I'm not sure about certification, since Atlas and Delta are not certified per each configuration of SRBs, right?
But anyway, any legless flights won't interfere with certification of flights that fly with legs.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/07/2017 05:54 amITS presumably brings an entirely different equation to the mix, in terms of cost per pound to orbit.Only if you are launching a lot of pounds! Beyond what it is designed far, large payloads to Mars, it's not clear there's any other likely use for it for many years to come. SpaceX have said it's only for Mars. Ok if something like CISLunar1000 took off then maybe there will be demand for large payloads to the moon and/or space stations. But that's rather OT.It seems at the moment that SpaceX think F9 B5 and FH will cover likely demands for years.
ITS presumably brings an entirely different equation to the mix, in terms of cost per pound to orbit.
Having in mind the next space big business is going to be related to mining, SpaceX better be prepared to lift heavy hardware to deep space
Just as a question. I thought the newest versions of merlin 1d had a throttle range from 30%-100%?
Quote from: rsdavis9 on 03/08/2017 01:07 pmJust as a question. I thought the newest versions of merlin 1d had a throttle range from 30%-100%?Merlin 1d vac can throttle down to 81,000 lbf (~360 kn) as confirmed on the most recent launch live stream.
Quote@SpaceX's Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.#SATShowhttps://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832
@SpaceX's Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.#SATShow
but it's in the cards that ULA is toast except for very high end specialty government payloads)
Quote from: Lar on 03/08/2017 11:30 pm but it's in the cards that ULA is toast except for very high end specialty government payloads)That is not true either. Your crystal balls are Spacex tinted and hence not valid opinions.
The likely scenario is that SpaceX, FH, and CommX will be ahead of the competition by about 3 years.
*ALL* SpaceX has to do is increase reliability as fast as possible to close to Atlas levels, get cadence and predictability down pat, and prove out that reuse lets them get their costs to 30M a launch or so... *ALL* they have to do is all of that and there isn't much room for a 150M a launch provider except for very high end specialty/government payloads.
The advantage Blue Origin has is that they're starting "from scratch". SpaceX has baggage - it comes from being first.
The advantage SpaceX has is that they had to claw their way to where they are, while dragging everyone else (kicking and screaming) towards reusability. They have a culture of leadership, and they're used to earning their keep. They are not a "funded as needed" lab company (no offense!).These sort of things permeate to the very core of the company's DNA. So while SpaceX has to definitely assume that Blue Origin will be highly competent, I wouldn't say that's it's likely that Blue Origin will catch up.
Quote from: Lar on 03/09/2017 02:32 am*ALL* SpaceX has to do is increase reliability as fast as possible to close to Atlas levels, get cadence and predictability down pat, and prove out that reuse lets them get their costs to 30M a launch or so... *ALL* they have to do is all of that and there isn't much room for a 150M a launch provider except for very high end specialty/government payloads. and, and, and, and......Yeah, and if a frog had wingsThe bet would be straight up. There is no weasling out with odds. Either you put up or ....And becoming the American Proton doesn't count. That is a pyrrhic victory.