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

[Hugo-norway]

It is when you see it up close you understand how big the first stage really is.

When you see it far away and when it (try to) land at the JRtI it does not look that big.

Suggestion what to do with stage not going up again. Chop it up in small pieces and sell to all your fans, and give profit to charity. I sure would like to have a small piece of history sitting at my desk.


Hugo

[JamesH]

The first one landed and reused should go in  a museum. The test landings before that? Dunno.

[Jim]

A landed stage is meaningless milestone unless a stage gets reused.  The first reused stage should go to a museum.

[JamesH]

A landed stage is meaningless milestone unless a stage gets reused.  The first reused stage should go to a museum.

I wouldn't say meaningless, anything done for the first time is never meaningless. But agreed that the reuse is the important milestone.

[rpapo]

A landed stage is meaningless milestone unless a stage gets reused.  The first reused stage should go to a museum.

I wouldn't say meaningless, anything done for the first time is never meaningless. But agreed that the reuse is the important milestone.

You're both right.  Jim is right in that unless you can reuse the stage, the attempt to land it only adds cost to the launch.  You are right in that landing the stage is going to have to happen before reuse can be attempted.  Any cost savings will only appear if (1) reuse can be done, and (2) refurbishment costs are minimal.

The Space Shuttle succeeded in the first, but failed miserably in the second.  As for Buran, we will never know.

[Bennett]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

[guckyfan]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

[wannamoonbase]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

I'd trust visual and non-destructive examinations enough to fly again on the first one.  Dismantle the first one to inspect then if found sound reassemble and reuse.  The Smithsonian can get one that flies 2 or more times.

I won't be surprised if the New Mexico plan fades away.  If you can return and test with operational boosters why set up a testing program in New Mexico?  That will take people and resources that they obviously need to run 4 pads, fly FH and develop Dragon V2.

[guckyfan]

I'd trust visual and non-destructive examinations enough to fly again on the first one.  Dismantle the first one to inspect then if found sound reassemble and reuse.  The Smithsonian can get one that flies 2 or more times.

I won't be surprised if the New Mexico plan fades away.  If you can return and test with operational boosters why set up a testing program in New Mexico?  That will take people and resources that they obviously need to run 4 pads, fly FH and develop Dragon V2.

That is quite possible. They do change plans as they see fit. Tough luck for Spaceport New Mexico. However it has its advantages too. No hassle with the Florida range, the pads free for the launch cadence their customers need.

[JBF]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

I'd trust visual and non-destructive examinations enough to fly again on the first one.  Dismantle the first one to inspect then if found sound reassemble and reuse.  The Smithsonian can get one that flies 2 or more times.

I won't be surprised if the New Mexico plan fades away.  If you can return and test with operational boosters why set up a testing program in New Mexico?  That will take people and resources that they obviously need to run 4 pads, fly FH and develop Dragon V2.

They will be testing edge conditions in NM; if you want to examine failures you need to be able to recover the wreckage.

[Karloss12]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

I doubt dissection and X-ray will be used.

Fatigue will initiate at the surface, where dye penetrant testing can be used, which is more effective than X-Ray.  Due to the nature of bending which causes higher stresses at the materials surface, the chances of fatigue cracks initiating inside the material is negligible especially as there aren't any internal material flaws for fatigue to initiate from because the flaws were picked up when x-raying the welds during fabrication.

Other than that they will use straight edges and radius templates to inspect for gross deformation.

Some smaller sub components that you can't get access to dye pen could be removed and then chopped up, but not the rocket as a whole.

Actually, I'm not sure how to inspect non-metal components made from kevlar etc.

[Lar]

A little less back and forth, people. Post sources or expect to be asked for them. When asking, ask nicely for sources. Don't cast aspersions on the motives of others.  And save the "fanboi" sort of comments ...

Ah, you know...  be excellent to each other., Thank you.

[wannamoonbase]

I doubt dissection and X-ray will be used.

Fatigue will initiate at the surface, where dye penetrant testing can be used, which is more effective than X-Ray.  Due to the nature of bending which causes higher stresses at the materials surface, the chances of fatigue cracks initiating inside the material is negligible especially as there aren't any internal material flaws for fatigue to initiate from because the flaws were picked up when x-raying the welds during fabrication.

Other than that they will use straight edges and radius templates to inspect for gross deformation.

Some smaller sub components that you can't get access to dye pen could be removed and then chopped up, but not the rocket as a whole.

Actually, I'm not sure how to inspect non-metal components made from kevlar etc.

I'd also expect strain gauges and maybe other instrumentation for temperature and pressure on the most critical points of the vehicle.  Shouldn't add much weight at all and could help profile the vehicle performance, especially on different re-entry trajectories that have different speeds and angles of entry.

[Jim]

I'd also expect strain gauges and maybe other instrumentation for temperature and pressure on the most critical points of the vehicle.  Shouldn't add much weight at all and could help profile the vehicle performance, especially on different re-entry trajectories that have different speeds and angles of entry.

RTF has been hampered by lack of instrumentation, so how it is going to help with preflight.

[meekGee]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

Unlike some other companies, SpaceX is not rushing to put artifacts in museums - they're going for the historical record instead.

The first landed stage will get inspected, and if nothing obvious is found wrong, it will be re-flown.

If it survives a few re-flights, maybe then they'll place it in a museum.  Or in their parking lot.

[cesarparent]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

Unlike some other companies, SpaceX is not rushing to put artifacts in museums - they're going for the historical record instead.

The first landed stage will get inspected, and if nothing obvious is found wrong, it will be re-flown.

If it survives a few re-flights, maybe then they'll place it in a museum.  Or in their parking lot.

In case of a success, and if the recovered stage passes every test SpaceX runs it through, isn't the goal to re-fly the booster until it gets too worn down, and do the last launch in expandable mode?

[chalz]

I would imagine the first returned stage would be dissected like a frog, to check out, test and X-ray every weld, struts, tanks, lines etc... To see how well they survived during the ride up and landing along with thermal and g-force loads place on the rocket. Take all of that data improve (if needed) the next series of rockets and go from there. Then bolt/weld her back together and place her in a museum

It was said the first one goes to New Mexico for reflight. The second one would be dissected. Let's see if that comes true. They need to do some checks at least I would assume.

Unlike some other companies, SpaceX is not rushing to put artifacts in museums - they're going for the historical record instead.

The first landed stage will get inspected, and if nothing obvious is found wrong, it will be re-flown.

If it survives a few re-flights, maybe then they'll place it in a museum.  Or in their parking lot.

In case of a success, and if the recovered stage passes every test SpaceX runs it through, isn't the goal to re-fly the booster until it gets too worn down, and do the last launch in expandable mode?

In theory this will no longer apply since all future landings (excepting Jason 3 that won't get reused anyway; could that go to NM though?) will be flying in full thrust mode. This is supposed to provide sufficient margin to return a stage even when it flys a geostationary-bound payload. Expendable mode should no longer be necessary.

[rpapo]

Expendable mode should no longer be necessary.

Don't assume that.  Somebody looking a cheaper ride than Ariane or Atlas will surely come along and ask, "How much could you take to GEO in expendable mode now?"  No matter that (in theory) reusable rockets would be much cheaper.  The point being that an expendable Falcon 9 FT would very probably still be cheaper than the competition.

[OneSpeed]

Expendable mode should no longer be necessary.

Don't assume that.  Somebody looking a cheaper ride than Ariane or Atlas will surely come along and ask, "How much could you take to GEO in expendable mode now?"  No matter that (in theory) reusable rockets would be much cheaper.  The point being that an expendable Falcon 9 FT would very probably still be cheaper than the competition.

You would have a point until FH comes on line. At that stage a reusable FH should be cheaper than an expendable F9 FT.

[Pete]

In case of a success, and if the recovered stage passes every test SpaceX runs it through, isn't the goal to re-fly the booster until it gets too worn down, and do the last launch in expandable mode?

Expandable mode? Is that when the rocket goes boom?  ;-)

But yes, there is a lot that can be learned by measurements with each reflight. At this time they design to an estimated load on each component, slap on a hefty safety margin, and have no real way of knowing how much wear the components actually encounter. With reflights, the inspections will reveal a wealth of flight-wear data which will lead to better understanding of the systems involved, and ultimately the ability to reduce the "excess" safety margins that are not actually needed. Or beef them up where measured wear exceeds projected wear.