SpaceX Falcon 9 FT 1st reuse launch - SES-10 - LC-39A

[Grendal]

Wouldn't going from 1.1 million lbs to 1.9 million lbs be an increase of about 73%?

Either way, it's an astonishing improvement over a relatively short period of time.

Oops. Looks like I did my math wrong. It is amazing. You have to wonder what improvements that will happen to the Raptor and what that will mean. I expect we will see it be the most powerful (for its size) and the most efficient rocket engine ever created. I would expect that Elon and his team to settle for nothing less than the best.

It also illustrates my original point that the large payloads that SpaceX originally thought would be only taken on the Falcon Heavy are now being carried on the Falcon 9. Once the Block 5 is finalized and flown then we'll really see the company get into a groove of flight and re-usability that will be truly game changing.

 

[Grendal]

And just to get things really exciting, it seems that SpaceX has been range approved for a March 27th launch. That will be an incredible nine day turnaround for the range. Keep in mind that this means that the other TWO launches that are supposed to happen in Florida keep their launch times solid.

Chris B - NSF on Twitter

"SpaceX has Monday, March 27 (Window 1658-2058 Eastern) *Range Approved* for the SES-10 launch on the historic Falcon 9R 1021 (re-)launch!"

with a time frame of 20:58 UTC with a 4 hour launch window.

The other two launches are from ULA rockets:
A Delta IV on March 18th at 11:44 EDT at SLC-37.
An Atlas V for Orbital ATK on March 24th at 21:00 EDT for the 7th resupply mission to the ISS at SLC-41.

 

[Grendal]

 

[scaesare]

The Block 5 improvement will not be as significant as the change from v1.1 to v1.2. The thrust improvement is only about 10%.

Here is a list of the improvements by thrust:
v1.0 - Merlin 1C - 1.1 million lbs.
v1.1 - Merlin 1D - 1.32 million lbs.
v1.2 - Merlin 1D - 1.7 million lbs.
v1.3 - Merlin 1D - 1.9 million lbs. (estimated block 5)

So overall a 57.5% improvement from Version 1.0 to the estimated final version 1.3.

From this it makes a lot of sense why a heavy payload like SES-10 can now be carried on a Falcon 9 instead of a Falcon Heavy derived from v1.0 boosters.

Wait. You are listing the engines with those thrust numbers. That can't be right...the F1 was ~1.5M lbs of thrust...the Merlin isn't anywhere near that, much less over it.

So I assume you are talking about all 9 engines together for the entire rocket...and still using the #'s from the Wikipedia Rocket Comparison Page, and converting from N to lbs of force, I'm not getting those numbers for the Merlin 1C for instance. Using even vacuum thrust ratings only works out to about 972K lbs of thrust.

Do you have a more accurate source for the engine specs?

Thanks...

 

[Grendal]

Wait. You are listing the engines with those thrust numbers. That can't be right...the F1 was ~1.5M lbs of thrust...the Merlin isn't anywhere near that, much less over it.

So I assume you are talking about all 9 engines together for the entire rocket...and still using the #'s from the Wikipedia Rocket Comparison Page, and converting from N to lbs of force, I'm not getting those numbers for the Merlin 1C for instance. Using even vacuum thrust ratings only works out to about 972K lbs of thrust.

Do you have a more accurate source for the engine specs?

Thanks...

You are correct that I used the 9 engine booster total in pound-force. I was simply trying to show the improvement to the F9 over time. And I did get the numbers from wikipedia which said they were getting their numbers from the SpaceX website. I specifically got the numbers from each individual wiki page for each Falcon 9 version. I was not trying to be too specific or 100% accurate since I was just making a point. The actual exact numbers and capabilities are likely proprietary and not known outside of SpaceX.

Falcon 9 - Wikipedia

On the page there are links to each individual version. Though the numbers are along the right side of the page for the generic page.

 

[scaesare]

Thanks, I figured you probably had better data... appreciate it, and all of the great info you provide here... I've learned a bunch!

