Literally 10 minutes after the CRS-7 mishap, Shotwell was on the phone to the USAF giving them updates. They could name it Lucy-In-The-Sky-With-Diamonds and it wouldn't matter. No, I think this is just formalizing a naming convention to simplify external communications. As for these 2 last minute manifest announcements, I think it bodes extremely well heading through 2016 if they can keep a good cadence of on-time, successful launches.
If the reuse case close, I would assume a continuous process of reusability optimizations. I would actually expect one or two "big" changes, like v1.1 to FT, until the they have a design that they won't need to tinker much with.But nothing that would actually affect 2016 and 2017 manifest. They have to deploy FH, Crew Dragon, Crew Rated F9 and perfect reusability for all cases.So this next 18 months should be about feeding back all those l essons and adding actual launch cadence.48hr reusability should be a 2020 objective.
This equation is an interesting item because it will mean that SpaceX will shift flights from F9 onto FH if the equation is true. It will also mean that F9 would only be used if it can RTLS with the size of payload and the orbit it is going to.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/12/2016 06:44 pmThis equation is an interesting item because it will mean that SpaceX will shift flights from F9 onto FH if the equation is true. It will also mean that F9 would only be used if it can RTLS with the size of payload and the orbit it is going to.What I think is also interesting, is that there maybe missions where an expendable vehicle makes sense.The practicality, number of launches per core and cost of reusing F9's is yet to be determined and won't be known for some years yet. It may end up being that the cost of expending an F9 is cheaper than reusing a FH.It's likely 3-5 years from now that we know. Further the value of those variables may determine how eager SpaceX is to field a Raptor powered successor.
2018 would be about the right timeframe for this swapover to reusability full operations stance.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/12/2016 06:44 pm2018 would be about the right timeframe for this swapover to reusability full operations stance.Another interesting thing about reaching full reusability is that the time from order to launch can go waaaay down. Seems that with no need to build the rocket to order the limitation becomes entirely satellite manufacture, mission analysis, vehicle integration and booking a range slot.[1]Responsive space indeed.Anyone care to speculate how quickly mission analysis and range booking can happen.[1] And whatever else I've forgotten/don't know about. IANARS
SpaceX has won its 1st contract w/ Eutelsat, world #3 commercial satellite operator, industry officials say. SpaceX, Eutelsat won't comment.
Very interesting, Eutelsat is a big deal. Any speculation what payload this might be?
Eutelsat Quantum is an experimental communications satellite with a software reconfigurable payload It is developed jointly by ESA, Eutelsat and Airbus Defence and Space.The Quantum programme is a departure from the traditional, custom, one-off approach to building satellites by offering a new and generic payload design. For the first time, it will enable users to request the performance and flexibility they need in terms of coverage, bandwidth, power and frequency.[...]
No. The official count was 14 to 9.
Arianespace’s count includes one undisclosed customer. Unless it’s identified, it will not be included in SpaceNews’s annual count of firm contract awards. Of the 13 satellites remaining, two are for Europe’s meteorological satellite organization, Eumetsat, and cannot be considered commercial wins. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/arianespace-surpassed-spacex-in-commercial-launch-orders-in-2015/#sthash.jN0DnL9l.dpuf
Oh, I didn't know anything about Arianespace subtractions. Any links?