Author Topic: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion  (Read 322991 times)

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 993
  • Liked: 754
  • Likes Given: 807
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #740 on: 05/10/2018 09:37 pm »
They also said something about TPS "tiles"??
« Last Edit: 05/10/2018 10:14 pm by matthewkantar »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
  • US
  • Liked: 3827
  • Likes Given: 2186
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #741 on: 05/10/2018 10:11 pm »
They all said something about TPS "tiles"??

At the base of the rocket.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28750
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8855
  • Likes Given: 5741
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #742 on: 05/10/2018 10:39 pm »
We would want to see the transcript of what Musk actually said.  The Twitter feed I was following said "300 or more."

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994648133840920578
I wish this were simply released in its entirety.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

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 #743 on: 05/10/2018 10:40 pm »
Take 100 flights with a grain of salt. If each F9 B5 could fly up to 10 times it would be already a great achievement.  Currently the most a F9 core has flown is two times with 4-5 months needed for refurbishment.

Also, some parts may be certified to fly 100 times, but if you change 99% of the booster, is it really the same one?

Fairing and US reuse would be needed to really supercharge the flight rate.

If the US can be reused without too high a penalty then the economics of space launch could be shocking. 

If that works out then StarLink deployment and speed could be shocking.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #744 on: 05/10/2018 11:02 pm »
We would want to see the transcript of what Musk actually said.  The Twitter feed I was following said "300 or more."

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994648133840920578
I wish this were simply released in its entirety.

Here you go:
 
« Last Edit: 05/10/2018 11:03 pm by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • California
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 4875
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #745 on: 05/10/2018 11:07 pm »
We would want to see the transcript of what Musk actually said.  The Twitter feed I was following said "300 or more."

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994648133840920578
I wish this were simply released in its entirety.

Just wait.  I'm sure as soon as someone posts a recording of the call, theinternetFTW will end up posting a transcript to his github.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline groundbound

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #746 on: 05/10/2018 11:37 pm »
Elon said "up to 300 missions" for F9 B5.

Yes, I am having a hard time combining that one with the 30-50 cores...
Sounds like massive overkill or still dozens of stages being expended...
How will they ever get close to even 50 per core?!

For now the 100 number seems purely theoretical and will never be attempted.
But we all know the world hanged rapidly, paradigms are shifting and BFR is looming...

Meanwhile competition with old-space seems way behind them...

How long ago did Russia joke about using a trampoline?

Some customers are specifying brand new boosters, and I'm sure some FH center cores will go into the drink. it's not inconceivable that these two numbers add up to twenty-something boosters over the next 5 or so years.

BFR will probably be here before any boosters hit the century mark.

I've been wondering if SpaceX will start actively pushing customers away from new boosters in a year or so. Beyond simply dropping the price for re-used they could theoretically start jacking up the price for any new contract that requires new hardware.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • Liked: 3071
  • Likes Given: 1547
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #747 on: 05/11/2018 12:18 am »
We would want to see the transcript of what Musk actually said.  The Twitter feed I was following said "300 or more."

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/994648133840920578
I wish this were simply released in its entirety.

Just wait.  I'm sure as soon as someone posts a recording of the call, theinternetFTW will end up posting a transcript to his github.

The actual statement by Musk was "we think we'll be probably need something on the order of 300 flights, maybe more, of Falcon 9 Block 5"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCNyCVuN4aM?t=240

He also said "we intend to demonstrate two orbital launches of the same Block 5 vehicle within 24 hours no later than next year".
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 12:22 am by envy887 »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
  • US
  • Liked: 3827
  • Likes Given: 2186
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #748 on: 05/11/2018 12:49 am »
Active water cooling of the base heat shield during reentry?!

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28750
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8855
  • Likes Given: 5741
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #749 on: 05/11/2018 12:56 am »
Active water cooling of the base heat shield during reentry?!
Makes sense. The heat of vaporization of water is very high, and it keeps everything from going beyond like 100C. I’m doing a similar thing for a thermal management problem I’m dealing with right now.

It's a lot like a regeneratively or gas-film cooled rocket engine. In fact, that's how I like to solve engineering problems: "But how would we solve this problem if we treated it like a rocket engine?"
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 01:15 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Liked: 1166
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #750 on: 05/11/2018 05:03 am »
Octaweb upgrade from 2000 series aluminum to 7000 series

Replaced composite structure(?) in the base heat shield with titanium structure. Selected area is actively cooled with water due to hotspot from hypersonic shockwave(?) during re-entry.

Also upgraded all the avionics (flight computer, engine controllers), more fault tolerant. Also eliminated some tower? Avionic tower?


Online theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #751 on: 05/11/2018 05:28 am »
Just wait.  I'm sure as soon as someone posts a recording of the call, theinternetFTW will end up posting a transcript to his github.

Accurate. Transcript below. (Already in the update thread, too, but for the ease of finding it now and later...)

https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
  • California
  • Liked: 4415
  • Likes Given: 2681
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #752 on: 05/11/2018 05:34 am »
Active water cooling of the base heat shield during reentry?!

Yeah that was perhaps the biggest surprise. But cool!  8)

Offline lonestriker

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Houston We Have A Problem
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #753 on: 05/11/2018 05:52 am »
Active water cooling of the base heat shield during reentry?!

Yeah that was perhaps the biggest surprise. But cool!  8)

So many interesting gems from the call.  Human rating F9 needing 40% extra margin puts a lot of things into perspective; reading between the lines, they had to squeeze out more performance from the Merlin engines to help offset this extra 15% margin required from non-human-rated F9.

From all of Elon's descriptions, they've made F9 B5 both the most reliable, but also the easiest to refly/refurbish rocket.  So, although it was a massive pain in the ass to work with NASA and the Air Force to get to B5, SpaceX should in theory have a crazy good vehicle for their commercial launches as well.

The thing that I'd be interested in is how Atlas V and SLS achieve their human rating.  I assume they have to provide 40% margin as well?  F9 can take a single engine out at any time in the mission and still complete the mission.  Atlas and SLS have fewer engines to offset a single-engine failure, so I would love to know how they pass the NASA human certification.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
  • California
  • Liked: 4415
  • Likes Given: 2681
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #754 on: 05/11/2018 06:01 am »
40% margin is the typical human rating standard, it is nothing new. Yes, presumably ULA has gone through the same for Atlas V and dual engine Centaur.

As far as making B5 the most reliable rocket - well, it has to be demonstrated first. :)
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 06:01 am by Lars-J »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32546
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11333
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #755 on: 05/11/2018 01:13 pm »
40% margin is not a requirement

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28750
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8855
  • Likes Given: 5741
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #756 on: 05/11/2018 01:25 pm »
Correct. I donít think Atlas is designed to those factor of safety specs. But that obviously doesnít mean Atlas V isnít reliable.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #757 on: 05/11/2018 01:40 pm »
40% margin is not a requirement

Jim, I thought 1.4 structure margins were a requirement for manned rating.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 01:50 pm by AS-503 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32546
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11333
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #758 on: 05/11/2018 02:34 pm »
40% margin is not a requirement

Jim, I thought 1.4 structure margins were a requirement for manned rating.

You are showing requirements for pressurized vessels and not structures.

Also, I don't think CCP is under contract for that document.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 02:47 pm by Jim »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
  • US
  • Liked: 3827
  • Likes Given: 2186
Re: F9 Block 5 Updates and Discussion
« Reply #759 on: 05/11/2018 02:36 pm »
F9 can take a single engine out at any time in the mission and still complete the mission.  Atlas and SLS have fewer engines to offset a single-engine failure, so I would love to know how they pass the NASA human certification.

There is no requirement for engine redundancy.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2018 02:38 pm by gongora »

Tags: