Author Topic: SpaceX conducts additional Falcon 9 improvements ahead of busy schedule  (Read 43820 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/spacex-conducts-falcon-9-improvements-busy-schedule/

(and a second article):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/full-thrust-falcon-9-stage-testing-mcgregor/

Notes:
Summary of some of the notes we've been working with in L2.
Schedule is highly preliminary, but confidence in it was elevated by other sites later noting they think SES-9 will ride first as RTF and the closeness of the CRS-8 date. Still totally preliminary - don't go booking any flights! ;)

A lot of media ran with Ms. Shotwell's comments from AIAA, so tried to avoid copying that as you will already have read it.

A bit of cool stuff on the Dragons and some things you may not have heard about per the "Deep Dive" work and alternative path evaluations (one of which we think caused one journalist to think the struts weren't at fault. That one took a good bit of evaluation to show it was only a check on the fault tree, not a smoking gun, so I can see how that could have been misinterpreted by that other site).

Could have gone on a bit about 2016 with FH, but didn't want to get too wordy and kept it below 1500 words. We'll do something on FH later (probably for a milestone such as pad complete - which it nearly is, or a core shipping, etc.) Same goes with ASDS and Vandy first stage landings.

Please copy this post (all of the post) into the relevant manifest and mission threads, so people have the link and also my note about not booking hotels just yet! ;D) Just thought it would be a good idea to have a standalone thread, otherwise we may end up with people talking about future Dragons in a Jason-3 thread, etc.

Hope this is useful to you all.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2015 02:23 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline DatUser14

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 651
What does Spacex internally call the new falcon 9? Full thrust falcon 1.1?. And are these "visual observations" from SpaceX engineers in L2 or from poeple on tours that told L2?
Titan IVB was a cool rocket

Offline AndyX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 594
I've done some of the cross posting. Great article Chris!

What does Spacex internally call the new falcon 9? Full thrust falcon 1.1?. And are these "visual observations" from SpaceX engineers in L2 or from poeple on tours that told L2?

Full Thrust.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Great article with lots of interesting data.

I did stumble over this sentence:

Quote
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.

It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Great article with lots of interesting data.

I did stumble over this sentence:

Quote
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.

It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?
That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles. The 2nd stage, like the core stage, was designed with extra structure/components adding weight and margin so it could withstand the intensities of potential return/reuse. Once they moved away from that, they could begin to reduce the weight and margins over time for more mass to orbit. They were checking to see that if along the way in those reductions, they may have inadvertently compromised the integrity of the stage. This has now been deemed not an issue and closed out as a potential contributing factor.

Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family. Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2015 04:08 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Sorry if I missed the part of the article but is the only change on the next flight going to be full thrust? If that is the case what is the plan for flights with denser propellant?

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles. The 2nd stage, like the core stage, was designed with extra structure/components adding weight and margin so it could withstand the intensities of potential return/reuse. Once they moved away from that, they could begin to reduce the weight and margins over time for more mass to orbit. They were checking to see that if along the way in those reductions, they may have inadvertently compromised the integrity of the stage. This has now been deemed not an issue and closed out as a potential contributing factor.

Thanks, that makes sense to me now.

Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family. Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.
I am glad that you see how I could get to my likely wrong interpretation.

Offline funkyjive

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 6
So the alternative investigation was possible leakage of the downcomer if I understand the article correctly?

Offline Chris Bergin

Great article with lots of interesting data.

I did stumble over this sentence:

Quote
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.

It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?

They have said there's a potential path with a different type of second stage.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
One thing I did not see that I expected was additional sensors/telemetry that would more likely provide additional detail if this happens again. Like camera(s) inside the tank.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 682
That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles.

Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family.

I've more gotten the sense that S2 reuse with Falcon 9s is certainly *possible*, but would leave F9-R with too little payload to GTO to be commercially worthwhile -- and GTO is where F9 lifts most of its passengers. Even FH-3R can only do 6-7t to GTO, just enough for the largest comsats. The penalty of a reusable S2 on it would exclude FH-3R from that market, and there seems to be little sense in recovering the S2 while expending a booster core, as a booster is pricier than a second stage.

So, ipso facto, no S2 reuse with F9 vehicles.

Except... the assumption buried in there is that F9 and FH primarily fly to GTO.

Currently, barring the occasional Dragon flight to LEO, this is true. As it will remain true for several years, developing a reusable S2 is then, for the moment, a waste of effort.


Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.


I'd say better that full reuse will have to wait the opening of a new market that a fully reusable F9 and/or FH can commercially target with success. GTO flights are not that market.

However, what if at some point in the future, a worthwhile number of F9 flights were to head to LEO instead?

F9's GTO performance is sub-par for the rocket's size due to the relative inefficiency of the gas-generator-powered and keorolox-fueled S2. On the other hand, its LEO performance is quite the opposite, and much better able to absorb any S2 reuse penalty while leaving a commercially relevant amount of performance for payloads.

Say, for example, a SpaceX constellation of small LEO comsats, where a penny saved on launch costs is a penny earned, since SpaceX will have only themselves to foot the bill.


I don't think this is the end of the road (err... flight path?) for major F9 improvements. But a few years of a relatively static configuration so they can buckle down and just commercially execute with what they've got (or soon have, at least) would be good.
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline copper8

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • United States
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 66
Great article Chris!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
One thing I did not see that I expected was additional sensors/telemetry that would more likely provide additional detail if this happens again. Like camera(s) inside the tank.

Because it into needed.  Why would you expect that?  As stated on other threads, cameras in tanks is not as part of routine telemetry.  1000's of vehicles have flown without cameras, it isn't needed. 

Offline Eagandale4114

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Liked: 541
  • Likes Given: 500
Sorry if I missed the part of the article but is the only change on the next flight going to be full thrust? If that is the case what is the plan for flights with denser propellant?

F9 - Full Thrust includes those densification upgrades.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
GreenShrike, some great thoughts there. Thanks for sharing.

Another very important historical point to consider is one of the things SpaceX depended/depends on to keep their costs low and prices extremely competitive, regardless of re-use, is commonality of systems and components. Same tanks/tooling, same engines/fuel, etc., throughout the design. The cost benefit of introducing a 2nd stage that diverges too strongly from these design, manufacturing efficiencies in order to facilitate return/reuse of a new 2nd stage are currently not present. IMO. Which is why I suspect they moved away from that and have now modified the current F9 design to accommodate returning the core stage even when delivering higher mass to more difficult orbits, while not disrupting their basic design and manufacturing layout efficiencies to any great extent.

However, I agree, that in the future, if they can solve the technical and cost implications of 2nd stage expendable vs. re-use, they will attempt to do so. But I'm not seeing it anytime soon. There's bigger fish to fry right now. So to speak. But this is SpaceX, so who knows..... :D
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
2nd stage reuse is something they have to master on the road to MCT anyway, so it makes sense to prototype at a Falcon scale first.  And to do it with paying customers is a bonus.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Thanks for the thorough update Chris. Interesting description of the possible He tank strut failure and motion of the line...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline amarkit

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • NY
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 570
Quote
An interesting observation relating to the CRS-11 Dragon is currently being checked into, following claims this spacecraft may include the pressure hull from a previously flown Dragon – with one stripped down hull currently sporting a sign to denote it is destined for reuse (L2).

Is it possible that this pressure hull could be reused on the FH demo flight next year? Fitted with a new heat shield and sent on a free return around the moon? Or is it certainly destined for CRS?

Offline CyndyC

Not that the many ideas and interpretations and questions that have come and gone in the past few weeks on the message board haven't been some interesting lessons in rocket science & physics & business to enjoy even when they didn't apply in the end, but I have to say, it sure was nice to have some conclusions distilled and summarized, even if only preliminary, in a single article that can be read in a matter of minutes.
"Either lead, follow, or get out of the way." -- quote of debatable origin tweeted by Ted Turner and previously seen on his desk

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7205
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1967
Great article Chris! It includes exactly the right level of information for readers like me. Thanks!

full reuse will have to wait the opening of a new market that a fully reusable F9 and/or FH can commercially target with success. GTO flights are not that market.

Well said. Also, engineering for full reuse could distract from the tasks at hand, i.e. return to flight and the simultaneous first flight of F9 Full Thrust. That probably involves enough work to keep everyone busy for awhile....

