[–]DSBromeister * I've been waiting so long for this! I interned at LC-39A while the refurb was going on and boy did B1021 give us trouble! I'm so happy to finally see my baby fly!Edit: since people are asking for more info, I'll give a couple fun problems we ran into.Trying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1Trying to remove parts that weren't originally intended to be removableDiscovering parts on the booster that theoretically didn't exist before it launched
[–]FredFS456 Parts that theoretically didn't exist? What do you mean?permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply[–]DSBromeister This part was (is?) made of a stock material on assembly rather than fabricated, but wasn't officially given a part number until after the launch of CRS-8. It must have been created during B1021's original assembly and installed, but with no way to officially record its installation since a part number didn't exist. Fast forward to refurb and it calls for the removal of a part that was never officially installed, so I had to dig up some other paperwork detailing what occurred.
Thanks for posting this, although not sure SpaceX will appreciate this being made public on Reddit!
Trying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1
QuoteTrying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1Why was a v1.2 vehicle flying with parts from Block 2? Unless our understanding that v1.1 = Block 2 is incorrect, that's very odd.
It has been suggested before that SpaceX is continuously iterating such that every vehicle is a little different. At some point, there is a threshold (or some other large major change) that constitutes the creation of a new "block".
Quote from: envy887 on 03/30/2017 12:47 pmQuoteTrying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1Why was a v1.2 vehicle flying with parts from Block 2? Unless our understanding that v1.1 = Block 2 is incorrect, that's very odd.It has been suggested before that SpaceX is continuously iterating such that every vehicle is a little different. At some point, there is a threshold (or some other large major change) that constitutes the creation of a new "block".
That kind of haphazard configuration control does not bode well for assuaging worries of government customers.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 03/30/2017 12:50 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/30/2017 12:47 pmQuoteTrying to upgrade parts from block 2 to block 3, failing to install them three times, then giving up and trying (and succeeding with) a method from block 1Why was a v1.2 vehicle flying with parts from Block 2? Unless our understanding that v1.1 = Block 2 is incorrect, that's very odd.It has been suggested before that SpaceX is continuously iterating such that every vehicle is a little different. At some point, there is a threshold (or some other large major change) that constitutes the creation of a new "block".I believe it was Jim who stated, quite some time ago, that all launch vehicles have iterative changes. Which does make sense, if you encounter a minor problem, you fix it.
I believe it was Jim who stated, quite some time ago, that all launch vehicles have iterative changes. Which does make sense, if you encounter a minor problem, you fix it.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2017 02:52 pmThat kind of haphazard configuration control does not bode well for assuaging worries of government customers. If only NASA and the USAF were deeply involved with SpaceX as part of the certification processes being run by both instituations...