Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/29/2017 06:20 pmTo me, it seems, the case for F9 exists in the long term only if Musk does not succeed in generating massive revenues from other sources. Sources which pretty much have to pay off if his Mars dream is to succeed in any case. And once that money becomes available, well, then F9 has little reason for continued existence, it would seem.That's like saying, "I had $5 in my wallet, but I just got $100 more, so I'm going to throw away the original $5 I had."No. It doesn't matter how much more Musk personally or SpaceX makes from other sources, they won't just shut down Falcon 9 as long as it is generating profit unless it's to replace it with something else that serves the same market and makes more profit.
To me, it seems, the case for F9 exists in the long term only if Musk does not succeed in generating massive revenues from other sources. Sources which pretty much have to pay off if his Mars dream is to succeed in any case. And once that money becomes available, well, then F9 has little reason for continued existence, it would seem.
The key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a reality
My point was that with sufficient funds available to invest in better (read Raptor based) rockets than F9, that replacement vehicle you refer to above will be available much sooner. Without such additional funds, SpaceX is forced to continue relying on F9's revenue generating capability until they have paid off existing development costs, and then to start building a pile of cash with which to fund the development of said replacement vehicle.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 03/29/2017 03:39 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/28/2017 09:26 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?I'm no expert, but it seems like the 737 is an outlier. Most other airliners have a production run of ~20-25 years. If that's a useful metric, then I'd expect SpaceX to stop production around 2030.The point isn't that the 737 is still in production 49 years later. The point is that when Boeing introduced the 737, they didn't have a plan to shut down production some pre-set number of years later. And those other airliners with production runs of ~20-25 years also did not have pre-set plans to shut down production.With airliners, the manufacturers don't know when they start producing them how long they'll be in production. The keep producing them until there's a reason not to produce them any more.So, I agree with Coastal Ron that the assumption by the original poster that SpaceX currently has a plan for when it will retire Falcon 9 is not a good assumption. Maybe SpaceX has secret plans to launch a replacement Raptor-driven satellite launcher at a particular date and retire Falcon 9, but there's also a good chance they don't.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/28/2017 09:26 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?I'm no expert, but it seems like the 737 is an outlier. Most other airliners have a production run of ~20-25 years. If that's a useful metric, then I'd expect SpaceX to stop production around 2030.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?
I assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.
Reusable Falcon 9 is being established as a marker (or forcing function in EM's words) for the rest of the world's launch providers, and as a reliable/predictable standard for future launch costs for space businesses. As such, it will stand as the goal and standard for new ventures to plan around until the market expands, dictating a new standard. The chatter seems to indicate it will be at least five years (maybe ten) before significant pressure is put on F9/FH, assuming that the in-the-pipeline efficiencies (like refurbishment in days, not weeks or months) are realized.
Quote from: macpacheco on 04/09/2017 01:49 pmThe key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a realityThat is not what SpaceX has ever said.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 12:01 pmMy point was that with sufficient funds available to invest in better (read Raptor based) rockets than F9, that replacement vehicle you refer to above will be available much sooner. Without such additional funds, SpaceX is forced to continue relying on F9's revenue generating capability until they have paid off existing development costs, and then to start building a pile of cash with which to fund the development of said replacement vehicle.I disagree. SpaceX has enough cash, and enough interest from investors, that if a replacement for Falcon 9 would bring in more money than it would cost, they could fund that replacement.
I can't see SpaceX still operating primarily a gas generator kerolox engine if they successfully develop and fly Raptor and ITS.
My guess is Falcon heavy would be the first vehicle to be replaced by ITS, followed eventually by Falcon 9.
I bet the number of variants would be limited and on the larger side so there's plenty of margin for full reuse and RTLS for all missions, including RTLS of payload adapter and fairing. Maybe two booster variants, with the smallest being maybe ~9 Raptors. But too early to really speculate.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/10/2017 12:04 amI bet the number of variants would be limited and on the larger side so there's plenty of margin for full reuse and RTLS for all missions, including RTLS of payload adapter and fairing. Maybe two booster variants, with the smallest being maybe ~9 Raptors. But too early to really speculate.A variant with 7 Raptors would look a lot like the New Glenn...
I think a mini-ITS based on the ITS core cluster could cover both bases by being adaptable; fly 3(?), 5 or 7 engines depending on the mission. I'd really like to see numbers on those.
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/09/2017 11:16 pmI think a mini-ITS based on the ITS core cluster could cover both bases by being adaptable; fly 3(?), 5 or 7 engines depending on the mission. I'd really like to see numbers on those.Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/10/2017 12:04 amI bet the number of variants would be limited and on the larger side so there's plenty of margin for full reuse and RTLS for all missions, including RTLS of payload adapter and fairing. Maybe two booster variants, with the smallest being maybe ~9 Raptors. But too early to really speculate.No, IMO they aren't going to make multiple launch vehicles (or configurations) to replace F9/FH. *IF* they make a Raptor-based followup vehicle to replace F9/FH, I'd expect it to be sized (as far as payload capacity) between the F9 and FH. ITS would be their "big" delivery truck. They would just need a "small" truck for the other work. And no heavy variant. Just a single stick.
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/09/2017 11:16 pmI think a mini-ITS based on the ITS core cluster could cover both bases by being adaptable; fly 3(?), 5 or 7 engines depending on the mission. I'd really like to see numbers on those.I've simulated a 7 engine Mini ITS here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36508.msg1633577#msg1633577It gets 70-80mT of payload to LEO including RTLS of the booster and recovery of the second stage. i.e. about double the capability of Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/09/2017 02:10 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 04/09/2017 01:49 pmThe key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a realityThat is not what SpaceX has ever said.Elon never talks about profit or cash flow unless he has to.SpaceX is a private company, remember that...ITS is intended to be more profitable than F9/FH, its a mere consequence of lowering costs of access to space ridiculously.Its entirely possible that EM/GS haven't even thought about this yet.