With GovSat -1 also a reuse booster that means of the first 4 launches in 2018 3 of them use used boosters. FH, Govsat-1 and Paz.In the first 3 months 1Q2018 there could be as many as 8 used boosters launched out of a possible 10 launches. Because of the FH there will be 4 new boosters with 8 used. That is a used to total rate of 67%. But obviously not all of those possible 10 launches will occur in the first 3 months. Key is that the acceptance is growing and will be represented by the number of used boosters flown to the total number flown in 2018.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/22/2017 09:47 pmWith GovSat -1 also a reuse booster that means of the first 4 launches in 2018 3 of them use used boosters. FH, Govsat-1 and Paz.In the first 3 months 1Q2018 there could be as many as 8 used boosters launched out of a possible 10 launches. Because of the FH there will be 4 new boosters with 8 used. That is a used to total rate of 67%. But obviously not all of those possible 10 launches will occur in the first 3 months. Key is that the acceptance is growing and will be represented by the number of used boosters flown to the total number flown in 2018.Also interesting the GovSat and Paz are European government launches, Luxembourg and Spain respectively. Must be quite a stir in Europe about losing these flights from ArianeSpace... and them flying on reused boosters. Maybe ESA needs to rethink its position on reusability.Another European national program that selected reused vehicles was Bulgaria. Many other government programs have chosen Falcon including Korean, Taiwan, Israel, Germany, etc. but these are only yet manifested on new boosters -- subject to change as manifest launches/future launches approach and reuse becomes the norm.
Many other government programs have chosen Falcon including Korean, Taiwan, Israel, Germany, etc.
The Ariane 6 push for 'exploitation' of the European launcher is a direct result of losing out to the competition IMO. Since the thread is on customer views, it is informative that even customers who have top level pressure to not pick SpaceX/flight-proven boosters are still going that way. Low price plus high reliability plus (recently) a shortened queue is a winning formula.
I think there’s also a culture change going on now. It may not be hugely impactful at the moment, but it’s baking itself into the new generation of thinkers, leaders, and influencers. It’s what the current generation of the (old) space industry decision makers is exactly missing. And sadly it’s what’s required for a disruption and a move towards the next great push forward. Sadly, because I fear NASA has found itself in the old camp. Largely not its fault, more of the governmental trappings it’s tangled in, but true nonetheless.
... Another European national program that selected reused vehicles was Bulgaria. ...
but things like SLS and Orion persist because they have powerful lobbyist friends and power blocks like the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). to protect them.
That wasted cost may just be a tax (or protection money if you like) on the new system that has to be paid in order not to get shut down.
USG launches are a very big part of the global launch market, so I guess the key question is when, (and which) bit of the USG will embrace the use of a flight tested booster?Using The Aerospace Corps 5/8 rule I'd guess when when they've seen at least 5 flights (mfg process working OK) to something close to one of the 9 reference orbits in the EELV certification list and they have a payload which has a low enough priority that they can afford to lose it.
Quote from: Lar on 12/24/2017 04:12 am but things like SLS and Orion persist because they have powerful lobbyist friends and power blocks like the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). to protect them. Such a group only cares about the jobs such programmes bring to it's area. Siting a Blue Origin factory in has definitely helped the reusability case for Bezos. It'll be interesting to see how cost effective it is to run.Quote from: LarThat wasted cost may just be a tax (or protection money if you like) on the new system that has to be paid in order not to get shut down.Given that SLS and Orion are both funded directly and completely by the USG that "tax" is actual tax paid by US Taxpayers. All of them, in 50 states. However this is OT for this thread. USG launches are a very big part of the global launch market, so I guess the key question is when, (and which) bit of the USG will embrace the use of a flight tested booster?Using The Aerospace Corps 5/8 rule I'd guess when when they've seen at least 5 flights (mfg process working OK) to something close to one of the 9 reference orbits in the EELV certification list and they have a payload which has a low enough priority that they can afford to lose it.
Maybe 20% by numbers and falling rapidly. They are only a big percentage (50-ish%) of the cost of satellites.Hasn't the USG already flown on a flight-proven booster(CRS-13)?http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SIA-SSIR-2017.pdf
The USAF has been making encouraging noises but maybe lead times on reuse certification etc will preclude them being first? I think the question of whether USG customers want to see reuse on similar orbits first is an interesting one. I’ve now added basic orbit type info (LEO, GTO, SSO etc) to the first post of this thread.As always, corrections and additions welcome.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/26/2017 12:08 pmMaybe 20% by numbers and falling rapidly. They are only a big percentage (50-ish%) of the cost of satellites.Hasn't the USG already flown on a flight-proven booster(CRS-13)?http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SIA-SSIR-2017.pdf[notAviewIagreeWith] Doesn't count, it's just t-shirts and Tang. [/notAviewIagreeWith]
That said, I do think that F9 will still have to climb through the risk categories formally. But I expect that climb to be with reused boosters or with a mixture and some statement that the new/reused nature of the booster is not a factor in the certification. We'll see
"But we need to do a review to make sure they are safe. Then I'm all in for using reusable rockets to launch our satellites."
Quote from: Lar on 12/26/2017 12:50 pmQuote from: AncientU on 12/26/2017 12:08 pmMaybe 20% by numbers and falling rapidly. They are only a big percentage (50-ish%) of the cost of satellites.Hasn't the USG already flown on a flight-proven booster(CRS-13)?http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SIA-SSIR-2017.pdf[notAviewIagreeWith] Doesn't count, it's just t-shirts and Tang. [/notAviewIagreeWith]Thanks... expected that, so all's right with the world.Worth noting that Falcon 9 flew as many USG 'missions' as did Atlas v in 2017 -- six -- and twice that number of other flights -- twelve -- against Atlas v's zero. Since acceptance of Falcon 9 has become widespread, and Falcon 9 will soon be flying mostly flight-proven boosters, we'll see the continued acceptance of this standard across the USG (beyond Tang and t-shirt 'missions'). Cue the notAviewIagreeWith...