SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION

[llanitedave]

Looks clean!

[docmordrid]

A little oil soap, power cleaning pads, hose her down and ready to go

[Comga]

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!

[zodiacchris]

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 

[IanThePineapple]

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

[cro-magnon gramps]

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)

[abaddon]

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?

[Coastal Ron]

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.

[Orbiter]

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.

[deruch]

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.

[Coastal Ron]

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.

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.

[Nomadd]

When will I be able to find them in kbb.com?

[woods170]

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.

[guckyfan]

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.

[abaddon]

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 .

[Jim]

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

[envy887]

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 .

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.

[meekGee]

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 .

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".

[matthewkantar]

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

[Jim]

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