(Personally I hope they find a Mars architecture built on full reuse of F9-like vehicles filling a propellant depot in LEO. That propellant would then be transferred to the MCT for TMI. But that definitely seems like "future work.")
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline GregA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 61
I've more gotten the sense that S2 reuse with Falcon 9s is certainly *possible*, but would leave F9-R with too little payload to GTO to be commercially worthwhile<snip>
Except... the assumption buried in there is that F9 and FH primarily fly to GTO.
<snip>
F9's GTO performance is sub-par for the rocket's size due to the relative inefficiency of the gas-generator-powered and keorolox-fueled S2. On the other hand, its LEO performance is quite the opposite, and much better able to absorb any S2 reuse penalty while leaving a commercially relevant amount of performance for payloads.

Say, for example, a SpaceX constellation of small LEO comsats, where a penny saved on launch costs is a penny earned, since SpaceX will have only themselves to foot the bill.
Yes the concept of a reusable (or custom?) S2 for the Alphabet/Google satellite business is interesting.

The cost benefit of introducing a 2nd stage that diverges too strongly from these design, manufacturing efficiencies in order to facilitate return/reuse of a new 2nd stage are currently not present. IMO. Which is why I suspect they moved away from that and have now modified the current F9 design to accommodate returning the core stage even when delivering higher mass to more difficult orbits, while not disrupting their basic design and manufacturing layout efficiencies to any great extent.

Yes generally they want to keep their efficiencies by not diverging much.

If they're going to design something new, would they do so in a bigger way (and as part of a learning experience for Mars)? Methane propulsion? Something else?



Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 3041
I don't believe SpaceX will do a fully reusable Merlin based LV.
The ISP is too low.
Elon Musk said a while back something like we figured out how to significantly reduce our manufacturing costs and scale, so full reuse isn't a big hurry.
Reusing the first stage will be a huge game changer.
Full reuse will wait until Raptor/LNG rockets show up.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2015 05:58 am by macpacheco »
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 682
However, I agree, that in the future, if they can solve the technical and cost implications of 2nd stage expendable vs. re-use, they will attempt to do so. But I'm not seeing it anytime soon. There's bigger fish to fry right now. So to speak. But this is SpaceX, so who knows..... :D

Bigger fish indeed, for now. For years, even.

Elon, however, seems to be playing the long game -- and as the seasons and years have come and gone, I've noted that "not soon" has a distressingly inexorable way of somehow becoming "tomorrow". ;-)

Yes the concept of a reusable (or custom?) S2 for the Alphabet/Google satellite business is interesting.

Custom, eh? :-)

Well, I wonder how much SYLDAs cost, and what SpaceX thinks of all the dispensers abandoned in orbit.

4000 sats at 40 sats per FH-R is still a hundred flights -- more if FHs can lift fewer or if F9-Rs are tapped to deliver some. That's a *lot* of flights -- even a low rate of savings can add up to a substantial R&D budget.


I don't believe SpaceX will do a fully reusable Merlin based LV.
The ISP is too low.

Certainly, for high energy orbits.


Elon Musk said a while back something like we figured out how to significantly reduce our manufacturing costs and scale, so reuse isn't a big hurry.

F9-R/FH-R can compete just fine in the current GTO market, so, no, there's no big hurry. Comsat operators are happy to pay for shiny new S2s with every launch, so SpaceX doesn't have to foot the bill anyway.

And won't -- until they want to fly a couple hundred LEO flights on their own dime, anyway. Then being able to save $5m or $10m per flight might seem worth investing some R&D into.


Full reuse will wait until Raptor/LNG rockets show up.

Full reuse will wait until SpaceX decides that it's commercially viable to pursue. Maybe that'll be when BFR/Raptor flies. Maybe it won't.

Either way, it'll be several years before SpaceX has to crunch the numbers and make the call.

And I'm pretty certain there'll be plenty of other excitement to keep us entertained between then and now. ;-)
TriOptimum Corporation            Science
                                      Military /_\ Consumer

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
I don't believe SpaceX will do a fully reusable Merlin based LV.
The ISP is too low.

Absolutely. They don't need upper stage reusability at this point for economic reasons. They may want to do it anyway because the step from nothing to a reusable MCT is huge. That can be the motivation to do a completely new upper stage for Falcon. A testbed for what is to come.

For me Chris Bergins remark points in that direction. They have not decided on doing it yet but they may. I would be glad to see it. If it improves Falcon profitability, then all the better.

[speculation]Include all technologies which they may want to use for MCT. A new upper stage with composite tanks, a wider diameter, methane/LOX, a subscale Raptor. At a scale that unlike Raptor can be fully 3D printed, not only parts. Probably less thrust than overpowered Merlin vac. Not cheap but a step on the way to MCT at much lower cost than jumping all the way.[/speculation]

Offline GregA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 61
Yes the concept of a reusable (or custom?) S2 for the Alphabet/Google satellite business is interesting.

Custom, eh? :-)

Well, I wonder how much SYLDAs cost, and what SpaceX thinks of all the dispensers abandoned in orbit.

4000 sats at 40 sats per FH-R is still a hundred flights -- more if FHs can lift fewer or if F9-Rs are tapped to deliver some. That's a *lot* of flights -- even a low rate of savings can add up to a substantial R&D budget.

And replacing the satellites every 5 years makes that 20 flights a year (heavy). Would be a great sampler of reusability if they had a weekly launch reusing the same rocket stage 1 and stage 2 dozens of times or more.

Online MP99



However, I agree, that in the future, if they can solve the technical and cost implications of 2nd stage expendable vs. re-use, they will attempt to do so. But I'm not seeing it anytime soon. There's bigger fish to fry right now. So to speak. But this is SpaceX, so who knows..... :D

Bigger fish indeed, for now. For years, even.

Elon, however, seems to be playing the long game -- and as the seasons and years have come and gone, I've noted that "not soon" has a distressingly inexorable way of somehow becoming "tomorrow". ;-)

There are examples of things going the other way - EG crossfeed is now pushed down the road. In general, engineering reality seems to take place a little later in the engineering cycle.

However, it does make sense to make S1 landing / recovery / reuse a mature technology before doing it once for S2. And a recoverable S2 probably is only going to LEO.

But, with ULA pushing distributed launch... perhaps at some point F9-R with S2-R will refuel an F9 commsat launch. But only if two launches (one with S2 expended ) is cheaper than FH with S2 expended.

Cheers, Martin

Online OneSpeed

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Liked: 4930
  • Likes Given: 2078
Great article with lots of interesting data.

I did stumble over this sentence:

Quote
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.

It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?

They have said there's a potential path with a different type of second stage.

Powered by a Raptor?

Offline Okie_Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Oklahoma, USA
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 726
MethaLox? Elon did say that ther Raptor sweet spot was surprisingly low even with the manifold.

Would the be any/enough benefit to GEO to make it worth thinking about?

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
We are wandering away from the thread purpose: the changes prior to RTF.

These changes can also be in the GSE (Ground Support Equipment). The stated reason for all of this work is to fix nagging little problems to improve performance, increase reliability, or to reduce costs.

A software analogy is that after awhile many small bug fixes start to make a jumble of the good design practices of KISS. It takes some minor rewrite of heavily bug fixed modules to straighten them out so that they are understandable again from the jumble. Same can happen to hardware in that minor changes can build up to the point where the the system effectiveness is affected. A redesign of such a subsytem is required to regain its clean design for  effective performance, reliability, and costs (for manufacture, test, operation, and repair).

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Great article Chris! It includes exactly the right level of information for readers like me. Thanks!

full reuse will have to wait the opening of a new market that a fully reusable F9 and/or FH can commercially target with success. GTO flights are not that market.

Well said. Also, engineering for full reuse could distract from the tasks at hand, i.e. return to flight and the simultaneous first flight of F9 Full Thrust. That probably involves enough work to keep everyone busy for awhile....

(Personally I hope they find a Mars architecture built on full reuse of F9-like vehicles filling a propellant depot in LEO. That propellant would then be transferred to the MCT for TMI. But that definitely seems like "future work.")

Way too many hundreds of metric tons of propellant needed for puny F9s to be effective refueling MCTs in LEO.

Now returning to topic.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/spacex-conducts-falcon-9-improvements-busy-schedule/

Edit to the above article as there's now a first stage raised on to the *NEW* test stand at McGregor as of today, per L2.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2015 09:36 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline DecoLV

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Boston, MA, USA
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 72
Really good and thorough article Chris. Nice work.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Great article, Chris!

Offline Chris Bergin

Thanks chaps! Although I'm thinking another article today as it's all going on at McGregor....and the schedule seems to be changing again (not surprising, it's still prelim). Got a busy day at work, but that Full Thrust Stage turning up - much to the interest of the Rocket Cows of McGregor (they are humorous cows!) = milestone will need to be reported shortly. Will be a shorter article as you don't need to read about the background again when this current article is already on site.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
I noticed you said they are using the new FH stand for the first time. I will expect that there is going to be a little longer time on the stand than previous to test the stand as well. I wonder does this stand site have prop densification?

