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 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.
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.
I thought they were to do at least ten tests beforehand.
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/
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.
Quote from: The Roadie on 08/02/2016 02:52 amThere 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.
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.”
Quote from: LouScheffer on 08/08/2016 01:42 pmQuote from: The Roadie on 08/02/2016 02:52 amThere 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. 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.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 08/10/2016 01:59 amIt'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.