First Falcon 9 Block 5 booster readying for static fire at McGregor

[leetdan]

Have they found a way to stop that impingement on the interstage or designed around that?

The Ti grid fins don't have an ablative coating to shed.

[pospa]

NASA is requiring SpaceX to fly a “frozen” configuration of the Block 5 – meaning every vehicle is built the same way – successfully for at least 7 flights.

Q: Is it specified by NASA somewhere those 7 flights of F9 b5 must be always with new 1st stage, or can be "flight proven" block 5 booster?

[cambrianera]

Image scaled to get same diameter.

[niwax]

NASA is requiring SpaceX to fly a “frozen” configuration of the Block 5 – meaning every vehicle is built the same way – successfully for at least 7 flights.

Q: Is it specified by NASA somewhere those 7 flights of F9 b5 must be always with new 1st stage, or can be "flight proven" block 5 booster?

If they're going to fly crew in a used booster they might even have to. I doubt they have the capacity to fly new for every mission.

[Lars-J]

Image scaled to get same diameter.

Interesting, it certainly looks like the legs will be shorter, based on the leg latch points to the core. I guess they have stuck enough landings to save some weight with smaller legs.

[stcks]

Image scaled to get same diameter.

Nah, the legs look like they should be the same size.. your image is just scaled poorly. Look at the two bumbs on the raceway and how they correspond to the top attachment point. Its the same place.

[Joffan]

It looks like the securing mechanism for the legs may have changed, from clips round the edge to clips acting under the leg.

Image scaled to get same diameter.

Well, nearly, but what is still a little misleading there is that there is a black section at the bottom of the Block 5, so the base of the stage images are not aligned.

[cambrianera]

Image scaled to get same diameter.

Nah, the legs look like they should be the same size.. your image is just scaled poorly. Look at the two bumbs on the raceway and how they correspond to the top attachment point. Its the same place.

Really?
Diameter has not been modified.
As to the raceway I'm not that sure. Are you?
And I'm not saying legs are smaller.....

[stcks]

Image scaled to get same diameter.

Nah, the legs look like they should be the same size.. your image is just scaled poorly. Look at the two bumbs on the raceway and how they correspond to the top attachment point. Its the same place.

Really?
Diameter has not been modified.
As to the raceway I'm not that sure. Are you?
And I'm not saying legs are smaller.....

Its not the diameter, its where you have the base and the perspective of the two shots. Look again more closely, the top leg mounts are basically in the exact same place relative to the those two bumps on the raceways and those two bumps on the raceways have not moved.

[cambrianera]

Its not the diameter, its where you have the base and the perspective of the two shots. Look again more closely, the top leg mounts are basically in the exact same place relative to the those two bumps on the raceways and those two bumps on the raceways have not moved.

Again, are you sure?

[ugordan]

Its not the diameter, its where you have the base and the perspective of the two shots. Look again more closely, the top leg mounts are basically in the exact same place relative to the those two bumps on the raceways and those two bumps on the raceways have not moved.

Again, are you sure?

You are comparing two images from different vantage points that both have been taken so far from the stage that they can be considered orthographic projections, matching diameter alone will not match the height scale.

The leg length hasn't changed, neither has the location of tank relief vents. What *has* changed is that the 4 side hinges are closer in than they were before.

[gongora]

Its not the diameter, its where you have the base and the perspective of the two shots. Look again more closely, the top leg mounts are basically in the exact same place relative to the those two bumps on the raceways and those two bumps on the raceways have not moved.

Again, are you sure?

Yes.  There is a comparison pic in L2 that is lined up much better.  Your two boosters are not lined up vertically.

[cambrianera]

Thanks, waiting to see it!

[stcks]

Its not the diameter, its where you have the base and the perspective of the two shots. Look again more closely, the top leg mounts are basically in the exact same place relative to the those two bumps on the raceways and those two bumps on the raceways have not moved.

Again, are you sure?

As sure as I can be, yes. If there is any height difference between the top of the leg attachment points, its not noticeable in pictures. To be clear, I'm not claiming any special knowledge here, only pointing out that the picture evidence points much more strongly towards the legs being similar in length.

The main problem with your picture is that the bottom of the boosters are not even close to being properly aligned. Your Block 5 booster needs to come up a lot. Redo it and align the bumps on the raceways and the middle leg piston attachment and you'll see.

Edit: added image to illustrate just how far off your image is...

[cambrianera]

Its not the diameter, its where you have the base and the perspective of the two shots. Look again more closely, the top leg mounts are basically in the exact same place relative to the those two bumps on the raceways and those two bumps on the raceways have not moved.

Again, are you sure?

As sure as I can be, yes. If there is any height difference between the top of the leg attachment points, its not noticeable in pictures. To be clear, I'm not claiming any special knowledge here, only pointing out that the picture evidence points much more strongly towards the legs being similar in length.

The main problem with your picture is that the bottom of the boosters are not even close to being properly aligned. Your Block 5 booster needs to come up a lot. Redo it and align the bumps on the raceways and the middle leg piston attachment and you'll see.

Edit: added image to illustrate just how far off your image is...

Nice catch.
But reread my original post.
There was no claim of alignment, only that diameters were paired.
It was a quick job to get a first comparison, leaving to others (like you, now) the chance to contribute.
But alignment was wrong, not scaling...

[cambrianera]

It looks like the securing mechanism for the legs may have changed, from clips round the edge to clips acting under the leg.

Image scaled to get same diameter.

Well, nearly, but what is still a little misleading there is that there is a black section at the bottom of the Block 5, so the base of the stage images are not aligned.

You said it, I did not understand it immediately...
Well, thank you!

[Lars-J]

Yep, I see it now. The black section on the bottom of the Block 5 is much higher than the black section on the v1.2, which is what is creating the apparent difference. So the legs are basically the same size after all.

[cambrianera]

And here we are...

[CyndyC]

Oh look, payload already mated and ready to launch Hispasat 30W-6 on March 6th, courtesy of Space Coast Office of Tourism at https://spacecoastlaunches.com/blog/launch-list/

[stcks]

Oh look, payload already mated and ready to launch Hispasat 30W-6 on March 6th, courtesy of Space Coast Office of Tourism at https://spacecoastlaunches.com/blog/launch-list/

Wow its almost like SpaceX downgraded SLC-40, downgraded their F9, and built a time machine back to 2009.... /sarcasm

Sorry, that picture is from the original F9 user's guide from 2009 and shows a mockup vehicle that never flew. 

Sarcasm aside, it is very cool that we have come full circle with the appearance of the F9 block 5.