SpaceX block 5 rocket will be launched for a third time later in 2018

The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 has been recovered from its first relaunch. The rocket stage looks in good condition and will be launched for the third time later in 2018. Reusing a booster two times will be a first for any rocket.

36 thoughts on “SpaceX block 5 rocket will be launched for a third time later in 2018”

  1. What would be really cool is to use a lot of fuel and just have one engine continuously fire for an hour or failure which ever happens first. Obviously, it would never be at full throttle for an hour. But I still think it would yield interesting data on the limits of the engines…what wears…what servicing can be ignored, etc. Maybe use the tanks for the BFR and fire the whole tank load with one engine. If it survives that whole tank, I think that would also be great advertising.

    Reply
  2. What would be really cool is to use a lot of fuel and just have one engine continuously fire for an hour or failure which ever happens first. Obviously it would never be at full throttle for an hour. But I still think it would yield interesting data on the limits of the engines…what wears…what servicing can be ignored etc. Maybe use the tanks for the BFR and fire the whole tank load with one engine. If it survives that whole tank I think that would also be great advertising.

    Reply
  3. A more realistic test would divide that up into portions matching typical launch-RTLS cycles with as many stops and restarts. But that still wouldn’t simulate the aerodynamic and other loads.

    Reply
  4. A more realistic test would divide that up into portions matching typical launch-RTLS cycles with as many stops and restarts. But that still wouldn’t simulate the aerodynamic and other loads.

    Reply
  5. As this is the lead booster it is likely it will undergo a greater teardown than later block 5 boosters. This basically ensures that any anomaly appears first on this booster will not yet be on any other. This is a similar methodology when aircraft manufacturers use a static rig to test an aircraft to its ultimate flying/cycles life.

    Reply
  6. As this is the lead booster it is likely it will undergo a greater teardown than later block 5 boosters. This basically ensures that any anomaly appears first on this booster will not yet be on any other. This is a similar methodology when aircraft manufacturers use a static rig to test an aircraft to its ultimate flying/cycles life.

    Reply
  7. An even more realistic test would be to just keep launching it, perhaps with an escalating discount for risk on later flights.

    Reply
  8. Certainly. But 3 months is the fastest turnaround for any booster yet, and they Do want to try the 24 hour turnaround with this booster. If they can do it with the first, the rest will be easier.

    Reply
  9. An even more realistic test would be to just keep launching it perhaps with an escalating discount for risk on later flights.

    Reply
  10. Certainly. But 3 months is the fastest turnaround for any booster yet and they Do want to try the 24 hour turnaround with this booster. If they can do it with the first the rest will be easier.

    Reply
  11. I love Blue Origin, but you’re kidding, right? One is placing a second stage and payload in place for an orbital trajectory, the other is going straight up and coming straight down. One is an order of magnitude more massive.

    Reply
  12. I love Blue Origin but you’re kidding right? One is placing a second stage and payload in place for an orbital trajectory the other is going straight up and coming straight down. One is an order of magnitude more massive.

    Reply
  13. Pretty sure they do that burn test in their test facility in Texas. And yes it would just be tests in atmosphere but you get good data on wear and fooling of engine. And engines is not the main issue during launch, you can loose one. This will probably cost you the first stage but the nice thing about powered landing is that the landing fuel is also an emergency reserve. Structural fails including piping and fight system fails are more serious. Launching starlink on old stages would be smart as its not an catastrophe loosing mass produced satellites.

    Reply
  14. Pretty sure they do that burn test in their test facility in Texas. And yes it would just be tests in atmosphere but you get good data on wear and fooling of engine. And engines is not the main issue during launch you can loose one. This will probably cost you the first stage but the nice thing about powered landing is that the landing fuel is also an emergency reserve. Structural fails including piping and fight system fails are more serious. Launching starlink on old stages would be smart as its not an catastrophe loosing mass produced satellites.

    Reply
  15. Yes, that’s probably true but there is a risk involved in that you lose the lead booster. As next year is light on launches there likely will be enough boosters not to take this risk. It will be interesting to see what Spacex does.

    Reply
  16. Yes that’s probably true but there is a risk involved in that you lose the lead booster. As next year is light on launches there likely will be enough boosters not to take this risk. It will be interesting to see what Spacex does.

    Reply
  17. Yes, that’s probably true but there is a risk involved in that you lose the lead booster. As next year is light on launches there likely will be enough boosters not to take this risk. It will be interesting to see what Spacex does.

    Reply
  18. Pretty sure they do that burn test in their test facility in Texas.
    And yes it would just be tests in atmosphere but you get good data on wear and fooling of engine.

    And engines is not the main issue during launch, you can loose one. This will probably cost you the first stage but the nice thing about powered landing is that the landing fuel is also an emergency reserve.
    Structural fails including piping and fight system fails are more serious.

    Launching starlink on old stages would be smart as its not an catastrophe loosing mass produced satellites.

    Reply
  19. I love Blue Origin, but you’re kidding, right? One is placing a second stage and payload in place for an orbital trajectory, the other is going straight up and coming straight down. One is an order of magnitude more massive.

    Reply
  20. Certainly. But 3 months is the fastest turnaround for any booster yet, and they Do want to try the 24 hour turnaround with this booster. If they can do it with the first, the rest will be easier.

    Reply
  21. As this is the lead booster it is likely it will undergo a greater teardown than later block 5 boosters. This basically ensures that any anomaly appears first on this booster will not yet be on any other. This is a similar methodology when aircraft manufacturers use a static rig to test an aircraft to its ultimate flying/cycles life.

    Reply
  22. A more realistic test would divide that up into portions matching typical launch-RTLS cycles with as many stops and restarts. But that still wouldn’t simulate the aerodynamic and other loads.

    Reply
  23. What would be really cool is to use a lot of fuel and just have one engine continuously fire for an hour or failure which ever happens first. Obviously, it would never be at full throttle for an hour. But I still think it would yield interesting data on the limits of the engines…what wears…what servicing can be ignored, etc. Maybe use the tanks for the BFR and fire the whole tank load with one engine. If it survives that whole tank, I think that would also be great advertising.

    Reply

Leave a Comment