Author Topic: Progress on rapid booster reuse  (Read 175521 times)

Offline AndrewRG10

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Liked: 364
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #100 on: 03/08/2020 10:03 am »
Does anyone know the progress on B1052/B1053. Elon did say in 2017 or 2016, whatever that FH side boosters were just F9 which were converted. I understand it would take some time but 7+ months seems a while, hardly good progress for rapid booster reuse. Have they abandoned that idea of converting and those boosters are gone or can we expect them on missions soon (Starlink L6 or Saocom 1b??)
« Last Edit: 03/11/2020 12:01 am by AndrewRG10 »

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2040
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #101 on: 03/08/2020 11:53 am »
Does anyone know the progress on B1052/B1053. Elon did say in 2017 or whatever that FH side boosters are just F9 which can be converted. I understand it would take some time but 7+ months seems a while, hardly good progress for rapid booster reuse. Have they abandoned that idea of converting and those boosters are gone or can we expect them on missions soon (Starlink L6 or Saocom 1b??)

Unless it costs more to store a booster than to convert it or they're running out of single sticks, it makes sense to just store them for the next FH launch.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline anof

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #102 on: 03/08/2020 05:04 pm »
Does anyone know the progress on B1052/B1053. Elon did say in 2017 or whatever that FH side boosters are just F9 which can be converted. I understand it would take some time but 7+ months seems a while, hardly good progress for rapid booster reuse. Have they abandoned that idea of converting and those boosters are gone or can we expect them on missions soon (Starlink L6 or Saocom 1b??)

Unless it costs more to store a booster than to convert it or they're running out of single sticks, it makes sense to just store them for the next FH launch.

I believe that the next Falcon Heavy launch requires all new boosters.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #103 on: 03/09/2020 04:11 pm »
Does anyone know the progress on B1052/B1053. Elon did say in 2017 or whatever that FH side boosters are just F9 which can be converted. I understand it would take some time but 7+ months seems a while, hardly good progress for rapid booster reuse. Have they abandoned that idea of converting and those boosters are gone or can we expect them on missions soon (Starlink L6 or Saocom 1b??)

Unless it costs more to store a booster than to convert it or they're running out of single sticks, it makes sense to just store them for the next FH launch.
We should also keep in mind that the time between reuses represents the max time to prep for the next mission not the minimum. Just because a booster isn’t used for 7 months doesn’t mean it isn’t ready to be used. I imagine there are numerous factors that go into deciding which available booster gets assigned to a particular mission. We have virtually zero insight into that process. It is possible they are turning around boosters in substantially less time than we have seen for the current turnaround record (as measured by launch to launch duration) which is around 60 days if memory serves.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #104 on: 03/10/2020 08:39 pm »
We should also keep in mind that the time between reuses represents the max time to prep for the next mission not the minimum.
Quite true.

I guess the real question is what is the trend over time, and of course is there a lower bound, and if so what is it?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #105 on: 03/10/2020 10:30 pm »
SX expected to recover all those flights otherwise they wouldn't have fitted them with landing legs or grid fins and loaded them with landing propellant.
No they didn't "expect to recover"... they hoped they might, and putting legs and gridfins on was a gamble.

Expect to recover? That's not how SpaceX does things. Failure IS an option and envelope expansion is a perfectly acceptable use for something everyone else throws away.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #106 on: 03/12/2020 01:02 am »

No they didn't "expect to recover"... they hoped they might, and putting legs and gridfins on was a gamble.

Expect to recover? That's not how SpaceX does things. Failure IS an option and envelope expansion is a perfectly acceptable use for something everyone else throws away.

Sometimes it pays off:

Quote
    Envelope expanded https://t.co/WIuWUTAAnh
    — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 7, 2020

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1236156567449305089

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #107 on: 03/12/2020 02:47 pm »
So, I hadn't really put two and two together yet... apologies if this is a "duh" moment, but:

A) Starlink booster waves off landing due to high winds at the droneship, performs water landing.
B) SpaceX "expands the envelope" of the high winds at landing constraint on land with CRS-20 booster landing.  (Nice timing on those higher winds).

So, presumably, the Starlink booster could have landed successfully, if the constraints had been less restrictive, and future landing attempts in similar conditions wouldn't wave off  That bodes well for future recoveries in wider conditions.

(I'm assuming here that "expanding the envelope" would have covered the Starlink wave-off conditions, although that hasn't been explicitly stated that I know of).


Offline XenIneX

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #108 on: 03/12/2020 03:18 pm »
So, I hadn't really put two and two together yet... apologies if this is a "duh" moment, but:

A) Starlink booster waves off landing due to high winds at the droneship, performs water landing.
B) SpaceX "expands the envelope" of the high winds at landing constraint on land with CRS-20 booster landing.  (Nice timing on those higher winds).

So, presumably, the Starlink booster could have landed successfully, if the constraints had been less restrictive, and future landing attempts in similar conditions wouldn't wave off  That bodes well for future recoveries in wider conditions.

(I'm assuming here that "expanding the envelope" would have covered the Starlink wave-off conditions, although that hasn't been explicitly stated that I know of).


