Quote from: RonM on 04/27/2018 09:13 pmQuote from: AncientU on 04/27/2018 09:06 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 04/27/2018 08:53 pmThe potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores. Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. Get used to a new way.Nothing new here. If the weather was good at the pad, but not at an emergency landing site, the Shuttle didn't launch.The shuttle's payload always included a crew, and the Orbiter was approaching $2B to replace.But yes, we're kinda back to those days again.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/27/2018 09:06 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 04/27/2018 08:53 pmThe potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores. Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. Get used to a new way.Nothing new here. If the weather was good at the pad, but not at an emergency landing site, the Shuttle didn't launch.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 04/27/2018 08:53 pmThe potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores. Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. Get used to a new way.
The potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.
Block 5 rocket launch marks the end of the beginning for SpaceXElon Musk seems to be happy with the nine-engine booster—so, he's moving on.Eric Berger - 5/3/2018, 2:10 PM
Good piece by Ars
From what I recall the number of COPVs has always been variable, and the AMOS-6 incident was caused by changes in the loading procedures for LOx and helium.
Is it me, or does the interstage change diameter?
Optical illusion; black make you look slimmer
Hopefully we'll get better pictures when the launch photographers go to set up their cameras, that image is heavily compressed.
Quote from: gongora on 05/03/2018 10:19 pmHopefully we'll get better pictures when the launch photographers go to set up their cameras, that image is heavily compressed.There are bands of highlight and shadow that are visually consistent with a diameter change as well. I don't think those are image compression artifacts.
Nope, same diameter. (see image) Don't be fooled by the racetracks that add apparent (but not real) diameter.When are people going to stop doing attempted image analysis on tiny JPEGs with terrible compression?
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/03/2018 11:04 pmNope, same diameter. (see image) Don't be fooled by the racetracks that add apparent (but not real) diameter.When are people going to stop doing attempted image analysis on tiny JPEGs with terrible compression?Probably at the same time people stop using similarly terrible images for the counterpoint.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 05/03/2018 11:06 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 05/03/2018 11:04 pmNope, same diameter. (see image) Don't be fooled by the racetracks that add apparent (but not real) diameter.When are people going to stop doing attempted image analysis on tiny JPEGs with terrible compression?Probably at the same time people stop using similarly terrible images for the counterpoint. ? You might want to schedule an appointment with an optician. So you stand by your belief?