Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/28/2017 01:58 amSo even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.Ugh. That would seem to be a rather ugly option, since by the time the BFR comes online they will be, what, no younger than 5 years old?I'd have to think that building a few extra Block 5 would make better sense, but then we're still left with the mystery of what they will do with the leftover Block 3&4.
So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
I wonder about the component parts. What is best speculation about the reusability of engines on stages that might not be worth upgrading. Were the engines reused from the one they scrapped?Is it even worth it to tear down a stage to tankage and build a new block 5 around the old tankage? or are the tanks different enough (fill drain points, inspection hatches, whatever) that this is not cost effective. SpaceX know but we can only guess.
It's funny to consider that once customers stop being concerned with new vs pre-flown that SpaceX could have a warehouse of 150-200 block 3/4 engines to mate with otherwise new boosters. If they can be uprated to block 5 great. If not, and they can only use them on lower energy missions, it still seems like a boon.
Quote from: IntoTheVoid on 10/28/2017 04:06 pmIt's funny to consider that once customers stop being concerned with new vs pre-flown that SpaceX could have a warehouse of 150-200 block 3/4 engines to mate with otherwise new boosters. If they can be uprated to block 5 great. If not, and they can only use them on lower energy missions, it still seems like a boon.Interesting possibility - rebuilding some (or all) of the Block 3/4 engines to the latest version.We do know via the Commercial Crew program updates that SpaceX is instituting a new "blisk", which is a combination of a blade and disk in one single forging - cutting edge technology that is supposed to address cracks in the current engines that are a concern for human-rating, and no doubt for reuse too.
<snip - of blisks>TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk. Interesting also that close to a century after the first use of turbines in a rocket turbo pump they are still getting cracking issues.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 10/28/2017 07:46 pm<snip - of blisks>TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk. Interesting also that close to a century after the first use of turbines in a rocket turbo pump they are still getting cracking issues.Designing is easy. Manufacturing is not.
It is very easy to design an unmanufacturable object, and if you do it can be hugely expensive to find that out. It's also going to be more expensive to get it working, which is important at the beginning of a design cycle.
'Touch labour is bad'. Well, that depends on if it takes a hundred or ten thousand hours to assemble and inspect. If it's a hundred, even at $100/hr, that may be quite negligible.
I suspect SpaceX is warehousing the pre-5 landed boosters as a way to get a jump on stockpiling F9 cores as a risk-reduction measure so they can switch the line to BFR as early as possible.So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it)..
Quote from: Mader Levap on 10/29/2017 10:14 pm First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it)..Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?
I said BFR orbits. I was clear.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 10/29/2017 10:14 pm First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.