6 ms·

I also wonder this! CRS-8 was launched on the 8th of April this year, so given that the launch of SES-10 is slated for Q4 2016, that means there's like, 6/7/8

by tomlock 10y ago

I also wonder this! CRS-8 was launched on the 8th of April this year, so given that the launch of SES-10 is slated for Q4 2016, that means there's like, 6/7/8 months for the turnaround. But I'm hopeful that we'll see an assembly line of rockets landing, being inspected, and being launched, sometime in the future :)

rst 10y ago
The delay between landing and relaunch has less to do with refurb on this particular booster, than with the series of tests that they're doing on other returned boosters to convince both the customers and their insurance companies that they generally come back in re-flyable condition, which have been happening on and off for months. Among other things, a different booster has been put through at least three full-length test-fires at their proving ground in Texas. It isn't clear how much refurb will be required generally, beyond replacing some of the surface thermal protection that came back visibly dinged up. (Well, at this point, SpaceX knows what it took to refurbish one, but I'm not aware of any public statements about it yet.) But they're certainly acting like the propulsion systems don't need much -- the very first returned booster (the one now on permanent display outside the SpaceX factory) was re-fired on the launch pad within weeks of return, without having ever left the Cape, just to prove that they could.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  They would have launched sooner, but public opinion is swayed too much by failure. Engineers and money men don't really care, failure is interesting and valuable. Unfortunately, so is public opinion and support... and every perceived failure has a million armchair rocket scientists shitting on SpaceX because people loove to do that sort of thing... so they have to be unduly careful about it.
  - avian 10y ago
    If that would be the case, SpaceX wouldn't tweet explosion videos on every failure or have live streams of their launches. They would take the approach of Blue Origin that only publishes carefully edited marketing footage where everything always seems to go perfectly.
  - pastullo 10y ago
    This is really not about public opinion. SES insisted a lot with SpaceX to get the first re-used booster at a considerable discount. They were also the very first customer to fly on SpaceX. The delay in launching it comes from two reasons: a) because they had to do quite a lot of extra testing on the recovered booster to certify it again for flight and b) because SpaceX is actually overloaded with launches as they have the most cramped launch schedule of any other company.
- walrus01 10y ago
  Considering the very deep nature of the three-way relationship between a commercial satellite customer (SES), a launch vendor (SpaceX) and an insurer (many companies), I wonder if they negotiated an agreement to essentially embed a thoroughly vetted employee of the insurance company inside SpaceX, working alongside and observing the team that is doing the returned rocket testing and qualifications, teardowns, test firings, etc. I would not be surprised if this is the case.

by tomlock 10y ago

rst 10y ago

The delay between landing and relaunch has less to do with refurb on this particular booster, than with the series of tests that they're doing on other returned boosters to convince both the customers and their insurance companies that they generally come back in re-flyable condition, which have been happening on and off for months. Among other things, a different booster has been put through at least three full-length test-fires at their proving ground in Texas. It isn't clear how much refurb will be required generally, beyond replacing some of the surface thermal protection that came back visibly dinged up. (Well, at this point, SpaceX knows what it took to refurbish one, but I'm not aware of any public statements about it yet.) But they're certainly acting like the propulsion systems don't need much -- the very first returned booster (the one now on permanent display outside the SpaceX factory) was re-fired on the launch pad within weeks of return, without having ever left the Cape, just to prove that they could.

colechristensen 10y ago
They would have launched sooner, but public opinion is swayed too much by failure. Engineers and money men don't really care, failure is interesting and valuable. Unfortunately, so is public opinion and support... and every perceived failure has a million armchair rocket scientists shitting on SpaceX because people loove to do that sort of thing... so they have to be unduly careful about it.
- avian 10y ago
  If that would be the case, SpaceX wouldn't tweet explosion videos on every failure or have live streams of their launches. They would take the approach of Blue Origin that only publishes carefully edited marketing footage where everything always seems to go perfectly.
- pastullo 10y ago
  This is really not about public opinion. SES insisted a lot with SpaceX to get the first re-used booster at a considerable discount. They were also the very first customer to fly on SpaceX. The delay in launching it comes from two reasons: a) because they had to do quite a lot of extra testing on the recovered booster to certify it again for flight and b) because SpaceX is actually overloaded with launches as they have the most cramped launch schedule of any other company.
walrus01 10y ago
Considering the very deep nature of the three-way relationship between a commercial satellite customer (SES), a launch vendor (SpaceX) and an insurer (many companies), I wonder if they negotiated an agreement to essentially embed a thoroughly vetted employee of the insurance company inside SpaceX, working alongside and observing the team that is doing the returned rocket testing and qualifications, teardowns, test firings, etc. I would not be surprised if this is the case.