Um, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.
Quote from: Lar on 04/05/2017 04:22 pmUm, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.what was the gto performance of v1.0 expendable?
Shotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
Shotwell: Falcon booster refurbishment cost substantially less than 1/2 cost of new build; more done for SES-10 than future flights. #33SS
QuoteShotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SS
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2017 06:02 pmQuoteShotwell: cost of refurbishing F9 first stage was “substantially less” than half of a new stage; will be even less in the future. #33SSIf the stated aim is to get F9 flying within a day, I can't see how you'd spend even a small fraction of that.
For the next few rockets SpaceX aims to refly, Shotwell said engineers will do about a tenth of the work that they did to refurbish the booster that launched March 30 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida with the SES 10 communications satellite.
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 04/05/2017 05:09 pmQuote from: Lar on 04/05/2017 04:22 pmUm, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.what was the gto performance of v1.0 expendable?4680 kg, according to https://web.archive.org/web/20101222155322/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.phpIt never flew to GTO, though.
Quote from: envy887 on 04/05/2017 05:40 pmQuote from: rsdavis9 on 04/05/2017 05:09 pmQuote from: Lar on 04/05/2017 04:22 pmUm, the performance upgrades were required in any case, IMHO... F9 1.0 wasn't capable of serving the GTO market well, again IMHO.what was the gto performance of v1.0 expendable?4680 kg, according to https://web.archive.org/web/20101222155322/http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.phpIt never flew to GTO, though.I think this is not v1.0. I think that In the page they are advertising the planned second model of Falcon 9 which was supposed to have higher thrust "Merlin 1C+" engines, and they payloads are for that model. But instead they managed to make the even more powerful Merlin 1D engine and this version with the "merlin 1C+" never flew.
No, it's a version of v1.0 that never flew.
I believe she also stated that the next ones will be 1/10 that of the SES-10. So that puts refurbishment costs at <$2M.https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/11/musk-wants-to-make-falcon-9-rocket-fully-reusable/QuoteFor the next few rockets SpaceX aims to refly, Shotwell said engineers will do about a tenth of the work that they did to refurbish the booster that launched March 30 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida with the SES 10 communications satellite.
The main kicker here is the effect such low refurbishment costs have on the cost per flight of an FH. At 10 flights per booster the average savings per flight is ~$20M for an F9. But for an FH it is $60M. Putting the pricing of an FH at about $15M more than an F9. If the new price of an F9 eventually gets to a value of $45M then the price for a FH would be ~$60M. That last flight flying as an expendable fully loaded would make the $/kg to LEO only $937. Now drop the price another $3M for reusing the faring.Price $57M - $/kg $890.Added:By 2020 the $/kg potential could be as low as $800 this is a factor of 10 from where the $/kg was at prior to F9's first flight in 2010 ($10,000/kg for an Atlas V 551 - best cost performance of all US LVs). So a factor of 10 over 10 years. What will the next ten years bring? $80/kg! (This is the goal of the ITS BTW).