Isn't it about time to move this discussion to the Missions section and create an updates thread. I anticipate there being some updates in the next couple of weeks on the timing.
Does FH still have a future after the BFR announcement? Or will it just launch once?
Quote from: jpo234 on 09/29/2017 09:44 amDoes FH still have a future after the BFR announcement? Or will it just launch once?Customers are going to be rather cross if they're kicked back another five years by their launch provider for a rocket that only exists on paper.
If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?*Arguably realistic?
Quote from: Cheapchips on 09/29/2017 10:41 amIf you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?*Arguably realistic?5 launches on manifest, 2 of the demo missions. One of the customer missions so late that it could launch without delay on BFR (assuming the BFR time table holds [big assumption, I know]). So, FH development for just 2 or 3 revenue flights?
Quote from: jpo234 on 09/29/2017 11:10 amQuote from: Cheapchips on 09/29/2017 10:41 amIf you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?*Arguably realistic?5 launches on manifest, 2 of the demo missions. One of the customer missions so late that it could launch without delay on BFR (assuming the BFR time table holds [big assumption, I know]). So, FH development for just 2 or 3 revenue flights?If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/29/2017 11:32 amQuote from: jpo234 on 09/29/2017 11:10 amQuote from: Cheapchips on 09/29/2017 10:41 amIf you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?*Arguably realistic?5 launches on manifest, 2 of the demo missions. One of the customer missions so late that it could launch without delay on BFR (assuming the BFR time table holds [big assumption, I know]). So, FH development for just 2 or 3 revenue flights?If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.I don't agree. Faced with the prospect of an NSS-certified FH going away SpaceX will simply have BFR certified for NSS launches. IMO FH won't be kept around, for NSS launches only, after the stockpile of F9's and FH's runs out. SpaceX is not ULA.
If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.
If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
Quote from: Proponent on 09/29/2017 11:32 amIf the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.For the heavy DOD payloads, they would need a new fairing design and a new payload adapter, or a new payload adapter and vertical integration. The current system is limited to 11 mT or so and horizontal integration. People forget that F9 is more limited by the integration method than by the rocket throwing capability. For things that are heavier than the 11mT they HAVE to redesign the fairing. For things that require VI, the HAVE to redo the integration process. Given the announcement of canceling F9 within the next years, sounds like a waste of money TBH.FH is for high energy orbits with medium mass payloads. This is actually good for ULA because it gives them a leg to stand on.
Yeah, but it's going to be a while before BFR is ready, isn't it? Time enough for more thant 2 or 3 revenue flights, methinks.
Quote from: Cheapchips on 09/29/2017 10:41 amIf you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?History of FH announced first launch, and several years past that date, provides little confidence or logic that BFR won't end up with the same molasses scheduling. (And yes, I really did type molasses, not an auto-correct). It just amazes me how many people faithfully believe any long term schedule that Elon Musk says (than again some still clinging to FH launching in November 2017 because Elon said so 2 months ago). When many of those people have been around long enough to know the history that it almost never turns out to be correct (for whatever reasons they do this and definitely should know better). Boy who cried Wolf syndrome, too many times. SpaceX does a lot of great stuff. Predicting long term timeframes is definitely not one of them.