Hi, it’s me, Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut
Block 5.
The elusive final iteration of SpaceX’s
Falcon 9 rocket is finally almost here.
Although we’ve known quite a bit about what’s
going to be new with Block 5, the general
public has had a really hard time understanding
what, when, why, huh?
Well today, we’re going to try and untangle
the confusion of block changes, revealing
the history of the Falcon 9 and how its evolved
into the fully and rapidly reusable rocket
we hope to see with this new ultimate Block
5 Falcon 9.
We’re also going to do a side by side comparison
of all versions of Falcon 9 including Block
5 to show you just how much is changing before
SpaceX commits to freezing the Falcon 9 so
astronauts can finally ride on top.
And lastly we’re going to explain why SpaceX
has been throwing away some of their older
Falcon 9’s before they get into this new
Block 5 booster.
Ok. Time to do some untangling, let’s get started!
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket has quickly evolved
from your standard run-of-the-mill rocket
into a very powerful, extremely capable and
awe inspiring autonomous landing and reusable
workhorse in under a decade.
Today we’re going to take a deep dive into
the world of the Falcon 9, how it’s changed
and what this ultimate Block 5 version means
for SpaceX and hopefully the space industry
as a whole.
Now previously, we’ve talked a little about
how the break-neck evolution of the Falcon
9 had led to the Falcon Heavy being delayed
for 5 years, and we’ve also talked about
how the nimble design and iteration philosophy
of SpaceX has led to the cancellation of propulsively
landing the Dragon capsule.
So if you still have questions remaining after
watching this video, check out those other
two videos to potentially help fill in some
gaps.
So first off, what the heck is a block?
Well, a block is a large solid piece of hard
material, especially rock, stone, or wood,
typically with flat surfaces on each side.
SpaceX sometimes uses the term block as an
iteration change of their vehicles.
This comes from the iterative and incremental
development principle.
One of the earliest examples of this principle
is with NASA’s project Mercury and the Army’s
redstone rocket, both of which had some small
design tweaks as they applied lessons learned
from each flight.
In terms of engineering and manufacturing,
it means you’ll do small iteration changes
to improve upon what you’ve learned, and
once you make changes to the production line,
that’s considered a block change.
There’s trade offs to this design philosophy.
Some cons are the fact that there’s more
prototyping and more changes in manufacturing,
which can be more expensive.
This is kind of the opposite of the “if
it ain’t broke don’t fix it” philosophy
that’s sometimes adopted by the aerospace
industry.
The idea’s that you don’t introduce any
new variables because new variables can lead
to new and yet unknown failures.
SpaceX knows a thing or two about this.
But Elon Musk has been known to embrace failure
stating in a 2005 interview with Fast Company
on the topic of SpaceX - “Failure is an
option here.
If things are not failing, you are not innovating
enough.”
BUT, this philosophy also means the product
can evolve to be more current, fluid and potentially
much more capable.
This is the reason why the Falcon 9 has evolved
to be over twice as capable as its initial
version and also why it can do that thing
that no other orbital class rocket can do…
what’s that called again?
Oh yeah.
LAND.
So before we try and untangle the mess of
the block names, let’s go through the history
of major changes of the Falcon 9 and compare
them to the newest ultimate version, Block
5... this will help us be on the same page
when we try and get to that cluster-turd mess
that is block change nomenclature.
The first Falcon 9 launched on June 4th, 2010
out of Cape Canaveral’s SLC-40.
This first Falcon 9 was a baby compared to
today’s Falcon 9.
Standing at 47.8 meters or 157 feet tall,
this first version was much more stout than
it’s newer siblings.
It was also much less powerful, delivering
4,940 kN or 1.1 million pounds of thrust.
The first version of the Falcon 9 was powered
by SpaceX’s Merlin 1C, which is a lot less
powerful than today’s Merlin 1D.
Besides the fairly obvious differences like
in height, lack of landings legs, lack of
grid fins, there’s one more thing that makes
it easy to spot the first version of the Falcon 9
Those 9 Merlin 1C engines were configured
in a square pattern as opposed to what we’re
used to seeing today, the octagonal cluster
known as the octaweb.
We’ll talk more about that in a second.
This first version of the Falcon 9 only flew
five times with its last launch on March 1st,
2013 carrying a Dragon capsule to the International
Space Station for CRS-2.
A little more than 6 months later, we got
the first launch of an upgraded Falcon 9,
sometimes called v1.1, on September 29th,
2013.
This was also the first launch from SpaceX’s
west coast launch site, SLC-4E at Vandenberg
Air Force Base in California.
This second version grew substantially to
68.4 meters or 224 feet tall, which is up
a whopping 40% or so from its previous 47.8
meters or 157 feet tall.
However it did remain that exact same diameter
at 3.66 meters or 12 feet wide.
Perhaps the biggest upgrade to this Falcon
9 was in thrust.
Due to the much upgraded Merlin 1D engine,
the Falcon 9 was now producing almost 30%
more thrust, achieving 5,880 kN’s or 1.3
million pounds of thrust.
This second version introduced the new octaweb
layout of the 9 merlin engines on the first stage.
SpaceX changed to an octaweb design so they
could just machine the same 8 pieces to hold
onto each engine instead of needing separate
corner and edge pieces, allowing for easier
and more common manufacturing as well as easier
installation of
the new engines with more commonality.
But perhaps the biggest and most exciting
change this new version of the Falcon 9 introduced
was the hardware necessary to land the first
stage.
Due to the increased performance of the Falcon
9, it was now capable of putting its payload
into orbit, and have enough fuel remaining
to land the first stage using its engines
to come to a controlled touchdown.
Besides SpaceX doing a few tests of supersonic
retropropulsion or firing its main engines
into the oncoming atmosphere at supersonic
speeds, they also started to play around with
trying to softly land the first stage in the
ocean.
But the most obvious addition was on CRS-3
which launched on April 18th, 2014.
This was the first rocket that featured landing
legs.
Something that people genuinely laughed at.
Trust me, I was there!
My first ever launch was CRS-3, and to me,
I was so excited to
see a rocket with landing legs!
How inspiring and amazing I thought.
But other people who were at the press site
were literally laughing at the concept, saying
it was just impossible and clearly a waste
of time.
Later SpaceX added grid-fins to the interstage
portion of the rocket in order to be able
to precisely control descent through the atmosphere.
They first appeared on CRS-5 which launched
on January 10th, 2015 and was the first attempt
at landing on the autonomous spaceport drone
ship, Just Read the Instructions.
Although they got close, no v1.1 Falcon 9
ever landed.
SpaceX continued to tweak and refine this
version of the Falcon 9 until they experienced
their first in flight failure of the Falcon
9 on June 28th, 2015 during the CRS-7 mission
at T + 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
SpaceX stood down to find the cause of the
issue and took this time to change over to
the penultimate version of the Falcon 9, sometimes
called v1.2 or Full Thrust.
The name’s kind of confusing, like that
time SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell called
it that and more.
She said
“I don't know what we're going to call it.
Enhanced Falcon 9, Falcon 9 v1.2, Full-Performance
Falcon 9”
This upgraded version first flew on December
21st, 2015 with the historic OG2 launch out
of SLC-40 in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The reason this particular launch is considered
historic is because it’s the first launch
that also had a successful landing of an orbital
class booster.
Something I couldn’t believe happened.
"Oh my god!" (cheering)
This version featured another healthy set
of upgrades including enough additional performance
to land the Falcon 9 from an even more energetic
and crazy geostationary launch profile.
Some of the main changes is the Falcon 9 grew
again, growing to 70 meters or 230 feet tall,
and the thrust increased to a whopping 7,600
kN or 1.7 million pounds of thrust.
Most of this thrust upgrade was the result
of SpaceX choosing to sub-cool the liquid
oxygen and cool the RP-1 rocket fuel.
This increases their densities, allowing more
to be contained in the same volume and resulting
in improved overall performance.
SpaceX also upgraded the landing legs, the
interstage, the vacuum engine, the octaweb,
the stage separator and a host of structural
and weight saving changes.
But here’s where things get extra tricky.
Since then, this version seems to be going
through constant small tweaks here and there,
including many things that will appear later
on Block 5.
One of the most obvious things we’ve seen
pop up on a few of these v1.2 boosters are
those awesome titanium grid fins, which are
also super expensive considering they’re
the largest single piece of forged titanium
ever made.
But now, it’s time we throw in the newest
and ultimate Falcon 9, Block 5.
For once in its life, the Falcon 9 isn’t
going to grow any taller.
It’s finally done with its growth spurts
I guess.
Well maybe, Elon has hinted that they could
potentially stretch the upper stage a little
bit later.
Even if it doesn’t grow any taller, it will
be SUPER easy to spot the difference.
Block 5 features a very distinctive black
interstage, black landing legs, titanium grid
fins and black raceway, that pipe looking
things that run the length of the booster
that protects the electrical connections and
plumbing.
This new version will feature a thrust upgrade
of around 7% for their Merlin engines, bringing
the total to 8,130 kN or 1.8 million pounds
of thrust thanks to even more refined tuning.
SpaceX also upgraded the turbines inside the
turbo pumps that power the engines.
SpaceX and NASA noticed there were some small
microfractures that would occur after tearing
down recovered engines.
NASA requested SpaceX find a fix, so SpaceX
addressed the issue.
But a fun note to remember is the Falcon 9
is the only rocket engine outside of the Space
Shuttle where engineers have been able to
tear the engine down after it’s full flight
to space.
So perhaps all other turbopump turbines get
these micro cracks, but we’ve just never
recovered them to witness!
The main purpose of this Block 5 variant isn’t
really to be more powerful, but it’s really
just to apply all the lessons learned from
the previous 50 plus launches of the Falcon 9.
For instance the rocket can now optimize it’s
angle of attack on landing thanks to those
awesome titanium grid fins and refined flight
control system.
Oh, and those titanium grid fins are super
heat tolerant, and don’t require ablative
paint and catch fire like the previous aluminum
ones, meaning they can be reused over and over.
They also coated the entire vehicle in a thermal
protective coating which should help limit
reentry heating damage and they also made
reusable and easily replaceable heat shields
at the base of the rocket that help protect
the engine and the plumbing.
The landing legs will now be able to be retracted
allowing for easy shipping and rapid recovery.
The previous landing legs actually had to
be unbolted before they could ship each landed core.
SpaceX is also introducing a new and improved
composite overwrap pressure vessel or COPV.
A COPV failure is what caused that pad anomaly
with AMOS-6 on September 1st, 2016.
All and all, Block 5 should be the final iteration
of the Falcon 9, allowing for multiple reuses,
and rapid turn around, hopefully even under
48 hours with no refurbishment.
We’ll talk more about that in a minute…..
Ok… so now it’s time to let the untangling
begin!
Remember at the intro when I said “we’re
going to try and untangle the mess with the
blocks?”
Well, I can officially say the deeper I got
into this, the more confusing it got.
With the help of my Patreon members in our
discord channel, we scoured every inch of
the internet to truly find an answer.
We checked with FAA fillings, the FCC filings,
wikipedia sources, the spacex subreddit’s
wikipedia, searched for every tweet with Elon
or SpaceX talking about blocks or versions,
every discussion on nasaspaceflight.com, countless
other sources and I can honestly say I’m
still really confused.
But I’m going to explain the two major trains
of thought.
One group of people think the Falcon 9 went
like this.
Falcon 9 v1.0 or block 1, Falcon 9 v1.1 or
block 2, Falcon 9 v1.2 Full thrust or block
3 and block IV was testing out parts of Block
5 and then lastly Block 5 is it all put together.
And there's another group of people and evidence
that points to it being more like this which
I actually think has a little more weight
to it.
There's Falcon 9 V1.0.
Falcon 9 V1.1 which actually had two blocks.
Then there's Falcon 9 Full Thrust which actually
has 5 blocks.
The first block 1 of full thrust was that
OG2 mission and since then we’ve seen 2,
3, and 4 floating around and the final Block
5 will be the fifth version
of the full thrust variant.
And here’s my final conclusion on this topic.
I don’t know.
But what I DO know is that SpaceX doesn’t owe
us any naming scheme.
They have a lot of proprietary and internal
information and there’s a good chance they
don’t even have blocks or names themselves!
The way SpaceX tends to do iteration changes
means they just simply might not have hard
numbers or naming schemes and each rocket
is almost unique as they evolve and are not
beholden to simple layman block naming.
That being said, I have personally received
multiple reports that Block 5 is the 5th iteration
of the “Full Thrust” variant…
And however we get to that point, tomato tomato,
I’m just happy to call it block 5 and move on
So speaking of all of this rapid evolution
and design changes, SpaceX is required by
NASA to fly the Falcon 9 Block 5 7 times without
changing anything before it’s qualified
for human flight.
They’re calling it a freeze of the design.
They don’t want SpaceX doing any tweaking
that might lead to unforeseen incidents.
(sobbing)
So expect things to settle down here for a
bit.
Besides that, Elon mentioned now that Block
5 is the last major version of the Falcon
9, SpaceX plans to put all their engineering
efforts into their upcoming Big Falcon Rocket
or BFR.
Now lastly, we need to help explain why SpaceX
has been throwing rockets away lately instead
of landing them, even having grid fins and
landing legs on some that are being expended.
Well remember that whole Block 5 is meant
to be rapidly reusable thing?
With Block 5 SpaceX hopes to be able to fly
the Falcon 9 10 times without refurbishment.
They hope to just do an inspection and then
fly again with each booster capable of around
100 flights without requiring significant
refurbishment.
I really hope that's the case!
Oh hey guys it's me, Tim.
You might not recognize me without the spacesuit
on.
What I meant to say there was they're hoping
to get 10 times before they refurbish the
vehicle and 100 uses all together before the
vehicle's lifespan is over.
I just didn't want to have to reshoot it.
That being said, the non Block 5 full thrust
variants were never intended to be flown more
than once or twice without significant refurbishment
which means it’s not very cost effective
to continue to fly them.
There’s a lot to take into account including
the cost of recovery.
When SpaceX sends the droneship out with a
support crew, that stuff isn’t free.
As a matter of fact, when you factor in the
gas, the support crew, the dock recovery crew,
the transportation etc etc etc, it could easily
add up to a million dollars or MORE.
With these rockets not being designed to refly
more than once, it’s just an additional
cost to go retrieve them.
There’s also the thought that SpaceX is
expending these boosters to test the extremes
of the vehicle, including maximizing how aggressively
they can land and how steep their angle of
attack can be as they reenter.
Data is valuable, and at some point, potentially
a lot more valuable than having another trophy
piece collecting dust.
And the only way you can truly test these
aggressive reentry and landing profiles is
with grid fins and landing legs to ensure
that all variables are the same.
A full dress rehearsal if you will.
Does that help clear the air at all?
Or did I just make this a whole lot more confusing.
What are your thoughts?
Are you sad to see that all white Falcon 9
die off?
Or are you looking forward to seeing Block 5 fly and
hopefully flying over and over again?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments
below!
In an upcoming video I’ll be comparing the
Block 5 Falcon 9 with ULA’s Atlas V. A showdown
of the two rockets that will be taking astronauts
to the International Space Station hopefully
by the end of 2018.
Fingers crossed!
So stay tuned.
I owe a huge thanks to my Patreon supporters
for helping making this and other Everyday
Astronaut content possible.
I owe a super special thanks to those Patrons in our
exclusive discord and subreddit for helping
me script and research.
I had a handful of additional help combing
through so many documents looking for the
best answer on this whole topic.
So thank you guys for all your help and for
help keeping me sane!
If you want to help contribute, hang out in
our exclusive discord channel or offer ideas
in our exclusive subreddit, please visit patreon.com/everydayastronaut
Thank you!
Thanks to my friend Oli Bruan of Buzz Space
Models for making these gorgeous handmade
and 3D printed Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy models.
You can get your own by visiting buzzspacemodels.com,
there's a link in the description.
Don't forget to check out my web store for
shirts, hats, mugs, prints of rocket launches,
original artwork and lots of other fun stuff
at everydayastronaut.com/shop
And as always, all the music in my videos
is original.
The song in this video is called “Moon Dance”
Feel free to check it out and download it
for free at soundcloud.com/everydayastronaut
Tell a friend!
Thanks everybody that does it for me.
I'm Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut.
Bringing space down to Earth for everyday
people.
