SpaceX F9 : Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test : Jan. 19, 2020 : Discussion

[gongora]

He didn't actually say they're going to try recovery of the booster.  This is all really vague right now.

[Wolfram66]

He didn't actually say they're going to try recovery of the booster.  This is all really vague right now.

Seeing that the Abort sequence is triggered at MaxQ and will include a complete shutdown of the 9 S1 F9 Merlin engines to simulate a failure, doubtful if there would be sufficient altitude to translate, re-orient and land at such a thick portion of the atmosphere. A Dummy mass simulator S2 is being used, so in that low altitude, low speed [trans to subsonic], dense portion of the atmosphere, EM has stated that even a possibility of recovery is unlikely due to aerodynamic stresses on the remaining stack. After LAS activation, the dummy S2 would have to be jettisoned and the S1 Merlins would have to re-light... iffy at best

[Alexphysics]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

[Wolfram66]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

It is just a Mass Simulator. i do not believe there will be RP1 and LOX onboard. MODS: Do we have confirmation of the nature of S2 on InFlightAbort

[whitelancer64]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

Without the engine it is nonfunctional, so "dummy" seems appropriate. What do you think it should be called?

[Alexphysics]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

It is just a Mass Simulator. i do not believe there will be RP1 and LOX onboard. MODS: Do we have confirmation of the nature of S2 on InFlightAbort

It will be fully fueled with RP-1 and LOX and there are official documents stating that.

And regarding the other post: it may not have an engine, but it is a flight ready second stage with all its sensors and the tanks will be active and pressurized and everything. If anything, it is the furthest it could be from being "dummy" except for actually having an engine.

[whitelancer64]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

It is just a Mass Simulator. i do not believe there will be RP1 and LOX onboard. MODS: Do we have confirmation of the nature of S2 on InFlightAbort

It will be fully fueled with RP-1 and LOX and there are official documents stating that.

And regarding the other post: it may not have an engine, but it is a flight ready second stage with all its sensors and the tanks will be active and pressurized and everything. If anything, it is the furthest it could be from being "dummy" except for actually having an engine.

Again, so what do you think it should be called?

[lonestriker]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

It is just a Mass Simulator. i do not believe there will be RP1 and LOX onboard. MODS: Do we have confirmation of the nature of S2 on InFlightAbort

It will be fully fueled with RP-1 and LOX and there are official documents stating that.

And regarding the other post: it may not have an engine, but it is a flight ready second stage with all its sensors and the tanks will be active and pressurized and everything. If anything, it is the furthest it could be from being "dummy" except for actually having an engine.

Again, so what do you think it should be called?

S2 without the engine? Mass simulator implies an innert chunk of metal or concrete. This S2 just removes the most expensive part of the whole stage since it should not materially affect the test. There is a mass simulator involved here, just in place of the engine and not the entire S2.

[envy887]

Why do you still call it a dummy second stage when it will actually be a normal and fully loaded second stage just without the engine? It almost seems like a widespread thought everywhere I see any discussion about the IFA test

It is just a Mass Simulator. i do not believe there will be RP1 and LOX onboard. MODS: Do we have confirmation of the nature of S2 on InFlightAbort

It will be fully fueled with RP-1 and LOX and there are official documents stating that.

And regarding the other post: it may not have an engine, but it is a flight ready second stage with all its sensors and the tanks will be active and pressurized and everything. If anything, it is the furthest it could be from being "dummy" except for actually having an engine.

Again, so what do you think it should be called?

If you're referring to the S2, it's a stage - it's complete flight hardware except the engine. If you're referring to the engine specifically, it's a mass sim.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Again, so what do you think it should be called?

non-propulsive flight data collection module 

[AU1.52]

<snip>
Again, so what do you think it should be called?

non-propulsive flight data collection module 

Does not the 2nd stage at least require a dummy engine bell in order for the stages separate?

[ZChris13]

Does not the 2nd stage at least require a dummy engine bell in order for the stages separate?

Why would the stages need to seperate?

[Lars-J]

Does not the 2nd stage at least require a dummy engine bell in order for the stages separate?

Why would the stages need to seperate?

They would if you plan on landing the first stage. Which we don't know if they will attempt. The upper stage will essentially be a mass simulator, so it would be very hard or more likely impossible for it to land with the fake upper stage still attached.

[Joffan]

Does not the 2nd stage at least require a dummy engine bell in order for the stages separate?

I would say that all you would need is something for the pusher to push against. However, separation normally takes place with negligible atmosphere or air resistance, so the pusher is unlikely to be strong enough anyway to separate the stages. More likely the stages will just break apart from air pressure once the locks are opened. I wouldn't expect to see a controlled separation unless some new mechanism is employed.

[mgeagon]

Without the engine it is nonfunctional, so "dummy" seems appropriate. What do you think it should be called?

Literally, it is a non-motive S2. Blank rounds are cartridges having a full load of gun powder, but no bullet, so how about blank S2?

[Orbiter]

Does not the 2nd stage at least require a dummy engine bell in order for the stages separate?

Why would the stages need to seperate?

F9 cannot land with a fully fueled second stage on top, if they intend to actual recover B1048. Personally, despite statements made to the contrary, I think SpaceX will ultimately decide not to attempt recovery for this booster.

[russianhalo117]

<snip>
Again, so what do you think it should be called?

non-propulsive flight data collection module 

Does not the 2nd stage at least require a dummy engine bell in order for the stages separate?

No. There are three other pushers and the center pusher really only guides and protects the nozzle extension during separation.

[oiorionsbelt]

He didn't actually say they're going to try recovery of the booster.  This is all really vague right now.

Yes he did and it's not vague to me.
 
He said,

"Our goal is to always bring hardware home, right. Because when you bring hardware home you get to learn from it and that goes right to the heart of reusability, right. You get to understand it, you get to investigate it and do all that kinda good stuff. We always want to do that. So we'd like to try to bring that rocket home."

[crandles57]

He didn't actually say they're going to try recovery of the booster.  This is all really vague right now.

Yes he did and it's not vague to me.
 
He said,

"Our goal is to always bring hardware home, right. Because when you bring hardware home you get to learn from it and that goes right to the heart of reusability, right. You get to understand it, you get to investigate it and do all that kinda good stuff. We always want to do that. So we'd like to try to bring that rocket home."

'Our goal is'
This is aspirational not that they actually will.

'always want to'
'So we'd like to try'
Likewise these can again be seen as aspirational and not that they actually will.

If he had said 'we are going to try' then it wouldn't be vague, but as it is, take Musk words with caution, he is not unknown for 'pushing aspirations' in spite of what reality is likely to be.

[quagmire]

I would be curious to see if they keep recovery hardware on 1048. But maybe instead of the titanium gridfins, maybe a spare set of the cheaper aluminum ones. While they won’t send OCISLY and the fleet out for a recovery attempt, they will try a soft landing like 1050 and the other core that survived a water landing if the booster survives the abort and try to recover it if it survived. Not to expect to see 1048.5, but to collect data of how the booster fared through such an abort.

If it doesn’t survive as expected, no real loss.