SX have shown themselves well aware of the cost of storing more complex inventories than they need to.
The distribution system for TEA/TEB is already in place, it is needed for the ground start.
Quote from: guckyfan on 01/05/2016 08:39 amThe distribution system for TEA/TEB is already in place, it is needed for the ground start. Is this confirmed? The starting tank for an SR71 was only about 4" in dia. It was good for several (more than 1 but I think less than 10) starts.
Personally, I foresee that the first reuse flight will be something that does not require full flight-duration of the core in any case like the Dragon aerial abort test. You will want the core instrumented to hell and back anyway for the sake of the test and it only needs to last until Max-Q (+1:00 to +1:30-ish, IIRC). The Dragon will fly with 'live' abort software anyway, so if the core fails early, you'd have some confidence of salvaging the payload; the upper stage simulator isn't an issue.It would be more sensible to do this than to risk a paying customer's payload.
The most logical layout would be an S2 dummy that's actually a big water tank.Fly up with the tank full, then empty the tank at apogee (simulating the weight change of S2 sep).Or would the S2 simulator be expendable ? A risk that thing crashing into the ground in NM and hurting someone.Just thinking out loud...
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 01/05/2016 01:01 pmPersonally, I foresee that the first reuse flight will be something that does not require full flight-duration of the core in any case like the Dragon aerial abort test. You will want the core instrumented to hell and back anyway for the sake of the test and it only needs to last until Max-Q (+1:00 to +1:30-ish, IIRC). The Dragon will fly with 'live' abort software anyway, so if the core fails early, you'd have some confidence of salvaging the payload; the upper stage simulator isn't an issue.It would be more sensible to do this than to risk a paying customer's payload.True. But they do have a stage ready for that flight, that cannot be used otherwise. With all confidence I would not use a flown stage in the very first reflight for such an important CC-milestone. OT On second thought the test stage is a 1.1. Can they still fly it?I would assume the first or first few flights as tests with upper stage dummy and RTLS. Or as pure first stage flights in New Mexico.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 01/05/2016 10:18 amQuote from: guckyfan on 01/05/2016 08:39 amThe distribution system for TEA/TEB is already in place, it is needed for the ground start. Is this confirmed? The starting tank for an SR71 was only about 4" in dia. It was good for several (more than 1 but I think less than 10) starts.I have no insight. But ground supply for engine start was mentioned repeatedly and I assumed it is true.
Jason-3 533kg LEO Yes
533kg -- that's tiny! They could have launched it on a Falcon 1 almost, but then I guess that you couldn't re-use the booster. Still, I guess that F9 second stage is pretty much just a Falcon 1 first stage anyway, so if they recover the booster maybe the net costs will be similar.I guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.
Quote from: shooter6947 on 01/05/2016 11:51 pm533kg -- that's tiny! They could have launched it on a Falcon 1 almost, but then I guess that you couldn't re-use the booster. Still, I guess that F9 second stage is pretty much just a Falcon 1 first stage anyway, so if they recover the booster maybe the net costs will be similar.I guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.Delta II and Atlas V
Quote from: shooter6947 on 01/05/2016 11:51 pmI guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.Delta II and Atlas V
I guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.
Quote from: macpacheco on 01/05/2016 02:25 pmThe most logical layout would be an S2 dummy that's actually a big water tank.Fly up with the tank full, then empty the tank at apogee (simulating the weight change of S2 sep).Or would the S2 simulator be expendable ? A risk that thing crashing into the ground in NM and hurting someone.Just thinking out loud...They will probably fly a paying customer at a significant discount (that discount should be deep enough to cover insurance increase and provide profit incentive and/or an early launch slot). How many dummy payloads have they launched to date for all the development work done?
Quote from: AncientU on 01/05/2016 03:27 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 01/05/2016 02:25 pmThe most logical layout would be an S2 dummy that's actually a big water tank.Fly up with the tank full, then empty the tank at apogee (simulating the weight change of S2 sep).Or would the S2 simulator be expendable ? A risk that thing crashing into the ground in NM and hurting someone.Just thinking out loud...They will probably fly a paying customer at a significant discount (that discount should be deep enough to cover insurance increase and provide profit incentive and/or an early launch slot). How many dummy payloads have they launched to date for all the development work done?I was thinking NM SpacePort America fly until it breaks test cycle.If its going up in the cape, then yes, it would be a full orbital re-launch.AFAIK NM doesn't allow orbital launches.The Cape probably can't support a dozen test launches.
Quote from: macpacheco on 01/06/2016 06:25 amI was thinking NM SpacePort America fly until it breaks test cycle.If its going up in the cape, then yes, it would be a full orbital re-launch.AFAIK NM doesn't allow orbital launches.The Cape probably can't support a dozen test launches.I like the spacex method. No test flight with dummy stuff. Just fly real stuff at a big discount. That way its still a test flight but real paying things get launched. As they get more test flights done the price gets higher and higher. I see the price on a already flown booster eventually getting a higher price than a new booster.
I was thinking NM SpacePort America fly until it breaks test cycle.If its going up in the cape, then yes, it would be a full orbital re-launch.AFAIK NM doesn't allow orbital launches.The Cape probably can't support a dozen test launches.
What will happen to a merlin engine after 30-50 firings (or whatever they establish as the lifetime of the engine)? Will they disassemble it and replace worn parts and put it back on a F9, or junk it and use a new merlin?
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 01/07/2016 05:04 pmWhat will happen to a merlin engine after 30-50 firings (or whatever they establish as the lifetime of the engine)? Will they disassemble it and replace worn parts and put it back on a F9, or junk it and use a new merlin?Junk it, presumably. Once the large components start to degrade - like the engine bell with wall chambers - it is not cost effective to repair it. But that's not a big deal... They are already building 100+ engines per year.