Quote from: Lar on 03/09/2017 02:32 am*ALL* SpaceX has to do is increase reliability as fast as possible to close to Atlas levels, get cadence and predictability down pat, and prove out that reuse lets them get their costs to 30M a launch or so... *ALL* they have to do is all of that and there isn't much room for a 150M a launch provider except for very high end specialty/government payloads. and, and, and, and......Yeah, and if a frog had wingsThe bet would be straight up. There is no weasling out with odds. Either you put up or ....And becoming the American Proton doesn't count. That is a pyrrhic victory.
*ALL* SpaceX has to do is increase reliability as fast as possible to close to Atlas levels, get cadence and predictability down pat, and prove out that reuse lets them get their costs to 30M a launch or so... *ALL* they have to do is all of that and there isn't much room for a 150M a launch provider except for very high end specialty/government payloads.
I doubt that Blue Origin can upset SpaceX. SpaceX has the Raptor coming which will be a far superior engine to BE-4. They have the manufacturing experience to pull even on production. What might happen is that they have to concentrate on an equivalent of the New Glenn ahead of ITS. I am sure their plan is to have it and cancel the Falcon family but after ITS.
That would cost so much in design and pad changes, SpaceX will never do that. I'm almost certain Block 5 will not be the last version, but SpaceX would never completely rebuild F9. Too much money and pad downtime as they upgrade the pads.
Someone should ask SX reps at a press, if they are going to build a raptor based rocket for commercial use (other than the ITS rocket).My guess is, eventually - yes, but not soon. Once they have the block 5 F9 set, the R&D teams could either get 100% focused on ITS, or split effort between it and a smaller methane/raptor based rocket. The won't rush either. Maybe at least 10 years in the future and together with a different launch pad.
One rocket company doesnt crumble to dust just because an other rocket company has a better or cheaper rocket. Especially not foreign ones. SX and BO might take a big part of the launch pie, but they will not eat the entire cake. Not even close. They might dominate the USA launch market though.
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.
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.
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.
*snip*Why 20/fairing? Because these are not cubesats. They need to talk to cellphones, which makes them even larger. The AO compatibility issue will not make them smaller or lighter either. They'll be at least as large as the LEO sats IMO.F9 will have to RTLS to support these launch rates. So it's not drowning in performance.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 03:20 pm*snip*Why 20/fairing? Because these are not cubesats. They need to talk to cellphones, which makes them even larger. The AO compatibility issue will not make them smaller or lighter either. They'll be at least as large as the LEO sats IMO.F9 will have to RTLS to support these launch rates. So it's not drowning in performance.The sats are probably a small spacecraft bus with large deployable antenna(s). We will know for sure when SpaceX unveils their design.My guess is they will be made so that one launch can deploy all the satellites for a particular orbital plane.Per the FCC permit application, the initial deployment will consist of 32 orbital planes with 50 satellites per plane. Subsequent deployments to an additional 51 orbital planes, with 50 or 75 satellites per orbital plane.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 03/09/2017 03:24 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 03:20 pm*snip*Why 20/fairing? Because these are not cubesats. They need to talk to cellphones, which makes them even larger. The AO compatibility issue will not make them smaller or lighter either. They'll be at least as large as the LEO sats IMO.F9 will have to RTLS to support these launch rates. So it's not drowning in performance.The sats are probably a small spacecraft bus with large deployable antenna(s). We will know for sure when SpaceX unveils their design.My guess is they will be made so that one launch can deploy all the satellites for a particular orbital plane.Per the FCC permit application, the initial deployment will consist of 32 orbital planes with 50 satellites per plane. Subsequent deployments to an additional 51 orbital planes, with 50 or 75 satellites per orbital plane.That's the LEO sats.There's a certain minimum power required to sustain all the individual connections they want to have, at the data rates they want. This will determine battery size, and in turn solar panel size.They will need the main down antenna, and at least two uplinks to the LEO sats. (RF? Optical?)I somehow this will end up large
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 03:30 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 03/09/2017 03:24 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 03:20 pm*snip*Why 20/fairing? Because these are not cubesats. They need to talk to cellphones, which makes them even larger. The AO compatibility issue will not make them smaller or lighter either. They'll be at least as large as the LEO sats IMO.F9 will have to RTLS to support these launch rates. So it's not drowning in performance.The sats are probably a small spacecraft bus with large deployable antenna(s). We will know for sure when SpaceX unveils their design.My guess is they will be made so that one launch can deploy all the satellites for a particular orbital plane.Per the FCC permit application, the initial deployment will consist of 32 orbital planes with 50 satellites per plane. Subsequent deployments to an additional 51 orbital planes, with 50 or 75 satellites per orbital plane.That's the LEO sats.There's a certain minimum power required to sustain all the individual connections they want to have, at the data rates they want. This will determine battery size, and in turn solar panel size.They will need the main down antenna, and at least two uplinks to the LEO sats. (RF? Optical?)I somehow this will end up largeI don't see how that's a justification for the assumption that they can only fit 20 satellites on the rocket.
Here's a write-up of Gwynne Shotwell's remarks yesterday:http://spacenews.com/shotwell-on-spacex-launch-backlog-we-will-definitely-catch-up/Contains some extra detail, such as:QuoteShotwell said it took SpaceX roughly four months to refurbish the Falcon 9 first stage for the SES-10 mission. In the near-term, she said, that will drop below two months, and eventually down to a single day.
Shotwell said it took SpaceX roughly four months to refurbish the Falcon 9 first stage for the SES-10 mission. In the near-term, she said, that will drop below two months, and eventually down to a single day.
How's this for being ambitious with (presumably block 5) booster 'refurbishment':Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/09/2017 04:25 pmHere's a write-up of Gwynne Shotwell's remarks yesterday:http://spacenews.com/shotwell-on-spacex-launch-backlog-we-will-definitely-catch-up/Contains some extra detail, such as:QuoteShotwell said it took SpaceX roughly four months to refurbish the Falcon 9 first stage for the SES-10 mission. In the near-term, she said, that will drop below two months, and eventually down to a single day.
So, in the hypothetical event that Bezos does succeed in doing to SpaceX what he did to many other first-mover companies in other industries, what is it that SpaceX would have done wrong, in hindsight? Why is Bezos able to move forward with a superior rocket to Falcon, while SpaceX is still trying to perfect Falcon a decade or more after their first flight?
This thread has me more concerned that I would have thought possible when starting to read through it.So, in the hypothetical event that Bezos does succeed in doing to SpaceX what he did to many other first-mover companies in other industries, what is it that SpaceX would have done wrong, in hindsight? Why is Bezos able to move forward with a superior rocket to Falcon, while SpaceX is still trying to perfect Falcon a decade or more after their first flight?*snip*Hence the continuing questions around the potential necessity (whether Elon is considering it right now or not) of a Raptor based upper stage for the future Falcon Heavy, to keep them going until ITS sees the light of day.