SpaceX Falcon Heavy : Arabsat 6A : LC-39A : April 11, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[edkyle99]

Core recovery would have been preferred, but the numbers suggest its not an unexpected loss given the history of the entire Falcon program.  There have been 70 Falcon 9 launch campaigns and two Falcon Heavies, a total of 76 first stage flights or WDRs (Amos 6), if I'm counting right.  Out of all of those, only 18 stages have flown more than once, only 10 stages have been recovered a second time, and only two have flown three times. 

Ten Nine Block 5 stages have flown, with two lost and one expended.  Two have flown three times and two twice.  SpaceX probably only has (or keeps) four or five flown stages on hand that are candidates for re-flight.

 - Ed Kyle

[envy887]

Core recovery would have been preferred, but the numbers suggest its not an unexpected loss given the history of the entire Falcon program.  There have been 70 Falcon 9 launch campaigns and two Falcon Heavies, a total of 76 first stage flights or WDRs (Amos 6), if I'm counting right.  Out of all of those, only 18 stages have flown more than once, only 10 stages have been recovered a second time, and only two have flown three times. 

Nine Block 5 stages have flown, with two lost.  Two have flown three times and two twice.

 - Ed Kyle

Counting this center core, three Block 5 stages have been lost. The GPS booster was intentionally expended, and two they wanted back didn't (or won't) come home in one piece.

[Vettedrmr]

I wouldn't count the GPS booster as "lost", more "disposed" or "thrown away".

Have a good one,
Mike

[virnin]

If they had to design it over, perhaps they would have clocked the hold down points by 45 degrees so that they would not interfere with the booster attachment location.

If the hold-down points were clocked by 45 degrees relative to the booster attach points, they wouldn't line up with the hold-down fixtures on the TEL.

[Lars-J]

If they had to design it over, perhaps they would have clocked the hold down points by 45 degrees so that they would not interfere with the booster attachment location.

If the hold-down points were clocked by 45 degrees relative to the booster attach points, they wouldn't line up with the hold-down fixtures on the TEL.

Obviously. The TEL would have to have the same clocking - which is why I wrote that they might have done it if they were able to design some things from scratch.
(Although interestingly enough, the first F9v1.1 core had 8 attachment points, the normal 4 and 4 more clocked 45 degrees, which the later cores did not have)

[russianhalo117]

If they had to design it over, perhaps they would have clocked the hold down points by 45 degrees so that they would not interfere with the booster attachment location.

If the hold-down points were clocked by 45 degrees relative to the booster attach points, they wouldn't line up with the hold-down fixtures on the TEL.

Obviously. The TEL would have to have the same clocking - which is why I wrote that they might have done it if they were able to design some things from scratch.
(Although interestingly enough, the first F9v1.1 core had 8 attachment points, the normal 4 and 4 more clocked 45 degrees, which the later cores did not have)

That is because there weren't legs in that iteration but the leg attachment points were reserved. And those extra points were also used in testing as the various TA's had them.

[darkenfast]

Another option is an ASDS with a deck that has Active heave compensation.  The Glomar Explorer used this in the 1970's as part of Project Azorian

Why throw millions of dollars at this when they have a solution: the Octograbber and the barges?  As Musk said: the changes for the core booster weren't ready yet.

[Comga]

Core recovery would have been preferred, but the numbers suggest its not an unexpected loss given the history of the entire Falcon program.  There have been 70 Falcon 9 launch campaigns and two Falcon Heavies, a total of 76 first stage flights or WDRs (Amos 6), if I'm counting right.  Out of all of those, only 18 stages have flown more than once, only 10 stages have been recovered a second time, and only two have flown three times.

Ten Nine Block 5 stages have flown, with two lost and one expended.  Two have flown three times and two twice.  SpaceX probably only has (or keeps) four or five flown stages on hand that are candidates for re-flight.

 - Ed Kyle

Do you hear yourself?
Really?
How far do the goalposts have to move?

