Gen. Raymond, head of Space Command, praises SpaceX's use of AFSS and says USAF would be comfortable flying on reused Falcon rocket. #33SS
UTC Date | Customer | Event |
2015/06/17 | SES | M. Halliwell says SES want to reuse F9 booster (http://spacenews.com/spacex-early-adopter-ses-ready-to-reuse-falcon-9-%C2%AD-for-the-right-price/) |
2016/05/24 | USAF | Claire Leon: could be long time before govt agrees reuse for NatSec payload (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-air-force-reusability-20160524-snap-story.html) |
2016/08/30 | SES | 1st booster reuse agreement announced (SES-10) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34057.msg1574781#msg1574781) |
2017/01 | NASA | NASA & SpaceX start working on booster reuse (not known publicly) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1757937#msg1757937) |
2017/03/15 | USAF | Claire Leon: no plans for reuse, might consider in future (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42527.msg1654941#msg1654941) |
2017/03/30 | SES | SES-10 GTO launch: 1st F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/) |
2017/03/30 | SES | M Halliwell@post SES-10 launch press conf: 2 other SES 2017 launches likely to reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/) |
2017/03/30 | SpaceX | Elon confirms FH demo booster reuse @ post SES-10 launch press conference (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/) |
2017/04/06 | USAF | Gen Raymond (Head of Space Command) says USAF would be comfortable with reuse (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1664669#msg1664668) |
2017/04/11 | NASA | D Hartmann (Dep Mngr ISS Program): discussing reuse; may not be 2017, shortly after (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1665907#msg1665907) |
2017/05/05 | Bulsatcom | Announcement that BulgariaSat-1 will launch on a reused booster (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1674922#msg1674922) |
2017/05/15 | Inmarsat | CEO post I-5 F4 launch: look fwd to future reuse once reuse more proven (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1678876#msg1678876) |
2017/06/15 | Iridium | Matt Desch says Iridium would reuse in 2018 (for big discount/schedule improvement) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1691740#msg1691740) |
2017/06/15 | SpaceX | VP Sales Hofeller says many customers interested in converting to flown stages (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1695202#msg1695202) |
2017/06/22 | HASC | House Armed Services Committee endorses RLV use by govt (AF, DOD) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1692675#msg1692675) |
2017/06/23 | Bulsatcom | BulgariaSat-1 GTO launch: 2nd F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/spacex-falcon-9-second-flight-bulgariasat-1-mission/) |
2017/07/15 | Intelsat | Post Intelsat 35e launch, VP Ken Lee says will definitely consider reuse in future (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1699677#msg1699677) |
2017/08/04 | SES | Reuse of booster for SES-11 launch confirmed (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40725.msg1709975#msg1709975) |
2017/09/21 | USAF | Gen Raymond: need review to make sure reuse safe, then all in for reuse (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43782.msg1725854#msg1725854) |
2017/10/11 | SES | SES-11 GTO launch: 3rd F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/falcon-9-second-launch-week-ses-11/) |
2017/10/12 | SES | First explicit mention that SES-16 launch may reuse booster (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1735896#msg1735896) |
2017/10/16 | USAF | Gen Raymond: “absolutely foolish” not to begin using pre-flown rockets (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43782.msg1738630#msg1738630) |
2017/10/18 | Spacecom | Booster reuse for AMOS-17 launch announced (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1739045#msg1739045) |
2017/10/19 | Iridium | Announcement that Iridium NEXT 4 & 5 flights will reuse boosters (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/iridium-4-flight-proven-falcon-9-rtls-vandenberg-delayed/) |
2017/10/24 | NASA | 1st press report that NASA will reuse booster on next CRS flights (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1741625#msg1741625) |
2017/11/29 | NASA | Gerst makes official long-rumoured booster reuse for CRS-13 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44271.msg1754178#msg1754178) |
2017/12/15 | NASA | CRS-13 LEO launch: 4th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/flight-proven-falcon-9-launch-flown-dragon-iss/) |
2017/12/15 | MDA | Announcement of F9 reuse for RADARSAT constellation (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1760043#msg1760043) |
2017/12/22 | Hisdesat | Announcement of F9 reuse for PAZ launch (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42485.msg1762815#msg1762815) |
2017/12/23 | Iridium | Iridium NEXT 4 LEO launch: 5th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/spacex-2017-campaign-iridium-4-launch/) |
2018/01/11 | SES | Confirmation of SES-16 on flight-proven booster (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36807.msg1770322#msg1770322) |
2018/01/31 | SES | SES-16/GovSat1 LEO launch: 6th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/01/spacex-govsat-1-falcon-9-launch/) |
2018/02/01 | - | WIRED claims 50% of 2018 manifest of 30 flights will reuse boosters (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1780883#msg1780883) |
2018/02/06 | SpaceX | FH demo BEO launch: 7th & 8th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/02/spacex-debut-falcon-heavy-demonstration-launch/) |
2018/02/1? | - | Gwynne Shotwell confirms around half of 2018 manifest will reuse boosters (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44987.msg1788359#msg1788359) |
2018/02/22 | Hisdesat | PAZ LEO launch: 9th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/02/spacex-falcon-9-paz-launch-starlink-demo-new-fairing/) |
2018/03/14 | DigitalGlobe | Announcement of 2 DigitialGlobe LEO flights for 2021 re-using boosters (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1798963#msg1798963) |
2018/03/16 | NASA | Public confirmation of booster reuse for CRS-14 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45224.msg1799641#msg1799641) |
2018/03/21 | Iridium | Confirmation that Iridium NEXT 6 flight will reuse booster (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35275.msg1801460#msg1801460) |
2018/03/30 | Iridium | Iridium NEXT 5 LEO launch: 10th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/iridium-next-5-satellites-spacex-falcon-9/) |
2018/04/02 | NASA | CRS-14 LEO launch: 11th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/crs-14-spacex-falcon-9-second-flight-previously-flown-dragon/) |
2018/04/05 | SES | Confirmation of SES-12 on flight-proven booster (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43648.msg1807221#msg1807221) |
2018/04/15 | NASA | SpaceX says plan to reuse TESS booster for CRS-15 (if NASA approves) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45038.msg1810686#msg1810686) |
2018/05/22 | Iridium/NASA | Iridium NEXT 6/GRACE-FO LEO launch: 12th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/falcon-9-iridium-next-6-grace-fo-launch/) |
2018/06/04 | SES | SES-12 GTO launch: 13th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/06/falcon-9-cape-canaveral-night-launch-ses-12/) |
2018/06/29 | NASA | CRS-15 LEO launch: 14th F9 booster reuse (last non-block 5 orbital launch) (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/06/final-block-4-falcon-9-crs-15-dragon-launch/) |
2018/08/01 | CONAE | NSF publishes that only recently agreed SAOCOM 1A launch will use booster 1048.2 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/08/saocom-1a-ships-vandenberg-falcon-9-first-west-coast-rtls/) |
2018/08/02 | Persero | Merah Putih launch static fire shows 1st flight-proven block 5 booster (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46060.msg1843215#msg1843215) |
2018/08/07 | Persero | Merah Putih GTO launch: 15th F9 booster reuse, 1st with block 5 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/08/spacex-falcon-9-merah-putih-block-5-reflight/) |
2018/10/03 | Spaceflight | Hans Koenigsmann: possible SSO-A launch first to use a booster for 3rd time (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1865708#msg1865708) |
2018/10/07 | CONAE | SAOCOM 1A SSO launch: 16th F9 booster reuse, 1st VAFB landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/spacex-falcon-9-saocom-1a-launch-west-coast-landing/) |
2018/10/18 | Iridium | Matt Desch (Iridium CEO) confirms booster reuse (1049.2) for Iridium 8 launch (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46116.msg1868752#msg1868752) |
2018/11/15 | Spaceflight | SpaceX confirms Spaceflight SSO-A launch 1st to use booster (1046) for 3rd time (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46756.msg1876577#msg1876577) |
2018/11/15 | Es’hailSat | Es’hail-2 GTO launch: 17th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/11/spacex-falcon-9-launch-eshail-2-39a/) |
2018/12/03 | Spaceflight | SSO-A SSO launch: 18th F9 booster reuse & 1st booster to fly 3 times (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/12/spacex-falcon-9-sso-multi-sat-launch/) |
2018/12/18 | USAF | NASA director says USAF STP-2 FH mission to reuse boosters (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40420.msg1890206#msg1890206) |
2019/01/11 | Iridium | Iridium NEXT 8 LEO launch: 19th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/01/iridium-boss-reflects-satellite-constellation-launch/) |
2019/02/22 | PSN/SpaceIL | Nusantara Satu (PSN VI)/GTO-1/SpaceIL GTO launch: 20th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/spacex-indonesian-launch-israeli-moon-mission/) |
2019/05/23 | SpaceX | Starlink 1 LEO launch: 21st F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/first-starlink-mission-heaviest-payload-launch-spacex/) |
2019/06/12 | MDA | RCM RADARSAT Constellation SSO launch: 22nd F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/spacex-falcon-9-set-to-loft-three-canadian-radar-satellites/) |
2019/06/24 | USAF | FH STP-2 MEO launch: 23rd & 24th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/spacex-falcon-heavys-stp-2-mission/) |
2019/07/25 | NASA | CRS-18 LEO launch: 25th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/falcon-9-launch-dragon-third-crs-18/) |
2019/08/06 | Spacecom | AMOS-17 GTO launch: 26th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/08/amos-17-launch-debut-ranges-rapid-support/) |
2019/11/11 | SpaceX | Starlink 2 (v1.0 L1) LEO launch: 1st fairing reuse & 1st booster (1048) to fly 4 times (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/) |
2019/12/17 | JSAT/Kacific | JCSAT-18/Kacific-1 launch: 28th F9 booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/12/spacex-falcon-9-launch-jcsat-18-kacific-1/) |
2020/01/06 | SpaceX | Starlink 3 (v1.0 L2) LEO launch: 29th booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/01/spacex-kick-start-global-2020-starlink/) |
2020/01/19 | SpaceX | Dragon 2 CCiCAP in-flight abort SUB launch: 30th booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/01/spacex-crew-dragon-in-flight-abort-test/) |
2020/01/29 | SpaceX | Starlink 4 (v1.0 L3) LEO launch: 31st booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/01/spacex-launch-third-operational-starlink-mission/) |
2020/02/17 | SpaceX | Starlink 5 (v1.0 L4) LEO launch: 32nd booster reuse (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/02/spacex-falcon-reusability-record-fifth-starlink-launch/) |
2020/03/07 | NASA | CRS-20 LEO launch: final Dragon 1 launch, 33rd booster reuse & 50th successful landing (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/03/spacex-final-dragon-1-mission-iss/) |
Planned: | ||
2020/03/15 | SpaceX | Starlink 6 (v1.0 L5) LEO launch: 2nd fairing reuse & 1st booster (1048) to fly 5 times (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50022.0) |
2021 | DigitalGlobe | First SpaceX WorldView satellite LEO launch (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45220.0) |
2021 | DigitalGlobe | Second SpaceX WorldView satellite LEO launch (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45220.0) |
Gen Jay Raymond, head of Air Force Space Command, says he's "open" to using previously flown rockets for launches of military assets. #33SShttps://twitter.com/pfswarts/status/850038411910148100 (https://twitter.com/pfswarts/status/850038411910148100)
Gen Raymond says he's ready to fly a military payload on a used booster. #SpaceSymposium #33sshttps://twitter.com/pat_defdaily/status/850034233477394432 (https://twitter.com/pat_defdaily/status/850034233477394432)
"I would be comfortable if we were to fly on a reused booster,” General John "Jay" Raymond told reporters at the U.S. Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. “They’ve proven they can do it. ... It’s going to get us to lower cost.”
SpaceNews has a follow-up article on this contract award.
You won't be suprised to know that SpaceX won on price, but this quote is interesting on AF's view of re-use:QuoteMeanwhile, [Claire] Leon said that the Air Force has no plans to fly payloads on Falcon 9 rockets with previously-flown first stages. The service has specifically requested SpaceX not to fly re-used hardware.
“We would have to certify flight hardware that had been used which is more qualification, more analysis, so we’re not taking that on quite yet,” she said. “If it proves to be successful for commercial, we might consider that in the future.”
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-low-cost-won-gps-3-launch-air-force-says/ (http://spacenews.com/spacexs-low-cost-won-gps-3-launch-air-force-says/)
Claire Leon is the launch enterprise director for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center
Cross posting from the GPS-IIIA-3 thread with quoted comments post that award announcement. I don't believe that Ms. Leon's comments (reported 2017-03-15) are substantially different from Gen. Raymond's (reported 2017-04-06) in the previous post. Her's highlight the work still to be done before the AF would actually buy a launch using a pre-flown core while the General's are more big picture about their general willingness to consider doing so.SpaceNews has a follow-up article on this contract award.
You won't be suprised to know that SpaceX won on price, but this quote is interesting on AF's view of re-use:QuoteMeanwhile, [Claire] Leon said that the Air Force has no plans to fly payloads on Falcon 9 rockets with previously-flown first stages. The service has specifically requested SpaceX not to fly re-used hardware.
“We would have to certify flight hardware that had been used which is more qualification, more analysis, so we’re not taking that on quite yet,” she said. “If it proves to be successful for commercial, we might consider that in the future.”
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-low-cost-won-gps-3-launch-air-force-says/ (http://spacenews.com/spacexs-low-cost-won-gps-3-launch-air-force-says/)
Claire Leon is the launch enterprise director for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center
Martin Halliwell(SES): You've got to decouple the engineering from the emotion. Engineering team at SpaceX is second to none.
Irene Klotz: Do you have other costumers that weren't as brave as SES that are now signed up? What is life-limiting factor?
Musk: NASA has been supportive. Commercial, SES has been most supportive. Next thing is how to achieve rapid reuse without major hardware changeouts. Aspirations of zero hardware changes and 24hrs reflight.
Economically the best thing is all customers signing reuse launch contracts without restrictions."Best" for who exactly? SX or the customer?
Boosters get flown 100 times, new boosters are made when needed.
The extra profit on a new booster launch contract money unlikely pays for the extra cost of building and testing it. The reflight flow for newly recovered boosters skips McGregor, so the savings isn't just manufacturing. I wouldn't be surprised if by the 3rd or 4th reflight refurb already costs about the same as McGregor resources alone.So what do think the implications for your line of reasoning are?
NASA will likely require a ton of paperwork on reflown boosters, which might actually make it double logical to use new boosters on CRS/crew launches. Low thermal stress/lots of spare fuel on CRS launches.As Jim has pointed out NASA asked for a New Dragon price because they did not feel SX had a strong handle on refurb prices for the capsules. I think that's now changed.
NASA CRS missions pay a lot more but there's the Dragon costs, the mountain of additional paperwork and several extra requirements. The big $$$ advantage of serving NASA is on the development contracts where NASA paid for Crew/Cargo Dragon and part of F9 R&D costs.
But SpaceX sets the prices - say if customer's decide that reused stages are safer than new stages. Then SpaceX would set a cost for a reused stage higher than a new one, and if people really, really didn't want a new one, and SpaceX wanted a new stage for every 10 launches, and a new stage cost $60m. They could always just add $6m to the cost of every reused stage, and then just scrap each stage after its done 10 launches. If necessary, and assuming a reused launch cost $30m, they could always add another $3m to each launch's cost, and do a dummy launch to certify the new rocket.Quite correct.
Our plan for CRS-11, it's going to be the Dragon [that will be reused]. Not the Falcon, not a reused booster. We've done a lot of work with SpaceX, over the last year and a half or two, looking at delta-verification requirements that we need to be comfortable to satisfy ourselves that Dragon can approach the ISS, get within the ellipsoid, and be done safely. So, a lot of technical work is happening. I'll tell you, everything is leaning good. That the next dragon mission that we'll launch will be reused.
As far as the booster, we've just started those discussions. We've got some teams off generating how we'll even go about requesting information from SpaceX. Laying out our plan. I imagine we'll have some sort of preliminary review on that in the April/May time period. I think planning-wise, it may not happen this year. But shortly thereafter.
“I think a bunch of companies are waiting to see (what happens),” an insurance underwriter who works in the satellite and launch markets said before the SES 10 mission. “A lot of it does have to do with the insurance market. If this goes successfully, then a lot of customers are going to assume that the insurance community is OK with reused stages, which will be the case.”
“The bottom line is reused rockets are here to stay,” the underwriter said.
Note: SES was charged 0.01% more for the reflight by their underwriter according to Martin Halliwell.If your value is correct that is an increase of $50K in premiums on a premium that costs $40M on a $500M (sat +launch value) for a launch insurance. Not much of a risk factor change.
Note: SES was charged 0.01% more for the reflight by their underwriter according to Martin Halliwell.If your value is correct that is an increase of $50K in premiums on a premium that costs $40M on a $500M (sat +launch value) for a launch insurance. Not much of a risk factor change.
Thanks about that. So not only is the launch costs going down, but because the risk factor has little change the premiums are going down too because the amount of insurance required went down.Note: SES was charged 0.01% more for the reflight by their underwriter according to Martin Halliwell.If your value is correct that is an increase of $50K in premiums on a premium that costs $40M on a $500M (sat +launch value) for a launch insurance. Not much of a risk factor change.
The value is a direct quote from the CTO at SES, I don't think you'll find a better source. According to a recent SpaceNews article, insurance for a flight on Ariane 5 could be purchased for 4% of insured value, and rates for Falcon 9 were similar: http://spacenews.com/space-insurers-warn-that-current-low-rates-are-not-sustainable/
Of course, if SES is also are insuring the cost of the launch, the cheaper flight rate on a used booster also factors in: at 4% premiums, the (approximately) $18.6M reflight discount should result in a premium $746k lower. A slightly higher rate will quickly eat this savings, but not at the 0.01% rate increase levels.
...
The value is a direct quote from the CTO at SES, I don't think you'll find a better source. According to a recent SpaceNews article, insurance for a flight on Ariane 5 could be purchased for 4% of insured value, and rates for Falcon 9 were similar: http://spacenews.com/space-insurers-warn-that-current-low-rates-are-not-sustainable/
...
“Ariane 5 insurance rates are around the 4 percent mark,” said Russell Sawyer, executive director of Willis Towers Watson’s Inspace brokerage. “If you had talked about launch and in-orbit rates being that low 15 years ago, everybody would have thought you were crazy.”
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket can be insured for only slightly higher rates than Ariane 5. Russia’s Proton vehicle, which has suffered multiple failures in the past five years, is insured at around triple the rate for Ariane 5, according to figures produced by underwriter SCOR Global.
Proton's rate is shocking... customers will certainly notice this surcharge (as well as the basis for it) that wipes out the cost advantage of going with Proton -- 8% increase on a $500M satellite would be $40M of increased premium. On the other hand, the 'slightly higher' rates for Falcon 9 would be more than compensated by lower launch costs.I'm curious why Falcon 9 is so low in that case, as they've had several of their own failures.
Proton's rate is shocking... customers will certainly notice this surcharge (as well as the basis for it) that wipes out the cost advantage of going with Proton -- 8% increase on a $500M satellite would be $40M of increased premium. On the other hand, the 'slightly higher' rates for Falcon 9 would be more than compensated by lower launch costs.I'm curious why Falcon 9 is so low in that case, as they've had several of their own failures.
Even if we ignore Amos 6 since it's a design flaw that can be addressed, I don't know how we can be so confident a this point that all such issues have been shaken out, and CRS-7 failed due to a material/process issue that seems like it shows them to be vulnerable to other failures of that type.
Proton's rate is shocking... customers will certainly notice this surcharge (as well as the basis for it) that wipes out the cost advantage of going with Proton -- 8% increase on a $500M satellite would be $40M of increased premium. On the other hand, the 'slightly higher' rates for Falcon 9 would be more than compensated by lower launch costs.I'm curious why Falcon 9 is so low in that case, as they've had several of their own failures.
Even if we ignore Amos 6 since it's a design flaw that can be addressed, I don't know how we can be so confident a this point that all such issues have been shaken out, and CRS-7 failed due to a material/process issue that seems like it shows them to be vulnerable to other failures of that type.
I don't know it this has been discussed in another thread already, but does lowering of launch cost have any effect on how the payloads are designed? If a launch costs $100M+, it doesn't help too much to build a cheaper satellite because your total cost is dominated by the launch cost. If launch cost is around $40M, does it make sense to make simpler satellites, but launch a few more. This seems to be the case for LEO constellations, but are GEO birds limited by orbital slots or some other constraint?In theory launch cost has nothing to do with payload cost because they are totally different things.
Proton's rate is shocking... customers will certainly notice this surcharge (as well as the basis for it) that wipes out the cost advantage of going with Proton -- 8% increase on a $500M satellite would be $40M of increased premium. On the other hand, the 'slightly higher' rates for Falcon 9 would be more than compensated by lower launch costs.I'm curious why Falcon 9 is so low in that case, as they've had several of their own failures.
Even if we ignore Amos 6 since it's a design flaw that can be addressed, I don't know how we can be so confident a this point that all such issues have been shaken out, and CRS-7 failed due to a material/process issue that seems like it shows them to be vulnerable to other failures of that type.
I don't know it this has been discussed in another thread already, but does lowering of launch cost have any effect on how the payloads are designed? If a launch costs $100M+, it doesn't help too much to build a cheaper satellite because your total cost is dominated by the launch cost. If launch cost is around $40M, does it make sense to make simpler satellites, but launch a few more. This seems to be the case for LEO constellations, but are GEO birds limited by orbital slots or some other constraint?
I don't know it this has been discussed in another thread already, but does lowering of launch cost have any effect on how the payloads are designed? If a launch costs $100M+, it doesn't help too much to build a cheaper satellite because your total cost is dominated by the launch cost. If launch cost is around $40M, does it make sense to make simpler satellites, but launch a few more. This seems to be the case for LEO constellations, but are GEO birds limited by orbital slots or some other constraint?
I don't have the refs onhand, but I'd previously seen some work suggesting a very strong dependence on payload costs with launch costs. Shaving mass is very expensive (ex., the several-orders-magnitude difference in price between triple-junction and off-the-shelf solar cells), you can tolerate more risk in your design when launches are cheap (aka, if your design fails, you don't get stuck with a second ridiculously expensive launch), and the total market increases dramatically, which means that your component suppliers gain economies of scale.
"This is indeed a first," says Michele Franci, the chief technology officer of Inmarsat, a London company that runs a satellite network for tracking ships and planes. Inmarsat is a SpaceX customer, and Franci says if launch costs come down, companies like his could launch more satellites, more often, and build a better network.
But he says that to really bring prices down, SpaceX will have to recycle each rocket more than just once.
"The question is how many times they can reuse each individual rocket, and how often they can do it," he says.
So in theory reusable flights being cheaper could start a positive spiral of cost reductions. Cheaper launches -> cheaper payloads -> more payloads -> more launches -> economics of scale -> cheaper launches. Of course there is more to the equation than just sats and LVs, but I could imagine that things such as GSE, launch sites, etc. are somewhat easier things to deal with than reusability.The problem is the bar has been so high for so long that it has to go down a lot for that cycle to start.
A better airplane analogy would be chartering a cargo flight.
The implications from the Inmarsat's CTO comment is that with cheaper launch the inflection point where design life/costs of the sat makes more sense to have sats design life of significantly less than 15+ years so that the replacement rate is once every 7-10 years. This is an increase in launch rate of up to a factor of 2 without actually increasing the number of on-orbit active sats. They are just swapped out more often.From the customer's POV, it's not just that satellites can be designed for a shorter life time, it's that they can keep on-orbit technology more up to date.
It has to do with the business case in that a shorter life (cheaper sat) + cheaper launch, does that result in more profit?
What the hint is that the answer could very well be yes to this question.
The result for SpaceX would be instead of 10-15 GEOSAT launches /year they would in 5 years be doing 20-30 GEOSAT launches/yr.
I wonder if and when SpaceX will drop their "free relaunch if your launch fails" policy[1]? That may affect customer perception.
This is nothing more than SpaceX telling their customers that SpaceX will insure the costs of the launch as part of the price. That value is between a $2-4M discount on the $62M price for the customer. For the government they self insure and are unlikely to relaunch the same or very similar payload. Both the DOD and especially NASA the payloads are mostly one of a kind. For them this feature is not actually usable depending on the contract details for the replacement flight.I wonder if and when SpaceX will drop their "free relaunch if your launch fails" policy[1]? That may affect customer perception.
Does it really affect customer perception as much as, say, insisting on four-leaf clovers on mission patches, despite losing two vehicles over a span of barely a year?
I was hesitant to introduce any speculation on this thread, but the original post did say "potential" customers. So I see this as a good place to ask about a couple of potential scenarios that I have not seen discussed elsewhere.
1. If I were a customer who paid a premium for a brand new booster, I would consider that (to use the airplane analogy) I paid for not just the flight, but for the airplane itself. Therefore, the hardware "belongs" to me and SpaceX should buy it back or let me continue to use it.
Yes, the service customers are buying is delivery of payload(s) to orbit. SpaceX don't just provide the LV, they operate it too.What SX provide (like every other launch services provider) is a ticket to ride. If it works great. If it goes bang call your insurer or check your bank balance and see if you've got enough left to have another go.
I put 'potential customers' in the OP because I'm interested in what the whole launch market (not just existing SpaceX customers) think of re-use. For some time there's been a view that just because re-use may be technically achievable it doesn't mean that it's economically viable. One key aspect of that is whether there's any demand for (or at least tolerance of) re-use, hence this thread.There's always going to be customer interest in lower prices. If that also gives them a vehicle that has also already been partly field tested that seems quite attractive.
I was hesitant to introduce any speculation on this thread, but the original post did say "potential" customers. So I see this as a good place to ask about a couple of potential scenarios that I have not seen discussed elsewhere.
1. If I were a customer who paid a premium for a brand new booster, I would consider that (to use the airplane analogy) I paid for not just the flight, but for the airplane itself. Therefore, the hardware "belongs" to me and SpaceX should buy it back or let me continue to use it.
2. Along the same lines, what if I were a customer who demanded a brand new booster, paid a premium, then expected to reuse that same hardware on subsequent flights for a cost less than a new customer who would fly on the same hardware? For example, if customer B pays 60% of the advertised rate to use flight-proven hardware, me (customer A) would expect to pay less (i.e. 40%) for reusing hardware that I originally paid full price for.
or
3. A customer who wants to pay a discounted rate, regardless of hardware, as part of a bundle of multiple missions. For example, a contract for 3 missions at 66% the advertised rate (3 for 2) that allows SpaceX to decide which hardware to use or re-use. The contract could have bonus clauses to, for example, deliver all missions within a negotiated time frame, which would drive and essentially pay for rapid reusability improvements.
I think scenario 3 is where I would expect things to go.
Mods, please feel free to delete this if it is too speculative for this thread.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 14m14 minutes ago
@SES_Satellites CEO: W @SpaceX launch of SES-10 w/ previously flown stage, 'we expect considerable improvements in cadence & economics.'
It takes about 18 months from start of the long lead items to manufacture a booster...
...but it could take easily as little as six weeks for a used one.
The 6 weeks is an implied estimate from the SpaceX indicated cost of refurbishment for these next boosters of ~$1M. That translates into about 25 people working on the booster for 6 weeks. If you have 150 people available then 6 boosters simultaneously being processed would push out a refurbed booster each week.It takes about 18 months from start of the long lead items to manufacture a booster...
I would imagine only if you're counting long lead parts at the suppliers. But once the logistics pipeline is filled up and your BOM is only experiencing minor changes this is not even really a consideration.Quote...but it could take easily as little as six weeks for a used one.
SpaceX is not remanufacturing each flown booster. Today they do some refurbishing, although that is because they have not flown their Block 5 versions yet which shouldn't require any refurbishment. But refurbishment is far less complex than remanufacturing which typically implies taking apart everything and then rebuilding.
The other problem at launch rates of 50+ a year is the manufacture of US's.
With SpaceX current level of manpower they should be able to produce 45 US and 5 1st stage in 1 year. But this represents a reuse rate of 90%. That level of reuse is not likely to occur until late 2019 or 2020. But between now and then they will most likely increase their level of manpower making it possible that once they get to a reuse rate of 90% the number of US's that they could produce could be as high as 75. The problem is in the short term where the reuse rates are low. Their current production rate of 18 core sets per year is a limiting item on flight rate. But with only a few reuse flights especially the FH the flight rate could be in the 20's without much difficulty. At a flight rate of 25 to 30 in one year they will run through their backlog of payloads and be looking for new and bigger constellations work. Normally without any significant downtime the payloads out there could sustain a flight rate of almost 25. But for a flight rate of 50+ would mean that there is most likely their own comm sat constellation deployment occurring using 25 to 30 additional launches in 1 year. SpaceX costs for these launch should be around $30M each for a F9 flight.The other problem at launch rates of 50+ a year is the manufacture of US's.
The Hawthorne factory was set up to manufacture 40 cores per year, and that would have included a mix of upper stages. So with reuse, building 50 upper stages should be doable with their current manufacturing capabilities.
There is another aspect of reused boosters and that is there is a possibility of increase in reliability in using a booster that has already been "tested" in a real flight. The jury is still out on this aspect but it could have a major impact on SpaceX's failure rates if the flight reliability does indeed go up for used boosters from that of a new one. with used booster accounting for 70 to 90% of all flights the reliability rate average will go up. If that does work out then being the first to fly on a new booster may get a discount because of its lower (small amount hopefully though) reliability.
USAF Lt Gen Steven Kwast comparing low-cost launch with other transportation innovations that “changes the human condition.”https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859026553518403584 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859026553518403584)
Kwast says that people can feel the power of the implications of reusable launch vehicles #ulcatshttps://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/859026239197257728 (https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/859026239197257728)
Kwast says recent Air Univ. study on ultra low-cost access to space (ULCATS) not intended to pick “winners and losers” but set conditions.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859027225613565952 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859027225613565952)
Les Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312)
Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312)
Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312)
Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
That's not a very constructive response by them.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes ago
Marion Blakey, former FAA administrator: reusability of launch vehicles is an absolute game-changer; changes a lot of business calculations.
SpaceX, Blue Origin have opened a “window of opportunity” for US Air Force
On Monday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a national security payload for the first time, cracking the market for US military missions. The first stage of the rocket then landed within a couple of miles from where it had taken off less than 10 minutes earlier, marking the tenth time SpaceX has safely returned a first stage to Earth.
The US military has taken note of these achievements, as well as those of Blue Origin and its reusable New Shepard suborbital vehicle—and that company’s ambitions to also build a large, reusable orbital rocket. “This has opened up a window of opportunity and gotten the attention of serious people,” Charles Miller, an aerospace consultant and president of NexGen Space, told Ars.
To that end Miller partnered with a number of Air Force officers at Air University and former Air Force officials to study the potential effects of lower-cost access to space on the US military. The “Fast Space” report, which has been briefed to senior officials in the US military and government in recent months, concludes that the US Air Force can benefit from these commercial developments.
“The USAF can form private sector partnerships to create a virtuous cycle of launch cost reductions of between 3 and 10 times lower than today’s costs,” the report finds. “Doing so could enable completely new approaches for the Air Force to defend American values, protect American interests, and enhance opportunities to exploit the unique global advantages of the ultimate high ground.”
The key concept in the report is “ultra low-cost access to space” enabled by reusable launch vehicle technology.
Air Force:QuoteSpaceX, Blue Origin have opened a “window of opportunity” for US Air ForceQuoteOn Monday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a national security payload for the first time, cracking the market for US military missions. The first stage of the rocket then landed within a couple of miles from where it had taken off less than 10 minutes earlier, marking the tenth time SpaceX has safely returned a first stage to Earth.
The US military has taken note of these achievements, as well as those of Blue Origin and its reusable New Shepard suborbital vehicle—and that company’s ambitions to also build a large, reusable orbital rocket. “This has opened up a window of opportunity and gotten the attention of serious people,” Charles Miller, an aerospace consultant and president of NexGen Space, told Ars.
To that end Miller partnered with a number of Air Force officers at Air University and former Air Force officials to study the potential effects of lower-cost access to space on the US military. The “Fast Space” report, which has been briefed to senior officials in the US military and government in recent months, concludes that the US Air Force can benefit from these commercial developments.
“The USAF can form private sector partnerships to create a virtuous cycle of launch cost reductions of between 3 and 10 times lower than today’s costs,” the report finds. “Doing so could enable completely new approaches for the Air Force to defend American values, protect American interests, and enhance opportunities to exploit the unique global advantages of the ultimate high ground.”
The key concept in the report is “ultra low-cost access to space” enabled by reusable launch vehicle technology.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/air-force-study-says-us-government-should-get-serious-about-reusable-rockets/
And the Fast Space report:
http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/Research/documents/Space/Fast%20Space_Public_2017.pdf?ver=2017-03-10-113507-743
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312)
Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
That's not a very constructive response by them.
Tory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312)
Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
That's not a very constructive response by them.
Tory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.
The SMART reuse concept/promotion (instead of booster reuse) is a product of the Tory regime.
He personally made a pretty strong argument that launches would never become a commodity.
Doesn't sound like he is part of the solution.
I'd think the USAF were very much noting yesterday's launch and I am sure even something as trivial as the eye catching video of the first stage return would have helped.
It was an honor to host CSAF @GenDaveGoldfein at the 45th SW! Thank you for taking time to meet with our #Airmen and launch team!
Nothing like impressing the big boss. This all plays into the Air Force's long held desire for rapid access to space. Something they know certain peer competitors will also be seeking.
However, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.
Tory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.
The SMART reuse concept/promotion (instead of booster reuse) is a product of the Tory regime.
He personally made a pretty strong argument that launches would never become a commodity.
Doesn't sound like he is part of the solution.
Yes, in Eric Berger's Ars article cited above:QuoteHowever, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.
Although I have to admit that my first thought when Star One mentioned AF peer competitors was that it was a reference to inter-service rivalry with the army :D
Yes, in Eric Berger's Ars article cited above:QuoteHowever, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.
Although I have to admit that my first thought when Star One mentioned AF peer competitors was that it was a reference to inter-service rivalry with the army :D
Yes, in Eric Berger's Ars article cited above:QuoteHowever, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.
Although I have to admit that my first thought when Star One mentioned AF peer competitors was that it was a reference to inter-service rivalry with the army :D
What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
There also may be an element of goverment contract language.What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
The disconnect is that launch payloads aren't bulk commodities. There's no "penalty" for reducing lift capacity so long as they have enough for any specific customer.
What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
The disconnect is that launch payloads aren't bulk commodities. There's no "penalty" for reducing lift capacity so long as they have enough for any specific customer.
Emphasis mine.What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312)
This argument is completely irrelevant in case of falkon9 because, they remove legs, fins and you have perfect high performance throw away rocket like everyone else... this is how you design reusable rocket....What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
The disconnect is that launch payloads aren't bulk commodities. There's no "penalty" for reducing lift capacity so long as they have enough for any specific customer.
...Yes, in Eric Berger's Ars article cited above:QuoteHowever, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.
Although I have to admit that my first thought when Star One mentioned AF peer competitors was that it was a reference to inter-service rivalry with the army :D
Yea, I'm dubious that government **investment** is necessary, especially the strategic kind. Just start buying water delivered to LEO and contracting for cargo delivered to the lunar surface, and the rest will follow.
And Big Boss was definitely impressed....
"Glad I could see this in person. Congrats to all involved!"
https://twitter.com/GenDaveGoldfein/status/859065684671815684
A close-up look at the Commander in Chief's trophy. Great job, Falcons.#BoltBrotherhood #LetsFly #SinkNavy #BeatArmy
That is precisely true, on both counts.What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
The disconnect is that launch payloads aren't bulk commodities. There's no "penalty" for reducing lift capacity so long as they have enough for any specific customer.
There's a third aspect of this, and that's that it is still possible to expend a rocket if a super large payload is required.
There's a third aspect of this, and that's that it is still possible to expend a rocket if a super large payload is required.
But aren't SpaceX going to refuse to sell any more expendable F9 launches? I assume customers will be ok with that, assuming FH is both proven and cheaper than any other SpaceX competitors (reusable or expendable)
In time I guess a FH launch price could be lower than an expendable F9 price now? (assuming SpaceX routinely achieve multiple uses per booster/core with little refurbishment)
There's a third aspect of this, and that's that it is still possible to expend a rocket if a super large payload is required.
But aren't SpaceX going to refuse to sell any more expendable F9 launches? I assume customers will be ok with that, assuming FH is both proven and cheaper than any other SpaceX competitors (reusable or expendable)
In time I guess a FH launch price could be lower than an expendable F9 price now? (assuming SpaceX routinely achieve multiple uses per booster/core with little refurbishment)
There's a third aspect of this, and that's that it is still possible to expend a rocket if a super large payload is required.
But aren't SpaceX going to refuse to sell any more expendable F9 launches? I assume customers will be ok with that, assuming FH is both proven and cheaper than any other SpaceX competitors (reusable or expendable)
In time I guess a FH launch price could be lower than an expendable F9 price now? (assuming SpaceX routinely achieve multiple uses per booster/core with little refurbishment)
Refusing? Why would they do that?
Yes, but that would require the reusable FH to be priced at or below the price of the expendable (shouldn't we called it 'expended' by now?) F9, wouldn't it?My bet is that SpaceX will adjust their prices so that is the case once reusability is widely accepted (which will happen quickly, IMHO).
Celestar
Sent from my SM-T705 using Tapatalk
Yes, but that would require the reusable FH to be priced at or below the price of the expendable (shouldn't we called it 'expended' by now?) F9, wouldn't it?
Yes, but that would require the reusable FH to be priced at or below the price of the expendable (shouldn't we called it 'expended' by now?) F9, wouldn't it?
So as long as the reliability of reused FH is substantially better than Proton SpaceX can charge a lot, and it still makes economic sense to customers.
The business decision for SpaceX depends on whether F9 expended or FH reused (not just recoverable) is more profitable. The price for F9 expendable can be whatever SpaceX wants to charge, up to a point where they start losing customers to other providers. In the 5500+ kg to GTO market, the competition is pretty much limited to Proton, Ariane, or Atlas V.
I don't think it's a stretch to say FH reusable should cost SpaceX less to operate than F9 expendable. The upfront expense is 3 boosters for 10 flights instead of 10 boosters for 10 flights, so they save new 7 boosters with one FH set. The incremental expense is integration of 20 boosters, recovery & refurb of 30 boosters. So as long as 20x integration cost + 30x recovery/refurb cost is less than 7 new F9 boosters ($250 to $300 million), they come out ahead. That holds true for integration costs up to $3M per booster and recovery/refurb up to $8M per booster.
"Elon Musk and his SpaceX team have convinced me that people like them bring us closer to a new quality of life through providing access to cutting-edge technology,” Zayakov said in a statement. “This is a chance for Bulgaria to join the efforts to develop these new aspects of space industry.”
Yes, but that would require the reusable FH to be priced at or below the price of the expendable (shouldn't we called it 'expended' by now?) F9, wouldn't it?
I'm glad to see someone other than SES take a re-used booster. In this case, it looks like moving up the launch queue was an important part. This would point to potentially one of the main benefits will schedule flexibility as well as (potentially) reduced prices of launch.
Can someone remind me what the situation is for NASA CRS missions and booster re-use?
IIRC it's been said that NASA are looking at it and supportive in principle but I don't recall any indication of when it may happen. If CRS-13 is in November as currently forecast then that could be after 5 booster re-uses, so enough evidence for NASA to assess and commit to re-use?
I imagine there might be some customers who would feel more comfortable once NASA accepts re-use (eg due to the engineering assessment that NASA would have done, which maybe not all customers have the capability/inclination/finances to do themselves)
Air Force:QuoteSpaceX, Blue Origin have opened a “window of opportunity” for US Air ForceQuoteOn Monday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a national security payload for the first time, cracking the market for US military missions. The first stage of the rocket then landed within a couple of miles from where it had taken off less than 10 minutes earlier, marking the tenth time SpaceX has safely returned a first stage to Earth.
The US military has taken note of these achievements, as well as those of Blue Origin and its reusable New Shepard suborbital vehicle—and that company’s ambitions to also build a large, reusable orbital rocket. “This has opened up a window of opportunity and gotten the attention of serious people,” Charles Miller, an aerospace consultant and president of NexGen Space, told Ars.
To that end Miller partnered with a number of Air Force officers at Air University and former Air Force officials to study the potential effects of lower-cost access to space on the US military. The “Fast Space” report, which has been briefed to senior officials in the US military and government in recent months, concludes that the US Air Force can benefit from these commercial developments.
“The USAF can form private sector partnerships to create a virtuous cycle of launch cost reductions of between 3 and 10 times lower than today’s costs,” the report finds. “Doing so could enable completely new approaches for the Air Force to defend American values, protect American interests, and enhance opportunities to exploit the unique global advantages of the ultimate high ground.”
The key concept in the report is “ultra low-cost access to space” enabled by reusable launch vehicle technology.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/air-force-study-says-us-government-should-get-serious-about-reusable-rockets/
And the Fast Space report:
http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/Research/documents/Space/Fast%20Space_Public_2017.pdf?ver=2017-03-10-113507-743
Maxim Zayakov, CEO of Bulsatcom and BulgariaSat, said he didn’t think using a “flight proven” booster, as SpaceX refers to its recovered rockets, added risk to the mission.
“In fact, we think the other way around,” Zayakov told FLORIDA TODAY. “Because a flight proven first stage has all its systems already used in flight, and it is very thoroughly checked after that, too. So we think that this is a good choice and, yes, of course it saved us some money.”
Exactly how much, Zayakov would not say. Space Systems Loral, the California-based satellite manufacturer, is responsible for the launch contract and insurance.
But Zayakov said the savings was meaningful. “At the end of the day, it helps the whole arithmetic and makes this project more financially viable,” he said. Zayakov said insurers supported the decision to reuse a rocket, but the terms improved after the successful SES-10 mission.
From http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/spacex/2017/05/05/spacex-re-launch-falcon-rocket-next-month-ksc/101334150/QuoteMaxim Zayakov, CEO of Bulsatcom and BulgariaSat, said he didn’t think using a “flight proven” booster, as SpaceX refers to its recovered rockets, added risk to the mission.
“In fact, we think the other way around,” Zayakov told FLORIDA TODAY. “Because a flight proven first stage has all its systems already used in flight, and it is very thoroughly checked after that, too. So we think that this is a good choice and, yes, of course it saved us some money.”
Exactly how much, Zayakov would not say. Space Systems Loral, the California-based satellite manufacturer, is responsible for the launch contract and insurance.
But Zayakov said the savings was meaningful. “At the end of the day, it helps the whole arithmetic and makes this project more financially viable,” he said. Zayakov said insurers supported the decision to reuse a rocket, but the terms improved after the successful SES-10 mission.
It's amazing that BulgariaSat was inspired by the success of SES-10 to reuse one of the Falcon 9 boosters.BulgariaSat was persuaded by SpaceX to use a reused booster even before SES-10 was launched.
“I think you are going to start to see that this year,” she says adding that customers are far more willing to consider the pre-flown stages, earlier than the company thought they would. “We knew they would gain acceptance by late this year or by early next year but we are seeing a lot of interest this year, which is great. We are going to re-fly the first pre-flown booster for SES this month; then you may see five to six more this year — you might actually see more. I think initially we were maybe thinking we would fly three to four this year, but it will be more than that,” she says.Emphasis mine
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/05/bulgarias-first-communications-satellite-to-ride-spacexs-second-reused-rocket/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/05/bulgarias-first-communications-satellite-to-ride-spacexs-second-reused-rocket/)
Bulgaria’s first communications satellite to ride SpaceX’s second reused rocketQuote"Elon Musk and his SpaceX team have convinced me that people like them bring us closer to a new quality of life through providing access to cutting-edge technology,” Zayakov said in a statement. “This is a chance for Bulgaria to join the efforts to develop these new aspects of space industry.”
In a statement, BulgariaSat chief executive Maxim Zayakov said that reusable rockets were a technological breakthrough that will make it possible for smaller countries and companies to launch their own satellites.
The arrival of large high-throughput satellites, the threat of IPTV and the overcapacity in several regions have made classic wide-band satellite television broadcasting more of a challenge than it used to be.
But none of these factors is having a material effect on SES’s video business so far. McCarthy said pricing remains stable, with SES selling transponder capacity at an average rate of 1.7 million euros ($2 million) per year.
As SES ramps its capacity in less-developed markets, this average price will likely go down, but the company says it has anticipated this in the satellite construction and launch contracts it has signed. An emerging-market satellite’s EBITDA therefore should not be any lower than satellites over Europe or North America.
Maintaining EBITDA at lower transponder prices for some regions means pressing satellite builders and launch-service providers to cut costs accordingly.
SpaceX’s SES-10 launch featured the first use of a previously flown rocket first stage. SpaceX has cited multiple figures for the ultimate effect on pricing of reused first stages. But it’s clear SES expects material price cuts in the future.
Yes, cheaper launches and satellites are opening up smaller markets.For those wondering, EBITDA stands for Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortization. Basically a quick look way to figure out how much you're making without having to work through all the complex financial adjusting accountants do. Or sometimes a way to try to compare apples to apples.
From SES April 28 earnings call (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-compressions-always-led-to-video-growth-will-again);QuoteThe arrival of large high-throughput satellites, the threat of IPTV and the overcapacity in several regions have made classic wide-band satellite television broadcasting more of a challenge than it used to be.
But none of these factors is having a material effect on SES’s video business so far. McCarthy said pricing remains stable, with SES selling transponder capacity at an average rate of 1.7 million euros ($2 million) per year.
As SES ramps its capacity in less-developed markets, this average price will likely go down, but the company says it has anticipated this in the satellite construction and launch contracts it has signed. An emerging-market satellite’s EBITDA therefore should not be any lower than satellites over Europe or North America.
Maintaining EBITDA at lower transponder prices for some regions means pressing satellite builders and launch-service providers to cut costs accordingly.
SpaceX’s SES-10 launch featured the first use of a previously flown rocket first stage. SpaceX has cited multiple figures for the ultimate effect on pricing of reused first stages. But it’s clear SES expects material price cuts in the future.
Mr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.
"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.
"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."
Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:QuoteMr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.
"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.
"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168)
Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:QuoteMr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.
"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.
"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168)
Glad you posted that as some people seem to think that every customer is just going to get onboard with reusability, when they just aren't at this stage. They can't afford to be so sanguine about it until its far, far more proven technology.
Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:QuoteMr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.
"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.
"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168)
Glad you posted that as some people seem to think that every customer is just going to get onboard with reusability, when they just aren't at this stage. They can't afford to be so sanguine about it until its far, far more proven technology.
Well, talk about taking widely divergent interpretations from the same piece of information. What he says can just as easily be read as: "Yes, we are eager to start using reused boosters too in the near future." It is yet another customer confirming the business case for reusability.
Reading that as some kind of cautionary or dare I say "negative" message relating to reusability, seems a bit of a stretch, in my view.
Because Pearce used this wording, "we'll jump on board and extend our relationship with SpaceX".
That is not cautionary, that is enthusiastic wording. He's saying, in my opinion, that they are just waiting on a bit more due diligence - i.e., more data through reuse - and then they are ready to sign up.
Because Pearce used this wording, "we'll jump on board and extend our relationship with SpaceX".
That is not cautionary, that is enthusiastic wording. He's saying, in my opinion, that they are just waiting on a bit more due diligence - i.e., more data through reuse - and then they are ready to sign up.
...
So ask yourself, how do you confront, deny, displace "reuse means consumed, used, spent, dangerous" ...
LOL!...
So ask yourself, how do you confront, deny, displace "reuse means consumed, used, spent, dangerous" ...
As hard as launch vendors (the competition) try to deliver your bolded message, SpaceX seems to be doing well convincing them that it is just sour grapes. After all, there has never been a failure of a previously-flown booster.;)
I just don't think there is a message to displace.
I don't see any conflict here. Any customer who prefers not to use reusable rockets will still have the option to pay full price for a new booster. Expecting even one customer to use a reused booster the moment one became available would have seemed optimistic. Now it seems there will be up to 6 flown just this year.Which is still cheaper than any other provider.
Clearly SpaceX will have more than enough customers for their reused boosters. Like someone said upthread, by the time someone like Inmarsat needs another ride with SpaceX, two dozen reused boosters could have flown successfully. Making the decision an easy one.
And, if they still don't want to use one, well, then there is the more expensive new booster option for them.
I don't see any conflict here. Any customer who prefers not to use reusable rockets will still have the option to pay full price for a new booster. Expecting even one customer to use a reused booster the moment one became available would have seemed optimistic. Now it seems there will be up to 6 flown just this year.Which is still cheaper than any other provider.
Clearly SpaceX will have more than enough customers for their reused boosters. Like someone said upthread, by the time someone like Inmarsat needs another ride with SpaceX, two dozen reused boosters could have flown successfully. Making the decision an easy one.
And, if they still don't want to use one, well, then there is the more expensive new booster option for them.
Keep in mind that reused boosters are likely faster to orbit, because they're already at the launch site.
So for say Inmarsat, they have additional consideration of waiting for a "fresh" one.
SpaceX is lining up to be a volume provider. Overly picky customers are welcome to go elsewhere where they will be coddled from 2X the price.Keep in mind that reused boosters are likely faster to orbit, because they're already at the launch site.
So for say Inmarsat, they have additional consideration of waiting for a "fresh" one.
But doing what might be seen as penalising the customer could just lead them to go elsewhere for their launcher.
SpaceX is lining up to be a volume provider. Overly picky customers are welcome to go elsewhere where they will be coddled from 2X the price.Keep in mind that reused boosters are likely faster to orbit, because they're already at the launch site.
So for say Inmarsat, they have additional consideration of waiting for a "fresh" one.
But doing what might be seen as penalising the customer could just lead them to go elsewhere for their launcher.
SpaceX business model is volume and quick turnaround. Dealing with NASA and DOD may end being a short romance being that they are very picky customers even compared to Inmarsat. What SpaceX will tell NASA and DOD is you take it or leave it, we have other customers for those slots/dates just as well.
It could very well change again from the FFP one at a time to contracts to blocks of launches per year of generic capability with options for adding specific engineering support for specified payloads once gov knows (about 6 months in advance) when and what they want launched. Same for NASA. A update to the NLS II contract methodology. Almost a pay up front and then use or loose launch capability. The launch costs then for DOD becomes a fixed cost every year even when number of launches vary. DOD would have multiple providers on such a contract allowing DOD to manage the launch resources just by juggling who launch what and when without haveing a long multi-month or even year long acquisition cycle for each launch. Just a 30 day contract mod specifying what and when to a specific providers existing launch contract. This is what the DOD wanted for the EELV contracts but could never quite get there. Currently there is still way too much customization for each launch to be able to write such a contract. The payloads have to become more general more commoditized.
SpaceX is lining up to be a volume provider. Overly picky customers are welcome to go elsewhere where they will be coddled from 2X the price.Keep in mind that reused boosters are likely faster to orbit, because they're already at the launch site.
So for say Inmarsat, they have additional consideration of waiting for a "fresh" one.
But doing what might be seen as penalising the customer could just lead them to go elsewhere for their launcher.
SpaceX business model is volume and quick turnaround. Dealing with NASA and DOD may end being a short romance being that they are very picky customers even compared to Inmarsat. What SpaceX will tell NASA and DOD is you take it or leave it, we have other customers for those slots/dates just as well.
It could very well change again from the FFP one at a time to contracts to blocks of launches per year of generic capability with options for adding specific engineering support for specified payloads once gov knows (about 6 months in advance) when and what they want launched.That seems to be gearing up. Watch the sourcing on the sats to see how it matches up.
Same for NASA. A update to the NLS II contract methodology. Almost a pay up front and then use or loose launch capability. The launch costs then for DOD becomes a fixed cost every year even when number of launches vary.Where payload budgets apply. Less of a uniform distribution.
DOD would have multiple providers on such a contract allowing DOD to manage the launch resources just by juggling who launch what and when without haveing a long multi-month or even year long acquisition cycle for each launch.Excepting certain "long poles".
Just a 30 day contract mod specifying what and when to a specific providers existing launch contract. This is what the DOD wanted for the EELV contracts but could never quite get there.Absolutely. So did/does Congress. At least McCain's complaints.
Currently there is still way too much customization for each launch to be able to write such a contract. The payloads have to become more general more commoditized.Oh, such a battle over exactly that. Old ways die hard.
There's nothing down the line stopping someone like BO who aren't quite as beholden to their bottom line because of the way they are financed coming in and at least at first undercutting Space X with fresh first stages for the more discerning customer.
SpaceX business model is volume and quick turnaround. Dealing with NASA and DOD may end being a short romance being that they are very picky customers even compared to Inmarsat. What SpaceX will tell NASA and DOD is you take it or leave it, we have other customers for those slots/dates just as well.Disagree. They won't do that. Instead they will say "sure, but that will cost x mln $ extra". In fact, it already happened many times.
In many cases what happened when commercial services were used by government is that a shell company with the "extra services" was added as a level of interface to keep the gov "customer" from bothering the core business. The core business then no longer bid on the contracts only the shell. In some cases this shell was even a third party.SpaceX business model is volume and quick turnaround. Dealing with NASA and DOD may end being a short romance being that they are very picky customers even compared to Inmarsat. What SpaceX will tell NASA and DOD is you take it or leave it, we have other customers for those slots/dates just as well.Disagree. They won't do that. Instead they will say "sure, but that will cost x mln $ extra". In fact, it already happened many times.
Inmarsat CEO Rupert Pearce praises "absolutely exceptional performance from SpaceX" and announces that they will use a flight proven core in the future:
https://www.universetoday.com/135614/will-launch-reuseable-rocket-exceptional-spacex-performance-inmarsat-ceo-tells-universe-today/
Choice quote: "They hit the ball out of the park with this launch for us"
...the company CEO told Universe Today that Inmarsat was willing to conduct future launches with SpaceX – including on a “reusable rocket in the future!”
“This has obviously been an absolutely exceptional performance from SpaceX, Inmarsat CEO Rupert Pearce told Universe Today in a post launch interview at the Kennedy Space Center on Monday, May 15.
“They have now earned themselves an immensely loyal customer.”
“I’m sure we will be using a ‘reused rocket’, Pearce stated. “And we will be launching on a ‘reusable rocket’ in the future.”
“We will be looking to support them in any way we can with their new innovation programs.”
Here's a nice quote from Inmarsat's CEO, Rupert Pearce:QuoteMr Pearce said he was delighted to fly SpaceX for the first time, and looked forward to the occasion when an Inmarsat satellite would go up on one of the American provider's "second-hand" rockets.
"I'd like to see a longer track record of refurbished rockets being launched successfully without problems," the CEO told BBC News.
"At the moment, we don't put up satellites in sufficient numbers to be relatively sanguine about losing one. But I'm very encouraged by what I've seen in recent months, and once we feel that refurbished rockets are essentially the same as new rockets - we'll jump onboard and extend our relationship with SpaceX."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39929168)
Glad you posted that as some people seem to think that every customer is just going to get onboard with reusability, when they just aren't at this stage. They can't afford to be so sanguine about it until its far, far more proven technology.
Because Pearce used this wording, "we'll jump on board and extend our relationship with SpaceX".
That is not cautionary, that is enthusiastic wording. He's saying, in my opinion, that they are just waiting on a bit more due diligence - i.e., more data through reuse - and then they are ready to sign up.
And it is near-term that he will have a longer track record... maybe 6 flights this year, something like 3/4ths of all flights in a year or two. Inmarsat already has one more sat on orbit than constellation design. They'll probably order again in -- wait for it -- a year or two.
Wasn't this one of the customers that was discussed as leaving SpaceX due to FH delays?
A feature: Reusability is being sold, even when flying expendable.
Wasn't this one of the customers that was discussed as leaving SpaceX due to FH delays?
Wasn't this one of the customers that was discussed as leaving SpaceX due to FH delays?
Yes:
Citing SpaceX delays, Inmarsat moves satellite launch from Falcon Heavy to Ariane 5 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/12/09/citing-spacex-delays-inmarsat-moves-satellite-launch-from-falcon-heavy-to-ariane-5/)
Yes, cheaper launches and satellites are opening up smaller markets.
From SES April 28 earnings call (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-compressions-always-led-to-video-growth-will-again);Quote<snip><snip>
But none of these factors is having a material effect on SES’s video business so far. McCarthy said pricing remains stable, with SES selling transponder capacity at an average rate of 1.7 million euros ($2 million) per year.
Nice find! So not only is this a new launch contract, but it will also be on a flight-proven booster.We need to recruit some Indonesian members to watch the local media for us...Behold my Google foo:
These seem to say there is a contract for SpaceX to launch Telkom 4 around June 2018 (although I can never be completely sure with Google Translate).
https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4 (https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/)
https://seasia.co/2017/05/01/indonesia-to-use-spacex-to-launch-next-satellite
http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2015/12/30/ssl-to-provide-next-satellite-for-telkom-indonesia/QuotePresident Director of Telkom, Alex J. Sinaga mentioned to CNN, “Investment in Telkom-4 [satellite] will be cheaper as we use a reusable orbital rocket from SpaceX, so it will be cheaper as much as 40 percent.”
Edit: added relevant quote from seasia.co article.
Cross posting with emphasis mine:40% less for the launch, or for the satellite?Nice find! So not only is this a new launch contract, but it will also be on a flight-proven booster.We need to recruit some Indonesian members to watch the local media for us...Behold my Google foo:
These seem to say there is a contract for SpaceX to launch Telkom 4 around June 2018 (although I can never be completely sure with Google Translate).
https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4 (https://inet.detik.com/telecommunication/d-3424084/spacex-masih-dipercaya-luncurkan-satelit-telkom-4)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170417152745-213-208098/telkom-bakal-lebih-hemat-berkat-roket-spacex/)
http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/ (http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20170130174006-213-190081/satelit-telkom-berikutnya-bakal-gandeng-spacex/)
https://seasia.co/2017/05/01/indonesia-to-use-spacex-to-launch-next-satellite
http://www.satellitetoday.com/telecom/2015/12/30/ssl-to-provide-next-satellite-for-telkom-indonesia/QuotePresident Director of Telkom, Alex J. Sinaga mentioned to CNN, “Investment in Telkom-4 [satellite] will be cheaper as we use a reusable orbital rocket from SpaceX, so it will be cheaper as much as 40 percent.”
Edit: added relevant quote from seasia.co article.
New study: Sensing satellite market banking on spacex – blue origin space rivalry to boost future demand
Headline sounds interesting, but article text doesn't support it.It hints at that cheaper access to space will create more demand in their market since new business cases will open up. This is a free market view of low prices to consumers for new products enables new submarkets to be created that would not otherwise be able to thrive. Some of this is the low latency of the sensor or image and the higher repeat rates per day enable new uses. But these two items requires more sats and that requires both the sat and the launch to be cheaper.
Seems to be unspoken, yet logical link...QuoteNew study: Sensing satellite market banking on spacex – blue origin space rivalry to boost future demand
https://www.whatech.com/market-research/telecommunications/310359-sensing-satellite-market-banking-on-spacex-blue-origin-space-rivalry-to-boost-future-demand
This is what the DOD wanted for the EELV contracts but could never quite get there.
Never. In time they will simply drop the second "E" and be done with it.This is what the DOD wanted for the EELV contracts but could never quite get there.
When does ERLV become an acronym?
Wilson testified that the emergence of the commercial space industry has proven a boon for the US military. "The benefit we're seeing now is competition," she said. "There are some very exciting things happening in commercial space that bring the opportunity for assured access to space at a very competitive price."
The admission came in response to a question from Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), who asked about the military's capability for a rapid response to military space needs. After picking up a model of the X-37B and showing it to committee members, Wilson said the addition of companies like SpaceX, as well as other launch firms, was expanding the capacity of the military and significantly lowering costs.
The US military has not said what the X-37B has been doing up in space for years at a time, beyond furthering "operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies." In addition to testing surveillance technology, some experts think the Air Force may be working on equipment that could be incorporated into a human-rated version of the vehicle that could carry a flight crew. Among the applications contemplated for the X-37B would be the recovery of satellites for repair on Earth.
Some military advisers have begun urging the Air Force to embrace the commercial space industry more completely.
@IridiumBoss: Cool Bulgaria/ @SpaceX using stage from @IridiumComm launch. We'd do the same -- with a big discount.
Iridium’s Matt Desch says company might be open to launching on a previously-flown Falcon 9 in 2nd half of eight-launch series next year.
Iridium’s Desch: We want to see steeper discount than what SpaceX currently offers to switch to a reused Falcon 9 booster, but open to it.
Haven't seen that kind of discount, but we can't wait a year or two. It's not just $$, but an issue of whether it improves our schedule.
Insurance always a consideration, but with a few more good reflights, expect won't be much of an issue. BTW, ins isn't only cause of wait..
Thanks for asking.
Hmm, doesn't that rather undercut the 'need' for a big discount? Sounding more like a negotiating position. I suspect schedule is rather more important to Iridium - as delays likely to mean more in lost revenue than potential discount?
“That’s the first thing: will they improve my schedule, because schedule to me is very very important.”
I like Matt but I think he's jawboning to try to get a better discount by using PR to his advantage. Good for him.
There's only so fast they can swap the new sats into their constellation and the planning and scheduling for that is one major consideration for how rapidly they actually want to launch. Other client side considerations are their satellite production rate as well as staffing/resources for payload prep at the launch site. I'm sure there are others.If their other scheduled launch provider has extensive delays eg LV grounded because reliability issues , pad out of action. That is when an alternative LV provider that can launch on short notice becomes important.
Exactly. This is part of the Musk vision and I bet Elon is glad to see it even if it's a bit of pseudo-gibing at his expense.I like Matt but I think he's jawboning to try to get a better discount by using PR to his advantage. Good for him.
Almost like in a free market! ::)
Exactly. This is part of the Musk vision and I bet Elon is glad to see it even if it's a bit of pseudo-gibing at his expense.I like Matt but I think he's jawboning to try to get a better discount by using PR to his advantage. Good for him.
Almost like in a free market! ::)
HASC sbcmt just adopted (voice) Franks amendment saying AF should use reusable rockets when safe and makes sense. (Pro-reusability)
Would have to see exact wording, but in direction of goodnss. Its in US intrsts that ALL gov agencies, incl NASA, promote & encourage RLVs.
House Armed Services Committee weighs in:QuoteHASC sbcmt just adopted (voice) Franks amendment saying AF should use reusable rockets when safe and makes sense. (Pro-reusability)
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/877901895242797057QuoteWould have to see exact wording, but in direction of goodnss. Its in US intrsts that ALL gov agencies, incl NASA, promote & encourage RLVs.
https://twitter.com/davehuntsman/status/877927306404126720
On the eve of the launch of his country’s first communications satellite on a Falcon 9 rocket, the chief executive of BulgariaSat credited SpaceX’s cost-cutting ways with making space accessible for small nations and money-conscious companies like his own.
Maxim Zayakov, CEO of BulgariaSat and its affiliate television provider Bulsatcom, told Spacefight Now that SpaceX’s push to reduce the cost of space transportation has yielded tangible results for his country.
“People don’t realize that, for small countries and small companies like us, without SpaceX, there was no way we would ever be able to even think about space,” Zayakov said. “With them, it was possible. We got a project. I think, in the future, it’s going to be even more affordable because of reusability.”
Interesting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late...
I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)
Interesting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late...The maths on his spreadsheet are still valid, especially if pricing at $/kg to orbit not $ per launch. Elon said few $100M in R&D on RLV, some of which they would like to recover, hence slight not large discount on used boosters. While maths still apply to Blue, they can afford to forgo cost of R&D recovery, in doing so shave $10Ms off each launch. A publicly listed company wouldn't be able to justify this with their shareholders. In SpaceX case shareholding is private with investors willing to play long game.
I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)
Interesting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late...
I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)
There were a bunch of questionable assumptions that went into the spreadsheet.
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (:D), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'.
There's Gwynne's comment (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692779#msg1692779) of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (:D), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'.
There's Gwynne's comment (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692779#msg1692779) of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only.
Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.
The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (:D), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'.
There's Gwynne's comment (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692779#msg1692779) of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only.
Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.
The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...
I think 2018 is going to *have* to be at least 30% reused. We know they're only producing 20 rockets/year right now, and LC 40 alone will be able to use them all. I doubt that they're going to increase that rate, so even if there are only half a dozen launches each at 39A and 4E the launch rate is going to require a pretty high reuse rate. Even more so in 2019 with Boca Chica online, and I suspect at that point they're going to want to shift some of the Merlin production line to Raptor.
Interesting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late...That spreadsheet was discussed ad nauseum in some other thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0). The discussion ended back then with the general conclusion that the spreadsheet in question was:
I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)
...a piece of felgercarb.
Interesting how those strong voices who touted the folly of reuse have grown remarkably quiet as of late...That spreadsheet was discussed ad nauseum in some other thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0). The discussion ended back then with the general conclusion that the spreadsheet in question was:
I haven't seen mention of Dr Sower's spreadsheet in some time. If it was grounded in solid reasoning, why isn't it being referenced anymore (serious question - because I would like to know if anything has changed in those calculations, or is it just the excitement of watching flight proven boosters taking flight...)Quote from: Starbuck...a piece of felgercarb.
If people wish to re-hash all the shortcomings of said spreadsheet than I suggest they do so in the approriate thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37390.0).
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (:D), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'.
There's Gwynne's comment (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692779#msg1692779) of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only.
Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.
The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...
I think 2018 is going to *have* to be at least 30% reused. We know they're only producing 20 rockets/year right now, and LC 40 alone will be able to use them all. I doubt that they're going to increase that rate, so even if there are only half a dozen launches each at 39A and 4E the launch rate is going to require a pretty high reuse rate. Even more so in 2019 with Boca Chica online, and I suspect at that point they're going to want to shift some of the Merlin production line to Raptor.
Once Block 5 starts to fly (and performs up to design), there will no longer be demand or need for 20 new cores per year. They may have hit peak production of Falcon in 2017.
Else what's the point of going to the expense of landing and recovering them at the moment?
That red cloud may look nice but what is in there?The radar reflective paint may just have a bunch of iron powder in it. Might explain the reddish coloration to the cloud.
So. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.
Doesn't that undercut Falcon Heavy, though? I presume they don't want to undercut FH once it's flying.So. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.
Just use the Block 3 and 4s for expended mode launches until the lot is run out.
Else what's the point of going to the expense of landing and recovering them at the moment?
They are still optimizing landing so worth it. They may continue to try the extreme limit landings. Also new trajectories using the new grid fins. Good they start using them now, not only with block 5 so they don't need to do experimenting with block 5 cores so much.
Upgrade the LZ-1 pads with steel plating? I don't think radar reflective painting is the long term solution. That red cloud may look nice but what is in there?
Else what's the point of going to the expense of landing and recovering them at the moment?
They are still optimizing landing so worth it. They may continue to try the extreme limit landings. Also new trajectories using the new grid fins. Good they start using them now, not only with block 5 so they don't need to do experimenting with block 5 cores so much.
Upgrade the LZ-1 pads with steel plating? I don't think radar reflective painting is the long term solution. That red cloud may look nice but what is in there?
Those are all good reasons to keep landing block 3-4 cores. Another is to continue getting everyone used to the idea that cores can land and be reused, so that when block 5 becomes available, fewer of them will have to be expended because customers aren't yet ready to trust reused cores.
Doesn't that undercut Falcon Heavy, though? I presume they don't want to undercut FH once it's flying.So. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.
Just use the Block 3 and 4s for expended mode launches until the lot is run out.
Doesn't that undercut Falcon Heavy, though? I presume they don't want to undercut FH once it's flying.So. Do you just throw away the landed Block 3 and 4 cores - who can each be reflown 2 or 3 times with refurbishment? Or do you use them until they have expended their economic use - despite having Block 5's available that can fly 10 times, with minimal refurbishment.
Just use the Block 3 and 4s for expended mode launches until the lot is run out.
Well, FH isn't flying yet, so there's still a need for expendable missions. Additionally, FH can't fly out of SLC-40 so that means you have a bottleneck at 39A which is also the only place to launch the upcoming Commercial Crew missions. I could see some customers wanting to not stand in manifest line the very busy 39A pad and opting for expendable instead.It'll be flying customer missions by next year. That's not much time to sign new launches for expendable F9.
I don't think SpaceX cares about undercutting Falcon heavy. FH is probably going to be a pain, with higher chance of failure. Except for government launches, I bet it'll be phased out in favor of something in the ITS family within a few years.That is utterly preposterous. A few years? That's 2020. What are you talking about?
2020 or a little later (2021 or 2022). Why is it preposterous? 2020 was SpaceX's timeline for full ITS. If they go with a smaller one (I'll bet you money they will), this isn't totally unrealistic at all. It's in line with Blue O's 2019 plan for New Glenn, and Raptor is arguably further along (with SpaceX both being faster at executing and having more experience with large vehicles).I don't think SpaceX cares about undercutting Falcon heavy. FH is probably going to be a pain, with higher chance of failure. Except for government launches, I bet it'll be phased out in favor of something in the ITS family within a few years.That is utterly preposterous. A few years? That's 2020. What are you talking about?
Hofeller said many SpaceX customers — “I won’t say a majority, but it may be a majority” — have expressed interest in converting their contracts to previously flown stages.
Back on-topic, new article by Peter B de Selding:
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-cuts-flight-refurbish-reflight-time-falcon-9-first-stage/ (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-cuts-flight-refurbish-reflight-time-falcon-9-first-stage/)
Includes this from Jonathan Hofeller, SpaceX vice president for commercial sales:QuoteHofeller said many SpaceX customers — “I won’t say a majority, but it may be a majority” — have expressed interest in converting their contracts to previously flown stages.
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (:D), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'.
There's Gwynne's comment (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692779#msg1692779) of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only.
Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.
The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...
I think 2018 is going to *have* to be at least 30% reused. We know they're only producing 20 rockets/year right now, and LC 40 alone will be able to use them all. I doubt that they're going to increase that rate, so even if there are only half a dozen launches each at 39A and 4E the launch rate is going to require a pretty high reuse rate. Even more so in 2019 with Boca Chica online, and I suspect at that point they're going to want to shift some of the Merlin production line to Raptor.
Once Block 5 starts to fly (and performs up to design), there will no longer be demand or need for 20 new cores per year. They may have hit peak production of Falcon in 2017.
Considering the fact that the % of used booster that would fly this year to the total number of boosters to fly will be about 25%, the ability to fly a higher percentage (>50%) of used boosters in 2018 is not only likely but is also likely to change many customers' minds over the use of used boosters. A savings of just $10M when using a used booster that has equal or better reliability than a new booster as well as a possible decrease in insurance costs may very well change the tentative use of used boosters by commercial customers into a flood.
Considering the fact that the % of used booster that would fly this year to the total number of boosters to fly will be about 25%, the ability to fly a higher percentage (>50%) of used boosters in 2018 is not only likely but is also likely to change many customers' minds over the use of used boosters. A savings of just $10M when using a used booster that has equal or better reliability than a new booster as well as a possible decrease in insurance costs may very well change the tentative use of used boosters by commercial customers into a flood.
I don't think there's that much resistance, if you account for 'museum' stages, testing, and for the F9heavy, I think there's only 5 stages left: 1029, 1031, 1032, 1035 and 1036. The last two (as well as 1029) have just been launched. And there's talk of SpaceX retiring old versions of F9. So at the moment, it seems very close to, SpaceX can sell any used stages it wishes to - which is why I think there is very low resistance.Considering the fact that the % of used booster that would fly this year to the total number of boosters to fly will be about 25%, the ability to fly a higher percentage (>50%) of used boosters in 2018 is not only likely but is also likely to change many customers' minds over the use of used boosters. A savings of just $10M when using a used booster that has equal or better reliability than a new booster as well as a possible decrease in insurance costs may very well change the tentative use of used boosters by commercial customers into a flood.
I agree.
The resistance to used boosters is, I think, more based on people's gut feel than purely rational analysis. Once used boosters are flying regularly, people's gut feel about them will change quickly -- particularly if those used boosters are giving those people's competitors an advantage, in terms of schedule, price, or both.
So taking stock after 2nd booster re-use (:D), it really seems that nearly all customers are now asking 'when shall we re-use' and not 'if'.
There's Gwynne's comment (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692779#msg1692779) of 3-4 more customers this year looking to re-use, plus all the positive quotes in this thread. I was looking again the other day at some 2015?/2016? press around Ariane 6, saw quote saying no market demand for re-use ...
Two of those customers, SES and Iridium, are talking multiple flight-proven vehicle rides within the next 6-9 months. USG, both NASA and USAF, probably are not in the mentioned 3-4, but both are in the not-if-but-when camp. Jury still out on whether all FH flights (except maybe STP-2?) will be reused only.
Still looking like we could enter 2018 with a manifest going forward that is 50% reused boosters or close to it.
The 'no market demand for reuse' was repeated this week at Paris Air Show...
I think 2018 is going to *have* to be at least 30% reused. We know they're only producing 20 rockets/year right now, and LC 40 alone will be able to use them all. I doubt that they're going to increase that rate, so even if there are only half a dozen launches each at 39A and 4E the launch rate is going to require a pretty high reuse rate. Even more so in 2019 with Boca Chica online, and I suspect at that point they're going to want to shift some of the Merlin production line to Raptor.
Once Block 5 starts to fly (and performs up to design), there will no longer be demand or need for 20 new cores per year. They may have hit peak production of Falcon in 2017.
If Block5 can get 10 re-uses, they only need a production capacity of around 8/year to get 80 launches/year for first stages, but 2nd stage production will have to grow from 20/y to 80/y.
Merlin Production will have to go from around 180 M1 and 20 M1Vs (200 total) to 72 M1s and 80 M1Vs (152 total)
seems pretty doable.
A launch cadence of 80/year (when Constellation is going up) is going to crater fixed costs per launch, on top of the S1 re-use savings. SpaceX is going to have enormous pricing power that no one is going to be able to match. I wouldn't be surprised under such a scenario if the cost to SpaceX to launch a Falcon 9 is only around $20m.
You know with pricing like that Oneweb might rue their decision to sign such a huge launch contract with Arianespace for those Soyuz launches because the reality is they will have likely overpaid to get there fleet into orbit. I get the competitive side of them vs SpaceX probably being a factor but the savings they likely gave up could have funded a huge amount of future constellation hardware etc.
You know with pricing like that Oneweb might rue their decision to sign such a huge launch contract with Arianespace for those Soyuz launches because the reality is they will have likely overpaid to get there fleet into orbit. I get the competitive side of them vs SpaceX probably being a factor but the savings they likely gave up could have funded a huge amount of future constellation hardware etc.
OneWeb was between a rock and a hard place. Going with SpaceX is bad for them because they're dependent on their competitor. Going with another launch provider is bad because their launch costs are a lot higher than SpaceX's.
It's hard to know which of the two is worse.
Current demonstrated launch rate volumes:You know with pricing like that Oneweb might rue their decision to sign such a huge launch contract with Arianespace for those Soyuz launches because the reality is they will have likely overpaid to get there fleet into orbit. I get the competitive side of them vs SpaceX probably being a factor but the savings they likely gave up could have funded a huge amount of future constellation hardware etc.
OneWeb was between a rock and a hard place. Going with SpaceX is bad for them because they're dependent on their competitor. Going with another launch provider is bad because their launch costs are a lot higher than SpaceX's.
It's hard to know which of the two is worse.
At the time they contracted with ArianeSpace, SpaceX wasn't a reliable provider of that quantity of launches... in fact, Soyuz was the only vehicle capable of handling that volume -- maybe still is, but not for long.
OneWeb went with their only option to get a jump on ConnX.
They should receive a significant discount on Soyuz launches give volume.
Plus Ariane have excellent record of launching on time as long as locals play nice.
No doubt there will be some that want to see this pace sustained for several years before counting on it.
...I am as big a SpaceX fan as anyone but it's a bit of a stretch to imagine anyone could guess when, if ever, SpaceX would "hit their stride." OneWeb clearly placed more value on schedule reliability than launch cost. That is a valid business decision.Plus Ariane have excellent record of launching on time as long as locals play nice.
To make a good business decision, One Web should be projecting what is likely in the future rather than just what has happened in the past. SpaceX is a newer entrant and they've been ramping up. As the last few months have shown, they are now hitting their stride and doing launches regularly at a very good pace. A smart person would take all that into consideration and project it's likely that by the time One Web is ready to launch, it's likely there will be no more delay with SpaceX than there would be with Ariane.
Remember that OneWeb needed to make that business decision two years ago. Two years ago, SpaceX manifest stretched to the horizon... still isn't promising without reuse (and two years ago, reuse was empirically sketchy at best).
If I were making it, I would have chosen Soyuz, too. Today, it would be a more challenging decision.
Remember that OneWeb needed to make that business decision two years ago. Two years ago, SpaceX manifest stretched to the horizon... still isn't promising without reuse (and two years ago, reuse was empirically sketchy at best).
If I were making it, I would have chosen Soyuz, too. Today, it would be a more challenging decision.
And yet a lot of other companies who were launching sooner chose SpaceX. Even two years ago I think it was reasonable to project that SpaceX's ability to deliver on time would be improving by the time One Web will be ready to launch.
If I had been making the decision for One Web two years ago, I would have gone with SpaceX, unless SpaceX was not offering reasonable terms because One Web is a direct competitor of SpaceX's own CommX plans.
Ken Lee, vice president of space systems for Intelsat, said ... Intelsat satellites are generally too heavy for the current version of the Falcon 9 rocket and no other SpaceX launches are currently planned. But he said Intelsat considers SpaceX "a viable option for us, and we'll engage them. If the payload works out right for them, then we don't have any reservation using SpaceX."
He also said he supports SpaceX's drive to lower launch costs by recovering, refurbishing and relaunching spent stages, adding that he expects the cost of a used stage to continue dropping as SpaceX perfects recovery procedures and techniques. But that doesn't mean Intelsat is ready to fly on a previously-flown rocket.
"I am convinced that a reusable rocket system is a viable option in the future," he said. "I am not convinced, today, that we are willing to get on the rocket. Having said that, as they demonstrate their successes, and of course it comes with a price in schedule assurance and quality, if all those terms are correct then we'll definitely consider that in the future."
Intelsat will "definitely consider" reuse:If Intelsat want to launch larger satellites with SpaceX, they may have to accept reuseable boosters. For larger sats the FH will be used with reusable boosters. Of course a customer can pay for expendable FH but I doubt it would be worth it compared to very reliable Ariane 5.QuoteKen Lee, vice president of space systems for Intelsat, said ... Intelsat satellites are generally too heavy for the current version of the Falcon 9 rocket and no other SpaceX launches are currently planned. But he said Intelsat considers SpaceX "a viable option for us, and we'll engage them. If the payload works out right for them, then we don't have any reservation using SpaceX."
