Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage  (Read 67483 times)

Offline Lani

Thread for coverage of F9-0024-S1 - which is going to be a "ground test" booster for reuse (not expected to fly again).

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falcon-9-booster-mcgregor/

Main "return" thread (post mission):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40257.0

News Articles:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=JCSAT-14

---

Status:

Stephen C Smith on twitter posted this tweet today: https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/742062804761448449

EDIT: I was mistaken and this is one of the dirty cores, not F9-021 Source Still it raises the question. Where are they moving the core? Most likely going to McGregor to static fire right?
Thanks Graham for the correction. Confusador pointed out it is most likey F9-024 (JCSat) but unsure.
« Last Edit: 08/31/2016 03:42 PM by Chris Bergin »

Online Beittil

New legs? It is going to be a statue on the corner of an intersection on their parking lot, why wouldn't they just ship a batch of used legs with it back to Hawthorne and attach those?

Online douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #2 on: 06/13/2016 10:02 AM »
I doubt they would be allowed to display it supported only by the legs for safety reasons. I guess it will be mounted on a base of some sort, possibly attached by the hold downs. It that's true, there's no problem displaying it with the original legs fitted.

EDIT: removed an "only."
« Last Edit: 06/13/2016 10:55 AM by douglas100 »
Douglas Clark

Offline Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • New York
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #3 on: 06/13/2016 11:20 AM »
Stephen Smith also tweeted that it was not the cleaned up core, which we know to be OG2. This means it is likely a core on its way to McGregor for testing.

https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/742067468408094722
« Last Edit: 06/14/2016 01:53 PM by Chris Bergin »
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Offline Confusador

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #4 on: 06/13/2016 12:07 PM »

Stephen Smith also tweeted that it was not the cleaned up core, which we know to be OG2. This means it is likely a core on its way to McGregor for testing.

https://twitter.com/spacekscblog/status/742067468408094722

Which  means it's probably  F9-0024 (JCSAT-14).

Offline Zpoxy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • KSC
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #5 on: 06/13/2016 11:34 PM »
SpaceX transported a core early this morning. I passed a Falcon 9 first stage convoy moving west across the Indian River on the 528 causeway at 5:40 am. It was too dark to see very much detail bit it did appear to have all its engines, though I won't swear to it.

Offline titanmiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #6 on: 06/14/2016 01:37 PM »
I saw a wrapped up Falcon 9 heading west near Pensacola, Fl yesterday (13 June 2016). Any idea why the booster was going west? Is SpaceX shipping a landed booster to Texas for testing?

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 787
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #7 on: 06/14/2016 01:45 PM »
There should be two heading west. OG-2 to Hawthorn and one to McGregor for testing. 
« Last Edit: 06/14/2016 01:46 PM by Chris Bergin »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Chris Bergin

So hopefully I've not ballsed this up, but merged a couple of threads and renamed it based on us thinking it's 24 (I think that's a good call).

Offline Zach Swena

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #9 on: 06/14/2016 06:50 PM »
Rats, looks like they are taking I-10 if they are going through Pensacola, FL.  I'm currently traveling east on I-20 in Texas....  It would have been a cool sight.

Offline starhawk92

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Burlington, NC, USA, North America, Earth (for now)
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #10 on: 06/14/2016 07:24 PM »
I respectfully challenge that Core24 is on the move.  I believe it's Core25 (Thaicom).

Debating here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39167.msg1549241#msg1549241


Offline rickyramjet

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Killeen, TX
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 24

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #13 on: 07/29/2016 03:04 AM »
youtube version:

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 274
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #14 on: 07/29/2016 03:15 AM »
Gotta love how the camera shakes the entire time the engines are lit!  :)

They haven't even cleaned the black stuff off of it around the legs.. is there some reason for wanting soot on there during the tests??
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline CyndyC

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #15 on: 07/29/2016 04:25 AM »
Gotta love how the camera shakes the entire time the engines are lit!  :)

They haven't even cleaned the black stuff off of it around the legs.. is there some reason for wanting soot on there during the tests??

Hadn't noticed the shaking till you mentioned it! Maybe the soot makes it easier to ID this stage as the one for testing only.

Is all the black in that smoke nominal? I know it's supposed to be fuel rich, but you don't see that up in the air. I'd be surprised if atmospheric oxygen could do much to change it. Maybe some of it was from burning old soot inside the flame trench, and/or new soot from the extra long fire.
"Once a Blue, always a Blue." -- USN/USMC Flight Demonstration Squadron

Offline Zach Swena

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #16 on: 07/29/2016 04:40 AM »
I think the smoke is probably just burning the flame trench.  They don't seem to be using nearly as much water as they would on a launch pad, so I would expect a large amount of ablation of anything stuck to the walls, and even somewhat of the walls themselves.  That is a lot of energy transfer there.

If this is the most beat up stage relegated to testing duty, it is almost a shame.  Think, that could have launched a satellite!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2195
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #17 on: 07/29/2016 06:10 AM »
So much for talk of a series of test firings gradually building up duration! (At least I assume news would have leaked if there had been multiple firings already?)

Of course we don't know the extent of any refurbishment yet but still an impressive achievement. Feels like booster re-use just took another large step forward :D

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 289
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 1848
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #18 on: 07/29/2016 07:47 AM »
Gotta love how the camera shakes the entire time the engines are lit!  :)

They haven't even cleaned the black stuff off of it around the legs.. is there some reason for wanting soot on there during the tests??

Hadn't noticed the shaking till you mentioned it! Maybe the soot makes it easier to ID this stage as the one for testing only.

Is all the black in that smoke nominal? I know it's supposed to be fuel rich, but you don't see that up in the air. I'd be surprised if atmospheric oxygen could do much to change it. Maybe some of it was from burning old soot inside the flame trench, and/or new soot from the extra long fire.
Black smoke is being caused by the fuel rich exhaust which is nominal being cooled by the water sprayed into the trench and preventing complete combustion of it in the air. During launch the remaining fuel in the plume burns in the ambient air so the plume is nearly smokeless as F9 rises into the air.

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #19 on: 07/29/2016 08:37 AM »
I think the little birdie singing by the camera probably needs hearing aids now.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12439
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3238
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #20 on: 07/29/2016 02:17 PM »
So much for talk of a series of test firings gradually building up duration! (At least I assume news would have leaked if there had been multiple firings already?)

Of course we don't know the extent of any refurbishment yet but still an impressive achievement. Feels like booster re-use just took another large step forward :D
There are test firings nearly every day at McGregor, of individual engines and of first and second stages.  Sometimes there are multiple test firings in a single day within a few hours time.  (McGregor may be the world's busiest "rocket laboratory" right now.)  SpaceX could have, and almost certainly did, perform at least one short test firing of this stage before the full-duration burn.  That is standard practice for new stage certification as I understand the process.

I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.  The real question is about the engines.  What was the extent of their refurbishment and were any even completely replaced?

 - Ed Kyle   
« Last Edit: 07/29/2016 02:26 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #21 on: 07/29/2016 02:41 PM »
So much for talk of a series of test firings gradually building up duration! (At least I assume news would have leaked if there had been multiple firings already?)

Of course we don't know the extent of any refurbishment yet but still an impressive achievement. Feels like booster re-use just took another large step forward :D
There are test firings nearly every day at McGregor, of individual engines and of first and second stages.  Sometimes there are multiple test firings in a single day within a few hours time.  SpaceX could have, and almost certainly did, perform at least one short test firing of this stage before the full-duration burn.  That is standard practice for new stage certification as I understand the process.

I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.  The real question is about the engines.  What was the extent of their refurbishment and were any even completely replaced?

 - Ed Kyle   

I was thinking the same question on the engines.  If engines have been changed, are they from other recovered cores?

SpaceX is certainly a fun company to watch.
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 285
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #22 on: 07/29/2016 03:01 PM »
My guess is very little was done to this stage except examination and some refurb like thermal blankets. Basing this on the idea of "fly then fly again" with as little done as possible.

Offline schaban

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #23 on: 07/29/2016 03:10 PM »
The interstage looks to be new, for example. 

why it is grey then?

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #24 on: 07/29/2016 03:10 PM »
I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.
The completely black interstage looks to be new?  Am I missing something?

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Europa
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #25 on: 07/29/2016 03:31 PM »
I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.
The completely black interstage looks to be new?  Am I missing something?

I think his point was the interstate looks to be black now and not the light grey it was after landing (seen during transport). So they either painted it black or replaced it with an unpainted one (perhaps an unpainted structural test article). I would think the latter is more logical. As to why they would do that in not sure. Perhaps they saw cracks in the carbon fiber or they are reusing that interstage (or pieces of it) on an upcoming flight.

Or maybe the contrast in this video makes the interstage look way darker than it really is... Who knows

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12439
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3238
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #26 on: 07/29/2016 03:34 PM »
Or maybe the contrast in this video makes the interstage look way darker than it really is... Who knows
Some fine photos by "McGregor watchers" in L2 show that it is unpainted and jet black, probably just bare carbon composite.  On the other hand, some bits (aero covers) do appear to be original.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/29/2016 03:39 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Europa
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #27 on: 07/29/2016 03:47 PM »
Or maybe the contrast in this video makes the interstage look way darker than it really is... Who knows
Some fine photos by "McGregor watchers" in L2 show that it is unpainted and jet black, probably just bare carbon composite.  On the other hand, some fairing bits (aero covers) do appear to be original.

 - Ed Kyle

I agree... It looks completely different. Is this what the structural test articles (used during certification) looked like? Perhaps this interstage was already outfitted with strain gauges to test the axial load they are putting on the vehicle during the simulated flight. I think it was mentioned that beefy cap was designed to be able to apply flight like loads to the booster during the test? Maybe I misheard

Offline southshore26

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #28 on: 07/29/2016 03:48 PM »
I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.
The completely black interstage looks to be new?  Am I missing something?

Yes... the completely black interstage is new... it doesn't appear to be painted and it's not covered in soot.

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 178
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #29 on: 07/29/2016 03:53 PM »
perhaps it just has something to do with the fixture on top
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6189
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1528
  • Likes Given: 1286
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #30 on: 07/29/2016 03:58 PM »
I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.
The completely black interstage looks to be new?  Am I missing something?

Yes... the completely black interstage is new... it doesn't appear to be painted and it's not covered in soot.

It is quite possible, that they have just removed the cork coating. The clamp that connects to a second stage does not look new.

Offline Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Germany
  • Liked: 673
  • Likes Given: 1955
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #31 on: 07/29/2016 05:28 PM »
So much for talk of a series of test firings gradually building up duration! (At least I assume news would have leaked if there had been multiple firings already?)

