Quote from: winkhomewinkhome on 03/13/2017 05:04 amQuote from: enzo on 03/12/2017 08:48 pmI think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.Simple question, not to say that I am not also curious - why?And in terms of relative comparison, has Blue Origin? If they did I honestly missed it...Thank you -I believe Bezos tweeted about his first reuse and there was a small skirmish with Musk over the scale of the achievement. This has all been discussed ad nauseum. Jim has extensively pointed out that the Shuttle was in some sense the first reused orbital stage. What I'm saying is that there's a lot of hype over this flight, while we are not really sure to what extent it will be any more remarkable than, say, a space shuttle flight. Knowing Musk he will tweet out something about it being the first orbital booster reuse. But if it was subject to an extensive rebuild, then it is not unlike the Ship of Theseus, that is, not the same ship it once was.
Quote from: enzo on 03/12/2017 08:48 pmI think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.Simple question, not to say that I am not also curious - why?And in terms of relative comparison, has Blue Origin? If they did I honestly missed it...Thank you -
I think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.
...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...
It will be some time before the reconditioning process is streamlined enough to demonstrate whether the promised cost savings will actually happen.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/13/2017 09:18 am...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused? And what about New Shepard's booster?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/13/2017 09:18 am...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused?
And what about New Shepard's booster?
Quote from: douglas100 on 03/13/2017 12:28 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/13/2017 09:18 am...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused? And what about New Shepard's booster?I don't believe that New Shepherd's booster has flown yet, only the hydrolox upper stage.
I don't believe that New Shepherd's booster has flown yet, only the hydrolox upper stage.
...I don't believe that New Shepherd's booster has flown yet, only the hydrolox upper stage...
...As for the SRBs, weren't they melted down and recast? At the very least, the only thing recovered were the propellent casings and parachute securing points.
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:05 pmThis will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.No, Columbia qualifies as the first
Quote from: Jim on 03/13/2017 01:07 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:05 pmThis will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.No, Columbia qualifies as the firstI have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:32 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/13/2017 01:07 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:05 pmThis will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.No, Columbia qualifies as the firstI have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/13/2017 01:39 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:32 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/13/2017 01:07 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:05 pmThis will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.No, Columbia qualifies as the firstI have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.That definition is fine, but Columbia never re-flew an ET. So SES-10 is still the first re-flight of an orbital main stage, just not the first re-flight of the propulsion section of a orbital main stage.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:44 pmQuote from: woods170 on 03/13/2017 01:39 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:32 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/13/2017 01:07 pmQuote from: envy887 on 03/13/2017 01:05 pmThis will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.No, Columbia qualifies as the firstI have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.That definition is fine, but Columbia never re-flew an ET. So SES-10 is still the first re-flight of an orbital main stage, just not the first re-flight of the propulsion section of a orbital main stage.STS's first stage is the SRBs. They were reflown.STS's second stage is the ET + SSME's. The SSME's were reflown.STS's third stage is the OMS system. It was reflown.I would argue that the conversion from STS to Falcon looks like this:SRBs = Falcon 9 first stageET = Falcon 9 second stage tankSSME's = MVACOMS system (and orbiter) = Dragon.So, STS did one thing Falcon 9 will never do (re-fly second stage propulsion system), and STS did everything Falcon 9 will soon do (hopefully), with the exception of the first-stage landing destination (sea versus barge or land). Someday, hopefully, Dragon will make its first land landing.