Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage  (Read 126379 times)

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #80 on: 04/21/2016 12:25 pm »
IINM, they already have a booster allocated for the in-flight abort test.  I think it only has 3 engines instead of the full 9. 

Nope, this stage will carry a live bird for a paying customer, assuming they don't find anything obviously wrong with it.

IIRC it will be the stage originally known as F9R Dev 2 - which was built with 3 engines and was due to fly after the loss of F9R Dev 1 (the successor to Grasshopper).

Similarly IIRC - and mentioned in Elon's comments after the recent ASDS landing - the reason why F9R Dev 2 wasn't used for that purpose was that there was deemed to be a limited benefit in sending first stages up to increasingly greater heights to try and land them, because the tricky bit is dealing with the horizontal velocity and the resultant heating.

I'm sure those who interpreted those comments as a dig at Blue Origin are just being cynical...  ;)

Going back on-topic, I'd assume that SpaceX would prefer to re-launch this stage with a payload - and no doubt there will be someone willing to take the risk if they can get a launch significantly cheaper.

Offline Alastor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #81 on: 04/21/2016 12:29 pm »
It seems a lot of people assume that the 10 static fires announced will happen in a short time (I'm talking hours).

That doesn't make much sense to me, both based on common sense, public infos and the infos we have in L2.


Remember that , to quote Musk, they are "Like the dog that catches the bus". They don't have much experience with refiring flown stages, and in all likelyhood, the reason why they want to do 10 firings is they want to test several different things. Maybe configurations, thrust levels, etc.

Basically what I'm saying is you don't fire the stage 10 times in a row to get 10 times the same data. You want your different tests to bring in different data points.

This means that they probably will need or want to consider the results of previous firings when planning the new ones. That is, applying the knowledge you gathered from previous firings to your new tests.

This means that of course they have an idea of what they want to test (hence they know that it's about 10 firings they need), but they may not know exactly what will be the specific parameters of each and every of these tests beforehand.

What I'm saying may be a bit confused, but in short, I don't think it will be like "fuel->fire->refuel->fire->refuel ...", in which case we could expect 10 firings in let's say 10h. It probably will be more like "fuel->fire->data review->plan next fire->fuel->fire-> ...", in which case we could expect the 10 static fires to span over a month or two !

Offline rpapo

And that's leaving aside the issue of how fast (or slow) the super-cooled LOX generators work.  Last we heard, they could barely support one launch attempt every two days or so, let alone ten full tanks in a single day.  Granted, that one launch attempt uses a bit more LOX (20%?) than a single first stage full duration firing because of the second stage, but still.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Online Herb Schaltegger

IINM, they already have a booster allocated for the in-flight abort test.  I think it only has 3 engines instead of the full 9. 

Nope, this stage will carry a live bird for a paying customer, assuming they don't find anything obviously wrong with it.

IIRC it will be the stage originally known as F9R Dev 2 - which was built with 3 engines and was due to fly after the loss of F9R Dev 1 (the successor to Grasshopper).

That may no longer be the case. See L2.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Online rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #84 on: 04/21/2016 05:33 pm »
I believe something like this had been seen in Vandenberg, before they switched back to F9 table. Do I remember wrong?
I believe it looks like this:
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline tleski

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #85 on: 04/22/2016 03:12 am »
There is a new photo of both recovered boosters in HIF on SpaceX instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEcJwlBF8RR/

Offline Brick_top

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #86 on: 04/22/2016 07:32 am »
looks like they are really stripping the orbcomm one

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #87 on: 04/22/2016 07:45 am »
looks like they are really stripping the orbcomm one

They're going to have it on public display at Hawthorne, so there's a lot of things they'll want to get rid of on it - such as the FTS mechanism, etc. Plus the simple fact that they can dissect it and see how it's doing after flight.

Also, I must say, the 39A hangar looks pretty spiffy.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2016 07:47 am by NovaSilisko »

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #88 on: 04/22/2016 07:53 am »

There is a new photo of both recovered boosters in HIF on SpaceX instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEcJwlBF8RR/
Looks like the preferred forward ring mounting location is at the interstage connection point, but the grid find have to be removed first.
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline gadgetmind

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #89 on: 04/22/2016 09:40 am »
I'm guessing avionics, hydraulics, etc. will be stripped from the Orbcomm stage, but what about engines? It's really only the nozzles that are visible, so might they also remove the bulk of the engine? Maybe also just have dummy nozzles?

These two stages really are going down very different paths!

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #90 on: 04/22/2016 01:06 pm »
There is a new photo of both recovered boosters in HIF on SpaceX instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEcJwlBF8RR/

Starfleet in being :)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline DeanG1967

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #91 on: 04/24/2016 03:53 am »
didn't see this video in the forums...if it is, sorry. 


Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #92 on: 04/24/2016 08:04 pm »
didn't see this video in the forums...if it is, sorry. 


Was posted earlier in the SpaceX General section in its own thread.
link

Offline WBY1984

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #93 on: 04/27/2016 09:26 am »
I wonder if there has been any discussion of the damage seen at the base of the booster.

In this video (from around 3:00 onwards), a panel seems to look bent open - it's at about the 2 o'clock position on the base of the booster. I've attached an image of the orbcomm booster highlighting what I think are the panels in an undamaged state (about the right location in relation to other features, and two notches/holes above it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziG-JUYsFAk&feature=youtu.be

What do you think it could mean in terms of damage to the vehicles internals?

Edit to add a highlight video screencap for clarity.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2016 09:55 am by WBY1984 »

Offline virnin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Kansas
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #94 on: 04/27/2016 08:27 pm »
The two photos are not of the same part of the base.  Too many differences in nearby features, such as the plate between the lower engine and the strap in one but not the other.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2016 08:29 pm by virnin »

Offline WBY1984

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #95 on: 04/28/2016 06:35 am »
I think it's a good bet that while it's not the same location,  they are the same type of panel, of which there are multiple ones around the rim of the base. Both examples have the two holes just above the panel. The CRS-8 panel just looks bent outwards.

Offline mattstep

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Iowa, USA
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #96 on: 04/28/2016 03:38 pm »
Quote
I wonder if there has been any discussion of the damage seen at the base of the booster.

In this video (from around 3:00 onwards), a panel seems to look bent open - it's at about the 2 o'clock position on the base of the booster. I've attached an image of the orbcomm booster highlighting what I think are the panels in an undamaged state (about the right location in relation to other features, and two notches/holes above it).

To me it looks more like there are covers that have been removed from both "ports" on the top image, and from the upper port but not the lower port in the second image.  Perhaps they opened or loosened the cover on the bottom port in the second image, but did not fully remove it?

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11172
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8802
  • Likes Given: 7821
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #97 on: 05/04/2016 12:46 am »
another video of the FS trip back to cape....

Falcon 9 Driving By

Published on Apr 26, 2016
Falcon 9 1st stage 023 returning to the cape.

Originally posted by Partick Cuyno

Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 3041
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #98 on: 05/05/2016 10:05 am »
Why 10 static fires?  After the first static fire, what is the purpose of the remaining 9?  Have other stages been subject to 10 static fires?

Well no one has ever done this before, so they can kind of make up their own rules based on some judgement. 

10 is a lot but with that much data they may learn how many fires are reasonable.  1,2,3 who knows.

Also, I suspect the Elon knew this would be at 39A and that it would be advantageous if they run their shiny new pad through that many cycles as well. 

Length of burns would be interesting.  Will it be a few seconds like a usual Static fire or will it be longer?
Say they do the 5th static fire and everything goes as planned. That doesn't guarantee that they won't learn something new with the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th static fire. Even everything the same is confirmation the stage can take it.
One of my other hobbies is to follow Nuclear Thorium engineering R&D. Thor Energy is the first company actually testing Thorium nuclear fuel. They finished the first 2 year test cycle on a test reactor. The news was "boring test", aka everything went as expected. SpaceX needs to have a lot of boring static fires before they are confident the booster can take another flight in real conditions.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline Chris Bergin

Per the JCSAT-14 webcast, the testing for CRS-8 S1 is still "39A or McGregor" - so nothing finalized yet.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0