Of course we don't know the extent of any refurbishment yet but still an impressive achievement. Feels like booster re-use just took another large step forward :D
There are test firings nearly every day at McGregor, of individual engines and of first and second stages.  Sometimes there are multiple test firings in a single day within a few hours time.  (McGregor may be the world's busiest "rocket laboratory" right now.)  SpaceX could have, and almost certainly did, perform at least one short test firing of this stage before the full-duration burn.  That is standard practice for new stage certification as I understand the process.

I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.  The real question is about the engines.  What was the extent of their refurbishment and were any even completely replaced?

 - Ed Kyle   

They re-fire this stage because it is heavily damaged from a GTO launch. They want to know if it still works. If it works, there is a good chance that the less energetic launches can be relaunched. Changing much of the parts defies this purpose. Therefore, I would assume that only really broken parts after inspection are exchanged. If the engines for example were so damaged that they had to be replaced, the purpose of the test would be compromised. It wouldn't tell anything about the re-usability of other first stages.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3236
  • California
  • Liked: 2540
  • Likes Given: 1510
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #32 on: 07/29/2016 06:04 PM »
So much for talk of a series of test firings gradually building up duration! (At least I assume news would have leaked if there had been multiple firings already?)

Of course we don't know the extent of any refurbishment yet but still an impressive achievement. Feels like booster re-use just took another large step forward :D
There are test firings nearly every day at McGregor, of individual engines and of first and second stages.  Sometimes there are multiple test firings in a single day within a few hours time.  (McGregor may be the world's busiest "rocket laboratory" right now.)  SpaceX could have, and almost certainly did, perform at least one short test firing of this stage before the full-duration burn.  That is standard practice for new stage certification as I understand the process.

I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.  The real question is about the engines.  What was the extent of their refurbishment and were any even completely replaced?

 - Ed Kyle   

They re-fire this stage because it is heavily damaged from a GTO launch. They want to know if it still works. If it works, there is a good chance that the less energetic launches can be relaunched. Changing much of the parts defies this purpose. Therefore, I would assume that only really broken parts after inspection are exchanged. If the engines for example were so damaged that they had to be replaced, the purpose of the test would be compromised. It wouldn't tell anything about the re-usability of other first stages.

I disagree. They swap engines all the time, I think this was also about making sure the structure would work as expected.

Offline LucR

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #33 on: 07/29/2016 06:31 PM »
I too wonder how much of this stage is "new".  The interstage looks to be new, for example.  The real question is about the engines.  What was the extent of their refurbishment and were any even completely replaced?

If anything much was done to the engines, wouldn't that invalide the results of the testing for "life leader" purposes (as stated by Elon), since this is the JCSAT-14 booster?

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #34 on: 07/29/2016 07:32 PM »
I think his point was the interstate looks to be black now and not the light grey it was after landing (seen during transport). So they either painted it black or replaced it with an unpainted one (perhaps an unpainted structural test article). I would think the latter is more logical. As to why they would do that in not sure. Perhaps they saw cracks in the carbon fiber or they are reusing that interstage (or pieces of it) on an upcoming flight.

Or maybe the contrast in this video makes the interstage look way darker than it really is... Who knows

Trick of the light is one possibility.  Another is that the original interstage was removed for independent structural tests.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #35 on: 07/29/2016 07:32 PM »
They re-fire this stage because it is heavily damaged from a GTO launch. T
It is not "heavily damaged". It experienced the most damaging environment during return (because of the high energy orbit). That does not mean it was "heavily damaged". In fact several statements from SpaceX deny that it was "heavily damaged".

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #36 on: 07/29/2016 09:50 PM »
Facebook group member Keith Wallace reported ANOTHER full duration test just now. Another $200,000 worth of propellant consumed for our amusement!
« Last Edit: 07/29/2016 10:51 PM by The Roadie »
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #37 on: 07/29/2016 10:27 PM »
Facebook group member Keith Wallace reported ANOTHER full duration test just now. Another $200,000 worth of propellant consumed for our amusement!

$200,000 a day can turn into real money. 

Will be very interesting to see how many they end up doing. 
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2195
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #38 on: 07/29/2016 10:51 PM »
Wow. Whatever the refurbishment between recovering the stage and yesterday's test, I think we can be pretty confident there was little change since yesterday!

IIRC Elon has suggested SpaceX is aiming for something like 10 flights per engine with minimal work required. Not expecting them to get to 10 with this stage, as they may hit an unexpected limiting factor, but my guess is that's the number they're working towards. I'd guess at least a couple more tests with this stage, which would suggest at least a couple of re-uses per stage is well within bounds. That feels to me like minimum confidence needed for a customer to commit to a first re-use.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2016 10:52 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 787
  • Likes Given: 114
SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #39 on: 07/29/2016 11:10 PM »
Facebook group member Keith Wallace reported ANOTHER full duration test just now. Another $200,000 worth of propellant consumed for our amusement!

$200,000 a day can turn into real money. 

Will be very interesting to see how many they end up doing.
10...?

(Meaning Elon had stated they were going to test fire a returned stage ten consecutive times. He didn't indicate specific duration, just quantity)
« Last Edit: 07/29/2016 11:12 PM by Johnnyhinbos »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #40 on: 07/29/2016 11:25 PM »
Another 145 second test tomorrow and I think we'll be able to discern their plans. :-)
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Online enzo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • USA
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 640
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #41 on: 07/29/2016 11:39 PM »
From an engineering perspective, how well would the upper stage mass simulator be expected to simulate flight stresses? After all, it's no surprise the engines continue to fire well, but what concerns me more is the whole structure. The number of times it's fired doesn't necessarily correlate with flight readiness...
Yes I am aware most failures are engine related.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1009
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 362
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #42 on: 07/30/2016 12:00 AM »
Yes I am aware most failures are engine related.
Traditionally, but SpaceX has been very untraditional in that sense.  I am sure that SpaceX has noted many, many minor failures in their 27+ flights, but what the public knows about so far are (ignoring the landing attempts): one engine failed in CRS-1, the Dragon RCS thrusters were temporarily out of commission in CRS-2 (?), and there was a structural failure in the second stage while still under first stage power in CRS-7.  Only that last failure was fatal.  AFAIK, their record for commercial customers with the Falcon 9 has been blemished only by launch scrubs.

That said, and especially now that they have five intact recovered booster stages to look at, I am quite sure that the SpaceX engineers have their hands full fixing newly discovered failures, both major and minor.  They are in what some would call "a target rich environment", with a lot of things to work on all of a sudden.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7446
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3766
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #43 on: 07/30/2016 03:13 AM »
From an engineering perspective, how well would the upper stage mass simulator be expected to simulate flight stresses? After all, it's no surprise the engines continue to fire well, but what concerns me more is the whole structure. The number of times it's fired doesn't necessarily correlate with flight readiness...
Yes I am aware most failures are engine related.

It's a common problem that you can't replicate the real environment in testing.  Best example - fluid pressure on the bottom of the tank.

What you always do is characterize the test environment, make predictions on what effects IT will have on the system, and compare. 

The trick is to get the test environment into the same regimes as the real life environment (one way or the other).

So you do test firing, you do hydrostatic tests, you do external compression tests, vibe tests...  and for each you predict the response...

Remember that "test how you fly" or any of its variants is only an aspirational statement.  The longer version was "whenever practical, get as close to flight conditions, procedures, and practices as possible"...  But it wouldn't fit on the sign over the bathroom sink, so they had to shorten it.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Melanchthon

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 576
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #44 on: 07/30/2016 06:49 AM »
Facebook group member Keith Wallace reported ANOTHER full duration test just now. Another $200,000 worth of propellant consumed for our amusement!

Quite a bit more, actually.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-used-falcon-9-boosters-for-40-million/

“My CFO (chief financial officer) would kill me, but the cost of the fuel is $1 million, or maybe even under $1 million. It would be great if the first stage was maybe just 2x or 3x (2 to 3 times the cost) of that.” — Shotwell

So roughly $800,000.

Online vaporcobra

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #45 on: 07/30/2016 08:06 AM »
From an engineering perspective, how well would the upper stage mass simulator be expected to simulate flight stresses? After all, it's no surprise the engines continue to fire well, but what concerns me more is the whole structure. The number of times it's fired doesn't necessarily correlate with flight readiness...
Yes I am aware most failures are engine related.

It's a common problem that you can't replicate the real environment in testing.  Best example - fluid pressure on the bottom of the tank.

What you always do is characterize the test environment, make predictions on what effects IT will have on the system, and compare. 

The trick is to get the test environment into the same regimes as the real life environment (one way or the other).

So you do test firing, you do hydrostatic tests, you do external compression tests, vibe tests...  and for each you predict the response...

Remember that "test how you fly" or any of its variants is only an aspirational statement.  The longer version was "whenever practical, get as close to flight conditions, procedures, and practices as possible"...  But it wouldn't fit on the sign over the bathroom sink, so they had to shorten it.

Very good summary of the concepts utilized in ground testing for rocketry. It is my understanding that the main issue with ground testing is the inability to combine the numerous variables that come together during actual launch conditions. As such, the best SpaceX can do is simulate and combine as many as possible at once, or test each individual variable significantly beyond the predicted (or measured) stresses each component experiences.

Furthermore, I suspect that SpaceX has a mind-boggling array of sensors that collect data for each location on the rocket and likely each major component. This would allow them to very effectively characterize the environment each component experiences throughout launch and thus quite effectively test each component individually, on the ground.

Offline geza

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Budapest
    • Géza Meszéna's web page
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #46 on: 07/30/2016 10:18 AM »
Great explanations, thanks! I am just curious: Does a stage test fire include testing the TVC system? Whether is it still operational in that thermal environment?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #47 on: 07/30/2016 12:06 PM »
From an engineering perspective, how well would the upper stage mass simulator be expected to simulate flight stresses? After all, it's no surprise the engines continue to fire well, but what concerns me more is the whole structure. The number of times it's fired doesn't necessarily correlate with flight readiness...
Yes I am aware most failures are engine related.

One thing the static loading can simulate is full axial load on the first stage when it is at cryogenic temperatures and pressurized for firing.  Not sure if this is peak loading, but is a case that can be tested statically during hot fire.

On reviewing the firing video, looks like the interstage has no grid fins(not completely clear, but that is what I see), so just a structural test article.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31065
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9226
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #48 on: 07/30/2016 12:17 PM »


Furthermore, I suspect that SpaceX has a mind-boggling array of sensors that collect data for each location on the rocket and likely each major component. This would allow them to very effectively characterize the environment each component experiences throughout launch and thus quite effectively test each component individually, on the ground.

