Red Dragon confirmed!!

[sevenperforce]

8 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Since you mentioned it, what would happen to kerosene after six months in space? I'd always understood it stores and transports pretty well, hence it's popularity with militaries (also why I drive a diesel ).

The kerosene would probably be frozen solid. Unless they painted the kerosene-tank portion of the body black, in which case it may well boil off.

NASA's current GR&As for cislunar mission architecture predict 0.2% propellant boil-off for kerolox each day. Over six months that means you lose about 31% of whatever fuel you started with.

[PB666]

26 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The kerosene would probably be frozen solid. Unless they painted the kerosene-tank portion of the body black, in which case it may well boil off.

NASA's current GR&As for cislunar mission architecture predict 0.2% propellant boil-off for kerolox each day. Over six months that means you lose about 31% of whatever fuel you started with.

You could have a solar powered recycling system.

 

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, PB666 said:

You could have a solar powered recycling system.

Sure, though that adds mass and means pretty substantial modification to the FH upper stage.

I bet that one of the things we see in the next few months is a GTO mission where the upper stage has enough remaining propellant to raise its perigee above 100 km, allowing it to remain in orbit for a few weeks, so that they can test extended-delay inflight restarts.

[StrandedonEarth]

4 hours ago, KSK said:

We've got a private company seriously contemplating a mission to Mars, at their own expense,

I bet they'll use pre-flown hardware (all 3 FH cores and the D2) to cut their cost as much as possible.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I bet they'll use pre-flown hardware (all 3 FH cores and the D2) to cut their cost as much as possible.

That's interesting, and could well be true. Under the assumption that they need to make X F9s per year to keep the mfg shop efficient, and that reuse is anything like they expect (10-20 launches), they will have more rockets than they can possibly fly with payloads. Since a launch will---even at reduced prices---pay for a LV, any reused LVs are effectively free for SpaceX to play with. Really play with. This might in fact be the real goal of reuse.

Musk doesn't have the f-you money that Bezos has, but by making expendable rockets reusable, he can fly his own personal missions at very low cost.

[CatastrophicFailure]

26 minutes ago, tater said:

That's interesting, and could well be true. Under the assumption that they need to make X F9s per year to keep the mfg shop efficient, and that reuse is anything like they expect (10-20 launches), they will have more rockets than they can possibly fly with payloads. Since a launch will---even at reduced prices---pay for a LV, any reused LVs are effectively free for SpaceX to play with. Really play with. This might in fact be the real goal of reuse.

Musk doesn't have the f-you money that Bezos has, but by making expendable rockets reusable, he can fly his own personal missions at very low cost.

Interesting idea....  Perfectly usable rocket bits just "laying by the side of the road," as it were. Opens the door to all sorts of potentially Kerbalish experiments at very low cost. An F9 core could easily send a D2 capsule on a suborbital flight, hmm...

[tater]

That all assumes that the manufacturing people need to make X Falcons (and upper stages, obviously) per year to be viable (you certainly don't want to have to lay skilled workers off for much of the year). They might have an eye on the ULA AF contract as well, since if you have rockets lying around ready to go all the time, it's easy to be on call for a launch.

[Rakaydos]

Hmm...

So, Dragon 2 can carry 2 tons to mars on a Falcon Heavy.

Falcon heavy requires 3 instances of 1/10th a core's manufacturing cost.

Falcon 9 launch for NASA runs 133 million.

Using the Falcon 9 cost as a ballpark for the costs for a core with all the side costs included, that means each reuse covers 13.3 million cost, and a falcon heavy using reused cores needs to run about 40 million. (ballpark)

2 tons is 2000 KG. a 1u Cubesat is 1.3 KG. 3 cubesats is 4 KG

1500 cubesats is a full martian payload.

$40 million / 1500 cubesats = 80,000/3

So call it about 30 thousand dollars to put a cubesat on mars. Give or take.

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The kerosene would probably be frozen solid. Unless they painted the kerosene-tank portion of the body black, in which case it may well boil off.

NASA's current GR&As for cislunar mission architecture predict 0.2% propellant boil-off for kerolox each day. Over six months that means you lose about 31% of whatever fuel you started with.

Kerosene itself is considered a storable propellant. Depending on the thermal properties of the system, which I do not know as well as what sort of internal energy they would output which would help determine what the equilibrium temperature of the craft would be. Certainly with a kapton coated aluminum would likely result in the propellant freezing though most nuetral or abrobant coatings kerosene would be quite fine and would not suffer boil-off. It is the LOx which suffers from boil off though that is a different discussion.

Edited April 30, 2016 by A Fuzzy Velociraptor

[Kryten]

10 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Hmm...

So, Dragon 2 can carry 2 tons to mars on a Falcon Heavy.

Falcon heavy requires 3 instances of 1/10th a core's manufacturing cost.

Falcon 9 launch for NASA runs 133 million.

Using the Falcon 9 cost as a ballpark for the costs for a core with all the side costs included, that means each reuse covers 13.3 million cost, and a falcon heavy using reused cores needs to run about 40 million. (ballpark)

2 tons is 2000 KG. a 1u Cubesat is 1.3 KG. 3 cubesats is 4 KG

1500 cubesats is a full martian payload.

$40 million / 1500 cubesats = 80,000/3

So call it about 30 thousand dollars to put a cubesat on mars. Give or take.

SpaceX's own figures for near-future savings from reuse are 30%, you've got it at 90%.

[KSK]

I wonder (serious question) what sort of instrumentation you could put on one of those? A network of 1500 cubesats would be one heck of a science platform - potentially at any rate.

Also - adding to the reused hardware comments - remember that NASA will be requiring a new Dragon for each commercial crew flight, possibly giving SpaceX a small fleet of paid-for, only slightly scorched Mars landers to play with. If nothing else it might give them a few more relatively affordable practice shots at the landing.

Of course that depends on what the eventual spec of a stock Dragon 2 is, and what needs doing to them to convert them to iDragons.

 

iDragon being an Interplanetary Dragon, of course.

 

But man - if all this works out, tell me this isn't the coolest win-win ever! Highly price competitive launchers for their customers - to be recovered and repurposed into Mars hardware at a complete steal.

Next question - Dragon2 is intended for landing anywhere. So where  else can it get to, assuming a Falcon Heavy launcher, given what we know about those?

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

mplete steal.

Next question - Dragon2 is intended for landing anywhere. So where  else can it get to, assuming a Falcon Heavy launcher, given what we know about those?

Well, if you add some kind of internal powersource like a fuelcell or RTG, I'd imagine you could aerocapture at jupiter and land on any of the moons there. Saturn might be a bit far if you dont get some kind of gravity assist- heinlen's "halfway to anwhere" quote is amended to "halfway to saturn", which implies needing an entire falcon core in orbit to reach it.

[tater]

4 hours ago, Kryten said:

SpaceX's own figures for near-future savings from reuse are 30%, you've got it at 90%.

Regardless of the savings, at a certain point, they've paid for the LV, and if they chose to do a launch for their own purposes, the cost is propellant plus refurbishment, plus the upper stage/payload. Assuming NASA and the AF demand new vehicles, then every 3 launches for those customers, SpaceX ends up with an FH to play with for the cost of an upper stage and payload (propellant is practically noise, cost wise). Once D2 is flying crews, what if NASA demands new (they likely will for a while)? What if they allow reuse X times? Then the X+1 launch it is a "free" payload for SpaceX to play with. Again, I'm thinking of this aspect of SpaceX as Musk's hobby, like BO is for Bezos. Get things to the point where for a few million bucks for an upper stage, Musk can send a lander someplace. That's not chump change, but it's not half a billion $, either.

[Kryten]

NASA is buying crew launches as a service, they're not likely to decree no reuse. They're already allowing Dragon pressure vessel reuse for CRS.

[tater]

39 minutes ago, Kryten said:

NASA is buying crew launches as a service, they're not likely to decree no reuse. They're already allowing Dragon pressure vessel reuse for CRS.

I hadn't read that. Cool. What are they set to pay fora launch though? As long as it exceeds the cost to build/launch an expandable LV, then after the first launch the thing is paid for.

My arguments are really predicated on the idea (which I have no data on, whatsoever  ) that they must keep a certain rate of production in LV/upper stage manufacturing to be optimally efficient. Perhaps improvements with 3d printing might allow a more scalable manufacturing process... dunno.

[PB666]

17 minutes ago, tater said:

I hadn't read that. Cool. What are they set to pay fora launch though? As long as it exceeds the cost to build/launch an expandable LV, then after the first launch the thing is paid for.

My arguments are really predicated on the idea (which I have no data on, whatsoever  ) that they must keep a certain rate of production in LV/upper stage manufacturing to be optimally efficient. Perhaps improvements with 3d printing might allow a more scalable manufacturing process... dunno.

The crew launch could be first use, followed by reuse for non-crewed missions. Thats actually not a bad idea, have a built in replacement system and have NASA foot the bill. That would remove the fixed cost, lol, all you have is variable cost, get the recycled discount down to 40%. 

[lugge]

I think 2018 will not happen. Maybe the next launch window, who knows.
And also it will be quite some time before we see humans on Mars, and they will not go there by Dragon (who came up with this nonsense?)

It does not matter if Elon cannot keep his 2018-promise. If it takes some more years, that will be OK.

Promises like these let me think he and hs company really belive in their visions and they will do anything to achieve it. If they don't keep their timeline but need a few more years, doesn't matter. Elon never met his timeline, but nevertheless he tried and achieved a lot of goals. That is what matters.

I cannot understand why SpaceX is blamed for achieving goals after 4 years when they said they need 2.

NASA plans with 10 years, needs 20 and then drops the project. Well, then I prefer the SpaceX way.

[fredinno]

On 2016-04-29 at 6:22 AM, AngelLestat said:

In addition, I am sure that in this case an added inflatable heat shield or a special drogue chute will not help for this mission.

They probably would, in efficiency.

In time-efficiency (2018 launch), no way.

On 2016-04-29 at 6:22 AM, AngelLestat said:

On 2016-04-29 at 5:43 PM, fredinno said:

 

It can only transport 45 tons to LEO in expendable mode without crossfeed, your number is taking into account crossfeed and 53tons to LEO, in this case it will be close to 10tons to Mars transfer or a bit less.
I think is not enough to recover the first 2 boosters unless they use 2 barges.
About crossfeed, I don't think they can achieve it in 2 years with the added risk for this mission, but they will get it eventually.

Actually, nobody really knows for sure at this point, what with all the F9 upgrades. I which SpaceX would show all their numbers- for reusable and non-reusable rocket configurations of FH and F9.

On 2016-04-29 at 6:41 AM, sevenperforce said:

On 2016-04-29 at 5:44 PM, fredinno said:

 

Dragon V2 was sold as a crew capsule but was designed as an interplanetary lander

Source?

On 2016-04-29 at 6:41 AM, sevenperforce said:

SpaceX has said they would add additional fuel capacity for selected applications rather than building a new lander, so...

I thought that was PR junk. After all, why carry a heat shield, and an over-engineered pressure vessel (and inefficient engines) to the Moon?

I know about saving money, but it's not like anyone proposed using the Orion CM as the base for a Mars Lander...

Or that SpaceX has any plans for Lunar missions.

On 2016-04-29 at 6:41 AM, sevenperforce said:

On 2016-04-29 at 5:44 PM, fredinno said:

 

Only if you want the top docking port to survive. Which isn't really necessary in this case.

Not that there was any actual intent to do a sample return on this first mission.

It's also that if the top docking port melts, that brings a whole new variable that can cause mission failure.

You'd still need a mini-flame trench and launch platform, and structural modifications to support a 2-stage martian rocket.

Might as well add heat-resistant materials.

 

Actually, the amount of mods needed makes me wonder- Why even bother?

Just use a 90% new system, it doesn't look like Red Dragon as Sample return would save much money.

On 2016-04-29 at 9:21 AM, Kryten said:

Has SpaceX ever done anything at the time they initially announced they would?

Not really.

Neither does most of the rest of the aerospace industry.

On 2016-04-29 at 11:02 AM, Rakaydos said:

I dont think the 2018 schedual will slip, though, because it's not based on anything spaceX can control, so there's no room for optimistic elon-guesses. If they get Falcon Heavy ready anytime in the next 2 years, and if they get a Dragon 2 ready anytime in the next two years, then at the appropriate time in 2018, SpaceX will tell everyone to hold their calls, reserve a window of launch schedule, and just go.

If I was Elon, I'd practice the landing profile on a CRS mission at least once- since Dragon V2 is debuting in 2018, that automatically delays it into 2020, or later.

On 2016-04-29 at 11:37 AM, PB666 said:

If he makes mars at all on his nickle, I won't complain at all. I am a critic, but some forms of criticism simply show bias and ignorance.
There is nothing I have to say about an unmanned attempt at a mars landing, but please pray that they will do a sample return, if not from Mars, get nasa to put up maybe they can do a two land two sample return from the martian Deimos and Charon. Put the darn capsule in HMO or ML1 and have nasa come pick up the sample and return it.

By the way traditional companies don't invent light-bulbs or build 707s or 747s, etc, unless they see a potential future demand. Musk is going after future profit and Name value (equivalent to trust), he's going to make this so cheap that every country that wants a space program will want to ride.  Launch will become like buying weapons systems from US, french or Russian contractos.

...and as much as I would like a sample return mission, that would belay it into the mid 2020s.

Granted, NASA is planning on a new Mars Orbiter with SEP in 2022, but even then, the increased complexity to get a capsule would delay it into 2024. Not to mention you'd probably have to build another Orbiter, as the current NASA 2022 orbiter is supposed to be Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter 2.0.

Quote

By the way traditional companies don't invent light-bulbs or build 707s or 747s, etc, unless they see a potential future demand. Musk is going after future profit and Name value (equivalent to trust), he's going to make this so cheap that every country that wants a space program will want to ride.  Launch will become like buying weapons systems from US, french or Russian contractos.

There's a good chance he'll die before we see cheap human mars missions.

On 2016-04-29 at 0:30 PM, CatastrophicFailure said:

Since you mentioned it, what would happen to kerosene after six months in space? I'd always understood it stores and transports pretty well, hence it's popularity with militaries (also why I drive a diesel ).

I think the bigger problem is boil-off of O2.

[fredinno]

 

On 2016-04-29 at 1:20 PM, sevenperforce said:

Sure, though that adds mass and means pretty substantial modification to the FH upper stage.

I bet that one of the things we see in the next few months is a GTO mission where the upper stage has enough remaining propellant to raise its perigee above 100 km, allowing it to remain in orbit for a few weeks, so that they can test extended-delay inflight restarts.

Only problem is you need to add solar panels. Which means back to the aerodynamic drawing board.

On 2016-04-29 at 4:05 PM, tater said:

That's interesting, and could well be true. Under the assumption that they need to make X F9s per year to keep the mfg shop efficient, and that reuse is anything like they expect (10-20 launches), they will have more rockets than they can possibly fly with payloads. Since a launch will---even at reduced prices---pay for a LV, any reused LVs are effectively free for SpaceX to play with. Really play with. This might in fact be the real goal of reuse.

Musk doesn't have the f-you money that Bezos has, but by making expendable rockets reusable, he can fly his own personal missions at very low cost.

No, you need to add refurbishment and fixed costs.

Otherwise, Minotaur rockets would be free, since those use old ICBMs as the rockets.

On 2016-04-29 at 4:36 PM, CatastrophicFailure said:

An F9 core could easily send a D2 capsule on a suborbital flight, hmm...

...But why?

On 2016-04-30 at 5:08 PM, Rakaydos said:

Hmm...

So, Dragon 2 can carry 2 tons to mars on a Falcon Heavy.

Falcon heavy requires 3 instances of 1/10th a core's manufacturing cost.

Falcon 9 launch for NASA runs 133 million.

Using the Falcon 9 cost as a ballpark for the costs for a core with all the side costs included, that means each reuse covers 13.3 million cost, and a falcon heavy using reused cores needs to run about 40 million. (ballpark)

2 tons is 2000 KG. a 1u Cubesat is 1.3 KG. 3 cubesats is 4 KG

1500 cubesats is a full martian payload.

$40 million / 1500 cubesats = 80,000/3

So call it about 30 thousand dollars to put a cubesat on mars. Give or take.

Dragon can actually carry 3-4T.

And in any case, you're way too optimistic about recovery cost reductions. Even SpaceX isn't that optimistic.

 

On 2016-04-30 at 5:48 AM, KSK said:

I wonder (serious question) what sort of instrumentation you could put on one of those? A network of 1500 cubesats would be one heck of a science platform - potentially at any rate.

