ITS will be too big for many payloads. My guess is after SpaceX is happy with ITS, they'll start working on a smaller ITS derived system to replace F9/FH. Fully reusable in a more reasonable size for satellites.
I assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.
What kind of timeline can we speculate for F9?
does F9 have a use after ITS becomes operational?
Assuming they keep to their current notional timeline, they'll have to convert one of their launch facilities for ITS by ~2020 for their "orbital testing" phase (as shown in the Mars presentation slides). so one less F9 pad.
They'll also need a factory near that pad for the booster around that time. Do they move tooling to the new facility, or build a new f9-class launcher using the ITS tooling? Or does ITS replace F9/H outright?
Quote from: RonM on 03/28/2017 08:51 pmITS will be too big for many payloads. My guess is after SpaceX is happy with ITS, they'll start working on a smaller ITS derived system to replace F9/FH. Fully reusable in a more reasonable size for satellites.There's no such thing as "too big". You mean "too expensive". If an ITS launch is cheaper than a Falcon launch, why would anyone buy the Falcon ride?
Quote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 08:59 pmQuote from: RonM on 03/28/2017 08:51 pmITS will be too big for many payloads. My guess is after SpaceX is happy with ITS, they'll start working on a smaller ITS derived system to replace F9/FH. Fully reusable in a more reasonable size for satellites.There's no such thing as "too big". You mean "too expensive". If an ITS launch is cheaper than a Falcon launch, why would anyone buy the Falcon ride?That would be great if an ITS launch was cheaper than a Falcon launch. If SpaceX can pull that off it would still make sense to build a smaller ITS derived vehicle for smaller payloads. When you go pick up groceries, do you take the car or an eighteen-wheeler?
There's no such thing as "too big". You mean "too expensive". If an ITS launch is cheaper than a Falcon launch,
Personaly. 15 years untill old faithful becomes obsolete.
Wings?
There's no such thing as "too big". You mean "too expensive". If an ITS launch is cheaper than a Falcon launch, why would anyone buy the Falcon ride?
The space-plane concept still has legs. Despite setbacks and its cost, the STS program flew for 30 years.With companies who have demonstrated reusability by returning rocket cores, imagine what they might do in generating innovations to create a truly affordable, fast-turnaround fully-reusable space-plane.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 08:59 pmThere's no such thing as "too big". You mean "too expensive". If an ITS launch is cheaper than a Falcon launch, why would anyone buy the Falcon ride?That PoV demonstrates yet again how the ICBM architecture has warped space launch.In every other transport mode except space launch there is the idea of a "right size" for a vehicle to carry a load and what that vehicle should carry.This is why long distance coaches don't carry swimming pools . This is why you could use a panel truck with a pallet load of seats as an SUV people don't. Only in space launch (where you're going to throw away the vehicle anyway) is bigger always viewed as better. As long as throwing away most, if not all, of the vehicle is the norm this will continue.
Quote from: MattMason on 03/29/2017 05:06 amThe space-plane concept still has legs. Despite setbacks and its cost, the STS program flew for 30 years.With companies who have demonstrated reusability by returning rocket cores, imagine what they might do in generating innovations to create a truly affordable, fast-turnaround fully-reusable space-plane.That's easy.Nothing. Musk want's to settle Mars and be the goto guy for transport to everywhere else in the solar system. Those two goals rule out any interest in winged vehicles, despite such a system (with a suitable engine) likely to be able to deliver the cheapest overall cost to orbit. SX is a company that has been built from the ground up to push what is possible with VTO TSTO. They hope their next vehicle will achieve full reusability in this architecture. They have no interest in winged vehicles and while Musk remains in control I strongly doubt they ever will.
Lets not forget that with a Mars colony as planned there will be a bunch of full size ITS boosters sitting idle between synods unless they have a job.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/29/2017 06:15 amQuote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 08:59 pmYou are quite wrong... The transportation industry is a perfect example of the opposite. Things get delivered in oversized vehicles all the time. All my mail and boxed deliveries are delivered in large trucks. How is that "right size"? Most people drive alone in a car that can sit 4-8 people. How is that "right size"? Small items get shipped across the ocean in massive cargo ships. How is that "right size"?No, bulk freight wins out every time there is a choice. For almost every cargo the "right size" is indeed massively oversized. The only reason that you see various sized transports is due to the sheer VOLUME of cargo that allows lots of niches of vehicles, and sizes of those vehicles. If there is a sufficient volume of space launches, all sizes of launch vehicles will find a niche to be successful. But bulk will always be the more efficient and lower cost way to go.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 08:59 pmYou are quite wrong... The transportation industry is a perfect example of the opposite. Things get delivered in oversized vehicles all the time. All my mail and boxed deliveries are delivered in large trucks. How is that "right size"? Most people drive alone in a car that can sit 4-8 people. How is that "right size"? Small items get shipped across the ocean in massive cargo ships. How is that "right size"?No, bulk freight wins out every time there is a choice. For almost every cargo the "right size" is indeed massively oversized. The only reason that you see various sized transports is due to the sheer VOLUME of cargo that allows lots of niches of vehicles, and sizes of those vehicles. If there is a sufficient volume of space launches, all sizes of launch vehicles will find a niche to be successful. But bulk will always be the more efficient and lower cost way to go.
You are quite wrong... The transportation industry is a perfect example of the opposite. Things get delivered in oversized vehicles all the time. All my mail and boxed deliveries are delivered in large trucks. How is that "right size"? Most people drive alone in a car that can sit 4-8 people. How is that "right size"? Small items get shipped across the ocean in massive cargo ships. How is that "right size"?No, bulk freight wins out every time there is a choice. For almost every cargo the "right size" is indeed massively oversized. The only reason that you see various sized transports is due to the sheer VOLUME of cargo that allows lots of niches of vehicles, and sizes of those vehicles. If there is a sufficient volume of space launches, all sizes of launch vehicles will find a niche to be successful. But bulk will always be the more efficient and lower cost way to go.
Its normal to be skeptical, after all SpaceX goals are lofting. But one the eve of the first booster relaunch I would hope most would realize that being a naysayer will look silly if SpaceX achieves their goals, which are hard but are certainly within the realm of possibility.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?
Who knows? My guess is they will keep F9 operational for as long as it is profitable.
That PoV demonstrates yet again how the ICBM architecture has warped space launch.
In every other transport mode except space launch there is the idea of a "right size" for a vehicle to carry a load and what that vehicle should carry.
Quote from: nacnud on 03/28/2017 08:45 pmWho knows? My guess is they will keep F9 operational for as long as it is profitable.Makes sense. But how can some other vendor launch payloads cheaper? Perhaps:(a) A design that uses a low cost second stage. Probably needs a larger first stage, since the second won't be as efficient. But if the first stage is reliably recovered, it could be lower total cost.(b) A recoverable second stage. With this they might undercut the F9 price. Again probably needs a larger first stage.(c) Comsats grow to about 7000 kg. Now SpaceX has to bid a F9 expendable or FH. A vendor with a 50% bigger single-core rocket might be cheaper.(d) Some technical shift we can't see working yet. Laser launch powered from the ground? Air breathing first stages?None of these seem likely in the next decade or so, so I'm guessing a long life for the F9.
Doesn't have to be competitive pressure that leads to Falcon retiring. Falcon has some operational issues that can't really be resolved without a near-complete redesign, like hazardous TEA-TEB ops, Merlin life limitations due to coking, fluids that are an extra pain like nitrogen and especially helium, and the relatively high cost of RP-1 compared to LNG.If SpaceX can reduce improve profits by reducing operational expenses they might retire Falcon even if it's still competitive with other commercial launchers.
There isn't going to be a reusable second stage
Quote from: macpacheco on 03/29/2017 07:03 amLets not forget that with a Mars colony as planned there will be a bunch of full size ITS boosters sitting idle between synods unless they have a job.The bigger issue is what to do with the spaceships between synods, since according to SpaceX's figures, they're the most expensive part of the system - yet would just be sitting idle most of the time.*Cough* Venus *cough*. Sorry, clearing my throat.
Quote from: Rei on 03/29/2017 09:26 amQuote from: macpacheco on 03/29/2017 07:03 amLets not forget that with a Mars colony as planned there will be a bunch of full size ITS boosters sitting idle between synods unless they have a job.The bigger issue is what to do with the spaceships between synods, since according to SpaceX's figures, they're the most expensive part of the system - yet would just be sitting idle most of the time.*Cough* Venus *cough*. Sorry, clearing my throat.You need to balance their extra cost with the data that the spaceship isn't expected to last 1000 launches. If my memory serves the space ship is expected to last an order of magnitude less, which makes it too special to launch all the time unless there's SpaceX needs to launch it full with people.
Quote from: nacnud on 03/29/2017 01:14 pmThere isn't going to be a reusable second stageNo. But for a few years SX certainly thought they could make it work. Then they discovered it couldn't be made to work at a price they wanted to pay, although it's still unclear why. My instinct is F9 is going to be around for some time to come, but will only partly be reusable.
We shouldn't deal too much in certainties when it comes to SpaceX, especially when we are dealing with things that are technically possible - and a methane-fueled upper stage is. Last year, the suggestion that SpaceX is planing a circumlunar mission would have been laughed at, and serious people would have stated clearly and in all their seriousness that SpaceX does not deal with that space tourism crazy, isn't interested in the Moon, and wants to stay laser-focused on Mars. And yet, here we are...
I fully agree that right now, a reusable upper stage is not on the top of their priority list, there are many other things up there. Nevertheless, if the prices come down further with the introduction of the New Glenn, and SpaceX thus needs to make that second stage reusable (perhaps even integrate it with the payload fairing to get a fully reusable "upper stage satellite delivery vehicle") to stay competitive, they will do it (unless it would be cheaper to develop and operate an ITS-derived solution).
Quote from: Bynaus on 03/30/2017 12:52 pmWe shouldn't deal too much in certainties when it comes to SpaceX, especially when we are dealing with things that are technically possible - and a methane-fueled upper stage is. Last year, the suggestion that SpaceX is planing a circumlunar mission would have been laughed at, and serious people would have stated clearly and in all their seriousness that SpaceX does not deal with that space tourism crazy, isn't interested in the Moon, and wants to stay laser-focused on Mars. And yet, here we are... SX is in the transport business. People approached SX for this. If they didn't I doubt SX would care. Quote from: Bynaus I fully agree that right now, a reusable upper stage is not on the top of their priority list, there are many other things up there. Nevertheless, if the prices come down further with the introduction of the New Glenn, and SpaceX thus needs to make that second stage reusable (perhaps even integrate it with the payload fairing to get a fully reusable "upper stage satellite delivery vehicle") to stay competitive, they will do it (unless it would be cheaper to develop and operate an ITS-derived solution).When the CEO and Chief Designer says no reusable upper stages based on F9 or F9 derived technology he is a) Telling you SX has no interest in doing this or b)It's a strategic deception to fool competitors into not investing. Time will tell which one of these statements is correct.
Quote from: Bynaus on 03/30/2017 12:52 pmWe shouldn't deal too much in certainties when it comes to SpaceX, especially when we are dealing with things that are technically possible - and a methane-fueled upper stage is. Last year, the suggestion that SpaceX is planing a circumlunar mission would have been laughed at, and serious people would have stated clearly and in all their seriousness that SpaceX does not deal with that space tourism crazy, isn't interested in the Moon, and wants to stay laser-focused on Mars. And yet, here we are... SX is in the transport business. People approached SX for this. If they didn't I doubt SX would care.
Quote from: Bynaus I fully agree that right now, a reusable upper stage is not on the top of their priority list, there are many other things up there. Nevertheless, if the prices come down further with the introduction of the New Glenn, and SpaceX thus needs to make that second stage reusable (perhaps even integrate it with the payload fairing to get a fully reusable "upper stage satellite delivery vehicle") to stay competitive, they will do it (unless it would be cheaper to develop and operate an ITS-derived solution).When the CEO and Chief Designer says no reusable upper stages based on F9 or F9 derived technology he is a) Telling you SX has no interest in doing this or b)It's a strategic deception to fool competitors into not investing. Time will tell which one of these statements is correct.
If you replace every part of a boat, is it still the same boat?By the same token, when is Falcon 9 no longer a Falcon 9? Only this morning an ex-SpaceX employee was talking on reddit about how all octawebs are now bolted instead of welded together. There have been so many tank stretches, engine upgrades, engine arrangements, recovery addons and a myriad of less visible alterations, one could argue that Falcon 9 has been retired once, possibly twice already.Granted, Block 5 will hopefully slow the pace of change, but I don't think it'll be the end of the alterations. I wouldn't be surprised if they discover additional problems in making a booster robust enough to fly three, four or more times. That's all uncharted territory and might need yet more alterations.Bottom line is that from my limited perspective, 'Falcon 9' refers to different launch vehicles, despite the common name. There have already been a subtle sequence of retirements.
In my mind there have been two substantially different Falcon 9 types to date, with the second type having run through two significant variations so far. The first type was the original Falcon 9 (Block 1), the Merlin 1C powered version that was much shorter, lighter, and as it turns out less capable than the subsequent type. There were only five of these examples. The second type has been the Merlin 1D powered versions using Octaweb. They have been called v1.1 and v1.2 (apparently Blocks 2 and 3). The Block 3 variant has a stretched second stage compared to the former, now retired Block 2 variant, but both tower over Block 1. There have been 28 of these Merlin 1D powered types, including the AMOS 6 launch vehicle that never made it to launch day.Any design that retains the diameter, the Octaweb, and the Merlin 1D engines will as I see it always group together, generally. They might be considered "Octaweb Falcons" or "Merlin 1D Falcons". - Ed Kyle
To me, it seems, the case for F9 exists in the long term only if Musk does not succeed in generating massive revenues from other sources. Sources which pretty much have to pay off if his Mars dream is to succeed in any case. And once that money becomes available, well, then F9 has little reason for continued existence, it would seem.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/28/2017 09:26 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?I'm no expert, but it seems like the 737 is an outlier. Most other airliners have a production run of ~20-25 years. If that's a useful metric, then I'd expect SpaceX to stop production around 2030.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/29/2017 06:20 pmTo me, it seems, the case for F9 exists in the long term only if Musk does not succeed in generating massive revenues from other sources. Sources which pretty much have to pay off if his Mars dream is to succeed in any case. And once that money becomes available, well, then F9 has little reason for continued existence, it would seem.That's like saying, "I had $5 in my wallet, but I just got $100 more, so I'm going to throw away the original $5 I had."No. It doesn't matter how much more Musk personally or SpaceX makes from other sources, they won't just shut down Falcon 9 as long as it is generating profit unless it's to replace it with something else that serves the same market and makes more profit.
The key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a reality
My point was that with sufficient funds available to invest in better (read Raptor based) rockets than F9, that replacement vehicle you refer to above will be available much sooner. Without such additional funds, SpaceX is forced to continue relying on F9's revenue generating capability until they have paid off existing development costs, and then to start building a pile of cash with which to fund the development of said replacement vehicle.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 03/29/2017 03:39 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 03/28/2017 09:26 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?I'm no expert, but it seems like the 737 is an outlier. Most other airliners have a production run of ~20-25 years. If that's a useful metric, then I'd expect SpaceX to stop production around 2030.The point isn't that the 737 is still in production 49 years later. The point is that when Boeing introduced the 737, they didn't have a plan to shut down production some pre-set number of years later. And those other airliners with production runs of ~20-25 years also did not have pre-set plans to shut down production.With airliners, the manufacturers don't know when they start producing them how long they'll be in production. The keep producing them until there's a reason not to produce them any more.So, I agree with Coastal Ron that the assumption by the original poster that SpaceX currently has a plan for when it will retire Falcon 9 is not a good assumption. Maybe SpaceX has secret plans to launch a replacement Raptor-driven satellite launcher at a particular date and retire Falcon 9, but there's also a good chance they don't.
Reusable Falcon 9 is being established as a marker (or forcing function in EM's words) for the rest of the world's launch providers, and as a reliable/predictable standard for future launch costs for space businesses. As such, it will stand as the goal and standard for new ventures to plan around until the market expands, dictating a new standard. The chatter seems to indicate it will be at least five years (maybe ten) before significant pressure is put on F9/FH, assuming that the in-the-pipeline efficiencies (like refurbishment in days, not weeks or months) are realized.
Quote from: macpacheco on 04/09/2017 01:49 pmThe key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a realityThat is not what SpaceX has ever said.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 12:01 pmMy point was that with sufficient funds available to invest in better (read Raptor based) rockets than F9, that replacement vehicle you refer to above will be available much sooner. Without such additional funds, SpaceX is forced to continue relying on F9's revenue generating capability until they have paid off existing development costs, and then to start building a pile of cash with which to fund the development of said replacement vehicle.I disagree. SpaceX has enough cash, and enough interest from investors, that if a replacement for Falcon 9 would bring in more money than it would cost, they could fund that replacement.
I can't see SpaceX still operating primarily a gas generator kerolox engine if they successfully develop and fly Raptor and ITS.
My guess is Falcon heavy would be the first vehicle to be replaced by ITS, followed eventually by Falcon 9.
I bet the number of variants would be limited and on the larger side so there's plenty of margin for full reuse and RTLS for all missions, including RTLS of payload adapter and fairing. Maybe two booster variants, with the smallest being maybe ~9 Raptors. But too early to really speculate.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/10/2017 12:04 amI bet the number of variants would be limited and on the larger side so there's plenty of margin for full reuse and RTLS for all missions, including RTLS of payload adapter and fairing. Maybe two booster variants, with the smallest being maybe ~9 Raptors. But too early to really speculate.A variant with 7 Raptors would look a lot like the New Glenn...
I think a mini-ITS based on the ITS core cluster could cover both bases by being adaptable; fly 3(?), 5 or 7 engines depending on the mission. I'd really like to see numbers on those.
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/09/2017 11:16 pmI think a mini-ITS based on the ITS core cluster could cover both bases by being adaptable; fly 3(?), 5 or 7 engines depending on the mission. I'd really like to see numbers on those.Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/10/2017 12:04 amI bet the number of variants would be limited and on the larger side so there's plenty of margin for full reuse and RTLS for all missions, including RTLS of payload adapter and fairing. Maybe two booster variants, with the smallest being maybe ~9 Raptors. But too early to really speculate.No, IMO they aren't going to make multiple launch vehicles (or configurations) to replace F9/FH. *IF* they make a Raptor-based followup vehicle to replace F9/FH, I'd expect it to be sized (as far as payload capacity) between the F9 and FH. ITS would be their "big" delivery truck. They would just need a "small" truck for the other work. And no heavy variant. Just a single stick.
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/09/2017 11:16 pmI think a mini-ITS based on the ITS core cluster could cover both bases by being adaptable; fly 3(?), 5 or 7 engines depending on the mission. I'd really like to see numbers on those.I've simulated a 7 engine Mini ITS here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36508.msg1633577#msg1633577It gets 70-80mT of payload to LEO including RTLS of the booster and recovery of the second stage. i.e. about double the capability of Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/09/2017 02:10 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 04/09/2017 01:49 pmThe key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a realityThat is not what SpaceX has ever said.Elon never talks about profit or cash flow unless he has to.SpaceX is a private company, remember that...ITS is intended to be more profitable than F9/FH, its a mere consequence of lowering costs of access to space ridiculously.Its entirely possible that EM/GS haven't even thought about this yet.
A lot of merit in the idea that Gwynne helps keep Elon grounded from time to time...My own guess is that F9/FH retire 5-10 years after ITS first flies. Will there be a mini ITS? I don't think so. I think we see a change to a more hub and spoke model. Lots of in-space tugs, but launches are done with heavy lift only.
Everyone knows that EM is easily distracted by shinny objects -- add to that the DNA of a Silicon Valley start-up... and the tendency to get bought out and move on to the next thing. This all has to give GS a headache, since she needs make payroll for 6,000. Playing the adult in the room has to fall to someone if the start-up is to successfully transition to a going concern.
I'm sorry, but ITS makes no sense as a satellite launcher.It would be like using the Maersk Alabama to haul a single box across the Atlantic. Large ships may be the single most efficient means for moving cargo, but that is predicated on that being LOTS of cargo per trip.Sure, there could be sats as secondary cargo, but first and foremost, ITS is a People Hauler going to orbits that satellites would have to expend serious delta-v to acquire their intended inclinations.Until gravity is no longer an issue or satellites are built on-orbit, there will always be a place for an F-9 class launcher.
Quote from: macpacheco on 04/09/2017 02:48 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/09/2017 02:10 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 04/09/2017 01:49 pmThe key is to realize that ITS isn't just about Mars. ITS is first about making SpaceX very rich, so it can afford to make Mars a realityThat is not what SpaceX has ever said.Elon never talks about profit or cash flow unless he has to.SpaceX is a private company, remember that...ITS is intended to be more profitable than F9/FH, its a mere consequence of lowering costs of access to space ridiculously.Its entirely possible that EM/GS haven't even thought about this yet.If you've noticed, EM has been mentioning financial matters (like not going bankrupt or $1B for reusability development) quite a bit lately. GS also mentioned 'hundreds of millions' in development costs. What I think happened is that the AMOS failure and price tag for rebuild of LC-40 precipitated a 'chat' between GS and EM where a few lines were drawn (by GS). EM is not chipping in a billion per year, so the business (it IS a business) needs to become viable. Lots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.
Lots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/10/2017 10:26 amLots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.But what are those thousands of design engineers going to work on in the meantime? Your team is assembled, so you use them. It's the same dynamic as with Musk's rock star engine designers.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/10/2017 12:54 pmI'm sorry, but ITS makes no sense as a satellite launcher.It would be like using the Maersk Alabama to haul a single box across the Atlantic. Large ships may be the single most efficient means for moving cargo, but that is predicated on that being LOTS of cargo per trip.Sure, there could be sats as secondary cargo, but first and foremost, ITS is a People Hauler going to orbits that satellites would have to expend serious delta-v to acquire their intended inclinations.Until gravity is no longer an issue or satellites are built on-orbit, there will always be a place for an F-9 class launcher.Inclined to agree. I think there is more mileage in a custom reusable 2nd stage dispenser specifically for CommX satellites, launched from a F9H, than using BFB.But since BFB isn't flying in the next 5-10 years or so at least (from what I see, could be wrong), SpaceX are going to need F9 for their satellite constellation for quite some time.Sorry.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 04/10/2017 02:18 pmQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/10/2017 12:54 pmI'm sorry, but ITS makes no sense as a satellite launcher.It would be like using the Maersk Alabama to haul a single box across the Atlantic. Large ships may be the single most efficient means for moving cargo, but that is predicated on that being LOTS of cargo per trip.Sure, there could be sats as secondary cargo, but first and foremost, ITS is a People Hauler going to orbits that satellites would have to expend serious delta-v to acquire their intended inclinations.Until gravity is no longer an issue or satellites are built on-orbit, there will always be a place for an F-9 class launcher.Inclined to agree. I think there is more mileage in a custom reusable 2nd stage dispenser specifically for CommX satellites, launched from a F9H, than using BFB.But since BFB isn't flying in the next 5-10 years or so at least (from what I see, could be wrong), SpaceX are going to need F9 for their satellite constellation for quite some time.Sorry.CommX does NOT need 4096 satellites in orbit to begin operations.Please stop with this fixation.CommX likely will start with 5-10% as many satellites, which can be easily launched on Falcon Heavy with expendable 2nd stage if needed.By the simple virtue that SX is its own launch supplier, by then with its own range in Boca Chica, makes them uniquely capable of increasing CommX on orbit population as needed....The other very significant reason for delaying full constellation density is the predictable CommX satellite design iterations every 18-24 months. Better to wait until Block III is ready for launch until rolling out the complete thing.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 04/10/2017 02:18 pmQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/10/2017 12:54 pmI'm sorry, but ITS makes no sense as a satellite launcher.It would be like using the Maersk Alabama to haul a single box across the Atlantic. Large ships may be the single most efficient means for moving cargo, but that is predicated on that being LOTS of cargo per trip.Sure, there could be sats as secondary cargo, but first and foremost, ITS is a People Hauler going to orbits that satellites would have to expend serious delta-v to acquire their intended inclinations.Until gravity is no longer an issue or satellites are built on-orbit, there will always be a place for an F-9 class launcher.Inclined to agree. I think there is more mileage in a custom reusable 2nd stage dispenser specifically for CommX satellites, launched from a F9H, than using BFB.But since BFB isn't flying in the next 5-10 years or so at least (from what I see, could be wrong), SpaceX are going to need F9 for their satellite constellation for quite some time.Sorry.CommX does NOT need 4096 satellites in orbit to begin operations.Please stop with this fixation.CommX likely will start with 5-10% as many satellites, which can be easily launched on Falcon Heavy with expendable 2nd stage if needed.By the simple virtue that SX is its own launch supplier, by then with its own range in Boca Chica, makes them uniquely capable of increasing CommX on orbit population as needed.The first generation of CommX businesses will be laser focused on mobile and middle of nowhere Gbps internet that are willing to pay premium to have landline like internet links.Imagine every cruise ship in the world with ultra high speed broadband. Every cargo ship with a basic 100Mbps connectivity at the cost it currently pays for ultra slow connectivity with the ground. Oh and every large airliner in the world has low latency broadband too.There are at LEAST tens of thousands of businesses in the middle of nowhere paying 200x the cost of a regular land line link for connectivity using GTO.There are another tens of thousands of ISPs that are hundreds of miles from the nearest fiber optic backbone. With unreliable connectivity to the internet.That's worth at least a billion/yr with very little constellation numbers 2x or 3x that of Iridium or Orbcomm.All it takes is one satellite in view 24x7 between 60N and 60S latitude.4096 satellites is like dozens of satellites in view, with CPEs dynamically switching towards the satellite with the lowest load/best signal.Either CommX will be producing a boatload of cash or ITS will be flying by the time it needs thousands of satellites in orbit.The other very significant reason for delaying full constellation density is the predictable CommX satellite design iterations every 18-24 months. Better to wait until Block III is ready for launch until rolling out the complete thing.
Why are you referencing my post? I said nothing about the quantities need to start operating. I was writing about a dedicated reusable US specifically for launching CommX satellites.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 04/10/2017 03:27 pmQuote from: AncientU on 04/10/2017 10:26 amLots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.But what are those thousands of design engineers going to work on in the meantime? Your team is assembled, so you use them. It's the same dynamic as with Musk's rock star engine designers.I suspect SpaceX has well shy of a thousand total engineers(my guess would be 500), including those who are designing satellites and ConnX software (who will be very busy indeed). Designing rockets is a very small piece of what the engineering team does.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 04/11/2017 11:09 amWhy are you referencing my post? I said nothing about the quantities need to start operating. I was writing about a dedicated reusable US specifically for launching CommX satellites.yep, if CommX can operate for 2-3 years with a much smaller number of satellites your point is mute, unless Raptor is a complete bust.4400 satellites requirement is a product of requirements to operate with high masking angles (urban canyons), huge throughput with CPE equipment hopping to the least loaded satellite in view. Not the type of requirements for the first few years.Masking angle is the key. If customers are required to install only with the tallest obstruction at 30 degrees from the horizon, a few hundred satellites is all that's required for worldwide coverage. The 4400 number means CommX ultimately wants seamless coverage something around 70 degrees masking angle.Iridium operates with just 66 satellites active plus spares. Don't they have worldwide coverage ? Whats the logic in needing 4400 satellites instead.Obviously the orbits are designed differently, a little lower. Different inclination too. But that doesn't justify a requirement for 70x as many satellites.The fact is like I said you and many other fixate on that big great number and those understand what that means, and just repeat that blindly.I once thought E=mc˛ was everything. I then found that was a simplification for a much more complex equation. Same thing here.SpaceX isn't going to spoon feed you the nuances in their constellation design as its proprietary information but those that understand details know what that likely means. The true final details will be explained in small trickles of information once it starts early operations.Like I said, by the time SpaceX needs to launch thousands of CommX birds, new boosters should be available.F9/FH will be retired a few years after SpaceX has any fully raptor based full reuse rocket. Be it a massive ITS rocket, a mini ITS rocket or a Falcon 9 style rocket on steroids with Raptor first and second stage.With a fully reusable rocket, once it makes the first flight, its a matter of a few months to accomplish perhaps 20 launches to show everybody the rocket is just about as safe as F9/FH. Avoiding the complexity of side boosters. 13 successful launches and you're automatically certified with USAF. The fact its a bigger rocket that consumes more fuel is offset by using methane as fuel (far cheaper than RP1), using engines that can refly at least 100x between refurbs, and the much higher ISP, the huge performance means re-entry burns can provide much better protection from heating to the first stage and the 2nd stage can have some limited aerodynamic lift capacity so it can stay as high as possible for as long as possible to limit peak heating.
If you've noticed, EM has been mentioning financial matters (like not going bankrupt or $1B for reusability development) quite a bit lately. GS also mentioned 'hundreds of millions' in development costs. What I think happened is that the AMOS failure and price tag for rebuild of LC-40 precipitated a 'chat' between GS and EM where a few lines were drawn (by GS). EM is not chipping in a billion per year, so the business (it IS a business) needs to become viable. Lots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/10/2017 10:26 amIf you've noticed, EM has been mentioning financial matters (like not going bankrupt or $1B for reusability development) quite a bit lately. GS also mentioned 'hundreds of millions' in development costs. What I think happened is that the AMOS failure and price tag for rebuild of LC-40 precipitated a 'chat' between GS and EM where a few lines were drawn (by GS). EM is not chipping in a billion per year, so the business (it IS a business) needs to become viable. Lots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.Thats a quite well observed point. Thank you for the perspective. SpaceX is not yet close to emergency mode but the AMOS failure shifted the short term priorities around a lot. Unless they get donated a ton of money, SpaceX will not be able to fast-roll ITS.
I'm sorry, but ITS makes no sense as a satellite launcher.
What does not make sense for me is saying "ITS will make all other rockets obsolete".It is silly. As silly as saying "18-wheelers will make all other cars obsolete".
If it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.
Quote from: ZachF on 08/15/2017 04:38 pmIf it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.wrong. There are still horse drawn buggies, biplanes, propeller driven aircraft, calculators, answering machines, etc
Whether it can be accomplished, how hard it is to do, or how long it will take to achieve, are the questions here. If it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.
Quote from: Jim on 08/15/2017 04:39 pmQuote from: ZachF on 08/15/2017 04:38 pmIf it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.wrong. There are still horse drawn buggies, biplanes, propeller driven aircraft, calculators, answering machines, etcYes Jim I agree. See the above post as to why I believe so also. Large expendable LVs have not obsoleted the small sat launchers. A large reusable LV will not obsolete small reusable launchers or even small expendable launchers. Just force them to be less expensive.
Quote from: Jim on 08/15/2017 04:39 pmQuote from: ZachF on 08/15/2017 04:38 pmIf it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.wrong. There are still horse drawn buggies, biplanes, propeller driven aircraft, calculators, answering machines, etc/sighBut they have been relegated to small, niche roles save for the calculator, which for 95%+ of people is now a phone/tablet app.
Quote from: Jim on 08/15/2017 04:39 pmQuote from: ZachF on 08/15/2017 04:38 pmIf it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.wrong. There are still horse drawn buggies, biplanes, propeller driven aircraft, calculators, answering machines, etcObsolescence doesn't mean nonexistence.
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/15/2017 05:40 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/15/2017 04:39 pmQuote from: ZachF on 08/15/2017 04:38 pmIf it is accomplished, then yes, all other rockets rapidly become obsolete.wrong. There are still horse drawn buggies, biplanes, propeller driven aircraft, calculators, answering machines, etc/sighBut they have been relegated to small, niche roles save for the calculator, which for 95%+ of people is now a phone/tablet app./sigh Does everything have to explicit? The point is that other rockets are not going to be obsolete Propeller driven aircraft are not niche
Full rapid re-usability changes the economics landscape completely. It's an order-of-magnitude (or greater) cost disruption.
Quote from: ZachF on 08/15/2017 04:38 pmFull rapid re-usability changes the economics landscape completely. It's an order-of-magnitude (or greater) cost disruption.I will remind you we are talking in context of ITS supposedly destroying all other rockets due to its sheer awesomeness.So, nope. "Expendable rockets become obsolete" is not same thing as "ITS will make any other rocket obsolete".Again, this kind of claim is very silly and out of touch with reality. ITS is cost-effective only for appropriate payload. People do not drive in 18-wheelers. 18-wheelers do not drive to every pops&mom grocery store. People generally have small (relatively) cars on their parking lots, not school buses. Etc, etc, etc.
Quote from: Semmel on 04/11/2017 09:12 pmQuote from: AncientU on 04/10/2017 10:26 amIf you've noticed, EM has been mentioning financial matters (like not going bankrupt or $1B for reusability development) quite a bit lately. GS also mentioned 'hundreds of millions' in development costs. What I think happened is that the AMOS failure and price tag for rebuild of LC-40 precipitated a 'chat' between GS and EM where a few lines were drawn (by GS). EM is not chipping in a billion per year, so the business (it IS a business) needs to become viable. Lots of F9/FH launches, including getting the ConnX up and producing major revenue, is required for that business to pay for the next big thing which is ITS... there isn't money for ITS first.Thats a quite well observed point. Thank you for the perspective. SpaceX is not yet close to emergency mode but the AMOS failure shifted the short term priorities around a lot. Unless they get donated a ton of money, SpaceX will not be able to fast-roll ITS.And so will the next one
We don't know how much ITS is going to cost to operate. We don't even know how much most current rockets cost to operate. There's no way to say definitively if it will be competitive or not, at this point.But... if SpaceX hits their cost goals for ITS (a big if), it will be cheaper per launch than ANY other currently operational orbital rocket. The point isn't that it could obsolete every rocket that could ever exist, only that it will obsolete every currently operational rocket (and all the ones that are likely to be operational in the next 5-10 years).
Quote from: envy887 on 08/15/2017 11:00 pmWe don't know how much ITS is going to cost to operate. We don't even know how much most current rockets cost to operate. There's no way to say definitively if it will be competitive or not, at this point.But... if SpaceX hits their cost goals for ITS (a big if), it will be cheaper per launch than ANY other currently operational orbital rocket. The point isn't that it could obsolete every rocket that could ever exist, only that it will obsolete every currently operational rocket (and all the ones that are likely to be operational in the next 5-10 years).Uh, you actually mean "cheapest per kg", not "per launch", right? Surely you do not seriously claim single launch of ITS will be cheaper than few milion $ (cheapest orbital rocket avaliable)?
ITSy is ~75% the size of ITS, so $6-20 million for one orbital launch.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:33 pm ITSy is ~75% the size of ITS, so $6-20 million for one orbital launch. Where do you base this your "75% the size" number?
All of this was back of envelope so let me know if you get different results.
also, i should have looked a couple slides further in the ITS presentation:
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:53 pmalso, i should have looked a couple slides further in the ITS presentation:To quote the figure of merit from the presentation: propellant costs are assumed to be $168/mt, or almost an order of magnitude less than the lower bound of your assumption.That said, The Space Review quotes methane costs of $1.35 per kg, or $1,350/mt. Of course, would have to do the calculations for a blended LOX/methane price. For the sake of argument, let's assume LOX is free, and with a 4:1 mixture ratio, we would divide the $1,350 by 5, for a blended rate of $270/mt.http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2893/1Long story short, with LOX/methane, your propellant costs per flight are minimal, even with big rockets.
Quote from: hkultala on 08/16/2017 03:40 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:33 pm ITSy is ~75% the size of ITS, so $6-20 million for one orbital launch. Where do you base this your "75% the size" number?The only number we have is 9 meter diameter tank, so 75%.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:53 pmQuote from: hkultala on 08/16/2017 03:40 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:33 pm ITSy is ~75% the size of ITS, so $6-20 million for one orbital launch. Where do you base this your "75% the size" number?The only number we have is 9 meter diameter tank, so 75%. 75% diameter does not mean 75% volume, or 75% mass. It means much less.
Quote from: hkultala on 08/16/2017 05:45 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:53 pmQuote from: hkultala on 08/16/2017 03:40 pmQuote from: RoboGoofers on 08/16/2017 03:33 pm ITSy is ~75% the size of ITS, so $6-20 million for one orbital launch. Where do you base this your "75% the size" number?The only number we have is 9 meter diameter tank, so 75%. 75% diameter does not mean 75% volume, or 75% mass. It means much less.Yeah, If it's scaled down 75% in all dimensions, then 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 = 0.422The final ITSy will probably be somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3rd the original size depending upon how long the decide to make it.
Yes 40% of capability but only 60% of price such that $/kg is higher on ITSy than ITS. In fact 50% greater than ITS.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/16/2017 06:56 pmYes 40% of capability but only 60% of price such that $/kg is higher on ITSy than ITS. In fact 50% greater than ITS.yeah i know, the 75% is a bad scaling factor. Might as well use the full ITS numbers since spaceX provided them. ITSy might only be a one-off testbed, after all.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 08/15/2017 11:53 pmUh, you actually mean "cheapest per kg", not "per launch", right? Surely you do not seriously claim single launch of ITS will be cheaper than few milion $ (cheapest orbital rocket avaliable)?It's not impossible. If a rocket is fully reusable for ten flights and costs 300 million dollars, it has an amortized cost of $30 million per launch.
Uh, you actually mean "cheapest per kg", not "per launch", right? Surely you do not seriously claim single launch of ITS will be cheaper than few milion $ (cheapest orbital rocket avaliable)?
If it flies twenty times, the amortized cost is $15 million per launch. For sufficiently high flight numbers and sufficiently low refurbishment costs (a lofty and very difficult goal, to be sure), a big and expensive but fully reusable rocket could have a lower cost of operation than a small, inexpensive, and expendable or semi-expendable booster.
sure, why not? Throwing away aerospace hardware is expensive. Fuel is cheap.
The cheapest operational orbital commercial launch is the PSLV at about $20M a pop. None of the smallsat launchers are operational yet.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 08/16/2017 12:26 amQuote from: Mader Levap on 08/15/2017 11:53 pmUh, you actually mean "cheapest per kg", not "per launch", right? Surely you do not seriously claim single launch of ITS will be cheaper than few milion $ (cheapest orbital rocket avaliable)?It's not impossible. If a rocket is fully reusable for ten flights and costs 300 million dollars, it has an amortized cost of $30 million per launch.You are ignoring other costs. Ground ops during launch, processing between launches, fuel and the like. If rockets became very cheap, those costs start to be significant.Quote from: RotoSequence on 08/16/2017 12:26 amIf it flies twenty times, the amortized cost is $15 million per launch. For sufficiently high flight numbers and sufficiently low refurbishment costs (a lofty and very difficult goal, to be sure), a big and expensive but fully reusable rocket could have a lower cost of operation than a small, inexpensive, and expendable or semi-expendable booster.But I DO agree expendables will be dead in water (actually, they already are).What I contest is notion that ITS will make any and all other rockets obsolete. "Any and all" includes reusables, you know.I don't have even to point in direction of Bezos' newest toy, just common sense that says there will be still many variants and types of rockets out there with or without ITS. I will repeat it ad nauseam: people do not use 18-wheelers for everything.People wil not use ITS or ITS-like rockets for everything either.Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/16/2017 12:31 amsure, why not? Throwing away aerospace hardware is expensive. Fuel is cheap.Do you seriously think cost of fuel is only cost here? Quote from: envy887 on 08/16/2017 01:17 amThe cheapest operational orbital commercial launch is the PSLV at about $20M a pop. None of the smallsat launchers are operational yet.AFAIK Dniepr and the like were for few mln $.
For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 08/19/2017 04:50 pmFor your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.It's even better than it looks - there's a typo in the table. The SpaceX entry should be 2684 $/kg, not 2864.This is immediately clear when you ask how Proton can be comparable. They payload is 23,000 vs 22,800, or about 1% more. But the cost is more than 1% higher. So at least one of the numbers must be wrong, and it's SpaceX.
Intel 35 likely paid less than 63 mil. Because they contracted the flight before the price was 62.2. If you have a source that confirms a higher price then please share it.
This has started trending OT for this thread. I suggest that the discussion of the LV pricing comparisons and how that involves competition between providers should move to this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39688.msg1714441#msg1714441 where there is already a discussion going related to the GAO report that is also inline with that threads topic.
Quote from: Flying Beaver on 03/28/2017 08:55 pm Personaly. 15 years untill old faithful becomes obsolete. It will fly much longer. there isn't going to be something to replace it unless the new thing has wings.
Much has been made of the risks surrounding Elon Musk's stated determination to move all resources to the BFR but I wonder if that statement is more to motivate his workers than anything else.
I don't think retirement is the right question. When does SpaceX start raising the price of Falcon to get people to use ITSy? When does Falcon get delegated to "conservative customers" only?
In other words, if booster recovery continues to work, and I see no reason why it shouldn't even if there are more bumps in the road for SpaceX then the Falcon 9 may find itself in the situation of thousands of aircraft still flying even though their production was discontinued many years ago. Shutting down the production line is not the same as shutting down the launch vehicle.
Quote from: aero on 10/20/2017 07:22 amIn other words, if booster recovery continues to work, and I see no reason why it shouldn't even if there are more bumps in the road for SpaceX then the Falcon 9 may find itself in the situation of thousands of aircraft still flying even though their production was discontinued many years ago. Shutting down the production line is not the same as shutting down the launch vehicle.They will still need to run the second stage production line and cost pressure to shut it down will increase over time. Assuming that BFR works as intended they will phase out Falcon, with the possible exception for a while of manned Dragon flights to the ISS. They can build a stock of second stages for that as it will be a predetermined number of flights.
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/20/2017 08:08 amQuote from: aero on 10/20/2017 07:22 amIn other words, if booster recovery continues to work, and I see no reason why it shouldn't even if there are more bumps in the road for SpaceX then the Falcon 9 may find itself in the situation of thousands of aircraft still flying even though their production was discontinued many years ago. Shutting down the production line is not the same as shutting down the launch vehicle.They will still need to run the second stage production line and cost pressure to shut it down will increase over time. Assuming that BFR works as intended they will phase out Falcon, with the possible exception for a while of manned Dragon flights to the ISS. They can build a stock of second stages for that as it will be a predetermined number of flights.Has SpaceX stopped working on the recoverable fairing and second stage for the Falcon 9? Were they ever working seriously on second stage recovery? Of course with the BFR/BFS in operation, there is little or no benefit from a recoverable second stage for the Falcon 9 as the stockpile can deal with the transition.
Could all of the second stages be drifted into a "salvage yard" orbit and maybe station keep for a while? Obviously not launches with different inclinations than the salvage yard, but launches to the ISS perhaps? What sort of device/equipment would be needed at the salvage yard to attach and lock the orbiting stages into formation? Do the second stages fall within the 50 ton down mass limit? Seems I recall they mass less than half of that.
Quote from: aero on 10/25/2017 02:27 amCould all of the second stages be drifted into a "salvage yard" orbit and maybe station keep for a while? Obviously not launches with different inclinations than the salvage yard, but launches to the ISS perhaps? What sort of device/equipment would be needed at the salvage yard to attach and lock the orbiting stages into formation? Do the second stages fall within the 50 ton down mass limit? Seems I recall they mass less than half of that.Why do you want to salvage them? Assuming the BFR becomes operational with its extreme payload capability, what possible use could they have?
If the BFR doesn't have a LAS, F9 would be needed for manned NASA flights.
Quote from: Lars-J on 10/25/2017 05:42 amQuote from: aero on 10/25/2017 02:27 amCould all of the second stages be drifted into a "salvage yard" orbit and maybe station keep for a while? Obviously not launches with different inclinations than the salvage yard, but launches to the ISS perhaps? What sort of device/equipment would be needed at the salvage yard to attach and lock the orbiting stages into formation? Do the second stages fall within the 50 ton down mass limit? Seems I recall they mass less than half of that.Why do you want to salvage them? Assuming the BFR becomes operational with its extreme payload capability, what possible use could they have?If the BFR doesn't have a LAS, F9 would be needed for manned NASA flights.