Tweet from Matt Desch:Comfort that risk <= than new and more schedule certainty to complete 5 more launches over next 8 months. Cost is better, but not driver.
If you can get the acceptance of used as being just as good as new then SpaceX could then go to a set price for F9 regardless of whether the booster flown is new or used as long as the customer does not specify a new one. This is their current expressed pricing goal to occur as early as next year. So far the views released lately seem to support this view of used as being as good as a new one.
Wired claims that the next two cargo missions for nasa will be on flown boosters: https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-keeps-lining-up-covert-military-launches/"NASA’s interest in SpaceX’s reusable technology seems to be growing as well. Sources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."
Sources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."
Quote from: almightycat on 10/25/2017 01:01 amSources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."Reusable not reused. Aren't all F9s boosters reuseable now?
SpaceX offered SES the first reusable orbital rocket launch in aerospace history and all the free publicity that came along with it. The historic mission launched on March 30, and on October 11, SpaceX fired off its third reusable rocket, carrying another SES payload.
NASA's approved CRS-13 to fly on CRS-11's booster. We've been following it in L2, but it has now become a decision, so that's great news. More in the coming period, but to get the news out there, added it to William's Koreasat article:https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/falcon-9-koreasat-5a-nasa-approves-flown-boosters/
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Quote from: rpapo on 10/25/2017 11:15 amNearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.
Which given SpaceX's demand and backlog, may very well be the difference between those customers flying in 2018 or not.
The only things not being reused on CRS-13 is the US and Trunk.
Quote from: Dante2121 on 11/11/2017 11:48 amQuote from: rpapo on 10/25/2017 11:15 amNearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: SweetWater on 11/11/2017 12:32 pmQuote from: Dante2121 on 11/11/2017 11:48 amQuote from: rpapo on 10/25/2017 11:15 amNearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.No.From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/A supermajority of marketable launches will soon be SpaceX launches, and they will be re-using their Block 5 F9s many times. Not only are you laughably wrong, within 1 to 2 years the majority of launches where national vanity or security are not the over-riding concern will be on returned boosters. When the BFR/BFS is in operation, almost all tons of material orbited as a percentage of tons orbited will be on systems intended from the outset for 100% re-fuel to refly systems.
Quote from: tdperk on 11/12/2017 04:00 pmQuote from: SweetWater on 11/11/2017 12:32 pmQuote from: Dante2121 on 11/11/2017 11:48 amQuote from: rpapo on 10/25/2017 11:15 amNearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.No.From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/A supermajority of marketable launches will soon be SpaceX launches, and they will be re-using their Block 5 F9s many times. Not only are you laughably wrong, within 1 to 2 years the majority of launches where national vanity or security are not the over-riding concern will be on returned boosters. When the BFR/BFS is in operation, almost all tons of material orbited as a percentage of tons orbited will be on systems intended from the outset for 100% re-fuel to refly systems.I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s.
Two, the chart you referenced does not take into account government launches. Three, SpaceX may have been awarded the bulk of commercial launch contracts for next year; however, those flights haven't launched yet, and it is foolish to count chickens before they hatch.Also, while SpaceX has had a great year in 2017 and I wish them only the best going forward, a failure or partial failure next year could easily interrupt their launch cadence for at least a couple of months. If that failure occurs on a first stage which is being re-flown, it could temper the speed with which the industry is willing to embrace reuse.
I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s.