-
#400
by
cebri
on 26 Mar, 2017 15:48
-
Quick question, the core was used in the 23rd mission of the F9, however NSF labels it as #1021, asumming it means 21st 1st stage. Any reason for this, am i missing something?
-
#401
by
mlow
on 26 Mar, 2017 15:53
-
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
-
#402
by
cebri
on 26 Mar, 2017 15:54
-
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
ThanksĄ
-
#403
by
Chris Bergin
on 26 Mar, 2017 15:58
-
Clear pad as of an hour ago. Also SFN stream showing no booster vertical.
Cutting it close for Static Fire.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGhmh2lRM8/
The have an 8-hour window today. 
Which is now Monday, so everyone is on the same page
-
#404
by
matthewkantar
on 26 Mar, 2017 16:00
-
-
#405
by
old_sellsword
on 26 Mar, 2017 16:03
-
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
ThanksĄ
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Those are flight numbers, not the same thing. They change with every (re)launch.
Here is a list of SpaceX flight (F9-XX) and booster (B1XXX) numbers for all publicly known stages.
-
#406
by
Lar
on 26 Mar, 2017 22:02
-
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
ThanksĄ
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Those are flight numbers, not the same thing. They change with every (re)launch.
Here is a list of SpaceX flight (F9-XX) and booster (B1XXX) numbers for all publicly known stages.
How much confidence do we have, collectively, in that data? It's organised nicely (if a bit sprawlingly) though. You do good work, sir.
-
#407
by
old_sellsword
on 26 Mar, 2017 22:06
-
It is booster 1021 used first on flight 23.
Has SpaceX given them a number? Anywhere i can check that out?
ThanksĄ
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.0
Those are flight numbers, not the same thing. They change with every (re)launch.
Here is a list of SpaceX flight (F9-XX) and booster (B1XXX) numbers for all publicly known stages.
How much confidence do we have, collectively, in that data? It's organised nicely (if a bit sprawlingly) though.
It's all public information, unless it has a qualifier (i.e. Presumed B1035).
-
#408
by
Lar
on 26 Mar, 2017 22:15
-
I'm a Wikipedia old hand so tend to love it if someone takes the time to link everything up to sources. But that's a lot of work. Not doubting, just saying, can't source WP from that chart, right? NVM, off topic for this thread.
-
#409
by
CameronD
on 27 Mar, 2017 01:42
-
-
#410
by
FlokiViking
on 27 Mar, 2017 03:05
-
other than finishing with this quote stating that if all goes well, #1021 will never fly again
Is that really what the quote says?
If the SES boardroom gets a grid fin and a leg, does that mean #1021 will (or could) never fly again?
-
#411
by
zodiacchris
on 27 Mar, 2017 03:32
-
Not really, it could just mean that it flies a third time with a new fin and leg, or a set from the pile of used legs and grid fins that have been accumulating from all the recovered boosters...
-
#412
by
SweetWater
on 27 Mar, 2017 04:00
-
Interesting article in the Financial Review today:
http://www.afr.com/leadership/innovation/elon-musks-spacex-is-about-to-reuse-falcon-9-rocket-in-wright-brothers-moment-20170326-gv71em
Nothing particularly new, other than finishing with this quote stating that if all goes well, #1021 will never fly again:
Gwynne has promised us parts of the rocket," Halliwell said. "We want them for the SES board room."
I hate to be Debbie Downer (that's a lie, but I digress...), but this seems like bad karma. Counting chickens before they're hatched. Let's have a successful launch and satellite deployment, a successful landing, and get the stage back to port in one piece. THEN it's safe to talk about what parts can go in the board room.
-
#413
by
K210
on 27 Mar, 2017 04:45
-
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
-
#414
by
Lars-J
on 27 Mar, 2017 05:31
-
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
Are you concerned about a lack of health skepticism before every launch? If not, why single this one out?
-
#415
by
CameronD
on 27 Mar, 2017 05:37
-
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
Are you concerned about a lack of health skepticism before every launch? If not, why single this one out?
Healthy scepticism didn't get men to the moon... and from telecasts we've seen of previous launches it's banned from SpaceX Mission Control also.
-
#416
by
faramund
on 27 Mar, 2017 06:47
-
Well, does anyone (and I assume at least someone) know, what's the smallest time between test fire and launch (attempt?)
-
#417
by
MikeAtkinson
on 27 Mar, 2017 07:04
-
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
Or do you mean concern? By whom? I'm sure SpaceX, range, FAA and SES are concerned about this launch, same as about any other. Or do you mean lack of concern by us in a forum? Why is that worrying? Can our concern or lack of it change anything?
My default assumption is that after the first few launches there is a 1 in 100 chance of failure for any modern vehicle. Flight rate is not high enough for any particular launcher to say differently from a statistical point of view. Ariane 5, Atlas V, Falcon 9 all 1 in 100, I don't see any reason for this first stage reflight to be any different.
-
#418
by
MP99
on 27 Mar, 2017 07:52
-
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
What is there to be sceptical about? This first stage is not being reflown? SpaceX and SES are lying?
I have seen concerns that heating during reentry has the possibility of weakening the aluminium structure of the tanks. Presumably SpaceX will have eliminated this and similar concerns during NDT.
Also, reuse puts extra cycles on subsystems which are subject to a lot of stress and lifetime concerns. I'm mainly thinking of the helium system here - not sure if there are others.
This is not to say I think this flight will fail, but I will be holding my breath more than normal until MECO and separation.
Cheers, Martin
-
#419
by
friendly3
on 27 Mar, 2017 08:46
-
The lack of healthy scepticism is worrying me about this launch
They put a four-leaf clover on each of their patches if that can reassure you, it must be some sort of "healthy scepticism" turned into healthier enthusiasm or even healthier boldness.
