SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
It's a constant learning process after all. They were very lucky to get this one back at all really, let alone it greasing the landing like that. Even if the airframe is knackered, they'll be able to salvage millions of dollars worth of equipment off it. A saving for sure, but not the sort of re-usability they had in mind either.
They're supposed to be uprating the engine power of the Falcon 9 later this year. So hopefully they'll have a bigger flight envelope to play with. Once they can get the Falcon Heavy into operation, it'll take over from some of the tougher Falcon 9 missions as well.
They're supposed to be uprating the engine power of the Falcon 9 later this year. So hopefully they'll have a bigger flight envelope to play with. Once they can get the Falcon Heavy into operation, it'll take over from some of the tougher Falcon 9 missions as well.
Get the cocoa and hot water bottle ready again: The next launch is still on for this Thursday, May 26th at 10.40 PM (UK time) from Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The payload is the Thaicom 8 communications satellite.
This will be the 25th Falcon 9 mission.
As for the previous rocket... According to a tweet from the Muskmeister:
"Flight 24 is def capable of flying again, but it makes sense to apply ground delta qual to rocket w toughest entry conditions."
Apparently, this means that they don't just put it through the usual post factory qualifications, they test fire it for longer and shake the living s
t out of it for longer. This will damage it and make it unflyable, but they want to keep learning and improving the design.
The payload is the Thaicom 8 communications satellite.
This will be the 25th Falcon 9 mission.
As for the previous rocket... According to a tweet from the Muskmeister:
"Flight 24 is def capable of flying again, but it makes sense to apply ground delta qual to rocket w toughest entry conditions."
Apparently, this means that they don't just put it through the usual post factory qualifications, they test fire it for longer and shake the living s
t out of it for longer. This will damage it and make it unflyable, but they want to keep learning and improving the design.Beati Dogu said:
As for the previous rocket... According to a tweet from the Muskmeister:
"Flight 24 is def capable of flying again, but it makes sense to apply ground delta qual to rocket w toughest entry conditions."
Apparently, this means that they don't just put it through the usual post factory qualifications, they test fire it for longer and shake the living st out of it for longer. This will damage it and make it unflyable, but they want to keep learning and improving the design.
Its amusing that SpaceX are in a unique position of having several used first stages, not to mention a factory churning at new ones 2-3times a month by the sound of it."Flight 24 is def capable of flying again, but it makes sense to apply ground delta qual to rocket w toughest entry conditions."
Apparently, this means that they don't just put it through the usual post factory qualifications, they test fire it for longer and shake the living s
t out of it for longer. This will damage it and make it unflyable, but they want to keep learning and improving the design.At this rate Elon will have more rockets at his disposal than any nation or company on Earth!
Looks like he could launch a Falcon heavy using second hand scrap already :-)
scubadude said:
Beati Dogu said:
As for the previous rocket... According to a tweet from the Muskmeister:
"Flight 24 is def capable of flying again, but it makes sense to apply ground delta qual to rocket w toughest entry conditions."
Apparently, this means that they don't just put it through the usual post factory qualifications, they test fire it for longer and shake the living st out of it for longer. This will damage it and make it unflyable, but they want to keep learning and improving the design.
Its amusing that SpaceX are in a unique position of having several used first stages, not to mention a factory churning at new ones 2-3times a month by the sound of it."Flight 24 is def capable of flying again, but it makes sense to apply ground delta qual to rocket w toughest entry conditions."
Apparently, this means that they don't just put it through the usual post factory qualifications, they test fire it for longer and shake the living s
t out of it for longer. This will damage it and make it unflyable, but they want to keep learning and improving the design.At this rate Elon will have more rockets at his disposal than any nation or company on Earth!
Looks like he could launch a Falcon heavy using second hand scrap already :-)
Sylvaforever said:
Actually that sounds like a pretty good proof of concept plan.
f9 cores for f9h are different, they would have to rework them a fair bit.And tbh using already launched possibly suspect cores to prove the validity of the f9h sounds stupid.
Once they have proven (or not) that reusing rockets are more reliable than new ones that could change.
Sylvaforever said:
No it's not "stupid" as you so kindly put it, it's supposed to be their core buisness!!
Go Bold.....
However if the boosters are physically incompatable then they won't be using them.
The F9H is a "new" design so on the first flight you really want to be testing the design itself without other variables. Introducing used boosters would be adding an extra layer of complexity. i.e. if the F9H launch failed was it a flaw in the F9H design, or a problem with re-using a booster?Go Bold.....
However if the boosters are physically incompatable then they won't be using them.
Prove the F9H design, then worry about re-use.
Engine test fire for tomorrow's launch completed
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/7352973004913254...
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/7352973004913254...
RobDickinson said:
^ This.
It would be stupid.
If they had proved a reused rocket is more reliable than a new one it might be worth it, but so far they have yet to even relaunch one.
And when is F9 heavy scheduled? It would be stupid.
If they had proved a reused rocket is more reliable than a new one it might be worth it, but so far they have yet to even relaunch one.
I think Eric has it right: this forum has become laden with intolerance and pointscoring over discussion.
Sylvaforever said:
RobDickinson said:
^ This.
It would be stupid.
If they had proved a reused rocket is more reliable than a new one it might be worth it, but so far they have yet to even relaunch one.
And when is F9 heavy scheduled? It would be stupid.
If they had proved a reused rocket is more reliable than a new one it might be worth it, but so far they have yet to even relaunch one.
I think Eric has it right: this forum has become laden with intolerance and pointscoring over discussion.
This is a discussion, absent insults, why do you feel it's a good idea to have multiple dependent variables in an experiment instead of just one?
One of the reasons Apollo succeeded is because they did adopt a fairly risky approach to testing. It was championed by George Mueller who favoured "all up testing" of major elements of the mission e.g. trying out all three stages on the first Saturn V launch. he was opposed by Werner Von Braun who favoured a more methodical and steady approach but Mueller won his argument on the basis that they would never get to the moon before the end of the 1960s if they did every test in a slow, plodding fashion.
However, all up testing does create multiple risks over the "one step at a time" method.
SpaceX will just have to decide which approach will ultimately yield them the best dividends.
However, all up testing does create multiple risks over the "one step at a time" method.
SpaceX will just have to decide which approach will ultimately yield them the best dividends.
Even with Apollo they did do some degree of incremental testing though - e.g. Apollo 10 nearly landed but not quite; Apollo 8 did a circumlunar transit but didn't do anything with the lander; Apollo 7 was just an orbit around the Earth.
The Saturn 1B was also a partial Saturn V wasn't it?
The Saturn 1B was also a partial Saturn V wasn't it?
Sylvaforever said:
And when is F9 heavy scheduled?
I think Eric has it right: this forum has become laden with intolerance and pointscoring over discussion.
Just discussion.. isnt it..?I think Eric has it right: this forum has become laden with intolerance and pointscoring over discussion.
What would the benefit be?
They havnt yet proved they can relaunch one f9 core.
They would have to re-engineer all 3 landed cores for f9h
If something went wrong they now have 2 completely different sources of issues
SpaceX have been quite aggressive on upgrades and improvements, the f9 has come a long way, but they have plans for the current landed boosters already and the f9h isnt quite as simple as f9 cores + ductape.
Flooble said:
Even with Apollo they did do some degree of incremental testing though - e.g. Apollo 10 nearly landed but not quite; Apollo 8 did a circumlunar transit but didn't do anything with the lander; Apollo 7 was just an orbit around the Earth.
The Saturn 1B was also a partial Saturn V wasn't it?
The upper stage of the Saturn IB was the same as the upper stage of the Saturn V. The first two stages of the V were unique to the V. The Saturn 1B was also a partial Saturn V wasn't it?
Von Braun wanted to launch a 1st stage only Saturn V with a dummy upper section. They had tested the original Saturn I that way back in 1961. He was overruled and the first time a Saturn V went up in 1967, it was The Full Monty.
They did fly a second unmanned Saturn V later in 1967 and Mueller's "all up" test idea nearly came unstuck because the Saturn V very nearly failed.
Apollo 8 was not in the original mission planning as a lunar orbit mission. Apollo 8 was originally supposed to be the first manned test of the Lunar Module in earth orbit. This mission eventually became Apollo 9. The original Apollo 9 should have taken a Command/service Module (with no Lunar Module) out to about 1/3 of the way to the moon and then accelerated back towards earth for a lunar mission type earth re-entry.
In the spirit of Mueller's "all-up testing" philosophy (and fear that the Russians might send a manned Soyuz around the moon before the end of 1968), it has to be said as well), it was decided to go for broke and put Apollo 8 into lunar orbit.
BEAM expansion live now http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/#public
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff