It doesn't matter if landed or splashed or orbital or suborbital.Only SRB's and Blue Origin have reused their hardware. Landed stages that aren't reused are a novel but meaningless accomplishment.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/06/2016 03:15 pmBig can of worms, but relevant discussion in the reuse thread...The Shuttle Orbiter landed many times, but was neither a orbital rocket (i.e. complete launch vehicle) nor an orbital class booster. It was a reentry vehicle with orbital engines. The SRBs were orbital class boosters but they were never landed (or barged), they splashed. Blue Origin hasn't flown a orbital class booster, nevermind landed one.To my knowledge, SpaceX is the first to land (or barge) a heavy lift orbital class booster. It's not interesting because of who was the first to do it, but because it is indeed a novel accomplishment.It doesn't matter if landed or splashed or orbital or suborbital.Only SRB's and Blue Origin have reused their hardware. Landed stages that aren't reused are a novel but meaningless accomplishment.
Big can of worms, but relevant discussion in the reuse thread...The Shuttle Orbiter landed many times, but was neither a orbital rocket (i.e. complete launch vehicle) nor an orbital class booster. It was a reentry vehicle with orbital engines. The SRBs were orbital class boosters but they were never landed (or barged), they splashed. Blue Origin hasn't flown a orbital class booster, nevermind landed one.To my knowledge, SpaceX is the first to land (or barge) a heavy lift orbital class booster. It's not interesting because of who was the first to do it, but because it is indeed a novel accomplishment.
Absolute rubbish.For one massive reason. In order to use a stage again, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LAND IT FIRST. Therefor being able to land a stage IS NOT MEANINGLESS, whether or not a particular stage is in fact reused.Not sure how many times you need to be told this.
SpaceX can ....launch Falcon 1 but they'll never scale it up.....launch a Dragon but they'll never get it to dock with ISS....launch a Dragon but payload fairings are hard.....launch stuff but they never will be able to beat the incumbents on price....launch stuff for less but they MUST be losing money....launch for NASA and commercial but never DOD....never launch to GTO orbits, F9 is a LEO launcher only.....never launch two satellites at once....never land a booster....never land a booster on an ASDS....never land a HIGH ENERGY booster on an ASDSdid I miss any?
Quote from: JamesH65 on 06/06/2016 04:02 pmAbsolute rubbish.For one massive reason. In order to use a stage again, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LAND IT FIRST. Therefor being able to land a stage IS NOT MEANINGLESS, whether or not a particular stage is in fact reused.Not sure how many times you need to be told this.Wrong. Again, landing a stage doesn't mean it can be reused. I don't know how many times you need to be told this.
Quote from: Jim on 06/06/2016 04:16 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 06/06/2016 04:02 pmAbsolute rubbish.For one massive reason. In order to use a stage again, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LAND IT FIRST. Therefor being able to land a stage IS NOT MEANINGLESS, whether or not a particular stage is in fact reused.Not sure how many times you need to be told this.Wrong. Again, landing a stage doesn't mean it can be reused. I don't know how many times you need to be told this.Anything can be reused with enough effort. Whether it's economical to expend that effort is a different question... one that's not yet been answered for Falcon. Successfully landing is definitely on the critical path though, and the landings will generate interest at least until that question is answered.
Interesting to see the reuse issue veer from "it's not possible" to "it's probably not financially worth it."The more that reuse is proven, the more the goal posts are moved towards almost-unanswerable questions. Like, how would it be possible for outsiders to know for sure whether the financial cost of reuse is much lower than making a new stage? At some point, you need to just trust that those who are doing it are doing it for a real reason. But it's ALWAYS possible to claim, "well, it's not REALLY reuse that is lowering their costs..."
Right...SpaceX can ....launch Falcon 1 but they'll never scale it up.....launch a Dragon but they'll never get it to dock with ISS....launch a Dragon but payload fairings are hard.....launch stuff but they never will be able to beat the incumbents on price....launch stuff for less but they MUST be losing money....launch for NASA and commercial but never DOD....never launch to GTO orbits, F9 is a LEO launcher only.....never launch two satellites at once....never land a booster....never land a booster on an ASDS....never land a HIGH ENERGY booster on an ASDSdid I miss any?
Betting that they won't crack reuse eventually and make it cost effective? Fools bet. (If you want to bet that way and are serious, contact me, I'll cover the other side of it)
After they reuse one, I can just hear it now....never reuse one more than once, that was a fluke....
Wrong. Again, landing a stage doesn't mean it can be reused.
... snip ...
I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
Sounds like such an examination itself would demand a high cost to carry out. You're talking about information necessary to /certify/ a stage, versus the original poster talking about someone making a judgement call based on the available evidence.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/06/2016 10:24 pmSounds like such an examination itself would demand a high cost to carry out. You're talking about information necessary to /certify/ a stage, versus the original poster talking about someone making a judgement call based on the available evidence.My guess is that they are doing just that with flight number 24. It is the one that should have experienced the highest stresses of all the stages they had recovered to that point. So it makes sense for them to take that one apart and see how materials got affected by the reentry and landing. Some of that testing will probably be destructive, which is why they are not flying it again (not because it is too damaged to fly again).
Mostly-shiny CRS-8 stage.
Quote from: rberry on 06/07/2016 01:08 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/07/2016 01:02 amRoom for one more at the Inn! SpaceX @SpaceX 4m4 minutes agoFantastic fourNice to see one all shined back up! CRS-8?Looks like CRS-8 to me.If so, she's got her grid fin mounts again and her interstage has had its decals touched up. Edit: The soot pattern on the leftmost booster seems consistent with ORBCOMM-2, though it looks as if she has been rotated since the last photo.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/07/2016 01:02 amRoom for one more at the Inn! SpaceX @SpaceX 4m4 minutes agoFantastic fourNice to see one all shined back up! CRS-8?
Room for one more at the Inn! SpaceX @SpaceX 4m4 minutes agoFantastic four