*We* know nothing, apart from the fact that one engine in the OG-2 refire showed "thrust fluctuations".
I recently saw an old statement by Elon Musk. Very old, so very likely about 1.0 but should still be valid.He said the thrust structure is very robust and has a practically unlimited life span. It is expensive enough that its recovery alone would be worth it.
If I recall correctly, it will no longer be used because it is not compatible with new infrastructure.
Quote from: Moderas on 05/13/2016 02:15 pmIf I recall correctly, it will no longer be used because it is not compatible with new infrastructure.Any chance that they'd do it with a reused core? If the core fails, you get a launch escape test with real-life conditions.
Where is the CRS-9 thread?
Quote from: Nilof on 05/14/2016 07:08 pmQuote from: Moderas on 05/13/2016 02:15 pmIf I recall correctly, it will no longer be used because it is not compatible with new infrastructure.Any chance that they'd do it with a reused core? If the core fails, you get a launch escape test with real-life conditions. There's been a lot of discussion about this. I don't think they would risk using a core that would fail. The test is for an abort at maximum dynamic pressure if I recall. I think a failure before then is not really a valid test. It's valid for generic in flight abort, but not maximum dynamic pressure abort. [1]That said, I think that if SpaceX is confident that the stage will not fail prior to the abort then I can't think of a good reason not to use one now that F9-DevR is out of the picture.[1] Yes, I am aware of Little John and NASA deciding that was "good enough."
Quote from: corrodedNut on 05/15/2016 06:35 pmWhere is the CRS-9 thread?If a thread hasn't been created yet in the Missions section you can make one yourself, one of the mods will clean up the formatting when they start paying attention to that mission.
Quote from: mme on 05/14/2016 11:20 pmQuote from: Nilof on 05/14/2016 07:08 pmQuote from: Moderas on 05/13/2016 02:15 pmIf I recall correctly, it will no longer be used because it is not compatible with new infrastructure.Any chance that they'd do it with a reused core? If the core fails, you get a launch escape test with real-life conditions. There's been a lot of discussion about this. I don't think they would risk using a core that would fail. The test is for an abort at maximum dynamic pressure if I recall. I think a failure before then is not really a valid test. It's valid for generic in flight abort, but not maximum dynamic pressure abort. [1]That said, I think that if SpaceX is confident that the stage will not fail prior to the abort then I can't think of a good reason not to use one now that F9-DevR is out of the picture.[1] Yes, I am aware of Little John and NASA deciding that was "good enough."If a used core is ready in time and deemed flight worthy seems reasonable to use it. Does the flight profile allow for booster recovery? If not, a used core would seem preferable.Is there some SpaceX reference to not using the F9DevR? Or is that an assumption based on changed infrastructure at the Vandenburg pad? Is there definitely no way to use the F9-DevR? Again, if the flight profile doesn't allow booster recovery this would seem to be preferable over using even a used booster in my opinion.
So is that core now just a complete write-off? What a waste.
Quote from: Prettz on 05/17/2016 03:21 pmSo is that core now just a complete write-off? What a waste.It'll look really good next to Endeavor at the California Science Center.
Quote from: Prettz on 05/17/2016 03:21 pmSo is that core now just a complete write-off? What a waste.As others have pointed out, SpaceX doesn't buy into the sunk cost fallacy. If they did, they'd still be trying to recover boosters with parachutes.