Author Topic: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion  (Read 322939 times)

Online IanThePineapple

Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #580 on: 04/05/2018 02:20 pm »
I wonder how many times they've test fired the same engine on the test stand.

I dont remember how many post-landing firings there were on JCSAT-14's core but those engines probably have the most firings of anything other than dev units.

Individual Engine Test
McGregor Static Fire
Cape Static Fire
Launch
Entry Burn
Landing Burn
Numerous subsequent firings at McGregor

8 was the number I remember

I heard they were going to do 10 for that core, but we only know of 8 so far.

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #581 on: 04/05/2018 02:43 pm »
I wonder how many times they've test fired the same engine on the test stand.

I dont remember how many post-landing firings there were on JCSAT-14's core but those engines probably have the most firings of anything other than dev units.

Individual Engine Test
McGregor Static Fire
Cape Static Fire
Launch
Entry Burn
Landing Burn
Numerous subsequent firings at McGregor

8 was the number I remember

I heard they were going to do 10 for that core, but we only know of 8 so far.
My memory is also 8 and those were full duration burns simulating subsequent launches so 2.5ish minutes for each.

Offline ejb749

Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #582 on: 04/06/2018 10:20 pm »
I'm still trying to grasp taking an engine that's flown close to 500 times without an issue and still looking for ways to increase reliability. The gigantic gulf between airline and space operations is getting smaller.

There's no Merlin 1-D engine that's "flown close to 500 times" - there's a big difference between 500 engines that have flown   once and a single engine that's flown 500 times!

99 have flown twice now.

Online matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
  • Liked: 751
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #583 on: 04/08/2018 05:57 pm »
Noticed on Instagram Mr Musk is throwing more nomenclature fuel on the fire of F9 names.

Offline Spudley

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • UK
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #584 on: 04/08/2018 08:42 pm »
Noticed on Instagram Mr Musk is throwing more nomenclature fuel on the fire of F9 names.

"Consistency? Where we're going, we don't need consistency."

Online LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • Liked: 2639
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #585 on: 04/09/2018 01:51 am »
Aviation Week has a new article Space Companies Vie For U.S. Launcher Development Contracts that explicitly states that
Quote
Both NASA and the Air Force [...] worked with SpaceX to redesign the Falcon's high-pressure helium bottles, known as composite pressure overlap vessels, or COPVs.

This seemed like potentially one of the most contentious issues for certification (and the load astronauts before or after fueling debate).  But if both NASA and the Air Force have insight into the re-design, and have presumably already given their approval, this should go more smoothly (and provide more confidence in the fix, if 3 separate sets of eyes looked at it).

Turbine cracks were also addressed in Block 5.  Were there any other big certification-related changes needed? Gwynne now states:
Quote
Block 5 [...] was designed to meet the needs of all of our customers - commercial and the U.S. Government.
but somewhat contradictorily states:
Quote
LSA [Launch Service Agreement] is intended to support modification to commercial launch systems for unique national security requirements such as vertical integration infrastructure, certification, and other noncommercial elements.
Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed.  This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 123
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #586 on: 04/09/2018 02:00 am »
Aviation Week has a new article Space Companies Vie For U.S. Launcher Development Contracts that explicitly states that
Quote
Both NASA and the Air Force [...] worked with SpaceX to redesign the Falcon's high-pressure helium bottles, known as composite pressure overlap vessels, or COPVs.

This seemed like potentially one of the most contentious issues for certification (and the load astronauts before or after fueling debate).  But if both NASA and the Air Force have insight into the re-design, and have presumably already given their approval, this should go more smoothly (and provide more confidence in the fix, if 3 separate sets of eyes looked at it).

Turbine cracks were also addressed in Block 5.  Were there any other big certification-related changes needed? Gwynne now states:
Quote
Block 5 [...] was designed to meet the needs of all of our customers - commercial and the U.S. Government.
but somewhat contradictorily states:
Quote
LSA [Launch Service Agreement] is intended to support modification to commercial launch systems for unique national security requirements such as vertical integration infrastructure, certification, and other noncommercial elements.
Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed.  This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.

Certification is a "paperwork exercise" provided the vehicle meets all the requirements for certification, which it seems Block 5 does. Still, there are costs involved with certification.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4298
  • US
  • Liked: 3822
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #587 on: 04/09/2018 01:50 pm »
Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed.  This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.

It's not just the launch vehicle.  Meeting all of the LSA requirements requires changes to facilities and processes too, which don't need to be done before Block 5 starts flying.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • California
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 4875
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #588 on: 04/09/2018 06:39 pm »
but somewhat contradictorily states:
Quote
LSA [Launch Service Agreement] is intended to support modification to commercial launch systems for unique national security requirements such as vertical integration infrastructure, certification, and other noncommercial elements.
Unless certification is a purely paperwork exercise, this second sentence seems to imply that the existing Block 5 will not meet the LSA requirements unless some extra work is performed.  This seems to contradict the first statement above about Block 5 meeting all needs.

Could including things like developing the capability to offer the special handling procedures needed to support certain payloads, GSE mods, etc.  So, while the Block 5 F9 vehicle is already positioned to meet their needs, other elements of the full launch system or customer servicing still needs stuff done.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline dpark

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Eastern Washington
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #589 on: 04/15/2018 07:12 pm »
A quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP.  I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.

Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #590 on: 04/15/2018 07:20 pm »
A quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP.  I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.
L2 McGregor thread. No legs there though. B5 hasnít been anywhere fully suited yet for it to be seen. It just arrived at the cape a couple days ago. First opportunity to see it in all its glory will be static fire at 39a in a couple weeks.


Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4298
  • US
  • Liked: 3822
  • Likes Given: 2181
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #591 on: 04/15/2018 07:57 pm »
A quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP.  I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.
L2 McGregor thread. No legs there though. B5 hasnít been anywhere fully suited yet for it to be seen. It just arrived at the cape a couple days ago. First opportunity to see it in all its glory will be static fire at 39a in a couple weeks.

If you're not an L2 member this article has one of the pictures:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/spacex-manifest-five-falcon-9-launches-one-month/

Online Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1614
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1485
  • Likes Given: 3859
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #592 on: 04/15/2018 08:22 pm »
A quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP.  I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.

I admit, I wanted to be a smart-ass and send you over to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 because I know it has black legs and expected that they show a F9B5 since the performance numbers are from a B5. But that image looks like a cross between B5 legs and an earlier version. Hope this picture gets updated early May. From information we have. changes should be: black interstage, different logo position, metallic grid fins and changes to the bottom of the engine section.

Offline dpark

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Eastern Washington
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #593 on: 04/16/2018 08:53 pm »
A quick flip through the last few pages of this thread I found few or no photos (I can't remember) of Block 5. I'm wondering if this is deliberate and special handling for B5 to obscure access to new IP.  I am certainly looking forward to seeing the new legs and heat shield. I haven't seen any photos of either.

I admit, I wanted to be a smart-ass and send you over to http://www.spacex.com/falcon9 because I know it has black legs and expected that they show a F9B5 since the performance numbers are from a B5. But that image looks like a cross between B5 legs and an earlier version. Hope this picture gets updated early May. From information we have. changes should be: black interstage, different logo position, metallic grid fins and changes to the bottom of the engine section.
Thanks. I have to admit that it's been awhile since visiting the falcon9 page. Last time I looked it still included an image of Dragon 1 and seemed to go unchanged for years.  I have seen the photos from Texas, but curious as to differences in heat shielding that would allow 24hr turnaround for 10 flights without refurbishment.  I would expect substantial differences to or around the octoweb. No closeups as yet unless I've missed them (I am an L2 member).

doug

Offline Billium

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Winnipeg Canada
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #594 on: 04/27/2018 06:09 pm »
From the Bangabandhu-1 discussion thread, there is speculation that the delay from May 4 - 7 was due to weather making recovery at sea potentially problematic.

Whether or not the speculation is correct for this launch, the issue remains, will Spacex expend a Block 5 to keep schedule or delay for better chances at recovery? I don't know if anyone really has any idea on what Spacex will do, but it is an interesting discussion topic, I didn't go back and read the 30 pages of this thread, if this is bringing up something already discussed please feel free to delete this post.

I think this is also interesting in terms of the Falcon Heavy v. F9 comparison.

I'm not really sure we really know the GTO performance for F9 Block 5 yet, recoverable v. expended but I have it as 5,500kg v. 8,300kg. Compare that against FH performance, 3 stage return to land v. 2 stage return to land 1 stage at sea. I don't know the maximum all 3 return to land for GTO.

I don't know how Spacex would balance off F9 Block 5 - expendable v. FH Block 5 - recover center core at sea. If you have a chance to loose the center core anyways, maybe just fly F9 expendable?

Or, if you can fly FH and recover all 3 cores on land, do you fly that instead of a chancy recovery of F9 at sea?



Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3213
  • Fife
  • Liked: 1662
  • Likes Given: 1973
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #595 on: 04/27/2018 07:18 pm »
I don't know how Spacex would balance off F9 Block 5 - expendable v. FH Block 5 - recover center core at sea. If you have a chance to loose the center core anyways, maybe just fly F9 expendable?

Or, if you can fly FH and recover all 3 cores on land, do you fly that instead of a chancy recovery of F9 at sea?
At least for the immediate future, changing out the vehicle under the satellite, or swapping the satellite between near-ready vehicles is going to take longer than the average time for weather to change.
If this was a three hour procedure, as it might be at some time in the future, and availability of rockets was similarly unconstrained, then yes, swapping between rockets might make sense.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 1243
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #596 on: 04/27/2018 08:53 pm »
The potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.

Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.

They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.

Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Liked: 4115
  • Likes Given: 5628
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #597 on: 04/27/2018 09:06 pm »
The potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.

Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.

They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.

Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.

I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores.  Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.


* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. 
Get used to a new way.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 09:07 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1438
  • Likes Given: 1070
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #598 on: 04/27/2018 09:13 pm »
The potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.

Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.

They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.

Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.

I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores.  Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.


* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. 
Get used to a new way.

Nothing new here. If the weather was good at the pad, but not at an emergency landing site, the Shuttle didn't launch.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Liked: 4115
  • Likes Given: 5628
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #599 on: 04/28/2018 12:06 am »
The potential revenue and engineering value of 1 Block 5 booster is huge.

Unless required by contract, I don't see SpaceX expending a Block 5 unless it is at its End of Life.

They should have that booster penciled in to the manifest for it's next flights.

Also, being the first Block 5 they will want to inspect this one thoroughly once it's flown.

I suspect that there will be zero intentionally expended Block 5 cores.  Going to have to get used to landing zone weather being one of the launch criteria*.


* Yes, I know that this is not the way it's done... payload is all that matters... etc. 
Get used to a new way.

Nothing new here. If the weather was good at the pad, but not at an emergency landing site, the Shuttle didn't launch.

The shuttle's payload always included a crew, and the Orbiter was approaching $2B to replace.
But yes, we're kinda back to those days again.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: