrote:

The USAF knew they were getting fleeced, there just wasnt any other options. Even if SpaceX is charging $100m a launch, that is $300m savings every launch. Even if you have a 10% failure rate, that is $2.7B in savings over 10 launches. If a modern survillence satellite is around $1B and lost in a failure, that is still $1.7B in savings.

That doesn't mean a blind thing if each of those 10 satellites is mission critical and simply must be put into orbit - you may save $1.7Billion and lose one (or more, you are after all gambling with the odds here...), but you've lost one satellite you simply can't afford to lose, the issue here isn't money, its capability and reliability...

Thats my entire point. Stop waving the savings around, they often aren't a critical part of the decision tree here.

But if you launch 9/10 successfully the cheaper launches save enough money for launch no. 11.

It isn't that difficult to build another satellite, especially if you already built 10 of them.[/quote]

Well, these satellites aren't built in multiples of 10, they aren't even built in multiples of 2 - each NROL satellite launched is designed specifically for its individual mission, meaning they don't come off a production line and they are heavily customised. So no, its not that easy to simply bang out another one.

There were only 16 KH-11 satellites launched in the programs 37 year history of launches - thats not production line economics.

And once you take the real cost into account, the savings arguments go out the window - in 2014, the NRO released a document stating that the final two KH-11 platforms (launched in 2011 and 2013) had a cost of $5Billion.

Additionally, most programs stretch out over years and are rarely expected to become operational immediately.

But they are expected to go operational fairly promptly - and satellites such as the Keyhole series were not built on a production line, so the loss of one represents a loss of capability, whichever way you want to slice the cake.

You might have a better point if we're talking about single satellites like most scientific payloads. It would have been quite awful if Rosetta or Cassini had crashed. Then again, even a 10% failure rate isn't that bad.

Everyone values their own stuff the most - I'm *sure* that if a KH satellite was lost on launch, the USAF mission commander would simply sigh and say "oh well, at least it wasn't a valuable NASA probe! Ho hum!"

The USAF, NSA, NRO et al get the budget to not be price sensitive. NASA does not. Hence why NASA is pursuing the CRS platform...

Moo, OK let’s suppose SpaceX was as close to chapter 11 as you assert. This just speaks to risks inherent is starting a new business especially in the space business with all its barriers to entry. As you say there are house rules.

Yes, for satellites that are so expensive that risk of launch failure exceeds the benefits of cost savings offered by SpaceX but the launch costs offered by Spacex will change the entire game. After all with launch costs 10X lower, multiple less expensive satellites can provide much greater redundancy.

The pricing between the Delta IV Heavy and the Falcon 9 is not an apples to apples comparison. This is especially so since the Delta IV exists basically for the sake of launching US government payloads and has some specialized capabilities - like almost double the GTO capability, vertical integration, and the ability to keep some semblance of a schedule - SpaceX can't offer that, at least not yet.

But with the Air Force being the only user at 3-4 launches per year, the fixed costs of maintaining the ability to manufacture and launch Delta IV's are spread over a very small number of launches. Notice the big jump in unit costs between 2019 and 2020? That's because the Air Force is changing how they account for the launches to factor those sustainment costs into the launch costs, instead of as a separate budget item.

And the Air Force is not going to drop the Delta line until they're certain they've got a reliable replacement, because even if the Falcon 9 could life a KH-11 class satellite, they still want a very high assurance it won't end up in the drink. These aren't billion satellites. They're probably more like $3 billion satellites, and the lead time to build a replacement is likely over 5 years.

Musk does achieve much lower pricing, but it's not as wildly different as some think. Actually, on the Atlas side, ULA is supposedly offering additional launches beyond their usual block buys for a little over $100 million. That's really close to the $97 million SpaceX is launching a GPS satellite for.

The Falcon 9 carrying BulgariaSat-1 just successfully lifted off from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Landing was pretty off center, phew!

The first stage did it`s job a second time Amazing. But this looked like a high energy entry, fins glowing. Even the uplink was lost.

Again you couldn`t see the landing. A pitty, because this one looks like it was especially interesting.

If you compare the footage of Ocisly before and after the landing, there is soot at the 11 o`clock position off center, which wasn`t there before the landing. Also, the first blasts caused some water gusts at 11o`clock. It looks like it came down there at first, but when the uplink came back again with Stage 1 already landed, it endet up in the 4 o`clock position off center. So it may have hoovered, or even bounced. It wasn`t a soft landing either, it tilts and one crushcore obviously has done it`s job.
Really waiting for the recovered videofootage from ocisly to see how it came down.

Edit:Ok looks like it was expected. Musk tweets:

Elon Musk‏ @elonmusk 2 hrs.
Falcon 9 will experience its highest ever reentry force and heat in today's launch. Good chance rocket booster doesn't make it back.