They don't.  See CRS-5

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #49 on: 07/30/2016 12:18 PM »
Wow. Whatever the refurbishment between recovering the stage and yesterday's test, I think we can be pretty confident there was little change since yesterday!

IIRC Elon has suggested SpaceX is aiming for something like 10 flights per engine with minimal work required. Not expecting them to get to 10 with this stage, as they may hit an unexpected limiting factor, but my guess is that's the number they're working towards. I'd guess at least a couple more tests with this stage, which would suggest at least a couple of re-uses per stage is well within bounds. That feels to me like minimum confidence needed for a customer to commit to a first re-use.

This also argues for the engines being the original set.  The structural test should be one and done... engine reusability is now being tested IMO.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline inonepiece

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #50 on: 07/30/2016 03:48 PM »
Facebook group member Keith Wallace reported ANOTHER full duration test just now. Another $200,000 worth of propellant consumed for our amusement!

Quite a bit more, actually.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-used-falcon-9-boosters-for-40-million/

“My CFO (chief financial officer) would kill me, but the cost of the fuel is $1 million, or maybe even under $1 million. It would be great if the first stage was maybe just 2x or 3x (2 to 3 times the cost) of that.” — Shotwell

So roughly $800,000.

I don't know what she's including in that figure, but from the raw materials figures I have jotted down for the first stage from past googlings (apologies for lack of citations):

276,600 kg LOX
119,100 kg RP-1

at $60 per tonne of LOX and $3.60 per gallon RP-1, that's about:

LOX $17000
RP-1 $140000

i.e. about $160,000 total for the first stage.  I think Musk has mentioned a figure of $200,000, so that tallies.

Obviously there are all kinds of other fixed and one off costs associated with a test.  Shotwell explicitly said in the report you quote that she was being guarded about costs.  Also, she was talking about the possibility of achieving (per flight) first stage costs comparable to propellant costs.  That may have prompted her pick assumptions for accounting for fuel costs that give a low multiple of first stage build cost to refueling cost, in order to present reusability in its best light.  Perhaps she was choosing to quote just the order of magnitude.

Exciting to think there's a chance we'll see a lot more of these tests soon on this rocket!

Offline DOCinCT

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #51 on: 07/30/2016 04:36 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Europa
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #52 on: 07/30/2016 04:52 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?

I thought they stated first stage reuse could only lower costs by 30%

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #53 on: 07/30/2016 05:30 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?

I thought they stated first stage reuse could only lower costs by 30%

Price, not cost.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 2905
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #54 on: 07/30/2016 05:48 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?
Reusing 90% of the engines, which are the most expensive things, the interstage and main thrust structure might save more than 50%.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1009
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 362
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #55 on: 07/30/2016 06:13 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?
Reusing 90% of the engines, which are the most expensive things, the interstage and main thrust structure might save more than 50%.
That may be true, but AncientU has a good point: price <> cost.  In fact, to stay in business, product price must be greater than product cost when averaged out over all product sold.  And for SpaceX, the product is launches for payloads.  SpaceX needs enough profit to fund it's development program, and eventually trips to Mars.  They're not a charity.

Pardon me if I'm being too obvious, but it seems some people lose sight of the obvious.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2016 06:24 PM by rpapo »
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • Liked: 886
  • Likes Given: 257
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #56 on: 07/30/2016 06:28 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?
Reusing 90% of the engines, which are the most expensive things, the interstage and main thrust structure might save more than 50%.
Don't forget that there is more to launch costs than hardware and fuel. Integration, range time and other support, pre-launch testing, etc. all contribute to cost as well. These are a bigger slice of the pie than most people realize. Remember that the GPS launch contract is $82 million. That is a full $20 M more than a standard F9 launch, and the DoD was surprised it was that cheap even though they knew the standard price.

I don't know how much of the standard price is related to non-hardware costs, but I would guess > $10M. This is something SpaceX is probably working in the background to bring down.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #57 on: 07/30/2016 06:59 PM »
Considering that the 2nd stage is not reusable, launch costs can never be just propellant costs.  With several reuses, maybe 50% less?
Reusing 90% of the engines, which are the most expensive things, the interstage and main thrust structure might save more than 50%.

First stage was quoted by EM as 75% of the vehicle cost.  As discussed a while back, if all the cost savings are passed on to the customer in that 30% price break (about $20M), and assuming zero refurbishment cost, that makes the total hardware cost around $26.7M.  If a nominal refurbishment cost is $3-5M, then the hardware total cost would be around $32M (again assuming that all of the savings were passed on to the customer). 

Bottom line from my perspective is that hardware cost is about half of the standard launch price of $62M -- if a 50% price reduction is going to happen (without second stage reuse), a chunk of it has to come from more efficient ground ops.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2016 07:00 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #58 on: 07/30/2016 08:21 PM »
Oh, just another full duration test - see:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154437920066318/

That's three for those keeping count.

Six if you consider:

McGregor.
Static Fire SLC-40.
Launch.
McGregor R1
McGregor R2
McGregor R3

(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1009
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 362
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #59 on: 07/30/2016 08:24 PM »
(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)
Yes, but those were by The One and The Three, as opposed to The Nine.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2016 08:25 PM by rpapo »
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #60 on: 07/30/2016 08:25 PM »
(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)
Yes, but those were by The Three, as opposed to The Nine.

True, which is why I'm sticking with six ;D

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4807
  • ad astra scientia
  • Daytona Beach, FL
  • Liked: 1398
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #61 on: 07/30/2016 08:25 PM »
Oh, just another full duration test.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/

Confirmed on tehre.

That's three for those keeping count.

Six if you consider:

McGregor.
Static Fire SLC-40.
Launch.
McGregor R1
McGregor R2
McGregor R3

(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)

Good see how much they're stressing this stage to really gather good and useful data on how the systems and stage itself behaves through each firing, cryo cycle, and pressurization.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1009
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 362
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #62 on: 07/30/2016 08:27 PM »
Oh, just another full duration test.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/

Confirmed on tehre.

That's three for those keeping count.

Six if you consider:

McGregor.
Static Fire SLC-40.
Launch.
McGregor R1
McGregor R2
McGregor R3

(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)

Good see how much they're stressing this stage to really gather good and useful data on how the systems and stage itself behaves through each firing, cryo cycle, and pressurization.
And notice: they are cycling this thing fast and furious, consistent with their eventual goals of fast turnaround.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 491
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #63 on: 07/30/2016 08:54 PM »
Shouldn't the Amos-6 core be going to the stand at about this time?


Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Florida
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 904
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #64 on: 07/30/2016 08:57 PM »
Oh, just another full duration test - see:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/

That's three for those keeping count.

Six if you consider:

McGregor.
Static Fire SLC-40.
Launch.
McGregor R1
McGregor R2
McGregor R3

(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)

And it came in for landing hotter than a bat out of hell!
« Last Edit: 07/30/2016 08:58 PM by Orbiter »
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R.

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #65 on: 07/30/2016 09:19 PM »
Shouldn't the Amos-6 core be going to the stand at about this time?

For all we know, Amos-6 could be the re-flight customer. So, they need to finish this testing sequence first.

Online Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Liked: 513
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #66 on: 07/30/2016 09:35 PM »
Shouldn't the Amos-6 core be going to the stand at about this time?

For all we know, Amos-6 could be the re-flight customer. So, they need to finish this testing sequence first.

Doubt it. But since there is 2 weeks to JCSAT-16 launch, they easily have time before Amos-6 booster needs to be on the stand.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #67 on: 07/30/2016 10:08 PM »
Oh, just another full duration test.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/

Confirmed on tehre.

That's three for those keeping count.

Six if you consider:

McGregor.
Static Fire SLC-40.
Launch.
McGregor R1
McGregor R2
McGregor R3

(Heck, there were also the entry and landing burns!)

Good see how much they're stressing this stage to really gather good and useful data on how the systems and stage itself behaves through each firing, cryo cycle, and pressurization.
And notice: they are cycling this thing fast and furious, consistent with their eventual goals of fast turnaround.

The cycling may only be limited by how quickly they can cool the next load of propellant.  Appears to be 10-12 hours between firings, but not sure if I'm getting the time-stamps/intervals correct.

Are there other reset activities that could be pacing? 


Ten firings in ten days or (less) would be an interesting data point for this program:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/
« Last Edit: 07/30/2016 10:39 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • Liked: 886
  • Likes Given: 257
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #68 on: 07/30/2016 10:27 PM »
I just created a poll for predictions of how many full duration tests this stage will go through.

Online vaporcobra

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #69 on: 07/30/2016 11:14 PM »


Furthermore, I suspect that SpaceX has a mind-boggling array of sensors that collect data for each location on the rocket and likely each major component. This would allow them to very effectively characterize the environment each component experiences throughout launch and thus quite effectively test each component individually, on the ground.

They don't.  See CRS-5

Could you elaborate? After taking another look at Mr. Graham's writeup, I see no hint of something that would suggest otherwise.

Offline Wolfram66

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #70 on: 07/31/2016 12:03 AM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

Offline JMS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #71 on: 07/31/2016 12:05 AM »
What is the informed opinion on the effects on the test stand if they test this to RUD? I'm assuming this is their primary stand?
Thanks

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1475
  • US
  • Liked: 958
  • Likes Given: 783
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #72 on: 07/31/2016 12:20 AM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

What ordinance do you think they have violated?

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #73 on: 07/31/2016 12:25 AM »
Shouldn't the Amos-6 core be going to the stand at about this time?



When it's ready for testing it'll take priority. They still have time before it's due for its static fire.

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #74 on: 07/31/2016 12:26 AM »
i wonder if shotwell's 'almost 1million dollars' cost was actually 3 or 4 full duration firings worth of fuel? math seems to work out better...

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #75 on: 07/31/2016 12:40 AM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Wolfram66

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #76 on: 07/31/2016 01:01 AM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

What ordinance do you think they have violated?

Local Media KWTX news

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/McGregor--City-modifies-SpaceX-rocket-testing-rules-378857891.html

Waco Tribune
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/mcgregor-sets-new-limits-on-spacex-rocket-noise/article_174a13fd-652b-5139-a4fa-2d328cc89f0e.html

Courtesy of Parabolic Arc
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/11/mcgregor-spaced-rocket-testing-rules/

IDK what the dB level of a F9-FT full duration is? Can anyone enlighten me?


Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6580
  • Liked: 863
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #77 on: 07/31/2016 01:05 AM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.

