Quote from: woods170 on 08/22/2016 08:17 amQuote from: JMS on 08/22/2016 04:19 amAm I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.Perhaps, but they're not good enough for "keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea" which is why they use the jacks and weld them to the deck ASAP after landing.
Quote from: JMS on 08/22/2016 04:19 amAm I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.
my worry is not whether they can take the load now but rather if they can take the load continuously for years and years, as the materials deteriorate.
Quote from: IntoTheVoid on 08/22/2016 12:52 pmQuote from: woods170 on 08/22/2016 08:17 amQuote from: JMS on 08/22/2016 04:19 amAm I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.Perhaps, but they're not good enough for "keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea" which is why they use the jacks and weld them to the deck ASAP after landing.No, not quite. The chains that are welded to the deck are there to prevent the stage from sliding off the deck. However, the chains are put under tension to such an extend that the legs alone no longer suffice. That's why jacks are placed underneath the stage.Given that the stage at Hawthorne is in no danger of sliding off a deck, there is no need to secure the stage in place via chains and jacks. The legs alone are adequate enough.
Quote from: Lar on 08/22/2016 04:46 pmmy worry is not whether they can take the load now but rather if they can take the load continuously for years and years, as the materials deteriorate.A used-car dealership in my home town has had a load bearing carbon fibre pole sitting out in the open, exposed to the elements for the past 29 years. The prime material of that pole (a painted-over moisture resistant carbon fibre reinforced polymer) hasn't degraded one d*mn bit, despite the lousy climate here.Given that SpaceX has those legs made from aerospace-grade CFRP and other UV and corrossion resistant materials, I'm not too worried about materials deterioration anytime soon.
my worry is not whether [the legs] can take the load now but rather if they can take the load continuously for years and years, as the materials deteriorate.
Not sure why all the worry about paint, weather, and lightning, etc. Except for earthquakes, the LA Area is a far more benign environment than Florida. KSC has 6 months of extreme humidity, near constant aerosol salt spray, frequent high thunderstorm winds, torrential downpours, lots of lightning, and an occasional Tropical Storm or Hurricane, and they manage to keep the Rocket Garden display looking good:
Odds are the legs and mounts are "rigidified" and their feet bolted to the slab.
QuoteHoffman: took one of the Falcon 9 landed boosters to Texas; fired it 7 times so far with no refurbishment. #AIAASpacehttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775815358812782593QuoteHoffman: expect to take a couple years to refine the refurb process and costs. See “significant” cost savings in a few years. #AIAASpacehttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775816294234857474
Hoffman: took one of the Falcon 9 landed boosters to Texas; fired it 7 times so far with no refurbishment. #AIAASpace
Hoffman: expect to take a couple years to refine the refurb process and costs. See “significant” cost savings in a few years. #AIAASpace
While speculation is popular and is often justified by the absence of facts, there ARE some facts available. In an interesting article, space historian David Portree cites a study that looked at the refurbishment costs of the X-15 program that provides probably the most relevant real-world data we have:"In November 1966, James Love and William Young, engineers at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, completed a brief report in which they noted that the reusable suborbital booster for a reusable orbital spacecraft would undergo pressures, heating rates, and accelerations very similar to those the X-15 experienced.""The average X-15 refurbishment time was 30 days, a period which had, they noted, hardly changed in four years. Even with identifiable improvements, they doubted that an X-15 could be refurbished in fewer than 20 days."At the same time, Love and Young argued that the X-15 program had demonstrated the benefits of reusability. They estimated that refurbishing an X-15 in 1964 had cost about $270,000 per mission. "Love and Young cited North American Aviation estimates when they placed the cost of a new X-15 at about $9 million. They then calculated that 27 missions using expendable X-15s would have cost a total of $243 million. This meant, they wrote, that the cost of the reusable X-15 program in 1964 had amounted to just 3% of the cost of building 27 X-15s and throwing each one away after a single flight.My bold.http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-x-15-rocket-plane-reusable-space-shuttle-boosters-1966/
The X-15 program has provided more than 5 years of actual flight experience from which data on operations and costs for a reusable space vehicle can be obtained. The information applicable to reusable space vehicles has been presented in this paper, but not attempt has been made to determine how the information should be applied to future studies.In 1964, 27 X-15 flights were accomplished at a total cost of $16,268,000. The average cost per flight has been more than $602,000, and the average turnaround time has been 30 days per mission. Both of these factors are greater than estimates for a reusable booster, because of the research nature of the X-15 program and because the X-15 airplane is equivalent to a prototype vehicle. An estimated 33-precent reduction in turnaround time and a proportionate cost reduction would result fro the elimination of the X-15 research requirement. And additional reduction in turnaround time would have resulted if a product-improvement phase had been undertaken. Even so, the present estimates and extrapolations for future reusable boosters and orbital space vehicles appear to be overly optimistic in comparison to the actual X-15 experience, especially in the length of time required for turnaround.
The X-15, through 7 years of actual flight experience, has provided data which can be used as a basis for estimating operational costs of reusable space vehicles. The 32 flights accomplished in 1965 cost $13.017 million or $407,000 per flight and represent about 8 percent of the initial program cost. The high reuse of the X-15 indicates a 10- to 15-day turnaround time for first-generation reusable space vehicles.The X-15 has shown that realistic specifications and environmental conditions must be established as early in a project as possible, and specifications must be adhered to during acceptance testing and revised when found to be inappropriate. Also, a component-improvement program coupled with a timely and practical deficiency reporting system has been shown to be necessary for any new type of vehicle program regardless of its original anticipated project life
We know, of course, how things panned out in the long run. Consistent with the conference paper, a 14-day turnaround time was promised for the first-generation reusable space vehicle, the Shuttle. In reality, turnaround times were even longer than the 30 days mentioned in internal report.
I think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.
Quote from: enzo on 03/12/2017 08:48 pmI think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.Simple question, not to say that I am not also curious - why?And in terms of relative comparison, has Blue Origin? If they did I honestly missed it...Thank you -
Well we know the engines came off for one.