Either F9B5 is capable of achieving single-dayish turnaround
Or F9B5 will be used as a testbed for some future rocket that is intended for more frequent re-use.I would imagine that some Raptor-based stage with fewer main engines and maybe some smaller engines for fine control and a wider base may be flying down the road.
GS's quote was:"Shotwell said it took SpaceX roughly four months to refurbish the Falcon 9 first stage for the SES-10 mission. In the near-term, she said, that will drop below two months, and eventually down to a single day." (Followed by the "Elon gave us 24 hours, maybe" quote)So you can add option #4: GS was mixing up BFR and F9. Definitely possible.
Haven't seen this mentioned, but Gwynne Shotwell said this about the Falcon 9 development target:Quote from: Gwynne ShotwellI think Elon’s given us 24 hours, maybe, to get done what we need to get done, and it’s not a million people around a rocket scurrying like a beehive or an anthill. That vehicle needs to be designed to be reflown right awaySo, can we assume that F9B5 will be ready to fly again the next day after a launch?
I think Elon’s given us 24 hours, maybe, to get done what we need to get done, and it’s not a million people around a rocket scurrying like a beehive or an anthill. That vehicle needs to be designed to be reflown right away
Quote from: jpo234 on 03/10/2017 02:11 pmHaven't seen this mentioned, but Gwynne Shotwell said this about the Falcon 9 development target:Quote from: Gwynne ShotwellI think Elon’s given us 24 hours, maybe, to get done what we need to get done, and it’s not a million people around a rocket scurrying like a beehive or an anthill. That vehicle needs to be designed to be reflown right awaySo, can we assume that F9B5 will be ready to fly again the next day after a launch?Ready in theory, maybe. In practice, a BIG NO !Being capable by design doesn't make it wise to push it that hard.Just recovering the booster from LZ, mating the 2nd stage, doing a static fire, mating the payload, review everything and launch is optimistically a week long job.I expect static fires to be kept until SX can do 50 successful launches in a row. Otherwise insurers will scream.There's barely enough time to land a booster, take it to the barn, mate the 2nd stage (with a pre mated payload) and bring it to the pad in 24 hours.A single loss of payload has a far bigger impact at SX operations than saving a week / launch.I would expect the shortest land->relaunch cycles that F9 will achieve until its retired to be 2 weeks. That gives time for some inspections.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/10/2017 03:30 pmGS's quote was:"Shotwell said it took SpaceX roughly four months to refurbish the Falcon 9 first stage for the SES-10 mission. In the near-term, she said, that will drop below two months, and eventually down to a single day." (Followed by the "Elon gave us 24 hours, maybe" quote)So you can add option #4: GS was mixing up BFR and F9. Definitely possible.Time of refurbishment and time between launches are two different things. 24 hr refurb would mean that the stage is now the same as a new stage that was just offloaded from a truck and it now enters the launch flow.Stage mate and checkout; mate to TEL and checkout; and payload mate and checkout are all basically one day operations each.
Hey, I agree with the assessment that this is seemingly an over-aggressive statement. I wasn't the one that made it though. A pretty senior SpaceX exec did.If you re-read the quote and context, she's talking about the same rocket. Not "launch some rocket the next day".It may well turn out to be door #3 - that she's flat out wrong. Though why she'd choose to go there when nobody asked her to, I don't know.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/10/2017 04:31 pmHey, I agree with the assessment that this is seemingly an over-aggressive statement. I wasn't the one that made it though. A pretty senior SpaceX exec did.If you re-read the quote and context, she's talking about the same rocket. Not "launch some rocket the next day".It may well turn out to be door #3 - that she's flat out wrong. Though why she'd choose to go there when nobody asked her to, I don't know.I think Jim is right. What she meant is, that the refurbishment should take 24 hours. After the refurbishment the stage is ready again to enter the launch flow which will take a few days. The time line without unforeseen delays could look like this:* Day 0: Launch with RTLS * Day 1: Refurbishment * Days 2..4: Stage mate, TEL and payload mate (according to Jim) * Day 5: Next Launch Add some buffer days and the round-trip time becomes a week.
1. - Either GS's statement is referring to future planned revision beyond F9B5 (So F9B5 is not the last revision), or2. - GS's statement means F9B5 is a much bigger leap forward than people imagine, and is designed to eventually support "being refurbished in about a day"
I have no problem with this timeline that you wrote out, but it doesn't solve the conundrum.GS said the first reused stage took 4 month to refurbish, and they'll work it down to 2 months. But then they're aiming for 1 day, with minimal manpower.I think we're all in agreement that the current stage can't even come close to doing this. There are also very vocal voices saying "there will be no major revisions beyond F9B5".So....- Either GS's statement is referring to future planned revision beyond F9B5 (So F9B5 is not the last revision), or- GS's statement means F9B5 is a much bigger leap forward than people imagine, and is designed to eventually support "being refurbished in about a day" - never mind if it gets launched right away, or- GS's statement is wrong.That was it. I didn't make any statement as to which option is more likely.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/10/2017 07:14 pmI have no problem with this timeline that you wrote out, but it doesn't solve the conundrum.GS said the first reused stage took 4 month to refurbish, and they'll work it down to 2 months. But then they're aiming for 1 day, with minimal manpower.I think we're all in agreement that the current stage can't even come close to doing this. There are also very vocal voices saying "there will be no major revisions beyond F9B5".So....- Either GS's statement is referring to future planned revision beyond F9B5 (So F9B5 is not the last revision), or- GS's statement means F9B5 is a much bigger leap forward than people imagine, and is designed to eventually support "being refurbished in about a day" - never mind if it gets launched right away, or- GS's statement is wrong.That was it. I didn't make any statement as to which option is more likely.What if most of the "refurb" is actually non destructive testing, just in case replacement of some components, and a relatively minimal truly critical refurb work ?Once 2nd and 3rd reflights happen successfully, and testing doesn't show problems beyond what was already expected, then some testing and refurb can be safely retired.We know essentially nothing about how critical and how complex the work performed was. Just how long it took.Its easy to be pessimistic or optimistic depending on how you interpret GS and EM's statements.We just don't know.
So....A. - Either GS's statement is referring to future planned revision beyond F9B5 (So F9B5 is not the last revision), orB. - GS's statement means F9B5 is a much bigger leap forward than people imagine, and is designed to eventually support "being refurbished in about a day" - never mind if it gets launched right away, orC. - GS's statement is wrong.That was it. I didn't make any statement as to which option is more likely.
Quote from: jpo234 on 03/10/2017 06:03 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/10/2017 04:31 pmHey, I agree with the assessment that this is seemingly an over-aggressive statement. I wasn't the one that made it though. A pretty senior SpaceX exec did.If you re-read the quote and context, she's talking about the same rocket. Not "launch some rocket the next day".It may well turn out to be door #3 - that she's flat out wrong. Though why she'd choose to go there when nobody asked her to, I don't know.I think Jim is right. What she meant is, that the refurbishment should take 24 hours. After the refurbishment the stage is ready again to enter the launch flow which will take a few days. The time line without unforeseen delays could look like this:* Day 0: Launch with RTLS * Day 1: Refurbishment * Days 2..4: Stage mate, TEL and payload mate (according to Jim) * Day 5: Next Launch Add some buffer days and the round-trip time becomes a week.I have no problem with this timeline that you wrote out, but it doesn't solve the conundrum.GS said the first reused stage took 4 month to refurbish, and they'll work it down to 2 months. But then they're aiming for 1 day, with minimal manpower.I think we're all in agreement that the current stage can't even come close to doing this. There are also very vocal voices saying "there will be no major revisions beyond F9B5".So....- Either GS's statement is referring to future planned revision beyond F9B5 (So F9B5 is not the last revision), or- GS's statement means F9B5 is a much bigger leap forward than people imagine, and is designed to eventually support "being refurbished in about a day" - never mind if it gets launched right away, or- GS's statement is wrong.That was it. I didn't make any statement as to which option is more likely.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/10/2017 07:14 pmSo....A. - Either GS's statement is referring to future planned revision beyond F9B5 (So F9B5 is not the last revision), orB. - GS's statement means F9B5 is a much bigger leap forward than people imagine, and is designed to eventually support "being refurbished in about a day" - never mind if it gets launched right away, orC. - GS's statement is wrong.That was it. I didn't make any statement as to which option is more likely."C" can be ruled out, since both Musk and Shotwell have been consistent on what they have been saying. No daylight between them.