Quote from: macpacheco on 03/12/2017 05:55 pmSo SX will likely have to contend with storing perhaps 30 boosters (including FH components) at the Cape.Assuming a booster costs 30M that would be 900M tied up in idling hardware. And not just idling, being actively worked on for refurbishment (otherwise it would be used). Every minute the booster isn't flying it's losing money. And a lot.
So SX will likely have to contend with storing perhaps 30 boosters (including FH components) at the Cape.
That's the old airline quote but their aircraft are usually financed so yes they lose money every hour they are idle. With Space X recovered boosters aren't costing them anything in financing and a flyable refurbished booster means they don't have to go build a new one.Quote from: saliva_sweet on 03/12/2017 06:07 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 03/12/2017 05:55 pmSo SX will likely have to contend with storing perhaps 30 boosters (including FH components) at the Cape.Assuming a booster costs 30M that would be 900M tied up in idling hardware. And not just idling, being actively worked on for refurbishment (otherwise it would be used). Every minute the booster isn't flying it's losing money. And a lot.
Does "improved reusability" for B5 means that they need to have facilities to support refurbishment in every launch site or will it be done in Hawthorn and Mcgregor?What are the necessary facilities in the lanch sites?
Will SpaceX first launch a B5 S1 together with a B5 S2,
Quote from: Zardar on 03/12/2017 08:46 pmWill SpaceX first launch a B5 S1 together with a B5 S2, It isn't question. There is no mixing blocks. Both will be produced and flying together.
Quote from: Jim on 03/13/2017 12:06 amQuote from: Zardar on 03/12/2017 08:46 pmWill SpaceX first launch a B5 S1 together with a B5 S2, It isn't question. There is no mixing blocks. Both will be produced and flying together.What about when they refly landed boosters with new second stages? Those old first stages should be Block 3, and the second stages could be Block 4.
Quote from: old_sellsword on 03/13/2017 12:10 amQuote from: Jim on 03/13/2017 12:06 amQuote from: Zardar on 03/12/2017 08:46 pmWill SpaceX first launch a B5 S1 together with a B5 S2, It isn't question. There is no mixing blocks. Both will be produced and flying together.What about when they refly landed boosters with new second stages? Those old first stages should be Block 3, and the second stages could be Block 4.I've never heard the 2nd stage being referenced as going through the same upgrades as the 1st stage, so I think "block changes" for the 1st stage are limited to just the 1st stage.The 2nd stage would have it's own evolutionary path to follow that is separate from what pushes it uphill, and for all we know it reached it's final configuration before the 1st stage did. The 1st stage is far more complicated than the 2nd stage, with some of the improvements being focused specifically on reusability.
Quote from: Semmel on 03/11/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/11/2017 03:44 pmSemmel: Why would they only do 20 satellites per launch??? OneWeb is doing 80 on New Glenn, and Falcon Heavy has a bit more payload. Falcon Heavy is cheaper per kilogram than F9, and has less hardware expended per kilogram than F9 or New Glenn. For the same number of upper stages produced, SpaceX can launch almost 3x as much payload to LEO. And only have one fairing pair to recover (or build) instead of 3.Seriously, stop with this artificial constraint of just 20 satellites per launch.No, I dont think so. If you accept the premise that F9B5 is the last version and nothing is allowed to change, FH will not help.Maybe they will use FH for the internet constellation, but I wouldnt count on it. Because you would need a bigger fairing. I dont even think 20 sats will fit inside the current fairing. Also the current integration process has the payload suspended and raised on the fairing. Because of that, F9 or FH is not capable of launching more than 10 mT inside a fairing. Therefore, if you buy the premise that F9B5 will be frozen, a new fairing is off the books and FH will not help.False. We already KNOW that SpaceX is building a larger fairing. And these satellites are small. Around half a ton and thus probably less than a cubic meter in volume, you could probably fit in the existing fairing (though we already know SpaceX is building another fairing).Who said "nothing is allowed to change"? Saying Block 5 is the last major variant of Falcon 9 is not the same as saying nothing (including the fairing) will change. At a minimum, I expect the fairing and probably the payload adapter to change. Also, we also know that SpaceX is pursuing some vertical integration capability.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/11/2017 03:44 pmSemmel: Why would they only do 20 satellites per launch??? OneWeb is doing 80 on New Glenn, and Falcon Heavy has a bit more payload. Falcon Heavy is cheaper per kilogram than F9, and has less hardware expended per kilogram than F9 or New Glenn. For the same number of upper stages produced, SpaceX can launch almost 3x as much payload to LEO. And only have one fairing pair to recover (or build) instead of 3.Seriously, stop with this artificial constraint of just 20 satellites per launch.No, I dont think so. If you accept the premise that F9B5 is the last version and nothing is allowed to change, FH will not help.Maybe they will use FH for the internet constellation, but I wouldnt count on it. Because you would need a bigger fairing. I dont even think 20 sats will fit inside the current fairing. Also the current integration process has the payload suspended and raised on the fairing. Because of that, F9 or FH is not capable of launching more than 10 mT inside a fairing. Therefore, if you buy the premise that F9B5 will be frozen, a new fairing is off the books and FH will not help.
Semmel: Why would they only do 20 satellites per launch??? OneWeb is doing 80 on New Glenn, and Falcon Heavy has a bit more payload. Falcon Heavy is cheaper per kilogram than F9, and has less hardware expended per kilogram than F9 or New Glenn. For the same number of upper stages produced, SpaceX can launch almost 3x as much payload to LEO. And only have one fairing pair to recover (or build) instead of 3.Seriously, stop with this artificial constraint of just 20 satellites per launch.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/11/2017 08:13 pmQuote from: Semmel on 03/11/2017 05:27 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/11/2017 03:44 pmSemmel: Why would they only do 20 satellites per launch??? OneWeb is doing 80 on New Glenn, and Falcon Heavy has a bit more payload. Falcon Heavy is cheaper per kilogram than F9, and has less hardware expended per kilogram than F9 or New Glenn. For the same number of upper stages produced, SpaceX can launch almost 3x as much payload to LEO. And only have one fairing pair to recover (or build) instead of 3.Seriously, stop with this artificial constraint of just 20 satellites per launch.No, I dont think so. If you accept the premise that F9B5 is the last version and nothing is allowed to change, FH will not help.Maybe they will use FH for the internet constellation, but I wouldnt count on it. Because you would need a bigger fairing. I dont even think 20 sats will fit inside the current fairing. Also the current integration process has the payload suspended and raised on the fairing. Because of that, F9 or FH is not capable of launching more than 10 mT inside a fairing. Therefore, if you buy the premise that F9B5 will be frozen, a new fairing is off the books and FH will not help.False. We already KNOW that SpaceX is building a larger fairing. And these satellites are small. Around half a ton and thus probably less than a cubic meter in volume, you could probably fit in the existing fairing (though we already know SpaceX is building another fairing).Who said "nothing is allowed to change"? Saying Block 5 is the last major variant of Falcon 9 is not the same as saying nothing (including the fairing) will change. At a minimum, I expect the fairing and probably the payload adapter to change. Also, we also know that SpaceX is pursuing some vertical integration capability.If the fairing is volume limited, they might do something to integrate it more with their dispenser / adapter. Maybe hard points in the adapter which supports the fairing, which might allow more of the internal volume to be used. I had considered that the adapter might be integrated with the fairing and retained through to deployment, but that would only make sense if they moved towards US recovery on those flights. Cheers, Martin
I've never heard the 2nd stage being referenced as going through the same upgrades as the 1st stage, so I think "block changes" for the 1st stage are limited to just the 1st stage.
To NASA two aspects of block 5 are important. One is the change to Merlin turbopumps to eliminate cracks. The other is a frozen design which relates to the whole rocket, not the booster. So I believe they will do one revision change.They may or may not fly older revisions on reuse flights for an overlap period.