Author Topic: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion  (Read 323818 times)

Offline rsdavis9

Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #680 on: 05/08/2018 10:50 am »
Iím pretty sure those are rivets connecting the carbon fiber leg ďfairingĒ to a stiffener made out of another material. This would run from hinge point down to contact point.

I'd agree that they're fasteners, but what you're calling a stiffener I'd guess is more like a metal doubler that, along with the fasteners, acts to clamp the two composite pieces (outer and inner faces) of the leg together. Carbon fiber is already so stiff that the leg cross-section should be more than strong enough without stiffeners, and the relative narrowness of that strip, just wide enough to carry the bearing stress of the fastener heads, makes me think it's for that purpose.

Probably SpaceX came up with a more efficient manufacturing process for the legs, one that requires some assembly but makes the composite parts easier to fabricate.

Quote
Theoretically, all composites could be adhesively bonded. However, many manufacturers avoid adhesive bonds where joints undergo large amounts of stress; thus, fasteners are still specified for many joints. Also, some structures and components are so large that they preclude the use of the special lay-up tooling and curing equipment needed for most adhesive applications, making fasteners cost-effective for such cases.

http://www.machinedesign.com/basics-design/joining-composites

Makes you wonder how they will join the barrels they are making for the BFB/BFS. Glue or metal joining bands.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11379
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8430
  • Likes Given: 6777
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #681 on: 05/08/2018 05:43 pm »
Are there any examples of companies in the aerospace world that don’t (generally) maintain a high level of prudence and caution?

NASA lost not just one, but two, shuttles because of a lack of " high level of prudence and caution" IMHO.

(mod)  The crest design stuff might belong in the party thread?
« Last Edit: 05/08/2018 05:44 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline chipguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Ottawa Canada
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #682 on: 05/08/2018 06:07 pm »
Are there any examples of companies in the aerospace world that donít (generally) maintain a high level of prudence and caution?

NASA lost not just one, but two, shuttles because of a lack of " high level of prudence and caution" IMHO.


That is out of line, especially for a moderator.

Debatable for Columbia, not at all for Challenger. Richard Feynman was equally
blunt and equally right in the Rogers commission.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 376
  • Likes Given: 1220
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #683 on: 05/08/2018 06:12 pm »
Are there any examples of companies in the aerospace world that donít (generally) maintain a high level of prudence and caution?

NASA lost not just one, but two, shuttles because of a lack of " high level of prudence and caution" IMHO.


That is out of line, especially for a moderator.
Reading all available information back then I tend to disagree.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 1232
  • Likes Given: 1135
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #684 on: 05/08/2018 06:16 pm »
Are there any examples of companies in the aerospace world that donít (generally) maintain a high level of prudence and caution?

NASA lost not just one, but two, shuttles because of a lack of " high level of prudence and caution" IMHO.


That is out of line, especially for a moderator.
I don't know if it is out of line, but it is (increasingly) off topic for "F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion".  Can we move it somewhere else (or preferably just shelve it)?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11379
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8430
  • Likes Given: 6777
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #685 on: 05/08/2018 06:29 pm »
The question was asked, (tangentially) if there were organizations that did not always operate in a certain way. An answer was given, and I do think there are other examples (although not all US ones) in the rocket business.  No need to discuss further.

I stand behind my comment as appropriate and not incorrect. But perhaps not on topic except as answering a tangent.   Let's get back to B5
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11357
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #686 on: 05/08/2018 06:55 pm »
The question was asked, (tangentially) if there were organizations that did not always operate in a certain way. An answer was given,


That was 15 and 30 years ago.  We are talking now.

Are you being held to asinine things you did 15 and 30 years ago?
« Last Edit: 05/08/2018 06:57 pm by Jim »

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 262
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #687 on: 05/08/2018 07:01 pm »
The question was asked, (tangentially) if there were organizations that did not always operate in a certain way. An answer was given,


That was 15 and 30 years ago.  We are talking now.

Are you being held to asinine things you did 15 and 30 years ago?

In that case, I submit that planning to launch a crewed circumlunar mission on the second flight of a new launch vehicle is a good example.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11357
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #688 on: 05/08/2018 07:04 pm »
In that case, I submit that planning to launch a crewed circumlunar mission on the second flight of a new launch vehicle is a good example.

They weren't planning, they were asked to look at it.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11379
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8430
  • Likes Given: 6777
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #689 on: 05/08/2018 07:07 pm »
Tangential. Let's get back to B5.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #690 on: 05/09/2018 07:23 pm »
So I would like to ask what type of mission would be good for the first attempt to fly the Block 5 for a third time? Would an LEO lower stress mission be best? Is there something upcoming that might provide advantages as a third mission? What about the Max-Q abort test? Should this test be done with a block 5 to be as close to real world crewed flights as possible?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10090
  • UK
  • Liked: 1990
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #691 on: 05/09/2018 07:44 pm »
Key piece from this article about the new Falcon 9 Block 5.

