The key is with the expansion of used boosters the flight rate will increase. This next flight of a used booster at the end of Sept will keep the flight rate up. As we move into 2018 the ratio of used to all flights will increase. That ratio increase will enable an increase in overall flight rates without the expansion of manufacturing capability at Hawthorne. Reuse of boosters is a two fold impact for flight costs. One is the direct cost of the flight and the other is indirect cost lowering for the payload operator because of the lower wait time for a flight from greater availability of flight hardware. It is because of this booster reuse that SpaceX will be able to fix their delays for getting payloads into orbit. One of the main items that the competitors ULA or Arianespace uses to attract new payloads. This will put them shortly (about 1 year from now) into a more competitive position for commercial payloads than what they were before. The other item is to have 2 functional east coast pads enabling up to the doubling of the demonstrated launch rate so far this year of one East launch every 18 days. With 2 pads the theoretical is that they could do 1 launch every 9 days into equatorial orbits <60 degree inclinations. At such launch rates that is 40 east launches plus from 6 to 8 west launches. West launches is still primarily limited by payloads that are going into the polar orbits. SLC4E could do up to 20 launches/year. If the SpaceX comm constellation is deployed, it would use up the capability of the SLC4E for higher inclination orbits about 12 or somewhere around about 300 sats/yr. If some of the launch capability of the east pads is used then it would be possible for a full 800 sat constellation could be deployed in 1 year. The 800 value is the sated level needed for the constellation to be operational and start producing revenue while more sats are added each year. So in 2019 or 2020 the sat constellation could be deployed and become operational. For this is is a problem of how many sats SpaceX could manufacture in 1 or 2 years once production of sats start. The other item is the production of Earth terminals which will be needed to be produce at the rate of 1X to 100X the rate sats are produced or 8,000 to 80,000 units in the same time frame.
If SpaceX deploys the comm constellation in ~2 years the competition is the HTS geo sats and One Web at that time frame. Later more competition in LEO could occur.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/10/2017 10:00 pmIf SpaceX deploys the comm constellation in ~2 years the competition is the HTS geo sats and One Web at that time frame. Later more competition in LEO could occur.SpaceX has asked for a waiver so they would only have to launch the first 1600 satellites in the next SIX years. I doubt they will be ready for mass production of satellites any time soon.
Quote from: gongora on 08/11/2017 12:37 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/10/2017 10:00 pmIf SpaceX deploys the comm constellation in ~2 years the competition is the HTS geo sats and One Web at that time frame. Later more competition in LEO could occur.SpaceX has asked for a waiver so they would only have to launch the first 1600 satellites in the next SIX years. I doubt they will be ready for mass production of satellites any time soon.SpaceX wants mass production as soon as possible. They just don't want a chance (even if they think it's just a small chance) of losing their permit just because they don't have northern Alaska covered.SpaceX asking for the waiver doesn't reflect their plans, it reflects the sensible idea that they don't want to risk losing a license if they're delayed, even if they think the odds of being delayed are just 5%.File this under:"Most people have difficulty understanding the idea of a probability being anything other than 0% and 100%."
Quote from: gongora on 08/11/2017 01:57 amAs usual, SpaceX didn't aim low. Their design is for very advanced satellites, and it's going to take some work to get them working at the needed price points. Just getting that design working at all will be a major accomplishment.Is there any public or L2 information about the design of these satellites and the state of their advancement? I am sure that would make very informative reading
As usual, SpaceX didn't aim low. Their design is for very advanced satellites, and it's going to take some work to get them working at the needed price points. Just getting that design working at all will be a major accomplishment.
Although technical does have economic entanglements, this discussion is about primarily the economic competition that SpaceX faces in the coming years contrasted to the competition of the past few years. If the comm constellation comes to pass then the competition field becomes more than just LV providers. And that is likely to happen in as little as 2 years. Unlike the introduction of the ITSy which could be introduced at best NET 6 years from now. The other item impacting competition for LVs is the number of used booster being flown to the total number of booster flown in a year. Here this year that ratio is likely to be 6 out of 21 or 29% but 2018 could be as high as 50%.Please keep the discussion on topic and less a pure hardware technical discussion unless it impacts the competitive capability of SpaceX to its competitors.
That is a fallacy. The main issue is to get 4 customers that are ready at the same time
Quote from: Jim on 08/12/2017 06:28 pmThat is a fallacy. The main issue is to get 4 customers that are ready at the same timeIf you read my post, this is the point I was making. They won't need 4 ready. They will launch whatever is ready at the time.
Quote from: guckyfan on 08/12/2017 07:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/12/2017 06:28 pmThat is a fallacy. The main issue is to get 4 customers that are ready at the same timeIf you read my post, this is the point I was making. They won't need 4 ready. They will launch whatever is ready at the time.The problem with that is that load balancing is a big problem with launch. You cannot just leave off not launching a payload at a moments notice. It requires reworking the launch analysis and possibly adding ballast to compensate. So there is a cost when payloads drop off the manifest for a specific launch. Same problem exists now for secondaries. Many times a ballast is used to replace the secondary that does not make the flight.
Stop thinking of rockets as machines that you tweek performance on at all costs and only fly with nearly a full payload...