Author Topic: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread  (Read 52726 times)

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
  • Liked: 327
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #20 on: 05/04/2017 10:02 AM »
I've been converted to the "no raptor upper stage on falcon family" belief.

It does provide some benifit, before ITS comes online.

It's not known when ITS would come online. 2022, say? That's 5 years from now.

Quote
But once ITS comes online it's entirely obsolite, which puts a cap on how much it can earn for SpaceX over what the Mvac stage can. And it's pretty clear that how much it can earn is less than how much it would cost to develop and build that stage

A large fraction of the cost is in developing the engine, and know what? SpaceX is _already_ developing this engine. They already spending these money, they can not be "saved".

Also, with Raptor upper stage, they can drop MVac (which is "three times more expensive than sea-level Merlins").

Yes, yes, "It wont cost THAT much to make" and "It does things Falcon heavy cant now." I get that.

The problem is that the "things it does that falcon cant" isnt big enough to cover even "Doesnt cost that much," especially since infrastructure changes (fuel lines on the erector, ect) actually would -reduce- the number of paying flights compared to a kerlox-only falcon family.

ITS cant use the falcon pads anyway, so there's no reason to shut down the falcon pads to add methlox.

Yip. I'm pretty much converted to this viewpoint. But it would be sad if this situation (Falcon architecture only) lasts much longer than planned, if ITS say only comes online in 2035 instead of 2025 or something along those lines. Then SpaceX is going to start falling behind their competitors, and that doesn't seem like the type of company they aspire to be.

Hence my view that ITS has to be developed as soon as possible, then.

I don't think you can make any of those statements given what is publicly available.

F9 architecture is going to be around for at least a decade, probably two, because it's efficient and it works and it caters for most of the current possible payloads. And that could be exactly what SpaceX are planning...

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 2302
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #21 on: 05/04/2017 11:07 AM »
A Raptor Upper Stage for Falcon 9/Heavy would make a lot of sense if ITS (or mini ITS) will actually take a long time to fly.
But lets think rationally.
 Without a fully certified Raptor, there's neither ITS nor any raptor upper stage.
 Reportedly the next big technical challenge is the big composite fuel tank, which is already being tested.
 Perhaps building the full sized ITS could require several billion to make (including the cost to prepare a new factory), but so far Elon Musk has been on a huge roll and have ZERO problems raising capital for either SpaceX or Tesla.
 The assumption of 3.66m diameter stages makes every sense for rockets that aren't reusable, but for a fully reusable system (that requires zero refurb on a launch by launch basis and only need refurb every 20-100 launches), the road transportable model is mostly obsolete.
Yes, a Raptor Upper Stage would deliver significant performance improvements to F9/FH, but F9 Block V + FH Block V will be performance beasts with full booster reuse.
Reusing a F9/FH upper stage (either M1D or Raptor based) is far, far harder than reusing a ITS/mini ITS upper stage that has dedicated vacuum and sea level engines to cover the full range of the flight regime and can eliminate N2 thrusters, use larger grid fins to produce more drag and more lift (better cross range capability to allow for RTLS every time).
The massive performance and ultra long upper stage missions even a mini ITS would have could enable extensive usage of dog legs/bi elliptical transfers which could eliminate the need for VAFB launch pads for ITS. One pad in Boca Chica plus one pad in either cape ranges would do very nicely. If needed be, use the tanker to refuel the upper stage.

The nail in the coffin is the massive scale even of a 1/3 size mini ITS, that could deliver over 50 tons worth of GEO satellites directly to a GEO-500 (or even GSO) insertion, eliminating months of transit time for pure electric satellites, massively reducing payload mass dedicated to chemical propulsion and propellant present in most current GEO satellites being launched even today.

If you assume ITS will take 5 years to become operational, then you should assume a Raptor Upper Stage would take at least half a much to become operational, which possibly doesn't even recoup the waste in design talent taken away from ITS to build this new upper stage. Building more upper stages cost money, but I think the truly scarce resource is the engineering talent.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 11:12 AM by macpacheco »
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 2302
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #22 on: 05/04/2017 11:22 AM »
In reply to a post on: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)

Profit is only one of SpaceX's internal goals, and only a means at that - not an end of itself.
A common characteristic of people that keep defending this raptor upper stage is the unwillingness to accept that SpaceX must at least break even. In fact, it must produce LOTS of CASH on a variable per launch calculation basis, so that per launch positive cash flow can pay for the massive SpaceX payroll and other fixed and R&D costs.

If you take a few days to understand the business side of things, you'll see that this whole raptor upper stage endeavour could make a lot of sense technically, but makes ZERO sense when you consider $$$.

Elon Musk has said several times, that he doesn't care too much about profit, but that if his companies don't at least nearly break even, he can't justify them to investors and the whole effort become a house of cards.

Remember Musk has two degrees, Physics and Economics. He seems to use both skills very wisely.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #23 on: 05/04/2017 11:28 AM »
have ZERO problems raising capital for either SpaceX or Tesla.

Capital for things investors hope to profit from. Like the Internet constellation.

If you have evidence of SpaceX receiving funding from philanthropic billionaires, I'd really like to hear about it.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 530
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #24 on: 05/04/2017 11:35 AM »
If you assume ITS will take 5 years to become operational, then you should assume a Raptor Upper Stage would take at least half a much to become operational

Because a 5 meter wide, 15 meter long Al-Li tank with a single Raptor is not very different from 12m wide, 120m long composite tank behemoth with 42 Raptors, with thrust high enough to shatter LC-39a. Riiiight...
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 11:38 AM by gospacex »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #25 on: 05/04/2017 12:29 PM »
A Raptor Upper Stage for Falcon 9/Heavy would make a lot of sense if ITS (or mini ITS) will actually take a long time to fly.
But lets think rationally.
 Without a fully certified Raptor, there's neither ITS nor any raptor upper stage.
 Reportedly the next big technical challenge is the big composite fuel tank, which is already being tested.
 Perhaps building the full sized ITS could require several billion to make (including the cost to prepare a new factory), but so far Elon Musk has been on a huge roll and have ZERO problems raising capital for either SpaceX or Tesla.
 The assumption of 3.66m diameter stages makes every sense for rockets that aren't reusable, but for a fully reusable system (that requires zero refurb on a launch by launch basis and only need refurb every 20-100 launches), the road transportable model is mostly obsolete.

No, it's not "mostly obsolete". It's completely and totally dead. A 6m booster needs new transport and test facilities, and a 12m booster needs new transport, test, manufacturing, integration, and launch facilities. As soon as a new booster is required you add at least 3 years , and a 12m booster at least 5 years, to any plans for an upper stage that uses existing (slightly modified) infrastructure.

Quote
Yes, a Raptor Upper Stage would deliver significant performance improvements to F9/FH, but F9 Block V + FH Block V will be performance beasts with full booster reuse.

The goal of ITS isn't just capacity, it's capability. Capabilities that Falcon will never have: full and rapid reuse; on-orbit refueling; lifting entry with retropropulsive landing; ISRU for propellants on Mars; Mars ascent and return.

Quote
If you assume ITS will take 5 years to become operational, then you should assume a Raptor Upper Stage would take at least half a much to become operational, which possibly doesn't even recoup the waste in design talent taken away from ITS to build this new upper stage. Building more upper stages cost money, but I think the truly scarce resource is the engineering talent.

Jim assumes ITS will take at least 10 years to be operational, and I don't think he's far off (it needs new transport, test, manufacturing, integration, and launch facilities). A Raptor upper stage could yield the same capability (at lower but still sufficient capacity) in 2-3 years.

In reply to a post on: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)

Profit is only one of SpaceX's internal goals, and only a means at that - not an end of itself.
A common characteristic of people that keep defending this raptor upper stage is the unwillingness to accept that SpaceX must at least break even. In fact, it must produce LOTS of CASH on a variable per launch calculation basis, so that per launch positive cash flow can pay for the massive SpaceX payroll and other fixed and R&D costs.

If you take a few days to understand the business side of things, you'll see that this whole raptor upper stage endeavour could make a lot of sense technically, but makes ZERO sense when you consider $$$.

Elon Musk has said several times, that he doesn't care too much about profit, but that if his companies don't at least nearly break even, he can't justify them to investors and the whole effort become a house of cards.

Remember Musk has two degrees, Physics and Economics. He seems to use both skills very wisely.

Profit isn't remotely an argument that favors a full ITS system (or even an intermediate methalox booster) over using Raptor on Falcon. There are enormous upfront costs for required extra infrastructure, and no clear path to any breakeven payback. Raptor on Falcon has incremental infrastructure costs (or nearly none at all if they build Boca Chica to support it from day 1).
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 12:36 PM by envy887 »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #26 on: 05/04/2017 12:42 PM »
ITS cant use the falcon pads anyway, so there's no reason to shut down the falcon pads to add methlox.

The current plan for ITS is launching from 39A, which just happens to be a Falcon pad. At least acknowledge the clearly stated plan before speculating the complete opposite.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #27 on: 05/04/2017 12:43 PM »
I do not think there would be that much infrastructure change.  Liquid methane can be produced near the pad like liquid oxygen, then piped to the upper stage.  A 5.2m upper stage would match the same diameter as the existing fairing, just extended down to the interstage where the second stage is now.  A new interstage could actually be attached to the upper stage to protect the bell on the Raptor vacuum engine on reentry.  It could be built line the ITS, but 5.2m wide and as long as the existing upper stage + fairing.  A bay could open near the nose to release satellites.  It would be an iconic cylinder type re-entry.  It could land via parachute in the desert, or have three small landing thrusters using methalox so no extra fuel would be needed, then land vertically near the launch site.  It may start with aluminum tanks, then later proceed to composite to save weight and add payload. 

A lot of different experimentation could be done.  It could actually start as expendable, then add the return components over time.  In the meantime in expendable mode, F9/FH could increase their payload size, and deep space abilities. 

Also, remember, pad 39A has limited thrust of 12 million lbs for a future ITS/BFR booster.  Anything more and a complete new infrastructure would have to be built. 
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 12:46 PM by spacenut »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4552
  • Liked: 2678
  • Likes Given: 3775
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #28 on: 05/04/2017 12:54 PM »
...

The goal of ITS isn't just capacity, it's capability. Capabilities that Falcon will never have: full and rapid reuse; on-orbit refueling; lifting entry with retropropulsive landing; ISRU for propellants on Mars; Mars ascent and return.

...

Unless a mini-ITS ship is built as a second stage for FH...
Not only could have all these capabilities, but could be the test platform to demonstrate each of them.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 202
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #29 on: 05/04/2017 12:57 PM »
Let's put it this way.  Musk has even refused to build a longer fairing for Bigelow.

Bigelow has the cash, he has the payloads, and no additional infrastructure would be required.  But SpaceX isn't going to do it, presumably because they would then have two fairing types to manufacture.

No need to see eye-to-eye with Jim on the reasons in order to see that his conclusion is correct.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 01:07 PM by RedLineTrain »

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 256
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #30 on: 05/04/2017 01:09 PM »
I agree with Jim that any speculation regarding a Raptor powered or 1/3rd scale Raptor powered F9upper stage should be in a separate thread and not just thrown into any discussion at hand. Having said that -
I also believe that ITS will not even see a test stand in the next ten years, and that in-space refueling will be the next technology hurdle to attract full attention. So that some sort of Methane powered in-space stage will become a SpaceX goal.

We may see in 6 weeks, but a 9 engine Raptor first stage with a refuelable 2nd stage and possibly returnable version seems to me the way forward more likely than a dedicated Falcon 1/3rd scale 2nd stage. My impression is that E.M. will be keen on getting a full sized Raptor into service somehow.  Since pad 39B is supposed to be a "Clean Pad" what are the chances that the Methane could be added there? Otherwise with SLC-40 in service 39A could be worked between Crewed dragon flights to add Methane.

Edit: removed reference to Boca Chica.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 01:19 PM by robert_d »

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 2302
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #31 on: 05/04/2017 01:43 PM »
No, it's not "mostly obsolete". It's completely and totally dead. A 6m booster needs new transport and test facilities, and a 12m booster needs new transport, test, manufacturing, integration, and launch facilities. As soon as a new booster is required you add at least 3 years , and a 12m booster at least 5 years, to any plans for an upper stage that uses existing (slightly modified) infrastructure.

The goal of ITS isn't just capacity, it's capability. Capabilities that Falcon will never have: full and rapid reuse; on-orbit refueling; lifting entry with retropropulsive landing; ISRU for propellants on Mars; Mars ascent and return.

Jim assumes ITS will take at least 10 years to be operational, and I don't think he's far off (it needs new transport, test, manufacturing, integration, and launch facilities). A Raptor upper stage could yield the same capability (at lower but still sufficient capacity) in 2-3 years.

Profit isn't remotely an argument that favors a full ITS system (or even an intermediate methalox booster) over using Raptor on Falcon. There are enormous upfront costs for required extra infrastructure, and no clear path to any breakeven payback. Raptor on Falcon has incremental infrastructure costs (or nearly none at all if they build Boca Chica to support it from day 1).
If you read carefully, I said ITS  OR  MINI ITS. Not AND.
A full scale ITS might indeed require a new pad, but a mini ITS could be sized up to the limit of LC39A (1/3 of ITS lift off thrust matches Saturn V very well).
The performance capability of FH is too small even with a substantial Raptor upper stage to throw a large mass towards Mars.
The expected refurb costs of FH boosters would be a significant bottleneck to send a large volume of people and cargo towards Mars.
I don't see a reason for anxiety even if it takes 10 years for ITS to be flying. Even IF there's no mini ITS in between.
If it takes 5 or 8 years to a mini ITS, so be it. I think SpaceX can do it within 3-5 years after Raptor is flight qualified.
A larger single core methane booster is a huge part of the ITS solution.
I think people should have some humility and accept that SpaceX knows a heck of a lot more than you or me, they say the path forward is ITS, with people conjuring this Raptor upper stage to F9/FH based on a contract with USAF that clearly is for the engine only, mentioning an upper stage strictly as one possible application for the engine (as well as the unlikely usage of Raptor for non SpaceX rockets). The USAF contract doesn't mention ITS cause mentioning ITS on a development contract isn't strategical for either USAF nor SpaceX.
Maybe the path forward is a mini ITS to reduce infrastructure costs. A mini ITS would be even better as a complete replacement to FH and likely F9 too.
Mini ITS would both reduce SpaceX margins to access to orbital payloads, bring substantial capabilities towards other non Mars revenue too.

My hunch is this Raptor development contract was one of the agreements that came out of the Falcon 9 USAF certification settlement. One of the several ways in which USAF agreed to make up for SpaceX. I wouldn't read that much further than a means to incentive SpaceX to bring new LVs to market which then USAF/DoD can use.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #32 on: 05/04/2017 02:38 PM »
If you read carefully, I said ITS  OR  MINI ITS. Not AND.
A full scale ITS might indeed require a new pad, but a mini ITS could be sized up to the limit of LC39A (1/3 of ITS lift off thrust matches Saturn V very well).

I was addressing either case. The problem for a 7 to 9 Raptor booster is not launch. SpaceX has nowhere to build or test a vehicle that size and length, and no way to move it to the facilities they do have. They would need new manufacturing and test facilities either at the Cape, or on a waterway. For a 12m booster it only gets worse.

Quote
The performance capability of FH is too small even with a substantial Raptor upper stage to throw a large mass towards Mars.
The expected refurb costs of FH boosters would be a significant bottleneck to send a large volume of people and cargo towards Mars.

Wrong. An upper stage optimally sized for FH could most likely land 40 to 50 tonnes on Mars, if the assumptions inherent to the ITS design are correct. And SpaceX expects to refurbish F9 boosters in 24 hours, which basically means just inspecting them before reflight. So FH turnaround would be reasonably fast and cheap.

Besides, there's no need to send "large" volumes of people or cargo to Mars in the next decade - at least not significantly larger than the 40-50 tonnes or cargo and 6-8 people that could be delivered with 5 FH/Raptor upper stage flights. There's nothing inherent to the ITS plan that requires 100 or 300 tonne payloads. It's a problem of capability, not capacity.

Quote
I don't see a reason for anxiety even if it takes 10 years for ITS to be flying. Even IF there's no mini ITS in between.
If it takes 5 or 8 years to a mini ITS, so be it. I think SpaceX can do it within 3-5 years after Raptor is flight qualified.
A larger single core methane booster is a huge part of the ITS solution.
I think people should have some humility and accept that SpaceX knows a heck of a lot more than you or me, they say the path forward is ITS, with people conjuring this Raptor upper stage to F9/FH based on a contract with USAF that clearly is for the engine only, mentioning an upper stage strictly as one possible application for the engine (as well as the unlikely usage of Raptor for non SpaceX rockets). The USAF contract doesn't mention ITS cause mentioning ITS on a development contract isn't strategical for either USAF nor SpaceX.
Maybe the path forward is a mini ITS to reduce infrastructure costs. A mini ITS would be even better as a complete replacement to FH and likely F9 too.
Mini ITS would both reduce SpaceX margins to access to orbital payloads, bring substantial capabilities towards other non Mars revenue too.

My hunch is this Raptor development contract was one of the agreements that came out of the Falcon 9 USAF certification settlement. One of the several ways in which USAF agreed to make up for SpaceX. I wouldn't read that much further than a means to incentive SpaceX to bring new LVs to market which then USAF/DoD can use.

The only reason to put Raptor on HF is if there if significant doubt about the feasibility of the whole ITS (or mini ITS) plan in a reasonable timeframe. It really comes down to how large a bite SpaceX thinks they can chew. ITS is extremely optimistic. Mini ITS considerably less so. But a mini ITS upper stage on FH is the minimum viable product that can demonstrate the ITS architecture.

I don't put any stock in the "USAF upper stage" theories, because it's pretty obvious that the contract was only for an engine. SpaceX will do with that engine as they see fit.

Offline RoboGoofers

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • NJ
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #33 on: 05/04/2017 04:54 PM »
Using the ITS presentation schedule I made the attached spreadsheet to play with. I've added other projects and speculation on how mini ITS or Rvac US would fit in. I hope it's formated clearly.

The green years are approximate Mars windows. Everything below the double line is speculative.

I assume they are doing some development on Mars Infrastructure; The Boring Company is an example. They'll probably be doing that sort of dev forever.

Edit: i got the date wrong for the Lunar mission...
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 05:23 PM by RoboGoofers »

Online GWH

Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #34 on: 05/04/2017 05:13 PM »
Nice work.  Some questions on the schedule that can't necessarily be answered without knowing internal development schedule:
-Is the RVac US for FH able to land cargo on Mars? Namely in the 2020 window vs the ITS planned 2022 window.
-Mars infrastructure: how much can be tested via Red Dragon Flights or would these items need to be larger?
-If ITS flights to Mars slip to the right what does this mean to the development of ground infrastructure?
-Would the RVac FH US allow for development of Mars infrastructure concurrent to ITS development, so that a slip in ITS first flight to Mars doesn't cause a slip in ground hardware testing on Mars?

Offline RoboGoofers

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • NJ
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #35 on: 05/04/2017 05:36 PM »
Nice work.  Some questions on the schedule that can't necessarily be answered without knowing internal development schedule:
-Is the RVac US for FH able to land cargo on Mars? Namely in the 2020 window vs the ITS planned 2022 window.
if you mean take the US to Mars, not unless they develop it for that use. but then it's really more a Mini ITS so would take longer to dev.

Quote
-Mars infrastructure: how much can be tested via Red Dragon Flights or would these items need to be larger?
Yes? by infrastructure i mean everything left on the surface.

Quote
-If ITS flights to Mars slip to the right what does this mean to the development of ground infrastructure?
If i was making the decision, i wouldn't spend a ton of time developing ground infrastructure if i wasn't sure i'd be able to get it on the surface. I assume it'd push it to the right as well.

Quote
-Would the RVac FH US allow for development of Mars infrastructure concurrent to ITS development, so that a slip in ITS first flight to Mars doesn't cause a slip in ground hardware testing on Mars?
If they're developing the ground hardware for ITS, the whole plan goes back to the drawing board without ITS. They'll need a lot more than just a Rvac US.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4210
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1388
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #36 on: 05/04/2017 05:44 PM »
have ZERO problems raising capital for either SpaceX or Tesla.

Capital for things investors hope to profit from. Like the Internet constellation.

If you have evidence of SpaceX receiving funding from philanthropic billionaires, I'd really like to hear about it.

WSJ has estimated "CommX's" net revenue potential at up to ~$22B a year, >$2B more than NASA's current budget. If that project works out half as well as WSJ thinks funding will be the least of their problems.
DM

Online GreenShrike

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 391
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #37 on: 05/04/2017 05:45 PM »
It does provide some benifit, before ITS comes online. But once ITS comes online it's entirely obsolite, which puts a cap on how much it can earn for SpaceX over what the Mvac stage can. And it's pretty clear that how much it can earn is less than how much it would cost to develop and build that stage, rebuild a launch site for mixed propellants (displacing normal paying flights, which counts as a cost), and other expences of such a program.

How much it can earn? That's spoken like someone who hasn't heard that SpaceX would very much like to orbit 10K+ satellites.

Who cares about their paying flights, when to launch 4400 LEO sats they themselves will need almost 90 Falcon Heavy launches at 50 sats per FH launch? That's three times the number of current *F9* flights and almost as many as the current number of Atlas V and Delta 4 flights combined. Double that or more if they're restricted to launching them on F9s due to lack of fairing volume (a topic for another thread).

And then there's also another 7000-odd VLEO sats, so double or triple the 90 FH or 180 F9 flights.

At this point, SpaceX's commercial *paying* flights are a somewhat rough rounding error.

A Raptor S2 doesn't need to earn SpaceX a thing when at $10M per Merlin S2, 200 or 300 launches represents a couple or three billion of capital just in Merlin S2s -- and never mind the CommX payloads. It's possible SpaceX could save a good portion of that by developing a fully reusable upper stage. A billion saved is a billion earned -- isn't that how the saying goes?

And a Raptor stage won't eat performance margins for lunch like the relatively low ISP Merlin upper stage will -- a 20-30% performance penalty to the current S2 would, at flight rates of 200-300 launches, mean 40 on the low end and 90 on the high end more launches.  Even assuming a heavily discounted $30M per FH launch, 40 launches is again over $1 billion in additional costs. At a discounted $20M per F9, 90 launches is almost $2B.

The problem is that the "things it does that falcon cant" isnt big enough to cover even "Doesnt cost that much," especially since infrastructure changes (fuel lines on the erector, ect) actually would -reduce- the number of paying flights compared to a kerlox-only falcon family.

Unfortunately, "things Falcon can't" currently include launching 10K+ sats in as economical a manner as SpaceX likely needs if Elon wants to maintain control of the company.

Compared to current flight rates, a few hundred million to design and build a Raptor upper stage (hopefully with integrated sat dispenser, which, indeed, may look like a mini-ITS) and a couple hundred more to modify the GSE is blinking expensive.

Compared to what SpaceX plans, however, it's practically peanuts.


You need to keep in mind that, if you're trying to suss out what SpaceX is going to do, SpaceX will act based on the requirements of their own dreams and schemes -- which most certainly include the CommX constellation.

And those plans present SpaceX with a stark choice: a fully reusable Raptor upper stage, a reusable Merlin upper stage that adds 40 or 60 or 80 launches to a manifest that already strains credulity, or an expendable Merlin that results in $2-3 billion of SpaceX cash burned up on re-entry.

If after all's said and done, it costs SpaceX $1 billion to field a Raptor upper stage, well, even to a billionaire like Musk saving another billion in costs isn't chump change.
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 06:36 PM by GreenShrike »
TriOptimum Corporation
Military - Science - Consumer

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2324
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #38 on: 05/04/2017 06:30 PM »
have ZERO problems raising capital for either SpaceX or Tesla.

Capital for things investors hope to profit from. Like the Internet constellation.

If you have evidence of SpaceX receiving funding from philanthropic billionaires, I'd really like to hear about it.

WSJ has estimated "CommX's" net revenue potential at up to ~$22B a year, >$2B more than NASA's current budget. If that project works out half as well as WSJ thinks funding will be the least of their problems.

Minor nit: That's Spacex's internal projection, leaked by WSJ. The folks at the Journal probably think it's loony.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4210
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1388
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Raptor Upper Stage consolidated thread
« Reply #39 on: 05/04/2017 07:04 PM »
Fair enough, but a recent Senate hearing had much to say about net service to unserved and underserved remote US regions. Note was made by the chair and ranking member of SpaceX's minimal surface infrastructure, especially given the years conventional  base station permitting takes. This could prove critical to favorably influencing pending legislation with proposed changes to FAA and FCC regs geared to accelerate such low infrastructure deployments. If this goes that way the revenue estimates for SpaceX and others like them may be low.

Sent from my K88 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: 05/04/2017 07:05 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Tags: