PB666 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 19 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: They may plan on the FH core to carry a larger reserve propellant budget so it can brake heavily in boostback. We have alot of 'may's here lately. I think they want to use three identicles just for that reason, to standardize production so they can crank out stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, PB666 said: We have alot of 'may's here lately. I think they want to use three identicles just for that reason, to standardize production so they can crank out stuff. Falcon Heavy core has been confirmed several times to not be identical to the side boosters/Falcon 9 core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, PB666 said: We have alot of 'may's here lately. I think they want to use three identicles just for that reason, to standardize production so they can crank out stuff. @Frozen_Heart beat me to it, but yeah, the FH core is built differently. The boosters are identical to the F9FT stage 1s, though. Wasn't trying to add any more rampant speculation; just pointing out that reserving additional propellant for boostback is one of the possible survival modes for the FH core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: @Frozen_Heart beat me to it, but yeah, the FH core is built differently. The boosters are identical to the F9FT stage 1s, though. Wasn't trying to add any more rampant speculation; just pointing out that reserving additional propellant for boostback is one of the possible survival modes for the FH core. Reentry burn. not boostback burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Rakaydos said: Reentry burn. not boostback burn. Actually, it would be a boostback, prior to re-entry. It wouldn't be enough to reverse downrange velocity and execute RTLS, but it would most likely be enough to lower re-entry speed to something closer to a CRS-8 entry profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said: Falcon Heavy core has been confirmed several times to not be identical to the side boosters/Falcon 9 core. The boosters will have a built in nose piece, and the core will be reinforced at the joiners so that force can be transferred between frames. In KSP consider these to be the added weight of strut connectors. He is talking about airframe only, not tank bearing dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 12 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: What he said. @sojourner, where'd you about the second disqualified booster? Elon Musk Verified account @elonmusk Most recent rocket took max damage, due to v high entry velocity. Will be our life leader for ground tests to confirm others are good. Retweets 1,074 Likes 4,716 4:08 PM - 15 May 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, sojourner said: Elon Musk Verified account @elonmusk Most recent rocket took max damage, due to v high entry velocity. Will be our life leader for ground tests to confirm others are good. Retweets 1,074 Likes 4,716 4:08 PM - 15 May 2016 English is not my main language, but I guess he is saying that the max damage than a recovery booster could receive was under these circumstances, so if this booster works in the firing tests, it means than the other are more than ok. So he is not confirming that this booster wouldl be disqualify. Maybe it will be, but he is not saying that. Edited May 17, 2016 by AngelLestat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 "life leader for ground tests" It's not flying again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) Not necessarily, no. Let me pull an excerpt from the reddit thread I linked further up: "Since this is the most punished, if they can refire it ten times, then a stage in better shape should be able to refire five times without any worry. In other words, a life leader has a more advanced hardware life, demonstrating that younger hardware should be safe." All returned stages get ground tested. All of them. The tweet does not mean that this particular stage will be tested on the ground (of course it will be), but rather that its test results will be compared to other ground-tested stages. It makes no statements about reflying or not reflying this one at any point. In fact, being able to refly this one would be the best possible result for SpaceX, since that would mean all stages that return from less stressful flights can be reflight certified with less effort and a higher confidence interval - the confidence being provided by this 'life leader', which suffered far worse and still flies anyway. That's not to say it will in fact fly. It might not. We don't know yet. But at the same time, we don't know it will definitely never fly. No statement has been made to that effect. Edited May 17, 2016 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) It will definitely never fly, it doesn't have wings and it can't flap. Edited May 17, 2016 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 9 hours ago, Nibb31 said: Cubesat operators typically don't have money, so are they are not really a viable market. They would rather to wait for a free/cheap ride with another payload than pay for their own rocket. There is no indication that a Falcon 1 would be cheaper than a piggyback ride. There are plenty of cubesat operators with money, it's not just highschool students. Take PlanetLabs or Spire, people are doing real commercial work with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 15 hours ago, Rakaydos said: "Now we know what kind of conditions to expect, I want the Falcon Heavy core to be able to survive twice as much." I'm curious to know just how much delta-v that upper stage (of the Falcon Heavy) has. I'm guessing same as the upper stage of Falcon 9. Assuming they are the same, Spacex has a problem. Adding cargo (i.e. dry weight) is going to kill the delta-v of the upper stage, and while all three engines will work to provide them, the center engine has to be moving at that that delta-v. So it really *does* have to survive twice as much, and maybe more. Maybe it will be allowed more of a reentry burn. Maybe that reentry burn will be "more sideways" in a "kerbal-style" aero-breaking attempt. We've seen they have means of cutting down the landing burn, perhaps they can use a bit on the reentry burn. - note: I've seen conflicting reports on the reentry profile, namely the only one that had detailed reports implied a huge rentry burn for the GTO rentry. It was pretty close to after the landing, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was just mislabled, but I really don't know how hot it came in. Or they can just expend the center booster. It really looks like the most effective means (well, assuming you can't strap COTS SRBs to the side of the upper stage. We kerbanauts know the magic words are always "More Boosters!"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptRichardson Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 15 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Will sound silly, but what conditions except speed and temperature they should expect - and what except the construction thickening can they undertake? Big thing would be armoring the engine bay, possibly with some kind of ceramic or titanium plating. That's almost certainly where most of the damage took place. Put easily toastable bits behind a lightweight shield to protect them. Might cut a ton off the launch capacity, but given... well, the whole 'twenty tons to leo' that's not bad. The GTO would hurt, but some more tweaks to the engines and fuel systems should free up spare capacity. I don't see it likely that the sides are too damaged. Maybe needing a sandblasting and repaint to restore the protective coating. If there's heat penetration damage weakening the structure of the rocket I'm not sure how we'd find out without trying a test-launch just to see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) If we are going to get into some deep dissection of Musk's Tweet, I don't think he would have qualified "testing" with the word "ground" in front of it unless he meant it won't fly again. If he thought they might fly it again why waste the precious twitter characters? Edited May 17, 2016 by sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 2 hours ago, sojourner said: If we are going to get into some deep dissection of Musk's Tweet, I don't think he would have qualified "testing" with the word "ground" in front of it unless he meant it won't fly again. If he thought they might fly it again why waste the precious twitter characters? I'd be surprised if at least one rocket wasn't always scheduled to be completely torn down and checked. Presumably that was going to be first, but they might have decided to make it the GTO landing. I think right now, it makes sense to see if *any* of them can get back into space before seeing if the *all* can do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 It ain't flying again. Scroll down in this article to see close ups of the damage: http://www.universetoday.com/128932/2-sea-1-land-3rd-recovered-booster-joins-spacex-siblings-close-gallery/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, sojourner said: It ain't flying again. Scroll down in this article to see close ups of the damage: http://www.universetoday.com/128932/2-sea-1-land-3rd-recovered-booster-joins-spacex-siblings-close-gallery/ I don't see any damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Yeah, no damage at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 59 minutes ago, sojourner said: Yeah, no damage at all. Still don't see any damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Then I can't help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, PB666 said: Still don't see any damage the area near the central engine looks melted to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Makes you think that it's a wonder the engines re-fired at alI. I wonder how much of that was from that persistent post-landng fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturusvfx Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: I wonder how much of that was from that persistent post-landng fire That's what it looks like to my old eyes, especially on and around the thermal blankets . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I dont see the damage in the first picture.. the white and black points follow a pattern which means is not natural damage. About the second picture yeah, is clear that it had a rough trip, but just seems superficial. We know that after reentry, it ignite and land. The fire test will clear up some doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts