Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/31/2015 06:51 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/30/2015 11:06 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/30/2015 10:58 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 12/30/2015 10:18 pmQuote from: sanman on 12/30/2015 07:17 pmI wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?Preloved.Prelaunched.Proven.Provocative.Previously landed.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/30/2015 11:06 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/30/2015 10:58 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 12/30/2015 10:18 pmQuote from: sanman on 12/30/2015 07:17 pmI wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?Preloved.Prelaunched.Proven.Provocative.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/30/2015 10:58 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 12/30/2015 10:18 pmQuote from: sanman on 12/30/2015 07:17 pmI wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?Preloved.Prelaunched.Proven.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 12/30/2015 10:18 pmQuote from: sanman on 12/30/2015 07:17 pmI wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?Preloved.Prelaunched.
Quote from: sanman on 12/30/2015 07:17 pmI wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?Preloved.
I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
You know, I've been thing about this reusable situation. There is an organization that has been flying reusable rocket for many years and that's called NASA! I would have thought that Space X would have had more than a few conversations about what surprised them after a Shuttle flight[/b{ that they needed to inspect and what they did not. It sounds like the Shuttle needed a lot more work than they originally thought.
Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.Isn't this news almost as significant as the landing itself?Refurbishment cost is often cited as a reason why re-use may not be economic. This seems like a pretty significant datum point against that argument to me.
Has anybody asked the question. Can they just refly the booster with maybe a cap on the interstage. That way they don't risk any hardware like the second stage or payload? That way validating just refuel and fly.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 01/01/2016 02:43 pmHas anybody asked the question. Can they just refly the booster with maybe a cap on the interstage. That way they don't risk any hardware like the second stage or payload? That way validating just refuel and fly.The loading wouldn't be right without a second stage. The accelerations would be much greater than normal unless they throttled back, but then it wouldn't be a proper test.
I would have thought that Space X would have had more than a few conversations about what surprised them after a Shuttle flight that they needed to inspect and what they did not.
Quote from: Big Al on 01/01/2016 12:18 amI would have thought that Space X would have had more than a few conversations about what surprised them after a Shuttle flight that they needed to inspect and what they did not.Unfortunately NASA did not even ask the laid off USA employees for their opinions on the reasons for the high Shuttle refurbishment costs, which were about ten times what was predicted. Fortunately SpaceX has a pretty good idea where NASA missed the boat and has approached reuse in a much more practical way.
QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.Gosh, and here I thought we had an interesting thread going, and Mr Buzzkill Elon Musk tells us that no refurbishment may be necessary - other than soot removal and a fresh coat of paint.But seriously - that's certainly incredible news, if it holds up after further testing.Personally, I think Musk should delay gratification to reap more rewards sooner - forget about the souvenir thing, or turning the booster into a museum display. Inspect the hell out of that thing and even re-fly it again if possible. Gaining more data on reusability will be far more important than showcasing their triumphs to the public. And if a re-flight is successful, then re-fly that one again, too. Like Grasshopper, fly it until it breaks.How should testing across multiple re-flights differ from the kind of testing that's been done uptil now? Isn't it going to require an even finer level of monitoring to detect the kinds of problems that will arise from multiple re-uses?
I think this F9 is too valuable to refly. They can learn so much from this returned stage, things that they could only guess at previously.
Wait for the next stage to be successfully returned and then refly this one. That way you always have one on hand to learn from.
And if a re-flight is successful, then re-fly that one again, too. Like Grasshopper, fly it until it breaks.