Author Topic: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2  (Read 245341 times)

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8746
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #320 on: 01/12/2016 05:57 am »
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.
I think you have hit the nail on the head, here.  The "logical, next step" (as referred to above in this thread), is to launch a whole bunch of Falcon 9s, successfully and with no drama, into their proper orbits.  The various customers of SpaceX have taken risks, and have been supportive, on the whole.  Now it's time to work through that backlog, and establish a premier reputation.  Not to mention: making a whole bunch of money for the NEXT, next big step!
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #321 on: 01/12/2016 03:24 pm »
There is no apparent logical step to a vehicle with a thinness ratio of 20. Yet...we have it now.
We really have no idea about what SpaceX is going to do. A pretty safe guess though is that there a lot of re-usability lessons to be both learned and applied in the design. They are only starting with this, and they have shown to not fear iteration.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #322 on: 01/12/2016 03:55 pm »
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 lessons and adding actual launch cadence.
48hr reusability should be a 2020 objective.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #323 on: 01/12/2016 04:53 pm »
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.
I think we've said that every year for the last 3 years... If not the last ten! :)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #324 on: 01/12/2016 06:44 pm »
Before the 48 hour refurb time point (basiclly 48 hours is only enough time to get it safed, loaded and transported back to the HIF), they will re-manifest the larger payloads of F9 that are too large for the F9 to do RTLS onto an FH that can do them RTLS. They would swap them onto the FH for the same price as for the current F9 launch price. But this would only happen if reusability can lower FH's price down to close to the current F9 price.

The two new manifested heavy GEO sats estimated to be ~same weight as the SES-9 Telstar 18V and 19V to be launched in 2018 would be a couple of candidates for such a swap. What the customer would get out of it would be that the FH having more performance even if it does all core RTLS, that it can put the sats into a higher energy orbit saving the sats on-orbit prop that will extend their lifetimes. A couple of years of operating time is worth 10's of millions.

2018 would be about the right timeframe for this swapover to reusability full operations stance. Customers flying on F9 may be given a rebate. Actually since the flight is paid for in installments with the last one being 20% at time of launch if successful, Spacex could forgo collecting that last payment.

That point where FH RTLS equals current F9 price  is when the cost per flight (no profit added) of 3 1st stages is equal to or less than the current cost of a single 1st stage manufacture.

Cost of manufacture >= 3*((cost of manufacture/number of reuses)+cost of refurbishment)

As the cost of refurbishment goes up it requires more uses of the stage to keep the per flight costs down.
Related to the cost of manufacture: the lower the cost of manufacture the lower the cost of refurbishment must be for a specified use number.

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.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #325 on: 01/12/2016 07:24 pm »
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.

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.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #326 on: 01/12/2016 07:36 pm »
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.

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.
On that you may be correct in that if the rate of expending a F9 1st stage is < 1/number of stage uses then using an occasional expendable F9 for those larger payloads makes sense but if the rate is higher then use of FH's may make more economic sense. As you say we just don't know enough. The only thing we currently have to go on is a single data point and even then we do not have accurate cost data even for that case.

The only thing we do know is that SpaceX's launch rate will continue to climb in 2017 and 2018 if 2016 is a good year >12 launches. This year will see more launch contracts for late 2018 and early 2019 if things go well.

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #327 on: 01/12/2016 08:44 pm »
2018 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

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #328 on: 01/12/2016 09:06 pm »
2018 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
ULA was able to accomplish integration and mission planning in less than 1 year for cygnus. So some value less than 1 year vs the current 2 or 3 years.

Although the 1st stage would be existing from a prior flight the US still requires manufacture and long lead time. But it also only represents 30% of the manufacturing costs for the F9 so self financing the build of these US's would not be a big item if the transition was done slowly over a couple of years with ever shortening booking time before launch. If refurbishment costs is low and number of uses is high then the US costs will be the predominate costs of the launch at about $10M at just above the operations costs of launch.

If such late bookings start happening then the satellites will need to be more LV agnostic since they will be going through their testing phase when an LV is selected. If they are more generic interfaces and agnostic that also means that the cost of integration and time to do integration shortens even further.

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #329 on: 01/12/2016 09:21 pm »
Another perspective though is the experience that is developing for rapid booking at Spaceflight Industries. I would expect that some payloads with minimal requirements and a great deal of standardization can already be manifest weeks before a launch. So in the case of SpaceX, if they build up to a cadence of about 40 second stages built a year, they can probably react very quickly if the mounting fits one of several standards (say 3 months), and for an uncrewed Dragon, once those are reused they might be able to priority launch one with a weeks notice, obviously that might slip something else by a bit, but during the year in say 2018 there might be weeks at a stretch here and there where one could be slotted in in a week and not have it affect any one else's schedule.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #330 on: 01/14/2016 07:17 am »
Off topic drifting noticed... let's try to avoid too much on stuff like whether there will be a berthing variant of Dragon, on why engines and stages are named differently, on what the upgrade path is, etc...   thanks!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #331 on: 01/14/2016 02:55 pm »
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/687661738460884993

Quote
SpaceX has won its 1st contract w/ Eutelsat, world #3 commercial satellite operator, industry officials say. SpaceX, Eutelsat won't comment.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #332 on: 01/14/2016 03:20 pm »
Very interesting, Eutelsat is a big deal.  Any speculation what payload this might be?

Offline whitelancer64

Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #333 on: 01/14/2016 03:23 pm »
Very interesting, Eutelsat is a big deal.  Any speculation what payload this might be?

"the Eutelsat Quantum or another Eutelsat telecommunications satellite"

http://spacenews.com/with-eutelsat-win-spacex-has-business-with-all-5-top-satellite-fleet-owners/
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #334 on: 01/14/2016 03:28 pm »
The Quantum, if that's what it is,  is very interesting:
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/eutelsat-quantum.htm
Quote
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.
[...]

Scheduled for 2018.  A nice win for SpaceX, either way.  Also, according to Space News, this is yet another 2015 order, which undermines the Arianespace contract win of 2015 a little bit more.  Interesting stuff.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2016 03:29 pm by abaddon »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #335 on: 01/14/2016 05:37 pm »
The count should be 50-50 now, right?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #336 on: 01/14/2016 05:40 pm »
No. The official count was 14 to 9.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #337 on: 01/14/2016 05:49 pm »
No. The official count was 14 to 9.
But two were subtracted from the 14 because they weren't competed (plus one unnamed 'win' might need to be subtracted).
SpaceX has added three wins to their 9, so may actually be >50%.

Quote
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

Edit: added quote -- thanks tobi453 (I couldn't find it again)
« Last Edit: 01/15/2016 02:25 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #338 on: 01/14/2016 05:56 pm »
Oh, I didn't know anything about Arianespace subtractions. Any links?  :)

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #339 on: 01/14/2016 06:03 pm »
Oh, I didn't know anything about Arianespace subtractions. Any links?  :)

SpaceNews has the story. Two satellites are for Eumetsat, and not commercial wins.
http://spacenews.com/arianespace-surpassed-spacex-in-commercial-launch-orders-in-2015/
« Last Edit: 01/14/2016 06:03 pm by tobi453 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1