-
#1860
by
ugordan
on 25 Dec, 2015 21:44
-
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.
-
#1861
by
clongton
on 25 Dec, 2015 21:47
-
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.
-
#1862
by
Coastal Ron
on 25 Dec, 2015 21:52
-
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...
-
#1863
by
Lars-J
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:13
-
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.
-
#1864
by
meekGee
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:38
-
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.
-
#1865
by
mfck
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:52
-
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)
-
#1866
by
Lee Jay
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:52
-
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.
-
#1867
by
Lee Jay
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:53
-
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.
-
#1868
by
meekGee
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:53
-
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.
-
#1869
by
mfck
on 25 Dec, 2015 22:54
-
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.
-
#1870
by
the_other_Doug
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:08
-
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...
-
#1871
by
John Alan
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:09
-
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...
-
#1872
by
QuantumG
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:12
-
s/Hawthorne/McGregor.. it'll sit in a field and rot away like Grasshopper.
-
#1873
by
macpacheco
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:20
-
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.
-
#1874
by
douglas100
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:26
-
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.
-
#1875
by
rst
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:33
-
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.
-
#1876
by
Dante80
on 25 Dec, 2015 23:45
-
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).
-
#1877
by
mfck
on 26 Dec, 2015 00:06
-
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.
-
#1878
by
Dante80
on 26 Dec, 2015 00:55
-
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..
-
#1879
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 26 Dec, 2015 02:35
-
Suppose that we all learned to keep to the subject of the thread ...