"Recovering a rocket is impossible"
"Recovering a rocket is possible, but not practical (with the payload loss....)"
"Recovering a rocket is practical, but not economical"
"Recovering a rocket is practical and economical, but they haven't proven it can be done reliably."

Your numbers are disingenuous at best.
Out of 70 launches (not cores) "only 18 have been flown more than once", but how many of them even had legs? 
It's still developmental
Developed while they are serving customers
They will get the octograbber modified for the Heavy core before flight 3.
This is what happens when you move fast.
They fail fast and keep moving.
And they have moved remarkably far.

[catdlr]

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy center core goes overboard, Elon Musk still hopeful

Posted By: Eric Ralph in SpaceX 7 hours ago

https://www-teslarati-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-booster-overboard/amp/?fbclid=IwAR0Kn1MdlNHX84Xai05IfApw3uNTJqTaf8yYtTwcydtNCfR0sYEZY79UgJk&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teslarati.com%2Fspacex-falcon-heavy-booster-overboard%2F

Is that photo from last week's Heavy core or from CRS-16?
It looks awful familiar.   Something about the legs and the flotation bags.
Plus don't we have Musk's tweet that the core is on the ASDS?

Good catch Comga.  Poor reporting by teslarati.  That photo did indeed come Decembers launch:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46901.msg1885417#msg1885417

This is why I stick to NSF for news.

[woods170]

This will not be the last booster to have an incident at sea...it's just part of the business at hand in this environment.

Correct. Several years ago, at the dawn of booster landings, Elon mentioned that even with booster landings perfected SpaceX still expects to lose a certain percentage of boosters due to circumstances beyond their control.

The FH booster being toppled due to rough seas fits this exactly.

Anyway, a large part of the FH center core remains on the ASDS, including the engines. So at least SpaceX can learn how the center core fared during atmospheric reentry. And maybe the engines can be salvaged. Perhaps some other stuff too.

This thing toppling over is annoying, but the sky is not falling.

[edkyle99]

Do you hear yourself?
Really?
How far do the goalposts have to move?

"Recovering a rocket is impossible"
"Recovering a rocket is possible, but not practical (with the payload loss....)"
"Recovering a rocket is practical, but not economical"
"Recovering a rocket is practical and economical, but they haven't proven it can be done reliably."

Why are these statements in quotes?  Who said them?   

Your numbers are disingenuous at best.

They're not my numbers.  They are real results.  I included the current Block 5 results as well. 
I was pointing out that FH-2 core loss is not the end of the world, given the way Falcon stage reuse
has been progressing.

 - Ed Kyle

[envy887]

FH-2 core loss is not the end of the world, given the way Falcon stage reuse has been progressing.

 - Ed Kyle

Not the end of the world, for sure. But definitely something they want to improve.

The current recovery rate for Block 5 is 81.25%. They need to return more boosters safely and/or push more customers to accept recoverable performance, because at that recovery rate the half-life of a booster is only just over 3 flights and only 35% are going to make it to 5 flights.

They are definitely doing continuous improvement, so I think the expected booster life will continue to increase until about 50% of them can make it to at least 10 flights.

[hoku]

Another option is an ASDS with a deck that has Active heave compensation.  The Glomar Explorer used this in the 1970's as part of Project Azorian

<snip>

Why throw millions of dollars at this when they have a solution: the Octograbber and the barges?  As Musk said: the changes for the core booster weren't ready yet.

Octograbber agrees...
https://twitter.com/octagrabber/status/1118034586129313792

[vaporcobra]

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy center core goes overboard, Elon Musk still hopeful

Posted By: Eric Ralph in SpaceX 7 hours ago

https://www-teslarati-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-booster-overboard/amp/?fbclid=IwAR0Kn1MdlNHX84Xai05IfApw3uNTJqTaf8yYtTwcydtNCfR0sYEZY79UgJk&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teslarati.com%2Fspacex-falcon-heavy-booster-overboard%2F

Is that photo from last week's Heavy core or from CRS-16?
It looks awful familiar.   Something about the legs and the flotation bags.
Plus don't we have Musk's tweet that the core is on the ASDS?

