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.
And if Jim is right and F9B5 is the last version of F9, then meekGee is right and it will be a much larger leap forwards in recovery and refurbishment as well as the entire processing than is anticipated right now.
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.
Also, let's not pretend ITS isn't a thing. That's the whole reason that block 5 is the last F9.
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.
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
The EXISTING fairing has almost 160 cubic meters of volume. That's probably enough for 80 smallsats each less than a cubic meter in volume.
Just consider that the much larger NG will only carry 80.F9, IMO will end up with 20-30 per launch, or an orbital slot's worth.Using FH doesn't change the equation much. You have 3 cores refurbish instead of 1, but save on manufacturing S2s.
Plus, you can't RTLS the center core, so your "1 day" got expanded to 2 weeks.
We're looking at 1000 LEO sats per year, and at least 2000 VLEO sats per year, possibly much more if their life span is below 5 years, which IMO is likely.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/11/2017 08:19 pmThe EXISTING fairing has almost 160 cubic meters of volume. That's probably enough for 80 smallsats each less than a cubic meter in volume.Satellites are not liquid, they are solid. And there must be such support/release mechanism that holds them in a way that they survive the g-forces of the launch but can still be released.
The EXISTING fairing has almost 160 cubic meters of volume. That's probably enough for 80 smallsats each less than a cubic meter in volume. But SpaceX is building another fairing.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/11/2017 08:52 pmJust consider that the much larger NG will only carry 80.F9, IMO will end up with 20-30 per launch, or an orbital slot's worth.Using FH doesn't change the equation much. You have 3 cores refurbish instead of 1, but save on manufacturing S2s.Makes a pretty big difference. Might as well claim NG can only do 20-30 per launch (it also uses a ~5m fairing). NG's actual fairing is, if anything, just longer. Falcon's new fairing may well be just as long.QuotePlus, you can't RTLS the center core, so your "1 day" got expanded to 2 weeks.It was never going to be a day with Falcon.QuoteWe're looking at 1000 LEO sats per year, and at least 2000 VLEO sats per year, possibly much more if their life span is below 5 years, which IMO is likely.I would bet the opposite: lifespan closer to 7 years or more, i.e. Less replacement frequency.
None of this has much if anything to do with Block 5 ...
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 03/11/2017 10:04 pmNone of this has much if anything to do with Block 5 ...I saw in some other venues that SpaceX was looking at high performance rad hardened processors.I assume for the ITS or the sat network but any chance of putting in triplets of rad hardened processors to replace the triple redundancy commercial processors in the current F9 boosters?(I haven't seen any info how well the current triplets work in the boosters after landing. Same for the dragon capsules)
Quote from: watermod on 03/11/2017 10:47 pmQuote from: Herb Schaltegger on 03/11/2017 10:04 pmNone of this has much if anything to do with Block 5 ...I saw in some other venues that SpaceX was looking at high performance rad hardened processors.I assume for the ITS or the sat network but any chance of putting in triplets of rad hardened processors to replace the triple redundancy commercial processors in the current F9 boosters?(I haven't seen any info how well the current triplets work in the boosters after landing. Same for the dragon capsules)Why would F9 S1 need rad hardened electronics?