In addition, I'll add that we've not been hearing about hotfires, so engine issues are also on my "hot list"
With the model presented as being discredited for being applicable to the Reuse Business Case (other than by ULA executives for justifying their own decisions possibly)
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/12/2016 05:07 pmWith the model presented as being discredited for being applicable to the Reuse Business Case (other than by ULA executives for justifying their own decisions possibly)While the model is getting disparaged left and right it might be worth reminding that it's non-applicability is not a consensus opinion. Some people, me included, still believe the model is valid despite it's limitations and a great source of insight that explains a lot of SpaceX's actions happening now and for some time and their challenges going forward.
Quote from: jongoff on 05/11/2016 10:44 pmThat's not at all what I was trying to say. I was just saying that so far most of the cost savings they've had compared to their competitors has come from design/operations choices, and little so far from reusability, but that I'm optimistic that eventually a larger share of the relative cost savings will start coming from reusability.I agree with Jon's first point whole-heartedly, and I'll agree with his second point on a long enough time scale. I also think that there is nothing in SpaceX's near-term re-usability scheme that will come close to the cost savings SpaceX would have by just upping their flight rate first into the 12 / year range and then in the 18-20 / year range.
That's not at all what I was trying to say. I was just saying that so far most of the cost savings they've had compared to their competitors has come from design/operations choices, and little so far from reusability, but that I'm optimistic that eventually a larger share of the relative cost savings will start coming from reusability.
So if I had to rank SpaceX's potential cost advantages over their competition, my ranking would be1) Design / operational choices2) High flight-rate3) High-value component re-use (engines, system components, etc.)4) Intact stage re-useThis, I think, is the underlying bone of contention (can you feel it?) in this thread between the seasoned veterans at ULA and other places and the SpaceX fans. SpaceX is trying to jump straight from #1 to #4 when there is much more bang for the buck to be had in steps 2 and 3.
ULA has it worse. They have to start at #1. There's no point in even attempting #4 if you don't have a low-cost design or operations.
This, in my opinion, is all that Dr. Sowers was trying to say with his spreadsheet. There's no need to get too deep into the numbers -- it's meant to be more of a big-picture look at things.
Quote from: Jim on 05/10/2016 10:52 pmQuote from: RocketGoBoom on 05/10/2016 09:09 pm they are going to win a lot of launches after the block buy is over.Not really. Spacex is not going to bend to DOD requirements. They want to keep the F9 generic.That may be the situation now, but it wasn't during the early cycles of certification. Remember the conclusions of the panel that investigated the dragged-out certification process for F9? It became evident that USAF had forced SpaceX into changing parts of the F9 design. Once this practice was exposed by the panel, the practice was discontinued at the suggestion of the secretary of the air force. From that point forward the certification process became more smooth. Now that USAF can effectively no longer force SpaceX to change the design it is quite easy for SpaceX to say: "Hey general Hyten, we're not gonna bend to you and your boys anymore."
Quote from: RocketGoBoom on 05/10/2016 09:09 pm they are going to win a lot of launches after the block buy is over.Not really. Spacex is not going to bend to DOD requirements. They want to keep the F9 generic.
they are going to win a lot of launches after the block buy is over.
The obvious disadvantage is that Falcon 9 will not be suitable for all USAF and NRO missions. So yeah, they will continue to lose missions to ULA. But then again, in the current situation, that's welcome news for Tory et al..
Quote from: meekGee on 05/10/2016 07:08 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/10/2016 05:08 pmWe already know from an earlier removed post (from a ULA employee) that the reuse business-case model posted by another ULA employee is not to be taken seriously. It holds no merit. Besides, the folks here were very good at taking the model apart and exposing the many flaws in it. Can we just forget about it? It's pointless to continue discussing a model that is pretty much useless.Apologies, I wasn't following upthread, I thought I was the first to notice.This was posted by Dr. Sowers though, and he's more than just an employee - he's a high ranking persona there.Not cool, not for him, and not for ULA.EDIT: Fixed spellingI agree. It's not cool for Dr. Sowers and ULA to publically post a seriously flawed model and then use it to spread FUD. This was pointed out by the discrediting ULA employee and Lar upthread. Given his senior role within ULA Dr. Sowers really should have known better.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/10/2016 05:08 pmWe already know from an earlier removed post (from a ULA employee) that the reuse business-case model posted by another ULA employee is not to be taken seriously. It holds no merit. Besides, the folks here were very good at taking the model apart and exposing the many flaws in it. Can we just forget about it? It's pointless to continue discussing a model that is pretty much useless.Apologies, I wasn't following upthread, I thought I was the first to notice.This was posted by Dr. Sowers though, and he's more than just an employee - he's a high ranking persona there.Not cool, not for him, and not for ULA.EDIT: Fixed spelling
We already know from an earlier removed post (from a ULA employee) that the reuse business-case model posted by another ULA employee is not to be taken seriously. It holds no merit. Besides, the folks here were very good at taking the model apart and exposing the many flaws in it. Can we just forget about it? It's pointless to continue discussing a model that is pretty much useless.
Quote from: Jim on 05/11/2016 04:17 pmQuote from: Lar on 05/11/2016 04:11 pmJim, as of right now, based on what you know, what do you personally think the probability is that SpaceX will fly at least one reused booster at some point? And what do you think the conditional probability of success is, given that they fly one? An educated guess based on little to no data (but arguably more than most of us have) from you would be interesting.From what I saw, the aft end needs much more protection. There were panels that were damaged and opened on the previous booster. The fires on the current booster may have been internal. Careful Jim. You might be giving too much information. Temporary inside insight is good, but you may be walking a red line here.
