Quote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 07:44 pmQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and countingI would compare by payload mass orbited. The result shows different leaders in different categories, at least for 2017 to date. Ariane 5 leads in mass to GTO/beyond LEO (~48 tonnes to ~36 tonnes for Falcon 9, ~25 tonnes for Proton, and maybe only ~17 tonnes for Atlas 5 and ~16 tonnes for DF-5 based CZ). Falcon 9 leads a bit in LEO mass (~59 tonnes compared to 52 tonnes for R-7 and ~11+ tonnes for Atlas 5). For its part, R-7 has accounted for all three of the crewed launches this year, so there is a third category "leader", Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 being the other two.No launches, worldwide, have gone beyond earth orbit this year to date, which might be considered a fourth category. Atlas 5 and Proton accounted for the two heliocentric launches in 2016, and Proton's payload weighed more than the Atlas 5 payload. If you aggregate the last 5 or 10 years, Atlas 5 leads in solar orbit launches.Now, if this comparison is extended back a few years, a different picture emerges. Here are/were your "world leaders".Category Leaders, Total Mass or No. Crew Launched LEO >LEO Solar Crew--------------------------------------------2010 R7 Proton H-2A STS2011 R7 Ariane 5 Atlas 5 STS2012 R7 Ariane 5 - R72013 R7 Ariane 5 Atlas 5 R72014 R7 Ariane 5 H-2A R72015 R7 Ariane 5 - R72016 R7 Ariane 5 Proton R72017 Falcon 9 Ariane 5 - R7-------------------------------------------- - Ed Kyle
Quoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
even if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
Category Leaders, Total Mass or No. Crew Launched LEO >LEO Solar Crew--------------------------------------------2010 R7 Proton H-2A STS2011 R7 Ariane 5 Atlas 5 STS2012 R7 Ariane 5 - R72013 R7 Ariane 5 Atlas 5 R72014 R7 Ariane 5 H-2A R72015 R7 Ariane 5 - R72016 R7 Ariane 5 Proton R72017 Falcon 9 Ariane 5 - R7--------------------------------------------
Quote from: envy887 on 11/27/2017 01:22 pmLarge interplanetary and large NSS launches (read: very expensive payloads) are a very small market segment that doesn't pay all that well compared to HSF support and commsats. The payloads/trajectories also aren't amenable to reuse. That's why they haven't been a major priority for SpaceX - they can get a bigger piece of the pie with other launches while making more progress with reuse. Thus the focus on other customers.Funny you should say that. Shotwell stated that NSS is a key market for any serious LV mfg because it's pretty large. NSS is a small market in terms of launches but a big one in terms of value, and the customers (DoD, NRO) place a premium on their payloads not getting blown up.
Large interplanetary and large NSS launches (read: very expensive payloads) are a very small market segment that doesn't pay all that well compared to HSF support and commsats. The payloads/trajectories also aren't amenable to reuse. That's why they haven't been a major priority for SpaceX - they can get a bigger piece of the pie with other launches while making more progress with reuse. Thus the focus on other customers.
There's a big difference in launch energies for the three payload categories. That is why I did the categories. 6 tonnes to GTO requires a lot more work than 6 tonnes to LEO, so a direct comparison isn't correct.
Quote from: deruch on 11/27/2017 11:24 amHere's Gwen Shotwell telling you that you're wrong (from her speech at the 2016 FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference): Quote[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket. We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early. And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion. It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back. And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back. But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here. We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.My point was not that it won't happen. It was that it does not seemed to have happened yet
Here's Gwen Shotwell telling you that you're wrong (from her speech at the 2016 FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference): Quote[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket. We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early. And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion. It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back. And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back. But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here. We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.
[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket. We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early. And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion. It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back. And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back. But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here. We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.
Sure. Europe won't adapt to retain market share just retain marginal indigenous launch, thus "lost" to it and own industrial base.It slips through their hands due to lack of competitive responds/base. Others not Europe haven't committed yet.
"Crawl walk run." Vulcan BE4 / Centaur V / Booster Reuse? Keep in mind Bruno's penchant for rapidly moving development.
Careful. Jim's still claiming just more props and it'll work. He may be right. BO thinks so to.
Everyone wants to see Block 5.
Actually there is a way that Jim is both right and wrong.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 11/26/2017 02:35 pmThe only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .Nope. Just one non-LEO, non-GTO mission. Not enough to earn the confidence Atlas/Ariane has in doing more capable missions yet.
The only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .
QuoteI'd take bumbling and feckless over 'leadership'. One spends billions on certain payloads. So you don't think being responsible in launching them ... matters? How thoughtful.
I'd take bumbling and feckless over 'leadership'.
QuoteAnd just out of interest, where is this arrogance and condescension? I see it from over zealous fans, but there is little SpaceX do about them!Perhaps ... in their remarks concerning flight/payload/test risks prior? Or in like kind exchanges with equally arrogant and condescending BO?
And just out of interest, where is this arrogance and condescension? I see it from over zealous fans, but there is little SpaceX do about them!
...arrogant and condescending is (was) old space to new. Recall CEO Gass, or many old school on this forum.Interesting how some try to turn the phrase.
SES, Bulsatcom, NASA CRS, Iridium. Who's next?
@LouScheffer: In addition to the mission-specific increase in margins, you also get a margin increase because a reusable rocket is expected to address a more general market than does a dial-a-rocket. This might not be so relevant with the biggest GTO launches where the rocket is near its performance limits, but it could be substantial additional margin factor on LEO flights. For a majority of its flights, Falcon 9 Block 5 will have huge margins, as far as these things go.
Quote from: John smith 19My point was not that it won't happen. It was that it does not seemed to have happened yet
My point was not that it won't happen. It was that it does not seemed to have happened yet
QuoteIt may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.How long can a boutique provider of expendable NSS launches survive in a world in which BFR and NG are flying frequently with demonstrated reliability and low cost?
It may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.
QuoteSES, Bulsatcom, NASA CRS, Iridium. Who's next?abaddon, I appreciate your note so much that I'm using my first post (after lurking for a long time) to respond.As much fun as it is to debate our thoughts on reuse, and competitors' thoughts on reuse (really I enjoy it!), customers will speak through their actions. They will choose SpaceX or not, they will be willing to fly on reused boosters or not.Perhaps this thread could benefit from a running list of actual data:Date Customer Name Pertinent Event--------- ---------------- ----------------- Where a pertinent event might be* Announcement of plan to accept reused boosters* Customer comment they will never use reused boosters, or not until X time* Link to article quoting customers about experience with reuse* Flights of reused boosters* Responses to flight successes/failures that affect customer view of reuseIt could be interesting to see a flow of customer decisions over time.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?That's the disconnect. My apologies for not making my PoV clearer. I had thought it obvious from the context of my comments, but obviously not. I will have to work on making them more comprehensible to you in future.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?That's the disconnect.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?