SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - ORBCOMM-2 - Dec. 21, 2015 (Return To Flight) DISCUSSION

[ugordan]

They can keep analyzing, measuring, xraying and scrutinizing till they're all old and gray and end up none the wiser.

Yeah, but at least it would lower the chance of them destroying a valuable test or launch pad by a stage on the verge of falling apart.

[clongton]

it's a bit petty.
perhaps this would be better.
"Thanks. Next stop Mars. See you there"

Much classier response. And more like Elon's style. He has stated many times that he is hoping to see several commercial companies competing for the launches with him on a level playing field. He's not doing this to dominate the field. He genuinely wants company.

[Coastal Ron]

And how it went too. SpaceX had (as expected) built the stage for easy recovery and moving around..

Although this would not be the fastest way to recover a stage and move it to post-flight processing.

One would imagine something like an de-erector transporter that would grab the stage, allow for leg removal or storage, and transport back to the shed where it can be transferred to a transporter erector for payload processing.  OK to use a crane and general transporter for now so they can fine tune their processes...

[Lars-J]

Can't help wondering what would happen if they just filled the tanks and lit a fire under it. Would it fly to space? They can keep analyzing, measuring, xraying and scrutinizing till they're all old and gray and end up none the wiser.

Um, yes they can. You don't seem to understand what engineering analysis can show you.

[meekGee]

Can't help wondering what would happen if they just filled the tanks and lit a fire under it. Would it fly to space? They can keep analyzing, measuring, xraying and scrutinizing till they're all old and gray and end up none the wiser.

None the wiser is if you just fill the tanks and fly, and then have no idea what went wrong, or if something almost went wrong.

If they only did non-destructive testing, then yes, they should try to fly it.  But there's more value in bringing some components to failure.

They can refly the next one.  Or the one after that.

[mfck]

it's a bit petty.
perhaps this would be better.
"Thanks. Next stop Mars. See you there"

Much classier response. And more like Elon's style. He has stated many times that he is hoping to see several commercial companies competing for the launches with him on a level playing field. He's not doing this to dominate the field. He genuinely wants company.

I'd like to see SX release the F9 design and accumulated data as open source, at some point in the future, when they are less dependent on it being a trade secret. That would open some possibilities, for sure. It will also be one hell of case study for universities, and, hopefully, high school. Think what would it do Jeff's cherished club... priceless)

[Lee Jay]

Can't help wondering what would happen if they just filled the tanks and lit a fire under it. Would it fly to space? They can keep analyzing, measuring, xraying and scrutinizing till they're all old and gray and end up none the wiser.

None the wiser is if you just fill the tanks and fly, and then have no idea what went wrong, or if something almost went wrong.

If they only did non-destructive testing, then yes, they should try to fly it.  But there's more value in bringing some components to failure.

They can refly the next one.  Or the one after that.

They could also bring some components to failure, replace them, and re-fly this one.

[Lee Jay]

it's a bit petty.
perhaps this would be better.
"Thanks. Next stop Mars. See you there"

Much classier response. And more like Elon's style. He has stated many times that he is hoping to see several commercial companies competing for the launches with him on a level playing field. He's not doing this to dominate the field. He genuinely wants company.

I'd like to see SX open source the F9 design and accumulated data at some point in the future, when they are less dependent on it being a trade secret. That would open some possibilities, for sure. It will also be one hell of case study for universities, and, hopefully, high school. Think what would it do Jeff's cherished club... priceless)

I'd guess ITAR would have something to say about that plan.

[meekGee]

Can't help wondering what would happen if they just filled the tanks and lit a fire under it. Would it fly to space? They can keep analyzing, measuring, xraying and scrutinizing till they're all old and gray and end up none the wiser.

None the wiser is if you just fill the tanks and fly, and then have no idea what went wrong, or if something almost went wrong.

If they only did non-destructive testing, then yes, they should try to fly it.  But there's more value in bringing some components to failure.

They can refly the next one.  Or the one after that.

They could also bring some components to failure, replace them, and re-fly this one.

Yup. 

[mfck]

it's a bit petty.
perhaps this would be better.
"Thanks. Next stop Mars. See you there"

Much classier response. And more like Elon's style. He has stated many times that he is hoping to see several commercial companies competing for the launches with him on a level playing field. He's not doing this to dominate the field. He genuinely wants company.

I'd like to see SX open source the F9 design and accumulated data at some point in the future, when they are less dependent on it being a trade secret. That would open some possibilities, for sure. It will also be one hell of case study for universities, and, hopefully, high school. Think what would it do Jeff's cherished club... priceless)

I'd guess ITAR would have something to say about that plan.

Probably . Hopefully it'll be obsolete enough by then to not be considered a threat.

[the_other_Doug]

I've got to assume that there is going to be, at a minimum, a visual inspection of the returned core's engine and thrust structures prior to just tanking 'er up and letting fly on the static fire.

If they did no such preliminary inspection and an easily-spotted flaw resulted in severe damage to LC-39A, there would be a lot of talk about how "anyone should know" to perform at least a cursory inspection prior to restarting those engines...

[John Alan]

My opinion what will happen with this stage... 

They will inspect but not take apart much beyond what is typical to just look at stuff... (B check in airplane speak)
They will take it up the ramp and use it to check out fit and function of the new pad infrastructure...
Would not surprise me if it goes up and down the ramp a few times... 
Would not surprise me if more then one static fire test is done... 
I would be very surprised if much beyond a 20 second burn is done on the pad... 

Then (my guess) is it will get packed up and go to Hawthorne... make way for the FH at 39A...
At that point... that stage will get a C check like going thru... checked out down to the last bolt and weld...
IF they get another stage back to look at... they will stop looking at this one and move to the next...

Someday... this stage and all it's motors will be a SpaceX museum piece...
EM will not let them wreck it...  grounded it was, the moment the flames went out at LZ-1... 

Just my opinion how this will play out in the next 6 months... 

[QuantumG]

s/Hawthorne/McGregor.. it'll sit in a field and rot away like Grasshopper.

[macpacheco]

s/Hawthorne/McGregor.. it'll sit in a field and rot away like Grasshopper.

Precisely. That's why I don't think it's such a great idea to keep a first stage as a sentimental object. Its way too massive !

If the static fire is 100% fine, then perhaps go ahead with a substantial disassemble and more detailed NDTs. If no problems are found, then assemble it again, and find a customer willing to be as much of a guinea pig as MDA Corp was in the first F9R launch. Go through the same prelaunch preparations (including another normal static fire).

Perhaps offer NASA a ultra low cost CRS launch with only consumables onboard, excellent chance to do the first reflown Dragon launch, I know that's a big can of worms (Dragon certification for reflight), but it would give NASA a chance to show its 100% onboard with re-use.

[douglas100]

And how it went too. SpaceX had (as expected) built the stage for easy recovery and moving around..

Although this would not be the fastest way to recover a stage and move it to post-flight processing.

One would imagine something like an de-erector transporter that would grab the stage, allow for leg removal or storage, and transport back to the shed where it can be transferred to a transporter erector for payload processing.  OK to use a crane and general transporter for now so they can fine tune their processes...

Agree. In a previous post the name "retriever" was suggested for such a device which would which would lock on to the rocket, swing it horizontal and bring it back to the hangar. The legs would still have to be folded or removed, of course.

[rst]

ITAR isn't likely to let them publish the Falcon 9 design because it can be easily repurposed as an ICBM. That's still possible when it's obsolete.

[Dante80]

It would not then be very useful as an ICBM (as any cryogenic rocket is)...but still much, much better than some of the things rogue nations have available right now..while portions of the design (avionics, cold gas thrusters etc) would be very useful.

No way for F9 going into public domain, the rocket industry is not like the car industry (where TESLA can do that).

[mfck]

It would not then be very useful as an ICBM (as any cryogenic rocket is)...but still much, much better than some of the things rogue nations have available right now..while portions of the design (avionics, cold gas thrusters etc) would be very useful.

No way for F9 going into public domain, the rocket industry is not like the car industry (where TESLA can do that).

Suppose you had a two orders of magnitude better missile defence than what you have now. Orbital high power lasers or something. ICBMs might get inadequate.

[Dante80]

Suppose that the guy that you don't want to get the ICBM wants to use it against someone that does not have an Orbital High power laser..

We are getting off-topic, pretty fast..

[Herb Schaltegger]

Suppose that we all learned to keep to the subject of the thread ...