The launch license has been issued by the FAA today. See:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... 6_2017.pdf

Quote/ According to Virginia-based Iridium Communications, SpaceX will attempt a launch on Monday, January 9, if weather permits. /Unquote

Source: http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/ ... alifornia/

I've waited quite a while for this. It's up to SpaceX to dot the i's and mumble helpful mantras.

Wiederling, so the tank liner was used as mandrel for the CFRP [logical, but still...]? Is there anything available online going into details?

SeJoWa wrote:

Wiederling, so the tank liner was used as mandrel for the CFRP [logical, but still...]? Is there anything available online going into details?

good start here:
https://www.freelists.org/post/arocket/ ... y-analysis

Thank you.

From SpaceX yesterday on Twitter...
"Launch moving due to high winds and rains at Vandenberg. Other range conflicts this week results in next available launch date being Jan 14."

Yet another interesting article on the Falcon Heavy:

SpaceX details its plans for landing three Falcon Heavy boosters at once

KarelXWB wrote:

Yet another interesting article on the Falcon Heavy:

Interesting that they would want to go through the effort of building 3 landing pads.
Most of the Falcon 9 first stage recoveries seem to happen at sea, and relatively rarely on land, since most of the launches tend to be for high energy trajectories.

Is there something different about the Falcon heavy architecture or mission profile that will enable all boosters to land back on land every time?
I was assuming they were just going to build more barges.

Landing pads are cheap compared to rocket stages. Barges are definitely more expensive, but could still pay for themselves pretty quickly if more are needed.

The main thing different about the Falcon Heavy is there has yet to be a commercial satellite that will max out its payload capacity, which they claim will be 54 tonnes to LEO and 22 tonnes to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. That's twice the Ariane V or Delta IV Heavy, two of the highest capacity launch vehicles currently on the market. More payload margin means more missions will be able to retain sufficient first stage fuel to return to the Cape.

There's some potential to dual manifest heavier satellites, but even then, I'm pretty sure they'll run out of fairing volume before they reach the payload capacity of the Heavy.

Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.

iamlucky13 wrote:

The main thing different about the Falcon Heavy is there has yet to be a commercial satellite that will max out its payload capacity, which they claim will be 54 tonnes to LEO and 22 tonnes to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. That's twice the Ariane V or Delta IV Heavy, two of the highest capacity launch vehicles currently on the market. More payload margin means more missions will be able to retain sufficient first stage fuel to return to the Cape.

There's some potential to dual manifest heavier satellites, but even then, I'm pretty sure they'll run out of fairing volume before they reach the payload capacity of the Heavy.

Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.

Couldn't they simply enlarge the fairing? Assuming you have plenty of payload mass to spare to compensate for the higher drag, I assume you could fit either larger or more satellites. That could be especially useful for communication satellite networks like Iridium, Inmarsat or the envisioned OneWeb.

Going much further, why not use a Falcon Heavy for large lunar or martian rovers or even crewed vehicles? ~ 22 tonnes would be much more than any past autonomous vehicle has ever fielded, already accounting for some fuel to reach the final destination.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.

I don't think that will happen.
The trend is towards lighter sats ( at least for GEO applications.) enabled by tech progress.
Reason why Ariane V always lifts two ore more in one go except for the ISS resupply missions.

The stacking structure has weight and reliability impact.

Then, look into the lifting capability designed into the future Ariane VI.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Landing pads are cheap compared to rocket stages. Barges are definitely more expensive, but could still pay for themselves pretty quickly if more are needed.

The main thing different about the Falcon Heavy is there has yet to be a commercial satellite that will max out its payload capacity, which they claim will be 54 tonnes to LEO and 22 tonnes to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. That's twice the Ariane V or Delta IV Heavy, two of the highest capacity launch vehicles currently on the market. More payload margin means more missions will be able to retain sufficient first stage fuel to return to the Cape.

Thanks. It does make sense, although I'll echo other posters here in wondering why they aimed that big if there isn't a market yet.

As Wlederling said, Ariane V struggles to find enough payloads to fill a launch schedule as it needs to find 2 satellites of the right size every time. And it's only half the size.
Not that I mind... Big rockets are cool.

Francoflier wrote:

Thanks. It does make sense, although I'll echo other posters here in wondering why they aimed that big if there isn't a market yet.

LOTS of material into LEO. Structure, fuel, payload, ... for to go to Mars and onwards.

As Wlederling said, Ariane V struggles to find enough payloads to fill a launch schedule as it needs to find 2 satellites of the right size every time. And it's only half the size.
Not that I mind... Big rockets are cool.

I don't think that the Ariane business struggles. But there also is no business case for more payload per flight if you are looking at commercial communications payloads. Originally Ariane V was sized with an eye to lifting the Hermes Space Plane. No idea how much of the man rating has been incorporated into the hardware as flown today.

Francoflier wrote:

Thanks. It does make sense, although I'll echo other posters here in wondering why they aimed that big if there isn't a market yet.

The Ariane V has launched a few payloads too heavy for Falcon 9, although I think all dual manifest missions. I don't recall any single commercial payloads too heavy for the Falcon 9 that have flown so far, at least for the latest version. There have been a couple, however, that were too heavy for SpaceX to recover the first stage had they been the launch provider. The Falcon Heavy might be able to not only avoid throwing away a stage, but even dual-manifest those larger satellites (avoiding throwing away two first stages and a second stage), but SpaceX also has to prove they can recover all 3 stages and that their refurbishment costs are low enough that doing so makes sense.

This shouldn't require as much lift as the Falcon Heavy provides, at least not yet. However, if the chosen method to beat the recoverable capacity of the Falcon 9 is strapping two more first stages to the sides, that's basically what you get (2nd stage is also longer, but that's a simpler modification).

I think Musk is also hoping for an "if you build it, they will come" effect. Lastly, the commercial market isn't the only thing he has in mind...

WIederling wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.

I don't think that will happen.
The trend is towards lighter sats ( at least for GEO applications.) enabled by tech progress.
Reason why Ariane V always lifts two ore more in one go except for the ISS resupply missions.

Average mass has been trending upwards for GEO as demand for more capabilities increases faster than improved tech reduces mass. There's been a recent dip in masses as all-electric propulsion became the norm, but the longer term trend is still upwards. See pages 8-11:
https://www.ida.org/idamedia/Corporate/ ... 242v2.ashx

Whether or not that leads to a market sufficient to sustain the Falcon Heavy I'm not sure of, but the commonality with the Falcon 9 will help. Besides, there's that other goal of Musk's...

WIederling wrote:

I don't think that the Ariane business struggles.

Somewhat. They've commented about a need to significantly cut costs to stay in the market in the long term, and as I understand it, the Ariane V is still subsidized by the ESA to ensure it's ongoing availability for government launches. However, they do get a lot of the medium-mass GEO customers because they can dual-manifest those at much better pricing.

As you mentioned above, there's some technical risk to dual manifesting, but Arianespace has proven that one thing they are good at is reliability. The last Ariane V failure was 15 years ago, and they've had almost three times as many successful launches since then as SpaceX has total, with around 80% of them involving multiple payloads.

Fortunately for them, in addition to the Ariane V having proven reliability, SpaceX is years behind schedule, and Arianespace has been one of the beneficiaries of this. Immarsat and Viasat each switched a GEO satellite launch from SpaceX to Arianespace in the last year. Both were too heavy to allow Falcon 9 to attempt a first stage recovery and were previously planned to launch on Falcon Heavies.

mxaxai wrote:

Couldn't they simply enlarge the fairing? Assuming you have plenty of payload mass to spare to compensate for the higher drag, I assume you could fit either larger or more satellites. That could be especially useful for communication satellite networks like Iridium, Inmarsat or the envisioned OneWeb.

Going much further, why not use a Falcon Heavy for large lunar or martian rovers or even crewed vehicles? ~ 22 tonnes would be much more than any past autonomous vehicle has ever fielded, already accounting for some fuel to reach the final destination.

They can enlarge the fairing, but not simply. The Falcon 9 stages were sized in order to be road transportable without too much fuss (fairly standard oversized load permit). A fairing that is very large compared to the stage diameter shifts the center of pressure forward, which reduces stability. I'm fairly certain it can be lengthened somewhat, but there's limits to that, too.

And now you've also brought up that other idea Musk has...

Mars is and always has been Musk's long term dream. Falcon Heavy is supposed to be able to launch a Dragon spacecraft on a Mars trajectory with enough fuel to land on the surface. Musk envisions both selling this capability to NASA to land rovers or other science payloads so they don't have to develop a custom lander each mission, or to support his hoped for manned Mars mission.

Stage 1 of the Iridium-1 mission has landed successfully on the ASDS. Very good video thru the entire descent and landing. Second stage currently in coast phase prior to second engine start,

Very nice! Smooth launch. Beautiful landing! And we voyeurs were treated to the best live video of the entire process, from launch to landing, so far!

Very cool.

And more importantly for SpaceX it puts them back on track o make successful launches and use refurbished boosters.

Tugg

Curious, no video of the satellite deploy... at least on the technical webcast...

Money in the kitty! I'm greatly relieved. Here's to a smooth series of accomplished missions in the Year of our Launches 2017.

Congratulations!

Congrats to SpaceX and Iridium!

I'll never get tired of seeing those first stages land on those tiny barge in the middle of the ocean.
First successful recovery for 'Just read the Instructions' as well, since most launches had been happening on the Atlantic side lately, which is 'Of course I still love you's turf.

Now let's see if they can start reusing these first stages.

Really cool stuff. Keep it coming, SpaceX.

A good batch of pics of the booster's return to San Pedro:
http://photos.dailybreeze.com/2017/01/p ... os-angeles

Now looking forward to the next launch on January 26 from Florida, of the EchoStar 23 payload.

Tugg

My three favorites from Tugg's link just above:

http://photos.dailybreeze.com/2017/01/p ... ngeles/#25
http://photos.dailybreeze.com/2017/01/p ... ngeles/#41
http://photos.dailybreeze.com/2017/01/p ... ngeles/#43

Thank you!

Seems that the schedule for manned Dragon V2 flights slides to the right.

And Boeing is not alone; its “commercial crew” competitor SpaceX also faces similar technical hurdles with the Dragon V2 spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket that will launch it into space.

Boeing has set a “no earlier than” date of August 2018 for its first crewed test flight, and SpaceX has targeted May 2018. But those dates seem optimistic. Ars spoke to a handful of sources familiar with the commercial crew program this week, and all expressed pessimism about the public timelines the companies have for reaching the launch pad. According to this unofficial analysis, even a single crewed test flight in 2018 by either company now appears unlikely, as teams from both Boeing and SpaceX continue to work through significant technical issues.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01 ... ntil-2019/

More challenges ahead:

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets apparently have a serious issue that could delay the company's manned missions. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Government Accountability Office investigated both Boeing and SpaceX -- the corporations that won NASA's space taxi contracts -- and found that Falcon 9's turbine blades suffer from persistent cracks. GAO's preliminary report says these turboblades' tendency to crack is a "major threat to rocket safety," since they pump fuel into Falcon 9's rocket engines.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/03/gov ... to-cracks/

Thx Karel.So that's what 'Block5' is all about.The shuttle never proved to be that reusable so I guess the jury is out on Falcon9's.Aint re flown one yet and I haven't seen one in the manifest.Having said that I really wish them the very best and can't wait to see the 'heavy' fly.Yes it can fly big stuff into Geo orbit at a keen commercial cost.But of course (for Musk) it has another function.It is the rocket that will take Red Dragon to Mars and back.Not with pax of course but could be the first person to bring surface material back from the red planet.Fame foe ever (not that he seeks it).But it would give the programme (and NASA) the confidence to move forward with him.
I have wondered whether there is some merit in the 2 joining forces.NASA is building a FO rocket but with no missions.Why not use it to lift big 'bits' of rocket into space that can be assembled in orbit for a Mars mission? NASA has huge experience (space station) in this field.

As a general point.There are many exciting space projects happening over the next few years.Should we discuss them on this thread or another one?

parapente wrote:

Aint re flown one yet and I haven't seen one in the manifest.

One of the launches planned for March is due to reuse the CRS-8 first stage.

parapente wrote:

The shuttle never proved to be that reusable

It most certainly was. We would have paid several times the cost to build new shuttles each launch as we did refurbishing them, expensive as that was. The shuttle was a massively complex system, however. There's only a limited degree to which it can be compared to the Falcon. It also started development over 3 decades before the Falcon family did. That was a long time for continued maturation of engine technologies, as well as for the industry to digest what had been learned from the shuttle.

so I guess the jury is out on Falcon9's.

Technically, the jury is still out, but given Musk's level of resources and determination, and the milestones passed so far (not only landing, but also performing numerous post-landing engine firings), I'm effectively certain they will successfully re-fly numerous Falcons. I'm skeptical they will see radical cost savings, but I expect they will see some.

I have wondered whether there is some merit in the 2 joining forces.NASA is building a FO rocket but with no missions.Why not use it to lift big 'bits' of rocket into space that can be assembled in orbit for a Mars mission? NASA has huge experience (space station) in this field.

Musk does not have the resources to achieve manned Mars missions on his own, and launching satellites won't generate the necessary level of cash flow any time soon. He'll be depending on demonstrating to NASA the ability to get them there so they can do the research they're interested in.

NASA, for their part, can't count on SpaceX based on their plans alone, so NASA is moving forward with their own program unless and until an alternative proves to be making sufficient progress to have a high degree of confidence it's a better option.

NASA's plans do include launching in-orbit assembly.

KarelXWB wrote:

GAO's preliminary report says these turboblades' tendency to crack is a "major threat to rocket safety," since they pump fuel into Falcon 9's rocket engines.

SpaceX has now commented publicly on this. They claim the cracking is not a major issue, but are addressing it anyways at the request of NASA and the Air Force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space ... ium=Social

Ding ding!

SpaceX ‏@SpaceX Feb 8
Targeting Feb. 18 for Dragon's next resupply mission to the @Space_Station — our 1st launch from LC-39A at @NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/829422029245919232

elonmusk
Falcon 9 rocket now vertical at Cape Canaveral on launch complex 39-A.
This is the same launch pad used by the Saturn V rocket that first took people to the moon in 1969.
We are honored to be allowed to use it.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQWBz9zgOTP/

One thing to note is that, even after all the armchair space engineers saying it was impossible, SpaceX are now doing the pre-flight engine pad test without the payload on the stack - its added prior to launch.

Question.We all know that The Mars missions window is every 2 years.NASA is sending a small lander at the next window (2018) with both NASA and ESA going for rovers in 2020.
Spasex 'were' going for the 2018 window for a Red Dragon landing attempt.But I have heard nothing lately and of course the launch vehicle- Falcon Heavy - has been repeatedly delayed.
Does anyone know whether there are still plans for Spasex for 2018 or have they moved it all to 2020?

Launch Complex 39A saw it's first engine firing since the shuttle era today. SpaceX conducted a Falcon 9 static firing at 430PM eastern time.

http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/12/fi ... n-florida/

parapente wrote:

Question.We all know that The Mars missions window is every 2 years.NASA is sending a small lander at the next window (2018) with both NASA and ESA going for rovers in 2020.
Spasex 'were' going for the 2018 window for a Red Dragon landing attempt.But I have heard nothing lately and of course the launch vehicle- Falcon Heavy - has been repeatedly delayed.
Does anyone know whether there are still plans for Spasex for 2018 or have they moved it all to 2020?

The latest rumor I've heard is that the schedules at SpaceX and NASA still have 2018 listed, but that's expected to be officially changed soon. I'm unclear if that's because of Falcon Heavy or Red Dragon progress, but I was under the impression it's both.

iamlucky13 wrote:

parapente wrote:

The shuttle never proved to be that reusable

It most certainly was. We would have paid several times the cost to build new shuttles each launch as we did refurbishing them, expensive as that was. The shuttle was a massively complex system, however.

The Shuttle was prone to ailments and a total fiscal failure, the 1.5 billion that each launch cost on average over the lifetime of the program could have been spent far more efficiently even with expendable vehicles. The Shuttle program was a total failure and hampered space innovation for decades because there simply was no budget for it. Same with the ISS. The way NASA is going now with private contractors not only delivering subsystems but having the responsibility to get everything to orbit on fixed price contracts are magnitudes more efficient.

On another note:
1) Does anyone know if SpaceX will try to land the boosters on the first Falcon Heavy flight and
2) if so, how will that be done? There is only one drone ship in the Atlantic. The demo video shows both boosters + the main stage landing on land, but if I am informed correctly that is only possible in very specific conditions (both with regards to payload and externalities like winds)?

iamlucky13 wrote:

parapente wrote:

Question.We all know that The Mars missions window is every 2 years.NASA is sending a small lander at the next window (2018) with both NASA and ESA going for rovers in 2020.
Spasex 'were' going for the 2018 window for a Red Dragon landing attempt.But I have heard nothing lately and of course the launch vehicle- Falcon Heavy - has been repeatedly delayed.
Does anyone know whether there are still plans for Spasex for 2018 or have they moved it all to 2020?

The latest rumor I've heard is that the schedules at SpaceX and NASA still have 2018 listed, but that's expected to be officially changed soon. I'm unclear if that's because of Falcon Heavy or Red Dragon progress, but I was under the impression it's both.

Dragon V2 faces a delay.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01 ... ntil-2019/

"The Shuttle program was a total failure and hampered space innovation for decades because there simply was no budget for it. Same with the ISS. "

One political motivator is binding moneys from other space capable nations controlling their activities.
( mostly EU and Japan. Money that could have been available for Hermes was detoured into ISS modules and the ATV supply ship missions. )

aviationaware wrote:

2) if so, how will that be done? There is only one drone ship in the Atlantic. The demo video shows both boosters + the main stage landing on land, but if I am informed correctly that is only possible in very specific conditions (both with regards to payload and externalities like winds)?

If I understand correctly the core will continue thrusting after boosters are jettisoned. Core lands down range on the ASDS. Boosters return to the Cape.

aviationaware wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

parapente wrote:

The shuttle never proved to be that reusable

It most certainly was. We would have paid several times the cost to build new shuttles each launch as we did refurbishing them, expensive as that was. The shuttle was a massively complex system, however.

The Shuttle was prone to ailments and a total fiscal failure, the 1.5 billion that each launch cost on average over the lifetime of the program could have been spent far more efficiently even with expendable vehicles.

That's not directly related to the claim I was responding to, but yes, sticking with a large winged orbiter with huge cross-range and downmass capability that the Air Force ceased to be seriously interested in after digital imagers became available was very fiscally wasteful. We did not ultimately utilize its capabilities enough to justify the cost, but for its part, the shuttle was a magnificently capable launch system.

We also never flew it enough to achieve the level of economy of scale originally expected, or to justify the improvements that otherwise would have been made along the way. If a market for the initially planned 48 flights per year had materialized, the cost per flight would not have gotten down to the original goals, it would have gotten much, much closer.

As much as I love the shuttle, cancelling it and developing simpler, separate crew and cargo launch systems would have been much cheaper, and been a reasonable starting point to advance incrementally towards reusability like SpaceX has been doing. To a large degree, that's hindsight.

However, had we tried to achieve the capabilities of the shuttle in a non-reusable system, that would have been even more expensive than the shuttle was (but also more likely to be cancelled).

Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V.

On another note:
1) Does anyone know if SpaceX will try to land the boosters on the first Falcon Heavy flight and
2) if so, how will that be done? There is only one drone ship in the Atlantic. The demo video shows both boosters + the main stage landing on land, but if I am informed correctly that is only possible in very specific conditions (both with regards to payload and externalities like winds)?

They are about to start, or have started building a second landing pad at the Cape so both side-boosters can attempt a landing, and my understanding is the core booster will attempt to use the ASDS barge.

Winds are a limit, but depending on customer approval (partially a cost decision), launches can potentially be delayed until winds are appropriate both at the launch and landing areas.

For the payload, it's mainly a matter of how much fuel is left over after the payload is delivered to its intended trajectory. With enough fuel margin, they should be able to slow the stages down sufficiently to survive entry and make a controlled landing.

"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."

Soyuz.

WIederling wrote:

"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."

Soyuz.

Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.

moo wrote:

WIederling wrote:

"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."

Soyuz.

Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.

still it does not fit your "prone to" criterium. Long running project with excellent overall reliability.
( What I found interesting was that failures only hit the unmanned launches. enemy action?)

WIederling wrote:

moo wrote:

WIederling wrote:

"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."

Soyuz.

Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.

still it does not fit your "prone to" criterium. Long running project with excellent overall reliability.
( What I found interesting was that failures only hit the unmanned launches. enemy action?)

I've read somewhere that SpaceX was looking into sabotage for the static test failture a while back, but the conclusion seemed to be something else. Industrial sabotage wouldn't be surprising at all, these contracts are extremely valuable, and I believe the major players see SpaceX as a great threat. But maybe you weren't refering to SpaceX.

Regarding the Soyuz 2nd stage materials issue, was that a problem for the ESA version launched from French Guiana as well?

JetBuddy wrote:

WIederling wrote:

moo wrote:

Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.

still it does not fit your "prone to" criterium. Long running project with excellent overall reliability.
( What I found interesting was that failures only hit the unmanned launches. enemy action?)

I've read somewhere that SpaceX was looking into sabotage for the static test failture a while back, but the conclusion seemed to be something else. Industrial sabotage wouldn't be surprising at all, these contracts are extremely valuable, and I believe the major players see SpaceX as a great threat. But maybe you weren't refering to SpaceX.

Regarding the Soyuz 2nd stage materials issue, was that a problem for the ESA version launched from French Guiana as well?

I think SpaceX were grasping at all sorts of straws for their static firing failure - they were even investigating "dark shapes" on a competitors roof.

Ultimately it turned out to be a failure of their design, they were iterating too quickly without major testing (seriously, did they not spot the delamination in testing? Why not?)

Regarding the Soyuz materials issue, they currently have no idea how long its been going on - the investigation is still under way.

The second try was successful and they recovered the first stage.


Falcon 9 First Stage lands on LZ-1 by SpaceX, on Flickr

I skipped today's live stream, but was very glad indeed to hear the mission is en route (it will take several days for Dragon to reach its destination). And thanks to youtube, I was able to relive the launch. I wonder if NASA pays out the money upon the capsule's safe arrival, or if a tranche is already due.

A nice video of the first stage landing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glEvogjdEVY

Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.

A little detail that may be of interest - here's the actuator whose anomalous feedback led to Saturday's launch scrub at T-13:
http://jasc-controls.com/jasc-industry- ... -101424-5/

aviationaware wrote:

Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.

Unfortunately it doesnt look like its going to be as substantial as Musk and SpaceX first thought - there are is a lot of talk coming out of SpaceX about just how much damage the rockets are taking on the landing, and Musk recently revised the re-use down to just two or three for each first stage. It looks like there is a lot more refurb to do with each stage they recover, and they arent proving to be as reusable as first thought. This might be something fixed in later iterations, but right now its not panning out as planned.

moo wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.

Unfortunately it doesnt look like its going to be as substantial as Musk and SpaceX first thought - there are is a lot of talk coming out of SpaceX about just how much damage the rockets are taking on the landing, and Musk recently revised the re-use down to just two or three for each first stage. It looks like there is a lot more refurb to do with each stage they recover, and they arent proving to be as reusable as first thought. This might be something fixed in later iterations, but right now its not panning out as planned.

What kind of stresses would lead to that amount of refurb being neccessary? They are not performing reentry maneuvers like the space shuttle used to do. Airplanes flying at high speeds perform landings and take-offs every day without needing rebuilding of, say, the engines or the gear. The most stressfull stages would probably be
a) The takeoff itself and associated forces/vibrations
b) Aerodynamic forces while returning
c) Vibrations and shock during the final burn & touchdown

Are there any parts that undergo significant shape change due to e. g. fuel pressure or aero forces? Anything which uses ablating materials or is expected to lose material some other way? Those are certainly more difficult to design for multiple launches and would need to be checked after each one.

moo wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.

Unfortunately it doesnt look like its going to be as substantial as Musk and SpaceX first thought - there are is a lot of talk coming out of SpaceX about just how much damage the rockets are taking on the landing, and Musk recently revised the re-use down to just two or three for each first stage. It looks like there is a lot more refurb to do with each stage they recover, and they arent proving to be as reusable as first thought. This might be something fixed in later iterations, but right now its not panning out as planned.

Let's hope they can improve the first stage. Re-using the first stage is the whole point to make space flights cheaper.