SpaceX F9 - 6th Reuse - SES 16/GovSat - SLC-40

[Grendal]

Launch Date: January 30th, Tuesday
Launch Window: 2123-2337 GMT (4:23-6:37 p.m. EST)
Launch Site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
Booster Recovery: Unlikely, even though it is recoverable by ASDS - Block 3 design

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the SES 16/GovSat 1 communications satellite for LuxGovSat, a joint venture between SES and the government of Luxembourg. The SES 16/GovSat 1 satellite will provide secure military X-band and Ka-band communications links, helping support Luxembourg’s NATO obligations. The satellite was built by Orbital ATK. The Falcon 9 rocket will launch with a previously-flown first stage. Delayed from December and Jan. 15. [Dec. 21]

Will reuse booster from the classified NROL-76 mission in May 2017.

SES 16 / GovSat
Falcon 9 • SES 16 / GovSat 1

 

[Electroman]

So they would rather ditch this in the ocean than use it for any spare parts? Not worth even scrap metal?

 

[Grendal]

So they would rather ditch this in the ocean than use it for any spare parts? Not worth even scrap metal?

I'm surprised by that too. The only thing I can think of is that it is too costly to store a booster they have no intention of reusing, even for parts. I would think they'd want to save the engines, but someone more knowledgeable said that the Block 5 engines use enough different parts that it isn't worth it. Maybe SpaceX will change their mind. We'll see.

 

[ecarfan]

So they would rather ditch this in the ocean than use it for any spare parts? Not worth even scrap metal?

I recommend looking at the big picture as described by Elon last September at the IAC: SpaceX will build just enough additional highly reusable (Block 5) F9 vehicles to satisfy their launch schedule for the next decade until BFR is flying regularly and their launch customers accept BFR as the best way to get to orbit. SpaceX already has a lot of flight proven boosters in storage. They only have so much space and they want to concentrate resources on the Block 5 because it is highly reusable. Block 3 boosters are not nearly as valuable.

 

[e-FTW]

Cross-posting, as the static fire for this one may be in danger if the government does not spin back up quickly this week: SpaceX: Iridium-5 to launch in March; government shutdown creates manifest uncertainty – NASASpaceFlight.com

 

[Grendal]

Static fire complete.
SpaceX on Twitter

Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting January 30 launch of GovSat-1 from Pad 40 in Florida.

 

[RDoc]

I'm surprised by that too. The only thing I can think of is that it is too costly to store a booster they have no intention of reusing, even for parts. I would think they'd want to save the engines, but someone more knowledgeable said that the Block 5 engines use enough different parts that it isn't worth it. Maybe SpaceX will change their mind. We'll see.

I was under the impression that they can't fly it back to land and they want the OCISLY for recovery of the FH center stage. SpaceX is probably a whole lot more interested in what the FH center stage looks like than a previously flown Block 3.

 

[Grendal]

I was under the impression that they can't fly it back to land and they want the OCISLY for recovery of the FH center stage. SpaceX is probably a whole lot more interested in what the FH center stage looks like than a previously flown Block 3.

That is a good excuse. Whatever it is, it has to be a good reason.

I still picture Elon describing how he motivates his people by telling them to picture a bag of cash falling through the atmosphere. A booster is worth $20+ million. Should SpaceX make the attempt to recover the bag of $20 million in cash if it was possible? At worst, you bring JRTI in from the West Coast for the recovery. Then send it back for the Paz recovery. Though I think Paz is the first RTLS for the West Coast, maybe. The point is that you do it if you can or have a very good excuse to skip the recovery. Recovering the fairings would be a good excuse too.

 

[GWord]

At worst, you bring JRTI in from the West Coast for the recovery.

Assuming nominal weather and zero wait at the canal, I estimate time in transit to be somewhere between one and two months, each way. That's assuming the barge can be towed at 5kts consistently while doing open ocean legs (5kts for approximately 4,500nm). Seems like a big commitment both in terms of time and risk, honestly.

 

[Grendal]

Assuming nominal weather and zero wait at the canal, I estimate time in transit to be somewhere between one and two months, each way. That's assuming the barge can be towed at 5kts consistently while doing open ocean legs (5kts for approximately 4,500nm). Seems like a big commitment both in terms of time and risk, honestly.

Good point. I hadn't done the math on the time frame. I suppose my point is more about the fact that if you really want it to happen then you figure it out. SpaceX doesn't want to recover this booster for whatever reason they have.

 

[Cosmacelf]

They have, what 14(?) flight proven cores in storage now? Maybe they are getting to the point where they don’t need any additional cores, especially of the older kind.

Anyone know what the major differences are between block 3 and block 5?

 

[RDoc]

We don't really know what's new in block 5, but it is supposed to be the end of the line for F9 iterations and be much better at recovery/refurbishment/reuse.

 

[ecarfan]

They have, what 14(?) flight proven cores in storage now? Maybe they are getting to the point where they don’t need any additional cores, especially of the older kind.

Anyone know what the major differences are between block 3 and block 5?

The SpaceX Facebook group has speculated for over a year now on that very quesiton. No one outside of SpaceX really knows. All the public knows is what @RDoc stated: Block 5 is designed for a quicker turnaround due to decreased requirements for refurbishment before reuse.

It does seem likely that at this point SpaceX has so many used Block 3 and 4 cores available that they can’t store any more of them. And those cores are not capable of being reused more than a few times (my speculation).

 

[Grendal]

The weather report for Tuesday's launch is out. Only a 40% for a go. The following day is 90%. So it becomes more likely for a 24 hour slip to launch in more favorable weather.

 

[jkn]

Center stage has modifications to take load of side boosters, so it is valuable, even if it is not block 5. Once used block 3 core is not valuable, if they cannot reuse it. Perhaps they cannot even reuse engines.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Center stage has modifications to take load of side boosters, so it is valuable, even if it is not block 5. Once used block 3 core is not valuable, if they cannot reuse it. Perhaps they cannot even reuse engines.

Many of the re-used Block 3s seem to have been from "easy" launches like the CRS missions.

But it might be better to say that they don't want to risk it, because it's not very profitable and Block 5 is coming.

 

[Grendal]

Details on the satellite:

 

[Grendal]

Webcast is up. It was unlisted for some reason.

 

[Grendal]

The rocket is on the pad and ready to go. It has the legs and grid fins on. So it looks like RDoc was correct. SpaceX had likely planned on having the rocket land on the ASDS but, because this launch has come so close to the FH launch, SpaceX has prioritized the FH center core landing. So this core will not be recovered.

Chris G - NSF on Twitter

 

[ecarfan]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but if the core will not be recovered, why would SpaceX leave the legs and grid fins on? Because they are a Block 3 design, already used once, and not worth keeping?