What is the current speculation/insight into the Block 5 fueling process for Crew Dragon? Has NASA agreed to continued fueling with crew in the capsule or has SpaceX relented to end fueling process of the booster before loading crew?
Quote from: AC in NC on 02/08/2018 03:02 amQuote from: Norm38 on 02/07/2018 05:08 pmI want that first reflight, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... and to find out how many boosters they really need.I wonder if they take the "self-insurance" opportunity with Starlink payloads to just run up gaudy numbers of same-core reuses and turnaround times to get real empircal results on the books to prove what they have.Would be fun, but unfortunate certainty other customers and FAA would object to flights following the explosion, and not be willing to simply assume it was due to reuse.
Quote from: Norm38 on 02/07/2018 05:08 pmI want that first reflight, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... and to find out how many boosters they really need.I wonder if they take the "self-insurance" opportunity with Starlink payloads to just run up gaudy numbers of same-core reuses and turnaround times to get real empircal results on the books to prove what they have.
I want that first reflight, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... and to find out how many boosters they really need.
Quote from: speedevil on 02/08/2018 11:27 amWould be fun, but unfortunate certainty other customers and FAA would object to flights following the explosion, and not be willing to simply assume it was due to reuse.What explosion?I think they could follow this approach to run a booster up to ten launches or so and get it into refurbishment to see what they have built and provide assurance to their customers concerning repeated reuse. Will probably be tweaks that are fed back to other boosters to improve the reliability of all to reach that first refurb. Could run the lead booster through another ten or so after refurbishment to repeat the learning process.
Would be fun, but unfortunate certainty other customers and FAA would object to flights following the explosion, and not be willing to simply assume it was due to reuse.
Quote from: speedevil on 02/08/2018 11:27 amQuote from: AC in NC on 02/08/2018 03:02 amQuote from: Norm38 on 02/07/2018 05:08 pmI want that first reflight, then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th... and to find out how many boosters they really need.I wonder if they take the "self-insurance" opportunity with Starlink payloads to just run up gaudy numbers of same-core reuses and turnaround times to get real empircal results on the books to prove what they have.Would be fun, but unfortunate certainty other customers and FAA would object to flights following the explosion, and not be willing to simply assume it was due to reuse.What explosion?I think they could follow this approach to run a booster up to ten launches or so and get it into refurbishment to see what they have built and provide assurance to their customers concerning repeated reuse.
I think they would definitely use Starlink flights to prove out a higher number of reflights will the full inspection/refurb scheme they would use for anyone's flights. I don't think they'd just keep throwing Starlink sats on top of a booster and flying it until it blows up.
Quote from: gongora on 02/10/2018 08:28 pmI think they would definitely use Starlink flights to prove out a higher number of reflights will the full inspection/refurb scheme they would use for anyone's flights. I don't think they'd just keep throwing Starlink sats on top of a booster and flying it until it blows up.I am unsure of this - though from the other direction.I wonder if customers will accept multiple reflights startlingly quicker than industry observers suspect.
I have thought it would be interesting if SpaceX had a spare F9 B5 S1 and a spare Dragon 2 with landing legs.And some spare pad time and Money to burn thru... and time/money for 10 S2'sLaunch the same S1 10 times in a relative hurry and prove out land landing 10 times... over say 18 months...
Im still not sure I buy that sitting in a capsule with a LES while the rocket is being fueled is more dangerous than walking out unprotected and boarding said rocket while it is fully fueled.
What are the improvements of the block V? They're changing components for better reusability or increase the payload capacity?
The Block 5 Falcon rocket that we’re rolling out later this year is going to have a reusable thermal protection on it; so we don’t burn up the heat shielding on it. And it’s going to have a much better landing legs that just fold up and; just drop the rocket, fold the legs, ship it, fold the legs out when it lands.
Elon asked us to do a twelve-hour turn. And we came back and said without some major redesigns to the rocket, with just the Block 5, we can get to a 24-hour turn, and he accepted that. A 24-hour turn time. And that doesn’t mean we want to fly the rocket, you know, once a day; although we could, if we really pushed it. What it does is, limits how much labor, how much <touch?> labor we can put into it. If we can turn a rocket in 24 hours with just a few people, you’re nuts. <inaudible> low cost, low opportunity cost in getting the rocket to fly again
The Block 5 iteration has four goals, Shotwell said — meeting civil and defense requirements, increasing lift capability, simplifying manufacturability, and rapid reusability.
Will “fairing 2.0” be a part of the block 5, or phased in separately?
Team at Vandenberg is taking additional time to perform final checkouts of upgraded fairing. Payload and vehicle remain healthy. Due to mission requirements, now targeting February 21 launch of PAZ.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/13/2018 07:24 amWill “fairing 2.0” be a part of the block 5, or phased in separately?It looks like PAZ will be the first fairing 2.0 flight. https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/964937069901447168/QuoteTeam at Vandenberg is taking additional time to perform final checkouts of upgraded fairing. Payload and vehicle remain healthy. Due to mission requirements, now targeting February 21 launch of PAZ.
