NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Reusability => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 04/19/2016 01:42 pm

Title: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/19/2016 01:42 pm
New thread to cover the F9 S1 at KSC and the reuse testing (up to ten static fires).

---

To get our ducks in a row (pun intended):

CRS-8 Related News Articles:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=CRS-8

=--=

Falcon 9 S1 ASDS Return and Port Canaveral Processing:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40002.0

=--=

Resources:

SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0

SpaceX News Articles (Recent):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/

SpaceX ASDS Articles:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=ASDS
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/asds/

--
Pre-Launch:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/03/spacex-prepares-two-missions-mcgregor/

Static Fire:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/spacex-falcon-9-static-fire-crs-8-mission/

Main Launch Article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/spacex-dragon-rtf-falcon9-launch/

ASDS Return To Port Article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-first-stage-port-canaveral-asds-big-plans/

End of Port Canaveral Processing Article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-booster-reuse-testing-ksc/

=--=

L2 SpaceX Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24469.0

L2 CRS-8 Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39521.0

L2 SpaceX F9-0023-S1 Post-Landing KSC Testing Updates:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40085.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: sevenperforce on 04/19/2016 01:58 pm
Is the static fire pad visible from any publicly accessible area?

Do they stand the Falcon up for static fires or are those done horizontally?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Brick_top on 04/19/2016 02:10 pm
hope everything goes well! Good luck to all of us  ;D 8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/19/2016 02:24 pm
Is the static fire pad visible from any publicly accessible area?

Do they stand the Falcon up for static fires or are those done horizontally?

Since they will be (they say) doing the static fires on this stage at LC-39A, then yeah, I think that pad is visible from publicly accessible areas.  ;)

And yes, they stand it upright on the launch pad before firing it.  I may be mistaken, but I don't believe these stages are ever static-fired from a horizontal position.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rocx on 04/19/2016 02:35 pm
Is the static fire pad visible from any publicly accessible area?

Do they stand the Falcon up for static fires or are those done horizontally?

Since they will be (they say) doing the static fires on this stage at LC-39A, then yeah, I think that pad is visible from publicly accessible areas.  ;)

And yes, they stand it upright on the launch pad before firing it.  I may be mistaken, but I don't believe these stages are ever static-fired from a horizontal position.

No Falcon stages, maybe no liquid fuel stages at all, but solid boosters have been tested horizontally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYYoXi91QtU
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/19/2016 02:39 pm
Remember, this one is going to be a long process, so keep the posts useful. This isn't a party thread ;)

Article to where we are:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-booster-reuse-testing-ksc/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/19/2016 07:00 pm
I think the Saturn V Center is probably one of the better publicly accessible areas to see Pad 39A and the upcoming test firing/activity. I don't know if the KSCVC buses stop anymore at the observation tower with the SSME in it that I saw Atlantis from in 2007 before STS-117.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mvpel on 04/19/2016 07:48 pm
I think the Saturn V Center is probably one of the better publicly accessible areas to see Pad 39A and the upcoming test firing/activity. I don't know if the KSCVC buses stop anymore at the observation tower with the SSME in it that I saw Atlantis from in 2007 before STS-117.
That SSME is gone - I was wondering what the big hole was for. They now sell tickets for launch viewing at that location as "LC39 Gantry" for $50 plus general admission.

This is the view to LC-40 from there:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1488/24906546879_9c64fe583c_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DWUyE4)
Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DWUyE4) by Michael Pelletier (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mvpel/), on Flickr
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: x15_fan on 04/19/2016 09:12 pm
Does anyone have any idea of the damage to the thermal blanket skirt here was also seen on Orbcomm-2 mission? I wonder how bad this will end up?

http://i.imgur.com/hu1pc43.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/LXCYvB7.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: spacenut on 04/20/2016 12:34 am
ROCX, I don't think the Falcon 9 can be tested horizontally because it is a liquid fueled rocket.  Once it launches the g force can keep the liquid pushing down along with pressurized helium, even if it turns horizontal.  Once in orbit in zero g, the 2nd stage fuel under pressure should stay in place.  It doesn't matter with solids, with or without gravity.  So, I think they used the rocket tie-downs on the launch pad for testing, only releasing when there is an actual launch.  Same at McGregor, Texas. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: S.Paulissen on 04/20/2016 12:49 am
ROCX, I don't think the Falcon 9 can be tested horizontally because it is a liquid fueled rocket.  Once it launches the g force can keep the liquid pushing down along with pressurized helium, even if it turns horizontal.  Once in orbit in zero g, the 2nd stage fuel under pressure should stay in place.  It doesn't matter with solids, with or without gravity.  So, I think they used the rocket tie-downs on the launch pad for testing, only releasing when there is an actual launch.  Same at McGregor, Texas.

This part is incorrect.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WgqveaA
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Danny452 on 04/20/2016 12:55 am
Why 10 static fires?  After the first static fire, what is the purpose of the remaining 9?  Have other stages been subject to 10 static fires?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: QuantumG on 04/20/2016 12:59 am
No idea. They're aiming for 10 reuses of the stage. I guess they feel 10 static tests is a good indicator of that sort of reliability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: darkenfast on 04/20/2016 01:02 am
Musk said that that is about how many times they will re-fire it.  I think it's to demonstrate the robustness of the design and to build up experience and data.  If they do this and then successfully launch the rocket with a paying customer that will send a very strong message to the whole industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: jabe on 04/20/2016 01:02 am
my WAG... start up takes a toll on the engine..and since I doubt they can do a full duration test fire at the launch pad this is a good replacement of abuse.. could be WAY off!!
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: S.Paulissen on 04/20/2016 01:07 am
That is a good question.   It's not abundantly clear from Elon's off the cuff "We thought we'd test fire it 10 times and consider it good for relaunch." 

 I'm thinking it's more that they've got a shiny sooty new toy and it's now a 'free' core for them to play out their engineering fantasies (hopefully realities) of 100 launches with the same booster.  So they're going to go ahead and hit it with 10 full duration burns to validate their ideas of the wear on the engine and then relaunch it.  I can see how they'd think that a payload owner might be impressed with 10 consecutive successful static fires with all associated thermal cycles of tanking and burns and agree to launch their payload at less of a discount.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: QuantumG on 04/20/2016 01:28 am
Elon did say "we're a bit like the dog that caught the bus".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 04/20/2016 01:51 am
Elon just tweeted the attached picture of ORBCOMM-2 and CRS-8 side-by-side in 39A's HIF:
Quote
Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 6:30 PM - 19 Apr 2016
By land and sea
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953)

Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 01:55 am
ROCX, I don't think the Falcon 9 can be tested horizontally because it is a liquid fueled rocket.  Once it launches the g force can keep the liquid pushing down along with pressurized helium, even if it turns horizontal.  Once in orbit in zero g, the 2nd stage fuel under pressure should stay in place.  It doesn't matter with solids, with or without gravity.  So, I think they used the rocket tie-downs on the launch pad for testing, only releasing when there is an actual launch.  Same at McGregor, Texas.

This part is incorrect.


Here is the correction.

Once in orbit in zero g, the 2nd stage fuel under low thrust * should stay in place.

* provided by thrusters before re-ignition.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/20/2016 02:10 am
Elon just tweeted the attached picture of ORBCOMM-2 and CRS-8 side-by-side in 39A's HIF:
...
Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

With the engines removed it easier to see the "cells" each engine sits in, which helps to protect neighbor engines if something goes boom...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 04/20/2016 02:37 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC3Szb5raXE

Watch: Extremely Southern Guy Narrates Falcon 9 Rocket's Trip Back to SpaceX's Launchpad

"There it is, he's gon reuse that thang!"

https://www.inverse.com/article/14521-watch-extremely-southern-guy-narrates-falcon-9-rocket-s-trip-back-to-spacex-s-launchpad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCv31VFk1Lg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: meberbs on 04/20/2016 04:28 am
It looks like Musk has further recalibrated his timeline since the post-launch conference: 3-4 months until re-flight (which I count as July-August time frame) This is much more believable to me given the 10 static fires, and there being no precedent for this.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722637629351686144
Quote from: Elon Musk
Aiming for relaunch in 3 to 4 months, pending detailed examination and 10X refiring of a returned booster
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lars-J on 04/20/2016 04:37 am
Elon just tweeted the attached picture of ORBCOMM-2 and CRS-8 side-by-side in 39A's HIF:
...
Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

With the engines removed it easier to see the "cells" each engine sits in, which helps to protect neighbor engines if something goes boom...

Yes, we've never seen the 1.1/FT octaweb from that angle before. Each combustion chamber is nested pretty deep inside its own pocket with some sturdy looking dividers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/20/2016 05:00 am
Why 10 static fires?  After the first static fire, what is the purpose of the remaining 9?  Have other stages been subject to 10 static fires?

Well no one has ever done this before, so they can kind of make up their own rules based on some judgement. 

10 is a lot but with that much data they may learn how many fires are reasonable.  1,2,3 who knows.

Also, I suspect the Elon knew this would be at 39A and that it would be advantageous if they run their shiny new pad through that many cycles as well. 

Length of burns would be interesting.  Will it be a few seconds like a usual Static fire or will it be longer?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: woods170 on 04/20/2016 07:14 am
Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.
And that would be the natural thing to do for the very first returned booster. Take it apart and examine every important system in detail to see how it coped. This examination provides SpaceX with loads of data to feed into their development-and-improvement cycles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: pospa on 04/20/2016 08:19 am
Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

And that would be the natural thing to do for the very first returned booster. Take it apart and examine every important system in detail to see how it coped. This examination provides SpaceX with loads of data to feed into their development-and-improvement cycles.

That's for sure, but why on Florida in bright new hangar? I'd expect the test facility or manufacturing plant to be more suitable (diag equipment & personnel) for such detailed inspection/examination. Don't you think?
Any clue why they inspect 5 engines right there in HIF? Or are they elsewhere?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: SoulWager on 04/20/2016 08:25 am
Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.
And that would be the natural thing to do for the very first returned booster. Take it apart and examine every important system in detail to see how it coped. This examination provides SpaceX with loads of data to feed into their development-and-improvement cycles.
I'm guessing they're doing further inspections on the landing engine, the boostback engines, and a couple more either chosen at random, or chosen based on telemetry or static fire test data.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: JamesH65 on 04/20/2016 09:36 am
Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

And that would be the natural thing to do for the very first returned booster. Take it apart and examine every important system in detail to see how it coped. This examination provides SpaceX with loads of data to feed into their development-and-improvement cycles.

That's for sure, but why on Florida in bright new hangar? I'd expect the test facility or manufacturing plant to be more suitable (diag equipment & personnel) for such detailed inspection/examination. Don't you think?
Any clue why they inspect 5 engines right there in HIF? Or are they elsewhere?

