Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[CatastrophicFailure]

11 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

I absolutely love it how they have SpaceX branded straps.

Heh, good eye. In for a penny, in for a pound I s'pose. Or perhaps highly specialized custom made broken fairing lifting straps?

[AngelLestat]

17 hours ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

10% discount when launching with used parts

I hear from her president that it will be a 30% discount, from 60m to 40m.

-----------------------------------------

Related to the farings recovery, it seems they are very expensive, what material are they made off?
In that case it has sense to recover them, you just need to attach a small parachute in each one..
My only concern (depending the material) not sure if sea water can corrode them..

About logistic spends to recovery, I guess it can be cheaper on the barge..
If they make a new barge (bigger and stable), they can transport also an helicopter, when the stage is close to go back, the helicopter take off to search the fairings, then the stage1 land and the helicopter go back with the 2 farings and land in the barge too.
It may also film the landing, in the same helicopter can be the people with the job to secure the stage after landing.

[wumpus]

Anybody know how energetic those decouplers are that jettison the fairings?  I've had a few issues in KSP where they stayed on and you want them off now.  What you pick up might not be reusable.  Best guess is that they (and the proposed parachutes) aren't terribly recoverable (and I would guess saltwater is worse than the decouplers).  If they thought that fairings were easy to recover (just add parachutes) they would have started recovering them with Falcon(1).

[Kryten]

2 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Anybody know how energetic those decouplers are that jettison the fairings?  I've had a few issues in KSP where they stayed on and you want them off now.  What you pick up might not be reusable.

SpaceX uses pneumatic 'pushers' rather than explosive charges for fairing separation, I wouldn't expect meaningful damage from that.

[tater]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

I hear from her president that it will be a 30% discount, from 60m to 40m.

I can only assume this is predicated on some assumptions about turn around costs that will only actually be established well once they are actually doing it.

[tater]

Man, the more I watch vids of the landing the more I want them to build a bigger drone ship, lol. The lateral movement after the landing bounce was sorta scary

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Man, the more I watch vids of the landing the more I want them to build a bigger drone ship, lol. The lateral movement after the landing bounce was sorta scary

An larger barge lets you get away with more errors who also let you kill more lateral movement. 

[Spaceception]

 

[sgt_flyer]

8 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

I hear from her president that it will be a 30% discount, from 60m to 40m.

-----------------------------------------

Related to the farings recovery, it seems they are very expensive, what material are they made off?
In that case it has sense to recover them, you just need to attach a small parachute in each one..
My only concern (depending the material) not sure if sea water can corrode them..

About logistic spends to recovery, I guess it can be cheaper on the barge..
If they make a new barge (bigger and stable), they can transport also an helicopter, when the stage is close to go back, the helicopter take off to search the fairings, then the stage1 land and the helicopter go back with the 2 farings and land in the barge too.
It may also film the landing, in the same helicopter can be the people with the job to secure the stage after landing.

they are made of carbon composites on an aluminium honeycomb structure  

http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/12/fairing

plus acoustic reduction material / structure on the inside of that.

someone explained on reddit that fairings are one of SpaceX main production bottlenecks. the problem with carbon composite half shells is that they have to be made in a single piece, which requires enormous machineries - one to 'form' and 'hold' the complex shape of the half shell, and a gigantic autoclave big enough to fit the whole piece inside - it's basically one of the few thing they can't optimise for mass production  - and it takes huge amount of space on top of that ! SpaceX doesn't have a boeing or airbus style megafactory and subcontractors to help them with that  

so they either need to get additionnal floor space + the custom carbon composite machinery and the people to operate them, or reuse the fairings  

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3z53as/what_is_limiting_spacex_when_it_comes_to_launch/cyjcgi4

they may not save a lot of money by having to send two helicopters to catch those mid air, but they'll save on time  

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

An larger barge lets you get away with more errors who also let you kill more lateral movement. 

i don't know how large they can go against marine regulations - the lateral extensions on the barge already can't fit inside the panama canal. they still need to be able to get the barge in protected ports  

Edited April 10, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[Motokid600]

I gotta say... I personally cannot stand paradoys. There the worst thing in the world lol. They make me cringe. Anyway...

This guy may very well have the best amateur footage of these launches.

[sevenperforce]

3 hours ago, sgt_flyer said:

they are made of carbon composites on an aluminium honeycomb structure  

http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/12/fairing

plus acoustic reduction material / structure on the inside of that.

someone explained on reddit that fairings are one of SpaceX main production bottlenecks. the problem with carbon composite half shells is that they have to be made in a single piece, which requires enormous machineries - one to 'form' and 'hold' the complex shape of the half shell, and a gigantic autoclave big enough to fit the whole piece inside - it's basically one of the few thing they can't optimise for mass production  - and it takes huge amount of space on top of that ! SpaceX doesn't have a boeing or airbus style megafactory and subcontractors to help them with that  

so they either need to get additionnal floor space + the custom carbon composite machinery and the people to operate them, or reuse the fairings  

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3z53as/what_is_limiting_spacex_when_it_comes_to_launch/cyjcgi4

they may not save a lot of money by having to send to helicopters to catch those mid air, but they'll save on time  

i don't know how large they can go against marine regulations - the lateral extensions on the barge already can't fit inside the panama canal. they still need to be able to get the barge in protected ports  

The ship is already roughly the size of a football field. 

[Spaceception]

Just now, Motokid600 said:

I gotta say... I personally cannot stand paradoys. There the worst thing in the world lol. They make me cringe. Anyway...

This guy may very well have the best amateur footage of these launches.

Did you watch it?I'm not saying you're going to like parodies after this, but it is pretty funny

[Frybert]

1 hour ago, Motokid600 said:

I gotta say... I personally cannot stand paradoys. There the worst thing in the world lol. They make me cringe. Anyway...

This guy may very well have the best amateur footage of these launches.

YAY! I'm not in that one!

[YumonStudios]

11 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

On 4/9/2016 at 8:51 PM, YumonStudios said:

 

I don't think they have any plans for developing second-stage reuse...at least, not for the Merlin engine class. I foresee them testing the Raptor engine as a BLEO Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy upper stage, but it's anybody's guess whether they'll explore direct reuse on that stage. 

They don't have plans for 2nd stage reuse yet, but it might happen if they have a higher capacity F9.

http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/

And in any case, it'd apparently by a 1:1 payload penalty to reuse the 2nd stage (to LEO, GTO is probably a bit worse, but not too much, since you can aerobrake in the atmosphere if you have a solar panel or RP-1or CH4/Lox fuel cell) and since the 2nd stage is 4T dry mass, I'll say that there is a 5T to LEO penalty, allowing for margin.

That's not astronomical, and should be possible with a 5m diameter supercooled H2 Lox upper stage, or a full CH4 Lox 5m diameter supercooled F9.

11 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Red Dragon was replaced with Dragon V2. The V2 platform is supposed to be customizable enough to serve as a lander for basically any destination in the solar system. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_%28spacecraft%29

It was still rejected by NASA (in the V2 version), and SpaceX would only ever use it if their Mars plans actually start to fruit (very doubtful). And in any case, the sample-return mission proposed for Dragon V2 is very doubtful in possibility- the Dragon V2 almost certainly lacks the Delta V to launch off Mars to LMO.

It would need a extra rocket stage, and at that point, you're probably better off doing the NASA flagship MSR, and get more science off it, and samples from more scientifically interesting locations.

11 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Elon seemed pretty blunt about the recert process: wash it off, do ten test fires to make sure aerodynamic stresses didn't damage anything, then refuel and refly. All from the launch site. Not much more than what Blue Origin did. 

That's what the Shuttle was supposed to be like. And we all know how well that plan worked .

9 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

I hear from her president that it will be a 30% discount, from 60m to 40m.

Well, F9 v1.0 was about 88% of F9 FT costs. Thus, SpaceX would actually save 18%, according to SpaceX's own words. Of course, the 30% number is likely optimistic, and SpaceX will never publiscise problems with their reusable boosters, (also, SpaceX is planning a huge number of launches, needing 4 pads, even though it seems unlikely to ever materialize) but I'm feeling generous, so I'll round that down to 15-10% overall cost savings vs a cheap expendable rocket. Fairing reuse probably won't add much to reduce the costs.

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.0

A 10% cost reduction is nice, but not a game changer. It also probably isn't worth the effort, the R+D costs are likely to exceed the savings unless you have a lot of launches. And then you wonder why only SpaceX is bothering with reuse.

 

9 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

In that case it has sense to recover them, you just need to attach a small parachute in each one..

20 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Not sure how much they actual need outside of parachute, with parachute they should survive the splashdown too.

No, you also need a helicopter to capture them (otherwise the value of the fairing goes through the floor due to saltwater contamination) and a RCS and guidance system to keep it reentrying properly, or else it could tumble out of control. The cost of all that means at most, fairing reuse will likely only save $1- 0.5 Million. Not really noteworthy of a savings.

21 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

Iirc Elon Musk said the fairing costs is in the tens of millions. And no, no shielding. They have such large surface area and low mass that they fall like feathers.

Then SpaceX is overshooting the numbers, or has some bad manufacturing processes. Ariane 5 fairings are around the same size, and apparently only cost $6.2 Million.

 

On 4/9/2016 at 9:10 PM, max_creative said:

At least the pieces were bigger this time! Only 4 pieces! (Booster, second stage, dragon, and nosecone.)

WHOO SPACEX!!! I know Elon Musk plays ksp, but does he check the forums? I'm sure he would like the thread. 

And BTW, immediately after the landing you guys literally went through 5 pages in 10 min. That's a lot of posts.

The Dragons are never reused though, and I'm fairly certain nozecones are just ejected on Dragon V1 during ascent.

[The Yellow Dart]

1 hour ago, YumonStudios said:

That's what the Shuttle was supposed to be like. And we all know how well that plan worked .

All the naysayers keep saying this, that somehow the Falcon9 is going to turn into a Space Shuttle when it comes to reuse/refurbishing.  How could anyone ever think that?  The complexity of the space shuttle is ridiculous compared to a simple straight-forward rocket; they are simply not comparable vehicles. Furthermore, the F9 and Merlin engines were designed by SpaceX from the beginning with reuse in mind. SpaceX has shown the world many times that they can accomplish their goals, so when there is actually reason to doubt Falcon9 reuse, please let me know.

Edit: Not to mention that SpaceX is already well and rightly known for being able to keep costs down.

Edited April 10, 2016 by The Yellow Dart

[AngelLestat]

10 hours ago, tater said:

I can only assume this is predicated on some assumptions about turn around costs that will only actually be established well once they are actually doing it.

1 hour ago, YumonStudios said:

Well, F9 v1.0 was about 88% of F9 FT costs. Thus, SpaceX would actually save 18%, according to SpaceX's own words. Of course, the 30% number is likely optimistic, and SpaceX will never publiscise problems with their reusable boosters, (also, SpaceX is planning a huge number of launches, needing 4 pads, even though it seems unlikely to ever materialize) but I'm feeling generous, so I'll round that down to 15-10% overall cost savings vs a cheap expendable rocket. Fairing reuse probably won't add much to reduce the costs.

A 10% cost reduction is nice, but not a game changer. It also probably isn't worth the effort, the R+D costs are likely to exceed the savings unless you have a lot of launches. And then you wonder why only SpaceX is bothering with reuse.

Welcome to the forum Yumon.. 
Elon Musk was always clear about the high cost of the first stage, It was something like a 80% to 90% from the manufacture cost of both stages, which also has sense due the amount of engines and how massive it is vs the second stage.
Then in december Gwynne Shotwell give us more data about the discount and why:
http://qz.com/636368/the-elon-musk-special-30-off-your-flight-in-a-used-spacex-rocket/

Which also has sense for this step..  then increasing the launch rate and increasing by a lot the chance of stages recoveries, they can reduce even more the cost, because operation, planning, etc.  Due experience and other factors.
Is important if they can reuse the second stage, no due manufacture cost, the same for the fairings, it is due fast reusability, which also reduce all the test requirements than new stages take, that is when you achieve the higher cost reduction, a 747 would not be so cheap if once it reach an airport it will take 1 week to fly again.
Of course he already said that the second stage (in the falcon9) does not worth it because it needs a lot of extra mass (shielding, legs and fuel) with a fuel which does not have much volume (reentry speed) and isp, which would be different with a hydrogen fueled second stage.

Quote

No, you also need a helicopter to capture them (otherwise the value of the fairing goes through the floor due to saltwater contamination) and a RCS and guidance system to keep it reentrying properly, or else it could tumble out of control. The cost of all that means at most, fairing reuse will likely only save $1- 0.5 Million. Not really noteworthy of a savings.

Then SpaceX is overshooting the numbers, or has some bad manufacturing processes. Ariane 5 fairings are around the same size, and apparently only cost $6.2 Million.

Only 6.2 millons?  that is something that should be dropped in your opinion?  Taking into account the cost of a parachute and helicopter fuel + pilot profits?
In the spacex case even if it is 1 millon (I guess is more), you need to count how much it delay your operations make new ones and then test its quality and working before use them for first time.
Delay here is the main point to reduce costs, time is money... as many said.. 
By the way, as @sgt_flyer said, they are made with aluminum honeycomb cover with carbon fibers..  Carbon fiber dont corrode with sea water, they are very resistant to most types of corrosion.
Any avionics can be in a sealed contained.

7 hours ago, sgt_flyer said:

someone explained on reddit that fairings are one of SpaceX main production bottlenecks. the problem with carbon composite half shells is that they have to be made in a single piece, which requires enormous machineries - one to 'form' and 'hold' the complex shape of the half shell, and a gigantic autoclave big enough to fit the whole piece inside - it's basically one of the few thing they can't optimise for mass production  - and it takes huge amount of space on top of that ! SpaceX doesn't have a boeing or airbus style megafactory and subcontractors to help them with that  

so they either need to get additionnal floor space + the custom carbon composite machinery and the people to operate them, or reuse the fairings  

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3z53as/what_is_limiting_spacex_when_it_comes_to_launch/cyjcgi4

they may not save a lot of money by having to send two helicopters to catch those mid air, but they'll save on time  

i don't know how large they can go against marine regulations - the lateral extensions on the barge already can't fit inside the panama canal. they still need to be able to get the barge in protected ports  

Yeah it has sense now.

But I wonder in what type of recovery they are planning.. 
I hope they choose a guided parachute like this:

These fairing need a gps of course to be recovered.. so why not add two small actuators, just enough to provide a slow turn, then you set them to open at 8000m or high if is possible (with a proper slow opening), this could be enough to travel back 20 km, enough to save 40km of fuel and time for the helicopter, but the best is that you can fly both half fairings to splash in the same location.  So you can recover both with 1 helicopter.

With one extra change to the logistics.. instead a barge..  one fixed sea platform at medium distance from LEO and GTO recovery distance (I think the extra fuel needed is negligible), in that case you have a very solid landing site, where the helicopter can use as base, and instead move a big barge and spent energy in a fixed position, you just use some crane, to put the landing stage in a secondary boat that it will translate the stage to land.  

Edited April 10, 2016 by AngelLestat

[YumonStudios]

16 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said:

All the naysayers keep saying this, that somehow the Falcon9 is going to turn into a Space Shuttle when it comes to reuse/refurbishing.  How could anyone ever think that?  The complexity of the space shuttle is ridiculous compared to a simple straight-forward rocket; they are simply not comparable vehicles. Furthermore, the F9 and Merlin engines were designed by SpaceX from the beginning with reuse in mind. SpaceX has shown the world many times that they can accomplish their goals, so when there is actually reason to doubt Falcon9 reuse, please let me know.

The Shuttle was also designed for reuse. That didn't stop it from being a disaster. Even the engines were very difficult to maintain.

Also, I think the F9 uses hypergolic RCS. That means more costs from draining, maintaining, and refueling the RCS system.

The Merlins also coke due to using Rp-1.

The tanks and engines undergo significant stresses in ascent, and may crack. You need to inspect for that.

There are numerous reasons why reuse may not pan out like how spaceX and its fanboys want it to.

[Nibb31]

To be fair, the STS was a much more complex machine that the F9 first stage. Those SSMEs were beasts of complexity. 

The F9 is much smaller, much simpler, has no TPS, no payload connections, no doors, no life support, no coolant loops, no fuel cells, no tires, a much simpler hydraulic system, simpler avionics, etc... Each Merlin engine is already test-fired dozens of times before launch without being taken apart and refurbished. There is no reason to believe that they can't technically reuse boosters.

On the other hand, the logistics, infrastructure, stacking, payload integration, testing, ground personnel, overhead, etc... all remain the same. There are no real gains there. It takes weeks to prepare a rocket for launch, and I don't see why reusability will make that any faster. The only saving is the manufacturing cost of the first stage, which probably isn't that high to begin with, because SpaceX is a pretty lean machine when it comes to production.

Where I have my doubts is in the economics of it. Launch rates aren't high enough to justify it, and the small cost reductions for SpaceX won't necessarily translate to cost reduction for customers. Remember that launch cost is just a tiny part of the total cost of operating a satellite for the end customer. Manufacturing of the first stage is just a tiny part of the launch cost.

And the launch cost is not the launch price. SpaceX has no incentive to cut prices by 10% more when they are already 50% cheaper than their competition and they already have a huge backlog. In fact, it would be a stupid move.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Nibb31

[YumonStudios]

3 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Elon Musk was always clear about the high cost of the first stage, It was something like a 80% to 90% from the manufacture cost of both stages

Then reuse will likely never save more than 15% in the near future.

4 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Which also has sense for this step..  then increasing the launch rate and increasing by a lot the % of stages recoveries, they can reduce even more the cost, because operation, planning and many different cost become cheaper due experience and other factors.

The question is if launch rates will ever increase to what is needed for RLV mass production. Very unlikely, considering history has shown that the satellite market is about as inelastic as a diabetic's need for insulin.

5 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Is important if they can reuse the second stage, no due manufacture cost, the same for the fairings, it is due fast reusability and reduce all the test requirements than new stages take, that is when you achieve the higher cost reduction, a 747 would not be so cheap if once it reach an airport it will take 1 week to fly again.

Reduce test requirements? That's a recipe for disaster- a rocket is a controlled explosion. And you still need refurbishment costs, so labor costs will not go down, at all.

7 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Only 6.2 millons?  that is something that should be dropped in your opinion?  Taking into account the cost of a parachute and helicopter fuel + pilot profits?

Because if you extrapolate the 10% cost savings from the 1st stage, ou save a mere 0.62 million in launch costs. I don't think you'll recover the r+D money, but Elon is Elon, so

 

10 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

By the way, as @sgt_flyer said, they are made with aluminum honeycomb cover with carbon fibers..  Carbon fiber dont corrode with sea water, they are very resistant to most types of corrosion.

...and the RCS and quidance are also resistant to salt water? Either way, the aluminum will still corrode in the salt...

12 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

These fairing need a gps of course to be recovered.. so why not add two small actuators, just enough to provide a slow turn, then you set them to open at 8000m or high if is possible (with a proper slow opening), this could be enough to travel back 20 km, enough to save 40km of fuel and time for the helicopter, but the best is that you can fly both half fairings to splash in the same location.  So you can recover both with 1 helicopter.

No, the fairings will come in at around the same time. You need 3 helis, one for the 1st fairing piece, one for the 2nd, and one as a backup.

 

[The Yellow Dart]

17 minutes ago, YumonStudios said:

The Shuttle was also designed for reuse. That didn't stop it from being a disaster. Even the engines were very difficult to maintain.

Also, I think the F9 uses hypergolic RCS. That means more costs from draining, maintaining, and refueling the RCS system.

The Merlins also coke due to using Rp-1.

The tanks and engines undergo significant stresses in ascent, and may crack. You need to inspect for that.

There are numerous reasons why reuse may not pan out like how spaceX and its fanboys want it to.

The shuttle was one of the most bloated govt. projects in history. Perhaps if the Air Force hadn't gotten involved and thrown a nightmare of unnecessary requirements at the project, they had hope of creating a sensible reusable vehicle, but that didn't happen. The Falcon9 as a launch vehicle is already designed, in production in operation and well on its way to reuse.  All of the things you list will have already been accounted for by SpaceX.  There could certainly be unexpected problems, but the comparative simplicity of the F9 will limit how much they can run up the costs.

Sorry, I know I'm fanboyin' it up right now, but the F9 and the Space Shuttle are not remotely the same thing.

[YumonStudios]

9 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said:

The shuttle was one of the most bloated govt. projects in history. Perhaps if the Air Force hadn't gotten involved and thrown a nightmare of unnecessary requirements at the project, they had hope of creating a sensible reusable vehicle, but that didn't happen. The Falcon9 as a launch vehicle is already designed, in production in operation and well on its way to reuse.  All of the things you list will have already been accounted for by SpaceX.  There could certainly be unexpected problems, but the comparative simplicity of the F9 will limit how much they can run up the costs.

Sorry, I know I'm fanboyin' it up right now, but the F9 and the Space Shuttle are not remotely the same thing.

The Shuttle would have never been made unless the USAF got involved.

And the main reason it had a crew cabin was that it was originally intended to service a giant space station, that would grow to 50 men. When it became apparent that was a fantasy, NASA changed the mission to launching satellites, but had to keep the crew cabin because so much work had already been done assuming it was there.

[sevenperforce]

33 minutes ago, YumonStudios said:

The Shuttle was also designed for reuse. That didn't stop it from being a disaster. Even the engines were very difficult to maintain.

Also, I think the F9 uses hypergolic RCS. That means more costs from draining, maintaining, and refueling the RCS system.

The Merlins also coke due to using Rp-1.

The tanks and engines undergo significant stresses in ascent, and may crack. You need to inspect for that.

There are numerous reasons why reuse may not pan out like how spaceX and its fanboys want it to.

The SSMEs couldn't be restarted in-flight. Upon landing, they were immediately removed from the orbiter and essentially rebuilt individually before being reinstalled. 

In contrast, the landing of the Falcon 9 first stage already requires multiple mid-flight restarts. They have demonstrated this by successfully re-entering almost a dozen boosters so far. So just like Elon said, they can literally strap the stage down, test fire it a dozen times, and agree that it is certified for relaunch. 

The F9 first stage uses nitrogen cold gas thrusters for attitude control; the Dragon uses hypergolics. Of course the Shuttle used hypergolics for both OMS and RCS. 

The Merlins run very LOX-rich both to increase thrust and to prevent coking. They don't coke at all. The SSMEs ran fuel-rich because, yay diatomic hydrogen and its marvelous influence on exhaust velocity, but virtually all other fuel combinations run oxy-rich.

The repeated test-firing is intended to ensure that no damage was sustained during launch. These are engines which are test-fired repeatedly without refurbishment as part of their preflight sequence. They are designed not to sustain significant wear from normal operation (start, burn, throttling, cutoff). So we have no reason to doubt that they can simply test fire and refuel+relaunch.

[YumonStudios]

6 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The SSMEs couldn't be restarted in-flight. Upon landing, they were immediately removed from the orbiter and essentially rebuilt individually before being reinstalled. 

In contrast, the landing of the Falcon 9 first stage already requires multiple mid-flight restarts. They have demonstrated this by successfully re-entering almost a dozen boosters so far. So just like Elon said, they can literally strap the stage down, test fire it a dozen times, and agree that it is certified for relaunch. 

The F9 first stage uses nitrogen cold gas thrusters for attitude control; the Dragon uses hypergolics. Of course the Shuttle used hypergolics for both OMS and RCS. 

The Merlins run very LOX-rich both to increase thrust and to prevent coking. They don't coke at all. The SSMEs ran fuel-rich because, yay diatomic hydrogen and its marvelous influence on exhaust velocity, but virtually all other fuel combinations run oxy-rich.

The repeated test-firing is intended to ensure that no damage was sustained during launch. These are engines which are test-fired repeatedly without refurbishment as part of their preflight sequence. They are designed not to sustain significant wear from normal operation (start, burn, throttling, cutoff). So we have no reason to doubt that they can simply test fire and refuel+relaunch.

They still need to thoroughly inspect it for cracks and anomalies, and clean it off, which will mean that the labor costs will decrease only minimally. The savings will be material costs.

[sevenperforce]

5 minutes ago, YumonStudios said:

They still need to thoroughly inspect it for cracks and anomalies, and clean it off, which will mean that the labor costs will decrease only minimally. The savings will be material costs.

I am pretty darn sure that the man-hours required to construct nine Merlin 1Ds plus a whole booster are VASTLY higher than the man-hours required to scrub off a Falcon 9 booster, inspect its frame and tanks, and test-fire its engine cluster ten times. 

Engine recertification simply requires refiring. If it doesn't blow up during the first ten test-fires, it won't blow up during launch. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by sevenperforce

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, YumonStudios said:

No, you also need a helicopter to capture them (otherwise the value of the fairing goes through the floor due to saltwater contamination) and a RCS and guidance system to keep it reentrying properly, or else it could tumble out of control. The cost of all that means at most, fairing reuse will likely only save $1- 0.5 Million. Not really noteworthy of a savings.

Then SpaceX is overshooting the numbers, or has some bad manufacturing processes. Ariane 5 fairings are around the same size, and apparently only cost $6.2 Million.

 

They will tumble if they are not aerodynamic stable, its no way to avoid this because the large surface to weight factor. 
Not sure how much mechanical and electrical system its on them, probably the seams, might be oter issues like you don't want salt water between layers so air capture would be beneficial. 
Guess they did not think about fairing reuse until they found that they survived until impact.