Where is this FH core only being good for 3-5 launches coming from?
Quote from: sanman on 12/27/2012 03:05 amBut I thought Musk had made it clear that he was looking to eventually just become a manufacturer/supplier of vehicles, like a Boeing or Lockheed Boeing and Lockheed are not suppliers of launch vehicles.
But I thought Musk had made it clear that he was looking to eventually just become a manufacturer/supplier of vehicles, like a Boeing or Lockheed
Quote from: Jim on 12/29/2012 09:01 pmQuote from: sanman on 12/27/2012 03:05 amBut I thought Musk had made it clear that he was looking to eventually just become a manufacturer/supplier of vehicles, like a Boeing or Lockheed Boeing and Lockheed are not suppliers of launch vehicles.I think that Musk used the example of Boeing for planes (not for spacecrafts). Boeing doesn't operate its own planes. So Musk was saying that maybe one day SpaceX will stop operating its own rockets and will only manufacture them.
Merlin 1D is supposed to be reusable for a lot more launches than Merlin 1C, which was also supposed to be reusable for 10 or so launches.
But Merlin 1C was/is only usable for a single launch. SpaceX has been unable to recover a single engine from the ocean to even attempt re-use.
Then there is the whole "we tested the engine too many times" issue. Don't want that to happen again.
Quote from: Karloss12 on 01/14/2013 07:27 pmWhere is this FH core only being good for 3-5 launches coming from?Kerolox containing inpurities that make the engines dirty over long usage?methane and hydrogen burning more cleanly.But Spacex seems to be solving this in with their upcoming methane-based engine, but until that is ready, only small amount of reuses?Also, the market/capasity situation:If they are given a contract which needs >80% of the full capasity of the FH, they have to launch it as expendable. So then they can use the stages that have already flown couple of times and are nearing end of their lifetime, this being their last launch, and ask the "full price of non-reusable FH". Skylon cannot do this, it can only lift slightly overweight cargo by launching itself into something like 80% of orbital velocity and using an expendable (or later-recovered) second stage to push the payload into orbit. (but if they can recover the second stage with another flight, it should also be cheaper).
Skylon will follow a similar path. They will develop this engine. And some prototype test craft to strap it to. Through incremental steps it will be upgraded to launch satellites into LEO.
Skylon cannot do this, it can only lift slightly overweight cargo by launching itself into something like 80% of orbital velocity and using an expendable (or later-recovered) second stage to push the payload into orbit. (but if they can recover the second stage with another flight, it should also be cheaper).
Quote from: Karloss12 on 01/21/2013 10:04 pmSkylon will follow a similar path. They will develop this engine. And some prototype test craft to strap it to. Through incremental steps it will be upgraded to launch satellites into LEO. Are you writing what you predict will happen, or what you hope will happen, or what the Skylon people have said they will do?Because it does not appear to match their official aims... They seem to be going for "orbit or bust", no mention of any incremental vehicles. And that is at the source for my greatest skepticism - not starting with a suborbital/1st stage vehicle and then moving on.
Unthought through idea here, but could a Skylon type engine be used as the centre engine of an FH type launcher? So it breaths air during the recovery stage (and part of its ascent).
with the published image of the Skylon craft being so undetailed and over futuristic
Quote from: Karloss12 on 01/22/2013 11:57 amwith the published image of the Skylon craft being so undetailed and over futuristichttp://www.iafastro.net/download/congress/IAC-10/DVD/full/data/abstract.pdf/IAC-10.D2.4.7.brief.pdfJust because it looks retro-futuristic doesn't mean it's some sort of artist's conception...