Also - adding to the reused hardware comments - remember that NASA will be requiring a new Dragon for each commercial crew flight, possibly giving SpaceX a small fleet of paid-for, only slightly scorched Mars landers to play with. If nothing else it might give them a few more relatively affordable practice shots at the landing.

Of course that depends on what the eventual spec of a stock Dragon 2 is, and what needs doing to them to convert them to iDragons.

 

iDragon being an Interplanetary Dragon, of course.

 

But man - if all this works out, tell me this isn't the coolest win-win ever! Highly price competitive launchers for their customers - to be recovered and repurposed into Mars hardware at a complete steal.

Next question - Dragon2 is intended for landing anywhere. So where  else can it get to, assuming a Falcon Heavy launcher, given what we know about those?

 

Quote

Also - adding to the reused hardware comments - remember that NASA will be requiring a new Dragon for each commercial crew flight

Source?

Quote

But man - if all this works out, tell me this isn't the coolest win-win ever! Highly price competitive launchers for their customers - to be recovered and repurposed into Mars hardware at a complete steal.

And...why would you ever launch more than one of these things?
 

Quote

Next question - Dragon2 is intended for landing anywhere. So where  else can it get to, assuming a Falcon Heavy launcher, given what we know about those?

The Moon, apparently, but that's about as likely and reasonable as SLS is to go to Mars in the 2030s.

It's not happening.

 

On 2016-04-30 at 7:15 AM, Rakaydos said:

Well, if you add some kind of internal powersource like a fuelcell or RTG, I'd imagine you could aerocapture at jupiter and land on any of the moons there. Saturn might be a bit far if you dont get some kind of gravity assist- heinlen's "halfway to anwhere" quote is amended to "halfway to saturn", which implies needing an entire falcon core in orbit to reach it.

You need gravity assists to go anywhere with Dragon beyond Venus and Mars on a one-way trip.

Unless you plan on using SLS.

On 2016-04-30 at 7:49 AM, tater said:

Regardless of the savings, at a certain point, they've paid for the LV, and if they chose to do a launch for their own purposes, the cost is propellant plus refurbishment, plus the upper stage/payload. Assuming NASA and the AF demand new vehicles, then every 3 launches for those customers, SpaceX ends up with an FH to play with for the cost of an upper stage and payload (propellant is practically noise, cost wise). Once D2 is flying crews, what if NASA demands new (they likely will for a while)? What if they allow reuse X times? Then the X+1 launch it is a "free" payload for SpaceX to play with. Again, I'm thinking of this aspect of SpaceX as Musk's hobby, like BO is for Bezos. Get things to the point where for a few million bucks for an upper stage, Musk can send a lander someplace. That's not chump change, but it's not half a billion $, either.

They are only planning to reuse up to 10 times for any given piece of reused hardware.

On 2016-04-30 at 11:31 AM, PB666 said:

The crew launch could be first use, followed by reuse for non-crewed missions. Thats actually not a bad idea, have a built in replacement system and have NASA foot the bill. That would remove the fixed cost, lol, all you have is variable cost, get the recycled discount down to 40%. 

Why would it remove fixed costs? That's the standing army of workers (and the infrastructure) and you still need most of them for reuse.

[PB666]

On April 27, 2016 at 4:15 PM, sevenperforce said:

The simplest and least controversial way to define interplanetary would be "starting at one planet's orbit and crossing another planet's orbit."

Inter means between, if you need to traverse it would transplanetary. 

16 minutes ago, fredinno said:

 

Only problem is you need to add solar panels. Which means back to the aerodynamic drawing board.

No, you need to add refurbishment and fixed costs.

Otherwise, Minotaur rockets would be free, since those use old ICBMs as the rockets.

...But why?

Dragon can actually carry 3-4T.

And in any case, you're way too optimistic about recovery cost reductions. Even SpaceX isn't that optimistic.

 

 

Source?

And...why would you ever launch more than one of these things?
 

The Moon, apparently, but that's about as likely and reasonable as SLS is to go to Mars in the 2030s.

It's not happening.

 

You need gravity assists to go anywhere with Dragon beyond Venus and Mars on a one-way trip.

Unless you plan on using SLS.

They are only planning to reuse up to 10 times for any given piece of reused hardware.

Why would it remove fixed costs? That's the standing army of workers (and the infrastructure) and you still need most of them for reuse.

The standing army can also build second stages, which need to occur at a much faster rate. The can also disassemble used expired rockets, build fairings and nose cones, etc. Some of the parts on the expired launches may still be useful in the new launches, the rest will be recycled for cash. 

[CatastrophicFailure]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

I thought that was PR junk. After all, why carry a heat shield, and an over-engineered pressure vessel (and inefficient engines) to the Moon?

Because you've got a surplus capsule nearing the end of its life span, a perfectly workable off-the-shelf system to deliver it, and someone offering you money to do so (why? University research, commercial exploration, Poland really can to the moon, who knows?)

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

NASA is planning on a new Mars Orbiter with SEP in 2022

SEP...? 

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

...But why?

Maybe Bezos starts to see some commercial success with his New Shepherd, and some other outfit wants a piece of that pie. Again, once you've got the hardware available at a greatly reduced cost...

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

And...why would you ever launch more than one of these things?

Same theme here... low-cost "immediately" available hardware with a demonstrated track record. If the Red Dragon works, and works well, I'm sure SpaceX and others will begin to find more uses for the platform. See @Rakaydos's comment above. Even if his numbers are rather, um, optimistic. As a parallel, there's tons of operations out there using old, surplus aircraft in ways they were never intended. 

[sevenperforce]

If Elon says they would remove the heat shield and add propellant to Dragon V2 in order to do moon landings, then apparently there is a fair probability that doing so is cheaper than designing an entirely new lander from scratch.

[StrandedonEarth]

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

SEP...?

Solar-Electric Propulsion, meaning ion engine(s) powered by solar panels

[fredinno]

9 hours ago, PB666 said:

Inter means between, if you need to traverse it would transplanetary. 

The standing army can also build second stages, which need to occur at a much faster rate. The can also disassemble used expired rockets, build fairings and nose cones, etc. Some of the parts on the expired launches may still be useful in the new launches, the rest will be recycled for cash. 

...The problem with reuse is that you only remove the standing army of the manufacturing process, at most.

The net savings is far reduced, as you said because some will have to disassemble rockets (and probably clean them too).

Granted, you would probably sAve some money, off the material cost alone, but the reason 10x is the maximum is that designing a rocket to last more than that doesn't save much cash in reuse.

You might be able to extend some components 1 extra time, but probably not more (and defiantly not the most stressed parts like engines)  without comprising safety

 

7 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

If Elon says they would remove the heat shield and add propellant to Dragon V2 in order to do moon landings, then apparently there is a fair probability that doing so is cheaper than designing an entirely new lander from scratch. 

SpaceX doesn't seem to consider it too seriously though, NASA (literally the only potential customer for such a lunar lander) hasn't gotten any proposal from them for a Dragon V2 lander. The 'journey to Mars' hasn't stopped Boeing from props in a lander for example.

Not to mention Dragon V2 is probably too small- NASA wants a 4 person, 15 day lunar lander. Altair back in the constellation days had about 1.5x as much pressurised volume, just for that purpose.

Also, v2 landed has no regenerative power supply and unpressurised cargo bay to host experiments.

 

It's probably possible to use it as a lunar lander.

But it's doubtful that would ever happen. It's not like SpaceX wants to go to the moon.

[PB666]

4 minutes ago, fredinno said:

...The problem with reuse is that you only remove the standing army of the manufacturing process, at most.

The net savings is far reduced, as you said because some will have to disassemble rockets (and probably clean them too).

Granted, you would probably sAve some money, off the material cost alone, but the reason 10x is the maximum is that designing a rocket to last more than that doesn't save much cash in reuse.

You might be able to extend some components 1 extra time, but probably not more (and defiantly not the most stressed parts like engines)  without comprising safety

The problem is that SpaceX is now traveling in uncharted territory, lets see what their cost structure is. If by recycling they attract future business, then potentially they could secure the whole recycling chain. On some parts it may only be necessary to reforge and anneal any deformations. Sure dumping your rocket on a barge in the Atlantic or gulf of Mexico is going to induce some rust, but you could go with a rust resistant metal which is similarly strong as steel (stainless steel, both common grades is not).

Some parts I could see persisting are the fuel tanks, their maximum stress only last for a few seconds, the second stage tank takes the brunt.