Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.
It'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.
Quote from: Jim on 03/09/2017 02:44 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.This decade is almost over....My prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew, multiple are being built.Constellations are airborne, launch rates approaching 1/day.
What is being launched once per day??
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:51 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/09/2017 02:44 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.This decade is almost over....My prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew, multiple are being built.Constellations are airborne, launch rates approaching 1/day.Well, if you include all launches, manned and unmanned, then let's see:SpaceX is targeting 20+ launches this year already. Probably around 50 launches per year by 2019, when they have 4 launch sites in operation. So that's already a launch a week, just from SpaceX, before this decade is out.Add all other operators, and you are probably up to 2 launches a week, on average. A launch every third day, in other words. I guess you're correct that this could quite conceivably triple in cadence by the end of the 2020's, to a launch a day.
I was counting CommX launches assuming F9.Just that is crazy. That's why I still think an integrated reusable sat deployer has to happen, or else how are you going to launch 12000 sats?5 year life span ==> 2400/yr20 per fairing ==> 120 launches/yrOnce every 3 days, just on the CommX side.So either the constellation plans don't have a way to be launched, or we're going to see changes to the launch vehicles.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 03:06 pmI was counting CommX launches assuming F9.Just that is crazy. That's why I still think an integrated reusable sat deployer has to happen, or else how are you going to launch 12000 sats?5 year life span ==> 2400/yr20 per fairing ==> 120 launches/yrOnce every 3 days, just on the CommX side.So either the constellation plans don't have a way to be launched, or we're going to see changes to the launch vehicles.Or the assumption of 20 sats per launch is wrong.
This is again drifting away from discussion of the Heavy and on to all sorts of other topics, ITS, weekly and daily launches, Raptor upper stages,..... Can we put those where they belong and get back to discussion of the Falcon Heavy here?Thanks
Quote from: TomH on 03/09/2017 09:20 amRaptor is for en entirely different purpose than Merlin. ITS will not replace F9. If anything, more Merlins will be produced as SX becomes more proficient and Block 5 becomes more reliable. Raptor should do nothing to affect economies of scale on the Merlin production line. Reusability of Merlins may balance out the increasing number of Falcon flights, though.I can not believe that. Once Raptor is in full production and reliable, they will want to terminate Merlin and Falcon production. Wether they do everything with ITS or build a smaller cousind, I don't know. I guess they will want something smaller and 7 engines like New Glenn look just about right. I just guess they want to do that after ITS flies, not before.
Raptor is for en entirely different purpose than Merlin. ITS will not replace F9. If anything, more Merlins will be produced as SX becomes more proficient and Block 5 becomes more reliable. Raptor should do nothing to affect economies of scale on the Merlin production line. Reusability of Merlins may balance out the increasing number of Falcon flights, though.
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/09/2017 10:32 amQuote from: TomH on 03/09/2017 09:20 amRaptor is for en entirely different purpose than Merlin. ITS will not replace F9. If anything, more Merlins will be produced as SX becomes more proficient and Block 5 becomes more reliable. Raptor should do nothing to affect economies of scale on the Merlin production line. Reusability of Merlins may balance out the increasing number of Falcon flights, though.I can not believe that. Once Raptor is in full production and reliable, they will want to terminate Merlin and Falcon production. Wether they do everything with ITS or build a smaller cousind, I don't know. I guess they will want something smaller and 7 engines like New Glenn look just about right. I just guess they want to do that after ITS flies, not before.If only SpaceX would have designed a re-useable booster so that by then they could be flying "flight qualified" block 5+s on Falcon Heavy etc. and cut back Merlin production to Mvacs plus a few spares.
Why not fly ITS style boosters with less engines, say 21 to 28, for full re-useable lesser payload launches?I think they'll flight test the 1st ITSs with reduced engine # boilerplates.
Quote from: philw1776 on 03/09/2017 05:39 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 03/09/2017 10:32 amQuote from: TomH on 03/09/2017 09:20 amRaptor is for en entirely different purpose than Merlin. ITS will not replace F9. If anything, more Merlins will be produced as SX becomes more proficient and Block 5 becomes more reliable. Raptor should do nothing to affect economies of scale on the Merlin production line. Reusability of Merlins may balance out the increasing number of Falcon flights, though.I can not believe that. Once Raptor is in full production and reliable, they will want to terminate Merlin and Falcon production. Wether they do everything with ITS or build a smaller cousind, I don't know. I guess they will want something smaller and 7 engines like New Glenn look just about right. I just guess they want to do that after ITS flies, not before.If only SpaceX would have designed a re-useable booster so that by then they could be flying "flight qualified" block 5+s on Falcon Heavy etc. and cut back Merlin production to Mvacs plus a few spares.What do you mean by "if only"? That is exactly their plan! If block 5 reuse is as successful as hoped, they drastically cut down booster production and move the majority of production to upper stages. The same for engines.Quote from: philw1776 on 03/09/2017 05:39 pmWhy not fly ITS style boosters with less engines, say 21 to 28, for full re-useable lesser payload launches?I think they'll flight test the 1st ITSs with reduced engine # boilerplates.ITS discussion has little (or nothing) to do with this thread, please move it to where it belongs.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/09/2017 12:37 pmHowever, didn't Elon say a while ago that they abandoned upper stage recoverability (for now) because it proved impossible with the Merlin engine? If a Raptor upper stage made full reusability possible, (in addition to allowing New Glenn level payloads on the expendable Falcon Heavy), would that not go some way to justifying the costs of the revised upper stage production line?It has nothing to do with the engine. Just stop, Spacex has said no Raptor with Falcon
However, didn't Elon say a while ago that they abandoned upper stage recoverability (for now) because it proved impossible with the Merlin engine? If a Raptor upper stage made full reusability possible, (in addition to allowing New Glenn level payloads on the expendable Falcon Heavy), would that not go some way to justifying the costs of the revised upper stage production line?
There is a very high chance of a raptor variant being used on future F9/FH upper stages.
My prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew (cis-lunar), multiple are being built.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:51 pmMy prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew (cis-lunar), multiple are being built.Man, I've gotta clean off my monitor & keyboard..... There's lots and lots and lots of "six months" before ITS ever flies, if it actually gets built and flies.My prediction: FH flies by 2025. OK, serious prediction: FH first flight: Quarter one of 2018. HOPE I'm wrong, that it is before then. But realistically based on delays, past history, delays, very low priority for preparing infrastructure, and delays, I do not think it is likely to happen in 2017.
Wrong. They have stated in the present (after that contact). No Raptor on F9/FH.They basically just took the Air Force's money because they have no intend themselves to use it.