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??)
Quote from: AndrewRG10 on 03/08/2020 10:03 amDoes 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.
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.
Envelope expanded https://t.co/WIuWUTAAnh — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 7, 2020https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1236156567449305089
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).
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1236117435905785856QuoteElon 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
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/1236040847575134209Quote 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/1236041023324897281Quote SpaceX has made improvements to their wind predictions since that incident.
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.
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...
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.
Quote from: Lar on 03/10/2020 10:30 pmNo 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: LarExpect 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.
Current booster refurbishment time is about 8 weeks. Still working to reduce that, so long term get to something more like commercial aircraft operation
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.
Quote from: freddo411 on 03/13/2020 05:57 pmI 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. ...
The issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective."
Better to invest in Starship than reusable F9 upper stage.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2020 05:09 pmThe issue is opportunity cost, not that it'd be "ineffective." Just to be clear being an effective solution includes being economically effective as well....
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/01/2020 06:08 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2020 05:09 pmThe 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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/02/2020 02:40 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 04/01/2020 06:08 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2020 05:09 pmThe 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?