SpaceX just did a full duration test firing of a recovered 1st stage

Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility. I'm
sure there will be stories on the space news websites today.

This is the sort of progress we need in launch vehicle tech. It's
doable with today's tech, not some largely unproven (for a launch
vehicle) tech straight out of a lab.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 7/29/2016 6:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility.

I find it interesting that their original stated plan was to fire a
recovered booster several times at KSC, and to do so with a minimum of
delay. Clearly the idea behind that plan was to publicly show that
their recovered boosters had plenty of life left in them.

But then they changed the plan! Instead, they shipped that one all the
way to Texas for a test that took months to occur. Note that we weren't
allowed to know about the test until after the fact.

My guess is that the main reason for the move to Texas was to increase
their privacy so they could work in secret and totally control any press
coverage. These SpaceX folks clearly aren't dummies, so if they are
that concerned about a potentially embarrassing problem, I must assume
that they have good reason for their concern.

In article , says...

On 7/29/2016 6:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility.

I find it interesting that their original stated plan was to fire a
recovered booster several times at KSC, and to do so with a minimum of
delay. Clearly the idea behind that plan was to publicly show that
their recovered boosters had plenty of life left in them.

But then they changed the plan! Instead, they shipped that one all the
way to Texas for a test that took months to occur. Note that we weren't
allowed to know about the test until after the fact.

My guess is that the main reason for the move to Texas was to increase
their privacy so they could work in secret and totally control any press
coverage. These SpaceX folks clearly aren't dummies, so if they are
that concerned about a potentially embarrassing problem, I must assume
that they have good reason for their concern.

Firings at McGregor aren't terribly "secret". Hint: the neighbors
already complain a bit about the noise. These things are *loud*,
especially a first stage firing (nine engines at once).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 7/29/2016 7:30 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Firings at McGregor aren't terribly "secret". Hint: the neighbors
already complain a bit about the noise. These things are *loud*,
especially a first stage firing (nine engines at once).

I'm sure that's true, but I'll bet that you can't see much from outside
the fence. If there were to be some sort of incident, they can be
pretty sure that they will own the only pictures/video. Also, at any
given time I doubt if there is much press hanging around McGregor
compared to KSC.

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ...

On 7/29/2016 7:30 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Firings at McGregor aren't terribly "secret". Hint: the neighbors
already complain a bit about the noise. These things are *loud*,
especially a first stage firing (nine engines at once).

I'm sure that's true, but I'll bet that you can't see much from outside the
fence. If there were to be some sort of incident, they can be pretty sure
that they will own the only pictures/video. Also, at any given time I
doubt if there is much press hanging around McGregor compared to KSC.

Also folks locally will know SOMETHING was tested, but not necessarily what
until after the fact.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:30:14 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 7/29/2016 6:25 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility.

I find it interesting that their original stated plan was to fire a
recovered booster several times at KSC, and to do so with a minimum of
delay. Clearly the idea behind that plan was to publicly show that
their recovered boosters had plenty of life left in them.

But then they changed the plan! Instead, they shipped that one all the
way to Texas for a test that took months to occur. Note that we weren't
allowed to know about the test until after the fact.

My guess is that the main reason for the move to Texas was to increase
their privacy so they could work in secret and totally control any press
coverage. These SpaceX folks clearly aren't dummies, so if they are
that concerned about a potentially embarrassing problem, I must assume
that they have good reason for their concern.

Firings at McGregor aren't terribly "secret". Hint: the neighbors
already complain a bit about the noise. These things are *loud*,
especially a first stage firing (nine engines at once).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Legislation was introduced in the Texas Legislature in early 2013 that limits liability for noise and some other specific commercial spaceflight risks faced by SpaceX. So, it doesn't really matter what the neighbours say. This in addition to a package of incentives including tax abatements and other State grants, to encourage SpaceX to locate in Texas was passed in October 2013.

In message
Jeff Findley wrote:


Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility. I'm
sure there will be stories on the space news websites today.

News this morning says a second full duration firing has taken place.

Anthony

In article , says...

In message
Jeff Findley wrote:


Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility. I'm
sure there will be stories on the space news websites today.

News this morning says a second full duration firing has taken place.

Good to hear.

From what I've read, this stage will be the "life leader", which would
imply that they're going to fill, fire, and inspect it many times to
gather hard data to help determine just how many times a Falcon 9 first
stage can successfully be reused. Test firings in Florida would likely
require government approval and/or scheduling. So, doing this work at
McGregor is most likely more efficient than at KSC or Cape Canaveral.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article , says...

In message
Jeff Findley wrote:


Saw the Tweet last night, with video, of a full duration test firing
of
a recovered Falcon 9 first stage at their McGregor, Texas facility.
I'm
sure there will be stories on the space news websites today.

News this morning says a second full duration firing has taken place.

Good to hear.

From what I've read, this stage will be the "life leader", which would
imply that they're going to fill, fire, and inspect it many times to
gather hard data to help determine just how many times a Falcon 9 first
stage can successfully be reused. Test firings in Florida would likely
require government approval and/or scheduling. So, doing this work at
McGregor is most likely more efficient than at KSC or Cape Canaveral.

Jeff

Makes sense. Possibly even do stuff like switch on an engine to compare
impact of usage/age over time.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Jeff Findley wrote:
From what I've read, this stage will be the "life leader", which
would imply that they're going to fill, fire, and inspect it many
times to gather hard data to help determine just how many times a
Falcon 9 first stage can successfully be reused.

I suppose even one "actual" launch of the stage is not too far from
crossing the Rubicon, but why wait for a successfully returned stage
to do this testing? I suppose "Waste anything but time" doesn't
really apply to SpaceX, but it would seem that they could have been
rather further along on answering the question of "How many times can
we reuse a stage?" via repeated test firings on the ground by just
starting that process with a stage many months ago.

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...