Good catch Comga.  Poor reporting by teslarati.  That photo did indeed come Decembers launch:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46901.msg1885417#msg1885417

This is why I stick to NSF for news.

There is a caption 🤦‍♂️

[brettreds2k]

Any word yet on when the ASDS will be returning to port so we can see first hand what survived?

[envy887]

Any word yet on when the ASDS will be returning to port so we can see first hand what survived?

Looks like late tonight or early tomorrow:

https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1118553932429709312

[Brovane]

FH-2 core loss is not the end of the world, given the way Falcon stage reuse has been progressing.

 - Ed Kyle

Not the end of the world, for sure. But definitely something they want to improve.

The current recovery rate for Block 5 is 81.25%. They need to return more boosters safely and/or push more customers to accept recoverable performance, because at that recovery rate the half-life of a booster is only just over 3 flights and only 35% are going to make it to 5 flights.

They are definitely doing continuous improvement, so I think the expected booster life will continue to increase until about 50% of them can make it to at least 10 flights.

Considering the small sample size for Block-V launches.  It is to soon to try and draw any statistical conclusion. 

 

[deruch]

FH-2 core loss is not the end of the world, given the way Falcon stage reuse has been progressing.

 - Ed Kyle

Not the end of the world, for sure. But definitely something they want to improve.

The current recovery rate for Block 5 is 81.25%. They need to return more boosters safely and/or push more customers to accept recoverable performance, because at that recovery rate the half-life of a booster is only just over 3 flights and only 35% are going to make it to 5 flights.

They are definitely doing continuous improvement, so I think the expected booster life will continue to increase until about 50% of them can make it to at least 10 flights.

Considering the small sample size for Block-V launches.  It is to soon to try and draw any statistical conclusion.

And the early failures whose mechanisms are discovered and obsoleted will result in improved rates as they move forward.

[meekGee]

Core recovery would have been preferred, but the numbers suggest its not an unexpected loss given the history of the entire Falcon program.  There have been 70 Falcon 9 launch campaigns and two Falcon Heavies, a total of 76 first stage flights or WDRs (Amos 6), if I'm counting right.  Out of all of those, only 18 stages have flown more than once, only 10 stages have been recovered a second time, and only two have flown three times.

Ten Nine Block 5 stages have flown, with two lost and one expended.  Two have flown three times and two twice.  SpaceX probably only has (or keeps) four or five flown stages on hand that are candidates for re-flight.

 - Ed Kyle

Do you hear yourself?
Really?
How far do the goalposts have to move?

"Recovering a rocket is impossible"
"Recovering a rocket is possible, but not practical (with the payload loss....)"
"Recovering a rocket is practical, but not economical"
"Recovering a rocket is practical and economical, but they haven't proven it can be done reliably."

Your numbers are disingenuous at best.
Out of 70 launches (not cores) "only 18 have been flown more than once", but how many of them even had legs? 
It's still developmental
Developed while they are serving customers
They will get the octograbber modified for the Heavy core before flight 3.
This is what happens when you move fast.
They fail fast and keep moving.
And they have moved remarkably far.

It's what Ed always does: Use accurate statistics to paint an inaccurate picture.

That old adage about "There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics" applies.

It's always possible to choose the set of data in such a way as to find failures and trends to your heart's desire.  People do it with stocks (not just SpaceX-related ones) all the time.  It's even a way to make a handsome living.

The thing with Ed, he's utterly convinced that if he can look back and say "but my numbers are correct", then it somehow makes his analysis correct.

Shrug. People are entitled to their opinions...  But the caravan moves on.

[edkyle99]

It's what Ed always does: Use accurate statistics to paint an inaccurate picture.
….
The thing with Ed, he's utterly convinced that if he can look back and say "but my numbers are correct", then it somehow makes his analysis correct.

Shrug. People are entitled to their opinions...  But the caravan moves on.

These are not "statistics".  They are simple integers documenting facts.  How is that controversial?  Why on earth does it merit repeated bullying insult? 

 - Ed Kyle