SpaceX F9 - 10th Reuse - Iridium Next 41-50 - SLC-4E

[Grendal]

Launch Date: March 30, Friday
Launch Window: 1419 GMT (10:19 a.m. EDT; 7:19 a.m. PDT)
Launch site: SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
Booster Recovery: Expended - Possible water landing with focus on fairing recovery.
Booster Type: B1041 - Block 4 - Reused from Iridium 3 on 10/9/17
Orbit: LEO 9600 kg

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch 10 satellites for the Iridium next mobile communications fleet. This will be an early morning launch if it launches on the expected date.

Iridium NEXT | Iridium Satellite Communications
Iridium-NEXT

 

[ecarfan]

Actually, Elon did say that recovering the titanium grid fins was important. They are currently a production bottleneck and maybe expensive too.

Did this core B1041 - Block 4 previously fly with titanium grid fins?

Edit: sorry, my question is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not that core is recovered on this Iridium mission or not. If in fact SpaceX decides not to recover that core on this mission they would never fly it with titanium grid fins attached.

 

[Grendal]

Did this core B1041 - Block 4 previously fly with titanium grid fins?

Edit: sorry, my question is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not that core is recovered on this Iridium mission or not. If in fact SpaceX decides not to recover that core on this mission they would never fly it with titanium grid fins attached.

For information purposes, the first (and only up until FH) use of the titanium grid fins happened on the Iridium 2 launch.

Unless SpaceX has a good reason not to, I expect that they will go for a booster recovery.

SpaceX currently has 6 previously flown boosters available. Only 1 of those is Block 3 (to be used for the Paz launch)

3 of those boosters are already scheduled for reuse.

2 new Block 4 boosters have been made and are on the upcoming schedule. One will be used in an expendable launch.

That leaves 3 Block 4 boosters available now and one more (if recovered) available for future launches.

It's likely that those are the last of the Block 4 boosters. So a total of eight possible launches before the new Block 5 needs to be launched.

SpaceX has three Block 3 boosters that have been launched twice in storage. It's expected that they will not be launched again.

 

[ecarfan]

Great summary, thanks for clarifying the booster situation!

 

[Cosmacelf]

If they had no plans to recover the rocket, I'm sure they would take them off before flight, same with the legs.

Doh! Kinda slow thinking on my part

 

[bxr140]

Whats the benefit with recovering after final flight and parting out vs just sending it off to burn up in the atmosphere

Above and beyond the generic ‘recovery data’ which could be useful in various ways—control algorithm validation, engine performance, etc...

...while a bit pedantic, nothing that’s currently being recovered would be ‘sent off’ anywhere [except ballistically downrange] or ‘burn up in the atmosphere’.

 

[Grendal]

This will be the 50th launch of a Falcon 9. One failure makes the next launch the 50th fully successful launch. I'm not sure how SpaceX will celebrate this but I'd guess the next one will be a big deal for them.

This will also be the 25th launch with no issues before or after launch.

 

[jkn]

This will be the 50th launch of a Falcon 9. One failure makes the next launch the 50th fully successful launch. I'm not sure how SpaceX will celebrate this but I'd guess the next one will be a big deal for them.

This will also be the 25th launch with no issues before or after launch.

I think they have 2 failures, because they have lost main cargo twice. 25 launches without issues is a reason to celebrate.

 

[Grendal]

I think they have 2 failures, because they have lost main cargo twice. 25 launches without issues is a reason to celebrate.

CRS-7 was the only failure after ignition and launch. The Amos 6 failure happened during loading, so by terminology I can't call it a launch failure. It does count as a loss and a failure though.

 

[jkn]

CRS-7 was the only failure after ignition and launch. The Amos 6 failure happened during loading, so by terminology I can't call it a launch failure. It does count as a loss and a failure though.

Amos 6 failure happened during preparation for launch not during launch. If I'm hired to move a piano and I break it while backing it for transport, I should not explain to client that I did not broke it during transport.

You can draw a line between preparation for launch and launch, but I'll say it is a weird place to draw a line.

 

[Grendal]

Amos 6 failure happened during preparation for launch not during launch. If I'm hired to move a piano and I break it while backing it for transport, I should not explain to client that I did not broke it during transport.

You can draw a line between preparation for launch and launch, but I'll say it is a weird place to draw a line.

We're going a bit off topic. I don't know how to explain it better. You can't call the Amos 6 anomaly a launch failure. They were putting in fuel for a static fire. It wasn't even preparation for a launch. The number I was commenting on was how many launches the Falcon 9 has had. That number will be 50. The number of successful launches will be 49. There was another failure and loss of a F9. It's a weird situation. The SpaceX wiki labels it as a loss before launch. So I described it as best I could.

 

[jkn]

We're going a bit off topic. I don't know how to explain it better. You can't call the Amos 6 anomaly a launch failure. They were putting in fuel for a static fire. It wasn't even preparation for a launch. The number I was commenting on was how many launches the Falcon 9 has had. That number will be 50. The number of successful launches will be 49. There was another failure and loss of a F9. It's a weird situation. The SpaceX wiki labels it as a loss before launch. So I described it as best I could.

I don't think I have called Amos 6 as a launch failure. I know my English is bad, but I am careful with key words. I will be calling it failure or failure while preparing for launch. They were doing that. If title is 'launch failures' then you could exclude Amos 6. That is not a stat clients and insurance companies care about. Their opinion matters, not anybody elses.

I remind that Ariane 5 has had two total failures (flights 1 and 14). First one was test flight, but it had real cargo. With 3 partial failures (did not reach target orbit) it has 92 success of 97 launch. SpaceX had better start with Falcon 9 than much more experienced Ariannespace with Ariane 5. Now SpaceX could do 20 launches more than Arianespace in this year.

 

[ecarfan]

Launch Date: March 20, Tuesday
Launch Window: 1508 GMT (11:08 a.m. EDT; 8:08 a.m. PDT)
Launch site: SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
Booster Recovery: Expected ASDS - JRTI
Booster Type: B1041 - Block 4 - Reused from Iridium 3 on 10/9/17
Orbit: LEO 9600 kg

According to the SpaceXNow app, this launch is now NET March 29. No time given. I am planning going to see this launch if I can. Anyone have any more current information?

 

[Grendal]

According to the SpaceXNow app, this launch is now NET March 29. No time given. I am planning going to see this launch if I can. Anyone have any more current information?

It looks pretty solid for that date. It remains an early morning launch at 7:49 AM, I think. Weather can always become an issue to force a delay but California is always a better chance than the East Coast.

 

[ecarfan]

It looks pretty solid for that date. It remains an early morning launch at 7:49 AM,

Great, thanks! I wonder why SpaceXNow isn’t showing a launch time...

 

[Grendal]

Great, thanks! I wonder why SpaceXNow isn’t showing a launch time...

And since I was only on a smartphone trying to gather information, I got it wrong. The launch time is 7:19 AM and 49 seconds since it is an instantaneous launch window.

The first post has been updated with the latest information.

 

[Grendal]

Static fire complete and successful according to SpaceX:

Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting March 29 launch of Iridium-5 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

SpaceX on Twitter

Good overview article about SpaceX and Iridium and this launch:

Falcon 9 conducts static fire test ahead of the fifth Iridium NEXT mission – NASASpaceFlight.com

 

[ecarfan]

Good news about the static fire! My spouse and I are planning on heading to Lompoc this coming Wednesday for our second SpaceX launch viewing!

 

[Grendal]

Good news about the static fire! My spouse and I are planning on heading to Lompoc this coming Wednesday for our second SpaceX launch viewing!

Sorry. There is a delay.

Matt Desch on Twitter:
We are having an issue with 1 of the 10 satellites in prep for Iridium5. Our supplier and launch team is resetting for NET 3/31, with potential to shift into next week, if not resolved quickly. Launch success is priority #1! Will provide more info as available.

 

[MacGreiner]

Any impact on CRS-14?