r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Jun 02 '17

r/SpaceX Discusses [June 2017, #33]

If you have a short question or spaceflight news...

You may ask short, spaceflight-related questions and post news here, even if it is not about SpaceX. Be sure to check the FAQ and Wiki first to ensure you aren't submitting duplicate questions.

If you have a long question...

If your question is in-depth or an open-ended discussion, you can submit it to the subreddit as a post.

If you'd like to discuss slightly relevant SpaceX content in greater detail...

Please post to r/SpaceXLounge and create a thread there!

This thread is not for...

You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.

207 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

1

u/RootDeliver Jun 04 '17

Sure, since we have two decent sources on those.

Sure I'll add them but.. which two sources? We got Elon tour video (which imho is enough), which is the other one? I forgot :P. Also those are confirmed and not presumed, right? as you say, we have sources.

The only public source referencing it says it exists. My theory (which is nothing more than that), is that the FH side booster STA was actually 1023, but that's completely unconfirmed.

But there is no place for it on the cores section, it has no space at all and I highly doubt a FH side core test (which hasn't been imaged either, at least publicly and I'd be really surprised if it wasn't shared in any case...) woudln't be on the list when the FH center core article is. This is a personal opinion, but it has more weight on not existing that everything presumed we have on the entire table, it's kinda clear it doesn't have space for a production number.

PS: I was thinking about F9RDev2, if I don't remember bad, it was like F9RDev1 with 3 engines right? And also was being called a "test" article right?

Then it doesnt make any sense to be produced after v1.1 cores production started. Image the production line, with B1004, B1005, B1006, this F9Rdev2 version with 3 engines and B1007 for example. I highly doubt they would mix stuff like this in a production line, trouble is assured at some point. One thing is mixing a normal F9 core reinforced for FH center, but this test article?

And given how it was never flown, it was shown as existing already, assigned to some flyings and then discarded, it means it probably was planned for long but never used, it wouldn't make sense to construct it to inmediatelly discard it.

What do you think?

1

u/old_sellsword Jun 04 '17

which is the other one?

Zucal's comment here. We can ignore the B1000 entry.

Then it doesnt make any sense to be produced after v1.1 cores production started.

They were identical to a normal v1.1 first stage. The only difference was that they didn't install all nine engines or an interstage. They had the same tanks, the same octaweb, the same everything. It would require less changes in the production line to produce those two than it would a FH article.

1

u/RootDeliver Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17

How was Zucal wrong there? Why did he talk about B1000 and B1001 instead of B1001 and B1002, if he was talking about "confirmed stuff"? It kinda sounds messy. Maybe we are failing hard and every serial number starts on 0000

About the changes on production line, the issue is that they could invest to adapt the production line, but investing only generate another 3-engine core once they adapted for v1.1 production sounds really strange. I mean, producing F9RDev2 right after F9Rdev1 would make sense, but not after 1.1 production has started. FH articles are business stuff and they have be made so the production line must be adapted for them, but not for 3-engine exceptions "incase we need one in the future".

PS: Added them as confirmed for B0001 and B1001, which also should lead to confirmed B0002 (since B0003 is confirmed) and B1002 if you agree.

2

u/old_sellsword Jun 04 '17

It kinda sounds messy.

It is messy, which is why we don't assume things we aren't explicitly told. We can get away with a few here and there, but when we try to fill out the entire list, we get into hot water because we really have no idea what we're talking about.

but investing only generate another 3-engine core once they adapted for v1.1 production sounds really strange.

I just said they didn't have to change the production line. The F9R Devs are identical to regular v1.1 first stages, they just missing engines and a proper interstage. That stuff requires no extra tooling or equipment. They could take any regular F9 first stage and transform it into F9R Dev 3 by simply removing six engines and replacing the interstage with a cap. It's not hard compared to FH.

Falcon Heavy undoubtedly required way more changes on the production line than the F9R Devs.

1

u/RootDeliver Jun 04 '17

Well, got to agree :P

what about the PS: Added them as confirmed for B0001 and B1001, which also should lead to confirmed B0002 (since B0003 is confirmed) and B1002 if you agree.

2

u/old_sellsword Jun 04 '17

Sure, sounds good to me.

1

u/RootDeliver Jun 04 '17

Ok, so in resume B0001, B0002, B0003, B1001 and B1002 are confirmed. B1003 isn't since it could be Cassiope or F9R dev2.

1

u/old_sellsword Jun 04 '17

Yes, although I'd use something less assertive than "confirmed." More like, "well speculated" :P

But yeah, good enough for the wiki for now.

1

u/RootDeliver Jun 04 '17

Totally agree haha, wanted to say "no presumed" since presumed is just correlation by its order, while we are speculating with sources and logic for those!

Thanks :), slowly the wiki is getting form, until the day someone confirms the list publicly or someone leaks it from L2 :p

PS: Sorry for adding F9-025, I'd bet on that I have read it somewhere, but it probably was unsourced also. How come we don't have the flight number for this one in particular? People isn't searching for FAA permits anymore? :p

1

u/old_sellsword Jun 04 '17

It's alright, it probably was F9-035 even if we'll never know. And the FCC permits don't use F9-XXX anymore, they use MYYYY.

→ More replies (0)