Quote from: glanmor05 on 07/16/2018 11:54 amOnly non-Block 5 flight planned thereafter is the in-flight abort test, so all being well the 7 flight thing won't come into play as regards delaying first crew flight?Some of the flights between DM-1 and DM-2 could be reflights of Block 5 boosters without the newest COPVs. Not sure how that fits in. If that 7 flights in same configuration is really still a requirement, then it could certainly delay DM-2 unless they retrofit the new COPVs into the first few Block 5 cores. Some of the newest Block 5 cores may also end up being a Falcon Heavy on their first flight. (Of course, if DM-2 ends up getting delayed for a bit anyway for various certification reasons then it still might not matter.)
Only non-Block 5 flight planned thereafter is the in-flight abort test, so all being well the 7 flight thing won't come into play as regards delaying first crew flight?
Some of the flights between DM-1 and DM-2 could be reflights of Block 5 boosters without the newest COPVs. Not sure how that fits in. If that 7 flights in same configuration is really still a requirement, then it could certainly delay DM-2 unless they retrofit the new COPVs into the first few Block 5 cores. Some of the newest Block 5 cores may also end up being a Falcon Heavy on their first flight. (Of course, if DM-2 ends up getting delayed for a bit anyway for various certification reasons then it still might not matter.)
The way I read the GAO report both the DM-1 and in-flight abort must be in the final configuration.
Quote from: kevindbaker2863 on 07/16/2018 04:37 pmThe way I read the GAO report both the DM-1 and in-flight abort must be in the final configuration. The capsule must be final configuration for the IFA test, but I haven't heard of any requirements for the booster. Could you point me to where you read this?
Btw, how did the first Block 5 look during the inspections? Did it perform as expected?
Looks good, but so many details need to be right. Journey back from hypersonic becomes extremely difficult as velocity increases. Altitude is easy, velocity is hard.
QuoteBtw, how did the first Block 5 look during the inspections? Did it perform as expected?https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1021285521991950336QuoteLooks good, but so many details need to be right. Journey back from hypersonic becomes extremely difficult as velocity increases. Altitude is easy, velocity is hard.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1021288692655067136
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/23/2018 07:45 amQuoteBtw, how did the first Block 5 look during the inspections? Did it perform as expected?https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1021285521991950336QuoteLooks good, but so many details need to be right. Journey back from hypersonic becomes extremely difficult as velocity increases. Altitude is easy, velocity is hard.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1021288692655067136From memory, BECO occurred at just over 9100Km/Hr or 2.5+ Km/sec. Is this a couple hundred Km/sec hotter than usual or right in the ballpark, maybe upper end? Heat goes as cube of velocity.
MECO was at 8130km/h (2258m/s). B1046 had enough fuel to burn for about 26 seconds on the reentry burn and around 20 seconds for the landing burn (probably with only one engine), to me that was a more gentle recovery than older GTO boosters. B1047 has had a similar landing profile, so it should be in similar conditions
Per the webcast, B1046 MECO was at 8500 km/h
Is it just me, or does Block5 actually seem to look smoother and cleaner during flight compared to previous versions? The exhaust plumes seemed steadier and flickered less, Everything seemed just a bit better.Even when we caught that brief blurry glimpse of it sitting on OCISLY at the end, it still looked like it was in better shape than previous versions did when sitting on the landing pad. I couldn't make out any residual burning fires, or anything.
There have been some rumors that any Block 5 can be used as a Falcon Heavy center core? Is this true?
Side boosters, yes, but too much load through center core
QuoteThere have been some rumors that any Block 5 can be used as a Falcon Heavy center core? Is this true?https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1023067969927016448QuoteSide boosters, yes, but too much load through center corehttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1023069021057380353
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/28/2018 07:28 amQuoteThere have been some rumors that any Block 5 can be used as a Falcon Heavy center core? Is this true?https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1023067969927016448QuoteSide boosters, yes, but too much load through center corehttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1023069021057380353Block 5 boosters for commercial crew are going to require a 1.4 factor of safety, a 16% increase from the 1.2 factor of safety of block 4 boosters. As well, the block 5 engines have about 8% more thrust, so the block 5 fuselage must already be significantly stronger (and heavier) than block 4. It is a pity if the FH center core requires even more structural strength, a common design would simplify production as well as launch flow.
there is no way to quantify that "safety factor" in anything other than statistic babble...until you get a flight rate that demonstrates this.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 07/28/2018 03:40 pmthere is no way to quantify that "safety factor" in anything other than statistic babble...until you get a flight rate that demonstrates this.There are many ways to do exactly that, e.g. instrument two parts, break one and fly the other. The ratio of failure load to flight load is the safety factor.You seem to be thinking of demonstrated flight reliability. That's a VERY different animal than engineering safety factor.
B777's engines...which had been tested to near exhaustion but compressor stalled on the first flight.
