http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spaceport-america-spacex-reusability-testing/Overview of what's been done so far and the aligning of the future plans.
Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)
So are the cores switched? Where's The Turkmenistan Sat core going to be while they are working on CRS6? Is it going back to TX or CA?
Recovery of a stage is not historic, it is a meaningless end. Now, reuse of a recovered stage is a totally different thing. When the first reused stage is recovered, that is when it secured a place in museums
Quote from: northenarc on 03/20/2015 02:44 am Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)Recovery of a stage is not historic, it is a meaningless end. Now, reuse of a recovered stage is a totally different thing. When the first reused stage is recovered, that is when it secured a place in museums
While efforts to achieve this goal are in the pipeline for the Upper Stage
Quote from: Kabloona on 03/20/2015 03:04 amQuote from: northenarc on 03/20/2015 02:44 am Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)The article suggests that both of the first two returned stages will be tested to their limits, after which I imagine they'll be disassembled and inspected for wear, cracks, etc, so there may not be much left of them but a pile of parts.IMHO, they'll want need to establish a reliability baseline for marketing and insurance rates setting purposes. That'll necessarily mean re-flying the same booster over and over.They'll also want to establish a booster refurbishment program and tempo, which means the booster refurbishment will take progressively shorter time periods between flights as they refine their procedures. As the reflight program matures it may evolve into a systems diagnostics and post- and pre-flight testing regimen as opposed to a more extensive tear down program where the booster is shipped to TX and then sent back to NM. Finally, I think we'll see the automated refueling and relaunch procedures also tested out in NM first.
Quote from: northenarc on 03/20/2015 02:44 am Nice article. I have to wonder though if they'll actually use the first recovered stage in the long run, that stage will be historic, potentially Air and Space Museum worthy. I'd think they'd rather use the one from the Obrcomm launch in the summer when they uprate the engines and save the first one. (edit: maybe the SES-9 flight?)The article suggests that both of the first two returned stages will be tested to their limits, after which I imagine they'll be disassembled and inspected for wear, cracks, etc, so there may not be much left of them but a pile of parts.