Falcon 9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion

[Hitech]

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.

Looks to me to "lost wax" casting which is "HIP'd" it would qualify as a forging in properties.

[envy887]

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

What Musk actually said before the Block 5 flight:

this will be the last major version of the Falcon 9. There will be minor improvements for, as we discover small things to improve
manufacturability, make re-flight easier and improve flight reliability, of course and so there will be a handful of small changes. So expect l’d expect, like, if this is hypothetically Version 6, that would put us at sort of 6.01, or 6.02, that type of thing.

So B1046 was the first of a new F9 version, and is the version that will fly crew. There will be subversions with incremental changes, as with all launch vehicles, but nothing that SpaceX would consider a new version.

[Lars-J]

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. 

ULA keeps tinkering with the Atlas V (has two Atlas V's ever been 100% identical?), yet no one is throwing a fit. Not big changes, just small tweaks. And I would expect the same from Block 5's going forward. Smaller tweaks.

[butters]

SpaceX was naive to think that they'd really have the option of adhering to NASA's prescriptive guidance OR demonstrating some number of successful missions. Obviously it would end up being both.

[Lar]

Bait and switch, again. 

Who was baited, exactly? "bait and switch, again" is rather pejorative.

[Kabloona]

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... 

Agree it looks like a sand casting, and here's another company that does sand casting of titanium:

https://www.ferralloy.com/sand-castings.html

I noticed their website says sand casting is ideal for short-run production because of the low tooling cost, and all the grid fins SpaceX ever needs could probably be done in a few runs.

They also say they have the equipment to finish machine sand cast parts, which would presumably be done on the mating surfaces of the grid fin.

[dglow]

Question about the "Required 7": is this missions or cores? Wondering if an all-block 5 FH would count for one or three.

[cppetrie]

Question about the "Required 7": is this missions or cores? Wondering if an all-block 5 FH would count for one or three.

My guess is 0. None of the three cores in a FH is launching in the same configuration as it would for crew. But that is speculation informed only by what I’ve gleaned reading on the forums.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Question about the "Required 7": is this missions or cores? Wondering if an all-block 5 FH would count for one or three.

My guess is 0. None of the three cores in a FH is launching in the same configuration as it would for crew. But that is speculation informed only by what I’ve gleaned reading on the forums.

Does this Block 5 US on SES-12 count?
Is it flights of the whole stack or do individual S1 and S2 Block 5 flights count against the number?

[DistantTemple]

None count until the latest signed off by NASA COPV is used, which is planned for D2 demo mission 1.
It was posted above here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42465.msg1825460#msg1825460

Edit: latest signed off by NASA ty cppetrie

[cppetrie]

Question about the "Required 7": is this missions or cores? Wondering if an all-block 5 FH would count for one or three.

My guess is 0. None of the three cores in a FH is launching in the same configuration as it would for crew. But that is speculation informed only by what I’ve gleaned reading on the forums.

Does this Block 5 US on SES-12 count?
Is it flights of the whole stack or do individual S1 and S2 Block 5 flights count against the number?

I have a hard time imagining it isn’t the whole stack, but crazier things have happened. And the poster above is correct that the count doesn’t start until the signed off COPVs are included, which our latest information suggests will be the DM1 mission.

[AncientU]

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.

Exactly.

I seem to recall a certain US government-designed launch vehicle, designed in the 1970s, first flight in the 1980s--with some combination of incentives that (seemed to work) worked for the commercial contractors, gvmt bureaus, and the elected officials--that kept that same model flying for 25+ years.  Freezing that meta-design was definitely not making the rapid improvements that would be made with more economic incentives in play, like SpaceX faces.

Getting a much larger set of economic incentives in play, rather than the more political incentives of the early six decades of human spaceflight, will drastically increase the rate of technology innovation!

Especially important is the opportunity to fail.  Definitely places a high cost on standing still... which obviously didn't exist during the shuttle and EELV era (with only two players, then one).

[rliebman]

planning forward
assuming that the DM-1 mission is the first use of the "proper" COPV, then what would the earliest planning date for DM-2 be -  assuming all the intervening flights also used the designed type of COPVs - the date / time frame it would take to get to 8?
 

[butters]

Do we know whether NASA is blessing COPV 2.0, some other iteration of COPV, or the Inconel PV?

[gongora]

Do we know whether NASA is blessing COPV 2.0, some other iteration of COPV, or the Inconel PV?

Not yet.

[MaxTeranous]

planning forward
assuming that the DM-1 mission is the first use of the "proper" COPV, then what would the earliest planning date for DM-2 be -  assuming all the intervening flights also used the designed type of COPVs - the date / time frame it would take to get to 8?

At a simple level, SpaceX launches every 2 to 3 weeks or so, so call it 20 weeks ?

[docmordrid]

Would a Falcon Heavy Block 5 with new cores count as 3?

[gongora]

Would a Falcon Heavy Block 5 with new cores count as 3?

No.  It probably won't even count as 1.

[mgeagon]

Would a Falcon Heavy Block 5 with new cores count as 3?

No.  It probably won't even count as 1.

It may not count as 1 of the "7" but if it flies with 3X the COPV 2.0s (2.1?), then SpaceX will have gained that much more data and confidence. It also may count towards human rating the FH someday, if that ever gets put back on the table.

I remember it being discussed by EM last year, but has anything been confirmed about the number of COPVs that are actually used in the F9 block 5?

[Tomness]

Would a Falcon Heavy Block 5 with new cores count as 3?

No.  It probably won't even count as 1.

What do you guys think for 1 of 3 for Air Force Certification if they go that route, though the Air Force might be more involved like NASA and 1 good run could do their certification for "Block V"?