F9 and New Glenn will compete on overall efficiency and cost, not merely pounds to orbit. Let's see how they stack up in actual cost effective $/orbital pound once New Glenn is flying. It's a bit premature to be calling F9 the "inferior" rocket.
I don't really get the need for this thread, there are already threads where this has been discussed. Also based on the first two posts it seems to be for rampant speculation, not updates. Landing cradles and barge flyback of Block 5, really? You seriously think that might happen? RTLS of GTO missions? This is Block 5 of Falcon 9, not ITS.
That's my speculation I personally would like to know more about Block 4: whether we've seen it already and how it differs from Block 3, whether FH demo 1 will be all Block 3 or perhaps be a Block 4 core with two Block 3 boosters, etc. Not knowing this agitates my space nerdiness
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/09/2017 05:46 pmSo, in the hypothetical event that Bezos does succeed in doing to SpaceX what he did to many other first-mover companies in other industries, what is it that SpaceX would have done wrong, in hindsight? Why is Bezos able to move forward with a superior rocket to Falcon, while SpaceX is still trying to perfect Falcon a decade or more after their first flight?Why? Because Bezos has far more resources (personal wealth) at his disposal. He can afford to take his time to tinker and build something "right". Musk/SpaceX never had that luxury, they needed to deliver results quickly for customers and learn as they went.But that still assumes that Bezos will be successful. There are lots of gotchas involved in building an orbital launch vehicle and even more so a partially reusable one, as SpaceX has discovered.New Glenn is still years from flying. A lot can change.
So, in the hypothetical event that Bezos does succeed in doing to SpaceX what he did to many other first-mover companies in other industries, what is it that SpaceX would have done wrong, in hindsight? Why is Bezos able to move forward with a superior rocket to Falcon, while SpaceX is still trying to perfect Falcon a decade or more after their first flight?
Weird thread. People worrying about BO's rocket. And yet it hasn't been built or flown yet. It may indeed be a 'better' rocket than F9,but it still got 10 years of development to get through (I'm estimating the same amount of time it's taken F9, I see no reason why it wont be a similar order of magnitude). But once it is done, so what? We have to assume they will reach similar levels of reusability, and probably refurbishment costs as well. So overall more expensive to launch as fuel costs will be higher. So it is going to have its market share, and F9/H is going to have it's own.Meanwhile both companies are working on next gen - ITS and NA, again aimed at different markets.As an aside, I wonder if CommX will use NG to launch some of their satellite fleet - they may need the capacity.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 03/09/2017 07:24 pmWeird thread. People worrying about BO's rocket. And yet it hasn't been built or flown yet. It may indeed be a 'better' rocket than F9,but it still got 10 years of development to get through (I'm estimating the same amount of time it's taken F9, I see no reason why it wont be a similar order of magnitude). But once it is done, so what? We have to assume they will reach similar levels of reusability, and probably refurbishment costs as well. So overall more expensive to launch as fuel costs will be higher. So it is going to have its market share, and F9/H is going to have it's own.Meanwhile both companies are working on next gen - ITS and NA, again aimed at different markets.As an aside, I wonder if CommX will use NG to launch some of their satellite fleet - they may need the capacity.Not worrying.... estimating and comparing...There's good reason to believe NG development will be faster. Again, because they don't have to deal with pesky operations while developing. And they don't have to figure out which direction to go... F5? Octaweb? Barges? SpaceX had to really innovate and figure out which of many directions to go to, while maintaining a balance with operations, keeping customers happy, etc. BO doesn't have all of that. BO doesn't have to change direction - they are aiming for FH, very clearly.However, at the end of the day, all they'd have built is what they perceive as a "better FH". Which may or may not be so, but by the time it flies, they will have succeeded (maybe) in beating SpaceX at what SpaceX has already moved on from...There's good reason to believe that by the time NG flies for the first time, SpaceX would already have a constellation in place.That's the problem of the "follower". China is trying to beat the US. In some ways, being "fast followers" condemns you to always thinking in terms of "me too". Same thing here.Back to Block 5....
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/09/2017 02:56 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:51 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/09/2017 02:44 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.This decade is almost over....My prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew, multiple are being built.Constellations are airborne, launch rates approaching 1/day.Well, if you include all launches, manned and unmanned, then let's see:SpaceX is targeting 20+ launches this year already. Probably around 50 launches per year by 2019, when they have 4 launch sites in operation. So that's already a launch a week, just from SpaceX, before this decade is out.Add all other operators, and you are probably up to 2 launches a week, on average. A launch every third day, in other words. I guess you're correct that this could quite conceivably triple in cadence by the end of the 2020's, to a launch a day.I was counting CommX launches assuming F9.Just that is crazy. That's why I still think an integrated reusable sat deployer has to happen, or else how are you going to launch 12000 sats?5 year life span ==> 2400/yr20 per fairing ==> 120 launches/yrOnce every 3 days, just on the CommX side.So either the constellation plans don't have a way to be launched, or we're going to see changes to the launch vehicles.*This is assuming the VLEO sats can last 5 years, or else the launch rate increases.It also means they are fine waiting for 5 years for full capacity.What about other constellations? Some will wait for new Glenn. Some might ask for a ride. Will SpaceX launch them?Why 20/fairing? Because these are not cubesats. They need to talk to cellphones, which makes them even larger. The AO compatibility issue will not make them smaller or lighter either. They'll be at least as large as the LEO sats IMO.F9 will have to RTLS to support these launch rates. So it's not drowning in performance.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:51 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/09/2017 02:44 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.This decade is almost over....My prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew, multiple are being built.Constellations are airborne, launch rates approaching 1/day.Well, if you include all launches, manned and unmanned, then let's see:SpaceX is targeting 20+ launches this year already. Probably around 50 launches per year by 2019, when they have 4 launch sites in operation. So that's already a launch a week, just from SpaceX, before this decade is out.Add all other operators, and you are probably up to 2 launches a week, on average. A launch every third day, in other words. I guess you're correct that this could quite conceivably triple in cadence by the end of the 2020's, to a launch a day.
Quote from: Jim on 03/09/2017 02:44 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.This decade is almost over....My prediction:By 2025:First ITS flew, multiple are being built.Constellations are airborne, launch rates approaching 1/day.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/09/2017 02:34 pmIt'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.Not in this or the next decade.
It'll be a world with daily launches, manned and unmanned.
This thread has me more concerned that I would have thought possible when starting to read through it.So, in the hypothetical event that Bezos does succeed in doing to SpaceX what he did to many other first-mover companies in other industries, what is it that SpaceX would have done wrong, in hindsight? Why is Bezos able to move forward with a superior rocket to Falcon, while SpaceX is still trying to perfect Falcon a decade or more after their first flight?A more robust defensive strategy might have been to move to a New Glenn sized Raptor-powered rocket by 2020, leaving ITS to wait for the 2030's. That would have meant that Blue Origin's New Glenn would be obsolete before its first flight, forcing them to waste even more time and money to go straight for a New Armstrong, if there was even a market for an Armstrong at that point.That might have given SpaceX the time to build the ITS under far less pressure, while dominating the launch market for the next decade with their "Raptor Glenn" equivalent.Instead, Elon has decided to jump straight from Falcon to ITS, which, as some have pointed out above, means that there is now a gap for Bezos to exploit until ITS comes online. And if ITS is delayed until say 2030, which is not at all impossible, then SpaceX is left with the inferior Merlin based Falcon Heavy as their only alternative offering to New Glenn.Hence the continuing questions around the potential necessity (whether Elon is considering it right now or not) of a Raptor based upper stage for the future Falcon Heavy, to keep them going until ITS sees the light of day.
When Falcon 9 was announced SpaceX hasn't even TRIED to launch anything into orbit. They didn't have a launch pad or main propulsion or manufacturing or test facilities anywhere close to ready.It flew only 4 years and 9 months after being announced.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/10/2017 02:52 amWhen Falcon 9 was announced SpaceX hasn't even TRIED to launch anything into orbit. They didn't have a launch pad or main propulsion or manufacturing or test facilities anywhere close to ready.It flew only 4 years and 9 months after being announced.I believe you are incorrect. They were flying (trying) to make the Falcon 1 successful, then announced the Falcon 5 which somewhat quickly turned into the Falcon 9.
I think Elon’s given us 24 hours, maybe, to get done what we need to get done, and it’s not a million people around a rocket scurrying like a beehive or an anthill. That vehicle needs to be designed to be reflown right away
Haven't seen this mentioned, but Gwynne Shotwell said this about the Falcon 9 development target:Quote from: Gwynne ShotwellI think Elon’s given us 24 hours, maybe, to get done what we need to get done, and it’s not a million people around a rocket scurrying like a beehive or an anthill. That vehicle needs to be designed to be reflown right awaySo, can we assume that F9B5 will be ready to fly again the next day after a launch?