Author Topic: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles  (Read 208237 times)

Offline rocx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • NL
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #460 on: 06/23/2016 02:42 PM »
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:

http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)

It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.
Any day with a rocket landing is a fantastic day.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4290
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2510
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #461 on: 06/23/2016 03:05 PM »
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:

http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)

It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.

Then why not just tweet a photo of it in the factory, rather than parking it out in the street and hoping someone recognizes it?

There must really be "no vacancy" at the Falcon Motel.

Offline OnWithTheShow

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #462 on: 06/24/2016 12:31 PM »
SpaceX looking to build a refurb facility on the North side of Port Canaveral. I imagine this would include their own mooring for the ASDS:

http://www.fox35orlando.com/news/local-news/164663415-story

PORT CANAVERAL, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Port Canaveral staff are currently in negotiations with aerospace company SpaceX to lease land on the north side of the inlet where a possible facility to refurbish rockets would be built, according to one Port Authority Commissioner.

Bruce Deardoff, who represents district four, says SpaceX has expressed interest in leasing several acres at the Port where a facility could be built to receive, house, and refurbish Falcon 9 boosters after they land at sea on the aerospace company's autonomous drone ship.

"I think we are going to find a great solution to what they need," said Deardoff.

Port Commissioner: SpaceX negotiating Port lease to refurbish rocket boosters
Currently, SpaceX retrieves the landed boosters and then stores them in an Air Force warehouse. If a deal is struck, SpaceX could create a steady loop of boosters launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and then refurbish several miles away at the Port. A possible deal could also bring more aerospace jobs to the area to support the refurbishment activities. But one point of contention in the early negotiations between the two parties is the Port's initial assessment of a federally required dock fee.

Capt. John Murray, Port Canaveral's CEO, says his staff settled on a fee of $15,000 for each rocket booster docked at the Port. The amount, he says, was based on research into comparable fees for aerospace parts and equipment. But after commissioners pulled the item from discussion at a Wednesday commission meeting, Murray said he was willing to reconsider a lower amount during a private meeting with SpaceX representatives that was scheduled to follow the public meeting.

"We are really excited to have them in the Port," said Captain Murray about the fast growing space company SpaceX, "and we are excited about the business they are bringing to the community. This is just an ongoing discussion that will continue."

SpaceX spokesperson John Taylor would not confirm the content of the meeting with Port Canaveral staff, but did say representatives of the company participated in a private meeting with Port Canaveral Staff.

According to Commissioner Deardoff, SpaceX's goal in three years is to launch an average of 90 rockets a year.

Offline starhawk92

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Burlington, NC, USA, North America, Earth (for now)
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #463 on: 06/24/2016 03:20 PM »
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:

http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)

I bet, on occasion, the following remark is made in a SpaceX meeting:
" . . . . will be great because that will send those NSF folks into a tizzy"

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6675
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1732
  • Likes Given: 1694
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #464 on: 06/24/2016 03:32 PM »
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.

Then why not just tweet a photo of it in the factory, rather than parking it out in the street and hoping someone recognizes it?

There must really be "no vacancy" at the Falcon Motel.

I think they did it for a laugh. The timing was such that interested people would be there with cameras for the Orbcom landed stage. There is no way the missing cover and the timing were accidental.

Edit: corrected quoting.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2016 03:34 PM by guckyfan »

Offline rocx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • NL
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #465 on: 06/24/2016 06:43 PM »
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.

Then why not just tweet a photo of it in the factory, rather than parking it out in the street and hoping someone recognizes it?

There must really be "no vacancy" at the Falcon Motel.

I think they did it for a laugh. The timing was such that interested people would be there with cameras for the Orbcom landed stage. There is no way the missing cover and the timing were accidental.

Edit: corrected quoting.

You know, maybe they have some engineer follow the comments on the pictures, and the one that identified the mystery engine-less end as 'not the landed core but probably FH' before the other one arrived will be invited for a job interview. Maybe.
Any day with a rocket landing is a fantastic day.

