Jeff Foust of Space News tweeted that F9-024 JCSAT-14 has had 7 full burn static fire test with no refurbishment between burns.
That is good news for reuse of a booster stage.
That is good news for reuse of a booster stage.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hawthorne is the main factory. If a booster is there, it is for refurbishment or examination. A used booster was recently seen in the factory and I expect that is the booster that will be the first to be reused. That is for the SES-10 launch out of Florida that is likely to occur late February, early March time frame. It will likely be the third launch from now with EchoStar next, CRS-10 after that, then probably SES-10 with the reuse of the CRS-8 (first ASDS landing) booster.
List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches - Wikipedia
There are currently 7 used boosters.
#1 is on display at Hawthorne
#2 will be reused for SES-10
#3 is the hot landing with max damage being thoroughly tested at McGregor. It has been re-fired for full burns at least 8 times. It will never be reused except for testing.
#4 was also a hot and hard landing - no clue where it is. See #5 and #6.
#5 might be used as the side booster for Falcon Heavy
#6 also might be used as the side booster for Falcon Heavy - 2 will be needed
#7 is on the ASDS JRTI coming back to port right now
So we know of three that will be used. It is possible that another will be used for the Commercial Crew uncrewed test flight and another for the in flight abort test.
Last edited:
Peter B. de Selding tweeted that SES-10 is headed to the Cape for the upcoming launch using the re-used booster. So I'd say that is confirmation for a late February, early March first re-use launch.
SES-10 has arrived in Florida and there is a very tentative launch time of NET February 22nd according to SES.
SES 10 telecom satellite in Florida for launch on reused SpaceX rocket – Spaceflight Now
SES 10 telecom satellite in Florida for launch on reused SpaceX rocket – Spaceflight Now
I moved the comment here. We now know that SpaceX is moving to the Block 5 (v1.3 FT?) version of the F9 from the current v1.2 FT. Since SpaceX knows that there is a limited life on the current version, it makes sense that they would want to use up all of the reused boosters they've recovered before those boosters become obsolete. It creates an interesting dilemma. Thus, SpaceX's decision to not even try to recover the booster from EchoStar 23 makes even more sense. I expect to see similar actions on other larger satellites including SES-10.
SpaceX did a static test fire of the soon-to-be-reused CRS-8 booster at McGregor before it is taken to Florida for the first launch of a previously used booster. That will be for SES-10 and will happen sometime in March. I don't expect SpaceX to try to recover the booster again since SES-10 is almost as heavy as EchoStar 23 and SpaceX is choosing not to recover that booster. So after CRS-10 there will likely be two launches back to back without an attempt at recovery. SpaceX still has at least two other recovered boosters that can still be reused and probably will sometime this year.
Prepping for Re-Launch: SpaceX Test-Fires Used Falcon 9 Rocket (Photo)
Prepping for Re-Launch: SpaceX Test-Fires Used Falcon 9 Rocket (Photo)
A third rocket was seen arriving in Florida. This is almost certainly the first reused booster for the SES-10 launch in March. This makes three rockets sitting in Florida awaiting a launch from LC-39A. The order is now:
CRS-10 around Feb 14th
EchoStar 23 around the end of the month - with no booster landing.
SES-10 in early March - first reuse flight and likely no booster landing either.
CRS-10 around Feb 14th
EchoStar 23 around the end of the month - with no booster landing.
SES-10 in early March - first reuse flight and likely no booster landing either.
PaulRocket
Member
Don't you think they will at least try to recover the booster? SES-9 weighed the same as SES-10 and although the landing was unsuccessful, they tried to land on ASDS. Also this booster would be incredible valuable for SpaceX, having gone through two launches and landings.
I do think that if they manage to land the SES-10 booster, they likely won't reuse it, but tear it apart and inspect every inch.
SpaceX tends to give customers with delayed launches better performance (might cut transit time to GEO by 1-2 months). By doing a supersync launch, SpaceX might remove the performance margin for recovery. That's the premise why SES-10 is expected to be a expendable launch. Besides once this works, customers will line up wanting the same. SpaceX really needs to recover upcoming block 5 boosters.
First of all, thanks for all the info you supply on the SpaceX plans/logistics. Fascinating stuff.
I think this is the second time I've seen the theory of re-using boosters for the FH launch.
Question: Are you suggesting using previously-flown boosters for the initial FH launch?
Given the relative immaturity of the re-use portion of the operation, and the fact that FH is a new beast (admittedly reusing known components, but in a new configuration/operating mode), I would have that that eliminating variables for the maiden flight would have been a goal.
Unless of course the thought is that a proven booster is more reliable than an unproven one... in which case that also makes a great statement to (potential) customers...
PaulRocket
Member
I don't think its a theory, I think it was basically confirmed that at least one of the side boosters will be a reused core. They will use the Thaicom-8 booster.
To be clear, almost every GEO spacecraft today is days to final (or IOT) orbit, not months. Almost nobody does EOR to GEO because it takes so long. The money saved on eliminating or seriously downsizing the biprop system (less prop mass means less launch mass and/or more payload mass) needs to cover the revenue lost from not being on orbit, or in some other way close a business case. In orbit spares is one case. SES is also unique in that they don't always sell all of their service before spacecraft production; extrapolating that suggests it's possible that they would have a situation where they're not 'losing' months of revenue because they haven't sold it yet...
That said, competition is driving spacecraft prices down, and cost savings like eliminating biprop completely are being shopped more and more. Certainly the ratio of EOR to traditional apogee motor raising will rise, making the quoted premise true.
PaulRocket
Member
Not sure if this has been discussed before, but do we have any idea what they learned from inspecting the landed cores, if they had any challenges refurbishing them or test firing them? Also with Block 5, what does easier to reuse mean?
"Easier to reuse" means that they learned something from inspecting and refurbishing the landed cores. But they are pretty secretive about stuff like this, and rightly so. Why give the competition useful hints?
After reading NSF discussions on Falcon 9, past missions that landed, specific discussions on reuse, my conclusion is:
1 - The highest priority is increasing F9 Delta V performance. With extra performance and the same payloads, re-entry burns can be more powerful which reduces entry heating. Apparently the landing burn (1 or 2 engine) doesn't change the damage to the booster.
2 - SpaceX probably have leaned minor things about how to make the stages more robust for reuse in general. But I contend that knowledge acquisition will really go into high gear as the same stage is reused several times. One of the recovered boosters have been fired nearly 10 times. Enough firing to simulate 2 or more relaunches.
3 - Most of the time its taking to reuse right now is the necessary abundance of caution since SpaceX isn't interested in flying dummy missions with reused boosters. Its not enough to launch and see what happens. They must ensure the reused booster have similar safety margins as a brand new one. That requires a lot of testing and analysis. Once several 2nd and 3rd flights for several boosters take place safely, SpaceX can gradually reduce the level of testing before relaunching. Let me emphasize this, if a certain characteristic requires 50% margin, SpaceX needs to be confident reflights still provide that 50% margin. Its not enough to actually have say 20% margin and reflight successfully and that margin gradually comes down to zero and they have a launch failure say in the 4th or 5th reflight. Unacceptable.
So the most important improvement for Block 5 is providing higher thrust, which reduces gravity losses, which allows the same payload to be put into orbit with more left over fuel for re-entry and landing (the most missions that require the most performance will skip the boostback burn and opt for the ASDS being positioned far out on the ocean for a nearly ballistic flight profile).
By giving Block 5 a timing of end 2017/early 2018, SpaceX might learn more things that incorporate other improvements before it flies.
1 - The highest priority is increasing F9 Delta V performance. With extra performance and the same payloads, re-entry burns can be more powerful which reduces entry heating. Apparently the landing burn (1 or 2 engine) doesn't change the damage to the booster.
2 - SpaceX probably have leaned minor things about how to make the stages more robust for reuse in general. But I contend that knowledge acquisition will really go into high gear as the same stage is reused several times. One of the recovered boosters have been fired nearly 10 times. Enough firing to simulate 2 or more relaunches.
3 - Most of the time its taking to reuse right now is the necessary abundance of caution since SpaceX isn't interested in flying dummy missions with reused boosters. Its not enough to launch and see what happens. They must ensure the reused booster have similar safety margins as a brand new one. That requires a lot of testing and analysis. Once several 2nd and 3rd flights for several boosters take place safely, SpaceX can gradually reduce the level of testing before relaunching. Let me emphasize this, if a certain characteristic requires 50% margin, SpaceX needs to be confident reflights still provide that 50% margin. Its not enough to actually have say 20% margin and reflight successfully and that margin gradually comes down to zero and they have a launch failure say in the 4th or 5th reflight. Unacceptable.
So the most important improvement for Block 5 is providing higher thrust, which reduces gravity losses, which allows the same payload to be put into orbit with more left over fuel for re-entry and landing (the most missions that require the most performance will skip the boostback burn and opt for the ASDS being positioned far out on the ocean for a nearly ballistic flight profile).
By giving Block 5 a timing of end 2017/early 2018, SpaceX might learn more things that incorporate other improvements before it flies.
In addition to everything macpacheco mentioned, SpaceX will correct the "cracking blade" issue that the media was trying to overemphasize recently in their turbopump.
PaulRocket
Member
Shotwell on SpaceX launch backlog: “We will definitely catch up”
Confirmation that SpaceX will in fact attempt a recovery of the SES-10 booster. Even sounds like they are quite confident.
Confirmation that SpaceX will in fact attempt a recovery of the SES-10 booster. Even sounds like they are quite confident.
Shotwell said it took SpaceX roughly four months to refurbish the Falcon 9 first stage for the SES-10 mission. In the near-term, she said, that will drop below two months, and eventually down to a single day. - See more at: Shotwell on SpaceX launch backlog: “We will definitely catch up” - SpaceNews.com
Thats Cool..!!
Thats Cool..!!
So, it seems that recovering boosters and having the ability to examine them and see what needs to improve tells you a lot about them. Go figure. I can't wait to see what the block 5 rocket can do. I'll also be very happy to see SpaceX move past upgrading the Falcon 9 and move onto their other projects. Upcoming next we have the first reuse flight, followed by Falcon Heavy, and commercial crew developments.
Similar threads
- Article
