http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spaceport-america-spacex-reusability-testing/Overview of what's been done so far and the aligning of the future plans.
Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)
So are the cores switched? Where's The Turkmenistan Sat core going to be while they are working on CRS6? Is it going back to TX or CA?
Recovery of a stage is not historic, it is a meaningless end. Now, reuse of a recovered stage is a totally different thing. When the first reused stage is recovered, that is when it secured a place in museums
Quote from: northenarc on 03/20/2015 02:44 am Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)Recovery of a stage is not historic, it is a meaningless end. Now, reuse of a recovered stage is a totally different thing. When the first reused stage is recovered, that is when it secured a place in museums
While efforts to achieve this goal are in the pipeline for the Upper Stage
Quote from: Kabloona on 03/20/2015 03:04 amQuote from: northenarc on 03/20/2015 02:44 am Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)The article suggests that both of the first two returned stages will be tested to their limits, after which I imagine they'll be disassembled and inspected for wear, cracks, etc, so there may not be much left of them but a pile of parts.IMHO, they'll want need to establish a reliability baseline for marketing and insurance rates setting purposes. That'll necessarily mean re-flying the same booster over and over.They'll also want to establish a booster refurbishment program and tempo, which means the booster refurbishment will take progressively shorter time periods between flights as they refine their procedures. As the reflight program matures it may evolve into a systems diagnostics and post- and pre-flight testing regimen as opposed to a more extensive tear down program where the booster is shipped to TX and then sent back to NM. Finally, I think we'll see the automated refueling and relaunch procedures also tested out in NM first.
Quote from: northenarc on 03/20/2015 02:44 am Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)The article suggests that both of the first two returned stages will be tested to their limits, after which I imagine they'll be disassembled and inspected for wear, cracks, etc, so there may not be much left of them but a pile of parts.
That's a little like saying that Apollo 8 wasn't historic when man first orbited the moon, what was historic was Apollo 11 when man landed on the moon. If you think that way, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
Finally, I think we'll see the automated refueling and relaunch procedures also tested out in NM first.
Quote from: sghill on 03/20/2015 11:53 amFinally, I think we'll see the automated refueling and relaunch procedures also tested out in NM first.What "automated refueling procedures"? Why would they be any different than what currently exists?
It's not just the refueling but all ground handling that they want to automate (where feasible, anyway).
Yes, of course there isn't anyone physically at the rocket moving valves. If they used driverless vehicles it would mean the computers controlling them are able to make human-like decisions about their surroundings and that we are confident that these decisions are correct. If this was actually accomplished I can think of lots of other places where a human makes a decision that a computer could now make that decision with the same amount of confidence.
Then, once mated, so I hear, people crawl around making connections. I mean, one of the main arguments given why rapid reuse is impossible is that my god just stage mating takes days.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 05:09 pm Then, once mated, so I hear, people crawl around making connections. I mean, one of the main arguments given why rapid reuse is impossible is that my god just stage mating takes days.Because connector pins recess or get bend, unless the pins are the size of a pinkie finger.
Which is where a more automated design comes in.
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2015 05:59 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 05:09 pm Then, once mated, so I hear, people crawl around making connections. I mean, one of the main arguments given why rapid reuse is impossible is that my god just stage mating takes days.Because connector pins recess or get bend, unless the pins are the size of a pinkie finger.Which is where a more automated design comes in.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 06:01 pmWhich is where a more automated design comes in.And how are they going accommodate all the connectors with scores of these fat fingered pins?
Quote from: Dudely on 03/20/2015 05:00 pmYes, of course there isn't anyone physically at the rocket moving valves. If they used driverless vehicles it would mean the computers controlling them are able to make human-like decisions about their surroundings and that we are confident that these decisions are correct. If this was actually accomplished I can think of lots of other places where a human makes a decision that a computer could now make that decision with the same amount of confidence. My point was there isn't anymore real automation they can add.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 06:01 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/20/2015 05:59 pmBecause connector pins recess or get bend, unless the pins are the size of a pinkie finger.Which is where a more automated design comes in.It is very difficult to move large structures around with any precision. I don't think automation is the answer, since that would be difficult and expense to develop. I think a new look at engineering to reduce the time would be the best move.Do all the connecters have to line up at once? Seems to me you would want to mechanically connect the stages with a few pins and then connect wiring harnesses through access hatches. Am I missing something in this discussion?
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2015 05:59 pmBecause connector pins recess or get bend, unless the pins are the size of a pinkie finger.Which is where a more automated design comes in.
Because connector pins recess or get bend, unless the pins are the size of a pinkie finger.
Quote from: abaddon on 03/20/2015 03:14 pmThat's a little like saying that Apollo 8 wasn't historic when man first orbited the moon, what was historic was Apollo 11 when man landed on the moon. If you think that way, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.The equivalent of Apollo 8 for reuse has already happen, whether it was the Gemini 2 capsule, Columbia or STS-1 SRB's
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2015 06:11 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 06:01 pmWhich is where a more automated design comes in.And how are they going accommodate all the connectors with scores of these fat fingered pins?This kind of work is what I do.There are ways, and it's a combination of interface design and automation.You certainly don't want to try to design robots that try to mate standard MIL connectors which were designed for human hands.But if designed for automated processing, it's not a hard challenge.
Chris, a question regarding this from the article:QuoteWhile efforts to achieve this goal are in the pipeline for the Upper StageMy understanding was SpaceX has abandoned the idea of recovering S2 on F9. Is that not the case?
Unlike other manufacturers SpaceX gives each stage its own avionics. That greatly reduces need for interconnnection. One serial data link can be enough. Make that three for triple redundancy.
This kind of work is what I do.There are ways, and it's a combination of interface design and automation.You certainly don't want to try to design robots that try to mate standard MIL connectors which were designed for human hands.But if designed for automated processing, it's not a hard challenge.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 07:24 pmThis kind of work is what I do.There are ways, and it's a combination of interface design and automation.You certainly don't want to try to design robots that try to mate standard MIL connectors which were designed for human hands.But if designed for automated processing, it's not a hard challenge.Just takes massively large connectors.
Or you use a different connector type.
Why hundred? Other ways to do it.
Here ya go:
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/20/2015 08:20 pmWhy hundred? Other ways to do it.True. It's always seems odd to me that rocket stages seem to like a lot of separate wires (the "parallel" data approach) while transmitting data on serial buses. I can only presume this design decision (and it is a design decision, not a law of the universe) dates from the time when any electronics were complex, heavy and power hungry. Direct wiring from sensors and actuators made sense.Today sensors and actuators with built in networking through things like the CANbus standard are common, lightweight and support up to around 2000 devices.
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/20/2015 06:37 pmUnlike other manufacturers SpaceX gives each stage its own avionics. That greatly reduces need for interconnnection. One serial data link can be enough. Make that three for triple redundancy.Still doesn't change anything. The upper stage still controls the whole stack. And there are range safety connections and telemetry too.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/20/2015 07:45 pmHere ya go: Just for your information Fulematics has been at this since before 2003 and has gone through more than one company reconstruction. That they have not been able to sell this "revolutionary" product after all this time should be a warning that it is not easy.
1. No need for hundreds of pins. That's got to be historical baggage. Serialize the data.2. There's no reason to have the second stage drive the first. The first is already fully autonomous, has identical avionics, and knows all there is to know. It can make the same decisions the second stage does, can drop it off within an envelope that the second stage can continue from. Given that the first stage has to continue flight anyway, I don't see why it has to go through the shock of "switching commanders" on stage separation. The first stage should be working like a carrier airplane.This is another case of historical baggage. An EELV is a single vehicle that's dropping parts until only the upper stage is left. That's why it's built the way it is. An F9R is a different type of beast. A highly reusable first stage that continues flight and RTLS right away, and a an upper stage that even if it comes back, does so much later. They have different operations cycles, and are their own self-contained entities. Fewer failure modes this way, too - rockets have been lost because of failure of inter-stage connectors. (can't remember which right now)3. Look at spacecraft dockings. Connections are made, after the two heavy bodies mate. And those are free-flying vehicles. You can do much better if the bodies are guided. You can do precision guidance by the jig, or you can have pilot pins and such on the flight hardware.4. The connectors can be rigidly connected to the master bodies and everything connect at once, or you can have them execute a secondary motion after the mechanical mate. Either way, if you pre-plan for automation, it's alot easier than if you try to make automation work in a less structured environment.
Honestly, the electrical connector is the easy bit of this whole thing.Something like a self-aligning Magsafe connector with more (and stiffer) pins and a solenoid or servo locking mechanism to ensure a tight fit.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/20/2015 11:21 pmHonestly, the electrical connector is the easy bit of this whole thing.Something like a self-aligning Magsafe connector with more (and stiffer) pins and a solenoid or servo locking mechanism to ensure a tight fit.And how small would that connector be without the magsafe feature? That is my point.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 10:39 pm1. No need for hundreds of pins. That's got to be historical baggage. Serialize the data.2. There's no reason to have the second stage drive the first. The first is already fully autonomous, has identical avionics, and knows all there is to know. It can make the same decisions the second stage does, can drop it off within an envelope that the second stage can continue from. Given that the first stage has to continue flight anyway, I don't see why it has to go through the shock of "switching commanders" on stage separation. The first stage should be working like a carrier airplane.This is another case of historical baggage. An EELV is a single vehicle that's dropping parts until only the upper stage is left. That's why it's built the way it is. An F9R is a different type of beast. A highly reusable first stage that continues flight and RTLS right away, and a an upper stage that even if it comes back, does so much later. They have different operations cycles, and are their own self-contained entities. Fewer failure modes this way, too - rockets have been lost because of failure of inter-stage connectors. (can't remember which right now)<snipped>Quit with the flippant responses. It is not historical baggage. You have nothing to base that assertion on. 1. for the very many reasons I listed. 2. You have been proven wrong on this over and over. How many times do I have say it. Reality is that the second stage controls the first. The first stage is passive until after separation. That is a fact.<snipped>
1. No need for hundreds of pins. That's got to be historical baggage. Serialize the data.2. There's no reason to have the second stage drive the first. The first is already fully autonomous, has identical avionics, and knows all there is to know. It can make the same decisions the second stage does, can drop it off within an envelope that the second stage can continue from. Given that the first stage has to continue flight anyway, I don't see why it has to go through the shock of "switching commanders" on stage separation. The first stage should be working like a carrier airplane.This is another case of historical baggage. An EELV is a single vehicle that's dropping parts until only the upper stage is left. That's why it's built the way it is. An F9R is a different type of beast. A highly reusable first stage that continues flight and RTLS right away, and a an upper stage that even if it comes back, does so much later. They have different operations cycles, and are their own self-contained entities. Fewer failure modes this way, too - rockets have been lost because of failure of inter-stage connectors. (can't remember which right now)<snipped>
And how small would that connector be without the magsafe feature? That is my point.
1. As far as I can tell you only need 2 connections. One for FTS since you don't trust any other system, and one for data communication. You'd probably want redundancy of 2 or 3 on this, so we're talking a max of 6 connections with 12 total conductors. What are we missing? Power is independent between stages.... I'm at a loss.
Seems to me the question is, what launch performance can they demonstrate within the ceilings/range authorized from Spaceport America?
Quote from: SpunkyEnigma on 03/21/2015 01:55 am1. As far as I can tell you only need 2 connections. One for FTS since you don't trust any other system, and one for data communication. You'd probably want redundancy of 2 or 3 on this, so we're talking a max of 6 connections with 12 total conductors. What are we missing? Power is independent between stages.... I'm at a loss.There is more, there are staging breakwires, FTS breakwires, telemetry from the first stage to the second, commanding from the second to the first, some raw data, FTS is more than a few.
Quote from: Jim on 03/21/2015 02:15 amQuote from: SpunkyEnigma on 03/21/2015 01:55 am1. As far as I can tell you only need 2 connections. One for FTS since you don't trust any other system, and one for data communication. You'd probably want redundancy of 2 or 3 on this, so we're talking a max of 6 connections with 12 total conductors. What are we missing? Power is independent between stages.... I'm at a loss.There is more, there are staging breakwires, FTS breakwires, telemetry from the first stage to the second, commanding from the second to the first, some raw data, FTS is more than a few.Ok. Breakwires aside, is there any reason that the rest couldn't be transmitted wirelessly?
Quote from: meekGee on 03/20/2015 10:39 pm1. No need for hundreds of pins. That's got to be historical baggage. Serialize the data.2. There's no reason to have the second stage drive the first. The first is already fully autonomous, has identical avionics, and knows all there is to know. It can make the same decisions the second stage does, can drop it off within an envelope that the second stage can continue from. Given that the first stage has to continue flight anyway, I don't see why it has to go through the shock of "switching commanders" on stage separation. The first stage should be working like a carrier airplane.This is another case of historical baggage. An EELV is a single vehicle that's dropping parts until only the upper stage is left. That's why it's built the way it is. An F9R is a different type of beast. A highly reusable first stage that continues flight and RTLS right away, and a an upper stage that even if it comes back, does so much later. They have different operations cycles, and are their own self-contained entities. Fewer failure modes this way, too - rockets have been lost because of failure of inter-stage connectors. (can't remember which right now)3. Look at spacecraft dockings. Connections are made, after the two heavy bodies mate. And those are free-flying vehicles. You can do much better if the bodies are guided. You can do precision guidance by the jig, or you can have pilot pins and such on the flight hardware.4. The connectors can be rigidly connected to the master bodies and everything connect at once, or you can have them execute a secondary motion after the mechanical mate. Either way, if you pre-plan for automation, it's alot easier than if you try to make automation work in a less structured environment.Quit with the flippant responses. It is not historical baggage. You have nothing to base that assertion on. 1. for the very many reasons I listed.
2. You have been proven wrong on this over and over. How many times do I have say it. Reality is that the second stage controls the first. The first stage is passive until after separation. That is a fact.
The ludicrous number of pins could be so a ground crew could access each sensor and control device directly. That would really help in troubleshooting.
How many times do I have say it. Reality is that the second stage controls the first. The first stage is passive until after separation. That is a fact.
Why am I reading pages of posts about pins?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/21/2015 12:19 pmWhy am I reading pages of posts about pins? Because you know that people can only understand how something works by undersanding the most basic details. The great engineers aren't the ones who memorized the manual the best. They're the ones who understand the machine at the gut level because they know how it works down to the pins and switches. At least, that's my take after a barrel sized mug of beer in a Tunisian bar and grill.
Quote from: Jim on 03/20/2015 11:41 pmHow many times do I have say it. Reality is that the second stage controls the first. The first stage is passive until after separation. That is a fact.let's try a different way for those who can't understand.Reality is not what other launch vehicles do. Reality is how Spacex does it, just as I described.
Quote from: Nomadd on 03/21/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/21/2015 12:19 pmWhy am I reading pages of posts about pins? Because you know that people can only understand how something works by undersanding the most basic details. The great engineers aren't the ones who memorized the manual the best. They're the ones who understand the machine at the gut level because they know how it works down to the pins and switches. At least, that's my take after a barrel sized mug of beer in a Tunisian bar and grill.That's cool. But this thread is about the thread title and the article. Perhaps we could concentrate on that here and not get into a few people going on about pins!
You also keep telling me that it's impossible to be done, cannot be done, because it's not how it's done today.That's where we differ.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/21/2015 03:43 pmYou also keep telling me that it's impossible to be done, cannot be done, because it's not how it's done today.That's where we differ.No, for the falcon 9, the second stage will always control the first stage because that is the more efficient, safer and less risky way of doing. They have no plans of doing any other way. First stage guidance system is only for recovery and not ascent.
I'm done arguing about it, we'll live and see. I'll just note that this was but one of several approaches I've outlined to help achieving what you dismiss offhand as impossible.
I got all kinds of reasons, most poor (we always did it that way) and few good (asynch trigger/level). In the end, the connectors had no conductors (optical), solved some ground loop issues, and added the equivalent of several hundred more conductors beyond the the original few more.
Time for a poll? 2 Reuses? 5? 10? 20+? 100+?
Engine electronics for the Merlin 1B in Falcon 9 have been simplified down to just three boxes that are responsible for all digital and analog activity. Each set of engine electronics is essentially a self contained plug and play module, dealing with its own activity in accordance with high level commands issued by the flight computer on the upper stage. The only wires between the stage and each engine are an Ethernet cable and a power cable.
In my engineering background I would opt for the 2nd scenario. Stage separation is a critical event. The engines do not need to be switching and validating data source at that time. They should be tied to the 1st stage, which takes its direction from the second so long as the Ethernet connection remains intact, seamlessly defaulting to its own instruction set once stage 2 no longer overrides them.
And what about this? It sure looks a lot like SpaceX landing pads, at least to me. But why three?
hmmm....
Quote from: meekGee on 12/06/2015 04:54 amhmmm....so how tall are those mounts?It's interesting to compare shadow lengths, between them and that pipe coming in from the top - if only we knew how far off the ground it was. The truck in the corner isn't helping much.
Officials with Spaceport America on Wednesday confirmed tenant SpaceX is moving some of its equipment back to a testing facility in McGregor, Texas. But the company will maintain its lease with the spaceport for future launches after additional testing.
[Las Cruces Sun-News] How much secrecy does Spaceport America need?This article talks about leases at Spaceport America. They obtained some partially redacted leases from the Spaceport, including the one for SpaceX. It was actually renewed for a year in 2016 with an end date in October 2017 (there are still options to do more yearly renewals if they wish to do so.)