Quote from: JamesH65 on 03/22/2018 02:03 pmI don't see it like that. Because the cost to MAKE a new Block 5 is less than $567m, the maximum amount SpaceX would lose is the cost to replace the booster with a new one, plus any delay costs. But of course, they won't lose it - it will be charged to the customer.You're missing one small detail in this. Musk wants to shift all launches to BFR. They don't want to retain any F9 booster mfg capacity at all and if there's one thing we'll learned about SX by now it's they don't keep "spare" stages lying around. So flying an F9 booster as an expendable is a very big deal unless it's at end-of-life.Now that quote by Musk, saying blk 5 has got a potential life of 100s of launches with minor refurb just pushes the SX further away from wanting fly any expendable missions on a blk 5.So if you want near max capacity on F9 payload or delta V (especially if it's both) I'd expect them to say "you'll have to use FH"
I don't see it like that. Because the cost to MAKE a new Block 5 is less than $567m, the maximum amount SpaceX would lose is the cost to replace the booster with a new one, plus any delay costs. But of course, they won't lose it - it will be charged to the customer.
No, I didn't miss that. Point still stands that the cost to SpaceX is the cost to build a new booster. They don't want to do that. But that doesn't change the costs.
Despite all missions being readily in the range of recovery, SpaceX has only attempted to recover its Falcon boosters after two of the company’s five 2018 launches. If anything, the attachment to Falcon boosters and the apparent melancholy felt by many observers when they are not recovered is a testament to the staggeringly abrupt success of SpaceX’s reusable rocketry program.Aside from Falcon Heavy’s center core and 1044, each booster expended in the last several months (Iridium-4, GovSat-1, and PAZ) was aging, flight-proven, and nearing the end of its operational life: Block 3 and Block 4 Falcon 9s were simply not designed or expected to fly more than two or three times total. Their seemingly premature deaths were thus a necessary step along the path to Block 5 and truly rapid and cheap booster reuse; perhaps as pragmatic as quite literally making space for new and superior hardware at SpaceX’s many facilities. The demise of Falcon Heavy’s center core nevertheless made for a spectacular video (skip to 1:10, or watch the whole thing…).
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 03/22/2018 01:21 pmAre there estimates on how long the burns are going to be the Block 5 Booster and US?They've got to be shorter, but by how much?If the block 4 booster is at 92% thrust, and block 5 at 100%, then because thrust is proportional to mass flow, you might assume the block 5 burns would take 92% of the block 4 times. However, the throttle back at launch, for Max-Q, and to limit acceleration before MECO all still need to occur, and would all reduce the difference. I'm guessing they'll be around 95% of the block 4 burn times. I'm not sure yet if the S2 thrust will change as much.
Are there estimates on how long the burns are going to be the Block 5 Booster and US?They've got to be shorter, but by how much?
SpaceX to Debut Falcon 9 Block 5 in AprilCAPE CANAVERAL - The upgraded Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket SpaceX needs to taxi NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and deliver U.S. national security spacecraft into orbit will make its first flight on a commercial mission for Bangladesh, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell says. Bangabandhu Satellite-1, which was built by Thales Alenia Space for the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, will be the first Bangladeshi geostationary satellite, ...http://m.aviationweek.com/space/spacex-debut-falcon-9-block-5-april
Was there a significant change to the Merlin engines themselves for block 5? Otherwise I wonder why they didn’t save some block 4 stages to keep some spare engines on hand for swaps. Also, we’re any enignes swapped on reuse launches? Did they have any engine that launched 3 times? (Not counting test fires )
With block 5 coming soon, do we have any news on the service facility at Port Canaveral?
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/31/2018 05:10 amWith block 5 coming soon, do we have any news on the service facility at Port Canaveral?Apparently Teslarati got a photo of the Paz fairing at the new facility:https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-recovered-fairing-appears-mars-rocket-factory/
He is talking about port Canaveral, and yes, they should be starting work soon on the new facilititQuote from: Kansan52 on 04/02/2018 10:12 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 03/31/2018 05:10 amWith block 5 coming soon, do we have any news on the service facility at Port Canaveral?Apparently Teslarati got a photo of the Paz fairing at the new facility:https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-recovered-fairing-appears-mars-rocket-factory/
Quote from: CraigLieb on 04/02/2018 09:33 pmWas there a significant change to the Merlin engines themselves for block 5? Otherwise I wonder why they didn’t save some block 4 stages to keep some spare engines on hand for swaps. Also, we’re any enignes swapped on reuse launches? Did they have any engine that launched 3 times? (Not counting test fires )Yes. They now use a blisk (disk with blades all in one piece) in the turbines instead of a disk with blades welded on. I doubt this is a swap out part so Block 4 engines aren’t the same as Block 5.
Quote from: cppetrie on 04/02/2018 09:42 pmQuote from: CraigLieb on 04/02/2018 09:33 pmWas there a significant change to the Merlin engines themselves for block 5? Otherwise I wonder why they didn’t save some block 4 stages to keep some spare engines on hand for swaps. Also, we’re any enignes swapped on reuse launches? Did they have any engine that launched 3 times? (Not counting test fires )Yes. They now use a blisk (disk with blades all in one piece) in the turbines instead of a disk with blades welded on. I doubt this is a swap out part so Block 4 engines aren’t the same as Block 5. Was that related to the cracking issue?
I thought they always used a blisk type turbine design, and just redesigned it to eliminate small cracks near the base of the blades. John
Yes. They now use a blisk (disk with blades all in one piece) in the turbines instead of a disk with blades welded on. I doubt this is a swap out part so Block 4 engines aren’t the same as Block 5.
I wonder how much that change adds to the cost of an M1D.
it may remove cost. We don't know.
Quote from: Prettz on 04/03/2018 06:05 pmI wonder how much that change adds to the cost of an M1D.it may remove cost. We don't know.Surprised they didn't go with a new version (M1E) ... although we don't know they haven't.