Quote from: Lar on 05/11/2016 04:11 pmJim, as of right now, based on what you know, what do you personally think the probability is that SpaceX will fly at least one reused booster at some point? And what do you think the conditional probability of success is, given that they fly one? An educated guess based on little to no data (but arguably more than most of us have) from you would be interesting.From what I saw, the aft end needs much more protection. There were panels that were damaged and opened on the previous booster. The fires on the current booster may have been internal.
Jim, as of right now, based on what you know, what do you personally think the probability is that SpaceX will fly at least one reused booster at some point? And what do you think the conditional probability of success is, given that they fly one? An educated guess based on little to no data (but arguably more than most of us have) from you would be interesting.
That aside: it is to be expected that the first succesfully recovered boosters will reveal issues that need addressing. After all, when was the last time someone tried to propulsively recover the first stage of an orbital launcher? SpaceX are the first ones to do so and are therefore the first ones to get a good understanding of the unique problems associated with it. What I don't doubt for a minute is that SpaceX will ultimately fully understand the causes of the issues and fix them. And given how SpaceX works, the issues will probably be fixed sooner than most competitors expect.
Quote from: Jim on 05/11/2016 05:55 pmI believe what they have done up to this point on the design and operation of the vehicle without reuse is a larger impact to the cost of the vehicle than what they will get out of reuse.But none of this would and probably even could have happened without the promise of reuse and Mars. Mars colonization and rocket reusability have already halved the cost of spaceflight even though no-one has gone to Mars and no rocket has been reused.How about that for a business case?
I believe what they have done up to this point on the design and operation of the vehicle without reuse is a larger impact to the cost of the vehicle than what they will get out of reuse.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/11/2016 08:44 pmWould like to point out that all of the structural concerns for recovered boosters as well as most of the retropropulsion plume impingement issues seem to have gone by the wayside.I'm somewhat surprised they have not taken a used booster, hauled it to Texas, put it in the structural test stand, filled it with an inert fluid, pressurized it, then subjected it to 140% flight loads (or whatever they use for a new booster). If that test passes, the avionics work, and the engines check out (tested by hot fire) then it would seem they could retire almost all risk. I would think a full structural test would also a big confidence boost for the first customer of re-use.
Would like to point out that all of the structural concerns for recovered boosters as well as most of the retropropulsion plume impingement issues seem to have gone by the wayside.
There are several possibilities here. Maybe they have not gotten to it yet. Maybe they are sure it would fail from the inspections they have already done, and are waiting for some revision that will do better.
Maybe such a ultimate load test tweaks the booster to the point it can't the re-used, and they are not willing to give up on any recovered boosters yet. Maybe they are so certain it will pass that it's not worth the trouble to test (though this one seems unlikely to me - SpaceX would surely like to make sure there are no unanticipated problems, and customers would surely like to know SpaceX has checked for this). Anyway I'm surprised they've not done a full up structural test.
The problem is we don not know yet. And will not until new prices for launches using reuse is published. We can speculate that SpaceX has answered these and it is in the direction of true. Otherwise they would have stopped an.d started new significant vehicle modifications to make them true or to go in in a different direct in the seeking of lower launch costs.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/11/2016 08:44 pmIn addition, I'll add that we've not been hearing about hotfires, so engine issues are also on my "hot list" Would we necessarily hear about them? In the photo of the aft ends of the first two returned boosters, the OG-2 booster had several engines removed. Without specific info, I kind of assumed that they'd been taken to the test stand. And checking them out wouldn't necessarily look all that different from more typical activity at McGregor, when viewed from over the property line.
Agreed on broader structural issues, though; I was surprised to see Elon talking about re-firing the engines, but not re-qualifying the structure. Significant expense for that is one of ULA's assumptions in the business memo, and I would have thought a reasonable one at least for the first few launches.
But that may ultimately wind up being between SpaceX, their relanch customer(s), and their insurance companies...
The more I look at it, the less sense a direct reusability comparison between ULA and SpaceX makes. Both SpaceX's launchers and its business plan were designed with the transition to at least partial reusability in mind. It's been on the company's roadmap for years. SpaceX's plans and infrastructure were designed to account for reusability.ULA has been studying it, but the company hasn't been planning for it. It is something to consider, but it's not a company-wide goal. ULA is not in the same position to exploit it that SpaceX is.
And tadaaa: Vulcan gets a returnable engine pod.Hey, guess what: So does Ariane 6!
What both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.
Quote from: CorvusCorax on 05/16/2016 11:25 amWhat both ULA and Arianespace would have needed to do instead is scrap the Vulcan and Ariane6 concepts and start over with an entirely new design paradigm. Except that at the time that decision would have had to be made, it wasn't obvious yet. And now that it's obvious, it might be too late.Based on what? Reuse hasn't been proven yet. It could still end up like the shuttle
That sounds a bit like the stance some people have towards their CO2 emissions and global warming.
One glance at the beat and burnt stage SpaceX just put into their 39A hangar makes clear, they aren't there yet. But still that stage just managed the feat of a controlled suicide burn landing, which also proves that even in that battle-worn state after a hot re-entry it is still capable of high powered precision manoeuvres.
SpaceX, on the other hand:1) does not have the tile problem2) designed Merlin's presuming reuse: we have some statements from SpaceX to what degree.3) recovers the main tank.4) avoids the solids entirely.
Quote from: CorvusCorax on 05/16/2016 11:25 amAnd tadaaa: Vulcan gets a returnable engine pod.Hey, guess what: So does Ariane 6!No, they don't. It is not baselined in the design for both rockets. There is just some talk that they may one day decide to look into it, after their rockets are flying.