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/spacex-conducts-falcon-9-improvements-busy-schedule/

Edit to the above article as there's now a first stage raised on to the *NEW* test stand at McGregor as of today, per L2.

Tut-tut. You said "EDIT: On Tuesday morning, engineers raised a first stage onto the new test stand that will be used for both Falcon 9 v1.2 and Falcon Heavy testing."

There is no F9 v1.2 only v1.1 full thrust or F9-FT?. We must all stop using the ver 1.2!
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/spacex-conducts-falcon-9-improvements-busy-schedule/

Edit to the above article as there's now a first stage raised on to the *NEW* test stand at McGregor as of today, per L2.

Tut-tut. You said "EDIT: On Tuesday morning, engineers raised a first stage onto the new test stand that will be used for both Falcon 9 v1.2 and Falcon Heavy testing."

There is no F9 v1.2 only v1.1 full thrust or F9-FT?. We must all stop using the ver 1.2!

Mwhaha. I know, but I had already used it. Next article will "introduce" the lack of that 1.2 stuff. :)

And oldAtlas_Eguy, doing some digging on that very thing. Pretty sure as they have a plan for the pads.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Second article done.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/full-thrust-falcon-9-stage-testing-mcgregor/

Past 3am here and I'm literally falling off my chair, so any corrections, please PM me! :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline bombyx

  • Member
  • Posts: 79
  • France
  • Liked: 160
  • Likes Given: 126
Thanks for this article .

Quote
  It is currently the only test stand that can be utilized for the upgraded Falcon 9’s slightly increased length  

Has the first stage length also  increased ?  ???

 
« Last Edit: 09/10/2015 02:33 pm by bombyx »

Offline Hywel1995

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Creator of AllStuffSpace
  • Wales, United Kingdom
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 169
Thanks for this article .

Quote
  It is currently the only test stand that can be utilized for the upgraded Falcon 9’s slightly increased length  

Has the first stage length also  increased ?  ???

 

Its the Second Stage and the Interstage which has had the increase. I think Stage 1 is the same length.

Offline Chris Bergin

Yeah, and the interstage is on this first stage out at McGregor. :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
" LOX to be super chilled to 1 degree above the triple point.

This process will be achieved by chilling the LOX (-297 degrees F) with LN2 (-320 degrees F). This will raise the LOX density from 70 pounds per cubic foot to 75 pounds per cubic foot,"

I thought that temperature was only speculation. I take it that has been confirmed by SpaceX?
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
Great article with lots of interesting data.

I did stumble over this sentence:

Quote
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.

It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?
That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles. The 2nd stage, like the core stage, was designed with extra structure/components adding weight and margin so it could withstand the intensities of potential return/reuse. Once they moved away from that, they could begin to reduce the weight and margins over time for more mass to orbit. They were checking to see that if along the way in those reductions, they may have inadvertently compromised the integrity of the stage. This has now been deemed not an issue and closed out as a potential contributing factor.

Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family. Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.

I think there could be a window for 2nd stage reuse on the FH.  But not until the Full Thrust, FH, LC39, Boca Chica, Dragon and first stage reuse engineering and development tasks are nearly completed. 

Could also depend on where Raptor is in it's development.  If it takes too long they could put people to work on a 2nd stage configuration that flies on FH missions.

Finally, I love the term 'Full Thrust' to describe the F9. 
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14047
  • Likes Given: 1392
Great article with lots of interesting data.

I did stumble over this sentence:

Quote
SpaceX opted against recovery attempts of this stage in its current configuration.

It does sound like there might be a new configuration coming that would be reusable. Perhaps I am overinterpreting?
That is in reference to SpaceX's decision not to do 2nd stage recovery on the F9 family of vehicles. The 2nd stage, like the core stage, was designed with extra structure/components adding weight and margin so it could withstand the intensities of potential return/reuse. Once they moved away from that, they could begin to reduce the weight and margins over time for more mass to orbit. They were checking to see that if along the way in those reductions, they may have inadvertently compromised the integrity of the stage. This has now been deemed not an issue and closed out as a potential contributing factor.

Edit: I see more clearly how that could be interpreted as there being a new potential configuration that would enable 2nd stage reuse. Chris can correct me but I don't think that's the implications, at least not with the F9 family. Full reuse will have to wait for BFR/MCT.

