Quote from: cscott on 01/23/2017 04:31 pmIt may be that some recovered "block 4" stages are refurbished into block 5 falcons. Or it may be that launch pace is too important and/or the cost of properly refurbishing a block 4 is so high that they will throw the block 4s away. According to an employee, there's no cost effective way to retrofit a stage from one Block to another.
It may be that some recovered "block 4" stages are refurbished into block 5 falcons. Or it may be that launch pace is too important and/or the cost of properly refurbishing a block 4 is so high that they will throw the block 4s away.
Quote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 02:16 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 01/23/2017 02:01 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 01/23/2017 01:53 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/23/2017 12:55 pmNeat, but it had landing skids...If a plane is modified in such a way it can't land in order to achieve some performance metric, then great, by nobody would claim that this is what the plane can really do.Landing is considered part of the flight profile.Well if you want the first reuse after a vertical flight and landing, I guess the winner would be Mercury-Redstone 1 with it's four inch flight.MR-1 was never used for another flight after its return to Huntsville. It was eventually put on display at the Space Orientation Center of Marshall Space Flight Center.Yes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.SpaceX has different flight and rocket designations.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 01/23/2017 02:01 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 01/23/2017 01:53 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/23/2017 12:55 pmNeat, but it had landing skids...If a plane is modified in such a way it can't land in order to achieve some performance metric, then great, by nobody would claim that this is what the plane can really do.Landing is considered part of the flight profile.Well if you want the first reuse after a vertical flight and landing, I guess the winner would be Mercury-Redstone 1 with it's four inch flight.MR-1 was never used for another flight after its return to Huntsville. It was eventually put on display at the Space Orientation Center of Marshall Space Flight Center.Yes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 01/23/2017 01:53 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/23/2017 12:55 pmNeat, but it had landing skids...If a plane is modified in such a way it can't land in order to achieve some performance metric, then great, by nobody would claim that this is what the plane can really do.Landing is considered part of the flight profile.Well if you want the first reuse after a vertical flight and landing, I guess the winner would be Mercury-Redstone 1 with it's four inch flight.MR-1 was never used for another flight after its return to Huntsville. It was eventually put on display at the Space Orientation Center of Marshall Space Flight Center.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/23/2017 12:55 pmNeat, but it had landing skids...If a plane is modified in such a way it can't land in order to achieve some performance metric, then great, by nobody would claim that this is what the plane can really do.Landing is considered part of the flight profile.Well if you want the first reuse after a vertical flight and landing, I guess the winner would be Mercury-Redstone 1 with it's four inch flight.
Neat, but it had landing skids...If a plane is modified in such a way it can't land in order to achieve some performance metric, then great, by nobody would claim that this is what the plane can really do.Landing is considered part of the flight profile.
Quote from: old_sellsword on 01/23/2017 02:23 pmQuote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 02:16 pmYes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.SpaceX has different flight and rocket designations.Ok, but people have a bad tendency to only use the last two digits. What are the full designations?
Quote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 02:16 pmYes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.SpaceX has different flight and rocket designations.
Yes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.
Quote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 04:51 pmQuote from: old_sellsword on 01/23/2017 02:23 pmQuote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 02:16 pmYes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.SpaceX has different flight and rocket designations.Ok, but people have a bad tendency to only use the last two digits. What are the full designations?1021 would be a first stage serial number. F9-23 would be a flight designation. For the reflight, I think the booster serial number is something like 1021-2? The flight designation is F9-33. What we should put on the manifest is up to Starhawk92 (Those would be numbers for the CRS-8/SES-10 booster).
Quote from: gongora on 01/23/2017 04:58 pmQuote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 04:51 pmQuote from: old_sellsword on 01/23/2017 02:23 pmQuote from: RonM on 01/23/2017 02:16 pmYes. This kind of confusion occurs when the rocket designation and the flight designation are the same. Same problem with keeping track of which F9 first stage is being used on a F9 launch.SpaceX has different flight and rocket designations.Ok, but people have a bad tendency to only use the last two digits. What are the full designations?1021 would be a first stage serial number. F9-23 would be a flight designation. For the reflight, I think the booster serial number is something like 1021-2? The flight designation is F9-33. What we should put on the manifest is up to Starhawk92 (Those would be numbers for the CRS-8/SES-10 booster).Serial number should be immutable. 1021 will always be 1021
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/23/2017 05:00 pmQuote from: gongora on 01/23/2017 04:58 pm1021 would be a first stage serial number. F9-23 would be a flight designation. For the reflight, I think the booster serial number is something like 1021-2? The flight designation is F9-33. What we should put on the manifest is up to Starhawk92 (Those would be numbers for the CRS-8/SES-10 booster).Serial number should be immutable. 1021 will always be 1021Serial numbers are immutable, the 1XXX part never changes. The 1XXX-X format is a way for tracking that stage's flights. It's official, in case you think we just made that up.
Quote from: gongora on 01/23/2017 04:58 pm1021 would be a first stage serial number. F9-23 would be a flight designation. For the reflight, I think the booster serial number is something like 1021-2? The flight designation is F9-33. What we should put on the manifest is up to Starhawk92 (Those would be numbers for the CRS-8/SES-10 booster).Serial number should be immutable. 1021 will always be 1021
1021 would be a first stage serial number. F9-23 would be a flight designation. For the reflight, I think the booster serial number is something like 1021-2? The flight designation is F9-33. What we should put on the manifest is up to Starhawk92 (Those would be numbers for the CRS-8/SES-10 booster).
Sure. Whatever they (SpaceX) call it, though, objectively the thing that 1XXX-X is numbering is a flight, not a stage.
Pic:https://twitter.com/Markos_pen/status/824705175344607235Big white TEL could easily be mistaken as the F9 from a distance.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 01/26/2017 06:53 pmPic:https://twitter.com/Markos_pen/status/824705175344607235Big white TEL could easily be mistaken as the F9 from a distance.Chris what is the other structure (inverted L shape)?
New Gizmodo article about upcoming launches and recommissioning of LC39A quotes Chris Bergin of NasaSpaceflight in the last 2 paragraphs. http://gizmodo.com/why-space-fanatics-are-freaking-out-about-spacexs-next-1790518408
Also, it’s SpaceX, they are—without question—the rock stars of space flight these days. Combining the history of 39A with SpaceX is a perfect storm of joy for rocket fans.
Are we closing in on on 39A fit checks finally? Or have I missed something?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/26/2017 10:20 pmAre we closing in on on 39A fit checks finally? Or have I missed something?Looks like the strongback is up in these photos:https://twitter.com/scriptunasphoto/status/824741563611885569
So I guess my question is, do you have to do two sets of fit-checks: pad to TEL and then TEL to vehicle? How do you perform these fit checks without cryo-loading since the stage and TEL would change shape as they cooled, right?
