Arianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
Here ia an article on this topic:http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
Also, I suspect the are taking flown hardware and getting various piece parts into a refurb cycle for reuse. Bead blast, repainted things, remove electronics for flight requalification (firmware updates?), NDI, etc.
Following the aircraft model, might we see FAA get involved with 100 hour inspection requirements on engines and/or overhauls every certain time period? I am thinking govt agencies be come more interested particularly if people transport becomes common on re-used space vehicles.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/25/2016 03:19 pmHere ia an article on this topic:http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.I'm dubious. For one thing it's wishful thinking, because if he's right, all is well at Arianespace, but if he's wrong, his job is in trouble, and for another the production facility is going to be busy cranking out S2s so the cost of having an idle line? isn't. This seems more or less the same FUD that ULA (inadvertantly in my view) served up with Dr. Sowers' spreadsheet on reuse business case.Time wil tell.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/25/2016 03:19 pmHere ia an article on this topic:http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.I'm dubious. For one thing it's wishful thinking, because if he's right, all is well at Arianespace, but if he's wrong, his job is in trouble, and for another the production facility is going to be busy cranking out S2s so the cost of having an idle line? isn't. This seems more or less the same FUD that ULA (inadvertantly in my view) served up with Dr. Sowers' spreadsheet on reuse business case.Time wil tell.Quote from: dgates on 04/21/2016 12:19 amAlso, I suspect the are taking flown hardware and getting various piece parts into a refurb cycle for reuse. Bead blast, repainted things, remove electronics for flight requalification (firmware updates?), NDI, etc.I'm dubious about this as well. At least steady state, if things need to be disassembled after every flight, we're back to refurbishment rather than reuse. I expect SpaceX will design out refurbishment wherever possible. First few cycles? Sure. Lots to inspect and test and learn from, but over time, every touch will be looked at for possible elimination.
It could be that what makes sense for ULA and Arianespace isn't the case for SpaceX. Because SpaceX is vertically integrated, it might be easier for them to reuse their first stage and continue to keep their production line open.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/25/2016 05:50 pmIt could be that what makes sense for ULA and Arianespace isn't the case for SpaceX. Because SpaceX is vertically integrated, it might be easier for them to reuse their first stage and continue to keep their production line open. Exactly. If you are a "rockets are LEGO elements" company like OrbitalATK that assembles things and each stage is dissimilar, if you start reusing S1 a lot, you (or your S1 vendor) have a vacant S1 line, and repurposing it for, say, lunar landers, or in space tugs, is a lot harder. Your S2 is from a different vendor so you can't repurpose the S1 line to make them...Whether it was dumb luck forced on them due to limited resources, or shrewd thinking (I think the latter but I'm biased), SpaceX does not have this problem. S2 is made on the SAME line as S1... same tankage, a lot of the same internal fixtures, etc, just shorter. yes, it's different, but reconfiguring the line to make 3x ... and then 5X... and then 10X (as reuse fraction goes up) S2 as you do S1 isn't nearly as hard.(and this is what kind of bugs me about the talk of a Raptor upper stage for F9... all of a sudden you're eroding a lot of commonality. ESPECIALLY if you go to a different tank size like so many people here like)
Unless NASA or DOD is funding it for super-heavy lift, it would just be a very low volume research and development demonstrator to prove MCT concepts, and would only go up on a fraction of Heavy launches.
QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
The assumption of the article is if you can't profit from the direct investment in the short or medium term (lets say 5-10 years) with financial returns greater than the investment, then it shouldn't be done. And in a typical business envioronment ignoring these kinds of "rules" spells death to a company. Arianespace and other oldSpace companies have this mindset because they have to answer to shareholders. Lost profitability turns into lost jobs for presidents.
I believe that SpaceX and their investors operate from a completely different paradigm, incompatible with the former view. They measure success so radically differently that it is not even comprehensible to their competition.
Reuse will completely remake the launch marketplace as much as mass production
It enables thousands of launches per year instead of hundreds.
SpaceX may leverage some of that launch capacity to put up a global satellite Internet service array less expensively than anyone else can do. Leveraging the capital from this to fund the next steps.
Beyond that, SpaceX and the investor group may be looking to own Mars. I don't mean planet domination, but founder's position, which can be the best leverage, for of all commercial endeavors on an entirely new planet! These will be new businesses, new franchises, and new industries.
Quote from: CraigLieb on 04/25/2016 09:27 pmBeyond that, SpaceX and the investor group may be looking to own Mars. I don't mean planet domination, but founder's position, which can be the best leverage, for of all commercial endeavors on an entirely new planet! These will be new businesses, new franchises, and new industries. The last time someone tried to start a thread about that it was locked.
I note Musk has stated that even shipping Crack Cocaine from Mars would not make a profit. Historically quite a lot of of fortunes have been founded on shipping surpluses to existing markets. Musk believes this option is impossible.
The big question for me is whether SpaceX is going to test a refurbished stage by flying it again, but with some ballast for a second stage, and then try to fly the stage back to Cape Canaveral. How that would fit into their current launch manifest is TBD, but I suspect that they currently have no scheduled launches involving a refurbished stage, so the manifest does not currently support a test flight.
Quote from: Danderman on 04/26/2016 02:43 amThe big question for me is whether SpaceX is going to test a refurbished stage by flying it again, but with some ballast for a second stage, and then try to fly the stage back to Cape Canaveral. How that would fit into their current launch manifest is TBD, but I suspect that they currently have no scheduled launches involving a refurbished stage, so the manifest does not currently support a test flight.Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.
Quote from: Lar on 04/26/2016 02:56 amQuote from: Danderman on 04/26/2016 02:43 amThe big question for me is whether SpaceX is going to test a refurbished stage by flying it again, but with some ballast for a second stage, and then try to fly the stage back to Cape Canaveral. How that would fit into their current launch manifest is TBD, but I suspect that they currently have no scheduled launches involving a refurbished stage, so the manifest does not currently support a test flight.Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.SES also apparently said they want a 50% price cut, which is not what SpaceX has been talking about, yet. I'm sure supply will meet the demand at some point tho.
So maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.