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 2102
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #466 on: 06/24/2016 11:08 PM »
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.
We've seen FH side booster nose cones in SpX pics from the factory floor months ago, and I was on a tour and saw a FH (perhaps test article, can't be sure) interstage also a couple of months ago. It was distinctive for having extra large cutouts where struts would have to go to the top of the LOX tank structure - bottom of the interstage.
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline Scylla

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Clinton NC, USA
  • Liked: 646
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #467 on: 07/09/2016 11:07 PM »
Historic SpaceX booster approved for display in California

The Federal Aviation Administration has granted SpaceX permission to build a 160-foot-tall display. The FAA's approval was needed because the tall rocket stage will stand not far from the Hawthorne Municipal Airport runway.
"It would be the highest object for quite a distance around the airport," CEO Elon Musk explained back in April.
The FAA has determined that "the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities," records show.
However, the monument must incorporate red obstruction lights to "to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR (visual flight rules) weather conditions between sunset and sunrise."
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/07/09/historic-spacex-booster-approved-display-california/86709956/
I reject your reality and substitute my own--Doctor Who

Offline Citabria

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #468 on: 07/12/2016 04:09 PM »
Not sure it is dirt that can be washed off. I think more likely it is paint discoloration caused by heat.

The general suspicion is that it can be washed off.

Perhaps they used Bartley's Rocket Wax?

Offline Clueless Idiot

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • USA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #469 on: 07/31/2016 10:13 PM »
This comment is from a different thread here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40510.80
 
"A different analogy that many people use (me included) is the turbofan engines on airliners, which operate with many extreme conditions, though rocket engines have even more extreme conditions they have to operate in.  One article I have seen talked about a turbofan on an A-10 that flew for 10 years (3,464.4 operating hours) after a major overhaul in 1999.

And certainly a more direct analogy is the Shuttle Orbiter engines, the Space Shuttle main engine (SSME).  Though they had to go through an inspection program after each flight, and they did have some minor parts replaced after each flight, overall they were reusable.  But compared to a Merlin 1D, the SSME were pretty complicated, which is why there is more hope that a truly reusable rocket engine can be perfected."

He says that the SSME were complicated compared to the Merlin engine and its this precise difference in complexity that I wish to understand here? Why and how did SSME's complexity make it so that they had to refurbish it in between launches? What exactly did they replace on the SSME in between launches? Surely this forum has experts here who know these facts like the back of their hand?





Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #470 on: 08/02/2016 01:17 PM »
(Not an expert)

SSME and M1D have huge fundamental differences- propellant being an obvious one, but also a completely different engine cycle. So the actual components are doing different jobs, a bit like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. SSME was also designed in the 70s, Merlin can draw on another three decades of development (perhaps not as big an advantage as it should be)

I don't personally know what refurbishing each of these engines entails, but a few points to consider:
1) where do you draw the line between refurb and inspection? You might not replace a component, but you might still want to whip it out and check e.g. tolerance on a bearing seal.
2) There will be a trade between the hassle and cost if inspection/refurb, and the hassle and cost of engine failure. That scale will be weighted massively in favour of not losing the vehicle.
3) There may also (and I'm starting to speculate a little here) be a trade between cost, performance, and service intervals. Is it worth building a no-refurb engine if it comes at the cost of performance loss? Would you buy a car that didn't need refuelled until the next service interval- of course not, that would mean driving around lugging 20,000 miles worth of fuel with you. Absurd example but I hope it illustrates the point.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline rsdavis9

Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #471 on: 08/02/2016 01:42 PM »
(Not an expert)

SSME and M1D have huge fundamental differences- propellant being an obvious one, but also a completely different engine cycle. So the actual components are doing different jobs, a bit like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. SSME was also designed in the 70s, Merlin can draw on another three decades of development (perhaps not as big an advantage as it should be)

I don't personally know what refurbishing each of these engines entails, but a few points to consider:
1) where do you draw the line between refurb and inspection? You might not replace a component, but you might still want to whip it out and check e.g. tolerance on a bearing seal.
2) There will be a trade between the hassle and cost if inspection/refurb, and the hassle and cost of engine failure. That scale will be weighted massively in favour of not losing the vehicle.
3) There may also (and I'm starting to speculate a little here) be a trade between cost, performance, and service intervals. Is it worth building a no-refurb engine if it comes at the cost of performance loss? Would you buy a car that didn't need refuelled until the next service interval- of course not, that would mean driving around lugging 20,000 miles worth of fuel with you. Absurd example but I hope it illustrates the point.

with the note above about complexity. I hope the raptor with the new cycle doesn't break the complexity problem. The m1d while not being the highest isp has achieved the best thrust to weight ratio and seen to be very reliable and simple to operate.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1782
  • Likes Given: 3387
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #472 on: 08/02/2016 04:45 PM »
(Not an expert)

SSME and M1D have huge fundamental differences- propellant being an obvious one, but also a completely different engine cycle. So the actual components are doing different jobs, a bit like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. SSME was also designed in the 70s, Merlin can draw on another three decades of development (perhaps not as big an advantage as it should be)

I don't personally know what refurbishing each of these engines entails, but a few points to consider:
1) where do you draw the line between refurb and inspection? You might not replace a component, but you might still want to whip it out and check e.g. tolerance on a bearing seal.
2) There will be a trade between the hassle and cost if inspection/refurb, and the hassle and cost of engine failure. That scale will be weighted massively in favour of not losing the vehicle.
3) There may also (and I'm starting to speculate a little here) be a trade between cost, performance, and service intervals. Is it worth building a no-refurb engine if it comes at the cost of performance loss? Would you buy a car that didn't need refuelled until the next service interval- of course not, that would mean driving around lugging 20,000 miles worth of fuel with you. Absurd example but I hope it illustrates the point.

The concept behind SpaceX's vision of re-use is to have stages that do not require any refurbishment or inspection between beyond surface inspections and test fires.  In other words, nothing that requires unshipping or replacing engines or major components between flights.

This is opposite the Shuttle paradigm, where all three SSME's were routinely replaced by completely refurbished engines between flights, the just-flown SSME's being routed into an extensive take-it-all-apart inspection and refurbishment cycle.  In addition, the Shuttle's OMS pods were completely removed from the vehicles after each flight for inspection and refurbishment, some of which included replacing all the seals in the hypergolic fuel systems.

In other words, your points seem to be trying to pull forward the Shuttle paradigm of "Hey, it can't hurt to take it all apart, inspect and clean every piece, and put it back together" whereas the SpaceX paradigm is "Fuel 'er up and fly 'er again, maybe clean off the soot first."

According to SpaceX, the Merlins are designed for their operations paradigm, not for the Shuttle paradigm.

It feels like the people who continually ask "But, how can you re-fly a rocket without taking it apart and putting it all back together again?" are having the same difficulty in shifting their paradigms as the people who insist "SpaceX cannot possibly be capable of making and flying Falcon 9's at $60 million a shot, because everyone else who has ever done it before can't do it for less than $200 million."

Yes, paradigms shifting under your feet can be confusing.  But once the new paradigms are proven to be workable and effective, most people won't have a problem coming on board with them... :)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 2102
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #473 on: 08/20/2016 02:18 PM »
BIG NEWS: 021 was relocated from Jack Northrop Ave to Crenshaw Blvd overnight and is ready for erection TODAY. Get out to Hawthorne ready to take some historic pictures!

Added: FB thread with pictures: https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10154499364716318/
« Last Edit: 08/20/2016 05:20 PM by The Roadie »
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #474 on: 08/20/2016 08:57 PM »
Looks like sketches of a reusable fairing concept are among the photos  too ...

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17270
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2896
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #475 on: 08/20/2016 09:49 PM »
« Last Edit: 08/20/2016 09:53 PM by jacqmans »

Offline Req

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Liked: 413
  • Likes Given: 2581
« Last Edit: 08/20/2016 10:23 PM by Req »

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1317
  • Likes Given: 1548
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #477 on: 08/21/2016 04:33 AM »
Pretty decent wash job.  I wonder how long the current paint and logos will last in the local environment before everything starts to flake, peel, and fade.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline chawleysnow

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • California, USA
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #478 on: 08/21/2016 10:13 PM »
Took a drive by this afternoon. The crane is still attached at the top but the stage is sitting on its legs; the jacks have been removed.  The engine bells also have covers on them at the moment.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #479 on: 08/21/2016 10:44 PM »
Pretty decent wash job.  I wonder how long the current paint and logos will last in the local environment before everything starts to flake, peel, and fade.

I wonder if SpaceX is taking the opportunity to get some useful data on various paint/logo formulations/treatments? After all, you don't want to waste money constantly repainting etc if you can avoid it!

Might not have wide applicability; but then again, might not cost much to experiment either.

Tags: