Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/26/2017 02:39 pmHere is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.FH is made by SpaceX. It is to create money to SpaceX, DIVH cannot do that.
Quote from: Jim on 06/26/2017 02:39 pmHere is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.
Here is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmWhy is SpaceX reusing rockets? There was no need for it given that the world did just fine for the past 5+ decades launching on expendable rockets only.Yet, reusable Falcon exists.SpaceX is reusing rockets because it makes launches cheaper.
Why is SpaceX reusing rockets? There was no need for it given that the world did just fine for the past 5+ decades launching on expendable rockets only.Yet, reusable Falcon exists.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmWhy is SpaceX working on recovering the fairings? There is no need for it given that they are able of meeting their launch schedule even without reusing the fairing.Yet, fairing recovering is being worked on and tested in practice.Fairing recovery has nothing to do with launch schedule. It's all about cost.
Why is SpaceX working on recovering the fairings? There is no need for it given that they are able of meeting their launch schedule even without reusing the fairing.Yet, fairing recovering is being worked on and tested in practice.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmWhy is there a SpaceX? There was no need for it given that there were enough launch service providers to cater for the worlds launch needs.Yet, SpaceX exists.All of the previous launch providers were too expensive. There was need for cheaper rockets.
Why is there a SpaceX? There was no need for it given that there were enough launch service providers to cater for the worlds launch needs.Yet, SpaceX exists.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmAnd in case you had forgotten: SpaceX was already working on improved Falcon 9, aka v1.1, when Falcon 9 v1.0 had yet to fly. Much like SpaceX was already working on an improved launcher (aka Falcon 5) while Falcon 1 had yet to fly.Actually no. They were working on different version of F9 than the v1.1. THis version was to have "merlin 1c+" engines and have much less capacity than v1.1 has. They canned it when they jumped to much more powerful merlin 1d instead.
And in case you had forgotten: SpaceX was already working on improved Falcon 9, aka v1.1, when Falcon 9 v1.0 had yet to fly. Much like SpaceX was already working on an improved launcher (aka Falcon 5) while Falcon 1 had yet to fly.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmThe more your repeat your mantra of "Why?", "What's the reason?" the more you confirm the fact that your really don't "get" SpaceX.That company is not run by logical reasoning alone. It is run by passion as well. And the latter makes for seemingly irrational or illogical decision making.Wrong. All the engineering decisions are done by numbers and logic, not passion.
The more your repeat your mantra of "Why?", "What's the reason?" the more you confirm the fact that your really don't "get" SpaceX.That company is not run by logical reasoning alone. It is run by passion as well. And the latter makes for seemingly irrational or illogical decision making.
The passion is only about getting to Mars.
It's YOU who do not understand spaceX, and it's YOU whose logic is flawed.
The money making machine for SpaceX is Falcon 9, not Falcon Heavy. Haven't you noticed how empty the manifest for FH is and how full it is for F9?Falcon Heavy serves only a very limited market.
Delta 4 replacement ready by 2023, top general saysTestifying before the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces subcommittee, Raymond said that the Air Force expects to have uninterrupted access to heavy launch for national security missions.Several companies have heavy-lift vehicles in development, including SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy and Blue Origin’s New Glenn, that could replace the Delta 4 Heavy built by United Launch Alliance.The Air Force has purchased launches on seven more Delta 4 Heavy rockets, Raymond said, though one launch will be a NASA mission. The final launch is scheduled for 2023.>
Quote from: hkultala on 06/26/2017 07:42 pmQuote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/26/2017 02:39 pmHere is what it all boils down to.Why?There has yet to be a good or marginal reason for Spacex to make a RUS for FH. Nobody has on this forum has yet to come forth with a reason. FH hasn't flown. FH has yet to book a payload that needs its whole capability. So why would they be looking at improvements.LC-39A is going to be busy with Dragon 2 (cargo and crew), DOD vertical integrated payloads, NASA payloads, FH missions, etc. So when and how is Spacex going to add a new upper stage that uses a new TEL and still service the existing upper stage.Your line of reasoning is flawed Jim.Why is there a Falcon Heavy? There was no need for it given that the heavy payloads could/can be lofted by Delta IV Heavy.Yet, Falcon Heavy exists.FH is made by SpaceX. It is to create money to SpaceX, DIVH cannot do that.The money making machine for SpaceX is Falcon 9, not Falcon Heavy. Haven't you noticed how empty the manifest for FH is and how full it is for F9?
Falcon Heavy serves only a very limited market. A substantial part of that market will be NSS launches. And frankly, USAF and NRO couldn't care less if FH flies or not. They already have Delta IV Heavy. Having a second heavy lifter at their disposal is merely a "nice to have". You don't believe me? Then explain why USAF never pushed LockMart for Atlas V Heavy. I'll tell you why USAF never did. Because redundancy in heavy lift for NSS is not needed. And that brings us back to my original point. From a standpoint of heavy lifters Falcon Heavy isn't needed. That was the point I was trying to make to Jim: There is no apparent logical reason for FH to exist. Yet SpaceX built it anyway. Which is a clear indicator that SpaceX decision making is not always logical. Something that Jim IMO fails to see.
Quote from: hkultala on 06/26/2017 07:42 pmQuote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmWhy is SpaceX reusing rockets? There was no need for it given that the world did just fine for the past 5+ decades launching on expendable rockets only.Yet, reusable Falcon exists.SpaceX is reusing rockets because it makes launches cheaper.Yeah, that's the SpaceX reason. However, none of the other launch providers ever found it necessary to make their launches cheaper. You wanna know why? Because prior to SpaceX their was no disruptive force acting on the market. The parties in need of launch services gladly paid for the higher priced launches. They had no choice for lack of a disruptive force. And was the point I was making to Jim: Logically speaking there was no reason for reusable launch vehicles. The launch market did not require it. Yet SpaceX went for reusability anyway. So, another fine example of SpaceX making a seemingly illogical decision without a clear why.
Quote from: hkultala on 06/26/2017 07:42 pmQuote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmWhy is SpaceX working on recovering the fairings? There is no need for it given that they are able of meeting their launch schedule even without reusing the fairing.Yet, fairing recovering is being worked on and tested in practice.Fairing recovery has nothing to do with launch schedule. It's all about cost.It is not all about cost. It is about being able to increase the launch cadence. Elon himself pointed out in 2015 that fairing production is labor intensive and takes a lot of time. So much time in fact that fairing production becomes a limiting factor once the launch tempo increases beyond a certain limit. That was, and according to my sources, still is the main driver behind fairing recovery. The improved cost aspect is merely a nice side-effect.
Quote from: hkultala on 06/26/2017 07:42 pmQuote from: woods170 on 06/26/2017 07:14 pmWhy is there a SpaceX? There was no need for it given that there were enough launch service providers to cater for the worlds launch needs.Yet, SpaceX exists.All of the previous launch providers were too expensive. There was need for cheaper rockets.Then why is it that prior to Elon having a space-themed brainwave nobody ever bothered to succesfully market a cheaper rocket?The answer is that there was no need for cheaper rockets. Despite the other launch service providers supposedly being "too expensive" their launch manifests were pretty full. What you don't understand is that launch service providers are interested in reliability first, and cost second. That's why one of the most expensive launch service providers -Arianespace - was capable of catching a full half of the commercial launch market: they were (and still are btw.) the worlds most reliable launch services provider.
...
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/27/2017 11:40 pm...Neither you nor woods170 mentioned a raptor upper stage in your long posts.
"Despite describing the Block 5 as the final version of the Falcon 9, Shotwell hinted at the possibility of a future version of the rocket that could use the Raptor engines designed for transportation to Mars. Shotwell said Raptor, a liquid methane and oxygen engine for SpaceX’s interplanetary spaceship, has undergone “many dozens of tests” and is progressing well.“The original idea for those engines were to serve as a propulsion system for the big Mars system, but we are looking at the utility of it on the Falcon program,” she said."Yeah. Can we be released from this single thread now that the Raptor on F9 is no longer speculative?FROM HERE: http://spacenews.com/spacexs-final-falcon-9-design-coming-this-year-two-falcon-heavy-launches-next-year/
"Despite describing the Block 5 as the final version of the Falcon 9, Shotwell hinted at the possibility of a future version of the rocket that could use the Raptor engines designed for transportation to Mars. Shotwell said Raptor, a liquid methane and oxygen engine for SpaceX’s interplanetary spaceship, has undergone “many dozens of tests” and is progressing well.“The original idea for those engines were to serve as a propulsion system for the big Mars system, but we are looking at the utility of it on the Falcon program,” she said."
Quote from: BobHk on 06/28/2017 03:41 am"Despite describing the Block 5 as the final version of the Falcon 9, Shotwell hinted at the possibility of a future version of the rocket that could use the Raptor engines designed for transportation to Mars. Shotwell said Raptor, a liquid methane and oxygen engine for SpaceX’s interplanetary spaceship, has undergone “many dozens of tests” and is progressing well.“The original idea for those engines were to serve as a propulsion system for the big Mars system, but we are looking at the utility of it on the Falcon program,” she said."I think of of the reasons why they are changing their mind about using raptor in falcon rocket is that originally they thought they cannot land raptor-based falcon first stage because of too high minimum T/W, but now they are getting confident that they can do it, and they already proved the minimum T/W is not too high by landing the bulgariasat booster with 3 merlin 1d engines.
...The only thing I can think of that might make a Raptor engined stage on top of an F9 even vaguely useful would be a custom combined stage/satellite dispenser for the constellation. That might be cost effective if they are able to make it reusable.
Since F9 is their bread and butter, and FH will not launch that much. FH with a Raptor upper stage could become the Mars prep rocket. They are going to have to install communication satellites in orbit around Mars and some satellites in an orbit between earth and Mars if they want continuous communication with a Martian colony. This means also if Mars is on the other side of the sun from earth. FH with a high ISP Raptor upper stage can deploy these satellites. Also, a colony site that is flat for landings yet close to a large water supply will have to be found. More drilling will need to be done on Mars to find suitable sites.This is where a reusable Raptor upper stage comes in. For deep space use, Mars landings, and Mars satellite deployments. They can develop a refuelable upper stage, and use it for Mars deployments. All of this to test the BFS/ITS equipment.
If the stage is reusable, it could land on Mars if it is refueled in orbit with enough fuel to get there and land. A reusable stage would have a deep throttling Raptor to land back on earth, so it could land on Mars. Again, pre testing ITS equipment on a smaller scale. The Kerolox upper stage doesn't have the ISP for deep space work and fuel is heavier. Raptor is going to be able to deep throttle, Merlin can't.