Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0024) Reuse Testing Coverage  (Read 104988 times)

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: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
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: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
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: 21
  • New Mexico
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1483
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
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: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
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: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
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: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
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: 86
  • 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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
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
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 770
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: 606
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 366
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: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
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: 426
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Liked: 2327
  • Likes Given: 98
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
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: 170
  • United States
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 53
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...

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1