Remove engine, put in truck, drive to wherever you want to. Easier than driving the whole stage anywhere.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Brick_top on 04/20/2016 11:19 am
It looks like Musk has further recalibrated his timeline since the post-launch conference: 3-4 months until re-flight (which I count as July-August time frame) This is much more believable to me given the 10 static fires, and there being no precedent for this.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722637629351686144
Quote from: Elon Musk
Aiming for relaunch in 3 to 4 months, pending detailed examination and 10X refiring of a returned booster

Noticed he says
Quote
a returned booster

maybe they are already doing modifications to other boosters according to returned booster data ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/20/2016 11:32 am
Yes ai noticed that too. Which suggests that the questin is still open as to which boost will be reflown first. I believe OG2 was ruled out so it could be CRS8 or any of the next few.

This would potentially point to a pattern of: recover first booster and thoroughly strip down; recover second booster and put through multiple firings; recover third booster and refly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mvpel on 04/20/2016 11:53 am
Yes ai noticed that too. Which suggests that the questin is still open as to which boost will be reflown first. I believe OG2 was ruled out so it could be CRS8 or any of the next few.

I have it on good authority that they are making preparations to put the first recovered booster on display in Hawthorne.

Edit: @ricmsmith: I forgot the ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: ricmsmith on 04/20/2016 12:20 pm
Yes ai noticed that too. Which suggests that the questin is still open as to which boost will be reflown first. I believe OG2 was ruled out so it could be CRS8 or any of the next few.

I have it on good authority that they are making preparations to put the first recovered booster on display in Hawthorne.

Yes, Elon said as much in the CRS-8 post launch briefing as I recall.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: MattMason on 04/20/2016 12:26 pm
Elon just tweeted the attached picture of ORBCOMM-2 and CRS-8 side-by-side in 39A's HIF:
Quote
Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 6:30 PM - 19 Apr 2016
By land and sea
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953)

Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

I think this is the first public look inside the active, completed LC39A HIF, correct?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/20/2016 12:50 pm
Elon just tweeted the attached picture of ORBCOMM-2 and CRS-8 side-by-side in 39A's HIF:
Quote
Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 6:30 PM - 19 Apr 2016
By land and sea
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953)

Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

Bezos may have a 'rare' used rocket stage, but Musk has a breeding pair :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 01:05 pm

That's for sure, but why on Florida in bright new hangar? I'd expect the test facility or manufacturing plant to be more suitable (diag equipment & personnel) for such detailed inspection/examination. Don't you think?
Any clue why they inspect 5 engines right there in HIF? Or are they elsewhere?

because it is empty and available and the same checkout equipment used in the factory is used in the HIF
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/20/2016 01:23 pm
Elon just tweeted the attached picture of ORBCOMM-2 and CRS-8 side-by-side in 39A's HIF:
Quote
Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 6:30 PM - 19 Apr 2016
By land and sea
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/722598287396605953)

Looks like ORBCOMM-2 has undergone some additional inspections post-static fire as five of the engines are missing.

I think this is the first public look inside the active, completed LC39A HIF, correct?

Nope, we have seen ORBCOMM-2 in the LC-39A HIF before
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mvpel on 04/20/2016 01:31 pm
They appear to have redesigned the aft end's hoisting ring so that it will fit over folded legs. It's a different design than the one which attaches to the hold-down points that we saw in photos like this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Falcon_9_with_CRS-3_Dragon_in_SLC-40_hangar_(16855338881).jpg)

Or maybe it's just that the ring on the left booster is designed for the "log-rolling" cradle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Semmel on 04/20/2016 01:31 pm
I cant help to notice that the missing engines on the ORBCOMM-2 booster are 3 in a row, one next to the three and one on the side as far away from the three in a row as possible. That might be random but if it is not, there might be a pretty good explanation for that particular choice.

The three engines in a row missing are the three re-lit boosters for boost back, reentry and landing. The two other missing engines might be for reference measurements. One that was mounted right next to a running engine and one that was mounted further away from the running engines. So they might take these engines apart and look for fractures, material degradation, influence of re-entry heating and stresses and so on. I find it interesting what they have done with these engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Meltro on 04/20/2016 01:40 pm
They appear to have redesigned the aft end's hoisting ring so that it will fit over folded legs. It's a different design than the one which attaches to the hold-down points that we saw in photos like this:

Or maybe it's just that the Orbcomm ring on the left booster is designed for the "log-rolling" cradle.

That was driving me nuts, but looking back OG-2 had the same (or similar) apparatus. The current ring is not the one it came to the HIF on.

(https://scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xpa1/t51.2885-15/e35/12346057_156465868051366_1354539608_n.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: abaddon on 04/20/2016 02:38 pm
Length of burns would be interesting.  Will it be a few seconds like a usual Static fire or will it be longer?
Definitely interesting.  Worth noting that this will be the first flame trench that is rated for Falcon Heavy so 3x the thrust of a single stage.  Don't really know how that translates (or doesn't) to a longer thrust period with a single stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CorvusCorax on 04/20/2016 03:37 pm
Well, considering they still regularly do full thrust full duration burns at Mc Gregor, they should know what a flame trench needed for that has to go through.

It's of course possible that the pad 39a flame trench isn't rated for that abuse, but if I remember right they did make modifications to it, so it could be. What better way of putting the pad infrastructure through its paces than a full duration burn.

Or 10 of them.

That would be an awesome tourist spectacle!
By the way, does the cape has anything similar to rocket cows? Rocket alligators maybe?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rpapo on 04/20/2016 03:42 pm
Rocket alligators maybe?
See at about 1:20 into to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eexMubCZBw
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: neoforce on 04/20/2016 03:43 pm
Isn't there a second benefit of doing multiple static fires at 39A?  In addition to testing the stage, it  gives a very thorough workout of the ground support equipment prior to first launch there. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 04:47 pm

It's of course possible that the pad 39a flame trench isn't rated for that abuse, but if I remember right they did make modifications to it, so it could be. What better way of putting the pad infrastructure through its paces than a full duration burn.


Hold downs are more of a consideration.  Launch pads typically don't deal with an almost empty stage at full thrust.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: abaddon on 04/20/2016 05:22 pm
Hold downs are more of a consideration.  Launch pads typically don't deal with an almost empty stage at full thrust.
So maybe they're thinking 10 static fires of 18s in duration each, or whatever.  Similar total burn time, less head load on everything, and the rocket would still be relatively full after 18s of burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 04/20/2016 05:33 pm

It's of course possible that the pad 39a flame trench isn't rated for that abuse, but if I remember right they did make modifications to it, so it could be. What better way of putting the pad infrastructure through its paces than a full duration burn.


Hold downs are more of a consideration.  Launch pads typically don't deal with an almost empty stage at full thrust.
There's a bit of info in L2 about this subject.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Meltro on 04/20/2016 05:40 pm
Hold downs are more of a consideration.  Launch pads typically don't deal with an almost empty stage at full thrust.
So maybe they're thinking 10 static fires of 18s in duration each, or whatever.  Similar total burn time, less head load on everything, and the rocket would still be relatively full after 18s of burn.

You're assuming they're going to top it off, which is possible, but even if they do you're still missing a second stage worth of fuel and a payload. Some quick and dirty calculations suggest that without the second stage and payload, you're adding in the realm of 50% to the strain on those hold downs. If it's a mostly empty stage, we're talking anywhere from 300% on up to the increase in strain, each hold-down taking up to 325,000 lbf of tension, over 162 tons a piece. Even if the hold-downs could take that kind of strain, I have to wonder what the attachment points on the thrust plate are rated for.

EDIT: I realize the thrust plate does take the full force of the engines and weight of the rocket, I'm just wondering how much the load paths are affected.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Saabstory88 on 04/20/2016 05:49 pm
Would the hold-down mechanisms be significantly different than at McGregor? One the one hand, specialized components can be used for different tasks. On the other hand, having the same type of hold-downs across facilities reduces the variety of devices to be made and maintained. The hold-downs and McGregor can handle long duration burns sans payload and upper stage, so that should at least answer the question of whether or not the vehicle can handle the loads, right?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 06:07 pm
Would the hold-down mechanisms be significantly different than at McGregor?

Yes, McGregor doesn't need a launch release.  Stages can be bolted down vs a release mechanism
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rcoppola on 04/20/2016 06:10 pm
What are the chances, knowing they were going to be doing this kind of testing at 39A, that they built in the ability to bypass the launch release hold-downs and bolt the stage to the plate as they do in TX?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: abaddon on 04/20/2016 06:16 pm
You're assuming they're going to top it off, which is possible, but even if they do you're still missing a second stage worth of fuel and a payload. Some quick and dirty calculations suggest that without the second stage and payload, you're adding in the realm of 50% to the strain on those hold downs. If it's a mostly empty stage, we're talking anywhere from 300% on up to the increase in strain, each hold-down taking up to 325,000 lbf of tension, over 162 tons a piece. Even if the hold-downs could take that kind of strain, I have to wonder what the attachment points on the thrust plate are rated for.

EDIT: I realize the thrust plate does take the full force of the engines and weight of the rocket, I'm just wondering how much the load paths are affected.
Unless we expect SpaceX to add a new second stage to the recovered booster for the purpose of the 10 static fires, I am not sure I see much of a difference between a "regular" static fire (~3 seconds, engines allowed to ramp up to full thrust) and a slightly longer static fire.  Obviously the peak force would be applied longer, but it should not be greater than that experienced by a normal static fire.

I guess it is possible SpaceX is planning on putting a second stage slated for whatever flight the reflown booster will be assigned to for the series of "ten" static fires, but that seems less likely to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OxCartMark on 04/20/2016 06:27 pm
I suspect as posted above that SpaceX has given this some thought and has a solution that mirrors their TX experience.  Or not, I don't know.

What about the water deluge?  That's something that doesn't usually need to be recycled quickly.  What is the replenishment rate?  And of separate curiosity, what is the source, 39A well or KSC well system or municipal water supply?  Does the water have an adequate place to go once its sprayed about or does it require manual pumping to remove it?  Or are there retention ponds that it flows to that would quickly fill to capacity and need a significant period of time for the water leach into the ground?  Any limitations in the ability (if there is any system at all) to skim hydrocarbons from the water?

What is the total deluge time for a full water tower?  How long is the deluge activated for before and after a firing?

Then with this information the next thing I'm wondering is how many tanking events will be needed based only on loss of propellant supercooling during water management.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: The Roadie on 04/20/2016 06:29 pm
Well, considering they still regularly do full thrust full duration burns at Mc Gregor,
Do you have any links to more than one at full duration? The FB group I help administer has some very nearby sources, and they're not seeing any after the first. Full duration engine tests on the single engine test site to the southeast, yes.

