It isn't just the cost of refurbishment. It is the loss of capability. Falcon 9 v1.1, for example, could not do useful GTO missions if first stage recovery was attempted. Falcon Heavy will only lift 6.5 tonnes to GTO (GEO-1800 m/s) with full recovery while weighing perhaps 1,400 tonnes at lifoff - nearly 70% as much as STS. Compare that with Atlas 521, which can lift about as much while weighing only 429 tonnes at liftoff. Or Ariane 64, which will lift 11 tonnes to GEO-1500 m/s while weighing 800 tonnes. Or Proton M, which can lift nearly as much to GEO-1500 m/s for half the liftoff mass despite launching from 46 degrees latitude. - Ed Kyle
Does it matter if a reusable FH is twice as massive as a Proton M if the reusable FH flight costs less? I don't think the customer will care.Reusablity requires trade offs. Loss of capacity for more fuel to return the stage to the launch site is a trade off. If the lower mass to orbit is still enough for the payload, it doesn't matter as long as it is cheaper.
We aren't going to expand beyond Earth on chemical rockets. Period.
BTW.... isn't the X-37 reusable? Perhaps it is only considered partially reusable since the launch vehicle is disposed?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 12/12/2015 01:23 pmWe aren't going to expand beyond Earth on chemical rockets. Period.Er, Apollo? Pretty sure that was chemical, prety sure it made it to the moon. That's expansion, albeit in a very minor way, but it proved it could be done with chemical rockets. Recent images of Pluto - chemical rockets only got New Horizons there (plus Jupiter gravity assist). There is a lot that can be done with chemical propulsion. What cannot be done with it yet, is replace it with something better.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 12/12/2015 01:23 pmWe aren't going to expand beyond Earth on chemical rockets. Period.Why not? Question mark.
Quote from: RonM on 12/12/2015 02:28 pmDoes it matter if a reusable FH is twice as massive as a Proton M if the reusable FH flight costs less? I don't think the customer will care.Reusablity requires trade offs. Loss of capacity for more fuel to return the stage to the launch site is a trade off. If the lower mass to orbit is still enough for the payload, it doesn't matter as long as it is cheaper.Yeah, it matters. It matters because the fact that it has to be so much bigger makes it a lot harder for it to end up cheaper.
Quote from: Semmel on 12/12/2015 04:19 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 12/12/2015 01:23 pmWe aren't going to expand beyond Earth on chemical rockets. Period.Why not? Question mark.2-3% of glow gets to LEO. Way less beyond that.Way too much material usage, way too expensive (factor of 10,000).
Quote from: JamesH on 12/12/2015 03:16 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 12/12/2015 01:23 pmWe aren't going to expand beyond Earth on chemical rockets. Period.Er, Apollo? Pretty sure that was chemical, prety sure it made it to the moon. That's expansion, albeit in a very minor way, but it proved it could be done with chemical rockets. Recent images of Pluto - chemical rockets only got New Horizons there (plus Jupiter gravity assist). There is a lot that can be done with chemical propulsion. What cannot be done with it yet, is replace it with something better.It's not expansion unless we stay, reproduce, and expand the civilization. Flags and footprints isn't expansion of the species beyond Earth anymore than a weekend vacation to the beach is the same as moving your family to the beach and living there permanently.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 12/12/2015 03:13 pmQuote from: RonM on 12/12/2015 02:28 pmDoes it matter if a reusable FH is twice as massive as a Proton M if the reusable FH flight costs less? I don't think the customer will care.Reusablity requires trade offs. Loss of capacity for more fuel to return the stage to the launch site is a trade off. If the lower mass to orbit is still enough for the payload, it doesn't matter as long as it is cheaper.Yeah, it matters. It matters because the fact that it has to be so much bigger makes it a lot harder for it to end up cheaper.Note the part of my quoted post I put in bold. Yes, it makes it harder, but if they succeed in making it cheaper per flight than no one will care.Without some magical technology, a reusable rocket has to be bigger to account for the extra mass that makes it reusable. There's no way around that. Getting back to the OP, that where the skepticism come from.
Reusability: Cheap spaceflight through reusability has been the holy grail of the aerospace industry since the end of Apollo. SpaceX wasn't the first to envision reusable rockets and won't be the last. The challenge never was technological. It has always been economical. Reusability only makes sense if you have high enough flight rates. Increasing flight rates does not depend solely on bringing costs down. It depends mainly on finding a purpose for those flights.SpaceX has a high probability of finally achieving first stage recovery and reuse. That will be a great technological accomplishment, but let's remember that the goal isn't to recover or reuse stages, it is to bring costs down. Recovery and reuse do not automatically bring costs down, nor are they the only ways of bringing costs down. Ultimately, what will bring costs down is to increase flight rates in order to generate economies of scale.Orbital launches are expensive because they employ lots of people to manufacture, test, handle, integrate, transport, and launch the rocket, but also to build payloads and ground stations, integration, fueling, handling, mission planning, mission control... There are also infrastructure costs, administrative overhead costs, facilities, power, IT, HR, training, legal, catering, etc... The result is hundreds, if not thousands of highly qualified people, working in the aerospace industry. The biggest cost factor is not the first stage hardware, it's the payroll of a particularly expensive workforce. Recovering the first stage is not going to automatically reduce costs by 50% (or even 20%) unless it allows to fire 50% of the workforce. It only has the potential to save some of the manufacturing costs, the rest of the costs remain constant. SpaceX has invested in facilities that can mass-produce Falcon cores. This means that if reusability comes into full swing, those facilities will be underproducing and the cost of each stage will actually increase due to the lack of economies of scale, which might negate the whole reusability business model.This is why the competitors of SpaceX (ULA, Airbus, etc.) are in "wait and see" mode. They have their plans to incorporate reusability into their business models if they need to, but they are mainly waiting to see how the market reacts to SpaceX and if SpaceX can actually make reusability profitable before they decide whether it makes economical sense to commit to it.
Quote from: RonM on 12/12/2015 04:28 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 12/12/2015 03:13 pmQuote from: RonM on 12/12/2015 02:28 pmDoes it matter if a reusable FH is twice as massive as a Proton M if the reusable FH flight costs less? I don't think the customer will care.Reusablity requires trade offs. Loss of capacity for more fuel to return the stage to the launch site is a trade off. If the lower mass to orbit is still enough for the payload, it doesn't matter as long as it is cheaper.Yeah, it matters. It matters because the fact that it has to be so much bigger makes it a lot harder for it to end up cheaper.Note the part of my quoted post I put in bold. Yes, it makes it harder, but if they succeed in making it cheaper per flight than no one will care.Without some magical technology, a reusable rocket has to be bigger to account for the extra mass that makes it reusable. There's no way around that. Getting back to the OP, that where the skepticism come from.How much does it cost to stretch a rocket stage?From what I've seen, the skepticism seems to mainly come from the notion that "an RLV needs high flight rates to be economical." Also, would reusability matter if the labor is in fact the most expensive part of a launch? Here's an argument from a reusability skeptic:Quote from: Nibb31Reusability: Cheap spaceflight through reusability has been the holy grail of the aerospace industry since the end of Apollo. SpaceX wasn't the first to envision reusable rockets and won't be the last. The challenge never was technological. It has always been economical. Reusability only makes sense if you have high enough flight rates. Increasing flight rates does not depend solely on bringing costs down. It depends mainly on finding a purpose for those flights.SpaceX has a high probability of finally achieving first stage recovery and reuse. That will be a great technological accomplishment, but let's remember that the goal isn't to recover or reuse stages, it is to bring costs down. Recovery and reuse do not automatically bring costs down, nor are they the only ways of bringing costs down. Ultimately, what will bring costs down is to increase flight rates in order to generate economies of scale.Orbital launches are expensive because they employ lots of people to manufacture, test, handle, integrate, transport, and launch the rocket, but also to build payloads and ground stations, integration, fueling, handling, mission planning, mission control... There are also infrastructure costs, administrative overhead costs, facilities, power, IT, HR, training, legal, catering, etc... The result is hundreds, if not thousands of highly qualified people, working in the aerospace industry. The biggest cost factor is not the first stage hardware, it's the payroll of a particularly expensive workforce. Recovering the first stage is not going to automatically reduce costs by 50% (or even 20%) unless it allows to fire 50% of the workforce. It only has the potential to save some of the manufacturing costs, the rest of the costs remain constant. SpaceX has invested in facilities that can mass-produce Falcon cores. This means that if reusability comes into full swing, those facilities will be underproducing and the cost of each stage will actually increase due to the lack of economies of scale, which might negate the whole reusability business model.This is why the competitors of SpaceX (ULA, Airbus, etc.) are in "wait and see" mode. They have their plans to incorporate reusability into their business models if they need to, but they are mainly waiting to see how the market reacts to SpaceX and if SpaceX can actually make reusability profitable before they decide whether it makes economical sense to commit to it.
Reusability: Cheap spaceflight through reusability has been the holy grail of the aerospace industry since the end of Apollo. SpaceX wasn't the first to envision reusable rockets and won't be the last. The challenge never was technological. It has always been economical. Reusability only makes sense if you have high enough flight rates. Increasing flight rates does not depend solely on bringing costs down. It depends mainly on finding a purpose for those flights.SpaceX has a high probability of finally achieving first stage recovery and reuse. That will be a great technological accomplishment, but let's remember that the goal isn't to recover or reuse stages, it is to bring costs down. Recovery and reuse do not automatically bring costs down, nor are they the only ways of bringing costs down. Ultimately, what will bring costs down is to increase flight rates in order to generate economies of scale.Orbital launches are expensive because they employ lots of people to manufacture, test, handle, integrate, transport, and launch the rocket, but also to build payloads and ground stations, integration, fueling, handling, mission planning, mission control... There are also infrastructure costs, administrative overhead costs, facilities, power, IT, HR, training, legal, catering, etc... The result is hundreds, if not thousands of highly qualified people, working in the aerospace industry. The biggest cost factor is not the first stage hardware, it's the payroll of a particularly expensive workforce. Recovering the first stage is not going to automatically reduce costs by 50% (or even 20%) unless it allows to fire 50% of the workforce. It only has the potential to save some of the manufacturing costs, the rest of the costs remain constant.