Quote from: mikelepage on 03/27/2017 01:41 pm... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.
Nobody thinks SpaceX forgot about the tanks.But 10 pages of discussion on NSF with lots of technical explanations of what might theoretically happen to the tank and why it will or won't matter would make for interesting reading.
Quote from: mme on 03/27/2017 03:04 pmQuote from: mikelepage on 03/27/2017 01:41 pm... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.Do we know this for a fact ??....the payload must be insured...somewhere along SES found an insurance company to provide a policy for their payload on this special flight ..that policy is paid for with a insurance premium...if I was SES and agreed to be SpaceX first resusable stage one customer, I'd get SpaceX to not only pay the insurance premium but also offer a free ride on a future launch if things go badly....basically, if I was SES and this launch fails as a result of a stage one problem related to reuse, this mission doesn't cost me a dime...if I was SES...
Quote from: mikelepage on 03/27/2017 01:41 pm... Having the cojones to try it with a multi-million dollar payload is why I admire SpaceX so much.I think SES is the one with the cojones in this particular instance. :)I also admire SpaceX but I think sometimes we forget that it's their early adopter and continued customers that are putting their money where their mouths are.
Quote James Dean Verified account @flatoday_jdean 3m3 minutes agoWeather 70% "go" for SpaceX's new target launch time of 6pm ET Thurs., March 30, for SES-10 on flight proven F9. Window to 8:30pm.https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/846360980904923136
James Dean Verified account @flatoday_jdean 3m3 minutes agoWeather 70% "go" for SpaceX's new target launch time of 6pm ET Thurs., March 30, for SES-10 on flight proven F9. Window to 8:30pm.
I'm not sure why those of us who seem more concerned about this launch than others are being labelled as trolls.I think SpaceX have done due diligence on the recovered boosters. I am not suggesting that somehow I know better, or that I think they have forgotten about something, or that the multiple hot fires and tanking cycles aren't relevant.It is simply stating a fact that putting a stage of this size and type through a second flight has never been demonstrated yet. And there may be unknown unknowns waiting to rear their ugly heads. It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Jeez, when I asked if there was any discussion about the shell of the rocket, I was referring to discussions HERE, that I could look at! Please don't be so "snarky" about legitimate questions, just point me to where I can get answers.Yeah, they reloaded the tanks, yeah they refired the engines. That much we know, but what I'm looking for is the discussion (HERE) on what they did to stress the shell and all it's struts, etc. etc.BTW I assume that all the stuff being discussed here has already been covered by SpaceX engineers and those same engineers who have the time and are looking at what this forum is saying are laughing and saying to themselves - "Yeah, we thought about that a long time ago."
It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.
Quote from: Kaputnik on 03/27/2017 04:35 pm It took a flight, not a hot fire, to unveil the problems that cost the CRS 7 mission.If you could test for everything, and check everything by simulation, then you would lose a heck of a lot less rockets.Seems like you just argued how much more assurance a flight proven booster provides.
Again, I'm sure SpaceX considered my concern (not because it was mine or was expressed in this forum). Is there anywhere at this website that has discussions about this issue? I've looked through the "Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles" section and don't seem to find any information on this.