There is not going to be any sudden rush to buy reused cores, especially before one has flown. .................Let's give SpaceX a chance to actually qualify a booster for reflight and their customers a chance to get comfortable with the idea before we start assuming everything will suddenly start flying on reused cores.
i guess another behind the scenes question is "how much does the insurance cost for a reused booster?"perhaps the full duration tests of the landed stage was done to reassure an insurance company? could that be true?i wonder if spacex will have to insure their own launches if no one else offers a reasonable rate
i guess another behind the scenes question is "how much does the insurance cost for a reused booster?"
<snip>Absolutely true, I agree. But I would bet (just a phrase, I don't bet) that in 2019 most launches will be on reused boosters including contracts already signed for new ones. The contracts will be renegotiated with reusable prices. By that time they will probably have enough cores in store that they don't need to build new ones before the Falcon family is phased out.
2019 seems correct. Look how long it was before the first successful landing and the number since then. The Hot Fire Test will prove the core for reuse, so skipping McGregor. Core production will be retasked for BFR.But that means fewer fresh S1 cores to test. They may even skip McGregor and rely on the Hot Fire as the only test. Blows my idea that the Hot Fire Test will be going away.McGregor will then build a new test stand for BFR.
Quote from: guckyfan on 08/01/2016 03:32 pm<snip>Absolutely true, I agree. But I would bet (just a phrase, I don't bet) that in 2019 most launches will be on reused boosters including contracts already signed for new ones. The contracts will be renegotiated with reusable prices. By that time they will probably have enough cores in store that they don't need to build new ones before the Falcon family is phased out.While I agree with the majority of your OP, this final comment is worth a response. IMO, for the foreseeable future (strange colloquialism since the future is not at all foreseeable), Falcon core production will probably continue at near its current rate of 20 or so per year to supply the stock of first-use-only customers such as the USG, thus also making up for losses from barge landings, etc. I expect the Falcon family to fly hundreds of times, if not a thousand times, before it is phased out. (I'm not in the camp of BFR replacing everything -- just as likely as semi-trucks replacing personal vehicles.)
Are barge landings going to be any more 'lossy' than land landings? I suspect not. They have been testing this heavily, and more tests to go, so reliability should be pretty good. I don't think there is any inherent reasons why it cannot be close to as reliable as RTLS. Bearing in mind most FH slights will require centre core barge landings, its something they will really want to make very reliable indeed.
Barge landing is inherently more difficult than land landings. You are shooting at a moving (mainly on the vertical axis) and rolling target. Therefore, you have a risk of tipping, even once you have successfully landed, as well as a risk of coming in slightly too high or too low. You are also in an environment where you can have to endure much higher winds (again, risk of tipping). In other words, if the weather is too bad, you pretty much have to ditch the stage in the water. And if you have a high enough launch rate, you may HAVE to launch even though you know you cannot land. Also, barge landings are used for more difficult missions (less margin) than land landing, since if you land on the barge, it is because you cannot hope to RTLS with the fuel you have. So more difficult conditions on the return path. Pretty much everything seems more difficult with barge landing than land landing, so you can expect a lesser success rate. Also, the data we have seems to agree with that analysis, with a 100% success rate on land landings so far (and much less so for barge landings). Dragon landing probably will be more like land landing. You choose the spot, you choose the time, so you go for the bes conditions !
At the risk of being jumped on and pounded into the ground as a "naysayer", engineering is about tested, measured and proven results. So far, while there are strong indications, everything involved with reusing an F9 is purely experimental. There is absolutely no evidence (yet) that it will both work and be economically viable. That won't happen until enough successful reflights are done to prove that it works and to be able to determine the actual financials. So far there hasn't been a single SpaceX reflight so no one knows what is actually possible vs. simply hoped for. Nor have there been enough landings to build up a true actuarial expectation of the rate of boosters returned in good enough shape to be re-used at economically viable refurbishment effort rates (landing with damage can make it cheaper to build a new booster rather than repair the old one). So this speculation is a bit premature, especially about the BFR which hasn't even cleared the tower, let alone returned to the launchpad.<20 minutes of dodging brickbats>SpaceX is doing exactly the right thing with all the tests. They are actually accumulating the evidence needed to make the business case. The full duration tests were done for the engineers, not the insurance companies. Even if all the testing shows no unmanageable problems, it could take til 2019 to know know if it makes economic sense to re-fly at all because of the need to accumulate a statistically significant actuarial data set. So having a majority of boosters re-used by then is optimistic.
So far, while there are strong indications, everything involved with reusing an F9 is purely experimental. There is absolutely no evidence (yet) that it will both work and be economically viable. That won't happen until enough successful reflights are done to prove that it works and to be able to determine the actual financials.
Quote from: Alastor on 08/02/2016 10:32 amBarge landing is inherently more difficult than land landings. Pretty much everything seems more difficult with barge landing than land landing, so you can expect a lesser success rate. Also, the data we have seems to agree with that analysis, with a 100% success rate on land landings so far (and much less so for barge landings). Agreed barge landings are more difficult. I just think that they are not that much more difficult. After all, they have landed three already (albeit with varying levels of damage), and they are only at the start of their tests. Are we already at optimal barge landing? I seriously doubt it.Am I right in thinking that FH centre cores will be landing on the barge with more reserves than F9 cores? That would give extra leeway, as would only launching when weather at LS was sane, which they should be able to do once their backlog is cleared and things are not so urgent.
Barge landing is inherently more difficult than land landings. Pretty much everything seems more difficult with barge landing than land landing, so you can expect a lesser success rate. Also, the data we have seems to agree with that analysis, with a 100% success rate on land landings so far (and much less so for barge landings).
... engineering is about tested, measured and proven results. So far, while there are strong indications, everything involved with reusing an F9 is purely experimental. There is absolutely no evidence (yet) that it will both work and be economically viable. That won't happen until enough successful reflights are done to prove that it works and to be able to determine the actual financials. So far there hasn't been a single SpaceX reflight so no one knows what is actually possible vs. simply hoped for. Nor have there been enough landings to build up a true actuarial expectation of the rate of boosters returned in good enough shape to be re-used at economically viable refurbishment effort rates (landing with damage can make it cheaper to build a new booster rather than repair the old one). So this speculation is a bit premature, especially about the BFR which hasn't even cleared the tower, let alone returned to the launchpad.