I think you're being optimistic. These are rockets after all.
They have experience people now and will have things they specifically want to check. I think they will be very thorough on the first ones. At a minimum to confirm their expectations and establish baselines for the new vehicles.
That was my point. They have experienced people. These rockets have been most thoroughly evaluated. They will check how the upgrades perform. They don't start from scratch.
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/11/2018 07:57 amThat was my point. They have experienced people. These rockets have been most thoroughly evaluated. They will check how the upgrades perform. They don't start from scratch.They will also need to check that the things they changed didn't induce new problems in an unexpected area.
Quote from: deruch on 03/12/2018 01:34 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 03/11/2018 07:57 amThat was my point. They have experienced people. These rockets have been most thoroughly evaluated. They will check how the upgrades perform. They don't start from scratch.They will also need to check that the things they changed didn't induce new problems in an unexpected area.This is the line of reasoning that talked of tearing each flown booster apart to metal scraps and taking decades to get it right. Wrong then, wrong now. Expect Block 5 boosters to be reflown in weeks to maybe a month at first, then days to a week -- this year.
Can anyone summarise exactly what the differences are between block 5 and block 4?
Quote from: AncientU on 03/10/2018 04:15 pmThe quick turn-around may follow a few flights/reflights of Block 5.Should take the time to check that your design is performing as planned.Yeah, I owuldn't be surprised if they did a teardown of the first one or two cores post-landing, similar to what is done with the FT cores for refurb.Check every little spot for issues.
The quick turn-around may follow a few flights/reflights of Block 5.Should take the time to check that your design is performing as planned.
Quote from: Slarty1080 on 03/20/2018 07:12 pmCan anyone summarise exactly what the differences are between block 5 and block 4?Block 5 has a couple main goals:1) Meet NASA's human spaceflight certification requirements and fully meet DoD's certification requirements: This drove changes such as a redesigned turbopump on the engines and revised COPV design, as well as many others we probably don't know about.2) Make the booster easier to manufacture and need much less refurbishment between flights. This drove changes like improved heat shielding around the base of the rocket, changes to the legs so they're easier to handle after a flight, and many others we probably don't know about.It sounded like Block 4 was just Block 3 with whatever Block 5 parts were ready at the time.
I think expendable F9 is more expensive than reusable F9H, so you would need something that maxed out F9H to get into expendable launch territory.
Quote from: nacnud on 03/21/2018 08:49 amI think expendable F9 is more expensive than reusable F9H, so you would need something that maxed out F9H to get into expendable launch territory.And wouldn't that be a sweet payload to see launch?Without a payload on the manifest that requires an expendable FH and the rapid reuse Block 5 pending, we shouldn't see any expendable boosters for sometime. (Pending weather at recovery sites)These are exciting times!
Hang on, just so I understand correctly, are we saying that any payload that would require an expendable F9 wil automatically shift to a FH? Will the FH launch frequency and risk profile be interchangeable with F9 to the extent that there is no difference between the two from a customer's perspective?
Is it safe to conclude then that a Block 5 booster is more expensive to manufacture than Blocks 3 and 4? So while its lifetime cost will be lower due to its rapid reusability capability, for an expendable launch a Block 5 rocket will be more expensive than the previous versions?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/21/2018 08:32 amIs it safe to conclude then that a Block 5 booster is more expensive to manufacture than Blocks 3 and 4? So while its lifetime cost will be lower due to its rapid reusability capability, for an expendable launch a Block 5 rocket will be more expensive than the previous versions?Probably, but who knows to what extent. We know Ti grid fins are expensive---at least the prototypes were. Probably metallic heat shields are more expensive than SPAM as well? But most of the changes are probably a wash as far as costs go. Some of the changes, like better leg handling, will probably reduce costs. I don't expect the retail cost to change significantly.
Is it safe to conclude then that a Block 5 booster is more expensive to manufacture than Blocks 3 and 4?
So while its lifetime cost will be lower due to its rapid reusability capability, for an expendable launch a Block 5 rocket will be more expensive than the previous versions?
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 03/21/2018 11:38 amQuote from: nacnud on 03/21/2018 08:49 amI think expendable F9 is more expensive than reusable F9H, so you would need something that maxed out F9H to get into expendable launch territory.And wouldn't that be a sweet payload to see launch?Without a payload on the manifest that requires an expendable FH and the rapid reuse Block 5 pending, we shouldn't see any expendable boosters for sometime. (Pending weather at recovery sites)These are exciting times! Hang on, just so I understand correctly, are we saying that any payload that would require an expendable F9 wil automatically shift to a FH? Will the FH launch frequency and risk profile be interchangeable with F9 to the extent that there is no difference between the two from a customer's perspective?