SpaceX long-term stage processing goal = 48 hour turnaround

[Jim]

You don't need data, just common sense.

Not true.  Reusable does not always mean cheaper.

[nadreck]

Falcon 9 v1.1 FT is a reusable rocket and designed like one.

no, it is an expendable rocket that is being converted/upgraded to a reusable one.

No, with all due respect the whole reason why (see the thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0) there is a controversy between the statement from Elon that one reflight of a Falcon Core justifies its reusability vs George Sowers saying you need 20 in the ULA universe is because the F9 was designed to be reusable.

snip

Reuse was being designed in (it didn't work for the whole system but components were being designed for it) in the Falcon 1 even. So what is the hard to believe part is that SpaceX did all this designing in for something that still has a unit cost to manufacture below the same class of launchers that never had reuse considered for any part.  Even more amazing is that it took them a tiny fraction of the development costs (adjusted for today's dollar) to do the same thing.

Wrong.  Just adding a parachute does not qualify as designing for reuse.

Other than tank diameter and domes, there is little hardware that the early F9 first stages share with the current ones.  Thrust structure, avionics, propulsion system, pressure systems, are all different.  Even launcher.

The parachute was the wasted part of the design for reuse. I don't know about the kestrel but certainly the Merlin was designed with reuse in mind as was the majority of the vehicle. We will probably never know how much of that was clearly a waste of effort like the parachute that was replaced with a design with more potential for reuse. But from day one SpaceX was designing everything that they felt they could design with reuse in mind. On the Falcon 9 they have since given up on that for the 2nd stage but that doesn't mean that many of the systems in it weren't still designed with reuse in mind.

[rcoppola]

I think it's a good idea to revisit the 2 posts that initiated this thread. There are dozens of threads concerning reuse, etc..

The 48 hour rule, while it certainly has implications for future returned cores, is not predicated on such. Neither is the one hour pad processing. 

I find the technical aspects of how you could essentially create a streamlined, low personnel, automated, quick processing and launch flow, extremely interesting. I'd much rather here form people like Jim and others who actually have intimate knowledge in this area on how that could be realistically achieved, rather then re-use, good/bad, cheap, not, always planned, only recently developed, etc..rehash.

[nadreck]

I think it's a good idea to revisit the 2 posts that initiated this thread. There are dozens of threads concerning reuse, etc..

The 48 hour rule, while it certainly has implications for future returned cores, is not predicated on such. Neither is the one hour pad processing. 

I find the technical aspects of how you could essentially create a streamlined, low personnel, automated, quick processing and launch flow, extremely interesting. I'd much rather here form people like Jim and others who actually have intimate knowledge in this area on how that could be realistically achieved, rather then re-use, good/bad, cheap, not, always planned, only recently developed, etc..rehash.

I don't see anything from Jim on this thread about how to realistically achieve a streamlined, low personnel, automated, quick processing and launch flow.

I do see a lot of statements from him about reuse and design intent, and given my nature and the nature of how I participate on this board, I can't help but feel an urge to correct something I see as misrepresenting the design and design intent of what we are discussing.

[mvpel]

After watching the video of the semi-tractor scooching around trying to reverse direction in order to back the stage into the hangar at 39A, I expect that for the 48-hour target they'll be designing a booster cradle that can be towed from either end, or at least making sure to mount it on the cradle engines-first at the landing pad next time.

[JasonAW3]

You don't need data, just common sense.

Not true.  Reusable does not always mean cheaper.

Short term, you're probably correct.  The technology to produce reliable, reusable rockets is currently in the developmental phase.  While the Shuttle was supposed to be a faster turn around and highly reliable, the refurbishing costs far outweighed any potentile benifit from reusability.

  The Shuttle 2 was supposed to incorporate lessons learned from the original STS system and develop a whole new SSTO type design.  It got canceled not just due to the Challenger disaster, but because the Technology just wasn't quite there yet. (Cost was also a factor, but not quuite as prominant as most seem to think).

     The Falcon 9 is trying to incorporate a number of lessons learned from the DC-X and the Shuttle to produce a reusable launch system.

     Yes, the Tech isn't quite there yet, to make this a fully reusable system, but that's what technological development is for.  Each launch that SpaceX makes gains them more information.  Each stage recovered will further their knowledge base and provide them with the knowledge to be able to produce a fully reusable system.

     Yes, they'll still have to expend such things as payload shrouds and interstage segments and Dragon Trunks, but it will still be FAR cheaper than expending entire rockets, again, once the technology is more mature.

     And Jim, saying that it can't be done is much akin to saying that going to the moon can't be done, or that heavier than aircraft are impossible.  Yes, it will ALWAYS be more complex than fliyoing an aircraft, (Although, I'd love to see myself proven wrong on this) but I have little doubt that  it will happen, and maybe even in the next few years.

     Heck, just a few years ago, no one thought recovering the booster stage from either a orbital or suborbital flight was even possible.  Yet, SpaceX and Blue Origin, respectively, have done so.

     So, I'm pretty much of the opinion that ANYTHING is possible, it just takes time, knowledge and ingenuity to make it happen.  (Yeah, and a lot of money as well).

[Jim]

I do see a lot of statements from him about reuse and design intent, and given my nature and the nature of how I participate on this board, I can't help but feel an urge to correct something I see as misrepresenting the design and design intent of what we are discussing.

And you are the one misrepresenting the original design of the Falcon 9.
Did the original Falcon 9 have attachments for legs, guidance for first stage, first stage inflight restart capability, landing sensors, robust thrust structure, etc

[JasonAW3]

I do see a lot of statements from him about reuse and design intent, and given my nature and the nature of how I participate on this board, I can't help but feel an urge to correct something I see as misrepresenting the design and design intent of what we are discussing.

And you are the one misrepresenting the original design of the Falcon 9.
Did the original Falcon 9 have attachments for legs, guidance for first stage, first stage inflight restart capability, landing sensors, robust thrust structure, etc

Jim,  the Falcon 9 was developed to make sure that SpaceX could launch payloads into space first and formost, with making sufficent money to continue to develop the system.  The incremental addition of components was, again, to see ifbeing able to land a booster was possible.  You'll note that very little of the original design of the Falcon 9 version 1, visually, actually remains in the current version, except the actual diameter of the stage.

     It's likely that it will change even further as improvements are incorporated into the design.

     With the Falcon Heavy, I'm not sure that they'll be able to recover the center booster, although I suspect the strap-ons will likely make it home.  If all three DO make a safe landing, that will be another major milestone to full reusability, as the center booster will be coming from both a higher altitude and velocity than either of the strap-ons, or even any Falcon 9 first stage yet.

     With respect, Jim, you ARE right that the Falcon 9 V1.1 FT is a VERY different bird than the Falcon 9 V1, but that's as it should be.

      Could you imagine how different things would be if they'd have developed the S-IC had have been able to boost back and land?  Bringing back the S-II might have been do-able as well, but we'll never really know.

     But I figure, if the major aerospace firms in the 60's and 70's thought it was possible to make reusable launchers, then just maybe they were right?

[nadreck]

I do see a lot of statements from him about reuse and design intent, and given my nature and the nature of how I participate on this board, I can't help but feel an urge to correct something I see as misrepresenting the design and design intent of what we are discussing.

And you are the one misrepresenting the original design of the Falcon 9.
Did the original Falcon 9 have attachments for legs, guidance for first stage, first stage inflight restart capability, landing sensors, robust thrust structure, etc

It had provisions for some of those, it tested some of those, and as a result of all the work on the 1.0, the 1.1 which was closer to recoverable was able to test supersonic retropulsion on its first flight. I would argue that testing restarts on the 2nd stage (and at McGregor on 1st stage engines) during the V1.0 era was part of that. If the F9 was designed to be expendable, you would not have had the V1.1 able to do all it did without a lot larger a design effort.

The first grasshopper was a V1.0 (it first flew more than a year before the first V1.1 launch which demonstrated guidance of a sort on a V1.0 frame) so legs (not the ones used for V1.1 mind you, but legs all the same, and that is better than a discarded tech like parachutes right?) were tested.