After getting data on one FD test in McGregor, and now more than one successful launch, they might have enough data on the performance to not invest the propellant on each and every core for full duration. I'm not seeing them omit the pad-based hot fire as ULA does, but full duration might be a thing of the past in McGregor, to the delight of the Rocket Cows and disappointment in the locals who enjoy the tests with their beer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Meltro on 04/20/2016 06:30 pm
I guess it is possible SpaceX is planning on putting a second stage slated for whatever flight the reflown booster will be assigned to for the series of "ten" static fires, but that seems less likely to me.

Y'know, that 'second stage' could be just a giant concrete block if they wanted. Fill 'er up, give it a hat, and keep it fed during firing = no additional strain on hold downs. It's not glamorous, but vs re-engineering the whole pad...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 06:36 pm

and keep it fed

That requires re-engineering
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 04/20/2016 06:39 pm
I'm not sure about needing a weighted mass simulator to test from the pad but I could see them bringing in a dummy upper stage for one simple reason.  If the rocket has an upper stage on it they can use the transporter-erector to move the rocket to and back from the pad instead of having to use a crane.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Meltro on 04/20/2016 06:43 pm

and keep it fed

That requires re-engineering

Fuel pumps don't have enough flow to keep it supplied? I know the fueling process takes a while, but I'd assumed they had a bit of leeway on how fast they pumped it in.

I'm not sure about needing a weighted mass simulator to test from the pad but I could see them bringing in a dummy upper stage for one simple reason.  If the rocket has an upper stage on it they can use the transporter-erector to move the rocket to and back from the pad instead of having to use a crane.

Thought about that, but the dummy would need to weigh as much as a loaded stage, and I think the TE moves the rocket dry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 04/20/2016 06:45 pm
I'm not sure about needing a weighted mass simulator to test from the pad but I could see them bringing in a dummy upper stage for one simple reason.  If the rocket has an upper stage on it they can use the transporter-erector to move the rocket to and back from the pad instead of having to use a crane.

Thought about that, but the dummy would need to weigh as much as a loaded stage, and I think the TE moves the rocket dry.

Sorry, by dummy I meant to the correct size not weight.  Just something for the TE to grab on to.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/20/2016 07:05 pm

and keep it fed

That requires re-engineering

Fuel pumps don't have enough flow to keep it supplied? I know the fueling process takes a while, but I'd assumed they had a bit of leeway on how fast they pumped it in.

I'm not sure about needing a weighted mass simulator to test from the pad but I could see them bringing in a dummy upper stage for one simple reason.  If the rocket has an upper stage on it they can use the transporter-erector to move the rocket to and back from the pad instead of having to use a crane.

Thought about that, but the dummy would need to weigh as much as a loaded stage, and I think the TE moves the rocket dry.

The stage empties itself in about two and a half minutes, vs half an hour to load prop. No way can the pumps keep pace with it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rds100 on 04/20/2016 07:05 pm
How about building some relatively simple and cheap S2+payload mass simulator / dummy and launching the recovered stage with it, instead of a real S2? Why risk a real S2 and real payload on the first refly?
Would that make sense?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 07:20 pm

Fuel pumps don't have enough flow to keep it supplied? I know the fueling process takes a while, but I'd assumed they had a bit of leeway on how fast they pumped it in.


Flow rate and can't control tank pressures.  Nor is either the launch vehicle nor ground systems designed for it.

The propulsion system has one LOX line coming down from the tank splitting into an "octopus" with 10 legs, one for each engine and one for fill/drain.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: docteurgeek on 04/20/2016 07:27 pm
A good way to reuse the 1rst stage would be dragon's V2 inflight abort test .
-> no risk for third parties
-> real RUD if the stage fail, proving Dragon V2 is ready for maned missions
-> planned RD if the stage succed minimizing costs and proving both F9 and DV2 respective readiness
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: speedevil on 04/20/2016 07:31 pm
How about building some relatively simple and cheap S2+payload mass simulator / dummy and launching the recovered stage with it, instead of a real S2? Why risk a real S2 and real payload on the first refly?
Would that make sense?
Maybe.
The riskiest part (for S1) may be the landing.
Risking a S1 for no reward vs the possible percieved small risk to S2/payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Brovane on 04/20/2016 07:43 pm

It's of course possible that the pad 39a flame trench isn't rated for that abuse, but if I remember right they did make modifications to it, so it could be. What better way of putting the pad infrastructure through its paces than a full duration burn.


Hold downs are more of a consideration.  Launch pads typically don't deal with an almost empty stage at full thrust.

Do we know how the hold-down configuration is going to be different for F9 vs FH?  With FH will there be separate hold-downs for each booster, or could the center core just have a hold-down?  I am just wondering if SpaceX built the hold-downs at 39A to a higher-rated load than 40 because the pad infrastructure will serve both F9 and FH. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Kabloona on 04/20/2016 07:45 pm
How about building some relatively simple and cheap S2+payload mass simulator / dummy and launching the recovered stage with it, instead of a real S2? Why risk a real S2 and real payload on the first refly?
Would that make sense?

Why risk a real S2 and payload on a booster that's never flown before?

SpaceX may well believe a re-used booster will be *more* reliable than a never-flown one, because it's been flight proven. Gwynne Shotwell even made a joke to that effect, saying they should charge customers *more* to fly on a used booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 07:45 pm


Do we know how the hold-down configuration is going to be different for F9 vs FH?  With FH will there be separate hold-downs for each booster,

Yes, because that what also supports the boosters.  4 for F9 and likely 8 for FH

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Comga on 04/20/2016 07:52 pm
How about building some relatively simple and cheap S2+payload mass simulator / dummy and launching the recovered stage with it, instead of a real S2? Why risk a real S2 and real payload on the first refly?
Would that make sense?

Since there is absolutely no hint that SpaceX is doing this, the relevant question is "Why won't SpaceX build....?"

Among the answers are that any "dummy second stage" would have to duplicate not just the mass but the profile, including the fairing, and dynamic response to avoid it creating an essentially new rocket to develop for one flight. 
The avionics are in the second stage, and would need to be in the "dummy stage" too.

As has been shown, there are plenty of payloads without rides or the budget to pay for a full price rocket that would love a bargain priced launch with a slightly higher risk.  They would easily pay for the second stage and fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Brovane on 04/20/2016 07:53 pm


Do we know how the hold-down configuration is going to be different for F9 vs FH?  With FH will there be separate hold-downs for each booster,

Yes, because that what also supports the booster.

Thanks Jim that makes sense, so 3 times the amount of hold-downs. 

Does anyone know that with the repeated increases in F9 thrust over the years, have the hold-downs been modified?  Looking over the thrust at SL the F9 has gone from about 400t at SL to nearly 700t.  That is a fairly significant increase and I wonder how much margin was placed in the original hold-down design for thrust increases. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 04/20/2016 07:54 pm

Thanks Jim that makes sense, so 3 times the amount of hold-downs. 
 

see updated post.  2 times.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: bjornl on 04/20/2016 08:00 pm
see updated post.  2 times.
That woud be 3 for each of the boosters and two for the central core?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Brovane on 04/20/2016 08:09 pm

Thanks Jim that makes sense, so 3 times the amount of hold-downs. 
 

see updated post.  2 times.

ok, so that means each hold-down will be subjected to a higher thrust level since in theory we should have 3 times the amount of thrust and only double the amount of hold-downs.  I am not a engineer but I would think that would mean that each hold-down on a FH launch will have about 50% more force applied to it than during a standard F9 launch. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mfck on 04/20/2016 08:10 pm
I believe something like this had been seen in Vandenberg, before they switched back to F9 table. Do I remember wrong?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rds100 on 04/20/2016 08:11 pm
How about building some relatively simple and cheap S2+payload mass simulator / dummy and launching the recovered stage with it, instead of a real S2? Why risk a real S2 and real payload on the first refly?
Would that make sense?

Since there is absolutely no hint that SpaceX is doing this, the relevant question is "Why won't SpaceX build....?"

Among the answers are that any "dummy second stage" would have to duplicate not just the mass but the profile, including the fairing, and dynamic response to avoid it creating an essentially new rocket to develop for one flight. 
The avionics are in the second stage, and would need to be in the "dummy stage" too.

As has been shown, there are plenty of payloads without rides or the budget to pay for a full price rocket that would love a bargain priced launch with a slightly higher risk.  They would easily pay for the second stage and fairing.

I am not sure about the fairing part. A launch with Dragon on top doesn't have a fairing, does this make it a new rocket?
Perhaps they could put a refurbished Dragon on top even, and separate it from the dummy S2 at the right time and splash it down in the ocean.

Also how sure are we about the avionics in the second stage? The first stage is capable of flying downwards and landing by itself. So it already has it's own avionics. What is different in flying upwards? Software?

It would be cool if they could launch and land the same stage 10 times in a row with such cheap mass simulators on top. Would be good for proving the design and reusability.



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: TheGoose on 04/20/2016 09:09 pm
Does anyone know if OCISLY is still in Port Canaveral? Just curious if they have taken it somewhere else, such as Jacksonville; possibly to resurface it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: bob the martian on 04/20/2016 09:35 pm
A good way to reuse the 1rst stage would be dragon's V2 inflight abort test .
-> no risk for third parties
-> real RUD if the stage fail, proving Dragon V2 is ready for maned missions
-> planned RD if the stage succed minimizing costs and proving both F9 and DV2 respective readiness

IINM, they already have a booster allocated for the in-flight abort test.  I think it only has 3 engines instead of the full 9. 

Nope, this stage will carry a live bird for a paying customer, assuming they don't find anything obviously wrong with it. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Comga on 04/20/2016 11:23 pm
I believe something like this had been seen in Vandenberg, before they switched back to F9 table. Do I remember wrong?

I don't think so
Think of the four hold-down points on each first stage.
Connect opposing hold-down points of the center core to one on each booster.
That leaves three on each booster and two on the central core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OxCartMark on 04/21/2016 12:06 am
Does anyone know if OCISLY is still in Port Canaveral? Just curious if they have taken it somewhere else, such as Jacksonville; possibly to resurface it?
Its in Port Canaveral and there's nothing about the recent launch or recovery that would cause it to change.  As far as the scope of repair this is trivial, I could remove the angle iron anchors and roll some paint on the deck in my own back yard if I could get OCISLY into my back yard.  Recall that after the SES-9 missile strike they initially had a hole through the deck (and how far beyond?) that was large enough to drive a car through and in order to repair it they made a hole large enough to drive a small house through - All without leaving their slip at Port Canaveral.  And there are no ASDS specific items left at their former site in Jacksonville, they are fully moved out of there.  And if you were saying Jacksonville because it has better ship repair facilities yes that's true but even when it was there and had kaboom damage it was never removed from its slip to do repair.  When you are an ASDS repair comes to you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: catdlr on 04/21/2016 12:50 am
Main stream news article has some of the videos we already posted on NSF...

