Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/10/2017 03:07 amSTS flew 6-8 times per year during the 1990s.STS brought steady long-term HSF budgets.Just listen to what you just said. "STS was good because it has a fixed cost of $4bn per year for 4-8 flights". You *literally* argue that having a very financially inefficient system is somehow a good thing.This is the key difference.For a business, providing a service cheaply is a good thing (because competition).For a govt program, some parts of the program are in fact incentivized to provide a service in the most expensive way possible.And you just gave us one example how this can be phrased as seemingly a good thing. "We brought steady long-term budgets". I betcha STS also "helped local economy" and "created a ton of secondary jobs" all over the country. :/
STS flew 6-8 times per year during the 1990s.STS brought steady long-term HSF budgets.
I should have specified that it did have to be economically viable, but I did assume many would know Space X's intentions of launching, landing and re launching the same core (to "dramatically reduce cost").
Steady in the sense that the STS costs did not spiral upward, as many other government programs did during that time. Will Commercial Crew budgets be so steady, or will the players raise prices as time passes to recoup costs? Just look at the CRS-2 contract versus CRS-1. CRS-2 averages up to $2.8 billion per year just for cargo. Once Crew is added, the total for crew and cargo could surpass STS.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/10/2017 02:24 pmSteady in the sense that the STS costs did not spiral upward, as many other government programs did during that time. Will Commercial Crew budgets be so steady, or will the players raise prices as time passes to recoup costs? Just look at the CRS-2 contract versus CRS-1. CRS-2 averages up to $2.8 billion per year just for cargo. Once Crew is added, the total for crew and cargo could surpass STS.One moment. What was the basis of the contract price NASA offered to pay the winners?Was that what NASA expected they could do it for based on their BAU contractor price models? My sense is that with experience that price should go down as development costs are recouped, not up.But I keep forgetting this is the aerospace business, where substantial price inflation is BAU.
Hi! I am currently doing a American history project on anything that happened during America's history. I decided to choose the period 2015- Present (Starting with Space X's landing of 11 Orbcomm-OG2!) because I see it as a monumental achievement for America and shows how far we have come from the Space Race.Now I am trying to find ways to convince my teacher that "Age of Reflight" (Kudos to the commentator on the webcast!) is a actual thing and how that can be something I can do my project on, because Blue Origin, Space X, China and ULA have been scrambling to launch cheaper and bigger and is going to revolutionize spaceflight.I was just wondering if anyone had any input if this is truly the "Age of Reflight" and if anyone thinks this will eventually become a official name for this period (Like the Space Race) that will end up in textbooks.Thanks!
SpaceX throws away its entire rocket on some flights. In the future, as more customers want more mass lifted to orbit for those low, low SpaceX prices, the company will likely have to perform an increasing number of expendable flights.
This is not meant to minimize the achievements.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/09/2017 06:16 pmSpaceX throws away its entire rocket on some flights. In the future, as more customers want more mass lifted to orbit for those low, low SpaceX prices, the company will likely have to perform an increasing number of expendable flights.Uh-huh. Let me introduce you to FH. If you truly think that SpaceX is going to fly a higher proportion of expendable flights verses reused in the future, you are in denial.
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/12/2017 06:14 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 05/09/2017 06:16 pmSpaceX throws away its entire rocket on some flights. In the future, as more customers want more mass lifted to orbit for those low, low SpaceX prices, the company will likely have to perform an increasing number of expendable flights.Uh-huh. Let me introduce you to FH. If you truly think that SpaceX is going to fly a higher proportion of expendable flights verses reused in the future, you are in denial.I truly believe what I said. The first eleven v1.2s were, or would have been, recoverable. Two of the next four (including the Inmarsat 4 F5 booster on the pad now) were expendable. More are planned. Block 5 will be able to lift more than 8 tonnes to GTO, but only less than 5.5 tonnes in recoverable mode. There will be those who will want to fly on the single-stick rather than the Heavy for reasons of reliability and schedule. - Ed Kyle
SpaceX throws away its entire rocket on some flights. In the future, as more customers want more mass lifted to orbit for those low, low SpaceX prices, the company will likely have to perform an increasing number of expendable flights. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: SpaceNerdHerder on 05/09/2017 02:44 amHi! I am currently doing a American history project on anything that happened during America's history. I decided to choose the period 2015- Present (Starting with Space X's landing of 11 Orbcomm-OG2!) because I see it as a monumental achievement for America and shows how far we have come from the Space Race.Now I am trying to find ways to convince my teacher that "Age of Reflight" (Kudos to the commentator on the webcast!) is a actual thing and how that can be something I can do my project on, because Blue Origin, Space X, China and ULA have been scrambling to launch cheaper and bigger and is going to revolutionize spaceflight.I was just wondering if anyone had any input if this is truly the "Age of Reflight" and if anyone thinks this will eventually become a official name for this period (Like the Space Race) that will end up in textbooks.Thanks!Space X THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN THE "SPACE" AND "X"!!SpaceX (no separation). Good luck with your project. Sorry my only input was a small nitpick.
I have a box of known size and weight, I need delivery to a specific orbit, not exceeding a given set of environmental conditions during delivery. - These conditions apply to all delivery vehicles. Rockets but also air and land transport before that.When can I get it delivered to orbit, how certain is it that my box will arrive in good working condition, how much does it cost?The rest is not really that important. Yes, there are long lists of restrictions for national and political reasons but those are not new.So, when will is the age of reflight arrive?When there is more than one commercial operator doing reflight as a matter of normal operations, for years. Very likely the first two will be SpaceX and Blue Origin.Why more than one? One is a monopoly, not an age. (Not that two is much better...)Why also in normal operation? Too easy to do a few reuses for PR value. Reflight as normal operation over time means that it is actually financially viable over expendable systems of the same vintage and technology and not just another STS.
QuoteSpace X THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN THE "SPACE" AND "X"!!SpaceX (no separation). Good luck with your project. Sorry my only input was a small nitpick. The company is actually Space Exploration Technologies Corporation , but that does fit well on the sticks and isn't near as "cool" as Space-X. Don't confuse a trademark with an actual proper word.
Space X THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN THE "SPACE" AND "X"!!SpaceX (no separation). Good luck with your project. Sorry my only input was a small nitpick.
If I remember correctly, the resued stage for SES 10 was about half or less than half of what the first stage costs to make and the first stage makes up perhaps 60-70% of the rocket? I do not remember correctly. ...
Quote from: Hog on 05/15/2017 11:55 amQuoteSpace X THERE IS NO SPACE BETWEEN THE "SPACE" AND "X"!!SpaceX (no separation). Good luck with your project. Sorry my only input was a small nitpick. The company is actually Space Exploration Technologies Corporation , but that does fit well on the sticks and isn't near as "cool" as Space-X. Don't confuse a trademark with an actual proper word.How can you nitpick and still get it wrong? SpaceX. Not Space-X.