Falcon 9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion

[Jcc]

So that wasn't the final Block 5 solution that everyone has been talking about for so long.  What was it then?  Block 4.9.9?

 - Ed Kyle

The main focus of the Block V upgrade - going back to when we first heard about it - was its rapid reusability compared to the Block IV. That's what distinguishes it from the previous incarnations. The new COPV seems just an optional add on, for purposes of satisfying NASA. It is not a requirement for Block V rapid reusability. At least from my reading.

I think the astronauts actually going to ride the F9 would disagree with your conclusion of it just being an ‘optional add on’. Also Block 5 is not just there for rapid reusability but to get humans back into space from US soil.

It’s the add on required for the tiny percentage of the Block V’s 300 remaining flights that will be carrying humans. Even at 5 astronaut carrying flights per year, (a blind guess on my part) that gives you perhaps 25 Crew Dragon flights over the next 5 years. Less than 10% of total Block V flights, in other words.

For the other 90% of fligts the upgraded COPV is not required.

Maybe not required, but I doubt they will fly two different versions of COPV, so once 2.0 is ready I'm pretty sure they will use that for all flights.

Note that according to the reports, COPV 2.0 will debut on DM-1, which is an experimental NASA flight, rather than one of the upcoming commercial flights. Could be there is perceived risk in being the first to fly a new version.

[docmordrid]

AIUI, NASA hasn't made the choice between using COPV 2.0 and Inconel tanks. If they choose the latter, would SpaceX fly both tanks, using Inconel for CC, or just Inconel?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39832.msg1774242#msg1774242

>
In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles. 
>

[Jcc]

AIUI, NASA hasn't made the choice between using COPV 2.0 and Inconel tanks. If they choose the latter, would SpaceX fly both tanks, using Inconel for CC, or just Inconel?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39832.msg1774242#msg1774242

>
In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles. 
>

Good question. If inconel results in substantially greater cost or worse performance, it would be a tough decision. Actually cost is less of a concern for the first stage because it will be reused several times.
A separate issue is whether NASA will approve flying on a S1 that was flown more than once on a low energy mission. SpaceX will have to show that Block 5 really can fly 10 times without greater risk, and maybe there will be a stable of Block 5 boosters with inconel He tanks just for them.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

[Joffan]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

[pospa]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

Elon has mentioned couple of times these Ti grid fins are manufactured by forging and not by casting.
Its hard to imagine how they would made it just by forging, but maybe it is possible via many forging steps with complex dies.

[meekGee]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

Elon has mentioned couple of times these Ti grid fins are manufactured by forging and not by casting.
Its hard to imagine how they would made it just by forging, but maybe it is possible via many forging steps with complex dies.

What's the context of the picture?

I'd have guessed casting followed by forging.  This is a bit.... ugly....

[JBF]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

Elon has mentioned couple of times these Ti grid fins are manufactured by forging and not by casting.
Its hard to imagine how they would made it just by forging, but maybe it is possible via many forging steps with complex dies.

What's the context of the picture?

I'd have guessed casting followed by forging.  This is a bit.... ugly....

A lot of the speckling that you see is an artifact of the zoom.  The rocket body has the same patterning.

[Stan-1967]

\
 A lot of the speckling that you see is an artifact of the zoom.  The rocket body has the same patterning.

I don't think it is an artifact of the zoom.   Why is there no speckling on the surfaces perpendicular to the airflow through them?  Why does the specking soften as function of the depth of field of the focal plane?  There is variation of speckling where the SN was stamped as well as other localized sites. 

It certainly looks complex & expensive.  I have no idea how one would accomplish the rounded fillets of the vane intersections with forging, not to mention forging the internal passages between the vanes. 

[meekGee]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

Elon has mentioned couple of times these Ti grid fins are manufactured by forging and not by casting.
Its hard to imagine how they would made it just by forging, but maybe it is possible via many forging steps with complex dies.

What's the context of the picture?

I'd have guessed casting followed by forging.  This is a bit.... ugly....

A lot of the speckling that you see is an artifact of the zoom.  The rocket body has the same patterning.

F9: zoom zoom!

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

[AncientU]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

Elon has mentioned couple of times these Ti grid fins are manufactured by forging and not by casting.
Its hard to imagine how they would made it just by forging, but maybe it is possible via many forging steps with complex dies.

What's the context of the picture?

I'd have guessed casting followed by forging.  This is a bit.... ugly....

Or beautiful... eyes of the beholder.

[Coastal Ron]

Don’t recall seeing this posted before, apologies if it has been:

Close up of Falcon 9’s titanium grid fin. Serial number 003

https://twitter.com/_tomcross_/status/1000841944673738752

Nice. Very clearly a casting.

Elon has mentioned couple of times these Ti grid fins are manufactured by forging and not by casting.
Its hard to imagine how they would made it just by forging, but maybe it is possible via many forging steps with complex dies.

My first real job was in a factory where we made stamped, extruded and machined parts (with lots of other processes too). That does not look like a forged part, which according to Wikipedia forging is:

Forging is a manufacturing process involving the shaping of metal using localized compressive forces. The blows are delivered with a hammer (often a power hammer) or a die. Forging is often classified according to the temperature at which it is performed: cold forging (a type of cold working), warm forging, or hot forging (a type of hot working).

That part looks like it was sand casted, especially since the serial number section sticks out above the design surface, which would be very difficult to forge in that orientation.

Just Googling around I found the website for ForceBeyond, Inc., headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. They do titanium castings (don't know size) and they talk about different grades of titanium. Titanium Casting Alloy Grade 2 is cold formable.

How do you forge a pre-cast part that has lots of webbing? I'd be VERY curious to see that forging setup... 

[Stan-1967]

I also think the grid fin surface looks like many castings I've seen.  How to reconcile this with Elon's statement that it is forged?  If the casting was HIP processed afterwards, it would count as being a forged part, if you count HIP as a forging process.  I also noted quite a few very round, crater like, pitting features in the surface finish.  It may have been shot peened, but no way to know for sure without more info.

The benefits of the HIP processing to a high stress part like a grid fin make it a very good fit for the application.

[Rabidpanda]

Or Elon just misspoke, it could be as simple as that.

[HMXHMX]

Or Elon just misspoke, it could be as simple as that.

Unpossible!

[edkyle99]

So that wasn't the final Block 5 solution that everyone has been talking about for so long.  What was it then?  Block 4.9.9?

 - Ed Kyle

Nobidy said B5 won't have more mods to it.

So this is B5, and there will be 5.x. Why the consternation?

Bait and switch, again. 

 - Ed Kyle

[meekGee]

So that wasn't the final Block 5 solution that everyone has been talking about for so long.  What was it then?  Block 4.9.9?

 - Ed Kyle

Nobidy said B5 won't have more mods to it.

So this is B5, and there will be 5.x. Why the consternation?

Bait and switch, again. 

 - Ed Kyle

I miss good old F9 1.0 too...  Damn we looked away for a second and they tricked us into this B5 monstrosity, the bastards.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

[deruch]

So that wasn't the final Block 5 solution that everyone has been talking about for so long.  What was it then?  Block 4.9.9?

 - Ed Kyle

Nobidy said B5 won't have more mods to it.

So this is B5, and there will be 5.x. Why the consternation?

Bait and switch, again. 

 - Ed Kyle

Not really.  The only people who care about a frozen configuration of the F9 are NASA and USAF.  SpaceX has said that in addition to changes for reuse, ease of manufacturing, cost, etc., that they made a number of changes specifically for their US government customers.  The COPVs were one.  If the Block 5s have ~100 changes (I hazily recall Gwynne throwing out this number, but don't recollect where), the fact that one of the planned elements of the final configuration wasn't ready in time for flying with all the rest isn't that big a deal.  Especially when it's since been made clear in the coverage that the launches won't start counting to NASA's "Required 7" until they have the COPVs onboard.  Further, it's entirely possible that they end up flying different configurations for NASA/USAF than for the rest of their customers.  i.e. NASA/USAF gets either the COPV 2.0 or the inconnel spheres depending on how things work out and everyone else gets whatever flew on Bangabandhu-1.  It's not ideal and I'm sure SpaceX would rather not have to bother with doing that.  But they've said in the past that they were willing to, if USG customers really wanted a frozen design that SpaceX preferred to change.

[spacenut]

If a good automobile design was frozen, like the Model T, we would still be driving Model T's.  Freezing a design is not making improvements. 

[marsbase]

Further, it's entirely possible that they end up flying different configurations for NASA/USAF than for the rest of their customers.  i.e. NASA/USAF gets either the COPV 2.0 or the inconnel spheres depending on how things work out and everyone else gets whatever flew on Bangabandhu-1.  It's not ideal and I'm sure SpaceX would rather not have to bother with doing that.  But they've said in the past that they were willing to, if USG customers really wanted a frozen design that SpaceX preferred to change.

I think this is right based on statements by Musk. He has no intention of flying with inconel spheres unless the customer requires it. But after 20 successful flights with one of the COPV versions, maybe NASA will decide that's ok.