Isn't that normal procedure for most launchers?
Quote from: Jim on 05/13/2014 03:12 pmThe only real difference between F9V1.1 and F9R is the legs. F9R is V1.1 with legs.Testing or qualification doesn't change the configuration. That just opens up the flight envelop.From a hardware-centric and visible hardware point of view, you are exactly correct. That is the "seen", there is a quite considerable "unseen" too.See post above for a list of the other technologies that are being added, with most of the design/development work being done in the past year; after F9 v1.1 was design-complete and in final simulation testing at SpaceX.
The only real difference between F9V1.1 and F9R is the legs. F9R is V1.1 with legs.Testing or qualification doesn't change the configuration. That just opens up the flight envelop.
b. early 1.1 has more than just legs missing. Just because it has first stage avionics doesn't mean it is complete.
1. I still think the best way to fly is to have the first stage fully autonomous and not slaved to the upper stage - that's an expendable paradigm. Such a change will simplify the rocket, and simply stage integration. 2. I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.
Quote from: meekGee on 05/13/2014 04:56 pm1. I still think the best way to fly is to have the first stage fully autonomous and not slaved to the upper stage - that's an expendable paradigm. Such a change will simplify the rocket, and simply stage integration. 2. I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.1. wrong. it is not an ELV paradigm, it is a smart one. It lets the upperstage make the all the decisions on meeting the mission requirements versus splitting them between two stages. The upperstage has the final say in missions success verus stage recovery2. Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.
Yeah, we had that argument before, not reason to rehash it, and you're still wrong on the rationale...Whether it will actually happen or not, just like past arguments, how about we give it two years and see?
Quote from: meekGee on 05/13/2014 05:51 pmYeah, we had that argument before, not reason to rehash it, and you're still wrong on the rationale...Whether it will actually happen or not, just like past arguments, how about we give it two years and see? not even in five. safety considerations negates any perceived or actual efficiencies from the combined upperstage/payload. Lifting the composite required clearing out any facility, which stops all other work
Quote from: meekGee on 05/13/2014 04:56 pm2. I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.2. Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.
2. I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 05/13/2014 03:39 pmIsn't that normal procedure for most launchers?The main flight computer is usually on the upper stage, yes, but there are other boxes that are located on the 1st stage anyway. Rate gyros I think, especially if the vehicle is susceptible to bending modes, stuff like that.Atlas V has an avionics pod on the 1st stage, it's one of the protrusions along the booster exterior.
Quote from: Jim on 05/13/2014 05:40 pmQuote from: meekGee on 05/13/2014 04:56 pm2. I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.2. Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.Payload often worth more than LV.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/13/2014 06:29 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/13/2014 05:40 pmQuote from: meekGee on 05/13/2014 04:56 pm2. I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.2. Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.Payload often worth more than LV.Today.Rapidly reusable paradigm may change that. ...If the payload is water, and the vehicle is a "use 1000 times before it needs an overhaul" vehicle on launch 37, the vehicle is clearly worth lots more than the payload.
Quote from: Lar on 05/13/2014 07:23 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/13/2014 06:29 pmYou typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.Payload often worth more than LV.Today.Rapidly reusable paradigm may change that. ...If the payload is water, and the vehicle is a "use 1000 times before it needs an overhaul" vehicle on launch 37, the vehicle is clearly worth lots more than the payload.Too easy a response. Too useless in the context of the reality of today's economics.If you launched such a payload right now, whatever "container" that allowed you to do so and make use of the contents would still be more expensive (dev + fixed + other). If you made it reusable, it still would be.If, on the other hand, you eventually displace with it another more expensive architecture (say a HLV with a prop depot), then in the long run, yes, it might. Please note the dependencies to reach this. Hand waving them away is my issue - this is the hard part of changing launch economics.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/13/2014 06:29 pmYou typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.Payload often worth more than LV.Today.Rapidly reusable paradigm may change that. ...If the payload is water, and the vehicle is a "use 1000 times before it needs an overhaul" vehicle on launch 37, the vehicle is clearly worth lots more than the payload.
You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.Payload often worth more than LV.
...No handwaving here. And I never said it was easy. But if you are going to be doing 500K USD per passenger ound trips to mars, launch costs are going to have to come way way down. Every other mode of transport got lower costs via capital investment to the point that the vehicle is worth more than the load. That's all I am saying. But the larger point is that "we've always done it this way" is the enemy of improvement. Space is hard but it will be harder if we don't think about other ways of doing it.
Today's vehicles in any other transport mode you care to name (ships, trains, planes, trucks) are worth more than the payload the vast majority (99% ??) of the time.