Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 04/05/2018 01:57 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 04/05/2018 12:19 amI wonder how many times they've test fired the same engine on the test stand.I dont remember how many post-landing firings there were on JCSAT-14's core but those engines probably have the most firings of anything other than dev units.Individual Engine TestMcGregor Static FireCape Static FireLaunchEntry BurnLanding BurnNumerous subsequent firings at McGregor8 was the number I remember
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 04/05/2018 12:19 amI wonder how many times they've test fired the same engine on the test stand.I dont remember how many post-landing firings there were on JCSAT-14's core but those engines probably have the most firings of anything other than dev units.Individual Engine TestMcGregor Static FireCape Static FireLaunchEntry BurnLanding BurnNumerous subsequent firings at McGregor
I wonder how many times they've test fired the same engine on the test stand.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 04/05/2018 02:14 pmQuote from: OnWithTheShow on 04/05/2018 01:57 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 04/05/2018 12:19 amI wonder how many times they've test fired the same engine on the test stand.I dont remember how many post-landing firings there were on JCSAT-14's core but those engines probably have the most firings of anything other than dev units.Individual Engine TestMcGregor Static FireCape Static FireLaunchEntry BurnLanding BurnNumerous subsequent firings at McGregor8 was the number I rememberI heard they were going to do 10 for that core, but we only know of 8 so far.
Quote from: Nomadd on 04/03/2018 11:34 pm I'm still trying to grasp taking an engine that's flown close to 500 times without an issue and still looking for ways to increase reliability. The gigantic gulf between airline and space operations is getting smaller.There's no Merlin 1-D engine that's "flown close to 500 times" - there's a big difference between 500 engines that have flown once and a single engine that's flown 500 times!
I'm still trying to grasp taking an engine that's flown close to 500 times without an issue and still looking for ways to increase reliability. The gigantic gulf between airline and space operations is getting smaller.
Noticed on Instagram Mr Musk is throwing more nomenclature fuel on the fire of F9 names.
Both NASA and the Air Force [...] worked with SpaceX to redesign the Falcon's high-pressure helium bottles, known as composite pressure overlap vessels, or COPVs.
Block 5 [...] was designed to meet the needs of all of our customers - commercial and the U.S. Government.
LSA [Launch Service Agreement] is intended to support modification to commercial launch systems for unique national security requirements such as vertical integration infrastructure, certification, and other noncommercial elements.
Aviation Week has a new article Space Companies Vie For U.S. Launcher Development Contracts that explicitly states that QuoteBoth NASA and the Air Force [...] worked with SpaceX to redesign the Falcon's high-pressure helium bottles, known as composite pressure overlap vessels, or COPVs.This seemed like potentially one of the most contentious issues for certification (and the load astronauts before or after fueling debate). But if both NASA and the Air Force have insight into the re-design, and have presumably already given their approval, this should go more smoothly (and provide more confidence in the fix, if 3 separate sets of eyes looked at it).Turbine cracks were also addressed in Block 5. Were there any other big certification-related changes needed? Gwynne now states:QuoteBlock 5 [...] was designed to meet the needs of all of our customers - commercial and the U.S. Government.but somewhat contradictorily states:QuoteLSA [Launch Service Agreement] is intended to support modification to commercial launch systems for unique national security requirements such as vertical integration infrastructure, certification, and other noncommercial elements.Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed. This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.
Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed. This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.
but somewhat contradictorily states:QuoteLSA [Launch Service Agreement] is intended to support modification to commercial launch systems for unique national security requirements such as vertical integration infrastructure, certification, and other noncommercial elements.Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed. This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.
A quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP. I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.
Quote from: dpark on 04/15/2018 07:12 pmA quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP. I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.L2 McGregor thread. No legs there though. B5 hasn’t been anywhere fully suited yet for it to be seen. It just arrived at the cape a couple days ago. First opportunity to see it in all its glory will be static fire at 39a in a couple weeks.
Quote from: dpark on 04/15/2018 07:12 pmA quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP. I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.I admit, I wanted to be a smart-ass and send you over to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 because I know it has black legs and expected that they show a F9B5 since the performance numbers are from a B5. But that image looks like a cross between B5 legs and an earlier version. Hope this picture gets updated early May. From information we have. changes should be: black interstage, different logo position, metallic grid fins and changes to the bottom of the engine section.
I don't know how Spacex would balance off F9 Block 5 - expendable v. FH Block 5 - recover center core at sea. If you have a chance to loose the center core anyways, maybe just fly F9 expendable? Or, if you can fly FH and recover all 3 cores on land, do you fly that instead of a chancy recovery of F9 at sea?
The potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 04/27/2018 08:53 pmThe potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores. Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. Get used to a new way.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/27/2018 09:06 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 04/27/2018 08:53 pmThe potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores. Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. Get used to a new way.Nothing new here. If the weather was good at the pad, but not at an emergency landing site, the Shuttle didn't launch.