Quote from: Navier–Stokes on 06/07/2016 01:51 amI think you're right. I reversed the core designations in my original analysis. With correct positioning, the shiny one would be OG-2.It doesn't seem to make sense to repaint the display unit. Maybe they have rearranged the units and painted CRS-8?
I think you're right. I reversed the core designations in my original analysis. With correct positioning, the shiny one would be OG-2.
looks like the inside surface of the interstage of the cleaned one is black while the others seem to be white.
It definitely looks cleaned rather than re-painted. If you look closer you can tell that the surface has some less reflective areas suggesting a cleaning.
Maybe just a sandblaster with cork or dry ice media.
Quote from: dorkmo on 06/07/2016 04:20 amlooks like the inside surface of the interstage of the cleaned one is black while the others seem to be white.The others show light and shadow where that one just shows black. It looks like a black textile cover. Could be to protect newly installed or cleaned components, or it could be to cover up something that we weren't supposed to see.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/06/2016 08:27 pmI think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.No. An unbiased engineer with an understanding of metallurgy and aerospace structural design would say "Show me the post-flight material sample tests, the visual and NDE examinations of the structures, and the financial reports demonstrating the material and labor costs for refurbishment necessary arising from the above, plus any TPS removal and reapplication."EDIT: Damn autocorrect; grammar.
I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
Of course. But there has as yet been no reflight. Therefore no unbiased engineer can possibly say the recovered stages we have seen to date will need only minor refurbishment. None of us here have access to the kind of detailed data SpaceX requires to make the determination about the degree of repair or refurbishment necessary after one flight, let alone what might be necessary after two, five, ten ... Anyone who thinks otherwise is willfully deluding himself.
Just my opinion.How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them.Then again they did no test flight of Falcon 9 1.1 or Falcon Full Thrust.What would a test flight show on a reused booster- it already flew once.Now they've gone and sold one maybe two flights on reused boosters, now we don't get to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters.
Fuel tanks in the reusable rockets are designed to withstand thousands of uses, while the engines can be reused more than 100 times by repairing them. SpaceX will aim to reuse rockets 10 times for the time being, said Shotwell.
Quote from: Doesitfloat on 06/07/2016 02:17 pmJust my opinion.How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them.Then again they did no test flight of Falcon 9 1.1 or Falcon Full Thrust.What would a test flight show on a reused booster- it already flew once.Now they've gone and sold one maybe two flights on reused boosters, now we don't get to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters.I think "how dare they" is a bit strong. There's an important point to be consider - you can't sell if no one is willing to buy. We don't have to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters - we know it as a cold, hard fact.It's all about risk/reward. And if the customer is willing to take the risk - and, more importantly, their insurance companies are willing to underwrite the risk - then why shouldn't SpaceX fly with a live payload?
Presumably the customer(s) are eager because:A) they'll get a significant discount for being the first ones to fly on a used boosterandB) they trust SpaceX
Quote from: mheney on 06/07/2016 04:05 pmQuote from: Doesitfloat on 06/07/2016 02:17 pmJust my opinion.How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them. ...I think "how dare they" is a bit strong. There's an important point to be consider - you can't sell if no one is willing to buy. We don't have to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters - we know it as a cold, hard fact....Presumably the customer(s) are eager because:A) they'll get a significant discount for being the first ones to fly on a used boosterandB) they trust SpaceX
Quote from: Doesitfloat on 06/07/2016 02:17 pmJust my opinion.How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them. ...I think "how dare they" is a bit strong. There's an important point to be consider - you can't sell if no one is willing to buy. We don't have to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters - we know it as a cold, hard fact....
Just my opinion.How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them. ...
...And C) Bragging rights. Or put another way: Demonstrating that they are a forward looking company in touch with the cutting edge of technology!