I think there could be a window for 2nd stage reuse on the FH.  But not until the Full Thrust, FH, LC39, Boca Chica, Dragon and first stage reuse engineering and development tasks are nearly completed. 

Could also depend on where Raptor is in it's development.  If it takes too long they could put people to work on a 2nd stage configuration that flies on FH missions.

Finally, I love the term 'Full Thrust' to describe the F9.

I think key to that would be a common low-orbit mission that's done at a high frequency.

A comsat deployer for the constellation would make sense.  That system, all on its own, will take up more launches than everything else combined, so a reusable second stage / deploye might make sense.

Later on, MCT refueling will take up even more launches, and again a dedicated refueler will make sense.

But - none of that is relevant to the near-term improvements.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline SVBarnard

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2

I think key to that would be a common low-orbit mission that's done at a high frequency.

A comsat deployer for the constellation would make sense.  That system, all on its own, will take up more launches than everything else combined, so a reusable second stage / deploye might make sense.

Later on, MCT refueling will take up even more launches, and again a dedicated refueler will make sense.

But - none of that is relevant to the near-term improvements.

Geez louise what about Bigelow? Dont think for a moment Robert Bigelow wont put and expand upon a LEO orbital hotel economy cause he will, and certainly before the end of the decade I think. Listen 3, thats right, just 3 BA 330s and you have more volume than the entire ISS, and his plans are ambitious, he plans on connecting more and more of them in a "tinker toy" fashion which could yield a space station of many times the volume of the ISS.

The only thing holding back this transformative plan is a ride. A cheap ride I should say. It simply wont be economical if he has to rely on ULA to carry his passengers to orbit. Seriously SpaceX is his only hope of making his business viable. And thats only if SpaceX can make reusability work, so theres a lot that depends on a lot.

I honestly think that Bigelow is one of a kind in the whole world with a very novel piece of innovation that nobody else has. And i think it'll be highly scalable but only and i truly mean only if SpaceX succeeds on the reusability front.

I mean guys just use your imaginations here. There could easily be hundreds of people in LEO at any given time instead of less than 10 as it is now. This would count as a common low-orbit high frequency mission? Could you imagine the first time theres more than a thousand people living off Earth in space but merely in orbit aboard these inflatable habitats? It'll surely be noted in the media.

Thing is though Bigelow wont stop at LEO he wants to go to the Moon ASAP which would certainly require use of an MCT wouldn't it. I mean by the time Bigelow does move on to Moon colonization he would need hundreds of launches a year and I cant imagine SpaceX building hundreds of Falcon 9 second stages, thats just not economical or even practical?

No matter what happens Bigelow will play a pivotal role in Man's early space colonization efforts cause of their novel technology that no one has but everyone will need.

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
Anyone care to repair the guidance system for this thread? It's more off course than a somersaulting Proton.

I missed what the 15% thrust difference will make for overall payload and recovery operations, if anyone can sum that up.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline GregA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 61
Which thread is appropriate for second stage reusability discussion? Lets move that stuff there.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Which thread is appropriate for second stage reusability discussion? Lets move that stuff there.

I think a new thread is appropriate.

Edit: added adress of a thread I started.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38432.0
« Last Edit: 09/12/2015 06:44 am by guckyfan »

Offline Greg Pecchia

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Edwall WA, USA
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 113
It looks like the Full Thrust Falcon 9v1.1 will have many upgrades besides more thrust.

http://spacenews.com/ses-betting-on-spacex-falcon-9-upgrade-as-debut-approaches/

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8840
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60431
  • Likes Given: 1305

Finally, I love the term 'Full Thrust' to describe the F9. 
I wonder if Blue Origin will use that term on their, uh...., interestingly shaped rocket.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline srepetsk

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 52

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
Static fire of the full-thrust first stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbe1KNUBEEU&feature=youtu.be

Love the new test stand and points for doing the test at night.

A full duration FH test will be spectacular indeed.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Static fire of the full-thrust first stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbe1KNUBEEU&feature=youtu.be

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Elon since full thrust wasn't enough to lift off.   :(
« Last Edit: 10/10/2015 12:00 pm by philw1776 »
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline rpapo

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Elon since full thrust wasn't enough to lift off.   :(
And it didn't even have the second stage, let alone the payload!   :o
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0