For starters, Elon himself has said about the Ti grid fins that they’re expensive - very expensive. So much so that they were really the only thing he cared about getting back from the FH launch. Add to that the additional leg hardware, the additional heat shielding- including liquid cooling- and all the other bits that were required only for reuse and not for a one-off launch, my personal opinion (backed by no source) is its significantly more expensive to manufacture. But - as mentioned, sell expendable B5 would prove me wrong. I’m so confident I’m right I’m willing to wager on it - and I’m not a betting man...
For starters, Elon himself has said about the Ti grid fins that they’re expensive - very expensive. So much so that they were really the only thing he cared about getting back from the FH launch.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 05/23/2018 01:45 pmFor starters, Elon himself has said about the Ti grid fins that they’re expensive - very expensive. So much so that they were really the only thing he cared about getting back from the FH launch. They expended B.1044 (Hispasat 30W-6) with Ti-grid fins attached.
I expect the cost of even the titanium grid fins will come done with volume. It’s not as buttery smooth as aluminum to machine, but the difference in cost from just 4 or 8 versus 80 of them is significant.But I doubt this will matter much as the vast majority of block 5s will be reused, possibly even the upper stages, and the expendable ones won’t nominally use titanium grid fins.
I've noted with some surprise the rapid rise in China launches, not all military related as far as I can tell, though likely dual use, e.g. GPS.
Quote from: mulp on 09/21/2018 04:02 pmI've noted with some surprise the rapid rise in China launches, not all military related as far as I can tell, though likely dual use, e.g. GPS.The only reason mention of China's launch rate ends up here is that Elon Musk made one of his predictions, earlier this year after the Falcon Heavy success, that SpaceX would outlaunch China this year (or some-such). Otherwise what SpaceX and China do in space are entirely unrelated. SpaceX would never have launched any of the satellites flown this year from China. China's current launch surge is fed in large part by the ongoing buildup of its new navigation satellite constellation. It is also fed by China's 2017 launch failures (A CZ-3B and a CZ-5), which created a several-month backlog, and by the introduction of new small, solid launch vehicles like CZ-11, etc..To me, the more interesting question is this. Why is SpaceX slowing down when it still boasts a massive backlog? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/22/2018 04:06 amTo me, the more interesting question is this. Why is SpaceX slowing down when it still boasts a massive backlog?The way you frame this suggests that you've a good picture of many payloads ready and waiting for a rocket. I've not been able to find or successfully request a list of ready and waiting payloads. What do you have that indicates this is a massive list? (or is massive a pun?)
To me, the more interesting question is this. Why is SpaceX slowing down when it still boasts a massive backlog?
I agree that boasting of launch numbers may be the reason there is any debate. There is still a disparity in types of loads and launch vehicles.
Answer to your question: a substantial part of the backlog is not ready for launch (yet). For example: there are launches on the backlog that are not required to lift-off until 2023. That's five years from now, meaning that the payload in question might not even have started construction yet.
OK, if they've caught up to the market already, why all the talk just a few months ago (see the start of this thread) about 30 launches this year, etc.? It looks like 20-22 is a more likely final number for Falcon 9 proper. - Ed Kyle
Don't remember if this was posted before, from Iridium corporate filings:QuoteSpaceXIn March 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) to secure SpaceX as the primary launch services provider for Iridium NEXT (as amended to date, the “SpaceX Agreement”). The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for seven launches and a reflight option in the event of a launch failure is $453.1 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is configured to carry ten Iridium NEXT satellites to orbit for each of these seven launches. In November 2016, the Company entered into an agreement for an eighth launch with SpaceX to launch five additional satellites and share the launch with GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (“GFZ”). This launch took place in May 2018. The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for the eighth launch was $61.9 million. GFZ paid Iridium $29.8 million to include in the launch NASA’s two Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On satellites. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had made aggregate payments of $486.4 million to SpaceX, which were capitalized as construction in progress within property and equipment, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.
SpaceXIn March 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) to secure SpaceX as the primary launch services provider for Iridium NEXT (as amended to date, the “SpaceX Agreement”). The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for seven launches and a reflight option in the event of a launch failure is $453.1 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is configured to carry ten Iridium NEXT satellites to orbit for each of these seven launches. In November 2016, the Company entered into an agreement for an eighth launch with SpaceX to launch five additional satellites and share the launch with GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences (“GFZ”). This launch took place in May 2018. The total price under the SpaceX Agreement for the eighth launch was $61.9 million. GFZ paid Iridium $29.8 million to include in the launch NASA’s two Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On satellites. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had made aggregate payments of $486.4 million to SpaceX, which were capitalized as construction in progress within property and equipment, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.