• SpaceX test fires returned Falcon 9 booster at McGregor
    13 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A returned Falcon 9 first stage has been test fired at SpaceX’s McGregor test center. F9-S1-0024 returned home after helping push JCSAT-14 uphill earlier this year, prior to landing on the ASDS located in the Atlantic Ocean. Although this stage isn’t expected to fly again, it is involved in critical ground testing, which will pave the way for the first relaunch of a Falcon 9 booster. [/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falcon-9-booster-mcgregor/"]Source[/URL] [video]https://youtu.be/SZQY902xQcw[/video] [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] Didn't mean to use the shit post icon :v:
Wonder what the life on those parts is like. Reusable rocket boosters are a novel idea, but having that much propellant burning at those temperatures passing through the rocket will make it good for what, four, five launches at best? I'm no engineer, so I've no idea.
even though it only would last for a couple more launches, they save a huuge god damn amount of money on it.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50793605]Wonder what the life on those parts is like. Reusable rocket boosters are a novel idea, but having that much propellant burning at those temperatures passing through the rocket will make it good for what, four, five launches at best? I'm no engineer, so I've no idea.[/QUOTE] Having the ability to reuse a booster multiple times is way cheaper than having to build a new booster each time, it's the main reason why SpaceX is developing them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;50793605]Wonder what the life on those parts is like. Reusable rocket boosters are a novel idea, but having that much propellant burning at those temperatures passing through the rocket will make it good for what, four, five launches at best? I'm no engineer, so I've no idea.[/QUOTE] i'm more worried about the tanks. there have been some rocket families in the US that are rediculously fragile and prone to tank failure, and they have to go through a lot of stress pretty much empty during re-entry and have to be filled and emptied of cryogenic oxygen and chilled RP-1 several times rocket fuel tanks in general only have to go through launch once even though they may cycle fuel through them many times
[QUOTE=archangel125;50793605]Wonder what the life on those parts is like. Reusable rocket boosters are a novel idea, but having that much propellant burning at those temperatures passing through the rocket will make it good for what, four, five launches at best? I'm no engineer, so I've no idea.[/QUOTE] These parts go through a ton of cycles already. Spacex test fire each engine individually, then ship them back to the factory for final assembly, ship the whole thing back to McGregor and test fire them all together, and then do a shorter test fire at the launch site (just wait until the engines get to full thrust and then shut down). Then of course you have the launch, re-entry burn and landing burn. Some of the stages have the boost back burn as well. For this particular stage this is the 7th time some of those engines are firing.
Eye witnesses saying they lit it up again. [url]http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40510.msg1564748#msg1564748[/url]
That is seriously impressive. It's crazy just how much energy is in those, the camera shakes even though it's really quite far away. I love rocketry. :)
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;50798089]That is seriously impressive. It's crazy just how much energy is in those, the camera shakes even though it's really quite far away. I love rocketry. :)[/QUOTE] It rattles windows in cities a few miles away.
Wait until the Falcon heavy fires up three of them at once.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50798122]Wait until the Falcon heavy fires up three of them at once.[/QUOTE] Boner inducing
I've heard McGregor can only fire the boosters one at a time, despite my original thinking that the new test stand (that this video is filmed at) can be adapted to three sticks. Also the City has noise restrictions on SpaceX and I can't remember if FH violates that.
Man thermal shock must really be a bitch, if this recovered via splashdown instead of landing on the platform it probably would've cracked/warped the nozzle somehow.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;50798200]Man thermal shock must really be a bitch, if this recovered via splashdown instead of landing on the platform it probably would've cracked/warped the nozzle somehow.[/QUOTE] Spashdown has never been recoverable for that reason. It's like a hot pressurized coke can hitting cold water. Not to mention salt is an unholy pain in the ass to clean off hardware. Basically you need to scrub everything with a toothbrush and hot water. That's why droneships are required. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] Over time I'm going to be interested in the difference in corrosion between ship landed stages and pad landed stages. Salty air is a bitch, and iirc, one of the biggest concerns with Falcon 1 flight 1. (Which was launched from a coral atoll in the middle of the Pacific [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwajalein_Atoll[/url] )
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.