[–]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...
Making and tracking N different variants of a part because N different stages were all built slightly differently is a real PITA, in cost, mfg scheduling, machine resources etc. I expect the first stage design will continue to evolve but in more block orientated fashion. I also think the early recovered stages will have quite short re-use lives to purge the supply chain of too many variants. My instinct is less than 10 flights each at most, but that's a guess.
I'm not shocked by any of this, they are in block transition (multiple blocks) to block 5.A view this flight as an initial proof of concept rather than a view of how every refurbishment will be in the future.
I don't quite get why everyone in the naysayer camp seems to harp on second stage recovery. They said it's not happening and they're moving on.Maybe they'll do a Raptor upper stage, maybe they won't...
Only die hard amazing people have been talking about second stage recovery. The rest of us took Musk at his word and moved on long ago.
Quote from: abaddon on 03/30/2017 07:15 pmQuote 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...As noted above, this probably explains some of NASA's concerns following the CRS-7 situation.Disagree all you like, but configuration control issues have led to more than one fatal aviation incident (both civil and military). And these are well-established fields with incredibly meticulous certification procedures. Those procedures exist for a reason: because when people don't document what they did and things go bad, you can never be certain you actually figured out why they went bad - unless, as had happened more than once - you discover parts in the debris that weren't supposed to be there, or evidence of prior repairs or construction that weren't supposed to be have been done that way.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2017 09:35 pmQuote from: abaddon on 03/30/2017 07:15 pmQuote 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...As noted above, this probably explains some of NASA's concerns following the CRS-7 situation.Disagree all you like, but configuration control issues have led to more than one fatal aviation incident (both civil and military). And these are well-established fields with incredibly meticulous certification procedures. Those procedures exist for a reason: because when people don't document what they did and things go bad, you can never be certain you actually figured out why they went bad - unless, as had happened more than once - you discover parts in the debris that weren't supposed to be there, or evidence of prior repairs or construction that weren't supposed to be have been done that way.However, adding more and more checks comes with a cost, which is snowballing ever-so-slightly. And if you do not pay attention to this snow-balling, you may inadvertently end up with a situation when replacement of a single bolt requires one person to do the work and ten people documenting it, cross-verifying it, then documenting and cross-verifying the process of documenting.Not only it makes the process much slower and more expensive, it also makes people working on the hardware averse to the changes (since they need to do tons and tons of paperwork for each).And then you find your rocket engine designer, totally frakked off at the fact his "rocket design" work entails only doing endless paperwork, quit you company to work for some ridiculous startup.And then this startup's rocket whooshes past you, while you stare at the glowing letters on the wall: "Prepare to Become Obsolete".
I'm not contradicting you. I'm pointing out there is a drawback in having way too much configuration control.
Quote from: gospacex on 03/31/2017 12:23 amI'm not contradicting you. I'm pointing out there is a drawback in having way too much configuration control.No, actually you're not. It's quite possible to have excellent configuration control and do it efficiently. The issue I have (*) here is that it wasn't done CONSISTENTLY. Consistency, repeatability, and frequent repetition is the key to efficiency.
(*) Assuming arguendo the kid's story is, in fact, accurate. I'm not entire sure he wasn't exaggerating for effect.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/30/2017 11:57 pmOnly die hard amazing people have been talking about second stage recovery. The rest of us took Musk at his word and moved on long ago.Elon just mentioned possibly trying for second stage recovery in his press conference...
What evidence is there for this interpretation?
So... based of on an iffy source, you make the worst assumption?
I've just skimmed the SES10 webcast. Musk has a short segment. [EDIT re-checked it. He talks about booster reuse and how not throwing the whole thing away every launch saves money. There is no mention of upper stage reuse. It runs about 3 mins round 40+ mins into the cast ]
Musk: Upper stage reuse is next.
But then the only thing left is the upper stage, which we didn't originally intend for Falcon 9 to have a reusable upper stage, but it might be fun to try like a hail mary, and you know. What's the worst thing that can happen? It blows up. You know, it blows up anyway. [Martin Halliway chimes in humorously. "We need to discuss this."]
With this being the first reflight we were incredibly paranoid about everything. So we sort of, the core airframe remained the same, the engines remained the same but any auxiliary components we thought might be slightly questionable we changed out.Now our aspiration would be zero hardware changes, reflight in 24 hours the only thing that changes would be we reload propellant.
I'm just getting out of work and haven't been able to watch the Q&A session. According to Jeff Foust, Elon said might be "fun to try a Hail Mary" and recover the second stage. Chris Gebhardt relayed the same message here on NSF:Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 03/30/2017 11:58 pmMusk: Upper stage reuse is next.EDIT: Found it. Around 14:20 in this video of the press conference Elon mentions potentially trying for reuse of the second stage.
Considering trying to bring upper stage back on Falcon Heavy demo flight for full reusability. Odds of success low, but maybe worth a shot.
I'm guessing if some of his team come up with a (not too expensive) plan to give F9 US reuse a go with at least a 1 in 10 chance of success he'd give it a go,Otherwise F9 US reuse is dead as a dodo.
QuoteShotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SShttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/849679544923697152Edit to add: important extra pointQuoteShotwell: Falcon booster refurbishment cost substantially less than 1/2 cost of new build; more done for SES-10 than future flights. #33SShttps://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/849679956988674048
Shotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
Shotwell: Falcon booster refurbishment cost substantially less than 1/2 cost of new build; more done for SES-10 than future flights. #33SS
So many threads this could be posted in ...Here's a video montage of the life of booster 1021 as presented by Gwynne Shotwell at the space symposium on Wednesday:
Karim Michel Sabbagh and Gywnne Shotwell (#SpaceX) present @EtienneSchneide with a piece of the flight proven rocket that flew SES-10 into GTO.