Quote from: Elon Musk's Twitter of Terror
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1236117435905785856
Quote
Elon Musk (@elonmusk)
Recent missed landing (at sea) was due to incorrect wind data. If this (land) landing fails, it will most likely be for a different reason.
9:32 PM · Mar 6, 2020

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1236040847575134209

Quote
Hans: Last launch had a landing failure due to the winds that the booster encountered not being as predicted. Therefore, the booster decided to divert to a water landing to protect the droneship.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1236041023324897281

Quote
SpaceX has made improvements to their wind predictions since that incident.

I recall someone (can't remember who) saying the problem would be prevented/mitigated in the future by sourcing wind data from additional sources.  Might have been on a recent-ish Twitch.tv stream by Scott Manley, but I won't swear to that...

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #109 on: 03/12/2020 03:34 pm »

I recall someone (can't remember who) saying the problem would be prevented/mitigated in the future by sourcing wind data from additional sources.  Might have been on a recent-ish Twitch.tv stream by Scott Manley, but I won't swear to that...

Hans at the pre-launch press conference for the CRS-20 mission.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #110 on: 03/13/2020 02:45 pm »
No they didn't "expect to recover"... they hoped they might, and putting legs and gridfins on was a gamble.
Every landing is a roll of the dice. So far roughly 4 in every 5 have worked out. IMHO That's excellent for a first of its kind vehicle.
Quote from: Lar
Expect to recover? That's not how SpaceX does things. Failure IS an option and envelope expansion is a perfectly acceptable use for something everyone else throws away.
I'm sure SX have learned something on every F9 flight. But if they really thought it would have been destroyed before it got close they wouldn't have bothered with the grid fins and landing legs. They might have put some weights on to simulate them.

Musk hoped for the best (like the FH US recovery attempt) but it didn't happen.

Best to just move on and accept some don't make it  :(. Keep in mind this also sets the expected minimum success rate for anyone who wants to follow SX with a recoverable booster.  Any future LV mfg who plans booster recovery will be judged on how well (or badly) they can match this performance.

As always the key question is what is the trend doing?  Length of time between launches of the same booster Vs survival rate.  I don't have the figures to hand but I'm sure someone here tracks them.  That would be very interesting.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1197
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #111 on: 03/13/2020 05:57 pm »
No they didn't "expect to recover"... they hoped they might, and putting legs and gridfins on was a gamble.
Every landing is a roll of the dice. So far roughly 4 in every 5 have worked out. IMHO That's excellent for a first of its kind vehicle.
Quote from: Lar
Expect to recover? That's not how SpaceX does things. Failure IS an option and envelope expansion is a perfectly acceptable use for something everyone else throws away.
I'm sure SX have learned something on every F9 flight. But if they really thought it would have been destroyed before it got close they wouldn't have bothered with the grid fins and landing legs. They might have put some weights on to simulate them.

Musk hoped for the best (like the FH US recovery attempt) but it didn't happen.

Best to just move on and accept some don't make it  :(. Keep in mind this also sets the expected minimum success rate for anyone who wants to follow SX with a recoverable booster.  Any future LV mfg who plans booster recovery will be judged on how well (or badly) they can match this performance.

As always the key question is what is the trend doing?  Length of time between launches of the same booster Vs survival rate.  I don't have the figures to hand but I'm sure someone here tracks them.  That would be very interesting.

I agree with this take.

Here's another take on things:    So since 2017 or so SX has successfully launched over 50 flights (100% success), landed over 40 boosters ( roughly 90% successfully) and reused boosters over 30 times.    In aerospace terms, they are moving, very, very, very fast.
Such a cadence builds experience and confidence in the workers, the hardware, the processes, and the customers.    It's important to also say that there are failures (Amos 6 and CRS7 and some landing attempts) that are part of going fast, learning fast, and improving quickly.

Contrast this with both Commercial Crew and the SLS program.   Hardly any flights, extensive reviews and reviewers, long delays while plans are changed, culture audits and so on.   In these cases there is such a desire to avoid mistakes, criticism and perceived failure that it begins to  paralyze the program from doing anything.   As we've seen in OFT 1, the go slow approach leads to failures too.    It doesn't lead to quick successes.

So what is the net take away?   F9 booster program is a rousing success in a short period of time, with many tangible results.   The others, not successful over long periods with zero tangible results.

Conclusion?   Going fast might be a superior way of doing business.
 

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #112 on: 03/13/2020 06:40 pm »
Have to think of booster recovery in terms of early aviation, when safe landings weren't given like today. F9 is Kittyhawk of RLVs.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48174
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81684
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #113 on: 03/15/2020 12:19 pm »
From today’s Starlink launch livestream by SpaceX

Current booster refurbishment time is about 8 weeks. Still working to reduce that, so long term get to something more like commercial aircraft operation

Went on to reiterate Elon’s recent statement of aiming for 3 launches of a Starship in a day
« Last Edit: 03/15/2020 12:20 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #114 on: 03/31/2020 05:35 am »
I agree with this take.

Here's another take on things:    So since 2017 or so SX has successfully launched over 50 flights (100% success), landed over 40 boosters ( roughly 90% successfully) and reused boosters over 30 times.    In aerospace terms, they are moving, very, very, very fast.
Such a cadence builds experience and confidence in the workers, the hardware, the processes, and the customers.    It's important to also say that there are failures (Amos 6 and CRS7 and some landing attempts) that are part of going fast, learning fast, and improving quickly.
Yes, SX have been very good at knowing when they don't have all the answers IE when to go to flight test, and abandoning ineffective solutions (like the F9 US) when they've realized it won't give anything like the yield they need.

Quote from: freddo411
Contrast this with both Commercial Crew and the SLS program.   Hardly any flights, extensive reviews and reviewers, long delays while plans are changed, culture audits and so on.   In these cases there is such a desire to avoid mistakes, criticism and perceived failure that it begins to  paralyze the program from doing anything.   As we've seen in OFT 1, the go slow approach leads to failures too.    It doesn't lead to quick successes.

So what is the net take away?   F9 booster program is a rousing success in a short period of time, with many tangible results.   The others, not successful over long periods with zero tangible results.

Conclusion?   Going fast might be a superior way of doing business.
For a business that actually wants to make money by charging for a service.

For a government cost plus contract programme that enjoys solid support of the politicians who oversee it (who also happen to be the politicians representing the areas in which it is based) and for Boeing it's producing
<monty burns>
excellent
</monty burns>
 results.

And will no doubt continue producing them long into the future.  :( 
« Last Edit: 03/31/2020 05:36 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #115 on: 03/31/2020 05:09 pm »
I agree with this take.

Here's another take on things:    So since 2017 or so SX has successfully launched over 50 flights (100% success), landed over 40 boosters ( roughly 90% successfully) and reused boosters over 30 times.    In aerospace terms, they are moving, very, very, very fast.
Such a cadence builds experience and confidence in the workers, the hardware, the processes, and the customers.    It's important to also say that there are failures (Amos 6 and CRS7 and some landing attempts) that are part of going fast, learning fast, and improving quickly.
Yes, SX have been very good at knowing when they don't have all the answers IE when to go to flight test, and abandoning ineffective solutions (like the F9 US) when they've realized it won't give anything like the yield they need.
...
You keep making that false assertion. Repeating it at every opportunity as if it's an indisputable fact doesn't make it a fact. The issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective." Better to invest in Starship than reusable F9 upper stage.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2020 05:10 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #116 on: 04/01/2020 06:08 am »
The issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective."
Just to be clear being an effective solution includes being economically effective as well.

Building a US that can (for example) only put 100Kg into GTO would demonstrate that making a more or less conventional US reusable is possible, but who would buy such a capability?
Quote from: Robotbeat
Better to invest in Starship than reusable F9 upper stage.
Which we are in violent agreement on.  :)

WRT to this thread I think the questions remain what is the maximum number of flights a booster can do without needing serious refurbishment or scrapping. I suspect it's a balancing act. SX know they cannot shut down booster production entirely, so they need to preserve skills while shortening turnaround time.  It's important to remember that turnaround reduction is not the goal. It is what that reduced turnaround enables SX to do.

My instinct is they are have a stepped graph of headcount needed versus number of reuses (and allowances for failed recoveries) and   will be looking to move their reuse number up to the next point they can reassign booster mfg staff onto other things.

I also expect that as usual there is an "aspirational" figure for this and a figure which is viewed as viable but extremely demanding. I note currently it takes under 12 days to refurb a pad but the shortest interval between re-flights (so far) is 63 days for the JCSAT18 and the last Startlink mission. I'm also sure they will be working on reducing pad refurb time.

The fact it was a 5th flight is extremely encouraging that things are trending downward but booster refurb/inspection is the pacing item.

So the current short term aspirational target is obvious.

Bring a booster back and have it ready in time for when the same pad is ready to launch again.  My instinct is that for that to happen a lot more stuff will need to be done on the ship ride coming back to base.
[EDIT Checking the wiki page for autonomous drone ships I see it takes about 4 days from being on station to returning to home port. 4 days out of a 63 schedule is not much. 4 out of 12 (assuming they started refurbing the launch pad immediately) is quite a lot.]
« Last Edit: 04/04/2020 11:22 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #117 on: 04/02/2020 02:40 pm »
The issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective."
Just to be clear being an effective solution includes being economically effective as well.
...
If they didn't have Starship, it WOULD be economically effective.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #118 on: 04/03/2020 05:51 am »
The issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective."
Just to be clear being an effective solution includes being economically effective as well.
...
If they didn't have Starship, it WOULD be economically effective.
Do you have a reference for that claim?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Progress on rapid booster reuse
« Reply #119 on: 04/04/2020 03:04 am »
The issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective."
Just to be clear being an effective solution includes being economically effective as well.
...
If they didn't have Starship, it WOULD be economically effective.
Do you have a reference for that claim?
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=opportunity+cost
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0