Historic SpaceX Rocket Is a Beast on the Road

ABC News (USA)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/historic-spacex-rocket-beast-road/story?id=38549224
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: meekGee on 04/21/2016 01:29 am
Main stream news article has some of the videos we already posted on NSF...

Historic SpaceX Rocket Is a Beast on the Road

ABC News (USA)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/historic-spacex-rocket-beast-road/story?id=38549224

SpaceX should put this video on youTube, titled "What it's like to get your rocket back"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Carl G on 04/21/2016 02:27 am
Does anyone know if OCISLY is still in Port Canaveral? Just curious if they have taken it somewhere else, such as Jacksonville; possibly to resurface it?

Remember, we have threads for the drone ship. This is about the S1 at KSC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: vanoord on 04/21/2016 12:25 pm
IINM, they already have a booster allocated for the in-flight abort test.  I think it only has 3 engines instead of the full 9. 

Nope, this stage will carry a live bird for a paying customer, assuming they don't find anything obviously wrong with it.

IIRC it will be the stage originally known as F9R Dev 2 - which was built with 3 engines and was due to fly after the loss of F9R Dev 1 (the successor to Grasshopper).

Similarly IIRC - and mentioned in Elon's comments after the recent ASDS landing - the reason why F9R Dev 2 wasn't used for that purpose was that there was deemed to be a limited benefit in sending first stages up to increasingly greater heights to try and land them, because the tricky bit is dealing with the horizontal velocity and the resultant heating.

I'm sure those who interpreted those comments as a dig at Blue Origin are just being cynical...  ;)

Going back on-topic, I'd assume that SpaceX would prefer to re-launch this stage with a payload - and no doubt there will be someone willing to take the risk if they can get a launch significantly cheaper.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Alastor on 04/21/2016 12:29 pm
It seems a lot of people assume that the 10 static fires announced will happen in a short time (I'm talking hours).

That doesn't make much sense to me, both based on common sense, public infos and the infos we have in L2.


Remember that , to quote Musk, they are "Like the dog that catches the bus". They don't have much experience with refiring flown stages, and in all likelyhood, the reason why they want to do 10 firings is they want to test several different things. Maybe configurations, thrust levels, etc.

Basically what I'm saying is you don't fire the stage 10 times in a row to get 10 times the same data. You want your different tests to bring in different data points.

This means that they probably will need or want to consider the results of previous firings when planning the new ones. That is, applying the knowledge you gathered from previous firings to your new tests.

This means that of course they have an idea of what they want to test (hence they know that it's about 10 firings they need), but they may not know exactly what will be the specific parameters of each and every of these tests beforehand.

What I'm saying may be a bit confused, but in short, I don't think it will be like "fuel->fire->refuel->fire->refuel ...", in which case we could expect 10 firings in let's say 10h. It probably will be more like "fuel->fire->data review->plan next fire->fuel->fire-> ...", in which case we could expect the 10 static fires to span over a month or two !
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rpapo on 04/21/2016 12:34 pm
And that's leaving aside the issue of how fast (or slow) the super-cooled LOX generators work.  Last we heard, they could barely support one launch attempt every two days or so, let alone ten full tanks in a single day.  Granted, that one launch attempt uses a bit more LOX (20%?) than a single first stage full duration firing because of the second stage, but still.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 04/21/2016 01:15 pm
IINM, they already have a booster allocated for the in-flight abort test.  I think it only has 3 engines instead of the full 9. 

Nope, this stage will carry a live bird for a paying customer, assuming they don't find anything obviously wrong with it.

IIRC it will be the stage originally known as F9R Dev 2 - which was built with 3 engines and was due to fly after the loss of F9R Dev 1 (the successor to Grasshopper).

That may no longer be the case. See L2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rcoppola on 04/21/2016 05:33 pm
I believe something like this had been seen in Vandenberg, before they switched back to F9 table. Do I remember wrong?
I believe it looks like this:
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: tleski on 04/22/2016 03:12 am
There is a new photo of both recovered boosters in HIF on SpaceX instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEcJwlBF8RR/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Brick_top on 04/22/2016 07:32 am
looks like they are really stripping the orbcomm one
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: NovaSilisko on 04/22/2016 07:45 am
looks like they are really stripping the orbcomm one

They're going to have it on public display at Hawthorne, so there's a lot of things they'll want to get rid of on it - such as the FTS mechanism, etc. Plus the simple fact that they can dissect it and see how it's doing after flight.

Also, I must say, the 39A hangar looks pretty spiffy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/22/2016 07:53 am

There is a new photo of both recovered boosters in HIF on SpaceX instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEcJwlBF8RR/
Looks like the preferred forward ring mounting location is at the interstage connection point, but the grid find have to be removed first.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: gadgetmind on 04/22/2016 09:40 am
I'm guessing avionics, hydraulics, etc. will be stripped from the Orbcomm stage, but what about engines? It's really only the nozzles that are visible, so might they also remove the bulk of the engine? Maybe also just have dummy nozzles?

These two stages really are going down very different paths!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Archibald on 04/22/2016 01:06 pm
There is a new photo of both recovered boosters in HIF on SpaceX instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BEcJwlBF8RR/

Starfleet in being :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: DeanG1967 on 04/24/2016 03:53 am
didn't see this video in the forums...if it is, sorry. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU1b1H2EWU4
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/24/2016 08:04 pm
didn't see this video in the forums...if it is, sorry. 


Was posted earlier in the SpaceX General section in its own thread.
link (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40051.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: WBY1984 on 04/27/2016 09:26 am
I wonder if there has been any discussion of the damage seen at the base of the booster.

In this video (from around 3:00 onwards), a panel seems to look bent open - it's at about the 2 o'clock position on the base of the booster. I've attached an image of the orbcomm booster highlighting what I think are the panels in an undamaged state (about the right location in relation to other features, and two notches/holes above it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziG-JUYsFAk&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziG-JUYsFAk&feature=youtu.be)

What do you think it could mean in terms of damage to the vehicles internals?

Edit to add a highlight video screencap for clarity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: virnin on 04/27/2016 08:27 pm
The two photos are not of the same part of the base.  Too many differences in nearby features, such as the plate between the lower engine and the strap in one but not the other.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: WBY1984 on 04/28/2016 06:35 am
I think it's a good bet that while it's not the same location,  they are the same type of panel, of which there are multiple ones around the rim of the base. Both examples have the two holes just above the panel. The CRS-8 panel just looks bent outwards.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mattstep on 04/28/2016 03:38 pm
Quote
I wonder if there has been any discussion of the damage seen at the base of the booster.

In this video (from around 3:00 onwards), a panel seems to look bent open - it's at about the 2 o'clock position on the base of the booster. I've attached an image of the orbcomm booster highlighting what I think are the panels in an undamaged state (about the right location in relation to other features, and two notches/holes above it).

To me it looks more like there are covers that have been removed from both "ports" on the top image, and from the upper port but not the lower port in the second image.  Perhaps they opened or loosened the cover on the bottom port in the second image, but did not fully remove it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: catdlr on 05/04/2016 12:46 am
another video of the FS trip back to cape....

Falcon 9 Driving By

Published on Apr 26, 2016
Falcon 9 1st stage 023 returning to the cape.

Originally posted by Partick Cuyno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziG-JUYsFAk
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: macpacheco on 05/05/2016 10:05 am
Why 10 static fires?  After the first static fire, what is the purpose of the remaining 9?  Have other stages been subject to 10 static fires?

Well no one has ever done this before, so they can kind of make up their own rules based on some judgement. 

10 is a lot but with that much data they may learn how many fires are reasonable.  1,2,3 who knows.

Also, I suspect the Elon knew this would be at 39A and that it would be advantageous if they run their shiny new pad through that many cycles as well. 

Length of burns would be interesting.  Will it be a few seconds like a usual Static fire or will it be longer?
Say they do the 5th static fire and everything goes as planned. That doesn't guarantee that they won't learn something new with the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th static fire. Even everything the same is confirmation the stage can take it.
One of my other hobbies is to follow Nuclear Thorium engineering R&D. Thor Energy is the first company actually testing Thorium nuclear fuel. They finished the first 2 year test cycle on a test reactor. The news was "boring test", aka everything went as expected. SpaceX needs to have a lot of boring static fires before they are confident the booster can take another flight in real conditions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/06/2016 05:11 am
Per the JCSAT-14 webcast, the testing for CRS-8 S1 is still "39A or McGregor" - so nothing finalized yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CorvusCorax on 05/06/2016 11:52 am
Per the JCSAT-14 webcast, the testing for CRS-8 S1 is still "39A or McGregor" - so nothing finalized yet.

(t=790, 13:10 in video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bMeDj76ig&t=790 (https://goo.gl/SGdSAj)

Q to mods: how do I add a link to youtube in a forum post - with correct time stamp? every time I add a youtube URL, it actually embeds the video but without the timestamp
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/06/2016 12:02 pm
I've not yet worked it out. For now, that's the best idea. Link and add the note as to when to "fast forward it too" ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 05/06/2016 01:15 pm
I would imagine that the final testing location will be determined by schedule. In the short-term 39A has a free schedule and McGregor with only 1 active F9 test stand will be quite busy. Once they satisfy the payload ready for launch backlog then maybe 39A will be busy will launch campaigns and there will be more free time at McGregor.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Mike_1179 on 05/06/2016 01:46 pm
I would imagine that the final testing location will be determined by schedule. In the short-term 39A has a free schedule and McGregor with only 1 active F9 test stand will be quite busy. Once they satisfy the payload ready for launch backlog then maybe 39A will be busy will launch campaigns and there will be more free time at McGregor.

And the Falcon Heavy demo requires testing three cores at McGregor in addition to everything else on the manifest. No shortage of work in Texas it would seem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CraigLieb on 05/06/2016 02:57 pm
Per the JCSAT-14 webcast, the testing for CRS-8 S1 is still "39A or McGregor" - so nothing finalized yet.

(t=790, 13:10 in video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bMeDj76ig&t=790 (https://goo.gl/SGdSAj)

Q to mods: how do I add a link to youtube in a forum post - with correct time stamp? every time I add a youtube URL, it actually embeds the video but without the timestamp

So this doesn't work?
http://www.tubetorial.com/link-to-the-middle-of-a-youtube-video/

"How to Link to the Middle of a YouTube Video

inShare

This video shows you how to link to the middle of a YouTube video.

