Just a reminder that SpaceX builds launchpads at a fraction of ULA/NASA costs.They can afford to just throw it away and being anew if they think its better.Trying to accuse SpaceX of falling prey to the Sunk Cost Fallacy makes very little sense. SpaceX is the epitome of doing things cost effectively, just saying.Example, the Boca Chica Launch Complex is estimated at US$ 100 million total costs !I would guesstimate LC40 costed less than the stated F9 FT first stage build cost.
Just a reminder that SpaceX builds launchpads at a fraction of ULA/NASA costs.
Quote from: WizZifnab on 05/20/2016 07:03 pmWell, I guess I'll let the question on potential use of F9DevR2 for in-flight abort go. I really didn't get an answer that satisfies me. But I think I might be rubbing people raw on this.Knowing for a fact whether its possible to recover the booster would certainly affect the value of considering a F9DevR2. Regardless, I don't personally care or prefer one choice over the other. I really have just been asking the question sort of academically. Its the making of the choice that matters more to me than what choice is made.The response here smells a little of 'group think' to me.What group? And who is thinking?Plain and simple, cheaper not to use F9R Dev2 than to use it at this point in history.
Well, I guess I'll let the question on potential use of F9DevR2 for in-flight abort go. I really didn't get an answer that satisfies me. But I think I might be rubbing people raw on this.Knowing for a fact whether its possible to recover the booster would certainly affect the value of considering a F9DevR2. Regardless, I don't personally care or prefer one choice over the other. I really have just been asking the question sort of academically. Its the making of the choice that matters more to me than what choice is made.The response here smells a little of 'group think' to me.
I had a meeting with some of the conservators at Udvar-Hazy a couple of weeks ago, and in general conversation said, "I don't see any SpaceX hardware here." (thinking specifically of the line of 1/15 scale launch vehicle models in the Space wing.) They got very sour looks and said, "Bad topic." Turns out SpaceX is asking for substantial payments from the Air & Space Museum (at least, don't know if that's true for other museums or just the Smithsonian) for any of their old hardware. They're much more used to having people donate historically significant items to them.
The reason might be an accounting/taxation issue. If they keep those items at the production cost (including certification and such), to keep a certain equity amount in their balance sheet, then taking them out would have consequences.Say that they need a certain equity because they need it when they bid to the government. If they had lots of profits, then they would probably like to reduce their income tax through such donations.But if they don't currently have profits against which to offset those "losses" of the donation, Then taking them out would be a loss of equity. And in the short term impact their bidding strength and in the longer term force them to pay more income tax.So I wouldn't be surprised if they had would be willing to donate in the future.
All of that said, F9DevR2 simply doesn't fit properly on any of the F9 launch facilities any longer. Because the latest version of the F9 has stretched tanks compared to those in the F9DevR2
Quote from: Jim on 05/20/2016 04:48 pm1. No assumption, they are. I'd love to have the source/reference for that. Really.
1. No assumption, they are.
Quote from: WizZifnab on 05/20/2016 05:18 pmQuote from: Jim on 05/20/2016 04:48 pm1. No assumption, they are. I'd love to have the source/reference for that. Really.Jim's post, above.
I'm afraid I'm going to need something more, since it appears to contradict other things we have heard/seen since the FT F9 arrived.See image describing F9 FT changes - a first stage tank change or tank change is not listed
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/22/2016 02:59 amSee image describing F9 FT changes - a first stage tank change or tank change is not listedOne change not mentioned in that image is the location of the common bulkheads between the LOX and RP-1 tanks. With sub-cooling, the density of the RP-1 increases and the LOX/RP-1 volume ratio changes, hence requiring that the common bulkheads move to increase the volume of LOX and reduce the volume of RP-1.I do not know this for certain, but it seems plausible that this might also require the locations of the propellant loading ports to shift as well.
See image describing F9 FT changes - a first stage tank change or tank change is not listed
One change not mentioned in that image is the location of the common bulkheads between the LOX and RP-1 tanks. With sub-cooling, the density of the RP-1 increases and the LOX/RP-1 volume ratio changes, hence requiring that the common bulkheads move to increase the volume of LOX and reduce the volume of RP-1.
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 05/21/2016 01:09 amAll of that said, F9DevR2 simply doesn't fit properly on any of the F9 launch facilities any longer. Because the latest version of the F9 has stretched tanks compared to those in the F9DevR2The upper stage tanks were stretched, yes, but I don't think that the first stage were. Yet several people have made this assertion, but I have yet to see any real source for it. Can someone cite some real evidence of a 1st stage tank stretch after v1.1?
Quote from: macpacheco on 05/21/2016 03:06 amJust a reminder that SpaceX builds launchpads at a fraction of ULA/NASA costs.They can afford to just throw it away and being anew if they think its better.Trying to accuse SpaceX of falling prey to the Sunk Cost Fallacy makes very little sense. SpaceX is the epitome of doing things cost effectively, just saying.Example, the Boca Chica Launch Complex is estimated at US$ 100 million total costs !I would guesstimate LC40 costed less than the stated F9 FT first stage build cost.Right. They could build a complex, abandon it and build another till the end of time with wanton abandon and it wouldn't cut into their profits in any critical way - and they have made a profit off all of their facilities so far, so such a scenario is rather unlikely. SpaceX isn't very good at crappy economics.
Well, I guess I'll let the question on potential use of F9DevR2 for in-flight abort go. I really didn't get an answer that satisfies me. But I think I might be rubbing people raw on this.