The falcon 9 block 5 used for manned and DOD launches may have to freeze but that doesn't mean that the software and bolt on parts for non-manned and DOD flights would have to be included in a block 5 freeze.
Quote from: DAZ on 03/03/2017 11:17 pmThe falcon 9 block 5 used for manned and DOD launches may have to freeze but that doesn't mean that the software and bolt on parts for non-manned and DOD flights would have to be included in a block 5 freeze.Yes, it does. Block 5 is not for manned and DOD launches. It is so SpaceX can divert resources from F9 to ITS
It appears it will incorporate all of the changes that both NASA and that DOD will require for their contracts
I too believe that SpaceX will be diverting most of its resources to the ITS project.
Quote from: DAZ on 03/05/2017 12:19 am It appears it will incorporate all of the changes that both NASA and that DOD will require for their contractsNo, it will incorporate mostly the changes that Spacex requires for an efficient flight rate. NASA and DOD changes are secondary.Quote from: DAZ on 03/05/2017 12:19 am I too believe that SpaceX will be diverting most of its resources to the ITS project.I wasn't stating a belief.
It is just a belief, even for Elon Musk, until it is after-the-fact when it becomes history.
The point here is to not change the vehicle anymore. To accumulate flight history of the same, to get a baseline.Need this for many reasons. And we wouldn't be taking about this if F9 development was like Atlas/Vulcan. Not.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/05/2017 05:58 pmThe point here is to not change the vehicle anymore. To accumulate flight history of the same, to get a baseline.Need this for many reasons. And we wouldn't be taking about this if F9 development was like Atlas/Vulcan. Not.There's agreement that everyone wants to move on to BFR and BFS, F9B5 will be "it".What we don't know is what changes will be incorporated into F9B5, and how many of them are "optional".
For a high launch cadence they need a fast turnaround of the ASDS. That needs fast securing of the stage, secure enough for fast towing. Getting the stage off is secondary, they are getting quicker at it already. Also preparing it for transport. That is not on the critical path.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/05/2017 06:11 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/05/2017 05:58 pmThe point here is to not change the vehicle anymore. To accumulate flight history of the same, to get a baseline.Need this for many reasons. And we wouldn't be taking about this if F9 development was like Atlas/Vulcan. Not.There's agreement that everyone wants to move on to BFR and BFS, F9B5 will be "it".What we don't know is what changes will be incorporated into F9B5, and how many of them are "optional".Not needed.The basic vehicle and its operations stay the same. That's the point. And the success of 5.So ... how to measure in the public? Mission success, flight history, processing time to reuse, amount of reuse, flight rate. Price point of mission?Unlike past iterations what you'll see will (hopefully) not change much. Boring. Boring is good.
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/04/2017 06:03 pmFor a high launch cadence they need a fast turnaround of the ASDS. That needs fast securing of the stage, secure enough for fast towing. Getting the stage off is secondary, they are getting quicker at it already. Also preparing it for transport. That is not on the critical path.Unfortunately, you can't beat the laws of physics: (a) max towing speed will depend upon the sea state at the time, but is never going to be much more than 5 kts in flat water simply by design (b) the tug must stay out of the designated impact zone (10 miles?) until the landed stage has been safed, which is a long way to travel at sea in a tug, even in a hurry and (c) they have a looong way to go to get to port.One option mooted a couple of threads ago was to not tow it at all: instead hire/buy one of Dockwise's semi-submersible lift ships to pick the barge and landed stage up at sea and take the whole lot into port at high(er) speed - but it's unclear if adding a few knots to the return speed would really help speed up the process all that much in the overall scheme of things.ISTM that now they've got the landing accuracy and repeatability down to a few meters, once the launch cadence goes up they'd be better off replacing the ASDSs with a permanently-anchored platform (like an oil production platform) out there both large enough and stable enough to allow at-sea processing and fly-back to launch site. ..and a holiday retreat for Elon and family when not otherwise in use. They could call it the "Falcon's Nest"..
...Boring means F9 1.0...Remember that?I think what we want is "eventually boring", as long as there's something else brewing...
Quote from: meekGee on 03/06/2017 12:11 am...Boring means F9 1.0...Remember that?I think what we want is "eventually boring", as long as there's something else brewing...HSF, Red Dragon, ITS and CommX are brewing.
Quote from: mme on 03/06/2017 01:30 amQuote from: meekGee on 03/06/2017 12:11 am...Boring means F9 1.0...Remember that?I think what we want is "eventually boring", as long as there's something else brewing...HSF, Red Dragon, ITS and CommX are brewing.eeeeeyup!
The most important takeaway from this and many other threads lately is how often and forcefully Jim has stated SpaceX's intention to start on ITS.
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 03/10/2017 05:54 am The most important takeaway from this and many other threads lately is how often and forcefully Jim has stated SpaceX's intention to start on ITS. Uh oh..