Basically, you add the following code to the end of the video URL:

#t=1m47s

The “1m” stands for 1 minute and the “47s” stands for 47 seconds. "


Edit/Lar: no it doesn't work... see the thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32793.msg1529998 and discuss it there. Stay on topic please.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Marslauncher on 05/06/2016 03:03 pm
Wasn't that the spot (the octoweb) where in previous photos the FH parts were being built?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/07/2016 09:32 am
I've started a poll http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40254.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40254.0) to see when we think there will be a successful orbital flight re-use with a paying customer. Poll is only open a week in case SpaceX announce something soon and/or too much new info emerges from re-use testing!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CraigLieb on 05/09/2016 06:02 pm
I've started a poll http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40254.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40254.0) to see when we think there will be a successful orbital flight re-use with a paying customer. Poll is only open a week in case SpaceX announce something soon and/or too much new info emerges from re-use testing!

and now a new poll how many stages will they have to store by Dec 31st 2016!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40267.0

Edited (a bit of shameless self promotion for this excellent poll with an important question)  8)

Edit/Lar: Start polls because you think it's an important question, not because you want a bit of shameless self promotion. Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: dgates on 05/10/2016 12:58 am
As for stage storage, while a hanger would be ideal, it would really only be needed for active reflight processing.  "Idle" stages I speculate will be post-processed, possibly the major avionics removed, shrink wrapped in a manner similar to what they use for truck transport, and just parked outside until needed.  Maybe an extra tarp staked into the ground for UV protection of the shrink wrap, and some desiccant canisters in the avionics bay. 

Now, SpaceX may indeed need another hanger, the existing one for pre-launch prep work up and a new one for the post-processing work.  Space-X won't need more than that though, I think.  We have parked airplanes outside forever, rockets aren't THAT much different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CraigLieb on 05/10/2016 01:44 am
As for stage storage, while a hanger would be ideal, it would really only be needed for active reflight processing.  "Idle" stages I speculate will be post-processed, possibly the major avionics removed, shrink wrapped in a manner similar to what they use for truck transport, and just parked outside until needed.  Maybe an extra tarp staked into the ground for UV protection of the shrink wrap, and some desiccant canisters in the avionics bay. 

Now, SpaceX may indeed need another hanger, the existing one for pre-launch prep work up and a new one for the post-processing work.  Space-X won't need more than that though, I think.  We have parked airplanes outside forever, rockets aren't THAT much different.
Would they call that seasoning them? ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 05/15/2016 12:22 am
Tweet from Elon today stating that SpaceX still intends to refly F9-0023-S1 this summer:

Quote
Elon Musk @elonmusk
3:03 PM - 14 May 2016

@r_SpaceX @reddit will do another AMA just before reflight of the rocket in a few months
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OxCartMark on 05/15/2016 04:09 pm
Was he referring specifically to the stage named in the title of this thread?  Which is I think the first landed one, OG-2.?.??  That stage currently seems a bit underpowered, some assembly required.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: dorkmo on 05/15/2016 04:12 pm
Was he referring specifically to the stage named in the title of this thread?  Which is I think the first landed one, OG-2.?.??  That stage currently seems a bit underpowered, some assembly required.

also missing some grid fins
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: ugordan on 05/15/2016 04:20 pm
Was he referring specifically to the stage named in the title of this thread?  Which is I think the first landed one, OG-2.?.?? 

No, 023 is the CRS-8 booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: tleski on 05/15/2016 07:59 pm
Was he referring specifically to the stage named in the title of this thread?  Which is I think the first landed one, OG-2.?.?? 

No, 023 is the CRS-8 booster.

Looks like the CRS-8 booster is missing all engines. Hopefully, they put them back in before flying again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Craig_VG on 05/15/2016 08:21 pm
I'm assuming they have been sent to McGregor for testing? Also, does this open the possibility of doing a half reuse test by putting flown engines in a new core?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 05/15/2016 08:28 pm
I'm assuming they have been sent to McGregor for testing? Also, does this open the possibility of doing a half reuse test by putting flown engines in a new core?
CRS-8 is actually the booster on the left according to Chris. It is only missing some of its engines. Likely taken off for a more thorough inspection.

Edit: Chris was mistaken. CRS-8 is indeed the booster of the right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: eweilow on 05/15/2016 08:58 pm
I'm assuming they have been sent to McGregor for testing? Also, does this open the possibility of doing a half reuse test by putting flown engines in a new core?
CRS-8 is actually the booster on the left according to Chris. It is only missing some of its engines. Likely taken off for a more thorough inspection.
Judging by the soot patterns on the stage it is not, see markings in pictures below.

(Sources: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/26428480464/in/photostream/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/24068507662/in/photostream/)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Navier–Stokes on 05/15/2016 09:07 pm
I'm assuming they have been sent to McGregor for testing? Also, does this open the possibility of doing a half reuse test by putting flown engines in a new core?
CRS-8 is actually the booster on the left according to Chris. It is only missing some of its engines. Likely taken off for a more thorough inspection.
Judging by the soot patterns on the stage it is not, see markings in pictures below.

(Sources: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/26428480464/in/photostream/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/24068507662/in/photostream/)
You're right, Chris was mistaken.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/15/2016 09:31 pm
I'm assuming they have been sent to McGregor for testing? Also, does this open the possibility of doing a half reuse test by putting flown engines in a new core?
CRS-8 is actually the booster on the left according to Chris. It is only missing some of its engines. Likely taken off for a more thorough inspection.
Judging by the soot patterns on the stage it is not, see markings in pictures below.

(Sources: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/26428480464/in/photostream/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/24068507662/in/photostream/)
You're right, Chris was mistaken.

It's my new bio line ;)

Good problem to have, enough recovered cores that we have to work out which one is which!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: dorkmo on 05/16/2016 02:03 am
like whale tails :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Okie_Steve on 05/16/2016 02:55 am
Now, SpaceX may indeed need another hanger...

Drat all these pesky stages piling up. I know! Slap some picax on the top and do ssto so we can collect data for s2 reentry by having it come in nose first like an ICBM. Hmmmm maybe we should tell people about it first ... ;D

I do not know why that chose to crawl out of my subconscious just now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: gongora on 05/16/2016 03:01 am
I find it a little confusing to just have the booster serial number and not the name of the initial payload in the title of these booster reuse threads.  Would be nice to have both pieces of info in thread titles (at least until a stage is actually ready to fly a new payload).  Maybe start adding the serial number into the mission thread titles too (near launch when we actually know the booster of course)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/16/2016 02:24 pm
I find it a little confusing to just have the booster serial number and not the name of the initial payload in the title of these booster reuse threads.  Would be nice to have both pieces of info in thread titles (at least until a stage is actually ready to fly a new payload).  Maybe start adding the serial number into the mission thread titles too (near launch when we actually know the booster of course)?

Or maybe a little thread stickied to the top of the SpaceX Reusable Rockets forum that lists all of the serial numbers of each flown F9 and then shows each flight a given core was used for (with dates).  A Comments field can reflect whether or not a given core was recovered, if it was in re-usable shape after recovery, and links to dedicated threads discussing its missions and refurbishment.

Please note, while I'd love to see such a resource, I'm not volunteering to set up and maintain it... ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CeeJayDugan on 05/16/2016 02:48 pm
Just for fun I did some enhancement of the latest SpaceX photo posted to Flickr to get a better look under the hood at the returned cores. Definitely an interesting look at the octaweb at different stages of disassembly. That's a lot of plumbing!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 05/16/2016 03:32 pm
I find it a little confusing to just have the booster serial number and not the name of the initial payload in the title of these booster reuse threads.  Would be nice to have both pieces of info in thread titles (at least until a stage is actually ready to fly a new payload).  Maybe start adding the serial number into the mission thread titles too (near launch when we actually know the booster of course)?

Or maybe a little thread stickied to the top of the SpaceX Reusable Rockets forum that lists all of the serial numbers of each flown F9 and then shows each flight a given core was used for (with dates).  A Comments field can reflect whether or not a given core was recovered, if it was in re-usable shape after recovery, and links to dedicated threads discussing its missions and refurbishment.

Please note, while I'd love to see such a resource, I'm not volunteering to set up and maintain it... ;)

There's a work in progress stickied thread in the Missions sub-forum that tabulates this data.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: gadgetmind on 05/17/2016 01:11 pm
Am I looking at it wrong, or has someone been taking nibbles out of the octoweb of the stage on the left? I think it's the Orbcomm stage and doesn't look circular on the LHS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: acsawdey on 05/17/2016 02:12 pm
Am I looking at it wrong, or has someone been taking nibbles out of the octoweb of the stage on the left? I think it's the Orbcomm stage and doesn't look circular on the LHS.

It looks like the outer panel of each of the 8 outer cells of the octaweb is removable. Some have been removed from the stage on the left, all of them have been removed from the stage on the right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/24/2016 07:44 pm
Not quite sure where best to post this:
Quote
SpaceX at #SpaceCongress2016: Initial reuse of Falcon-9 limited to components: engines, landing legs, paddles, etc. Not entire booster.

https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735182705550188545 (https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735182705550188545)

Not clear whether this means it has already happened, as some suspect (eg grid fins).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: starhawk92 on 05/24/2016 07:49 pm
Not quite sure where best to post this:
Quote
SpaceX at #SpaceCongress2016: Initial reuse of Falcon-9 limited to components: engines, landing legs, paddles, etc. Not entire booster.

https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735182705550188545 (https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735182705550188545)

Not clear whether this means it has already happened, as some suspect (eg grid fins).

I wonder if that means cannibalized parts go to Hawthorne or McGregor to be added before testing?  Seems like that is not something to do at the Cape post-McGregor?  Maybe?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/25/2016 03:27 am
Ho hum, tweet has now been corrected ...

