Quote from: Owlon on 11/09/2014 04:24 pmI can see a future (say, 15 years from now) where a fully reusable BFR is able to apply lessons learned from F9 so well that it is actually cheaper per flight than F9 with an expendable upper stage. In that scenario, I would expect a sort of F9 2.0 eventually (another 5+ years later) that would be even cheaper and be fully reusable.Or maybe people will switch to heavier satellites. If launch price is low enough, it will make sense to optimize the satellite by cost instead of by mass. Stuff like less efficient but cheaper solar panels, for example. If mass is not an issue, why not just put more solar panels? Why not use steel as a structural element? Put a bigger fuel tank to ensure de-orbiting. Et cetera...
I can see a future (say, 15 years from now) where a fully reusable BFR is able to apply lessons learned from F9 so well that it is actually cheaper per flight than F9 with an expendable upper stage. In that scenario, I would expect a sort of F9 2.0 eventually (another 5+ years later) that would be even cheaper and be fully reusable.
thanks for pointing it out.I meant the system with expendable upper stage. I used the term fully reusable to distinguish it from partial reusable, where just the 2 booster-cores land, and the central core is expendable.maybe a reusable upper stage would work for falcon heavy, as (as far as I know) the reusable upper stage would be to heavy for a normal F9, FH could be strong enough to do so. and if such a completely reusable FH delivers as much mass as a normal F9R, then it's just an economic question... which system is cheaper.
Quote from: Eerie on 11/09/2014 05:15 pmQuote from: Owlon on 11/09/2014 04:24 pmI can see a future (say, 15 years from now) where a fully reusable BFR is able to apply lessons learned from F9 so well that it is actually cheaper per flight than F9 with an expendable upper stage. In that scenario, I would expect a sort of F9 2.0 eventually (another 5+ years later) that would be even cheaper and be fully reusable.Or maybe people will switch to heavier satellites. If launch price is low enough, it will make sense to optimize the satellite by cost instead of by mass. Stuff like less efficient but cheaper solar panels, for example. If mass is not an issue, why not just put more solar panels? Why not use steel as a structural element? Put a bigger fuel tank to ensure de-orbiting. Et cetera...This is backwards IMO. Satellite costs are dominated by Integration, testing, & engineering costs. Component costs are far down the list. So lots of little satellites and common buses would do more to reduce costs than more mass available. Cf Iridium, Orbcomm.
Not reusable, then.
A top U.S. Air Force official on Wednesday said she is "pretty optimistic" that privately held Space Exploration Technologies will eventually be certified to launch U.S. military satellites into orbit but declined comment on the timing of such an action.
Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island?
Quote from: a_langwich on 11/20/2014 12:10 amHas there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island? How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?
Quote from: nimbostratus on 11/20/2014 02:38 amQuote from: a_langwich on 11/20/2014 12:10 amHas there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island? How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?Elon has talked about this scenario, and stated the distance is too far.
Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?
How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?Elon has talked about this scenario, and stated the distance is too far.
Etrepreneur Elon Musk and his upstart company SpaceX are on the verge of upsetting a cozy and pricey military deal that for years has given two aerospace giants the exclusive right to launch the Air Force's most crucial satellites into orbit.
Air Force officials are in the final stages of a years-long, detailed review of the rocket company's launches and operations. A decision on whether to certify SpaceX for the launches, they said, is expected next month.