Just my opinion.How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them.>now we don't get to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters.[/n]
I think it's a shame to wash the booster that they are going to put on their front lawn. To me the charring pattern of a landed F9 first stage is what makes it so distinctive.
IMHO SX regards relaunch as launch. That within days/weeks of receiving booster, it can be comfortably chosen for reflight.So, they got recovered stages. And more. Weeks of them. They are not comfortable with reflight.This suggests significant work underway. Note also that 39A could have had a stage doing fit checks, cold flows, etc while they work the issues. No hint of that. That tells you that Dragon 2 and FH aren't pressing issues for them, to advance 39A.Also, there's no additional static fires for reflight. They need more of something before that happens. Suggest engine/engine section issues that need to be worked/tested/qualified to advance "comfort".It may be that refurbishment is not the issue, but design/operation of a non refurbished vehicle that doesn't violate "comfort" issues is the logjam for 39A/reflight/FH/Dragon 2.
It may be that refurbishment is not the issue, but design/operation of a non refurbished vehicle that doesn't violate "comfort" issues is the logjam for 39A/reflight/FH/Dragon 2.
He is not going to establish reflight as the low cost alternative.
Reflight absolutely needs to be at least as reliable as flying a new core.
I think guckyfan's point, which I totally agree with, is that while reuse is going to lower cost, it's also actually going to improve reliability. The notion that the first flight is the reliable, expensive one, and subsequent flights are risky, second class ones that only are attractive because of cost, isn't SpaceX's.The second and subsequent flights of aircraft aren't riskier than the maiden flight.
SpaceX is saying not only are reflights going to cost less, they are also going to be more reliable.
So, there were those stripes on the engine bell for the Thaicom flight. Have we seen a post-flight picture of that same engine?
Any conclusions on what it was all about?
Quote from: starhawk92 on 06/08/2016 04:42 pmSo, there were those stripes on the engine bell for the Thaicom flight. Have we seen a post-flight picture of that same engine?IIRC there were images that showed that bell post-flight. Unfortunately I don't have a link for you.QuoteAny conclusions on what it was all about?Chris B already has definitively stated that it is a TPS experiment.
In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost."
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price.
Quote from: abaddon on 06/08/2016 04:48 pmQuote from: starhawk92 on 06/08/2016 04:42 pmSo, there were those stripes on the engine bell for the Thaicom flight. Have we seen a post-flight picture of that same engine?IIRC there were images that showed that bell post-flight. Unfortunately I don't have a link for you.QuoteAny conclusions on what it was all about?Chris B already has definitively stated that it is a TPS experiment.I think this is the striped one:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40393.msg1543815#msg1543815
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
QuoteI think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. I'm not convinced that's the case. Musk has been adamant about driving down the cost of space access and has talked a lot about ultimately getting to the point where the marginal cost of reuse (theoretically) is only the cost of refuelling and launching. I may be wrong but he seems genuinely more interested in reducing the cost of space access for customers than in maximizing profit.And even if they reduce the cost of reflight by, say, $20M, but pass only half of that savings on to the customer, that's still win-win.
Quote from: AC in NC on 06/08/2016 06:20 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/08/2016 06:52 pmQuote from: AC in NC on 06/08/2016 06:20 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 06/08/2016 03:12 pmIn other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.False. If new companies enter the market and are able to reduce their costs, there is naturally more competition (because more players), and so prices come down.This can happen even without costs coming down, but pretty soon you'll have companies going bankrupt and exiting. So in reality, yes, reducing costs will allow prices to be reduced in a competitive market.