With BFR though, I think its not worth doing. The reason is, that (subscale) BFR/BFS might launch in 4 years. Lets say that tinkering with F9 brings it up to 5 years, thats one year of full steam operation of F9 (and arguably, around 100 launches per year) that are on F9 instead of (subscale) BFR. Even if in these 4 years, F9 becomes fully reusable for LEO missions, that is still a very substantial number of launches that are not reusable.Also, S2 will not be reusable the instant they try the development. Like on S1, it may take a year or two to get right. So you have to expend quite a lot of S2s anyway. And with the added delay to BFR/BFS, this becomes not worthwile very fast.Does a reusable S2 accelerate the deployment of the constellation? I dont think so. F9 will more likely be launch pad limited instead of production limited once the production of S1 is reduced in favour of S2. The cadence on A39 shows that the 2 weeks turnaround is required for satellite processing. To get something like 50 launches a year, things have to move towards more parallel processing of payloads. There is also the range that can not support that many launches at moment. There are many many things that need to change in order to get the launch cadence for the constellation and I fear that the least of the problem is the production of S2 (non-reusable).It seems that a larger vehicle, that can launch more sats at once is advantageous to many smaller launches on more than just launch cost kind of ways. It can also cope much better with weather delays and technical delays.
...but a limitation because of range scheduling.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/19/2017 02:55 pm...but a limitation because of range scheduling.I REALLY hope that the range is updating their system to make it faster to book and have more opportunities during the outage
If SpaceX eliminates the HotFire test on the pad, then the recent demonstration on LC39A is that the minimum turnaround for a pad is 6 days. Ops(Launch) to Ops(HotFire). That makes the launch rate from a single pad with used boosters 1 per week. With 4 pads the max launch rate for the pads recently demonstrated for F9 is a total of 200+/yr. I do not think there will be a limitation because of pads but a limitation because of range scheduling.
We know that they have decided to upgrade LC-40 with the same type of TEL as used on LC-39A, except not FH capable...
Quote from: guckyfan on 07/22/2017 10:01 amWe know that they have decided to upgrade LC-40 with the same type of TEL as used on LC-39A, except not FH capable...That would be desirable especially if the strongback had throw back to reduce blast damage. But do we actually know this?
The key for a fully reusable vehicle is that the limitation is a "soft" one not a "hard" system design (this includes the pads refurbishment requirements between launches and vehicle logistics getting it ready with a payload to launch).
The other limitation which is addressed by full reusability is lack of hardware as in US. Without full reusability it will be difficult to do more than 70 per year without greatly expanding the manufacturing infrastructure (this includes plant floor space).
Quote from: douglas100 on 07/25/2017 03:51 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 07/22/2017 10:01 amWe know that they have decided to upgrade LC-40 with the same type of TEL as used on LC-39A, except not FH capable...That would be desirable especially if the strongback had throw back to reduce blast damage. But do we actually know this?Sorry I have no link. But I am positive it was mentioned in one of the threads.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/19/2017 04:03 pmThe other limitation which is addressed by full reusability is lack of hardware as in US. Without full reusability it will be difficult to do more than 70 per year without greatly expanding the manufacturing infrastructure (this includes plant floor space).Excellent point. While US's remain expendable that's really a hard limit, unless SX is prepared for step change in building out their factory (assuming they have space available, otherwise "acquire new factory space" becomes another line item. )I like to recall that Shotwells background is in the mass car market, where 400 engines a year is not a record, it's a production failure that needs fixing.
Quote from: guckyfan on 07/25/2017 05:53 pmQuote from: douglas100 on 07/25/2017 03:51 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 07/22/2017 10:01 amWe know that they have decided to upgrade LC-40 with the same type of TEL as used on LC-39A, except not FH capable...That would be desirable especially if the strongback had throw back to reduce blast damage. But do we actually know this?Sorry I have no link. But I am positive it was mentioned in one of the threads.We know it's true now. Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/28/2017 07:44 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/19/2017 04:03 pmThe other limitation which is addressed by full reusability is lack of hardware as in US. Without full reusability it will be difficult to do more than 70 per year without greatly expanding the manufacturing infrastructure (this includes plant floor space).Excellent point. While US's remain expendable that's really a hard limit, unless SX is prepared for step change in building out their factory (assuming they have space available, otherwise "acquire new factory space" becomes another line item. )I like to recall that Shotwells background is in the mass car market, where 400 engines a year is not a record, it's a production failure that needs fixing. S2 is smaller than S1. It is not clear to me that more floor space is required, just some reorg. As the number of S1s built goes down, the number of S2 should be able to go up by far more than 1:1...
Once the BFR chomper is flying you could use a single BFR launch to recover multiple Falcon S2's. Park the S2's in a common orbit and collect them in a batches of three. I think that fits. It's certainly within the return weight limits.It would save money against the projected BFR launch cost if they were reused. Quite why you'd be flying the Falcon at that point I'm not sure. I like the perverse nature of it though.
Shotwell clarified that SpaceX would not attempt to reuse Falcon 9’s upper stage, even if recovery efforts succeed.
Was there some news that there would be no reuse of any recovered second stage it was just about informing design of BFR? If so, anyone got a link?
The second stage is not designed for reuse on the Falcon 9 or the Falcon Heavy. However, we do want to bring it back slowly. Currently, it reenters but too hot. On missions with extra propellant, we want to bring it back to see how it behaves, not to recover or reuse. This data will be very valuable.
Josh Brost, Senior Director of SpaceX’s Government Business Development was in attendance at a civil spaceflight conference in Washington D.C. yesterday, January 18, and provided a number of interesting details about SpaceX’s upcoming activities in 2018...While Brost did not specifically provide any sort of timeline for BFR, aside from a brief statement on its readiness in “a few years,” he did describe in some detail the imminent end of serious Falcon 9 upgrades. (see tweet image below)This is arguably the most exciting tidbit provided to us by SpaceX. While it was undeniably vague and rather less than crystal-clear, it can be interpreted as something like this: once Block 5 has been introduced and begun to fly and refly both regularly and successfully, the vast majority of SpaceX’s launch vehicle development expertise will begin to focus intensely on the development and testing of BFR and BFS.
Reuseable US is important as it can be used to prove BFR US reentry systems. F9 US doesn't need to do soft land, just reenter and set its self up for soft land. May well use Mid Air Recovery to capture it. Once they've demostrated all that they need, terminate program.