Quote from: SweetWater on 11/12/2017 04:48 pmI 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. So you argue, that because SpaceX reuses their first stages, they fly less rockets than others? They have more launches, but because of reuse, less rockets. Correct, but what is the point you are trying to make?
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.
At their flight rate and year-on-year acceleration, SpaceX demand and backlog are swapping positions. They will soon be able to launch all the payloads created world-wide -- backlog will be a satellite vendor issue, not a launch issue. 2018 is cross-over year (baring mishaps).So, enough of this 'backlog' shade...Note: NASA and Iridium had protected or high queue positions. Neither had to change 'to get their payloads launched in 2018'
I am ecstatic that we are finally seeing the dawn of the real reuse age. But part of me is just back there ...saying "what took so long"??
Quote from: Lar on 11/13/2017 12:18 amI am ecstatic that we are finally seeing the dawn of the real reuse age. But part of me is just back there ...saying "what took so long"??It's a true paradigm shift. Recall old comments about how F9 is overdesigned, that it's 30% larger than it needs to be to get the job done. That it's a cost burden. The built in assumption there that reuse would never work. Then, even when reuse was contemplated, vertical landing wasn't. Just look at these plans for a Shuttle flyback booster. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254.pdfWings, jet engines, horizontal landings. It looks ridiculous now. Can you imagine a FH launch using those? To say nothing about the center core or F9 missions. Yet until a few short years ago, that was state of the art for booster reuse. Why was vertical landing ignored for so long?
Quote from: Norm38 on 11/13/2017 06:25 amQuote from: Lar on 11/13/2017 12:18 amI am ecstatic that we are finally seeing the dawn of the real reuse age. But part of me is just back there ...saying "what took so long"??It's a true paradigm shift. Recall old comments about how F9 is overdesigned, that it's 30% larger than it needs to be to get the job done. That it's a cost burden. The built in assumption there that reuse would never work. Then, even when reuse was contemplated, vertical landing wasn't. Just look at these plans for a Shuttle flyback booster. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254.pdfWings, jet engines, horizontal landings. It looks ridiculous now. Can you imagine a FH launch using those? To say nothing about the center core or F9 missions. Yet until a few short years ago, that was state of the art for booster reuse. Why was vertical landing ignored for so long?Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/13/2017 07:25 amBecause the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.
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.
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: 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: 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.
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: guckyfan on 11/12/2017 07:33 pmQuote from: SweetWater on 11/12/2017 04:48 pmI 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. So you argue, that because SpaceX reuses their first stages, they fly less rockets than others? They have more launches, but because of reuse, less rockets. Correct, but what is the point you are trying to make?My point is that until the early 2020s, the only rocket being reused will be the Falcon 9. I'm not arguing the number of launches performed or cores produced or the number of launches of re-used cores. I'm just stating that of all the different types of rockets available for launch now and for the next 4-5 years (Atlas V, Delta IV, Vulcan, New Sheppard, Ariane 5 and 6, etc.), the only one being re-used is the Falcon 9. That was what I meant when I said "most" rockets are currently expendable and will be fore the foreseeable future.
My point is that until the early 2020s, the only rocket being reused will be the Falcon 9. I'm not arguing the number of launches performed or cores produced or the number of launches of re-used cores. I'm just stating that of all the different types of rockets available for launch now and for the next 4-5 years (Atlas V, Delta IV, Vulcan, New Sheppard, Ariane 5 and 6, etc.), the only one being re-used is the Falcon 9. That was what I meant when I said "most" rockets are currently expendable and will be fore the foreseeable future.
Counting by number of rocket types is kind of pointless though, number of launches is what matters.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 11/13/2017 10:15 amQuote from: woods170 on 11/13/2017 07:25 amBecause the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently. That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/13/2017 11:41 amQuote from: JamesH65 on 11/13/2017 10:15 amQuote from: woods170 on 11/13/2017 07:25 amBecause the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently. That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it. Wings were used to return to the launch site not because of a lack of testicles, but because that was the state of the art back then. In fact, wings were a big improvement over a parachute plopping a can of astronauts into the water. You might even say that wings were leading edge technology Finally, there are hordes of excellent female engineers who manage to get all sorts of innovative stuff done without needing the male organs. The organ they use is their brains. Your misplaced fixation on a particular bit of biology ignores a lot of facts.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/13/2017 11:41 amQuote from: JamesH65 on 11/13/2017 10:15 amThey had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently. That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 11/13/2017 10:15 amThey had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently. That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
Quote from: laszlo on 11/13/2017 05:45 pmQuote from: woods170 on 11/13/2017 11:41 amQuote from: JamesH65 on 11/13/2017 10:15 amThey had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently. That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it. DC-XA didn't have a customer to begin with. NASA took over the program from SDIO after the public success of DC-X became an embarrassment to NASA. Under NASA guidance it was similar to when it was managed by SDIO: R&D program.In case you had failed to notice: that is exactly how SpaceX started booster recovery: as a pure R&D program. SpaceX didn't have customers for booster recovery either.But when SpaceX succeeded, multiple times, in booster recovery (both land and sea) it did not take all that much to take the next step: booster reuse of an orbital vehicle.And that's where NASA failed: to look beyond the mere technical aspect of vertically landing a booster. NASA never bothered to make the transition from the prototype, 1/3rd scale DC-X, to a full-size orbital vehicle. They (as well as SDIO) lacked the guts (b*lls if you will) to have a vision AND carry it through all the way to reality. It is exactly this lack of vision, this lack of guts, that (unfortunately) managed to kill propulsive landing on Crew Dragon.The only reason why NASA is OK with SpaceX reusing Cargo Dragon and flying on reused boosters is because they have an enormous database about the reuse of orbital launch systems and orbital spacecraft (courtesy of STS).But propulsive landing of a crewed vehicle is completely new to them and it shows: NASA chickened out.
I don't see the link you are making to 'forbidding' the propulsive landing of Dragon.
Quote from: woods170 on 11/14/2017 09:45 amThe only reason why NASA is OK with SpaceX reusing Cargo Dragon and flying on reused boosters is because they have an enormous database about the reuse of orbital launch systems and orbital spacecraft (courtesy of STS).But propulsive landing of a crewed vehicle is completely new to them and it shows: NASA chickened out.There appear to be no valid similarities between information gained from STS reuse, and that required for landing a booster as SpaceX do.
The only reason why NASA is OK with SpaceX reusing Cargo Dragon and flying on reused boosters is because they have an enormous database about the reuse of orbital launch systems and orbital spacecraft (courtesy of STS).But propulsive landing of a crewed vehicle is completely new to them and it shows: NASA chickened out.
Woerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17
Did he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at least
No, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.
Comment from ESA head:QuoteWoerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933269213703262208QuoteDid he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at leasthttps://twitter.com/planetguy_bln/status/933271153854025729QuoteNo, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933271439255404544I’m with Elon on this, in that I don’t understand the issue with using fuel to land (and thus reducing payload mass). What matters is the cost to launch the payloads you want to launch, not how much you could have launched on the same rocket if expendable. (I’m assuming costs reflect reuse development costs.)