Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Jason 3 - SLC-4E Vandenberg - Jan 17, 2016 - DISCUSSION (Read 594370 times)

meekGee · « **Reply #1160 on:** 01/19/2016 08:24 pm »

Quote from: JamesG123 on 01/19/2016 07:09 pm

Quote from: AncientU on 01/19/2016 02:24 pm
Wrong. ULA has been doing this for years.

O' Really?

O' Cisly!

woods170 · « **Reply #1161 on:** 01/19/2016 08:26 pm »

Quote from: cscott on 01/19/2016 07:21 pm

Quote from: JamesG123 on 01/19/2016 07:09 pm
Quote from: AncientU on 01/19/2016 02:24 pm
Wrong. ULA has been doing this for years.

O' Really?

ULA has difficulties broadcasting live video of their expended stage exploding during re-entry.

Minor nit. Those stages don't explode on re-entry, they break-up. The latter is much less energetic in nature.

ugordan · « **Reply #1162 on:** 01/19/2016 08:47 pm »

Photos of JRTI returning to port via Reddit: http://imgur.com/a/WMmFd

Couple of takeaways showing the engine section. Quite a bit of engine hardware available for inspection there.

sewebster · « **Reply #1163 on:** 01/19/2016 08:54 pm »

Do we really expect the results of inspecting these engines to be useful, given that they were sortof, well, blown up? I guess if they inspect them and they are totally fine then that means something.

I'm sure there are lots of things that you could look for (bearing wear?) that would not be affected by the RUD. I guess I'm just not sure how much effort they will put into this if they are able to land some more stages soon. More data is better I guess...

ugordan · « **Reply #1164 on:** 01/19/2016 08:57 pm »

Data right now is better than that same data in the future. With this and the "thrust fluctuations" on one OG-2 booster engine, no reason not to pick this apart and scrutinize to the fullest.

sewebster · « **Reply #1165 on:** 01/19/2016 09:32 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 01/19/2016 08:57 pm

Data right now is better than that same data in the future. With this and the "thrust fluctuations" on one OG-2 booster engine, no reason not to pick this apart and scrutinize to the fullest.

Yeah, I guess that thrust fluctuation thing might lead to some specific things they'd be very interested in inspecting.

1 · « **Reply #1166 on:** 01/19/2016 09:36 pm »

If even one of those engines survived intact (and it looks like 5 or 6 might be in good shape) the amount of data they can get from a full destructive physical analysis is huge. Seeing as this stage probably isn't going to a museum, it's a perfect candidate for a full gauntlet of tests.

manoweb · « **Reply #1167 on:** 01/19/2016 09:41 pm »

Quote from: sewebster on 01/19/2016 09:32 pm

Yeah, I guess that thrust fluctuation thing might lead to some specific things they'd be very interested in inspecting.

In fact - any news on the boroscope thing they announced?

Lars-J · « **Reply #1168 on:** 01/19/2016 10:04 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 01/19/2016 08:47 pm

Photos of JRTI returning to port via Reddit: http://imgur.com/a/WMmFd

Couple of takeaways showing the engine section. Quite a bit of engine hardware available for inspection there.

Yep, and as several posters here already deduced, we were indeed seeing the top of the octaweb in that first picture at sea. The engines themselves appear to be in surprisingly good shape.

sewebster · « **Reply #1169 on:** 01/19/2016 10:09 pm »

Quote from: 1 on 01/19/2016 09:36 pm

If even one of those engines survived intact (and it looks like 5 or 6 might be in good shape) the amount of data they can get from a full destructive physical analysis is huge. Seeing as this stage probably isn't going to a museum, it's a perfect candidate for a full gauntlet of tests.

I guess, but I think a lot of those data points might have an asterisk next to them...

* Note: component was subjected to explosion prior to analysis.

Anyway, I'm sure there is lots of interesting stuff to investigate. And I guess they are able to piece together aircraft parts etc from crashes and actually learn a lot so maybe I just don't realize how easy it is to distinguish between damaged caused by X vs Y.

meekGee · « **Reply #1170 on:** 01/19/2016 11:13 pm »

The fact that the tanks flew forward and the octaweb+legs barely flew backward tells quite a bit about where the center of mass is...

EDIT: and of course the engines are not damaged. The tanks had a low-energy burst on the other side of the bottom dome. I bet the only damage is mechanical damage to the bells.

meekGee · « **Reply #1171 on:** 01/19/2016 11:28 pm »

Also, did SpaceX just achieve SMART(-ish) reuse?

AncientU · « **Reply #1172 on:** 01/20/2016 12:02 am »

Quote from: meekGee on 01/19/2016 11:28 pm

Also, did SpaceX just achieve SMART(-ish) reuse?

"

Refurb costs will be above 40%, though.

zodiacchris · « **Reply #1173 on:** 01/20/2016 12:45 am »

The engine bells look surprisingly good, and the centre engine also has been protected by the peripheral units. I wonder if we will see any of these engines tested in McGregor, if they still work after what they have been through (with some TLC) it would be rather impressive

MKremer · « **Reply #1174 on:** 01/20/2016 01:14 am »

There seems to be quite a bit of leg hardware left from at least 3 legs. They may get lucky and still have the collapsed strut still on board.

MKremer · « **Reply #1175 on:** 01/20/2016 01:18 am »

Quote from: zodiacchris on 01/20/2016 12:45 am

The engine bells look surprisingly good, and the centre engine also has been protected by the peripheral units. I wonder if we will see any of these engines tested in McGregor, if they still work after what they have been through (with some TLC) it would be rather impressive

Much of the engine hardware is well protected within the individual cells on the octoweb. I'd bet at least several engines could be removed and retested with minimal replacement of plumbing/wiring.

JamesG123 · « **Reply #1176 on:** 01/20/2016 02:14 am »

Quote from: cscott on 01/19/2016 07:21 pm

Quote from: JamesG123 on 01/19/2016 07:09 pm
O' Really?

ULA has difficulties broadcasting live video of their expended stage exploding during re-entry.

Uh, that's just deorbit breakup. It is supposed to do that. Not at all "crashing". "AncientU" was just having a Tourettes moment me thinks.

edit/Lar: fixed quotes

Robotbeat · « **Reply #1177 on:** 01/20/2016 02:32 am »

Quote from: JamesG123 on 01/20/2016 02:14 am

Quote from: cscott on 01/19/2016 07:21 pm
Quote
O' Really?

ULA has difficulties broadcasting live video of their expended stage exploding during re-entry.

Uh, that's just deorbit breakup. It is supposed to do that. Not at all "crashing". "AncientU" was just having a Tourettes moment me thinks.

Missed the point. Just because you're /supposed/ to crash doesn't mean it isn't crashing.

In a few decades, expendable launch will seem as insane as crashing your airplane each time after you eject at your destination.

OxCartMark · « **Reply #1178 on:** 01/20/2016 03:36 am »

To my eyes there appears to be much less soot in the engines compared with those of Orbcomm 2.

(modified)

Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/20/2016 02:32 am

In a few ~~decades~~, expendable launch will seem as insane as crashing your airplane each time after you eject at your destination.

Years.

meekGee · « **Reply #1179 on:** 01/20/2016 04:16 am »

Quote from: OxCartMark on 01/20/2016 03:36 am

To my eyes there appears to be much less soot in the engines compared with those of Orbcomm 2.

(modified)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/20/2016 02:32 am
In a few ~~decades~~, expendable launch will seem as insane as crashing your airplane each time after you eject at your destination.
Years.

Easily.

Just picture the situation if SpaceX recovers the majority of the cores this year, which is not far fetched at all.

You know how public perception works - memory capacity of a fruit fly.

Within a year, it's not even news. Rocket goes up, rocket comes down. Business as usual.

There will be a blip when the first used rocket launches, but since visually it is identical, only space geeks will pay attention.

So barring another failure, I give it a year before things start looking very different in the launch market.