Quote
Correction on Falcon-9 reusable components: entire stage would be reused, not individual components. Eventually the complete system would.

https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735253613266640897 (https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735253613266640897)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rocx on 05/25/2016 08:05 am
It really depends on the meaning of initial in 'inital reuse'. I would not be too surprised if some components from the Orb2 or other landed boosters are reflown on missions between now and the first complete reuse (which will hopefully take place this summer). The Falcon 9 has engine-out capability after all..
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jet Black on 05/25/2016 09:50 am
certainly bits that are not critical to mission success. Things like the grid fins undergo huge stresses on the way back in and re-using those would have no effect at all on the primary mission. (maybe even the landing legs and associated bits and pieces)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Earendil on 05/25/2016 10:22 am
The first tweet would have contradicted with Elon's tweet that  S1-024 is def. capable of flying again.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: cscott on 05/25/2016 12:12 pm
The first tweet would have contradicted with Elon's tweet that  S1-024 is def. capable of flying again.
Just because you *could* do something didn't mean you *will* (or *should*, or would be allowed to by your customers).  There is no contradiction.  As noted above, reuse of parts which are only used for the secondary mission would be more palatable to the customers, regardless of technical feasibility.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: guckyfan on 05/25/2016 12:24 pm
The first tweet would have contradicted with Elon's tweet that  S1-024 is def. capable of flying again.
Just because you *could* do something didn't mean you *will* (or *should*, or would be allowed to by your customers).  There is no contradiction.  As noted above, reuse of parts which are only used for the secondary mission would be more palatable to the customers, regardless of technical feasibility.

I suggest you just let go. That false statement was retracted. Stages will get reused soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: cscott on 05/25/2016 12:34 pm
I'm not denying the new statement.  I'm just saying there was no contradiction one way or the other.

As with many things SpaceX, I suspect the story is that they are pursuing both in parallel.  If anything holds up plan #1, they'll happily fall back to plan #2.

As clearly stated in the later tweet, the current primary plan is for reuse of a complete stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OpelGT on 06/06/2016 02:50 am
I wonder if there has been any discussion of the damage seen at the base of the booster.

In this video (from around 3:00 onwards), a panel seems to look bent open - it's at about the 2 o'clock position on the base of the booster. I've attached an image of the orbcomm booster highlighting what I think are the panels in an undamaged state (about the right location in relation to other features, and two notches/holes above it).

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40086.0;attach=1112760;image)

What do you think it could mean in terms of damage to the vehicles internals?


I didn't see any follow up on this question, but I was just getting caught up.
Here's a closeup of the damaged section before launch but after test fire.
(http://www.cropmyimage.net/images/a009722b-22f0-4320-8a60-0280428f19d1/Falcon_9_with_CRS-3_Dragon_in_SLC-40_hangar_%252816855338881%2529.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: llanitedave on 06/06/2016 03:32 pm
I wonder if there has been any discussion of the damage seen at the base of the booster.

In this video (from around 3:00 onwards), a panel seems to look bent open - it's at about the 2 o'clock position on the base of the booster. I've attached an image of the orbcomm booster highlighting what I think are the panels in an undamaged state (about the right location in relation to other features, and two notches/holes above it).

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=40086.0;attach=1112760;image)

What do you think it could mean in terms of damage to the vehicles internals?


I didn't see any follow up on this question, but I was just getting caught up.
Here's a closeup of the damaged section before launch but after test fire.
(http://www.cropmyimage.net/images/a009722b-22f0-4320-8a60-0280428f19d1/Falcon_9_with_CRS-3_Dragon_in_SLC-40_hangar_%252816855338881%2529.jpg)

To me, the real indicator of the stages condition is the insulation fabric around the base of the engines.  After the JCSAT 14 mission those covers were all burned away, here they look relatively intact.  This stage is probably in a lot better condition than the last one, I suspect the panel damage you're seeing is merely cosmetic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lar on 06/06/2016 03:51 pm
Covers do look better but is that because they improved the material, or changed the profile? I would think material changes would be hard to swing on such short notice...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mvpel on 06/06/2016 08:54 pm
Covers do look better but is that because they improved the material, or changed the profile? I would think material changes would be hard to swing on such short notice...

The post-launch photo above is the OG-2 booster, not the Thaicom-8 booster. The USLaunchReport video of the Thaicom-8 transport showed similar severe damage and burn-through on the "gimbal socks" / covers / booties (whatever you want to call them) similar to what was seen in the JCSAT-14 bosoter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OpelGT on 06/06/2016 09:32 pm
To me, the real indicator of the stages condition is the insulation fabric around the base of the engines.  After the JCSAT 14 mission those covers were all burned away, here they look relatively intact.  This stage is probably in a lot better condition than the last one, I suspect the panel damage you're seeing is merely cosmetic.
Here's a closeup of the burned up thermal blankets from Thaicom-8, looks like they all burned away.
(https://i.groupme.com/1122x662.jpeg.27ac025924f441d0a2d0d76817865b2f)
(source: USLaunchReport's transport video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzS1Vkpsi5k?t=125)

Here is a closeup of the engine thermal "blankets" (see their quilted!)
I think they start off white (this pic is after a static fire) and darken/burn with firing.
(https://i.groupme.com/695x615.jpeg.bbf565502e0f459b9d223750b3f167e0)
(source: cropped from Wiki pic of CRS-3)

There also is related discussion in the Thiacom-8 recovery thread @
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40393.msg1545708#msg1545708
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jakusb on 06/07/2016 09:30 am
Here's a closeup of the burned up thermal blankets from Thaicom-8, looks like they all burned away.
Is it possible they are simply manually removed instead of burned up?

Edit: removed most of original quote
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Kabloona on 06/07/2016 12:23 pm
For comparison here is what JCSAT-14 aft end looked like:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40257.msg1534758#msg1534758

Thermal blankets around engines appear mostly missing on that stage too. Their almost total absence makes me suspect manual removal instead of being burned up, although I don't know why they'd remove them in the field rather than wait until the stage was inside the hangar.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 06/07/2016 12:42 pm
For comparison here is what JCSAT-14 aft end looked like:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40257.msg1534758#msg1534758

Thermal blankets around engines appear mostly missing on that stage too. Their almost total absence makes me suspect manual removal instead of being burned up, although I don't know why they'd remove them in the field rather than wait until the stage was inside the hangar.
JCSAT-14 had that lovely fire post-landing. I strongly suspect the blankets were removed at sea for inspection prior to photos. Tho' we haven't seen any similar signs of post-landing fire with Thaicom-8, video coverage ended very quickly after landing and we got no pretty photos during the 5 days at sea. I suspect the blankets were removed on the barge as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/07/2016 08:18 pm
So with the newest shot of the four cores, won't it be kind of hard to put one on the new TEL to test the LC-39A infrastructure with a hot fire? I guess you could just lift it with a crane, but that doesn't help you do all the infrastructure fit checks
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: rst on 06/07/2016 10:14 pm
So with the newest shot of the four cores, won't it be kind of hard to put one on the new TEL to test the LC-39A infrastructure with a hot fire? I guess you could just lift it with a crane, but that doesn't help you do all the infrastructure fit checks

They've already announced destinations for at least two of the cores (OG-2's booster for display at Hawthorne, JCSAT-14's to be put through the wringer at McGregor), so they do have ways to make space if need be.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: launchwatcher on 06/07/2016 11:22 pm
So with the newest shot of the four cores, won't it be kind of hard to put one on the new TEL to test the LC-39A infrastructure with a hot fire? I guess you could just lift it with a crane, but that doesn't help you do all the infrastructure fit checks
I don't think so.   The hangar needs to be long enough to fit a full F9/FH stack on the TEL; S1 even with interstage attached are meaningfully shorter than the full stack.

Pull all the stages save the one bound for the pad to the far end of the hangar from the pad, lift the center stage up, drive TEL underneath.

The tracks for the TEL appear to be just inside the walls, but the wide part of the TEL appears to be shorter than the fairing height, so there should be room for S1+interstage at the sides even when the TEL is in the hangar.

Planning the moves needed from launch to launch may be a bit like playing a game of 3-dimensional Sokoban but it seems like there should be enough extra space to keep things moving...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: guckyfan on 06/08/2016 05:45 am
They have the cranes to lift 3 cores at the same time. They have to do that for the Falcon Heavy. Gives plenty of space to get the TEL in.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: mfck on 06/08/2016 09:31 am
They have the cranes to lift 3 cores at the same time. They have to do that for the Falcon Heavy. Gives plenty of space to get the TEL in.
Is that a fact, lifting integrated FH with a crane? I'd like to see a reference, if you please.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: guckyfan on 06/08/2016 10:22 am
They have the cranes to lift 3 cores at the same time. They have to do that for the Falcon Heavy. Gives plenty of space to get the TEL in.
Is that a fact, lifting integrated FH with a crane? I'd like to see a reference, if you please.

We have seen 3 heads of cranes on one bridge crane on photos. They definitely can lift 3 cores at the same time. If they lift 3 Heavy cores separately or as a stack is secondary. I would not know and I did not make a statement in that regard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: DavidH on 06/08/2016 02:11 pm
It takes 2 cranes to lift 1 core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: tadaniels on 06/08/2016 02:44 pm
For reference: We've seen photos of the two bridge cranes in the 39A HIF where we've been able to read their rated capacities. The bridge crane at the pad / ramp end (visible in the background of the '4 core photos') is rated 90 tons; the bridge crane at the other end is rated 50 tons.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lar on 06/08/2016 03:04 pm
It takes 2 cranes to lift 1 core.
Yes, you need one at each end of the core unless you are crazy (some sort of sling could be envisioned but it would be super tippy and super dangerous, IMHO, it could tip side to side and end to end and rotate)

My father used to be controller of Spanmaster for a while, while it was owned by Jervis B. Webb so I had an interest in these cranes...

Overhead cranes can have multiple hoists mounted on the same bridge beam, so in this application to lift 3 cores at once if they were not connected, each crane would need to have 3 hoists that travel on the bridge beam independently and that are positioned above the core. They could lift independently. If they were connected, a single hoist could be used. but again, it might be a bit tippy. (side to side)

http://tcamerican.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_product&productID=141

You'd want to make sure that the combined lift of all 3 hoists doesn't exceed the bridge beam capacity, as well as ensureing each hoist's lift doesn't exceed what the capacity of the hoist is.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Confusador on 06/08/2016 03:29 pm
It takes 2 cranes to lift 1 core.
Yes, you need one at each end of the core unless you are crazy (some sort of sling could be envisioned but it would be super tippy and super dangerous, IMHO, it could tip side to side and end to end and rotate)

My father used to be controller of Spanmaster for a while, while it was owned by Jervis B. Webb so I had an interest in these cranes...

Overhead cranes can have multiple hoists mounted on the same bridge beam, so in this application to lift 3 cores at once if they were not connected, each crane would need to have 3 hoists that travel on the bridge beam independently and that are positioned above the core. They could lift independently. If they were connected, a single hoist could be used. but again, it might be a bit tippy. (side to side)

http://tcamerican.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_product&productID=141

You'd want to make sure that the combined lift of all 3 hoists doesn't exceed the bridge beam capacity, as well as ensureing each hoist's lift doesn't exceed what the capacity of the hoist is.

I think you're confirming my impression, but just to be sure I'm not reading what I want to hear:  3 hoists per beam, with multiple beams (at each end), means they would be able to lift 3 cores at a time, yes?

It seems like that would be a necessary capability in order to bring the TEL inside, even if the cores aren't attached to each other until after they're on the TEL. (I don't know what the order of operations on attaching the cores is.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lar on 06/08/2016 03:57 pm
It takes 2 cranes to lift 1 core.
Yes, you need one at each end of the core unless you are crazy (some sort of sling could be envisioned but it would be super tippy and super dangerous, IMHO, it could tip side to side and end to end and rotate)

My father used to be controller of Spanmaster for a while, while it was owned by Jervis B. Webb so I had an interest in these cranes...

Overhead cranes can have multiple hoists mounted on the same bridge beam, so in this application to lift 3 cores at once if they were not connected, each crane would need to have 3 hoists that travel on the bridge beam independently and that are positioned above the core. They could lift independently. If they were connected, a single hoist could be used. but again, it might be a bit tippy. (side to side)

http://tcamerican.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_product&productID=141

You'd want to make sure that the combined lift of all 3 hoists doesn't exceed the bridge beam capacity, as well as ensureing each hoist's lift doesn't exceed what the capacity of the hoist is.

I think you're confirming my impression, but just to be sure I'm not reading what I want to hear:  3 hoists per beam, with multiple beams (at each end), means they would be able to lift 3 cores at a time, yes?

It seems like that would be a necessary capability in order to bring the TEL inside, even if the cores aren't attached to each other until after they're on the TEL. (I don't know what the order of operations on attaching the cores is.)
Bit of a semantics issue I guess, what exactly is a "crane" in this context? Is it the beam? or the traveler.

They have two longitudinal rails at the top of the building, tied into the building steel structure. Those two rails have two spans/bridges/beams. One span has 90 ton capacity, the other 50. Since they don't have switch tracks, the order of the spans inside the building is fixed, the 90 ton one is always going to be on the same side of the 50. (you CAN get switch tracks but that's extra complexity, see the Spanmaster catalog for details) The 90 ton one is at the engine end, presumably, for most cores although that may not be a hard/fast limit (all the cores in the latest pic are facing the same way though).

We are pretty sure there are 3 hoists per beam, although I don't remember where I saw a pic of that.

We have seen 3 heads of cranes on one bridge crane on photos. They definitely can lift 3 cores at the same time. If they lift 3 Heavy cores separately or as a stack is secondary. I would not know and I did not make a statement in that regard.

Guckyfan probably remembers which pic it was...

So yes, with three hoists per beam, and 2 beams you can safely lift 3 cores independently as long as their heavy end is less than 30 tons and their light end is less than 16 2/3 tons. Slings mean the cores won't rotate, although they MIGHT sway a bit, it's not very likely with two lift points... Or you can lift 3 cores connected, as long as you use at least 2 hoists per beam you will have a very stable rig.

I think many of us are curious how they are going to mount the FH on the TEL but that's a topic for another thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Reflectiv on 06/08/2016 05:06 pm
So with the newest shot of the four cores, won't it be kind of hard to put one on the new TEL to test the LC-39A infrastructure with a hot fire? I guess you could just lift it with a crane, but that doesn't help you do all the infrastructure fit checks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can not put F9 on T/E without 2nd stage present? (unless LC-39A T/E is that much different )
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: guckyfan on 06/08/2016 05:16 pm
Guckyfan probably remembers which pic it was...

I only remember it was an early picture, while the HIF was being built. On only one of the crane bridges 3 heads were visible. The other was partly obscured by the building.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Poole Amateur on 06/08/2016 05:35 pm
So with the newest shot of the four cores, won't it be kind of hard to put one on the new TEL to test the LC-39A infrastructure with a hot fire? I guess you could just lift it with a crane, but that doesn't help you do all the infrastructure fit checks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can not put F9 on T/E without 2nd stage present? (unless LC-39A T/E is that much different )
They managed to test fire the returned Orbcomm core, guess they used the T/E and doubt they stuffed a second stage on top  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Paul_G on 06/08/2016 05:54 pm
So with the newest shot of the four cores, won't it be kind of hard to put one on the new TEL to test the LC-39A infrastructure with a hot fire? I guess you could just lift it with a crane, but that doesn't help you do all the infrastructure fit checks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can not put F9 on T/E without 2nd stage present? (unless LC-39A T/E is that much different )
They managed to test fire the returned Orbcomm core, guess they used the T/E and doubt they stuffed a second stage on top  :o

For the Orbcom stage, they used a crane to position the stage on the pad, I don't think they used the TE at all, just use the crane to lift the stage off of the transporter that got the stage down to pad 40 and moved the crane over to the pad.

Given the different terrain that 39A has - being raised up off the ground, I don't know whether it is reasonable to expect a simiar crane to pick up the stage, and then manouver over to the holddown. Obviously we have seen photos of a large crane close to 39A, so they could use that if tghey can get the stage close enough.

Paul

The layout of the pad at 39A
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lar on 06/08/2016 05:54 pm
Boilerplate fixture to fill in for S2 (doesn't need anything much, just be round, and attach to the interstage in the normal way)? Extra fingers we're not aware of?  They just winged it with only bottom hold downs (er no, doubtful)???

For the Orbcom stage, they used a crane to position the stage on the pad, I don't think they used the TE at all, just use the crane to lift the stage off of the transporter that got the stage down to pad 40 and moved the crane over to the pad.

Given the different terrain that 39A has - being raised up off the ground, I don't know whether it is reasonable to expect a simiar crane to pick up the stage, and then manouver over to the holddown. Obviously we have seen photos of a large crane close to 39A, so they could use that if tghey can get the stage close enough.
Wait, what? Was this mentioned somewhere before? I thought the umbilicals and feed lines were an integral part of the TEL
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Paul_G on 06/08/2016 06:05 pm

Wait, what? Was this mentioned somewhere before? I thought the umbilicals and feed lines were an integral part of the TEL

You may be right - had not taken into account the minor details of umbilicals. Am more certain on the crane being used to get the stage upright and onto the hold downs.

Looking back on USLaunchReport videos on Youtube, you can see the stage vertical here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TPoqVo0jUs
but with no real sign of the TE. This video doesn't show the actual refiring, but is at least in daylight. As the TE would be higher than the stage, I would expect to see the top of it  above the stage.

The video that shows the refiring was taken at night - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTW4Pt0uojs
- and isn't clear enough to show whether the TE is present and upright.

Paul
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Wolfram66 on 06/08/2016 06:15 pm
Wait, what? Was this mentioned somewhere before? I thought the umbilicals and feed lines were an integral part of the TEL

You may be right - had not taken into account the minor details of umbilicals. Am more certain on the crane being used to get the stage upright and onto the hold downs.

Looking back on USLaunchReport videos on Youtube, you can see the stage vertical here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TPoqVo0jUs
 but with no real sign of the TE. This video doesn't show the actual refiring, but is at least in daylight. As the TE would be higher than the stage, I would expect to see the top of it  above the stage.

The video that shows the refiring was taken at night - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTW4Pt0uojs
- and isn't clear enough to show whether the TE is present and upright.

Paul

I believe the TE/Umbilicals are necessary to load propellant/oxidizer to the Upper stage. i believe S1 is loaded from pad tail connection

edit/Lar: Fixed quotes in this one and the one just above
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lar on 06/08/2016 06:44 pm
I stand corrected (and didn't need a crane to lift me).

Huh. That's not really what I would have expected. Test like you fly. (except there's not yet any TEL at McGregor, the stages are craned onto the stands)...

Thanks, good sleuthing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2016 08:45 pm
The TEL has two detachable parts.  The base (launcher) which has the holddowns and tail service masts.  And the frame (erector) which has the upperstage and fairing umbilicals and vehicle clamps.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Lar on 06/09/2016 02:26 am
so they had the base attached  but not the frame, and craned it with the base on... thanks Jim!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: douglas100 on 06/09/2016 03:51 pm
I guess they didn't use the complete TEL to erect the vehicle because the clamp which would be needed during the erection needs a second stage to hold on to. And of course the upper umbilicals carried by the frame were not needed either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: cscott on 06/09/2016 04:06 pm
Wouldn't surprise me if the TEL was designed this way from the start specifically to allow S1-only testing.  Their recovery conops has been stable for a long time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/13/2016 03:04 am
Ho hum, tweet has now been corrected ...

Quote
Correction on Falcon-9 reusable components: entire stage would be reused, not individual components. Eventually the complete system would.

https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735253613266640897 (https://twitter.com/flspacereport/status/735253613266640897)

Does this mean second stage reuse is now "back on" and under active development? (Is this what is meant by "complete system"?)

Mods feel free to move if needed, I didn't see a recent thread on 2nd stage reuse
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: guckyfan on 06/13/2016 05:07 am
Does this mean second stage reuse is now "back on" and under active development? (Is this what is meant by "complete system"?)

No, it does mean the whole first stage will be reused, not components. The confusion came up when someone posted tweeted they won't initially refly first stages but only components. A statement later retracted.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: SLC on 07/17/2016 07:37 pm
From FLORIDA SPACErePORT (http://spacereport.blogspot.co.uk) on Sunday 17th:

"SpaceX is planning to fly a booster that landed on a drone ship in the ocean on April 8, Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX's vice president of flight reliability, said during a press conference Saturday. (It's still unclear, however, which mission will fly aboard the rocket.)"

That would be Core no. 23, the one used for CRS-8, and the flight is planned for "September or October".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: starhawk92 on 07/18/2016 05:28 pm
From FLORIDA SPACErePORT (http://spacereport.blogspot.co.uk) on Sunday 17th:

"SpaceX is planning to fly a booster that landed on a drone ship in the ocean on April 8, Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX's vice president of flight reliability, said during a press conference Saturday. (It's still unclear, however, which mission will fly aboard the rocket.)"

That would be Core no. 23, the one used for CRS-8, and the flight is planned for "September or October".

Continues to have that SES-10 smell, eh?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: starhawk92 on 08/03/2016 05:09 pm
What happened to the HIF pics?  Is SpaceX trying to challenge our logistics group??
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: starhawk92 on 08/16/2016 04:30 pm
If this stage is waiting in the HIF for SES-10 to launch in October, a number of questions occur to me:

1) What state and where is SES-10 at this time?
2) When SES-10 gets to the cape, what is the time between launches for a reuse stage?
3) Will there be a static-fire?  Is there a different LRR procedure if the stage has already flown?

