SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Falcon 9-24 arrived back in Florida this morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPlt56HckRI
I wouldn't want to have to clean it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPlt56HckRI
I wouldn't want to have to clean it.
Caruso said:
When they start to re fly the 1st stage is when the costs savings will really kick in.
Have they said when they'll start to do that? I wonder do they know exactly how much they'll save on each launch or whether it's still guesswork, have any of the landed stages been properly looked over and declared spaceworthy yet? leglessAlex said:
Have they said when they'll start to do that? I wonder do they know exactly how much they'll save on each launch or whether it's still guesswork, have any of the landed stages been properly looked over and declared spaceworthy yet?
The first one has been given a good look over and engines out / disassembled.The second landed one they are going to test fire a bunch of times then relaunch.
IMO they have already gained a lot of knowledge form the first one recovered in part to cut margins for bigger launches
The "Thaicom 8" satellite for the next launch is already at the Cape Canaveral launch site :
The Falcon 9 (F9-025) rocket has just arrived there as well. It completed test firing in Texas a few days ago on the way over from California.
There's some general maintenance and radar upgrade work going on at the Cape starting next week, so no flights for anyone until the 27th May.
The Falcon 9 (F9-025) rocket has just arrived there as well. It completed test firing in Texas a few days ago on the way over from California.
There's some general maintenance and radar upgrade work going on at the Cape starting next week, so no flights for anyone until the 27th May.
I wonder how much "new" science they are also able to do on these recovered boosters. No-one has ever seen the effects of a launch on the rocket before, to the level of detail of being able to microscopically examine the metal and so forth. The Shuttle SRBs were solids rather than liquids.
Might be new avenues and innovations arising simply from being able to see what really happened in comparison with sensor readings.
Might be new avenues and innovations arising simply from being able to see what really happened in comparison with sensor readings.
RobDickinson said:
The entire space shuttle (sometimes) made it back, and the SSME's are liquid, but very very very over engineered.
They are also the most efficient liquid fueled engines ever made from a thrust/weight perspective - and still are from what I have heard. That is one of the reasons why they have been chosen for the SLS.They also became very reliable. Despite the fact that they were considered the most complex and risky part of the Shuttle system - as opposed to the Solid Rocket Boosters, which were considered simple and reliable - the SSMEs performed, on the whole, quite well, with just the odd scare during the Shuttle's 135 flights.
The plus point is that they can get even more power out of them on a single shot use. They were deliberately de-rated when used on the Shuttle to try and preserve their working lives. Those restrictions are now lifted so they can be worked at higher thrust settings.
So, in some ways, they will get much more efficient use out of them by NOT trying to reuse them.
What I do find strange is that they don't plan to reuse the Solids either.
So, in some ways, they will get much more efficient use out of them by NOT trying to reuse them.
What I do find strange is that they don't plan to reuse the Solids either.
Well that might be a good thing. SLS is designed by senate to support shuttle contractors. NASA dont have a mission for it nor funding for one, just had mars landing investigation budget cut too.
They are designing and building 5 huge rockets with nothing to do with them, just big fireworks.
They are designing and building 5 huge rockets with nothing to do with them, just big fireworks.
Eric Mc said:
What I do find strange is that they don't plan to reuse the Solids either.
Simply down to economics.Maintaining the infrastructure to retrieve them ( tugs, crew, port facilities, cleanup & refurb crew ) is an ongoing cost which would only be viable if you were flying it once a month. When you're only going to be flying once a year at best then it's cheaper to just dump them - especially when you also save money by not having to fit parachutes and the other recovery equipment to them.
MartG said:
Simply down to economics.
Maintaining the infrastructure to retrieve them ( tugs, crew, port facilities, cleanup & refurb crew ) is an ongoing cost which would only be viable if you were flying it once a month. When you're only going to be flying once a year at best then it's cheaper to just dump them - especially when you also save money by not having to fit parachutes and the other recovery equipment to them.
That does make sense... as a 3rd party observer what makes more sense is asking Elon if NASA could rent a couple of Falcon's to strap each side as they fly themselves home.Maintaining the infrastructure to retrieve them ( tugs, crew, port facilities, cleanup & refurb crew ) is an ongoing cost which would only be viable if you were flying it once a month. When you're only going to be flying once a year at best then it's cheaper to just dump them - especially when you also save money by not having to fit parachutes and the other recovery equipment to them.
Not that I expect a government agency is capable of that level of cooperation and compromise.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff