I've heard that said too. XCOR has certainly demonstrated publicly
significant numbers of relights of the same engine. But you should
probably go to XCOR if you want more tech details than that.
On 12/30/2015 2:47 PM, Brian Feeney wrote:
Does the Saddle / Jacket engine design alleviate much of the inner to
outer differential thermal wall stress by way of the inner wall (chamber
/ nozzle) sliding relative to the outer wall.
This is used by XCOR and others and is claimed to significantly improve
the fatigue life of the engine - particularly sited by XCOR.
Cheers
Brian Feeney
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Henry Vanderbilt
<hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hvanderbilt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 12/29/2015 8:32 PM, Henry Spencer wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
And for fatigue, even *flight* testing is always only an
approximation,
because fatigue behavior can be quite sensitive to
details...
You elided what I think is the most interesting part of my
post, this
modest proposal:
"It might actually be easier, cheaper, and more effective to
come up
with a boilerplate upper-stage mass&aerodynamics simulator, then
instrument the hell out of a first stage and fly it
repeatedly till
things start breaking."
Well, as witness the bit of my commentary I've excerpted above, even
that has its problems. :-) One particular snag is that it's kind of
hard to say just how representative that upper-stage simulator
has to
be, because that can matter to things like the vibration
environment.
(The very large difference in Saturn V vibration behavior
between the
Apollo 4 and 6 unmanned tests was mostly due to a more realistic
fake LM
on Apollo 6!) So there are still issues with deciding which stresses
matter enough to be worth simulating.
It's not a ridiculous idea, but I'm not sure it's an obvious winner
either. One big advantage of fatigue testing on the ground is
that if a
problem shows up suddenly, it's easier to collect the pieces for
study!
Agreed, the practicality of testing F9 first stage useful life via
flight rather than ground test is not necessarily slam-dunk obvious.
But as you say, it's not obviously ridiculous either.
Some additional pluses have occurred to me in the meantime:
- It could require much less of the SpaceX R&D team's finite (and
already heavily committed) design and analytical bandwidth, being a
variation on existing flight-ops rather than an entire new
ground-test hardware complex.
- Related, it could begin happening considerably sooner than
in-depth ground flight-cycle fatigue testing. Time is money.
- In terms of gut-convincing customer decision-makers that reuse
is practical, a half-dozen flight-plus-landing videos trumps any
number of gigabytes of ground-test data. "It reflew N times without
breaking" is massively self-explanatory.
It'll be interesting to see what SpaceX actually does next in
pursuing reusability. Given their decision to retire this first
recovered stage for history, the obvious next step is to get a
second copy back intact. After that, we'll see.
Henry V