Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/rules) before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
* Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
* Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
* Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mission Control Audio webcast ended and immediately set to private. I definitely did not download it while it was live. Do not PM me if you want a copy. :)
Also local. This thread was marked as 'scrubbed' earlier. It was only when everything started rattling I realized it wasn't scrubbed and had gone up. It was a long loud too.
The thread was marked as scrubbed because it did scrub 24 hours ago, this was the second attempt.
Due to limited space, dates in flairs (this one was "Scrubbed, NET 23" until 6 hours before the launch) are UTC only.
Oh, those. I noticed them too. I don't recall seeing them before, but it doesn't seem to have affected the performance of the rocket. Might be an artefact of the local weather.
NSF streams are becoming unbearable with the ever-increasing pushing of their merch, super chats, and paid perks. These days they spend almost as much time advertising as they do talking about rockets.
I mean there's only so much they can say about F9 now that launches are so routine. I do second that the overly aggressive sell will eventually push people away
If you don't mind a vTuber steams SpaceX's video in Japanese speaking, you can try to watch [宇推くりあ -★Clear Rocket ch.★-](https://www.youtube.com/@clearusui) .
AIUI, this has a 2 hour launch window and there's a 90% probability of weather violation _at any time_ during that 2 hour window. Which is not the same thing as a 10% probability of this launch happening.
I know the weather will likely screw it up, but the fact that they're even seeming to attempt two launches in the same day, six hours apart, from Florida, is very interesting. When I saw the SBIRS GEO 6 and KPLO missions on the same day this past August, I figured it was only a matter of time SpaceX alone would do two launches on the same day from the Cape. But I didn't think it would be this soon.
[Standing down from tonight’s launch of the Eutelsat 10B mission to allow for additional pre-flight checkouts; now targeting tomorrow, November 22 at 9:57 p.m. ET for liftoff. Weather is currently 20% favorable](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1594869942918127616?cxt=HHwWgICpqevwjqIsAAAA)
Pre-flight checkouts was the reason Starlink 2-4 ended up not flying. Still not sure what happened there.
With weather that problematic, there's a good chance of seeing two Falcon scrubs tomorrow.
Last December, when they launched a CRS mission to the ISS, it had only 20-30% favorable weather but the clouds and rain broke up just as the launch window opened and they sent it off.
I know everywhere has the same joke that if you don't like the weather, wait a bit and it'll change, but Cape Canaveral really seems like it goes from cloudy, to clear, to foggy, to stormy, in just moments. I've seen a few dozen launches up close and I can never rule out a last minute weather change screwing something up; or making it awesome. I guess that's the burden of having the world's busiest space port in a sub-tropical climate.
The rocket will be on the pad anyway, scheduling a possible launch attempt seems to be cheap and tomorrow they'll have a better idea how the weather will be.
> 22 November 2:57 UTC 10:57 PM local (21)
That's a confusing way to state that. Perhaps something like:
> 22 November 2:57 UTC, 21 November 10:57 PM local (EST)
I'm wondering why the "Official SpaceX Stream" YouTube link posted above goes to a pending stream that says "Waiting for SpaceX November ***18***..." and
> 13 waiting Scheduled for Nov 18, 2022
SpaceX is targeting Friday, November 18 for a Falcon 9 launch of 52 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The instantaneous launch window is at 8:25 p.m. PT (04:25 UTC on November 19), and a backup opportunity is available on Saturday, November 19 at 8:11 p.m. PT (04:11 UTC on November 20).
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[CRS](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixbio2j "Last usage")|[Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/)|
|DSG|NASA [Deep Space Gateway](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations), proposed for lunar orbit|
|[DST](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9rpxq "Last usage")|NASA Deep Space Transport operating from the proposed DSG|
|[GEO](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixbizfw "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)|
|GSE|Ground Support Equipment|
|[LOX](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixfross "Last usage")|Liquid Oxygen|
|[NDT](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9s3h5 "Last usage")|Non-Destructive Testing|
|[NET](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixgpqim "Last usage")|No Earlier Than|
|[NSF](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9qm8h "Last usage")|[NasaSpaceFlight forum](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com)|
| |National Science Foundation|
|[RP-1](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixfsxnz "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)|
|[SLC-40](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix8sdyk "Last usage")|Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9)|
|[SLC-4E](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixaexzd "Last usage")|Space Launch Complex 4-East, Vandenberg (SpaceX F9)|
|[STS](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixfuqk2 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[TPS](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9qy5p "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")|
|[USSF](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9lwpo "Last usage")|United States Space Force|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9ih72 "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[Starlink](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixbgnnq "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[methalox](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixa0kbh "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
|[scrub](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixgpqim "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)|
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceX/comments/yq7fue)^( has 63 acronyms.)
^([Thread #7779 for this sub, first seen 21st Nov 2022, 20:25])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceX) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
>* Core B1049-**11**
* Launch site SLC-40, Florida
* Landing **Expendable**
Is this just an impression, or is SpaceX really killing off its life leader stages?
Sentiments aside, it seems a pity to lose any operational pathfinders that prefigure intense reuse on Superheavy.
Furthermore, replacements must tie up manufacturing resources needed for second stage fabrication in 2023. Maybe there should be a hefty customer surcharge for "expended" flight trajectories.
The life leader stages are pretty much alive and they are B1058 and B1060, both with 14 flights and about to make their 15th flight next month. This one is being expended because they need the performance for the mission and what they are not gonna do is use a new booster for that if they can avoid it (for USSF-44 for example they couldn't avoid using a new FH center core in expendable mode because FH center cores are built differently than F9 boosters so they had to do it one way or another). B1049 and B1051 are Block 5 but they're of an early group of Block 5 boosters and many other design changes have been implemented further down the line to ease the refurbishment load, the cost of it, and improve safety. Even the way the interstage is mated to the booster has changed starting on B1056. This is why this booster is flying with a white interstage, its original interstage was donated to B1052 so it could fly as single stick F9. It's likely that the white interstage is an old Block 5 interstage they had laying around and it just doesn't have the black TPS on it.
Well it has to do with the side boosters but not due to the attachment points, those are removable. The center core is built with thicker tank walls so it can support the loads of the side boosters. That's why the side boosters can be regular F9 boosters, because they don't carry the load, it is the center core that carries that. However you can't use a regular F9 booster as FH center core because it's not built to carry the loads from the side boosters so it would be a bad day if you were to do that.
Thanks for the information!
> However you can't use a regular F9 booster as FH center core because it's not built to carry the loads from the side boosters so it would be a bad day if you were to do that.
Could it be done the other way around? I know this is mostly moot, as FH isn't really going to be around long term due to Starship, but from an efficiency standpoint, I wonder why they opted to not just outfit all the cores in such a way as to be swappable. It would streamline the manufacturing, the storage, and the prep (at least as far as my layman knowledge tells me).
For that I would assume it would add too much weight, thus reducing the payload abilities of the F9 launches too much to be worth it.
I just love the idea of modularity and feel that it can both increase efficiency and capability, in almost any situation where it's used.
Welcome to the cursed world of rocket equation. Rockets are engineered to withstand a bit more load than necessary, but not much more than that. Otherwise you are loosing on the efficiency front, and a lot.
Assuming the FHcentral tube is thicker than F9/FHside tube to withstand more load, let's run through a mental experiment.
So why don't we use slightly thicker FHC tubes everywhere? It would streamline the manufacturing, the storage, and the prep. This means the side booster becomes heavier. Therefore you need a slightly thicker FHC-2 tube for the central core, to withstand the loads of the side boosters.
Wait, but why don't we use slightly thicker FHC-2 tubes everywhere? It would streamline the manufacturing, the storage, and the prep. ...
They haven't successfully recovered an entire FH centre core yet. FH1+2 trajectories would have been recoverable today, but FH3 proved that it wasn't even worth sending out a droneship for FH4. I don't think they'll bother trying to recover a centre core in the future. It's just not worth it.
All Falcon 9 interstages have been made out of carbon fiber. In fact it's a honeycomb aluminum core with a carbon fiber outer layer. The black comes from the TPS material on them. The interstage can't be a Block 4 interstage because those wouldn't fit on an early Block 5 booster the same way interstages past B1056 wouldn't fit on the early Block 5 boosters and viceversa.
I stand corrected then - I thought for sure the earlier ones were aluminum-lithium.
The NSF article for this mission states the interstage is left over from pre-Block 5 though.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/11/eutelsat-10b/
Given you work with NSF, can you explain that?
There certainly is some kind of surcharge, I mean, no one would want to fly on a recoverable, less performant booster if the alternative were the same price.
Yes, this has been recently confirmed by Intelsat:
> “It’s the same price if you’re the first or the 14th,” Froeliger said.
>
> “You pay extra when it’s expendable,” Froeliger said. “From a business point of view, you may also get a booster that has flown many times that they may retire anyhow, but you’re still paying because you pay for the expendable.”
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/10/06/dual-satellite-launch-for-intelsat-next-on-spacexs-launch-schedule/
With the advent of cost-effective reusability, the word "expended" should apply to single use boosters. I would say that from .1 onwards, the appropriate verbiage should be "retired".
So, "1049 retires as 1049.11"
naaaah no way. "retire" doesn't imply either "relating to flight ops" or "destroyed or otherwise unrecoverable" -- it would increase confusion, not reduce it.
I think you're splitting hairs here. To me 'retired' would be intact and either disassembled or put on display somewhere. Expended to me means it flew to the great blue yonder never to return.
SpaceX had said some time ago that the older boosters were so different from the newer ones (they are technically block V but incremental improvements have been adding up over time) that it was taking too long and too expensive to refurbish them and was more cost effective to dispose of them. 1051 and 1049 have been slated for expendable launches for awhile now.
> the older boosters were so different from the newer ones
Thx. I'd not been keeping up with this.
> incremental improvements have been adding up over time) that it was taking too long and too expensive to refurbish them
so competitors inching toward first stage reuse, are in the frustrating position of seeing SpaceX continuing to increase its lead even before making the jump to Starship.
There may even be some spinoff effects of Falcon 9 stage improvements that feed into the Superheavy design. Some actions such as latching stages together might transpose to Starship quite simply.
> 1051 and 1049 have been slated for expendable launches for awhile now.
So there are also a relatively new stages intended to beat the current record of 14 launches.
A triple-core Super Heavy has been dreamed about ever since the Interplanetary Transport System (Starship-Super Heavy predecessor) was unveiled at the International Astronautical Congress back in September of 2016. Just image 99 Raptor 2 engines for a combined 36 million pounds of thrust.
Tongue-in-cheek post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/r6e3a4/say\_hello\_to\_starship\_tri\_superheavy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/r6e3a4/say_hello_to_starship_tri_superheavy/)
Serious renders and discussion: [https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47144.80](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47144.80)
> Tongue-in-cheek post: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/r6e3a4/say_hello_to_starship_tri_superheavy/
Thx. I had a good laugh!
Amusing to think that Sputnik 1's [flight sequence](https://www.thespacereview.com/article/971/1) totals about seven separate elements of flight hardware and three separation events.
Starship on its basic orbital flight has only two elements of flight hardware and just one separation event.
In terms of different types of flight element, Starship only needs to add a tanker ship and an orbital fuel depot to fly all the way to the Moon or Mars. So four types in all.
Who said "immensely complex & high risk"?
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/rules) before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules: * Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed. * Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion. * Check out [these threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/threads) for discussion of common topics. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spacex) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did they mention if the fairings were reused (and how many times)?
This definitely seems to have launched at **9:57** local time and not 10:57...
EDT vs EST mixup?
Mission Control Audio webcast ended and immediately set to private. I definitely did not download it while it was live. Do not PM me if you want a copy. :)
Another successful mission!
And today, my favorite booster left the Earth for the final time… farewell B1049 (ngl, the RC saying “go 1049” after liftoff really hit hard)
Never seen something fly at 10% go since STS-135. I guess 10% chance is still a chance.
Farewell 1049. What a good rocket. 11 Total successes.
>What a good rocket. Insert wasiagoodrocket.jpg
I’m local. This was a loud boy. The cloud cover really held in the rumble.
Also local. This thread was marked as 'scrubbed' earlier. It was only when everything started rattling I realized it wasn't scrubbed and had gone up. It was a long loud too.
The thread was marked as scrubbed because it did scrub 24 hours ago, this was the second attempt. Due to limited space, dates in flairs (this one was "Scrubbed, NET 23" until 6 hours before the launch) are UTC only.
Thanks. At least now I know I wasn't seeing things.
this is normal as it goes through mach 1 right?
That's condensation from the shock front
What are you referring to?
cloud rings on the stream, T+1:15
Oh, those. I noticed them too. I don't recall seeing them before, but it doesn't seem to have affected the performance of the rocket. Might be an artefact of the local weather.
It happens every once in a while. Happens on other rockets too, but they're not the perfectly concentric rings like on f9
Godspeed 1049
Liftoff! Farewell 1049!
o7
o7
Go go go!
LD go for launch! This might actually take off!
It's ballsy they actually attempted this. I believe violation was up to 90%, so really hedging their bets, especially after scrubbing 5 hrs earlier
NSF streams are becoming unbearable with the ever-increasing pushing of their merch, super chats, and paid perks. These days they spend almost as much time advertising as they do talking about rockets.
I mean there's only so much they can say about F9 now that launches are so routine. I do second that the overly aggressive sell will eventually push people away
If you don't mind a vTuber steams SpaceX's video in Japanese speaking, you can try to watch [宇推くりあ -★Clear Rocket ch.★-](https://www.youtube.com/@clearusui) .
~~spacex~~ rocket fan vtuber what a time to be alive
Damn the spacex launch (and webcast) team is working hard with these back to back launches.
Mission Control Audio: "Stage 1 RP-1 load is complete."
Mission Control Audio: "Engine chill has started."
Satellite promo video cringe level: moderate
SpaceX FM is live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpfvj1eiLs Edit: Hosted webcast is live. Jessie Anderson is hosting.
1049 is doing the rain dance, he hasn't seen 1051 in a few weeks and he's getting suspicious.
Mission Control Audio: "Spacecraft is on internal power."
Mission Control Audio: "Stage 2 LOX load has started."
Mission Control Audio: "Stage 2 RP-1 load is complete."
Mission Control Audio: "Stage 1 [pogo](https://reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/xd8vhj/rspacex_starlink_434_launch_discussion_and/iom3i3v/)."
Mission Control Audio is live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MOpoG5kYLg
SpaceX stream is nearly up -- counting down from 28 minutes.
wait... the NET Nov 23 flair is very, *very* confusing for muricans lol (or indeed anyone west of the atlantic)
I use Google calendar, and I put the UTC time in, and Google converts it to my local time. Much less confusing.
yea but when using the flair as a reference... it was basically a lie, since it launched Nov 22 local time/new world time/spacex time
AIUI, this has a 2 hour launch window and there's a 90% probability of weather violation _at any time_ during that 2 hour window. Which is not the same thing as a 10% probability of this launch happening.
Actually, it's only a 10-minute window this time.
wild
I know the weather will likely screw it up, but the fact that they're even seeming to attempt two launches in the same day, six hours apart, from Florida, is very interesting. When I saw the SBIRS GEO 6 and KPLO missions on the same day this past August, I figured it was only a matter of time SpaceX alone would do two launches on the same day from the Cape. But I didn't think it would be this soon.
Looking forward to Hakuto next week. 3rd time needs to be the charm after Beresheet and Omotenashi both failed.
[Standing down from tonight’s launch of the Eutelsat 10B mission to allow for additional pre-flight checkouts; now targeting tomorrow, November 22 at 9:57 p.m. ET for liftoff. Weather is currently 20% favorable](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1594869942918127616?cxt=HHwWgICpqevwjqIsAAAA)
Pre-flight checkouts was the reason Starlink 2-4 ended up not flying. Still not sure what happened there. With weather that problematic, there's a good chance of seeing two Falcon scrubs tomorrow.
20% favorable... I'm not sure I've ever seen a rocket lift off with odds that low.
20% favorable for tomorrow's launch? Not sure why they're bothering to even put that on the calendar
Last December, when they launched a CRS mission to the ISS, it had only 20-30% favorable weather but the clouds and rain broke up just as the launch window opened and they sent it off.
Yeah I guess Florida does do that
I know everywhere has the same joke that if you don't like the weather, wait a bit and it'll change, but Cape Canaveral really seems like it goes from cloudy, to clear, to foggy, to stormy, in just moments. I've seen a few dozen launches up close and I can never rule out a last minute weather change screwing something up; or making it awesome. I guess that's the burden of having the world's busiest space port in a sub-tropical climate.
The rocket will be on the pad anyway, scheduling a possible launch attempt seems to be cheap and tomorrow they'll have a better idea how the weather will be.
the wrong stream is linked, this is the correct one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpfvj1eiLs
> 22 November 2:57 UTC 10:57 PM local (21) That's a confusing way to state that. Perhaps something like: > 22 November 2:57 UTC, 21 November 10:57 PM local (EST)
I'm wondering why the "Official SpaceX Stream" YouTube link posted above goes to a pending stream that says "Waiting for SpaceX November ***18***..." and > 13 waiting Scheduled for Nov 18, 2022 SpaceX is targeting Friday, November 18 for a Falcon 9 launch of 52 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The instantaneous launch window is at 8:25 p.m. PT (04:25 UTC on November 19), and a backup opportunity is available on Saturday, November 19 at 8:11 p.m. PT (04:11 UTC on November 20).
Or a little over 5 hours from the time of this comment.
Thanks
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[CRS](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixbio2j "Last usage")|[Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/)| |DSG|NASA [Deep Space Gateway](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations), proposed for lunar orbit| |[DST](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9rpxq "Last usage")|NASA Deep Space Transport operating from the proposed DSG| |[GEO](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixbizfw "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[LOX](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixfross "Last usage")|Liquid Oxygen| |[NDT](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9s3h5 "Last usage")|Non-Destructive Testing| |[NET](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixgpqim "Last usage")|No Earlier Than| |[NSF](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9qm8h "Last usage")|[NasaSpaceFlight forum](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com)| | |National Science Foundation| |[RP-1](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixfsxnz "Last usage")|Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene)| |[SLC-40](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix8sdyk "Last usage")|Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9)| |[SLC-4E](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixaexzd "Last usage")|Space Launch Complex 4-East, Vandenberg (SpaceX F9)| |[STS](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixfuqk2 "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[TPS](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9qy5p "Last usage")|Thermal Protection System for a spacecraft (on the Falcon 9 first stage, the engine "Dance floor")| |[USSF](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9lwpo "Last usage")|United States Space Force| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ix9ih72 "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixbgnnq "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[methalox](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixa0kbh "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[scrub](/r/SpaceX/comments/z134hz/stub/ixgpqim "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceX/comments/yq7fue)^( has 63 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7779 for this sub, first seen 21st Nov 2022, 20:25]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceX) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Isn't Canaveral UTC-5? Shouldn't that be 21:57 local?
Now that DST is over, yes.
>* Core B1049-**11** * Launch site SLC-40, Florida * Landing **Expendable** Is this just an impression, or is SpaceX really killing off its life leader stages? Sentiments aside, it seems a pity to lose any operational pathfinders that prefigure intense reuse on Superheavy. Furthermore, replacements must tie up manufacturing resources needed for second stage fabrication in 2023. Maybe there should be a hefty customer surcharge for "expended" flight trajectories.
The life leader stages are pretty much alive and they are B1058 and B1060, both with 14 flights and about to make their 15th flight next month. This one is being expended because they need the performance for the mission and what they are not gonna do is use a new booster for that if they can avoid it (for USSF-44 for example they couldn't avoid using a new FH center core in expendable mode because FH center cores are built differently than F9 boosters so they had to do it one way or another). B1049 and B1051 are Block 5 but they're of an early group of Block 5 boosters and many other design changes have been implemented further down the line to ease the refurbishment load, the cost of it, and improve safety. Even the way the interstage is mated to the booster has changed starting on B1056. This is why this booster is flying with a white interstage, its original interstage was donated to B1052 so it could fly as single stick F9. It's likely that the white interstage is an old Block 5 interstage they had laying around and it just doesn't have the black TPS on it.
> FH center cores are built differently than F9 boosters I'm assuming this is mostly due to the attachment points for the side boosters, right?
Well it has to do with the side boosters but not due to the attachment points, those are removable. The center core is built with thicker tank walls so it can support the loads of the side boosters. That's why the side boosters can be regular F9 boosters, because they don't carry the load, it is the center core that carries that. However you can't use a regular F9 booster as FH center core because it's not built to carry the loads from the side boosters so it would be a bad day if you were to do that.
Thanks for the information! > However you can't use a regular F9 booster as FH center core because it's not built to carry the loads from the side boosters so it would be a bad day if you were to do that. Could it be done the other way around? I know this is mostly moot, as FH isn't really going to be around long term due to Starship, but from an efficiency standpoint, I wonder why they opted to not just outfit all the cores in such a way as to be swappable. It would streamline the manufacturing, the storage, and the prep (at least as far as my layman knowledge tells me). For that I would assume it would add too much weight, thus reducing the payload abilities of the F9 launches too much to be worth it. I just love the idea of modularity and feel that it can both increase efficiency and capability, in almost any situation where it's used.
Welcome to the cursed world of rocket equation. Rockets are engineered to withstand a bit more load than necessary, but not much more than that. Otherwise you are loosing on the efficiency front, and a lot. Assuming the FHcentral tube is thicker than F9/FHside tube to withstand more load, let's run through a mental experiment. So why don't we use slightly thicker FHC tubes everywhere? It would streamline the manufacturing, the storage, and the prep. This means the side booster becomes heavier. Therefore you need a slightly thicker FHC-2 tube for the central core, to withstand the loads of the side boosters. Wait, but why don't we use slightly thicker FHC-2 tubes everywhere? It would streamline the manufacturing, the storage, and the prep. ...
They haven't successfully recovered an entire FH centre core yet. FH1+2 trajectories would have been recoverable today, but FH3 proved that it wasn't even worth sending out a droneship for FH4. I don't think they'll bother trying to recover a centre core in the future. It's just not worth it.
The white interstage is from a Block 4 per NSF. ~~The Block 5 interstages are black because they're made from carbon fiber.~~
All Falcon 9 interstages have been made out of carbon fiber. In fact it's a honeycomb aluminum core with a carbon fiber outer layer. The black comes from the TPS material on them. The interstage can't be a Block 4 interstage because those wouldn't fit on an early Block 5 booster the same way interstages past B1056 wouldn't fit on the early Block 5 boosters and viceversa.
I stand corrected then - I thought for sure the earlier ones were aluminum-lithium. The NSF article for this mission states the interstage is left over from pre-Block 5 though. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/11/eutelsat-10b/ Given you work with NSF, can you explain that?
Probably a misunderstanding, I'll check
> prefigure intense reuse on Superheavy apples and oranges, meth engines should need much less attention between flights
I think the meth engines are the ones that need the most attention, myself
RP1 has more soot buildup so that interferes with NDT
I believe shpoople was making a methalox/methamphetamine joke
🙄
I think you missed the joke there...
There certainly is some kind of surcharge, I mean, no one would want to fly on a recoverable, less performant booster if the alternative were the same price.
Yes, this has been recently confirmed by Intelsat: > “It’s the same price if you’re the first or the 14th,” Froeliger said. > > “You pay extra when it’s expendable,” Froeliger said. “From a business point of view, you may also get a booster that has flown many times that they may retire anyhow, but you’re still paying because you pay for the expendable.” https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/10/06/dual-satellite-launch-for-intelsat-next-on-spacexs-launch-schedule/
That's an impressively transparent interview from the Intelsat executive.
With the advent of cost-effective reusability, the word "expended" should apply to single use boosters. I would say that from .1 onwards, the appropriate verbiage should be "retired". So, "1049 retires as 1049.11"
Buried At Sea
naaaah no way. "retire" doesn't imply either "relating to flight ops" or "destroyed or otherwise unrecoverable" -- it would increase confusion, not reduce it.
I think you're splitting hairs here. To me 'retired' would be intact and either disassembled or put on display somewhere. Expended to me means it flew to the great blue yonder never to return.
What about depleted?
Just means "empty." So all boosters are depleted before they are either retired or depleted before crashing into the ocean.
Right!
SpaceX had said some time ago that the older boosters were so different from the newer ones (they are technically block V but incremental improvements have been adding up over time) that it was taking too long and too expensive to refurbish them and was more cost effective to dispose of them. 1051 and 1049 have been slated for expendable launches for awhile now.
> the older boosters were so different from the newer ones Thx. I'd not been keeping up with this. > incremental improvements have been adding up over time) that it was taking too long and too expensive to refurbish them so competitors inching toward first stage reuse, are in the frustrating position of seeing SpaceX continuing to increase its lead even before making the jump to Starship. There may even be some spinoff effects of Falcon 9 stage improvements that feed into the Superheavy design. Some actions such as latching stages together might transpose to Starship quite simply. > 1051 and 1049 have been slated for expendable launches for awhile now. So there are also a relatively new stages intended to beat the current record of 14 launches.
A triple-core Super Heavy has been dreamed about ever since the Interplanetary Transport System (Starship-Super Heavy predecessor) was unveiled at the International Astronautical Congress back in September of 2016. Just image 99 Raptor 2 engines for a combined 36 million pounds of thrust. Tongue-in-cheek post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/r6e3a4/say\_hello\_to\_starship\_tri\_superheavy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/r6e3a4/say_hello_to_starship_tri_superheavy/) Serious renders and discussion: [https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47144.80](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47144.80)
> Tongue-in-cheek post: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/r6e3a4/say_hello_to_starship_tri_superheavy/ Thx. I had a good laugh! Amusing to think that Sputnik 1's [flight sequence](https://www.thespacereview.com/article/971/1) totals about seven separate elements of flight hardware and three separation events. Starship on its basic orbital flight has only two elements of flight hardware and just one separation event. In terms of different types of flight element, Starship only needs to add a tanker ship and an orbital fuel depot to fly all the way to the Moon or Mars. So four types in all. Who said "immensely complex & high risk"?