As early as the national press club talk on November 29 2011:

So, the pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has got to come up with, to make life multi-planetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower it'd be easier, but if it was a little higher it would be impossible. Even for an expendable launch vehicle, where you don't have to have any recovery, after a lot of smart people have done their best to optimize the weight of the vehicle and efficiency of the engines and the guidance systems and everything, you get maybe 2 to 3% of your liftoff weight to orbit. That's not a lot of room for error. If your rocket ends up being just a little bit heavier, you get nothing to orbit, and this is why only a few countries have ever reached orbit.

Now you say, okay, let's make it reusable, which means you've got to strengthen stages, you've got to add a lot of weight, a lot of thermal protection, you've got to do a lot of things that add weight to that vehicle, and still have a useful payload to orbit. Of that meager 2 to 3%, maybe if you're really good you can get it to 4%, you've got to add all that's necessary to bring the rocket stages back to the launch pad and be able to refly them, and still have useful payload to orbit. It's a very difficult thing. This has been attempted many times in the past, and generally what's happened is when people concluded that success was not one of the possible outcomes, the project's been abandoned. Well, some government projects kept going, even when success was not one of the possible outcomes, unfortunately, but then eventually they get cancelled. So it's just a very tough engineering problem.

It wasn't something that I thought - I wasn't sure it could be solved for a while, but then, just relatively recently - in the last 12 months or so - I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved, and SpaceX is going to try to do it. Now, we could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it, and we have a design that, on paper, doing the calculations, do the simulations, it does work. Now, we have to make sure those simulations and reality agree, because generally when they don't, reality wins. That's yet to be determined, and the simulation that you may have seen in the lobby coming in, which will be posted to our website right around now, will show you a simulation of what we plan to do.

http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/npc-luncheon-with-elon-musk-2011-09-29

Yes it was being designed in from the start

[Dave G]

And you are the one misrepresenting the original design of the Falcon 9.
Did the original Falcon 9 have attachments for legs, guidance for first stage, first stage inflight restart capability, landing sensors, robust thrust structure, etc

The original intent was to recover the Falcon 9 first stage using parachutes, just as they tried to do with Falcon 1.  When that didn't work, they added the stuff you mention above.  When that didn't work, they added grid fins. In other words, they just kept working at it until they were successful.  They never gave up.

Will refurbishing the stage be cost effective?  I think that question misses the main point.  If it isn't cost effective initially, SpaceX will keep working at it, constantly tweaking their design and processes until it does become cost effective. And they won't stop there. They'll continue to tweak things, constantly optimizing for cost and reliability.  This is the basis on which the company was formed, and they won't give up until they get there.

[Jim]

I do see a lot of statements from him about reuse and design intent, and given my nature and the nature of how I participate on this board, I can't help but feel an urge to correct something I see as misrepresenting the design and design intent of what we are discussing.

And you are the one misrepresenting the original design of the Falcon 9.
Did the original Falcon 9 have attachments for legs, guidance for first stage, first stage inflight restart capability, landing sensors, robust thrust structure, etc

It had provisions for some of those

It had no provisions for none of those.  That is why there was a V1.1.   The first F9 version was for COTS and to make money to support the rest of the development.  F9 came from the F5 to make money.

[nadreck]

I do see a lot of statements from him about reuse and design intent, and given my nature and the nature of how I participate on this board, I can't help but feel an urge to correct something I see as misrepresenting the design and design intent of what we are discussing.

And you are the one misrepresenting the original design of the Falcon 9.
Did the original Falcon 9 have attachments for legs, guidance for first stage, first stage inflight restart capability, landing sensors, robust thrust structure, etc

It had provisions for some of those

It had no provisions for none of those.  That is why there was a V1.1.   The first F9 version was for COTS and to make money to support the rest of the development.  F9 came from the F5 to make money.

So the structure of Grasshopper was different, it had no guidanace, no legs?

Engines meant for an F9 1.0 first stage only fired once?

The 2nd stage never restarted an engine in V1.0?

[Jim]

I would argue that testing restarts on the 2nd stage (and at McGregor on 1st stage engines) during the V1.0 era was part of that. If the F9 was designed to be expendable, you would not have had the V1.1 able to do all it did without a lot larger a design effort.

That would be a wrong  Restarts on the second stage are needed for the basic GSO mission.
Grasshopper was not a basic F9, it was highly modified (battleship).  that could be done to any rocket with a deep throttle engine.

[nadreck]

I would argue that testing restarts on the 2nd stage (and at McGregor on 1st stage engines) during the V1.0 era was part of that. If the F9 was designed to be expendable, you would not have had the V1.1 able to do all it did without a lot larger a design effort.

That would be a wrong  Restarts on the second stage are needed for the basic GSO mission.
Grasshopper was not a basic F9, it was modified.  that could be done to any rocket with a deep throttle engine.

And for reuse, there were not GSO missions with the 1.0 so they didn't need to test it there but they did anyway.

Grasshopper's shell was not modified, but the engine array was; and legs were added, but if legs could be added that meets what I said that V1.0 had provisions for some of those things and tested some.

[Jim]

1.  So the structure of Grasshopper was different, it had no guidanace, no legs?

2.  Engines meant for an F9 1.0 first stage only fired once?

3.  The 2nd stage never restarted an engine in V1.0?

1.  Highly modified, not stock  Supports my point.
2.  not a relevant point, engines for ELV's can and do fire more than once.  See acceptance testing.
3.  not a relevant point but no.

[Jim]

Grasshopper's shell was not modified, but the engine array was; and legs were added, but if legs could be added that meets what I said that V1.0 had provisions for some of those things and tested some.

Grasshopper had a frame that supported the legs.  The legs were not attached directly to the vehicle as the current one.
http://i.imgur.com/D0FtCP3.jpg
Like I said, you could do that to any existing vehicle.

[nadreck]

1.  So the structure of Grasshopper was different, it had no guidanace, no legs?

2.  Engines meant for an F9 1.0 first stage only fired once?

3.  The 2nd stage never restarted an engine in V1.0?

1.  Highly modified, not stock  Supports my point.
2.  not a relevant point, engines for ELV's can and do fire more than once.  See acceptance testing.
3.  not a relevant point but no.

1. It was still the same tank structure as V1.0 which you claimed up thread had to be upgraded with V1.1 for reuse. Grasshopper flew 8 times using the same body as any of the other 5 V1.0 cores that flew.

2. some can some can't, but the point is that even if the restart 'kit' wasn't added to the 1st stage, the engines were demonstrating the capability in the 1C version and at McGregor they were tested for much longer to test for eventual reuse even though the first recovered engine was in fact two generations later (1D FT, after 1D)

3. Again you assert stuff and it is inaccurate, the 1st COTS flight did a restart of the 2nd stage and I assert this was for testing purposes to prove engine restart capability for both recovery AND for GSO which would only take place with V1.1

[QuantumG]

We are not talking about the airframe or the rest of the vehicle.

I am.

[Kansan52]

The goal from the start, F1 and on, was for reuse. It wasn't until F9.1 they had a vehicle that could actually try to be reusable. And the lesson of reuse hasn't be learned yet since we do not know the practicality of relaunching a F9FT.

[Jim]

1. It was still the same tank structure as V1.0 which you claimed up thread had to be upgraded with V1.1 for reuse. Grasshopper flew 8 times using the same body as any of the other 5 V1.0 cores that flew.

2. some can some can't, but the point is that even if the restart 'kit' wasn't added to the 1st stage, the engines were demonstrating the capability in the 1C version and at McGregor they were tested for much longer to test for eventual reuse even though the first recovered engine was in fact two generations later (1D FT, after 1D)

3. Again you assert stuff and it is inaccurate, the 1st COTS flight did a restart of the 2nd stage and I assert this was for testing purposes to prove engine restart capability for both recovery AND for GSO which would only take place with V1.1

1.  Again, not unique to falcon. any launch vehicle could have flown on the landing legs frame.
2. Wrong all can because they are test fired before delivery.
3.  Look no further than your post for wrong assertions.   There was no restart on COTS 1 because the stage was spinning. All upper stages have restart.  It is a necessary capability.