 

[Grendal]

And it looks like the launch will be pushed out because the:

Atlas V for Orbital ATK on March 24th at 21:00 EDT for the 7th resupply mission to the ISS at SLC-41 has been pushed out to the 27th.

No official time for SpaceX has come out but the earliest will be on the 29th now.

So no issues with SpaceX but their launch is still delayed.... I'll post the new launch time when it becomes official.

 

[miimura]

What is the minimum separation for these independent launches? What aspect requires days of separation when the companies involved and pads are completely separate?

 

[dhanson865]

What is the minimum separation for these independent launches? What aspect requires days of separation when the companies involved and pads are completely separate?

Currently the range is asking for 36 hours separation which is much less than the prior limits (historically they used to be weeks, then days, now we are pushing for hours). SpaceX is asking for the tightest time separation allowable at this point.

During a launch all personnel and equipment are evacuated for safely should there be a launch failure. A fully loaded rocket exploding can cause damage, injury, and/or death from miles away.


PHOTOS: Delta-IV Launches Multinational WGS-9 Into Twilight Skies « AmericaSpace

He said that given the Falcon-9 has demonstrated flight with an Autonomous Range Safety System, like that already used by Atlas and Delta rockets, the Eastern Range can now launch separate Falcon, Atlas-V and Delta-IV vehicles within just 36 hours.

He said in the near future that will make it possible to launch two SpaceX Falcons within a span of about 16 hours, one off Launch Complex 39A and the other off Launch Complex 40 (which was heavily damaged when a Falcon-9 exploded on the pad last year).

 

[miimura]

Currently the range is asking for 16 hours separation which is much less than the prior limits (historically they used to be weeks, then days, now we are pushing for hours). SpaceX is asking for the tightest time separation allowable at this point.

During a launch all personnel and equipment are evacuated for safely should there be a launch failure. A fully loaded rocker exploding can cause damage, injury, and/or death from miles away.

What all is involved in "the range"? I assume radar coverage and making sure the air and sea in the affected down range area is clear. With 16 hours, they would need to establish a clear area, clear the launch, then shut it down, go home, and do it all again. Why not just do everything for two launches in one session, just making sure that the two rockets are different trajectories so that they don't interfere with each other? I know I'm oversimplifying this, but I'm just curious.

 

[dhanson865]

What all is involved in "the range"? I assume radar coverage and making sure the air and sea in the affected down range area is clear. With 16 hours, they would need to establish a clear area, clear the launch, then shut it down, go home, and do it all again. Why not just do everything for two launches in one session, just making sure that the two rockets are different trajectories so that they don't interfere with each other? I know I'm oversimplifying this, but I'm just curious.

I'm no range expert but here are my first thoughts.

Ignore the stuff down range. On the range itself are fuel tanks, trucks, crew members, cranes, whatever. The equipment to put a rocket in place and get it fueled takes time to setup, time to do its thing, time to remove it and get to safety.

The fuel has to be kept at insanely cold temps and can only be done for very very short periods. Even if you didn't have to worry about the fuel temps. You can't just stand up two rockets at the same time within a couple of miles of each other and launch one without risking destroying both if the first launch fails.

They might get it all down to a less than 8 hour process at some point and start launching two rockets a day but as it stands now it takes a long time just to move the rocket on to the launch site, get it upright, get all the cargo on board (temp sensitive and live cargo board last), top the fuel off, keep topping the fuel off, keep topping that fuel off until the rocket launches.

 

[dhanson865]

as an example this news piece says 3.5 miles away wasn't a fully safe viewing distance Slight accident risk for crowds at Kennedy Space Center - USATODAY.com

They then asked for the viewing area to be 12 miles away.

Google Maps shows walking 5 miles or so between LC39 and LC40, shorter as the debris flies. Even less distance if you are comparing LC39A vs LC39B (maybe less than a quarter mile?)

See Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 - Wikipedia 39A and 39B are at the top of the picture on the coast. Inside the buildings at the bottom are probably only safe as the buildings are reinforced if nothing else to be hurricane proof.

And with only one road in or out from the pads you don't want a big crane or something blocking your way if you are trying to get away from an out of temp fuel tank that might explode in a minute or two.

Just too much money, equipment, and lives on the line to not have movements highly coordinated if not orchestrated or choreographed.

 

[miimura]

Ok, I just looked at the layout of KSC and Cape Canaveral and LC-39A is the next pad to the north from SLC-41 where the Orbital ATK on Atlas V will launch from. The separation is only 2.25 miles according to Google Earth. So, presumably SpaceX would leave the Falcon in the hangar until the Atlas is safely away.

 

[Troy916]

With the static fire on the 26th (per nasaspaceflight), it would roll back to the hangar to be mated with the payload before the Atlas V launch. And then would be rolled out again after the launch of the Atlas V.

 

[Grendal]

We now have a time frame:

Static Fire March 26
Launch March 29 (1659 - 1929 EDT)

As long as no other delays occur.

On a separate note, NASASpaceflight.com is saying that SpaceX is very happy with the LC-39A clean up and turnaround. SpaceX is saying that they would have made the 27th launch date for launch pad readiness. Remember that it was launch pad readiness that kept causing delays for EchoStar 23 after CRS-10. That shows significant improvement. Congratulations to the SpaceX ground team.

 

[Mike1080i]

What all is involved in "the range"? I assume radar coverage and making sure the air and sea in the affected down range area is clear. With 16 hours, they would need to establish a clear area, clear the launch, then shut it down, go home, and do it all again. Why not just do everything for two launches in one session, just making sure that the two rockets are different trajectories so that they don't interfere with each other? I know I'm oversimplifying this, but I'm just curious.

Here's a NASA page that discusses the Eastern Range. It's over 10k miles long! Beyond the radar and other tracking assets, one notable difference is that since each rocket is a different beast, they have different telemetry formats, even between stages on the same vehicle. To make sure everything is setup properly for each vehicle takes a bit of work.

You can't just stand up two rockets at the same time within a couple of miles of each other and launch one without risking destroying both if the first launch fails.

If the risk is accepted, it's possible to launch from one pad while another is in prep on another pad for launch in a few days, although no active work is being done on nearby pads during an actual launch.

And with only one road in or out from the pads you don't want a big crane or something blocking your way if you are trying to get away from an out of temp fuel tank that might explode in a minute or two.

It's not just the exploding part that is a concern, it's also highly toxic chemicals that might drift in the wind towards any people before they can evacuate the area. Most satellites and spacecraft including Dragon, use hydrazine for fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer neither are things you want to breathe.

 

[Electroman]

For pure fun, visual treat and entertainment value - I say let them synchronize the count down, and shoot them at the same time - kind of a drag race in space. That would be cool...

We can have a 0 to 1000, and then 0 to MaxQ numbers to compare..

 

[jkn]

And just to get things really exciting, it seems that SpaceX has been range approved for a March 27th launch. That will be an incredible nine day turnaround for the range. Keep in mind that this means that the other TWO launches that are supposed to happen in Florida keep their launch times solid.

Chris B - NSF on Twitter

"SpaceX has Monday, March 27 (Window 1658-2058 Eastern) *Range Approved* for the SES-10 launch on the historic Falcon 9R 1021 (re-)launch!"

with a time frame of 20:58 UTC with a 4 hour launch window.

The other two launches are from ULA rockets:
A Delta IV on March 18th at 11:44 EDT at SLC-37.
An Atlas V for Orbital ATK on March 24th at 21:00 EDT for the 7th resupply mission to the ISS at SLC-41.

I guess launch window is 12:58-16:58 UTC
(-4 h, not +4h)

 

[HVM]

Have you forget which way the Earth rotates? It's 1659-1929 EDT and 2059-2329 UTC

 

[rabar10]

Mod note: moved a few posts to Rocket drag race