Starting to think this is getting close to happening, and looking forward to more history!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/16/2016 04:53 pm
If this stage is waiting in the HIF for SES-10 to launch in October, a number of questions occur to me:

1) What state and where is SES-10 at this time?
2) When SES-10 gets to the cape, what is the time between launches for a reuse stage?
3) Will there be a static-fire?  Is there a different LRR procedure if the stage has already flown?

Starting to think this is getting close to happening, and looking forward to more history!!

Agreed, if it's happening in October, that's a 6-10 week window.  So we should be starting to see or hear of a flow, especially if it's going to go from LC39A.

I could see SpaceX wanting to get one F9 launch off of LC39A before going through the FH demo.  Use the HIF, TE, pad equpiment.  Lot's of reasons and great learning.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: dorkmo on 08/30/2016 09:55 am
Quote
The landed first-stages go through extensive testing at Cape Canaveral, including careful inspections of the entire booster, and individual engine tests in Texas. The engines are then put back in the vehicle. Before launch, the booster will undergo a static test fire.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-rocket-20160829-snap-story.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2016 12:59 pm
SES told Jonathan Amos it was was CRS-8....

Jonathan Amos ‏@BBCAmos  5m5 minutes ago
@NASASpaceflight @iainkun That's what SES told me: April 2016 mission to re-supply ISS. Has to be CRS-8. Any change to that, let me know ;-)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Baranquilla on 08/30/2016 01:09 pm
BBC says the following
Quote
This drone ship, appropriately named Of Course I Still Love You, then brought the rocket stage into port, from where it was sent to the SpaceX testing facility in McGregor, Texas.
The booster was put on a stand and its nine engines fired again to prove their flight worthiness.
(bold mine)

This can not be correct, right?

source: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37220074
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 08/30/2016 02:37 pm
crossposting from SES-10 mission thread:

I too am interested if we know the current whereabouts and travel history of this core. As far as I know it never left the cape. Was CRS 8 the core we saw sans engines in the 39a hanger photo? If so then the engines being shipped for separate testing story is plausible. But then unless they reassemble at the cape and ship the whole thing to McGregor (or reinstall engines in Tx) this will be the first core without a integrated test fire as in Texas, right (as part of the individual launch campaign at least)? Be interesting to see if we can tell if all the engines are used or whether some are new (center engine?).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: jpo234 on 08/30/2016 03:37 pm
Quote from: Terry Pratchett
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.

Quote from: me
This, milord, is my family's core. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new fuel tank. And sometimes it has required a new flight computer, new designs on the grid fins, a little refreshing of the engines . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old core of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good core, y'know. Pretty good.

So, when is a core still the one from its first flight?
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: CraigLieb on 08/30/2016 04:10 pm
Quote from: Terry Pratchett
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.

Quote from: me
This, milord, is my family's core. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new fuel tank. And sometimes it has required a new flight computer, new designs on the grid fins, a little refreshing of the engines . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old core of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good core, y'know. Pretty good.

So, when is a core still the one from its first flight?
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?

I believe that in the aircraft certification business it is the name-plate..
If you keep the name plate, you can update every other part (replace in kind with certified parts) and basically keep the tail number. Of course there may be extensive testing required to gain air worthiness certificates on the updated vehicle...
So to be more on topic, does the F9- stage have an equivalent "name-plate" identifying its stage identification and origin date, etc?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: envy887 on 08/30/2016 04:35 pm
In practice, only parts that are economically feasible to replace will be replaced. Replacing major parts of the airframe (prop tanks and thrust structure) probably isn't worthwhile compared to building a new airframe, so boosters will probably be identifiable that way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: docmordrid on 08/30/2016 09:29 pm
At some point it becomes the Ship of Theseus.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: SLC on 08/30/2016 11:41 pm
It's now officially SES-10, and  "...the contractual window for the launch opens in mid-October and runs through mid-November."

See https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/30/ses-agrees-to-launch-satellite-on-flight-proven-falcon-9-rocket/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 08/31/2016 12:30 am
At some point it becomes the Ship of Theseus.

"Ship of Theseus" seems like a great name for a BFR, the future LEO workhorse.

With reusability will come proper names, just like commercial jetliners.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/31/2016 12:46 am
At some point it becomes the Ship of Theseus.

"Ship of Theseus" seems like a great name for a BFR, the future LEO workhorse.

With reusability will come proper names, just like commercial jetliners.
That'd be a horrible name because it'd imply the very opposite of "rapid" reuse.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/31/2016 01:51 pm
At some point it becomes the Ship of Theseus.

"Ship of Theseus" seems like a great name for a BFR, the future LEO workhorse.

With reusability will come proper names, just like commercial jetliners.

Ugh. If you ask dedicated worldwide plane spotters, they go by tail number. Number are both easier to see and track than names (which aren't used universally anyway, and are often hard to spot when they are).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: yokem55 on 08/31/2016 02:19 pm
Quote from: Terry Pratchett
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.

Quote from: me
This, milord, is my family's core. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new fuel tank. And sometimes it has required a new flight computer, new designs on the grid fins, a little refreshing of the engines . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old core of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good core, y'know. Pretty good.

So, when is a core still the one from its first flight?
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?
This is like asking Microsoft what PC component the Windows license is tied to. Usually it's the motherboard. Unless that's the only part getting replaced. Lol...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: gadgetmind on 08/31/2016 02:34 pm
This is like asking Microsoft what PC component the Windows license is tied to. Usually it's the motherboard. Unless that's the only part getting replaced. Lol...

It's the case because you have to fix the license sticker to the case. I then hacksaw that bit of the case out when upgrading and velcro it to the back of the new case.

I'm sure that SpaceX have a number of good saws.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: jpo234 on 09/01/2016 07:11 am
This is like asking Microsoft what PC component the Windows license is tied to. Usually it's the motherboard. Unless that's the only part getting replaced. Lol...

It's the case because you have to fix the license sticker to the case. I then hacksaw that bit of the case out when upgrading and velcro it to the back of the new case.

I'm sure that SpaceX have a number of good saws.

Are you implying that the F9 flight computers run on Windows?  ;) 8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: gadgetmind on 09/01/2016 08:01 am
Are you implying that the F9 flight computers run on Windows?  ;) 8)

Now that would be scary! Triple redundant x86 commodity hardware running Linux with s/w in C/C++, so I've read. With (I think) PowerPCs for some peripheral control systems.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: old_sellsword on 12/28/2016 04:43 pm
I haven’t been able to find anything definitive on the status of F9-0025 (Thaicom). Have there been any indications on whether or not it will fly again?

An ex-employee on reddit stated that Thaicom (B1023) is currently in Hawthorne being converted (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5cx1s8/few_more_details_on_falcon_heavy_booster_reuse) to a FH side booster for the Heavy's maiden flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/30/2016 04:19 am
Love how the Reddit guys named the landed core in question "the Leaner". Now I know which one we're talking about. The one that  looked on the verge of tipping over all the way to port.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: starhawk92 on 01/16/2017 04:27 pm
Quote
Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes  2h2 hours ago
@SES_Satellites still intends SES-10 (5,300kg/GTO) as 1st @SpaceX mission using previously flown Falcon 9 1st stage. Planned Q1 launch.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/820971443605434368 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/820971443605434368)

Cross posting to the reuse thread for this core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Nomadd on 01/16/2017 04:36 pm
 Takes me back to military procedure. If you have lots of maintenance money but no procurement budget, just take the serial number plate off a junk unit, put it on a new one and call it a repair.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/01/2017 12:24 am
Look who's come out to play again!

SpaceXVerified account
‏@SpaceX

Following, Following You.

 More
Prepping to fly again — recovered CRS-8 first stage completed a static fire test at our McGregor, TX rocket development facility last week.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/826598817864761344


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: woods170 on 02/01/2017 07:37 am
Hi-res version
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-S1-0023) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Rei on 02/02/2017 11:43 am
Quote from: Terry Pratchett
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.

Quote from: me
This, milord, is my family's core. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new fuel tank. And sometimes it has required a new flight computer, new designs on the grid fins, a little refreshing of the engines . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old core of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good core, y'know. Pretty good.

So, when is a core still the one from its first flight?
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/02/2017 11:48 am
I see no evidence of such dramatic change, tho.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: Kaputnik on 02/02/2017 12:25 pm
There's no point getting bogged down in the semantics of exactly when an old core becomes a new core.
Reuse is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
SpaceX will find an equilibrium point where the time and cost of refurbishment makes for the lowest costs and most reliable overall vehicles. And then we will see lots of flights, and all will be well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: litton4 on 02/02/2017 01:50 pm
Quote from: Terry Pratchett
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.

Quote from: me
This, milord, is my family's core. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new fuel tank. And sometimes it has required a new flight computer, new designs on the grid fins, a little refreshing of the engines . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old core of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good core, y'know. Pretty good.

So, when is a core still the one from its first flight?
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus


Here in the UK, we call it Trigger's Broom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_%28Only_Fools_and_Horses%29
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: envy887 on 02/02/2017 02:49 pm
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?

It's the structural airframe, which is the combination of the thrust structure and fuel tanks. For all practical purposes, those are not replaceable, and if the airframe is worn or damaged to the point where it cannot be repaired the booster is toast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: old_sellsword on 02/02/2017 02:51 pm
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?

It's the structural airframe, which is the combination of the thrust structure and fuel tanks. For all practical purposes, those are not replaceable, and if the airframe is worn or damaged to the point where it cannot be repaired the booster is toast.

What about 1023? It was the Thaicom 8 first stage that's being converted to a FH side booster, and apparently the octaweb is being ripped apart as part of this conversion process. Will we count that as reflight of a stage?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: envy887 on 02/02/2017 03:00 pm
In US law, the lower receiver is the gun. What's the "lower receiver" of a rocket stage?

It's the structural airframe, which is the combination of the thrust structure and fuel tanks. For all practical purposes, those are not replaceable, and if the airframe is worn or damaged to the point where it cannot be repaired the booster is toast.

What about 1023? It was the Thaicom 8 first stage that's being converted to a FH side booster, and apparently the octaweb is being ripped apart as part of this conversion process. Will we count that as reflight of a stage?

It sounds like SpaceX is putting quite a bit of work into upgrading rather than replacing the octaweb. So it's the same octaweb, same tanks, same booster.

It's like the unibody of a car. You can weld in more sheet steel to strengthen certain sections, but you can't replace the whole unibody and call it the same vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 (F9-23 : S/N 1021) KSC Reuse Testing Coverage
Post by: starhawk92 on 02/10/2017 03:29 pm
Two cases for "end" of reuse:  We see it scrapped or parted out (most awesomest junkyard ever -- U-Wrench-It-Max, anyone??)

They change the Serial Number(?).

Otherwise, it's reuse, right?