Expend the booster to save money. Hmmmm.
Matt Desch refutes specific suggestions made to him of something different about NEXT 4 orbits:QuoteWrong guess. ;-) We are polar and need no doglegs, thank you!https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/943212004646539265Hmm, not sure if this is implying that there might be a different, correct guess ... ?!
Wrong guess. ;-) We are polar and need no doglegs, thank you!
It's pretty clear to me that the reason is to buy mass for the fairing recovery experiment (see the pictures posted of fairing recovery ship GO Mr. Steven in the Port of LA), but @IridiumBoss isn't allowed to say that (or is just being polite by not spoiling SpaceX's announcement). That explains his coy answers.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/19/2017 07:25 pmExpend the booster to save money. Hmmmm. Exactly! With recoverable rockets, there are factors in play that never occur with expendables: * Storage costs * Refurbishment costs * Inventory management * Technical improvement of new versions vs lower cost of old versions.The phrase "paradigm shift" is overused, but I think this is a legitimate example.Every other transportation industry - trucking, rental cars, air transport, constantly balances these factors. And at some point it's cheaper to expend than to keep.Take air transport, for example. Airlines hate to store planes they are not using. They cost money and create no revenue, so they dispose of them as quickly as possible. Airlines worry a great deal about refurbishment costs - that's exactly why they dispose of them right before a costly D check. They worry about inventory - they will, for example, get rid of all their MD-80s so they can fly just one plane, a 737 (made up example). They get rid of old planes that are working perfectly well since newer ones have better fuel economy. But even though disposing of a plane is sometimes a way to save money, they still use each airplane more than once. It's not a contradiction.Note that every one of these concerns is now very relevant to SpaceX. Boosters cost money to store, money and effort to refurbish, a mix of Block 3,4 and 5 creates headaches, and the new Block 5s offer better performance and re-use. So sometimes SpaceX will indeed save money by throwing one away. It's a sign that SpaceX is now operationally bracketing the economics of re-use. Is it at least sometimes cheaper to re-use? Apparently, since they keep doing it. Is is always cheaper to re-use? No, as there are costs to re-use as well. To me, this is a strong sign that SpaceX is treating re-use as economic exercise, and not a religious rite. Ironically, tossing a booster every so often strongly implies that re-use is economically justified. It means they have no philosophical, practical, or operational reasons to avoid splashing them. So when they choose to re-use them, they must believe the advantages outweigh the costs.
I still think the experiments are the reason @IridiumBoss is being coy in his responses, though. He knows a bit more about the lemonade than he can say.
Quote from: zubenelgenubi on 12/19/2017 06:45 pmIf there is discussion on SpaceX donating equipment for display, could someone point to it?Can't provide a reference (it was some years ago) but my recollection is that when asked about donating a recovered core to the National Air and Space Museum, Musk replied along the lines of "Sure, if they pay for it".
If there is discussion on SpaceX donating equipment for display, could someone point to it?
Quote from: cscott on 12/20/2017 03:28 pmI still think the experiments are the reason @IridiumBoss is being coy in his responses, though. He knows a bit more about the lemonade than he can say.Matt isn't being "coy" in his responses. First stage recovery isn't his business. It's not something he would talk about. His replies said that his payload isn't the reason for expending the booster. That is all he would be expected to say on the subject.
There was a comment on Reddit referencing a comment by The Roadie on Facebook saying the west coast ASDS isn't even operational right now (something about scavenging parts to repair the east coast ASDS after the fire.) That and inventory management are far more likely reasons for expending the booster.
If only we had a reporter on this site who could ask SpaceX and get a direct answer to the question of why they are expending the booster.Oh, wait: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44273.msg1761371#msg1761371
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 12/20/2017 12:07 am So why not give Iridium the most boost possible.That's not a GEO launch. The satellites go to their initial orbit and don't need any additional boost beyond that.
So why not give Iridium the most boost possible.
Quote from: mme on 12/19/2017 10:25 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 12/19/2017 07:25 pmExpend the booster to save money. Hmmmm. - Ed KyleIt's disappointing to me but how is expending a booster you plan to never use again confusing to people? I'd prefer they recover it and analyze/recycle it. But they didn't ask me.They don't need to analyse it. They have already recovered (and analyzed) boosters 20 times, 3 of them being re-flights. SpaceX right now has a huge database on booster wear-and-tear, and the information in that database has been essential for informing the design of Falcon 9 Block 5. In stead of analyzing yet another old Block 3 it is time to get the first Block 5 off the ground and validate its design.One of the essentials of working agile (like SpaceX does) is never to get stuck in the past. Always move forward. That's what SpaceX is doing. Block 3 has been analyzed to death and is yesterday's booster. Time to let go of it.Also, it doesn't help that SpaceX has no storage space for all those old booster. They've already begun dumping some of them in the boneyard section of McGregor.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/19/2017 07:25 pmExpend the booster to save money. Hmmmm. - Ed KyleIt's disappointing to me but how is expending a booster you plan to never use again confusing to people? I'd prefer they recover it and analyze/recycle it. But they didn't ask me.
Expend the booster to save money. Hmmmm. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: abaddon on 12/20/2017 02:25 pmIf only we had a reporter on this site who could ask SpaceX and get a direct answer to the question of why they are expending the booster.Oh, wait: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44273.msg1761371#msg1761371Of please, please, please!Enough of this back and forth. No one is saying anything new. Can we please let it rest until a direct source tells us which of these theories is good and which are bogus?Let’s trust Chris G to ask this question so it gets answered.
Quote from: Comga on 12/19/2017 03:40 pmQuote from: Raul on 12/19/2017 03:22 pmMatt Desch confirms no booster recovery.åçhttps://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/943153072850776064 QuoteHöchstErbaulich @HochstErbaulichHey @IridiumBoss will the Falcon 9 core for Iridium-4 be recovered? There are rumors that the first stage has no recovery equipment installed.Matt Desch @IridiumBossReplying to @HochstErbaulichNo, I understand it won't beFor context, I'm told this is due to a desire to start clearing the Block 3 booster stock in favor for Block 4s and eventual Block 5s
Quote from: Raul on 12/19/2017 03:22 pmMatt Desch confirms no booster recovery.åçhttps://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/943153072850776064 QuoteHöchstErbaulich @HochstErbaulichHey @IridiumBoss will the Falcon 9 core for Iridium-4 be recovered? There are rumors that the first stage has no recovery equipment installed.Matt Desch @IridiumBossReplying to @HochstErbaulichNo, I understand it won't be
Matt Desch confirms no booster recovery.åçhttps://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/943153072850776064
HöchstErbaulich @HochstErbaulichHey @IridiumBoss will the Falcon 9 core for Iridium-4 be recovered? There are rumors that the first stage has no recovery equipment installed.Matt Desch @IridiumBossReplying to @HochstErbaulichNo, I understand it won't be
Quote from: jpo234 on 12/20/2017 01:31 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 12/20/2017 12:07 am So why not give Iridium the most boost possible.That's not a GEO launch. The satellites go to their initial orbit and don't need any additional boost beyond that.They might, if an engine goes out on the way up. See CRS-1. Not likely, but it never hurts to have extra margins. Margin on the way up is a lot more useful than an old booster in a scrapyard.
Quote from: envy887 on 12/20/2017 04:26 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 12/20/2017 01:31 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 12/20/2017 12:07 am So why not give Iridium the most boost possible.That's not a GEO launch. The satellites go to their initial orbit and don't need any additional boost beyond that.They might, if an engine goes out on the way up. See CRS-1. Not likely, but it never hurts to have extra margins. Margin on the way up is a lot more useful than an old booster in a scrapyard.So you suggest that SpaceX plans to expend the booster because they think that they might lose an engine on this flight?I very much doubt that this is the reason.