Elon tweeted the other day after the successful Stage 1 re-recovery,
that he wanted to try and recoverthe Upper stage from the Falcon Heavy
as well now....
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104
On 04/04/2017 17:29, William Valliant wrote:
I saw that SpaceX re-flew a first stage and I was wondering if they fared any better that the STS did? I remember that the SSME's turned out to require complete overhauls and that the TPS took a bunch of work as well. Can anybody point me towards a resource with information on the re-flight?
The refurbishment must have been documented well enough for the launch insurance company to only increase their rate by a 100th of a percent relative to a new falcon 9 booster however I fear that it is all quiet proprietary and won't be disclosed. Apparently there are 6 core re-uses planned for the rest of this year with the ultimate goal of a 24HR turn and burn within 2 years from the cape. Did they engineer in enough re-usability to hit the target goal of their stated 10 rapid turn re-flights with a 100 total flight life? How many components are getting out-right chucked when the vehicles are re-processed?
References on info:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/
Different question but by free-association:
Has anybody messed with re-using their engines on this forum and if so, how many times have you been able to re-fly? What did you do for recovery?