Quote
Thatís something NASA is happy about: the Block 5 is the rocket that SpaceX will use to launch NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, as part of the Commercial Crew Program. So this version has been built to meet all of the space agencyís rigorous safety standards. NASA is requiring that SpaceX fly the Block 5 at least seven times successfully, without any major changes, in order to certify it for human flight. Itís a stringent requirement, especially for a rocket thatís flown numerous times before. In comparison, NASAís future Space Launch System will only do one test flight before itís certified to fly humans. And the Space Shuttleís very first flight had humans on board. ďSpaceX is going through a level of rigor and improvement that far exceeds everything thatís been done in human spaceflight,Ē says Autry.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/5/9/17254384/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-upgrade-rocket-reusability-savings

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4346
  • US
  • Liked: 3873
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #692 on: 05/09/2018 07:47 pm »
So I would like to ask what type of mission would be good for the first attempt to fly the Block 5 for a third time? Would an LEO lower stress mission be best? Is there something upcoming that might provide advantages as a third mission? What about the Max-Q abort test? Should this test be done with a block 5 to be as close to real world crewed flights as possible?

The abort test is the last flight you'd want to use since it's not assured the booster will survive it.  If they have a leftover Block 4 it would be great to use on the abort test.

Block 5 is meant to be used many times.  If it looks good after the second flight then it should be able to fly to either GTO or LEO.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #693 on: 05/09/2018 08:23 pm »
So I would like to ask what type of mission would be good for the first attempt to fly the Block 5 for a third time? Would an LEO lower stress mission be best? Is there something upcoming that might provide advantages as a third mission? What about the Max-Q abort test? Should this test be done with a block 5 to be as close to real world crewed flights as possible?

I don't think it will matter.

That's the key to the whole reuse bit. It doesn't matter what type of mission they fly, they'll still reuse the booster.

The abort test can use a solid booster and it would still give the exact same test conditions. The in-flight abort test is only about the capsule's abort performance in the worst-case flight conditions, nothing at all to do with the booster.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2018 08:26 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 1246
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #694 on: 05/09/2018 08:39 pm »
So I would like to ask what type of mission would be good for the first attempt to fly the Block 5 for a third time? Would an LEO lower stress mission be best? Is there something upcoming that might provide advantages as a third mission? What about the Max-Q abort test? Should this test be done with a block 5 to be as close to real world crewed flights as possible?

I don't think it will matter.

That's the key to the whole reuse bit. It doesn't matter what type of mission they fly, they'll still reuse the booster.

The abort test can use a solid booster and it would still give the exact same test conditions. The in-flight abort test is only about the capsule's abort performance in the worst-case flight conditions, nothing at all to do with the booster.

I agree, I don't think it matters. 

If the vehicle is approved for flight it should be able to do 100% of its capabilities for each flight.  Flight 10 should be equally capable as flight 1.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #695 on: 05/09/2018 09:06 pm »
From the press kit:

Mission Timeline (all times approximate)
COUNTDOWN
Hour/Min/Sec Events
- 00:38:00 SpaceX Launch Director verifies go for propellant load
- 00:35:00 RP-1 (rocket grade kerosene) loading underway
- 00:35:00 1st stage LOX (liquid oxygen) loading underway
- 00:16:00 2nd stage LOX loading underway


Compared to Block 4:

COUNTDOWN
Hour/Min/Sec Events
- 01:13:00 SpaceX Launch Director verifies go for propellant load
- 01:10:00 RP-1 (rocket grade kerosene) loading underway
- 00:35:00 LOX (liquid oxygen) loading underway


Falcon 9 will be loaded up with RP-1 and LOX a lot faster than usual. Are they trying to keep the propellants as cold as possible before launch?

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #696 on: 05/09/2018 09:09 pm »
From the press kit:

Mission Timeline (all times approximate)
COUNTDOWN
Hour/Min/Sec Events
- 00:38:00 SpaceX Launch Director verifies go for propellant load
- 00:35:00 RP-1 (rocket grade kerosene) loading underway
- 00:35:00 1st stage LOX (liquid oxygen) loading underway
- 00:16:00 2nd stage LOX loading underway


Compared to Block 4:

COUNTDOWN
Hour/Min/Sec Events
- 01:13:00 SpaceX Launch Director verifies go for propellant load
- 01:10:00 RP-1 (rocket grade kerosene) loading underway
- 00:35:00 LOX (liquid oxygen) loading underway


Falcon 9 will be loaded up with RP-1 and LOX a lot faster than usual. Are they trying to keep the propellants as cold as possible before launch?

Wow, that is drastically shortened.

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Spain
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #697 on: 05/09/2018 09:11 pm »
Worth noting it is the same loading they were doing pre-Amos 6. This time with redesigned COPV's it will not be so risky.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5210
  • Liked: 3098
  • Likes Given: 1557
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #698 on: 05/09/2018 09:13 pm »
Here's the first Block 5 launch sequence from the presskits. Compared to the last Block 4 GTO launch, LOX load starts at the same time, but RP load starts much later.

After liftoff, the Block 5 gets to MaxQ quicker. MECO is also sooner; since Hispasat was intended to be an ASDS landing this is probably relevant to the change in booster thrust. The earlier SECO is probably due to the much lighter payload.

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5210
  • Liked: 3098
  • Likes Given: 1557
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #699 on: 05/09/2018 09:14 pm »
Worth noting it is the same loading they were doing pre-Amos 6. This time with redesigned COPV's it will not be so risky.

I don't know that the RP-1 load has even been considered risky, the temperature differentials are far more benign than the LOX load.

Tags: