Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION  (Read 510340 times)

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1542
  • Likes Given: 2060
Looks clean!
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6351
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4223
  • Likes Given: 2
A little oil soap, power cleaning pads, hose her down and ready to go ;)
DM

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6503
  • Liked: 4623
  • Likes Given: 5353
SES-10 first stage (AKA CRS-8 core) firing on the test stand in McGregor from SpaceX's Twitter feed.

A shiny, white, USED rocket!
cleans up nicely.... :)
Terrific!
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • Port Macquarie, Australia
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 1330
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it  :)

Offline IanThePineapple

I wonder how many times it will fly, I'm guessing two more, including SES-10

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 11007
I wonder how many times it will fly, I'm guessing two more, including SES-10

IF they fly it again, after SES-10 that indicates a huge amount of confidence in the article itself and their ability to recover it... then to put it in the Smithsonian, would be the capstone (peak) of a great career... worth taking a boo... (visiting)
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3176
  • Liked: 4167
  • Likes Given: 5622
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster
The first ever liquid one, at any rate... can't forget those recovered and refurbished Shuttle SRBs now, can we?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8967
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10330
  • Likes Given: 12053
The first ever liquid one, at any rate... can't forget those recovered and refurbished Shuttle SRBs now, can we?

The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3001
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1556
  • Likes Given: 1390
SES-10's core was *possibly* sighted today in Homosassa, FL enroute to KSC. Definitely a F9 though, and it would make sense that it's this core as we know it recently had its static test firing.
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
The first ever liquid one, at any rate... can't forget those recovered and refurbished Shuttle SRBs now, can we?
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
F9 boosters aren't gas-n-go reuse yet.  There's some non-publicly-defined amount of refurbishment and maybe even replacement, etc.  Which means that any debate on whether to count various other boosters or not, always comes down to how one wants to define the reuse or refurbishment.  How much "work" between flights disqualifies it? is an essentially arbitrary distinction that gets made by personal preference.  At least until we're able to treat it as a binary condition.  Either way, whether, according to one's personal opinion, other orbital class boosters have been used before or not, the achievement will still have been totally awesome!  And personally, IMHO, the liquid-fueled aspect of it makes it more impressive and shouldn't be treated as an afterthought or only as a qualifier so that the F9 can be first on the mountaintop.  My $0.02, YMMV.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8967
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10330
  • Likes Given: 12053
F9 boosters aren't gas-n-go reuse yet.

Well sure, they aren't flying their final version that will allow them to do gas-n-go.  The current version are part of their test program.

Quote
There's some non-publicly-defined amount of refurbishment and maybe even replacement, etc.  Which means that any debate on whether to count various other boosters or not, always comes down to how one wants to define the reuse or refurbishment.

The 1st recovered Falcon 9 booster was put up on a launch pad, fueled up, and the engines fired off.  And that is what they are designed to do, to be flown, landed, refueled and flown again.  The Shuttle SRB's weren't designed to do that, they were designed to be disassembled between flights.  Not the same at all.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8894
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60677
  • Likes Given: 1333
When will I be able to find them in kbb.com?
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12192
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18491
  • Likes Given: 12560
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it  :)
Won't be put in the Smithsonian. Is not Elon's style.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2336
  • Likes Given: 2900
And technical matters aside, this will be the first ever reflown orbital class booster, well worth recovering, and if it is only to put it in the Smithsonian. Maybe with Mini-me New Shepard next to it  :)
Won't be put in the Smithsonian. Is not Elon's style.

My understanding was that the Smithsonian would want SpaceX to build the exhibition hall along with donating the rocket. That's not Elon's style.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3176
  • Liked: 4167
  • Likes Given: 5622
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
Of course it counts.  It's not the same thing, but it is certainly "reuse".  It is absurd to try and claim otherwise.

Shuttle SRB reuse didn't amount to much for a variety of reasons, and I firmly believe SpaceX's booster reuse will prove much more successful economically.  Doesn't mean Shuttle boosters weren't reused, and they were clearly "orbital class boosters".  I guess if you want to qualify it as the first orbital-class booster to be reused without disassembly and reassembly between flights that's factually accurate, if a bit long-winded for my taste...

Anyway, it is really off-topic for this thread.  I'm looking forward to the first reuse of an orbital-class liquid booster (a very big achievement) happening hopefully very soon :D.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2017 04:02 pm by abaddon »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37818
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22048
  • Likes Given: 430
People are forgetting that other than a main tank, the bulk of the STS main propulsion system was also reused.  So was the avionics, secondary propulsion system and power system.  Not going to include the other reused systems that are for the spacecraft portion of the STS

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8166
  • Liked: 6836
  • Likes Given: 2972
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
Of course it counts.  It's not the same thing, but it is certainly "reuse".  It is absurd to try and claim otherwise.

Shuttle SRB reuse didn't amount to much for a variety of reasons, and I firmly believe SpaceX's booster reuse will prove much more successful economically.  Doesn't mean Shuttle boosters weren't reused, and they were clearly "orbital class boosters".  I guess if you want to qualify it as the first orbital-class booster to be reused without disassembly and reassembly between flights that's factually accurate, if a bit long-winded for my taste...

Anyway, it is really off-topic for this thread.  I'm looking forward to the first reuse of an orbital-class liquid booster (a very big achievement) happening hopefully very soon :D.

Shuttle SRB assemblies weren't reused.

Shuttle booster SEGMENTS and components were reused, but a segment isn't a booster rocket, and boosters didn't typically consist of the same sets of segments and components. For that reason, SRB assemblies didn't have serial numbers that persisted through missions. Segments and components were matched based on hardware availability and mission scheduling. Hardware was continuously going into and out of circulation because parts that couldn't be requalified to specs were not reflown. See: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051010a.html

A Falcon 9 is a booster rocket; the vast majority of everything that makes it a rocket is the same and goes along on every flight.

I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14669
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14676
  • Likes Given: 1420
The Falcon 9 1st stage is not disassembled and reassembled after every flight, so no, Shuttle SRB's don't count.
Of course it counts.  It's not the same thing, but it is certainly "reuse".  It is absurd to try and claim otherwise.

Shuttle SRB reuse didn't amount to much for a variety of reasons, and I firmly believe SpaceX's booster reuse will prove much more successful economically.  Doesn't mean Shuttle boosters weren't reused, and they were clearly "orbital class boosters".  I guess if you want to qualify it as the first orbital-class booster to be reused without disassembly and reassembly between flights that's factually accurate, if a bit long-winded for my taste...

Anyway, it is really off-topic for this thread.  I'm looking forward to the first reuse of an orbital-class liquid booster (a very big achievement) happening hopefully very soon :D.

Shuttle SRB assemblies weren't reused.

Shuttle booster SEGMENTS and components were reused, but a segment isn't a booster rocket, and boosters didn't typically consist of the same sets of segments and components. For that reason, SRB assemblies didn't have serial numbers that persisted through missions. Segments and components were matched based on hardware availability and mission scheduling. Hardware was continuously going into and out of circulation because parts that couldn't be requalified to specs were not reflown. See: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-051010a.html

A Falcon 9 is a booster rocket; the vast majority of everything that makes it a rocket is the same and goes along on every flight.

I'd contend this will be the first re-flight of a orbital booster rocket, unless someone can show a SRB that went up twice with the same serial number configuration.

I think the other differentiator is what happens after separation.

The SRBs, once separated, were spent. They basically fell back to earth, opened parachutes, were salvaged, and then as E887 said, taken apart and their parts reused, sometimes.

F9 remains a living and breathing vehicle.  Main propulsion is active, it flies back in an active manner, all the way down to a powered tail-first landing.

It is much more of a "reusable carrier vehicle" (the way Clarke envisioned, but VTVL) than it is a "drop-away first stage".
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2190
  • Liked: 2647
  • Likes Given: 2314
People are forgetting that other than a main tank, the bulk of the STS main propulsion system was also reused.  So was the avionics, secondary propulsion system and power system.  Not going to include the other reused systems that are for the spacecraft portion of the STS

I don't think anyone around here has forgotten that.

Matthew

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37818
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22048
  • Likes Given: 430
People are forgetting that other than a main tank, the bulk of the STS main propulsion system was also reused.  So was the avionics, secondary propulsion system and power system.  Not going to include the other reused systems that are for the spacecraft portion of the STS

I don't think anyone around here has forgotten that.

Matthew

They are talking around it and only focusing on the SRB's

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1