Quote from: guckyfan on 09/07/2015 03:31 pmGreat article with lots of interesting data.I did stumble over this sentence:QuoteSpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles. The 2nd stage, like the core stage, was designed with extra structure/components adding weight and margin so it could withstand the intensities of potential return/reuse. Once they moved away from that, they could begin to reduce the weight and margins over time for more mass to orbit. They were checking to see that if along the way in those reductions, they may have inadvertently compromised the integrity of the stage. This has now been deemed not an issue and closed out as a potential contributing factor.Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family. Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.
Great article with lots of interesting data.I did stumble over this sentence:QuoteSpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.
Quote from: rcoppola on 09/07/2015 04:01 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 09/07/2015 03:31 pmGreat article with lots of interesting data.I did stumble over this sentence:QuoteSpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles. The 2nd stage, like the core stage, was designed with extra structure/components adding weight and margin so it could withstand the intensities of potential return/reuse. Once they moved away from that, they could begin to reduce the weight and margins over time for more mass to orbit. They were checking to see that if along the way in those reductions, they may have inadvertently compromised the integrity of the stage. This has now been deemed not an issue and closed out as a potential contributing factor.Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family. Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.I think there could be a window for 2nd stage reuse on the FH. But not until the Full Thrust, FH, LC39, Boca Chica, Dragon and first stage reuse engineering and development tasks are nearly completed. Could also depend on where Raptor is in it's development. If it takes too long they could put people to work on a 2nd stage configuration that flies on FH missions.Finally, I love the term 'Full Thrust' to describe the F9.
I think key to that would be a common low-orbit mission that's done at a high frequency.A comsat deployer for the constellation would make sense. That system, all on its own, will take up more launches than everything else combined, so a reusable second stage / deploye might make sense.Later on, MCT refueling will take up even more launches, and again a dedicated refueler will make sense.But - none of that is relevant to the near-term improvements.
Which thread is appropriate for second stage reusability discussion? Lets move that stuff there.
Finally, I love the term 'Full Thrust' to describe the F9.
Static fire of the full-thrust first stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbe1KNUBEEU&feature=youtu.be
Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Elon since full thrust wasn't enough to lift off.