Stages, I'm not sure but I doubt it.  But at least one of the SSMEs flew 22 times, for 8 1/2 minutes a shot.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 01:06 AM by Lee Jay »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1475
  • US
  • Liked: 958
  • Likes Given: 783
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #78 on: 07/31/2016 01:18 AM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

What ordinance do you think they have violated?

Local Media KWTX news

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/McGregor--City-modifies-SpaceX-rocket-testing-rules-378857891.html

Waco Tribune
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/mcgregor-sets-new-limits-on-spacex-rocket-noise/article_174a13fd-652b-5139-a4fa-2d328cc89f0e.html

Courtesy of Parabolic Arc
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/11/mcgregor-spaced-rocket-testing-rules/

IDK what the dB level of a F9-FT full duration is? Can anyone enlighten me?

There is an ordinance, but what part of that ordinance does anyone think has been violated?  As one of the articles says:
Quote
City Manager Kevin Evans said the company’s tests are typically below 100 decibels and have never exceeded the 115-decibel mark.
And why would firing a stage for a full duration burn be any louder than a shorter burn?
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 01:19 AM by gongora »

Offline dgates

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #79 on: 07/31/2016 02:23 AM »
Quote
The cycling may only be limited by how quickly they can cool the next load of propellant.  Appears to be 10-12 hours between firings, but not sure if I'm getting the time-stamps/intervals correct.

Are there other reset activities that could be pacing? 


Ten firings in ten days or (less) would be an interesting data point for this program:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/darpa-pushing-experimental-spaceplane-xs-1/

Is there any reason to use super-cooled props for these tests? Sure, of course they would super cool them for a launch, but the thermal differences are likely minor.  There would be a reduction in thrust, which may be relevant. 10-12 hours does not sound like long enough to super cool multiple prop loads, but is long enough for a quick-look at the telemetry data and make a go-nogo decision. 
Pilot

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7446
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3766
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #80 on: 07/31/2016 02:42 AM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.

Stages, I'm not sure but I doubt it.  But at least one of the SSMEs flew 22 times, for 8 1/2 minutes a shot.

Yeah, but these are once-per-day full-cycles on a stage.  Full loads on the thrust structure (but only some partial load on the body, via the cables) and some load on the tanks.  (who knows how much)

And it's a flown stage.

I'm pretty sure it's unprecedented.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31065
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9226
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #81 on: 07/31/2016 02:57 AM »
Unflown stages in the past have been fired multiple times for longer than flight durations.

Offline EngrDavid

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #82 on: 07/31/2016 03:02 AM »
So, will the test be stopped due to stage reaching its limit or the test stand/ flame trench?  Any guesses/ bets?

Offline Chris_Pi

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 79
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #83 on: 07/31/2016 03:44 AM »
Their fuel supplier running out?

Wonder if plain old diesel might work  ;D

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #84 on: 07/31/2016 07:25 AM »
Quite a bit more, actually.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-used-falcon-9-boosters-for-40-million/

“My CFO (chief financial officer) would kill me, but the cost of the fuel is $1 million, or maybe even under $1 million. It would be great if the first stage was maybe just 2x or 3x (2 to 3 times the cost) of that.” — Shotwell
This would contradict Musk, who previously stated that the cost of fuel for a whole F9 launch was only 200k.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2016 07:27 AM by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #85 on: 07/31/2016 12:31 PM »
Unflown stages in the past have been fired multiple times for longer than flight durations.

Day after day, no maintenance between firings?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12439
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3238
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #86 on: 07/31/2016 02:26 PM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.
SA-T, the first Saturn stage, was fired 31 times during 1960-62 at MSFC.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sa-t.html

 - Ed Kyle

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • Liked: 886
  • Likes Given: 257
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #87 on: 07/31/2016 02:48 PM »
What is the informed opinion on the effects on the test stand if they test this to RUD? I'm assuming this is their primary stand?
Thanks
Considering that they have had an engine RUD in flight, and the primary mission was still a success, it is possible there would be no test stand damage. It depends on the nature of the failure.

I don't think they have another first stage test stand active at McGregor, this is the only one we have seen in use recently.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #88 on: 07/31/2016 03:02 PM »
Quite a bit more, actually.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-used-falcon-9-boosters-for-40-million/

“My CFO (chief financial officer) would kill me, but the cost of the fuel is $1 million, or maybe even under $1 million. It would be great if the first stage was maybe just 2x or 3x (2 to 3 times the cost) of that.” — Shotwell
This would contradict Musk, who previously stated that the cost of fuel for a whole F9 launch was only 200k.

I believe Musk was speaking of the material cost of the fuel in the tank at liftoff, where Shotwell is probably speaking of the lifecycle cost of the material and making use of it and everything associated with it for a launch.  Purchase, storage, pumping, people handling it, capital and people costs for several test firings before launch.

When they are reusing with good efficiency and less test firing for functional assurance, the million would decline towards the lower figure.

But I could be wrong.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
  • Liked: 886
  • Likes Given: 257
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #89 on: 07/31/2016 03:56 PM »
Quite a bit more, actually.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/03/31/spacex-hopes-to-sell-used-falcon-9-boosters-for-40-million/

“My CFO (chief financial officer) would kill me, but the cost of the fuel is $1 million, or maybe even under $1 million. It would be great if the first stage was maybe just 2x or 3x (2 to 3 times the cost) of that.” — Shotwell
This would contradict Musk, who previously stated that the cost of fuel for a whole F9 launch was only 200k.

I believe Musk was speaking of the material cost of the fuel in the tank at liftoff, where Shotwell is probably speaking of the lifecycle cost of the material and making use of it and everything associated with it for a launch.  Purchase, storage, pumping, people handling it, capital and people costs for several test firings before launch.

When they are reusing with good efficiency and less test firing for functional assurance, the million would decline towards the lower figure.

But I could be wrong.
The quote clearly states $1 million or less as directly referring to the cost of fuel.

That said, google tells me that NASA paid 16 cents per kg for LOx for the shuttle. given this estimate of 418 tons of fuel, and given the ratio of O2/RP-1 of 2.56, I estimate the LOx cost is around $50,000. I can't find a good source for the cost of RP-1, but working backwards from the $200,000 fuel cost number, I estimate about $1.25/kg. This seems more reasonable than the $8/kg that I get working from the $1 million estimate. I assume Shotwell just didn't have the exact figure memorized to better than an order of magnitude (less than $1 million is still accurate).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31065
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9226
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #90 on: 07/31/2016 03:57 PM »
no maintenance between firings?

What says there was no maintenance.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7446
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3766
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #91 on: 07/31/2016 05:53 PM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.
SA-T, the first Saturn stage, was fired 31 times during 1960-62 at MSFC.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sa-t.html

 - Ed Kyle

Given that SpaceX wants to fly people on F9, that's actually a nice number.

The other thing I hope they do is not fly people on an F9 until it's flown cargo at least twice.

Take the large number of ground firings as a qualification test, but those two cargo flights as an acceptance criterion.


ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2030
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #92 on: 07/31/2016 06:25 PM »
no maintenance between firings?

What says there was no maintenance.

You edited out the "Day after day. . ." part. There's not a lot of time for maintenance with daily tests, especially with nine engines. Of course we don't know if there is no maintenance, but I'm pretty sure they're not rebuilding engines between tests.

Offline rabe0070

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Illinois
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #93 on: 07/31/2016 07:34 PM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

What ordinance do you think they have violated?

Local Media KWTX news

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/McGregor--City-modifies-SpaceX-rocket-testing-rules-378857891.html

Waco Tribune
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/mcgregor-sets-new-limits-on-spacex-rocket-noise/article_174a13fd-652b-5139-a4fa-2d328cc89f0e.html

Courtesy of Parabolic Arc
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/11/mcgregor-spaced-rocket-testing-rules/

IDK what the dB level of a F9-FT full duration is? Can anyone enlighten me?

There is an ordinance, but what part of that ordinance does anyone think has been violated?  As one of the articles says:
Quote
City Manager Kevin Evans said the company’s tests are typically below 100 decibels and have never exceeded the 115-decibel mark.
And why would firing a stage for a full duration burn be any louder than a shorter burn?

It does mention "The ordinance also limits acceptance tests to 15-seconds or less and says that if noise limits of 125 decibels are exceeded, the test must be curtailed within 3 seconds."

Doesn't the long full-duration burns last beyond 15 seconds. Although, I'm not exactly sure what acceptance tests are.

Offline Clueless Idiot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #94 on: 07/31/2016 07:55 PM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.
SA-T, the first Saturn stage, was fired 31 times during 1960-62 at MSFC.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sa-t.html

 - Ed Kyle

Been lurking here since 2011, thats when Elon caught my eye and I drank his coolaid and never looked back.

Ok listen, there must be someone here who either works with rockets or has read many books on the matter. So the SA-T, when it was fired 31 times in a row, how much refurbishment was done on the engines and or body in between firings? I mean there must be books out there that would give details on this stuff and there must be people here who have read said books?

Are there any other examples? What about simple engine testing where they fire an engine by itself? Has anyone ever just fired a rocket engine on the test stand, say, a hundred times in a row without doing any refurbishment at all? I mean think of a basic lighter, i can use a lighter for hundreds upon hundreds of times without having to replace it so why cant rocket engines operate on the same principle? After all they're just really big lighters when ya think about it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31065
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9226
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #95 on: 07/31/2016 08:00 PM »
yes,  yes and no, they are nothing similar (rotating machinery, pressures and temperatures) to lighters.

Offline Clueless Idiot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #96 on: 07/31/2016 08:20 PM »
yes,  yes and no, they are nothing similar (rotating machinery, pressures and temperatures) to lighters.

Will you please thoroughly explain the two yes's pretty please? I dont have the patience or intelligence to do the research myself so please just bestow upon thee your great wisdom. So again referring to the SA-T stage, how much refurbishment happened in between those 31 firings? Now heres the thing, I have been thinking about this lots lately, what is the refurbishment rate of rocket engines in general?

Of course those rocket scientists know this answer already. Imagine yur a rocket scientist and you fire up rocket engine on a test stand, then you inspect the engine and you find that A. It doesn't need any refurbishment at all or B. It needs parts replaced or soot needs to be cleaned out or something. Lets pretend option A happened, ok now you fire it again and you inspect it and once again you find that it needs refurbishment or not. Ok now you repeat these steps again and again.

Now I am sure this has happened already in the real world. But what Im not sure about is whether the rocket scientist discovered option A or B?

I mean spacex has of course done this experiment with the merlin and they know the answer. Oh help me out here?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 2322
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #97 on: 07/31/2016 08:40 PM »
I mean think of a basic lighter, i can use a lighter for hundreds upon hundreds of times without having to replace it so why cant rocket engines operate on the same principle? After all they're just really big lighters when ya think about it.

A different analogy that many people use (me included) is the turbofan engines on airliners, which operate with many extreme conditions, though rocket engines have even more extreme conditions they have to operate in.  One article I have seen talked about a turbofan on an A-10 that flew for 10 years (3,464.4 operating hours) after a major overhaul in 1999.

And certainly a more direct analogy is the Shuttle Orbiter engines, the Space Shuttle main engine (SSME).  Though they had to go through an inspection program after each flight, and they did have some minor parts replaced after each flight, overall they were reusable.  But compared to a Merlin 1D, the SSME were pretty complicated, which is why there is more hope that a truly reusable rocket engine can be perfected.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31065
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9226
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #98 on: 07/31/2016 08:53 PM »

 I dont have the patience or intelligence to do the research myself

I don't either

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1475
  • US
  • Liked: 958
  • Likes Given: 783
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #99 on: 07/31/2016 08:56 PM »
It does mention "The ordinance also limits acceptance tests to 15-seconds or less and says that if noise limits of 125 decibels are exceeded, the test must be curtailed within 3 seconds."

Doesn't the long full-duration burns last beyond 15 seconds. Although, I'm not exactly sure what acceptance tests are.

You'd think this would be classified as R&D instead of acceptance.  Wish we could see the actual ordinance, I tried going to the city web site but their online copy of the ordinances has a 2012 date.

Offline Clueless Idiot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #100 on: 07/31/2016 10:01 PM »

 I dont have the patience or intelligence to do the research myself

I don't either

Yes, but yur not a clueless idiot.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7446
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3766
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #101 on: 07/31/2016 10:20 PM »
yes,  yes and no, they are nothing similar (rotating machinery, pressures and temperatures) to lighters.

Will you please thoroughly explain the two yes's pretty please? I dont have the patience or intelligence to do the research myself so please just bestow upon thee your great wisdom. So again referring to the SA-T stage, how much refurbishment happened in between those 31 firings? Now heres the thing, I have been thinking about this lots lately, what is the refurbishment rate of rocket engines in general?

Of course those rocket scientists know this answer already. Imagine yur a rocket scientist and you fire up rocket engine on a test stand, then you inspect the engine and you find that A. It doesn't need any refurbishment at all or B. It needs parts replaced or soot needs to be cleaned out or something. Lets pretend option A happened, ok now you fire it again and you inspect it and once again you find that it needs refurbishment or not. Ok now you repeat these steps again and again.

Now I am sure this has happened already in the real world. But what Im not sure about is whether the rocket scientist discovered option A or B?

I mean spacex has of course done this experiment with the merlin and they know the answer. Oh help me out here?

Rockets are exactly the same thing, but without the lighter...

---

SpaceX has put out very optimistic statements.  Every time they do, the regular suspects poo poo them, and then start talking about Elon time dilation.  It's business as usual.

So far, the optimistic statements are consistently realistic, and time dilation, meh, people have to complain about something...

SpaceX have said that refurbishment of engines, when necessary, is very simple, and beyond that the engine has no meaningful lifetime.  Like you, I believe this is based on the tests.

A somewhat tricker aspect is the longevity of the tank assembly, and these recent tests are highly encouraging. As they learn how to re-enter "better", wear and tear on the stages will only decrease.

Cheers! (on your cool-aid)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #102 on: 07/31/2016 10:33 PM »

A somewhat tricker aspect is the longevity of the tank assembly, and these recent tests are highly encouraging.


Not sure we really know that. We have no idea what was done to the stage between recovery and the current cycle of tests. We know the basic overall structure was intact at recovery and is - at this moment - capable of handling several consecutive cryo loading cycles and static firings. We don't yet know if any maintenance or repairs were done in between, and we don't yet know if any stage can be successfully reflown. I think most engineers would say things look positive, though I doubt a great number - especially anyone who's got experience in structural fatigue testing analysis - would YET go so far as to say "highly encouraging."  Some may see this as picking nits. Others may see it in the intended light, which is merely to be factual without coming across as overly-effusive.

Let's see 'em re-fly a stage. THAT will be better grounds for all the effusive praise people want to bestow - retroactively if necessary - on the current testing being done on any recovered stages. :)
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7446
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3766
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #103 on: 07/31/2016 10:57 PM »

A somewhat tricker aspect is the longevity of the tank assembly, and these recent tests are highly encouraging.


Not sure we really know that. We have no idea what was done to the stage between recovery and the current cycle of tests. We know the basic overall structure was intact at recovery and is - at this moment - capable of handling several consecutive cryo loading cycles and static firings. We don't yet know if any maintenance or repairs were done in between, and we don't yet know if any stage can be successfully reflown. I think most engineers would say things look positive, though I doubt a great number - especially anyone who's got experience in structural fatigue testing analysis - would YET go so far as to say "highly encouraging."  Some may see this as picking nits. Others may see it in the intended light, which is merely to be factual without coming across as overly-effusive.

Let's see 'em re-fly a stage. THAT will be better grounds for all the effusive praise people want to bestow - retroactively if necessary - on the current testing being done on any recovered stages. :)

That's why I said "encouraging", not "absolute proof"...

Still, they took the stage that had the toughest re-entry profile, and re-fired it multiple times.  We can move beyond the "this stage is toast" phase.  If that was the case, there'd be little incentive, and too much risk, to run these tests.

The important thing is not whether they needed to repair some components, because part of the process is to identify what needs to be redesigned.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Gotorah

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • New Mexico
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 263
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #104 on: 07/31/2016 11:49 PM »
Looks like it is about time to settle the questions. Put a Dragon V2 on the inter-stage, launch it from pad 40, deploy the Dragon at Qmax, and return the stage to the Cape. Land the Dragon on OCISLY !  Maybe the U A naysayers would take note.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #105 on: 08/01/2016 03:41 AM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

What ordinance do you think they have violated?

Local Media KWTX news

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/McGregor--City-modifies-SpaceX-rocket-testing-rules-378857891.html

Waco Tribune
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/mcgregor-sets-new-limits-on-spacex-rocket-noise/article_174a13fd-652b-5139-a4fa-2d328cc89f0e.html

Courtesy of Parabolic Arc
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/11/mcgregor-spaced-rocket-testing-rules/

IDK what the dB level of a F9-FT full duration is? Can anyone enlighten me?

There is an ordinance, but what part of that ordinance does anyone think has been violated?  As one of the articles says:
Quote
City Manager Kevin Evans said the company’s tests are typically below 100 decibels and have never exceeded the 115-decibel mark.
And why would firing a stage for a full duration burn be any louder than a shorter burn?

It does mention "The ordinance also limits acceptance tests to 15-seconds or less and says that if noise limits of 125 decibels are exceeded, the test must be curtailed within 3 seconds."

Doesn't the long full-duration burns last beyond 15 seconds. Although, I'm not exactly sure what acceptance tests are.

Or you can watch the video and judge the noise level for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/keith.wallace.75/videos/1194215193930192/

I think the bird chirping is louder than the firing, Keith Wallace said it's only 45db inside his house.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7984
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4788
  • Likes Given: 3231
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #106 on: 08/01/2016 04:13 PM »
Was 3 it (for now??) or am I missing some news?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3531
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #107 on: 08/01/2016 04:43 PM »
With this many full duration burns in such a short period, how much in fines/Fees they will owe to McGregor City for violating new sound ordinance ?

What ordinance do you think they have violated?

Local Media KWTX news

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/McGregor--City-modifies-SpaceX-rocket-testing-rules-378857891.html

Waco Tribune
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/mcgregor-sets-new-limits-on-spacex-rocket-noise/article_174a13fd-652b-5139-a4fa-2d328cc89f0e.html

Courtesy of Parabolic Arc
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/05/11/mcgregor-spaced-rocket-testing-rules/

IDK what the dB level of a F9-FT full duration is? Can anyone enlighten me?

There is an ordinance, but what part of that ordinance does anyone think has been violated?  As one of the articles says:
Quote
City Manager Kevin Evans said the company’s tests are typically below 100 decibels and have never exceeded the 115-decibel mark.
And why would firing a stage for a full duration burn be any louder than a shorter burn?

It does mention "The ordinance also limits acceptance tests to 15-seconds or less and says that if noise limits of 125 decibels are exceeded, the test must be curtailed within 3 seconds."

Doesn't the long full-duration burns last beyond 15 seconds. Although, I'm not exactly sure what acceptance tests are.

Or you can watch the video and judge the noise level for yourself: https://www.facebook.com/keith.wallace.75/videos/1194215193930192/

I think the bird chirping is louder than the firing, Keith Wallace said it's only 45db inside his house.
The in ground stand's are noit affected by this which is why the above ground stand wasn't refurbed for new S1 design.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12439
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3238
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #108 on: 08/01/2016 05:13 PM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.
SA-T, the first Saturn stage, was fired 31 times during 1960-62 at MSFC.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sa-t.html

 - Ed Kyle

Been lurking here since 2011, thats when Elon caught my eye and I drank his coolaid and never looked back.

Ok listen, there must be someone here who either works with rockets or has read many books on the matter. So the SA-T, when it was fired 31 times in a row, how much refurbishment was done on the engines and or body in between firings? I mean there must be books out there that would give details on this stuff and there must be people here who have read said books?

Are there any other examples? What about simple engine testing where they fire an engine by itself? Has anyone ever just fired a rocket engine on the test stand, say, a hundred times in a row without doing any refurbishment at all? I mean think of a basic lighter, i can use a lighter for hundreds upon hundreds of times without having to replace it so why cant rocket engines operate on the same principle? After all they're just really big lighters when ya think about it.
There are NASA history resources online that may include the information, for example this one
http://history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/contents.htm
but the single best resource that I've run across is Alan Lawries's meticulously researched book.  It lists every firing and logs the history of every Saturn I/IB stage.  (He authored a similar volume on Saturn V).
http://www.cgpublishing.com/Books/9781894959858.html

SA-T was tested in numerous configurations, to mimic precisely the various flight stage configurations (e.g. Block 1, Block 2, etc.).  It was fired several times in each configuration, usually with a few days between each test.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 08/01/2016 05:17 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Clueless Idiot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #109 on: 08/01/2016 10:15 PM »
Has anyone ever done this on a non-flown stage, let alone a flown one?
We're making history here folks.
SA-T, the first Saturn stage, was fired 31 times during 1960-62 at MSFC.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sa-t.html

 - Ed Kyle

Been lurking here since 2011, thats when Elon caught my eye and I drank his coolaid and never looked back.

Ok listen, there must be someone here who either works with rockets or has read many books on the matter. So the SA-T, when it was fired 31 times in a row, how much refurbishment was done on the engines and or body in between firings? I mean there must be books out there that would give details on this stuff and there must be people here who have read said books?

Are there any other examples? What about simple engine testing where they fire an engine by itself? Has anyone ever just fired a rocket engine on the test stand, say, a hundred times in a row without doing any refurbishment at all? I mean think of a basic lighter, i can use a lighter for hundreds upon hundreds of times without having to replace it so why cant rocket engines operate on the same principle? After all they're just really big lighters when ya think about it.
There are NASA history resources online that may include the information, for example this one
http://history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/contents.htm
but the single best resource that I've run across is Alan Lawries's meticulously researched book.  It lists every firing and logs the history of every Saturn I/IB stage.  (He authored a similar volume on Saturn V).
http://www.cgpublishing.com/Books/9781894959858.html

SA-T was tested in numerous configurations, to mimic precisely the various flight stage configurations (e.g. Block 1, Block 2, etc.).  It was fired several times in each configuration, usually with a few days between each test.

 - Ed Kyle

Well how much refurbishment happened between those firings? Come one I'm sure the book tells it

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 285
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #110 on: 08/01/2016 10:58 PM »
This is the stage that has had the most intense reentry.

It is the pathfinder.

The least done to it to test it the better. So, engines and the rest are the same. Expendables are changed but we don't have list of what is on that list.

Anything less reduces the pathfinder nature of these tests. Space X has stated that if this finishes the tests and the results are positive, then any other stage with an easier reentry should be able to fly.

My guess, inspection (which has likely been completed) on the stage to relaunch, a hot fire test, then launch.

It fits their 'KISS' approach.

Offline Space Opera

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #111 on: 08/01/2016 11:12 PM »
Was 3 it (for now??) or am I missing some news?
Yep.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 274
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #112 on: 08/01/2016 11:14 PM »

A somewhat tricker aspect is the longevity of the tank assembly, and these recent tests are highly encouraging.


Not sure we really know that. We have no idea what was done to the stage between recovery and the current cycle of tests. We know the basic overall structure was intact at recovery and is - at this moment - capable of handling several consecutive cryo loading cycles and static firings. We don't yet know if any maintenance or repairs were done in between, and we don't yet know if any stage can be successfully reflown. I think most engineers would say things look positive, though I doubt a great number - especially anyone who's got experience in structural fatigue testing analysis - would YET go so far as to say "highly encouraging."  Some may see this as picking nits. Others may see it in the intended light, which is merely to be factual without coming across as overly-effusive.

Let's see 'em re-fly a stage. THAT will be better grounds for all the effusive praise people want to bestow - retroactively if necessary - on the current testing being done on any recovered stages. :)

To this end, I'm curious to see how far they'll push cryo loading cycles on the test stand, since presumably the last thing they want is a tank rupture during a final countdown with an expensive cargo on top and the eyes of the world watching the webcast... so they'll really need to know precisely how far they can push a recovered stage before they re-fly it.

Perhaps this means we might, possibly, maybe, see a 'kaboom' on the test stand??  Ooo, goody!!  8)

« Last Edit: 08/01/2016 11:22 PM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Calhoun, LA
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #113 on: 08/02/2016 12:32 AM »
Perhaps this means we might, possibly, maybe, see a 'kaboom' on the test stand??  Ooo, goody!!  8)

No...please no...no, no no!

They don't need any test stands down or any collateral damage at McGregor right now.  If it goes boom on the stand....so does their launch dates for a while depending on the "quality" of the boom....

I want to see MORE rocket launches this year....not less.  :o

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #114 on: 08/02/2016 12:50 AM »
Perhaps this means we might, possibly, maybe, see a 'kaboom' on the test stand??  Ooo, goody!!  8)

No...please no...no, no no!

They don't need any test stands down or any collateral damage at McGregor right now.  If it goes boom on the stand....so does their launch dates for a while depending on the "quality" of the boom....

I want to see MORE rocket launches this year....not less.  :o

So far, we're 47 successes for 47 launches internationally and past mid-year, which seems unusual.  I'd like to finally see a year with no launch failures!

--Damon

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7984
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4788
  • Likes Given: 3231
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #115 on: 08/02/2016 01:00 AM »
Well how much refurbishment happened between those firings? Come one I'm sure the book tells it

Don't badger. Just ask questions, politely. No one owes you answers that take detailed research. Thanks.

Was 3 it (for now??) or am I missing some news?
Yep.

Yep what? Don't tease. Especially when "yep" could be taken as an answer to either question.  People come to NSF for answers not teases... thanks!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #116 on: 08/02/2016 02:52 AM »
There were three tests. They took Sunday off. And today. And now the crane is back over the stage, per Keith Wallace on FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154444636826318/

Presumably this means 029 arrived and has priority on the stand to support AMOS6.
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 274
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #117 on: 08/02/2016 03:05 AM »
Perhaps this means we might, possibly, maybe, see a 'kaboom' on the test stand??  Ooo, goody!!  8)

No...please no...no, no no!

They don't need any test stands down or any collateral damage at McGregor right now.  If it goes boom on the stand....so does their launch dates for a while depending on the "quality" of the boom....

I want to see MORE rocket launches this year....not less.  :o

That's fair enough.  I'm no metals expert, but presumably (amongst other things) SpX have to test this/a stage's tankage to destruction to determine how many re-flights they can safely do.. or is there some way to determine this categorically without filling and emptying repeatedly until that final RUD?

Has Elon ever said how many re-flights the stages are designed to handle?  There must be some limit on it..
 
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Wolfram66

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #118 on: 08/02/2016 03:29 AM »
Perhaps this means we might, possibly, maybe, see a 'kaboom' on the test stand??  Ooo, goody!!  8)

No...please no...no, no no!

They don't need any test stands down or any collateral damage at McGregor right now.  If it goes boom on the stand....so does their launch dates for a while depending on the "quality" of the boom....

I want to see MORE rocket launches this year....not less.  :o

That's fair enough.  I'm no metals expert, but presumably (amongst other things) SpX have to test this/a stage's tankage to destruction to determine how many re-flights they can safely do.. or is there some way to determine this categorically without filling and emptying repeatedly until that final RUD?

Has Elon ever said how many re-flights the stages are designed to handle?  There must be some limit on it..

Kind of like how many licks to get to the center of a tootsie-pop!👅🚀

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • United States
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #119 on: 08/02/2016 03:52 AM »
Perhaps this means we might, possibly, maybe, see a 'kaboom' on the test stand??  Ooo, goody!!  8)

No...please no...no, no no!

They don't need any test stands down or any collateral damage at McGregor right now.  If it goes boom on the stand....so does their launch dates for a while depending on the "quality" of the boom....

I want to see MORE rocket launches this year....not less.  :o

That's fair enough.  I'm no metals expert, but presumably (amongst other things) SpX have to test this/a stage's tankage to destruction to determine how many re-flights they can safely do.. or is there some way to determine this categorically without filling and emptying repeatedly until that final RUD?

Has Elon ever said how many re-flights the stages are designed to handle?  There must be some limit on it..

Kind of like how many licks to get to the center of a tootsie-pop!👅🚀
I would expect SpaceX's engineers to have devised a way to allow abort engines testing in case conditions of having a kaboom become imminent.
It would be silly to just go until you destroy the whole thing" rocket and stand and all...

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7984
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4788
  • Likes Given: 3231
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #120 on: 08/02/2016 04:01 AM »
That's fair enough.  I'm no metals expert, but presumably (amongst other things) SpX have to test this/a stage's tankage to destruction to determine how many re-flights they can safely do.. or is there some way to determine this categorically without filling and emptying repeatedly until that final RUD?

Has Elon ever said how many re-flights the stages are designed to handle?  There must be some limit on it..
 
I would think that at this point 10 tests would be enough. Maybe the tank might last considerably longer, but 10 at 70% gets to a very low residual. In a year or so they can run another stage 100 times.

Testing to a RUD seems like a bad idea.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline AC in NC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #121 on: 08/02/2016 04:10 AM »
I would think that at this point 10 tests would be enough. Maybe the tank might last considerably longer, but 10 at 70% gets to a very low residual. In a year or so they can run another stage 100 times.

Testing to a RUD seems like a bad idea.

How about running 10 tests ahead of the most reused stage in inventory?

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2879
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 715
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #122 on: 08/02/2016 04:48 AM »
I thought that Musk mentioned that they expect stages can be reused dozens of times and at least 10 or more times without major refurbishment. I might be remembering this wrong, though.

Offline CameronD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 274
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #123 on: 08/02/2016 05:30 AM »
I thought that Musk mentioned that they expect stages can be reused dozens of times and at least 10 or more times without major refurbishment. I might be remembering this wrong, though.

I agree testing to RUD is a bad idea, but how many times do they cycle cryogenics into the tanks?  AFAIK, it's at least three (WDR, Static Fire, Launch) probably more, so that could imply the tanks are designed to handle at least 30 cycles. ...but what about compression/expansion stress-loads on the stage during transport, lifting, ascent and landing? That has to be taken into account also.

My point is this: SpX know they can build a cryo-tank stage that can survive being tested, transported, launched, landed, transported and re-tested like nothing else in history, but can it do it all over again? ..and again??  ..and again?? Expendable stages don't need to, but these ones do - 'dozens of times'.  EELV designers are probably yelling "you've over-designed it!" and it will be interesting to see how long they last in practice, but I sure wouldn't want my payload on Flight Just-One-Too-Many ...
 
Just my $0.005 worth.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2016 05:36 AM by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #124 on: 08/02/2016 10:03 AM »
Although 'cheap' these test still cost a hat load of cash, $200k minimum.So doing lots of tests will start getting expensive, so they just need enough to give the desired number of 9's reliability.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #125 on: 08/02/2016 01:17 PM »
Although 'cheap' these test still cost a hat load of cash, $200k minimum.So doing lots of tests will start getting expensive, so they just need enough to give the desired number of 9's reliability.

Agreed, and perhaps, enough to make the engineers and insurance companies happy.  Likely there will be tests in the future as well on other returned stages after they've flown 2,3,4 times etc. 

Test data compared to flight data and see how things perform over time and confidence builds.

Also, I think the quote of $200K for fuel was pre Full Thrust and densification.  I don't know the cost, but I it's small.  The cost of pad hardware is one thing, but the cost of cooling the RP1 and LOx can't be ignored.
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #126 on: 08/02/2016 01:38 PM »
They need to do like 3+ tests now and then wait till they have a booster flown multiple times and do the same 3+ whatever static firing. The loads during flight are not the same as static. Doing static fires until destruction doesn't make a lot of sense at this point.
bob

Offline ZachS09

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #127 on: 08/02/2016 03:42 PM »
I thought they were to do at least ten tests beforehand.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital class rocket."

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 285
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #128 on: 08/02/2016 04:43 PM »
I thought they were to do at least ten tests beforehand.

If memory serves, that was stated earlier. Also memory says nothing from SX to say that has changed.

The test stand is being cleared to test a new core. Expectation/speculation is that more reuse testing will resume soon.

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #129 on: 08/02/2016 06:14 PM »
JCSAT 14 returned stage (fuselage 024) removed from McGregor test stand this morning.

Reported in the Facebook group by member Keith Wallace.
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #130 on: 08/03/2016 02:38 AM »
And in under 8 hours, 029/AMOS6 is erect on the stand! Also reported with a photo by FB Keith Wallace.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154447379276318/
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 491
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #131 on: 08/03/2016 05:53 AM »
And in under 8 hours, 029/AMOS6 is erect on the stand! Also reported with a photo by FB Keith Wallace.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154447379276318/

That was pretty fast! Lets see when they light this..

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 977
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #132 on: 08/03/2016 08:14 AM »
Speculation...
My guess is 72 hour (3 day) tak times is the S1 test rate goal of SpaceX...
Time a fresh stage rolls onto the property... till it rolls off property as a tested item...
2 a week... 100 a year... across this one test stand... if need be...

My guess is 29 is done by Friday... but ships only when needed...
24 back on and fired 3 more times before next Friday...

 ;)

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 1644
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #133 on: 08/08/2016 01:42 PM »
There were three tests. They took Sunday off. And today. And now the crane is back over the stage, per Keith Wallace on FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154444636826318/

Presumably this means 029 arrived and has priority on the stand to support AMOS6.
Maybe three tests in a row is all they can run, limited perhaps by sub-cooled oxygen supply.   It could be that they have storage for 3x a single booster, in preparation for FH testing.  Refrigeration equipment is expensive, and a full booster load per day would be plenty under normal circumstances, meaning they could not keep up with multiple full duration firings in quick succession.  Speculation, of course, but it could explain why they ran three tests in  a row, then stopped.

Offline 411rocket

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Retired RCEME w/ tours in Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia
  • Vancouver Island
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #134 on: 08/08/2016 06:57 PM »
There were three tests. They took Sunday off. And today. And now the crane is back over the stage, per Keith Wallace on FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154444636826318/

Presumably this means 029 arrived and has priority on the stand to support AMOS6.
Maybe three tests in a row is all they can run, limited perhaps by sub-cooled oxygen supply.   It could be that they have storage for 3x a single booster, in preparation for FH testing.  Refrigeration equipment is expensive, and a full booster load per day would be plenty under normal circumstances, meaning they could not keep up with multiple full duration firings in quick succession.  Speculation, of course, but it could explain why they ran three tests in  a row, then stopped.

Looks like you missed the write up, published on Aug 4th.  :o

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/spacex-falcon-9-preparation-jcsat-16-amos-6/

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-0024-S1) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #135 on: 08/10/2016 12:52 AM »
I thought they were to do at least ten tests beforehand.

More on the number of test fires from Gwynne Shotwell:

Quote
As part of that work, SpaceX is test-firing one of the Falcon 9 stages it successfully landed, from the May launch of the JCSAT-14 satellite, at its McGregor, Texas, test site. That stage has already completed some full-duration static test firings. “We’re going to run as many tests on this stage as we can pull off,” she said. “Hopefully we’ll get more than four, and maybe eight to ten of these, before we go ahead and refly.”

http://spacenews.com/spacex-offers-large-rockets-for-small-satellites/

« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 01:07 AM by Kabloona »

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 1644
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #136 on: 08/10/2016 01:59 AM »
There were three tests. They took Sunday off. And today. And now the crane is back over the stage, per Keith Wallace on FB https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154444636826318/

Presumably this means 029 arrived and has priority on the stand to support AMOS6.
Maybe three tests in a row is all they can run, limited perhaps by sub-cooled oxygen supply.   It could be that they have storage for 3x a single booster, in preparation for FH testing.  Refrigeration equipment is expensive, and a full booster load per day would be plenty under normal circumstances, meaning they could not keep up with multiple full duration firings in quick succession.  Speculation, of course, but it could explain why they ran three tests in  a row, then stopped.

Looks like you missed the write up, published on Aug 4th.  :o

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/spacex-falcon-9-preparation-jcsat-16-amos-6/
It's clear they needed to clear the stand for the new core.  But there were two idle days between the final re-test and removing the used booster from the stand.  Given that they demonstrated two tests per day, why did they not continue to 5 (or even 7) firings as long as they were set up for it?  Surely that would have been a lot easier than dismounting, then re-mounting the booster.   That's why I speculate they ran out of some supply, and sub-cooled LOX is a likely suspect.

Offline 411rocket

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Retired RCEME w/ tours in Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia
  • Vancouver Island
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #137 on: 08/10/2016 02:25 AM »
It's clear they needed to clear the stand for the new core.  But there were two idle days between the final re-test and removing the used booster from the stand.  Given that they demonstrated two tests per day, why did they not continue to 5 (or even 7) firings as long as they were set up for it?  Surely that would have been a lot easier than dismounting, then re-mounting the booster.   That's why I speculate they ran out of some supply, and sub-cooled LOX is a likely suspect.

There was the open house for the locals too, including whatever setup & teardown required. This is in addition to the Prop supplies, as you had stated. I think that there was only 1 firing per day, for 3 days though, from what I had been reading.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 04:46 AM by Lar »

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
  • California
  • Liked: 1072
  • Likes Given: 1376
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #138 on: 08/10/2016 06:48 PM »
It's clear they needed to clear the stand for the new core.  But there were two idle days between the final re-test and removing the used booster from the stand.  Given that they demonstrated two tests per day, why did they not continue to 5 (or even 7) firings as long as they were set up for it?  Surely that would have been a lot easier than dismounting, then re-mounting the booster.   That's why I speculate they ran out of some supply, and sub-cooled LOX is a likely suspect.

I agree that this represents the most likely suspect but don't discount other considerations like staff availability/rotation or test stand maintenance/re-checking, etc.  It might not be related to the booster at all.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline kaiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #139 on: 08/12/2016 03:30 AM »
It's clear they needed to clear the stand for the new core.  But there were two idle days between the final re-test and removing the used booster from the stand.  Given that they demonstrated two tests per day, why did they not continue to 5 (or even 7) firings as long as they were set up for it?  Surely that would have been a lot easier than dismounting, then re-mounting the booster.   That's why I speculate they ran out of some supply, and sub-cooled LOX is a likely suspect.

There was the open house for the locals too, including whatever setup & teardown required. This is in addition to the Prop supplies, as you had stated. I think that there was only 1 firing per day, for 3 days though, from what I had been reading.

Well that, and you are also in uncharted testing territory.  You don't know all of the post boost-back failure modes that could be lurking, an from the previous tests no doubt they have a ton of data to analyze and look for trends, etc.  You risk a RUD everytime you do it and damaging the stand.  If you have a paying customer needing that stand shortly, you don't want to push it too far.  You just re-fired 3 times, might be worth it to do an inspection and let through the items that that stand is on the critical path for rather than continue to increase the probability of a RUD on the stand and potentially delay a half dozen launches or so.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2016 03:33 AM by kaiser »

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Florida
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 904
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #140 on: 08/15/2016 01:43 AM »
F9-S1-0024 is on the test stand at McGregor again per the SpaceX Facebook page

Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R.

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 91
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6969
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2452
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #142 on: 08/15/2016 08:04 AM »
Looks like the 'cap' is not on this time.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7314
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #143 on: 08/15/2016 08:22 AM »
Maybe the cap is installed separately.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #144 on: 08/15/2016 08:48 PM »
Speaking of the "cap", Gwynne called it a "variable load head" at the small-sat conference, 20:50 in the below video:
Quote
the variable load head at the top, we're quite worried about that

Just noticed it in passing when I was watching it and thought it was of minor interest.

« Last Edit: 08/15/2016 08:49 PM by abaddon »


Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 3605
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #146 on: 08/31/2016 03:51 PM »
Do we have a count?
This is #5 at least...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline John Alan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Central IL - USA - Earth
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 977

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #148 on: 08/31/2016 06:32 PM »
Speaking of the "cap", Gwynne called it a "variable load head" at the small-sat conference, 20:50 in the below video:
Quote
the variable load head at the top, we're quite worried about that

Just noticed it in passing when I was watching it and thought it was of minor interest.


I watched the clip and I still don't know why she said they're worried about the load head, because she didn't elaborate. Worried about what?

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #149 on: 08/31/2016 07:54 PM »
Do we have a count?
This is #5 at least...

7 full burns?  Is that 7 after returning to McGregor or does it count the original McGregor test and the first flight for a total of 5 burns post flight?
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #150 on: 08/31/2016 07:55 PM »
I think total after flight macgregor burns
bob

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #151 on: 08/31/2016 09:56 PM »
I watched the clip and I still don't know why she said they're worried about the load head, because she didn't elaborate. Worried about what?
Yeah, I'm not sure what she meant.  And why is it a "variable" load head?  The weight of the stack the first stage supports doesn't really vary that much as it is dominated by the second stage...

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7314
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #152 on: 08/31/2016 10:11 PM »
And why is it a "variable" load head? 

They need to exert additional force on the hold-downs as the vehicle burns through the propellant weight, but the thrust level remains the same. The hold-downs probably can't handle the full force of 9 M1Ds being only opposed by the empty stage weight. Or, they can but they want to be on the safe side.

On the other hand, you don't need that extra load while the stage is still pretty much full.

The weight of the stack the first stage supports doesn't really vary that much as it is dominated by the second stage...

The force exerted on the top of the interstage by the 2nd stage mass is directly proportional to the vehicle axial acceleration. What starts off as 1.3 or so G ends up at 4 Gs or so near burnout.
« Last Edit: 08/31/2016 10:13 PM by ugordan »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #153 on: 08/31/2016 11:02 PM »
And why is it a "variable" load head? 

They need to exert additional force on the hold-downs as the vehicle burns through the propellant weight, but the thrust level remains the same. The hold-downs probably can't handle the full force of 9 M1Ds being only opposed by the empty stage weight. Or, they can but they want to be on the safe side.

On the other hand, you don't need that extra load while the stage is still pretty much full.

I'm still trying and failing to understand the "variable" part. The word "variable" seems to imply they can vary the weight of the load head. Why not just make it fixed, ie the weight of a fully loaded S2/interstage?

Or maybe it's a semantic misunderstanding. Maybe it's a fixed-weight "load head" that compensates for the "variable" weight of S1 as it burns. But I'd just call that a "load head" and leave the word "variable" out.

So I'm still confused.

Offline acsawdey

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 269
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #154 on: 08/31/2016 11:09 PM »
I'm still trying and failing to understand the "variable" part. The word "variable" seems to imply they can vary the weight of the load head. Why not just make it fixed, ie the weight of a fully loaded S2/interstage?

Or maybe it's a semantic misunderstanding. Maybe it's a fixed-weight "load head" that compensates for the "variable" weight of S1 as it burns. But I'd just call that a "load head" and leave the word "variable" out.

So I'm still confused.

The S1 accelerates with a fixed mass S2 atop the interstage. The acceleration varies as S1 propellant is depleted. S1 being constructed of an aluminum alloy presumedly has the possibility of fatigue issues. Therefore, you might consider a cap on top that pulls down harder as the burn progresses to model the loads felt by S1 as acceleration ramps up. Then at least some of the loads on/within S1 are similar to flight loads.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6189
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1528
  • Likes Given: 1286
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #155 on: 09/01/2016 04:22 AM »
Those thick cables coming down from the "load head" must have some function. To me it looks like winches can pull on them and add dynamic load. They don't use that device on normal testing.

Offline CyndyC

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #156 on: 09/01/2016 07:12 PM »
Speaking of the "cap", Gwynne called it a "variable load head" at the small-sat conference, 20:50 in the below video:
Quote
the variable load head at the top, we're quite worried about that

I interpret that to be a reference to the varying mass of payloads in the future. Just because the stage tests well with a dummy cap of whatever mass doesn't guarantee the launcher will perform the same way with something heavier on top.
« Last Edit: 09/01/2016 10:52 PM by CyndyC »
"Once a Blue, always a Blue." -- USN/USMC Flight Demonstration Squadron

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #157 on: 09/01/2016 07:48 PM »
Those thick cables coming down from the "load head" must have some function. To me it looks like winches can pull on them and add dynamic load. They don't use that device on normal testing.

That might be the source of Gwynne's concern. They'd have to change the load on each cable symmetrically/simultaneously in order not to pull the stage sideways, and that could be tricky.
« Last Edit: 09/02/2016 10:44 AM by Kabloona »

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
  • California
  • Liked: 1072
  • Likes Given: 1376
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #158 on: 09/02/2016 02:21 PM »
I'm still trying and failing to understand the "variable" part. The word "variable" seems to imply they can vary the weight of the load head. Why not just make it fixed, ie the weight of a fully loaded S2/interstage?

Or maybe it's a semantic misunderstanding. Maybe it's a fixed-weight "load head" that compensates for the "variable" weight of S1 as it burns. But I'd just call that a "load head" and leave the word "variable" out.

So I'm still confused.
Maybe it's not "dynamically variable", but rather "statically variable" (probably not the correct terms).  i.e. the load doesn't change during any given test, but can be variably dialed up/down to whatever load you want (within parameters).  So, for 1 test it may be 50,000 lbf and for another 30,000 lbf.  As opposed to one that only ever gives you 40,000lbf.  Though this seems somewhat silly to me, and my personal interpretation agreed with the straightforward one given by ugordan and others above.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #159 on: 09/06/2016 08:11 AM »
Why not tension the cables to a specific midpoint and have a hydraulic system sitting on top of the stage that can move up and down to add/remove tension to simulate a range? That way you're not fiddling with 4 adjustments, just one.

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #160 on: 09/06/2016 09:13 AM »
I don't think this is an issue. Load cell on the motors at the bottom of the cable, computer to keep all load cells at same value. Not difficult.

Offline Saabstory88

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • United States
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 242
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #161 on: 09/06/2016 02:26 PM »
Why not tension the cables to a specific midpoint and have a hydraulic system sitting on top of the stage that can move up and down to add/remove tension to simulate a range? That way you're not fiddling with 4 adjustments, just one.

Well, because in flight not all loads are perfectly symmetrical, like when the vehicle pitches and yaws.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2195
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #162 on: 09/13/2016 10:19 PM »
Quote
Hoffman: took one of the Falcon 9 landed boosters to Texas; fired it 7 times so far with no refurbishment. #AIAASpace
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775815358812782593

Quote
Hoffman: expect to take a couple years to refine the refurb process and costs. See “significant” cost savings in a few years. #AIAASpace
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775816294234857474

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 1076
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #163 on: 10/09/2016 08:26 PM »
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 1:16 PM - 9 Oct 2016

Shotwell: 8 of 10 tests of JCSAT-14 recovered stage done; when done, give us confidence to reuse stages 1-2 times. Ultimate goal 10 reuses.

Offline FH_2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #164 on: 10/10/2016 01:10 PM »
Quote
“We’ve fired that stage eight full mission durations, half of which have been at about 10 percent additional thrust,” she said.

http://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-homing-in-on-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/

Offline DOCinCT

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #165 on: 10/10/2016 05:17 PM »
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 1:16 PM - 9 Oct 2016

Shotwell: 8 of 10 tests of JCSAT-14 recovered stage done; when done, give us confidence to reuse stages 1-2 times. Ultimate goal 10 reuses.
The additional testing not only justifies a second or third reuse, but it provides the data needed to improve the Falcon (she said next year for an introduction) so it can be reused 10 times.

Offline miki

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Serbia
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #166 on: 10/10/2016 05:24 PM »
Does this mean that next year "final version" Falcon will have about 10% greater thrust?

Offline jeffkruse

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #167 on: 10/10/2016 06:37 PM »
Is anyone else concerned that she said only 10 reuses?  I was hoping 100 times or more.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #168 on: 10/10/2016 06:37 PM »
10 for now.
Work up to more.
bob

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
  • Liked: 968
  • Likes Given: 643
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #169 on: 10/10/2016 06:41 PM »
Right now I'd love to see just a 2nd flight of a booster.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7446
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3766
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #170 on: 10/10/2016 08:55 PM »
Is anyone else concerned that she said only 10 reuses?  I was hoping 100 times or more.

Since F9 operations are not totally streamlined, I think beyond 10 you get to the point where the amortized cost (say $5M) is of the same order as the launch operations.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #171 on: 10/10/2016 08:55 PM »
Is anyone else concerned that she said only 10 reuses?  I was hoping 100 times or more.

Wow, you are getting extremely greedy very quickly.

Be patient, even if they started flying reused stages in the next couple of months it would likely take 4-5 years to get the first core to 10 flights and who knows what they'll want to be flying and upgrading too by then.
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #172 on: 02/16/2017 05:20 PM »
Bump. Any update on whether this booster has fired 2 more times? The plan (which may have changed) was firing this booster 10 times before the first reflight. It looks like SES-10 could fly in about a month or two.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 285
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #173 on: 02/16/2017 05:50 PM »
Bump. Any update on whether this booster has fired 2 more times? The plan (which may have changed) was firing this booster 10 times before the first reflight. It looks like SES-10 could fly in about a month or two.

My understanding is this test booster will not be flown again. They are testing limits with this one to give them confidence in relaunching other boosters.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Liked: 393
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #174 on: 02/16/2017 05:58 PM »
Bump. Any update on whether this booster has fired 2 more times? The plan (which may have changed) was firing this booster 10 times before the first reflight. It looks like SES-10 could fly in about a month or two.

My understanding is this test booster will not be flown again. They are testing limits with this one to give them confidence in relaunching other boosters.

Right. SpaceX said they wanted to test fire it ten times, they've currently tested it eight. rockets4life97 was wondering if we had heard about the final two test firings, especially since the first reuse of a booster is coming up.

Offline Flying Beaver

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #175 on: 02/16/2017 06:04 PM »
Bump. Any update on whether this booster has fired 2 more times? The plan (which may have changed) was firing this booster 10 times before the first reflight. It looks like SES-10 could fly in about a month or two.

My understanding is this test booster will not be flown again. They are testing limits with this one to give them confidence in relaunching other boosters.

Right. SpaceX said they wanted to test fire it ten times, they've currently tested it eight. rockets4life97 was wondering if we had heard about the final two test firings, especially since the first reuse of a booster is coming up.

The difference between 8 and 10 test firings is quite relative. Once you have seen that it can fire multiple times safely, and you have no reason to believe it will fail after 8 more firings, then you would assume its safe to re-fly boosters that have taken less of a thermal/aerodynamic beating during reentry.

And also it costs them $200,000+ to do a single firing.
Saw OG-2 Booster Land in person 21/12/2015.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 285
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #176 on: 02/16/2017 06:25 PM »
Sorry, sure missed they were not connected.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #177 on: 02/17/2017 02:48 PM »
One could make a case for testing to failure and finding out how the hardware ages and fails. 

Perhaps another time. 
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #178 on: 02/17/2017 03:22 PM »
One could make a case for testing to failure and finding out how the hardware ages and fails. 

Perhaps another time.

I expect to see a test to failure of a Block V core when they get that far.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
  • Liked: 968
  • Likes Given: 643
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #179 on: 02/17/2017 03:27 PM »
One could make a case for testing to failure and finding out how the hardware ages and fails. 

Perhaps another time.

I expect to see a test to failure of a Block V core when they get that far.

If I understand correctly they only have one booster test stand at McGregor, which is needed for all boosters. They can't risk that stand with a test to failure.

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #180 on: 02/17/2017 03:31 PM »
Yes, you are right. I think they'll build another test stand for this purpose. The info on re-use will be too valuable not to.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3236
  • California
  • Liked: 2540
  • Likes Given: 1510
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #181 on: 02/17/2017 03:48 PM »
One could make a case for testing to failure and finding out how the hardware ages and fails. 

Perhaps another time.

I expect to see a test to failure of a Block V core when they get that far.

That's not gonna happen. An entire vehicle tested to destruction? Nope.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #182 on: 02/17/2017 03:50 PM »
Test copv with no rp1 around to destruction? Like they did once before.
I assume block V will have new copv's?
bob

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 497
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage
« Reply #183 on: 02/17/2017 05:01 PM »
One could make a case for testing to failure and finding out how the hardware ages and fails. 

Perhaps another time.

I expect to see a test to failure of a Block V core when they get that far.

That's not gonna happen. An entire vehicle tested to destruction? Nope.

Failure, doesn't have to mean destruction or explosion on the pad.  It should just be to the point that the control software shuts down an engine for being out of range.
I know they don't need it, but Crossfeed would be super cool.

Tags: