...Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off. Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 11/22/2017 09:18 amComment from ESA head:QuoteWoerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933269213703262208QuoteDid he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at leasthttps://twitter.com/planetguy_bln/status/933271153854025729QuoteNo, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933271439255404544I’m with Elon on this, in that I don’t understand the issue with using fuel to land (and thus reducing payload mass). What matters is the cost to launch the payloads you want to launch, not how much you could have launched on the same rocket if expendable. (I’m assuming costs reflect reuse development costs.)Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off. Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
Comment from ESA head:QuoteWoerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933269213703262208QuoteDid he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at leasthttps://twitter.com/planetguy_bln/status/933271153854025729QuoteNo, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933271439255404544I’m with Elon on this, in that I don’t understand the issue with using fuel to land (and thus reducing payload mass). What matters is the cost to launch the payloads you want to launch, not how much you could have launched on the same rocket if expendable. (I’m assuming costs reflect reuse development costs.)
Woerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17
Did he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at least
No, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/22/2017 11:43 amAlthough Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off. Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off. Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
Quote from: Semmel on 11/23/2017 06:29 amQuote from: woods170 on 11/22/2017 11:43 amAlthough Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off. Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though. Two words:Public money.Remember when Ariane 501 auto-terminated? The public fall-out over it was significant. And when Ariane 502 had issues as well some nasty questions were asked about Ariane funding in the parliaments of France and Germany.That repeated when the first Ariane 5 ECA was a complete failure. So, it's nice that SpaceX spends it private money to land (and occasionally fail to land) F9 booster stages. But the average European tax-payer (note my use of the word "average") will not like the prospect of "their" money being spent on failed booster landings.Even getting enough public funding authorised for the "safe" development option (Ariane 6 as currently being developed) has been a big problem.But I digress. This thread is after all about SpaceX customers' views on reuse.
As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
Quote from: Semmel on 11/23/2017 06:29 amAs a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.Working or not, the stage is lost. Why don't give a try and do some tests?
Quote from: Kosmos2001 on 11/23/2017 01:09 pmQuote from: Semmel on 11/23/2017 06:29 amAs a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.Working or not, the stage is lost. Why don't give a try and do some tests?And this 'Musk' approach works no matter which reuse technology one thinks is preferable. So, relax Jan, and watch the kaboomy goodness.
It’s a different thing for Elon Musk to joke about expecting some RUD events or making some craters and a bureaucrat using public funds and responsible to political pressure. Musk put out a video montage of SpaceX best crashes. Imagine DOD, NASA, ESA or one of their subcontractors doing that. It may be perfectly understandable rationally but crashes will be used by political opposition and the images will look like evidence of failure and mismanagement to some people. Musk can joke about it because he’s using his own money and isn’t endangering lives. A politician or bureaucrat knows they can’t get away with the same attitude no matter how rational it may be.
Two words:Public money.Remember when Ariane 501 auto-terminated? The public fall-out over it was significant. And when Ariane 502 had issues as well some nasty questions were asked about Ariane funding in the parliaments of France and Germany.That repeated when the first Ariane 5 ECA was a complete failure. So, it's nice that SpaceX spends it private money to land (and occasionally fail to land) F9 booster stages. But the average European tax-payer (note my use of the word "average") will not like the prospect of "their" money being spent on failed booster landings.
It may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.
QuoteIt may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.How long can a boutique provider of expendable NSS launches survive in a world in which BFR and NG are flying frequently with demonstrated reliability and low cost?
ULA says it needs ten flights per year to survive, half of which need to be commercial because of the paucity of USG launches. That is where the rub exists... must compete in the commercial market to remain viable.ArianeGroup may find itself in a similar situation, where a handful of flights are guaranteed by Europe's national program's, but there is still a significant fraction (again, maybe half) that must be toe-to-toe competed. So, boutique might work when subsidies are high, but that doesn't appear to be a future prospect.
How long can a boutique provider of expendable NSS launches survive in a world in which BFR and NG are flying frequently with demonstrated reliability and low cost?
Many scenarios to encompass NSS need are possible. NSS need itself is changing - right now getting up rapidly a fresh set of assets. Examples might include comprehensive contracts requiring priority to having a dedicated provider running a launch service with its own set of vehicles obtained from a non-compete commercial launch provider.As always, meet/secure a need in a way that leverages common in-use capability without compromise of missions.
...Turning the question on its head. Knowing that recovery and reuse is possible why would you not design in R&R friendly features to your new booster design from day one? Not necessarily for immediate use but available once its flight qualified for you target market.