4 ms·

Exactly. SpaceX has completely designed this rocket around easy readiness tests. That's why the rocket was switched from a parachute landing, to a VTOL device[0

Exactly. SpaceX has completely designed this rocket around easy readiness tests. That's why the rocket was switched from a parachute landing, to a VTOL device[0]. They basically want this to be a smart rocket. Something that can just launch payloads into and out of orbit, and come home like a good dog after a long day of work. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Reusability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Reusability

smackfu 12y ago
Well, either they tear apart and inspect the engine in between launches or they don't. If they don't, their turnaround will be way faster, but there is a greater chance of failure, and if there is a failure, a much lower chance of figuring out the reasons.
- simonh 12y ago
  The engines are fired up, shut down and then re-lit again for many dozens of cycles during testing. Plus it's re-started 3 times during landing manoeuvers on top of the launch burn, so it's definitely capable of re-use without being stripped and cleaned. How many times I don't know, but like I said they run the engines though a lot of cycles during testing so they should have a good handle on that.
  - grecy 12y ago
    > so it's definitely capable of re-use without being stripped and cleaned. How many times I don't know I'm confident SpaceX themselves would have tested multiple engines to failure with many, many re-light, shutdown, re-light cycles so they have a good understanding of what's going to happen when they try to re-use one of these things. There is no way they'd be going to all this trouble to design a rocket that can come back, all the trouble of giving it someplace to land if they were not already confident the engine can be used at least a few times.
    - smackfu 12y ago
      OTOH, there's still huge cost savings even if you need to take apart and reinspect the engines. Building space components is not cheap.

smackfu 12y ago

Well, either they tear apart and inspect the engine in between launches or they don't. If they don't, their turnaround will be way faster, but there is a greater chance of failure, and if there is a failure, a much lower chance of figuring out the reasons.

simonh 12y ago
The engines are fired up, shut down and then re-lit again for many dozens of cycles during testing. Plus it's re-started 3 times during landing manoeuvers on top of the launch burn, so it's definitely capable of re-use without being stripped and cleaned. How many times I don't know, but like I said they run the engines though a lot of cycles during testing so they should have a good handle on that.
- grecy 12y ago
  > so it's definitely capable of re-use without being stripped and cleaned. How many times I don't know I'm confident SpaceX themselves would have tested multiple engines to failure with many, many re-light, shutdown, re-light cycles so they have a good understanding of what's going to happen when they try to re-use one of these things. There is no way they'd be going to all this trouble to design a rocket that can come back, all the trouble of giving it someplace to land if they were not already confident the engine can be used at least a few times.
  - smackfu 12y ago
    OTOH, there's still huge cost savings even if you need to take apart and reinspect the engines. Building space components is not cheap.