Quote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 09:13 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/08/2017 08:57 pmQuote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 07:53 pmThey haven't explicitly stated the recovery method for the 8t FH launch, but RTLS is the only way it make sense with the claimed payload capabilities for both F9 and FH.I disagree regarding Falcon 9. The claim is 5.5 tonnes GTO with Stg 1 recovery. To date they've demonstrated up to 5.282 tonnes GTO with downrange recovery and 5.6 tonnes and 6.086 tonnes GTO with the first stage expended. - Ed KyleI think you're underestimating just how large FH is, but at this point we don't have enough information to determine either way.Hopefully the FH demo (which IIRC will be 3x RTLS), will throw something heavy to a high energy orbit, so we get a better understanding of its real capabilities.Ed has a history of pessimistic performance projections for Falcon 9 that are later disproven by actual flights.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/08/2017 08:57 pmQuote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 07:53 pmThey haven't explicitly stated the recovery method for the 8t FH launch, but RTLS is the only way it make sense with the claimed payload capabilities for both F9 and FH.I disagree regarding Falcon 9. The claim is 5.5 tonnes GTO with Stg 1 recovery. To date they've demonstrated up to 5.282 tonnes GTO with downrange recovery and 5.6 tonnes and 6.086 tonnes GTO with the first stage expended. - Ed KyleI think you're underestimating just how large FH is, but at this point we don't have enough information to determine either way.Hopefully the FH demo (which IIRC will be 3x RTLS), will throw something heavy to a high energy orbit, so we get a better understanding of its real capabilities.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 07:53 pmThey haven't explicitly stated the recovery method for the 8t FH launch, but RTLS is the only way it make sense with the claimed payload capabilities for both F9 and FH.I disagree regarding Falcon 9. The claim is 5.5 tonnes GTO with Stg 1 recovery. To date they've demonstrated up to 5.282 tonnes GTO with downrange recovery and 5.6 tonnes and 6.086 tonnes GTO with the first stage expended. - Ed Kyle
They haven't explicitly stated the recovery method for the 8t FH launch, but RTLS is the only way it make sense with the claimed payload capabilities for both F9 and FH.
Ed has a history of pessimistic performance projections for Falcon 9 that are later disproven by actual flights.
The two sets of numbers are getting closer to converging finally for GTO, but not for LEO.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/08/2017 09:36 pmQuote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 09:13 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/08/2017 08:57 pmQuote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 07:53 pmThey haven't explicitly stated the recovery method for the 8t FH launch, but RTLS is the only way it make sense with the claimed payload capabilities for both F9 and FH.I disagree regarding Falcon 9. The claim is 5.5 tonnes GTO with Stg 1 recovery. To date they've demonstrated up to 5.282 tonnes GTO with downrange recovery and 5.6 tonnes and 6.086 tonnes GTO with the first stage expended. - Ed KyleI think you're underestimating just how large FH is, but at this point we don't have enough information to determine either way.Hopefully the FH demo (which IIRC will be 3x RTLS), will throw something heavy to a high energy orbit, so we get a better understanding of its real capabilities.Ed has a history of pessimistic performance projections for Falcon 9 that are later disproven by actual flights.Not true
Quote from: Oli on 05/01/2016 06:34 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 05/01/2016 04:51 pmAnd that second stage .... Suffice to say the world's never seen anything like this.Can 8.3 tonnes be real?The Shuttle External Tank had a crazy PMF too, 0.965. Ok that's only the tank and it's much larger, but on the other hand it's LH2/LOX.To my knowledge SpaceX uses Al-Li too and to a layman like me it seems built in a similar way looking at the interior. Of course NASA dropped that manufacturing method for SLS because it was considered to expensive.But, as you say, no engines! Falcon 9 obviously has engines, but they must weigh almost nothing! The first stage model suggests something like the Atlas 2A sustainer stage mass fraction, except somehow having all of those Merlins only weigh the same as the single LR-105 type Atlas sustainer engine (which was unable to lift a fully loaded sustainer stage) on a percentage basis. And Atlas was a balloon! If 8.3 tonnes is correct, and I'm hedging my bets until someone gets to work on Monday, then there is a lot of magic in those Merlins. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/01/2016 04:51 pmAnd that second stage .... Suffice to say the world's never seen anything like this.Can 8.3 tonnes be real?The Shuttle External Tank had a crazy PMF too, 0.965. Ok that's only the tank and it's much larger, but on the other hand it's LH2/LOX.To my knowledge SpaceX uses Al-Li too and to a layman like me it seems built in a similar way looking at the interior. Of course NASA dropped that manufacturing method for SLS because it was considered to expensive.
And that second stage .... Suffice to say the world's never seen anything like this.Can 8.3 tonnes be real?
Subsequently, I've kept track of the payloads actually flown and compared them to the claimed capabilities. The two sets of numbers are getting closer to converging finally for GTO, but not for LEO.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 06/08/2017 04:35 pmI don't think we will ever know which one ends up winning on cost. At best we may someday know which one will win out on price.Both Musk & Bezos have great leeway to price their product based on their own individual tolerance for writing off past expenses. Bezos has more leeway in that regard, but also has much greater future exposure to cost.Musk & SpaceX just recently discussed their expectations to realize a return on nearly $1B spent to develop re-use technology. They may have a short window to capture that return if Bezos waltzes in with New Glenn in 3-4 years and starts offering his services with no expectation to recover what he has sunk into Blue thus far. Think about that if as if you were Musk. Somebody like Bezos could more or less drop a fully capitalized rocket company into the market with no debt, paid for facilities, paying cutomers, & a trained workforce. Then he tells them it's time to stand on your own two feet and turns them loose to compete.How do you predict "cost" when those possibilities exist?Bezos/BO is probably also better able to take losses to gain marketshare than SX.
I don't think we will ever know which one ends up winning on cost. At best we may someday know which one will win out on price.Both Musk & Bezos have great leeway to price their product based on their own individual tolerance for writing off past expenses. Bezos has more leeway in that regard, but also has much greater future exposure to cost.Musk & SpaceX just recently discussed their expectations to realize a return on nearly $1B spent to develop re-use technology. They may have a short window to capture that return if Bezos waltzes in with New Glenn in 3-4 years and starts offering his services with no expectation to recover what he has sunk into Blue thus far. Think about that if as if you were Musk. Somebody like Bezos could more or less drop a fully capitalized rocket company into the market with no debt, paid for facilities, paying cutomers, & a trained workforce. Then he tells them it's time to stand on your own two feet and turns them loose to compete.How do you predict "cost" when those possibilities exist?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/09/2017 12:58 amSubsequently, I've kept track of the payloads actually flown and compared them to the claimed capabilities. The two sets of numbers are getting closer to converging finally for GTO, but not for LEO.Has the LEO numbers ever converged for other launch vehicles in the F9 class? What about Atlas V 551 or Delta IV M+(5,4)?
Bezos/BO is the only one who will need to take losses to gain market share. When Bezos enters the market, SpaceX will probably have a 50% world-wide share (with Falcon family alone) of competed payloads, plus 50-100 ConnX launches per year. New Glenn is scheduled for a monthly launch, single pad AFAIK. As they take market share, those payloads are taken off the table for ALL launch services providers. The real question is who can survive without their piece of that dozen launches.Notes: NG's first payloads, for Eutelsat and OneWeb, are likely payloads taken from Ariane V (Arianespace) and Soyuz(Roscosmos)/Launcher One(Virgin Galactic/Orbit) respectively.
Blue is probably going to have to do some iterating as they learn how to recover and refurbish New Glenn. We have little idea on any of these costs:1) how much the booster is going to cost initially2) how much the upper stage will cost3) how much it will cost to recover and refurbish the booster4) how many flights the booster can flyNeed answers or at least estimates for all of those to figure the recurring cost per flight.
I notice a lot of talk about Bezos' deep pockets. Aren't there antitrust issues in pricing below cost?
Hmmm, as much as I love a good discussion, isn't it premature to be comparing these two when BO hasn't put a payload into orbit yet on any of its own vehicles? Or recovered a stage from an orbital launch? To be fair, recovering stages is not a widespread endeavor.Just getting New Glenn to successfully fly at all will be a major accomplishment for BO; no other launch provider started their orbital flights with 7m+ vehicle. Do we really expect BO's first year of flight operations to be that much more successful than the first year of Falcon 9 flights? Or am I missing something obvious?Edit: typo
Quote from: AncientU on 06/09/2017 12:25 pmBezos/BO is the only one who will need to take losses to gain market share. When Bezos enters the market, SpaceX will probably have a 50% world-wide share (with Falcon family alone) of competed payloads, plus 50-100 ConnX launches per year. New Glenn is scheduled for a monthly launch, single pad AFAIK. As they take market share, those payloads are taken off the table for ALL launch services providers. The real question is who can survive without their piece of that dozen launches.Notes: NG's first payloads, for Eutelsat and OneWeb, are likely payloads taken from Ariane V (Arianespace) and Soyuz(Roscosmos)/Launcher One(Virgin Galactic/Orbit) respectively.Agreed on most of these points. Ariane looks to be the taking the brunt of losses for now. What exactly do you mean that "those payload are taken off the table for ALL launch service providers"?
I also sense the need to parse "who will survive" by keeping to the thread topic on FH vs. NG, not SpaceX vs. Blue Origin. ( & add in Ariane 6, Proton, Angara, GSLV etc.)
Hmmm, as much as I love a good discussion, isn't it premature to be comparing these two when BO hasn't put a payload into orbit yet on any of its own vehicles?
Quote from: dlapine on 06/12/2017 04:14 amHmmm, as much as I love a good discussion, isn't it premature to be comparing these two when BO hasn't put a payload into orbit yet on any of its own vehicles? Or recovered a stage from an orbital launch? To be fair, recovering stages is not a widespread endeavor.Just getting New Glenn to successfully fly at all will be a major accomplishment for BO; no other launch provider started their orbital flights with 7m+ vehicle. Do we really expect BO's first year of flight operations to be that much more successful than the first year of Falcon 9 flights? Or am I missing something obvious?Edit: typoNo, you are not missing anything. A lot of people seem to assume that Blue Origin will execute their vision without any problems. I'm not one of them.