Interesting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late... I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)
There were a bunch of questionable assumptions that went into the spreadsheet.
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'. There's Gwynne's comment of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2017 08:51 amSo taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'. There's Gwynne's comment of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only. Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...
Quote from: AncientU on 06/24/2017 10:02 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2017 08:51 amSo taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'. There's Gwynne's comment of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only. Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...I think 2018 is going to *have* to be at least 30% reused. We know they're only producing 20 rockets/year right now, and LC 40 alone will be able to use them all. I doubt that they're going to increase that rate, so even if there are only half a dozen launches each at 39A and 4E the launch rate is going to require a pretty high reuse rate. Even more so in 2019 with Boca Chica online, and I suspect at that point they're going to want to shift some of the Merlin production line to Raptor.
...a piece of felgercarb.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 06/23/2017 12:46 pmInteresting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late... I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)That spreadsheet was discussed ad nauseum in some other thread. The discussion ended back then with the general conclusion that the spreadsheet in question was:Quote from: Starbuck...a piece of felgercarb.If people wish to re-hash all the shortcomings of said spreadsheet than I suggest they do so in the approriate thread.
Quote from: Confusador on 06/24/2017 10:25 amQuote from: AncientU on 06/24/2017 10:02 amQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2017 08:51 amSo taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'. There's Gwynne's comment of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only. Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...I think 2018 is going to *have* to be at least 30% reused. We know they're only producing 20 rockets/year right now, and LC 40 alone will be able to use them all. I doubt that they're going to increase that rate, so even if there are only half a dozen launches each at 39A and 4E the launch rate is going to require a pretty high reuse rate. Even more so in 2019 with Boca Chica online, and I suspect at that point they're going to want to shift some of the Merlin production line to Raptor.Once Block 5 starts to fly (and performs up to design), there will no longer be demand or need for 20 new cores per year. They may have hit peak production of Falcon in 2017.
Else what's the point of going to the expense of landing and recovering them at the moment?
That red cloud may look nice but what is in there?
So. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2017 08:51 amSo. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.Just use the Block 3 and 4s for expended mode launches until the lot is run out.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 06/24/2017 01:04 pmElse what's the point of going to the expense of landing and recovering them at the moment?They are still optimizing landing so worth it. They may continue to try the extreme limit landings. Also new trajectories using the new grid fins. Good they start using them now, not only with block 5 so they don't need to do experimenting with block 5 cores so much. Upgrade the LZ-1 pads with steel plating? I don't think radar reflective painting is the long term solution. That red cloud may look nice but what is in there?
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/24/2017 01:31 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 06/24/2017 01:04 pmElse what's the point of going to the expense of landing and recovering them at the moment?They are still optimizing landing so worth it. They may continue to try the extreme limit landings. Also new trajectories using the new grid fins. Good they start using them now, not only with block 5 so they don't need to do experimenting with block 5 cores so much. Upgrade the LZ-1 pads with steel plating? I don't think radar reflective painting is the long term solution. That red cloud may look nice but what is in there?Those are all good reasons to keep landing block 3-4 cores. Another is to continue getting everyone used to the idea that cores can land and be reused, so that when block 5 becomes available, fewer of them will have to be expended because customers aren't yet ready to trust reused cores.
Quote from: JazzFan on 06/24/2017 01:42 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/24/2017 08:51 amSo. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.Just use the Block 3 and 4s for expended mode launches until the lot is run out.Doesn't that undercut Falcon Heavy, though? I presume they don't want to undercut FH once it's flying.