Poll

Who will reuse more the first stage, Falcon 9, New Glenn, Neutron, Terran-R?

Falcon 9
15 (29.4%)
New Glenn
1 (2%)
Neutron
1 (2%)
Terran-R
0 (0%)
Starship
34 (66.7%)
Other
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 51


Author Topic: Who will reuse more the first stage, Falcon 9, New Glenn, Neutron, Terran-R, SS?  (Read 1882 times)

What do you think?

Starting 2024-2030...
« Last Edit: 09/01/2022 02:08 am by Tywin »
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline AmigaClone

How about adding Starship and a time frame (start date and end date) for counting the number of reuses?
« Last Edit: 09/01/2022 02:07 am by AmigaClone »

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 985
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 929
  • Likes Given: 516
What do you think?
Clarify the question & primary metric please.  Something is off in the wording.  Total re-uses per booster?  Total reflown boosters for each vehicle type?  By when? 

How about adding Starship and a time frame (start date and end date) for counting the number of reuses?

Do it...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

What do you think?
Clarify the question & primary metric please.  Something is off in the wording.  Total re-uses per booster?  Total reflown boosters for each vehicle type?  By when?

re-uses per booster...the final record.

From 2024 to 2030...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6540
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1501
  • Likes Given: 1418
Even by the midpoint in the given span, 2027, Starship Superheavy boosters will be flying daily. Nothing else will even come close.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36118
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20462
  • Likes Given: 10618
Even by the midpoint in the given span, 2027, Starship Superheavy boosters will be flying daily. Nothing else will even come close.
I tend to agree. Starship will also have the most expensive first stage (maybe? This is hard to say, but I do expect SH booster is more expensive than a F9 first stage), so there’s more incentive to reuse it a lot even at similar annual flight rates.

F9 is flying at a rate of about 60/year at the moment and will reach up to around 100 next year. If Starship gets to that level, we’re talking 10 times more global launch capacity than there is right now. And right now, there’s about twice the annual launch capacity as there was 8 years ago.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DeimosDream

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Atlanta
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 9
Even by the midpoint in the given span, 2027, Starship Superheavy boosters will be flying daily. Nothing else will even come close.

I'm less optimistic, but even flying weekly Starship Superheavy still wins.

Falcon-9's launch rate is going to crater as soon as Starlink switches to Starship in 2023/2024. It will probably still be flying 2027 for crew dragon and maybe beyond-earth falcon heavy, but should continue to wind down to retirement by 2030.

Honorable mention to Neutron as my predicted runner-up.

Blue Origin isn't moving very fast with New Shepard, so I'm expecting New Glenn will be slow to ramp up as well.

Relativity is a wild card, but as the least experienced with the most to learn I'll predict Terran-R finishes behind Neutron for 1st-stage reuse in the stated interval.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36118
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20462
  • Likes Given: 10618
Tough to compare Relativity to RocketLab. Relativity has more experience with gas generator engines. Aeon-R is an upscale of the Aeon-1 design, same cycle and propellants and overall manufacturing process, and will fly earlier on Terran 1 block 2 or whatever. So I still think Rocketlab is ahead due to success of Electron development and operational launch experience, but Terran 1 to Terran-R is a much more straightforward evolution than Electron to Neutron.

I think my perspective could change rapidly over the next month or two if Terran-1 orbits successfully and they test fire Aeon-R. Relativity has a deliberately more aggressive schedule and seem to be taking steps to make that happen. But I’m still reluctant to say they’re ahead since they’re using a manufacturing process that they haven’t yet demonstrated fully mastery of as well as RocketLab has mastered composites through operational use.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2022 09:13 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Tough to compare Relativity to RocketLab. Relativity has more experience with gas generator engines. Aeon-R is an upscale of the Aeon-1 design, same cycle and propellants and overall manufacturing process, and will fly earlier on Terran 1 block 2 or whatever. So I still think Rocketlab is ahead due to success of Electron development and operational launch experience, but Terran 1 to Terran-R is a much more straightforward evolution than Electron to Neutron.

I think my perspective could change rapidly over the next month or two if Terran-1 orbits successfully and they test fire Aeon-R. Relativity has a deliberately more aggressive schedule and seem to be taking steps to make that happen. But I’m still reluctant to say they’re ahead since they’re using a manufacturing process that they haven’t yet demonstrated fully mastery of as well as RocketLab has mastered composites through operational use.
Archimedes engine development is big question mark at this stage for Neutron, everything else seems straightforward.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36118
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20462
  • Likes Given: 10618
Tough to compare Relativity to RocketLab. Relativity has more experience with gas generator engines. Aeon-R is an upscale of the Aeon-1 design, same cycle and propellants and overall manufacturing process, and will fly earlier on Terran 1 block 2 or whatever. So I still think Rocketlab is ahead due to success of Electron development and operational launch experience, but Terran 1 to Terran-R is a much more straightforward evolution than Electron to Neutron.

I think my perspective could change rapidly over the next month or two if Terran-1 orbits successfully and they test fire Aeon-R. Relativity has a deliberately more aggressive schedule and seem to be taking steps to make that happen. But I’m still reluctant to say they’re ahead since they’re using a manufacturing process that they haven’t yet demonstrated fully mastery of as well as RocketLab has mastered composites through operational use.
Archimedes engine development is big question mark at this stage for Neutron, everything else seems straightforward.
A 7 meter diameter composite structure isn't actually straightforward, though. Even though RocketLab has a lot of experience with composites. That's bigger in diameter than the Dreamliner.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Tough to compare Relativity to RocketLab. Relativity has more experience with gas generator engines. Aeon-R is an upscale of the Aeon-1 design, same cycle and propellants and overall manufacturing process, and will fly earlier on Terran 1 block 2 or whatever. So I still think Rocketlab is ahead due to success of Electron development and operational launch experience, but Terran 1 to Terran-R is a much more straightforward evolution than Electron to Neutron.

I think my perspective could change rapidly over the next month or two if Terran-1 orbits successfully and they test fire Aeon-R. Relativity has a deliberately more aggressive schedule and seem to be taking steps to make that happen. But I’m still reluctant to say they’re ahead since they’re using a manufacturing process that they haven’t yet demonstrated fully mastery of as well as RocketLab has mastered composites through operational use.
Archimedes engine development is big question mark at this stage for Neutron, everything else seems straightforward.
A 7 meter diameter composite structure isn't actually straightforward, though. Even though RocketLab has a lot of experience with composites. That's bigger in diameter than the Dreamliner.
Composite superyachts are larger and NZ is expert at composite boatbuilding 
which is where RL steal their talent from.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36118
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20462
  • Likes Given: 10618
Tough to compare Relativity to RocketLab. Relativity has more experience with gas generator engines. Aeon-R is an upscale of the Aeon-1 design, same cycle and propellants and overall manufacturing process, and will fly earlier on Terran 1 block 2 or whatever. So I still think Rocketlab is ahead due to success of Electron development and operational launch experience, but Terran 1 to Terran-R is a much more straightforward evolution than Electron to Neutron.

I think my perspective could change rapidly over the next month or two if Terran-1 orbits successfully and they test fire Aeon-R. Relativity has a deliberately more aggressive schedule and seem to be taking steps to make that happen. But I’m still reluctant to say they’re ahead since they’re using a manufacturing process that they haven’t yet demonstrated fully mastery of as well as RocketLab has mastered composites through operational use.
Archimedes engine development is big question mark at this stage for Neutron, everything else seems straightforward.
A 7 meter diameter composite structure isn't actually straightforward, though. Even though RocketLab has a lot of experience with composites. That's bigger in diameter than the Dreamliner.
Composite superyachts are larger and NZ is expert at composite boatbuilding 
which is where RL steal their talent from.
Superyachts don’t need aerospace level composite qualities. The manufacturing method is different.

Rocketlab has pretty good operational experience with cryogenic composites, but you are significantly underestimating the challenge of such huge composites when you have aerospace composite margins. Also, more complicated structures than Electron.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0