Elon Musk‏ @elonmusk 8 min.
Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

Edit:Ok looks like it was expected. Musk tweets:

It shall be interested to see if this stage can be reused (again) - this is the second hard landing from a GTO launch, the previous one resulted in the stage being unflyable.

moo wrote:

It shall be interested to see if this stage can be reused (again) - this is the second hard landing from a GTO launch, the previous one resulted in the stage being unflyable.

Will be really interesting when they make the first second reflight. But I think that will have to wait for the Block 5 Version, which incorporates all reuse lessons learned from those "hard" landings.

But I am very confident they will get there.

The whole concept is brilliant and the recipie to become the most reliable launch platform by a margin.
Just imagine:
This is the 36th launch and as this is a 10-engine vehicle, they actually gained experiance and mission data on a whopping 360 engine runs in real missions. If i remember correctly, of those 360 engine missions, only one engine failed on crs1, which was compensated by the other engines, so at least the crs-mission was successful. Really smart using 9 engines, you can build them cheaper in mass-fabrication and they can compensate engine failures and still achieve primary mission success by using the spare fuel for landing.

Using a simpler engine concept with less parts means less parts to have faults and less chance for assembly errors. And it obviously pays out. I read somewhere that the engines are mostly at fault on RUD`s. Not on the falcon 9. 359 to 1 is awsome.

No doubt, using a lot of the same components on first and second stage means less parts to mature.

Overdesigning all parts for usability also means more safety margin, especially on the first launch.

And launching 20+ rockets a year also helps a lot on their path to getting the most reliable player on the market.

Really clever.

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

The first stage did it`s job a second time Amazing. But this looked like a high energy entry, fins glowing. Even the uplink was lost.

Again you couldn`t see the landing. A pitty, because this one looks like it was especially interesting.

If you compare the footage of Ocisly before and after the landing, there is soot at the 11 o`clock position off center, which wasn`t there before the landing. Also, the first blasts caused some water gusts at 11o`clock. It looks like it came down there at first, but when the uplink came back again with Stage 1 already landed, it endet up in the 4 o`clock position off center. So it may have hoovered, or even bounced. It wasn`t a soft landing either, it tilts and one crushcore obviously has done it`s job.
Really waiting for the recovered videofootage from ocisly to see how it came down.

Edit:Ok looks like it was expected. Musk tweets:

Elon Musk‏ @elonmusk 2 hrs.
Falcon 9 will experience its highest ever reentry force and heat in today's launch. Good chance rocket booster doesn't make it back.

Elon Musk‏ @elonmusk 8 min.
Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good

They can release recorded footage once East Coast OCISLY reaches port.

Really clever fairly sums up SpaceX.

And they are in the steep end of the learning curve. Disrupting a market that needs and thrives on innovation but is the most risk adverse in the world.

aviationaware wrote:

Landing was pretty off center, phew!

Yes. When the stream cut off with the blast clearly on the sea next to the barge, I was afraid it had run out of fuel and come off slightly to the side.

But no, they stuck the landing! Hard one, but nevertheless. Congrats!

It always comes in just off the barge. Just in case an engine fails and it can't slow down. It's better to go splat into the ocean than the barge.

Anyways, congrats to the SpaceX team for another success.

Congrats SpaceX! Always awesome to watch. Extra toasty rocket and a bit off center on the landing, but apparently it was the most challenging landing of a first stage so far. Now looking forward to the next launch tomorrow from Vandenberg Air Force Base!

Next mission today, cadence finally coming along (if involutarily).

Good launch out of Vandenberg today. 1st stage made it back to "Just Read The Instructions" despite weather nearly out of limits.

Congrats again SpaceX! Amazing launch and landing! So impressive every single time. The new titanium grid fins worked perfectly, "Should be capable of an indefinite number of flights with no service." according to Tony Stark.. I mean Elon Musk.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

It always comes in just off the barge. Just in case an engine fails and it can't slow down. It's better to go splat into the ocean than the barge.

Anyways, congrats to the SpaceX team for another success.

I've never heard SpaceX indicate such. They don't have much margin to hold the trajectory off-center until the last moment, and the barge is cheaper than the rockets.

This landing was simply a very tough one. None of the other successful landings have been that far off center, so it looks like they're getting better at correcting for errors.

See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXlpwx3FBYc

Due to various delays, there's only one mission currently scheduled for July - the Intelsat 35e (tentative for July 3). Wonder if any future missions have the ability to be moved up to a July launch?

Lots of good tidbits here on the new Falcon 9 1st stages.

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falc ... next-year/

casinterest wrote:

Lots of good tidbits here on the new Falcon 9 1st stages.

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falc ... next-year/

Thanks for the link! Some great info in there:

Spacenews.com wrote:

The Falcon 9 Block 5 is expected to be far more reusable than the Block 3. Shotwell said a Block 5 booster could relaunch “ a dozen or so times.” The Block 3, by comparison, has an estimated life of two or three missions.

“Three years ago or so we were producing six rockets a year,” she said. “This year we are going to produce more than 20.”

Producing 20 rockets a year is pretty incredible. That's a high rate. It also seems like the Block 4 boosters will be an intermediary design between the current Block 3 and the new "final" Block 5 design, which doesn't need refurbishing between flights, just inspections. Also very interesting that they're contemplating using the Raptor engine on the Falcon program. The Raptor engine is designed for the Mars Mission.

JetBuddy wrote:

Also very interesting that they're contemplating using the Raptor engine on the Falcon program. The Raptor engine is designed for the Mars Mission.

Probably because it gives the best development, test, and durability environment that will help ensure the design will work reliably for Mars. Multiple launches, more time in service, ability to quickly recover and examine the engines. Not to mention the advantages for both producability and reducing costs through increased manufacturing volume.

Tugg

Few photos of the latest recovery:

KarelXWB wrote:

Few photos of the latest recovery:

Great photos. Really shows the scale of the booster compared to the people. This landing nearly went all the way through the emergency crush cores in the landing leg struts. The crush cores are aluminum honeycomb pattern cartridges, which are easy to swap out, according to Elon Musk.

KarelXWB wrote:

Few photos of the latest recovery:

Looks to be leaning quite a bit. This was the high speed landing one though correct? Wonder if the landing pads took a little more stress than expected. I thought it looked a little crooked when it landed.

KarelXWB wrote:

Few photos of the latest recovery:

Looks like that is "Optimus Prime" (see page 9 of the thread) under the booster, didn't know they were using it already. I am curious as to all its functions etc.

Tugg

Everyone ready for tonight's launch? 40% favorable doesn't sound that promising, but hopefully it will clear up.

From SpaceX Facebook:

Falcon 9 and Intelsat 35e are vertical on Pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Weather is 40% favorable for tonight’s 58-minute launch window, which opens at 7:36 p.m. EDT, 23:36 UTC. Launch webcast will go live about 15 minutes before liftoff →

Launch webcast:
http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Scrubbed for today; the launch sequence was automatically aborted by the onboard computers at T-0:10 seconds due to an anomaly in what appears to be the guidance system.

There's a backup launch window tomorrow at about the same time that SpaceX may or may not meet, depending on how the troubleshooting goes.

Re: Karel's pictures. Wow. That thing is leaning very badly. Surprise that it stayed upright. Congrats for SpaceX for taking it to the limit, exactly, not a millimeter beyond!

Just a few details about intelsat's launch:

They are using a mint booster and it will be a 'suicide' mission for the first stage, as this GTO mission taps near the full capacity of the falcon 9.

There is no indication whether they are using second-hand components in there, but it seems the customer wanted new hardware...

New opportunity for a launch tonight. Not sure if they'll go for it or wait some more.

In other news, Dragon has returned from the ISS carrying valuable science experiments and other things.

SpaceX Twitter:

Good splashdown of Dragon confirmed—completing first re-flight of a commercial spacecraft to and from the @Space_Station.

Francoflier wrote:

Just a few details about intelsat's launch:

They are using a mint booster and it will be a 'suicide' mission for the first stage, as this GTO mission taps near the full capacity of the falcon 9.

There is no indication whether they are using second-hand components in there, but it seems the customer wanted new hardware...

Yes, the picture above shows a clean bird, no landing struts on her. So she will not return to be reused.

Amazing how things have changed that this is now "unusual". I think everyone most looks froward to seeing if they'll stick the landing.

Of course it is off the topic but I wonder if the ULA will try to land a booster sometime. Their systems were never designed with that in mind so I doubt they can do it with their current launch vehicles.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Just a few details about intelsat's launch:

They are using a mint booster and it will be a 'suicide' mission for the first stage, as this GTO mission taps near the full capacity of the falcon 9.

There is no indication whether they are using second-hand components in there, but it seems the customer wanted new hardware...

Yes, the picture above shows a clean bird, no landing struts on her. So she will not return to be reused.

Amazing how things have changed that this is now "unusual". I think everyone most looks froward to seeing if they'll stick the landing.

Of course it is off the topic but I wonder if the ULA will try to land a booster sometime. Their systems were never designed with that in mind so I doubt they can do it with their current launch vehicles.

Tugg

Yes, the launches are way more exciting when they land the booster again. But still awesome to watch.

I think Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin will beat ULA to reusable boosters. Their New Glenn rocket is scheduled to test launch before 2020. The New Shepard rocket has already done it many times, so they know the technology very well.

Picture of Dragon heading to port, loaded with science experiments and station hardware. Nice and toasty!

From ISS Twitter (@Space_Station):