He also said he supports SpaceX's drive to lower launch costs by recovering, refurbishing and relaunching spent stages, adding that he expects the cost of a used stage to continue dropping as SpaceX perfects recovery procedures and techniques. But that doesn't mean Intelsat is ready to fly on a previously-flown rocket.
"I am convinced that a reusable rocket system is a viable option in the future," he said. "I am not convinced, today, that we are willing to get on the rocket. Having said that, as they demonstrate their successes, and of course it comes with a price in schedule assurance and quality, if all those terms are correct then we'll definitely consider that in the future."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon9-comsat-launch-successful-july-5-2017/
If Intelsat want to launch larger satellites with SpaceX, they may have to accept reuseable boosters. For larger sats the FH will be used with reusable boosters. Of course a customer can pay for expendable FH but I doubt it would be worth it compared to very reliable Ariane 5.
I think the key deciding item on use of reused boosters is not so much Price as a New F9 is the lowest cost LV now. But that a used booster can increase availability of launch date and even a short on contract to launch date case.Intelsat will "definitely consider" reuse:If Intelsat want to launch larger satellites with SpaceX, they may have to accept reuseable boosters. For larger sats the FH will be used with reusable boosters. Of course a customer can pay for expendable FH but I doubt it would be worth it compared to very reliable Ariane 5.QuoteKen Lee, vice president of space systems for Intelsat, said ... Intelsat satellites are generally too heavy for the current version of the Falcon 9 rocket and no other SpaceX launches are currently planned. But he said Intelsat considers SpaceX "a viable option for us, and we'll engage them. If the payload works out right for them, then we don't have any reservation using SpaceX."
He also said he supports SpaceX's drive to lower launch costs by recovering, refurbishing and relaunching spent stages, adding that he expects the cost of a used stage to continue dropping as SpaceX perfects recovery procedures and techniques. But that doesn't mean Intelsat is ready to fly on a previously-flown rocket.
"I am convinced that a reusable rocket system is a viable option in the future," he said. "I am not convinced, today, that we are willing to get on the rocket. Having said that, as they demonstrate their successes, and of course it comes with a price in schedule assurance and quality, if all those terms are correct then we'll definitely consider that in the future."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon9-comsat-launch-successful-july-5-2017/
Intelsat will "definitely consider" reuse:QuoteKen Lee, vice president of space systems for Intelsat, said ... Intelsat satellites are generally too heavy for the current version of the Falcon 9 rocket and no other SpaceX launches are currently planned. But he said Intelsat considers SpaceX "a viable option for us, and we'll engage them. If the payload works out right for them, then we don't have any reservation using SpaceX."
He also said he supports SpaceX's drive to lower launch costs by recovering, refurbishing and relaunching spent stages, adding that he expects the cost of a used stage to continue dropping as SpaceX perfects recovery procedures and techniques. But that doesn't mean Intelsat is ready to fly on a previously-flown rocket.
"I am convinced that a reusable rocket system is a viable option in the future," he said. "I am not convinced, today, that we are willing to get on the rocket. Having said that, as they demonstrate their successes, and of course it comes with a price in schedule assurance and quality, if all those terms are correct then we'll definitely consider that in the future."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon9-comsat-launch-successful-july-5-2017/
Was this previously known?
http://www.investors.com/news/air-force-space-chief-is-all-in-for-reusable-rockets-if-proved-safe/QuoteIn addition to the cost savings, there's another upside to launching reusable rockets. Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the 45th Space Wing, noted in an interview Tuesday that engineers can actually look at the hardware after it's flown.
For instance, a Falcon rocket had a problem with its GPS systems that likely wouldn't have been discernible from the telemetry data alone, he said. Crews looked at the rocket when it came down and discovered that there wan't enough silicon around a screw.
It would be “absolutely foolish” not to begin using pre-flown rockets, which bring such significant savings that they’ll soon be commonplace for the entire industry, General John W. “Jay” Raymond said in an interview Monday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York.
Musk's Reusable Rockets Win U.S. Air Force General's Endorsement (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/u-s-air-force-general-endorses-elon-musk-s-reusable-rockets)Strong endorsement of reuse, but of limited value to SpaceX right now given that their share of NSS launches is limited compared to ULA.QuoteIt would be absolutely foolish not to begin using pre-flown rockets, which bring such significant savings that theyll soon be commonplace for the entire industry, General John W. Jay Raymond said in an interview Monday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York.
Air Force biography of Gen. John W. Jay Raymond (http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108479/lieutenant-general-john-w-jay-raymond/)
Strong endorsement of reuse, but of limited value to SpaceX right now given that their share of NSS launches is limited compared to ULA.
That was not my point. The market is switching to reused boosters regardless of NASA and/or USAF endorsement. The likes of SES, Iridium and other comsat operators are taking care of that. At best endorsement, by NASA and/or USAF, will accelerate this process.Strong endorsement of reuse, but of limited value to SpaceX right now given that their share of NSS launches is limited compared to ULA.
I think the value comes in reenforcing the view that re-use is becoming normal. SpaceX want to get to the point where customers don’t worry about whether their booster is new or re-used. Having NASA and the military talk about re-use in positive terms, and hopefully in NASA’s case soon using a flight proven booster, is telling the market that this is nothing to worry about.
That was not my point. The market is switching to reused boosters regardless of NASA and/or USAF endorsement. The likes of SES, Iridium and other comsat operators are taking care of that. At best endorsement, by NASA and/or USAF, will accelerate this process.Strong endorsement of reuse, but of limited value to SpaceX right now given that their share of NSS launches is limited compared to ULA.
I think the value comes in reenforcing the view that re-use is becoming normal. SpaceX want to get to the point where customers don’t worry about whether their booster is new or re-used. Having NASA and the military talk about re-use in positive terms, and hopefully in NASA’s case soon using a flight proven booster, is telling the market that this is nothing to worry about.
My point was that USAF potentially switching to flying on reused boosters is of limited direct value to SpaceX given that NSS launches are really only a very small part of their flight manifest.
Tweet from Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/921070386640556032):
Comfort that risk <= than new and more schedule certainty to complete 5 more launches over next 8 months. Cost is better, but not driver.
If you can get the acceptance of used as being just as good as new then SpaceX could then go to a set price for F9 regardless of whether the booster flown is new or used as long as the customer does not specify a new one. This is their current expressed pricing goal to occur as early as next year. So far the views released lately seem to support this view of used as being as good as a new one.I was reading an old book about the history of the integrated circuit. In passing it mentioned in the earl1950's, when companies were still making things like TV's and radios by hand soldering parts to each other people were saying that this was more reliable than these new fangled "printed wiring" boards. :o
Wired claims that the next two cargo missions for nasa will be on flown boosters:
https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-keeps-lining-up-covert-military-launches/
"NASA’s interest in SpaceX’s reusable technology seems to be growing as well. Sources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."
Sources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."
Not the ones that are launched without legs and grid fins. But it's hardly a surprise that the boosters launching the CRS missions have legs and grid fins.Sources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."
Reusable not reused. Aren't all F9s boosters reuseable now?
SpaceX offered SES the first reusable orbital rocket launch in aerospace history and all the free publicity that came along with it. The historic mission launched on March 30, and on October 11, SpaceX fired off its third reusable rocket, carrying another SES payload.
Wired claims that the next two cargo missions for nasa will be on flown boosters:
https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-keeps-lining-up-covert-military-launches/
"NASA’s interest in SpaceX’s reusable technology seems to be growing as well. Sources at Kennedy Space Center tell WIRED that NASA and SpaceX have preliminarily agreed to launch the next two cargo resupply missions to ISS atop reusable rockets."
NASA's approved CRS-13 to fly on CRS-11's booster. We've been following it in L2, but it has now become a decision, so that's great news. More in the coming period, but to get the news out there, added it to William's Koreasat article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/falcon-9-koreasat-5a-nasa-approves-flown-boosters/
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.
Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.
How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.
Which given SpaceX's demand and backlog, may very well be the difference between those customers flying in 2018 or not.
The only things not being reused on CRS-13 is the US and Trunk.
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.
Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.
How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.
We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.
Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.
How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.
We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
No.
From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/28/1499967787-screen-shot-2017-07-13-at-13630-pm.png)
A supermajority of marketable launches will soon be SpaceX launches, and they will be re-using their Block 5 F9s many times. Not only are you laughably wrong, within 1 to 2 years the majority of launches where national vanity or security are not the over-riding concern will be on returned boosters. When the BFR/BFS is in operation, almost all tons of material orbited as a percentage of tons orbited will be on systems intended from the outset for 100% re-fuel to refly systems.
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.
Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.
How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.
We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
No.
From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/28/1499967787-screen-shot-2017-07-13-at-13630-pm.png)
A supermajority of marketable launches will soon be SpaceX launches, and they will be re-using their Block 5 F9s many times. Not only are you laughably wrong, within 1 to 2 years the majority of launches where national vanity or security are not the over-riding concern will be on returned boosters. When the BFR/BFS is in operation, almost all tons of material orbited as a percentage of tons orbited will be on systems intended from the outset for 100% re-fuel to refly systems.
I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s.
Two, the chart you referenced does not take into account government launches. Three, SpaceX may have been awarded the bulk of commercial launch contracts for next year; however, those flights haven't launched yet, and it is foolish to count chickens before they hatch.
Also, while SpaceX has had a great year in 2017 and I wish them only the best going forward, a failure or partial failure next year could easily interrupt their launch cadence for at least a couple of months. If that failure occurs on a first stage which is being re-flown, it could temper the speed with which the industry is willing to embrace reuse.
I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s.
I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s.
So you argue, that because SpaceX reuses their first stages, they fly less rockets than others? They have more launches, but because of reuse, less rockets.
Correct, but what is the point you are trying to make?
At their flight rate and year-on-year acceleration, SpaceX demand and backlog are swapping positions. They will soon be able to launch all the payloads created world-wide -- backlog will be a satellite vendor issue, not a launch issue. 2018 is cross-over year (baring mishaps).
So, enough of this 'backlog' shade...
Note: NASA and Iridium had protected or high queue positions. Neither had to change 'to get their payloads launched in 2018'
I am ecstatic that we are finally seeing the dawn of the real reuse age. But part of me is just back there ...saying "what took so long"??
Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.I am ecstatic that we are finally seeing the dawn of the real reuse age. But part of me is just back there ...saying "what took so long"??
It's a true paradigm shift. Recall old comments about how F9 is overdesigned, that it's 30% larger than it needs to be to get the job done. That it's a cost burden. The built in assumption there that reuse would never work.
Then, even when reuse was contemplated, vertical landing wasn't. Just look at these plans for a Shuttle flyback booster. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254.pdf
Wings, jet engines, horizontal landings. It looks ridiculous now. Can you imagine a FH launch using those? To say nothing about the center core or F9 missions. Yet until a few short years ago, that was state of the art for booster reuse. Why was vertical landing ignored for so long?
Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.I am ecstatic that we are finally seeing the dawn of the real reuse age. But part of me is just back there ...saying "what took so long"??
It's a true paradigm shift. Recall old comments about how F9 is overdesigned, that it's 30% larger than it needs to be to get the job done. That it's a cost burden. The built in assumption there that reuse would never work.
Then, even when reuse was contemplated, vertical landing wasn't. Just look at these plans for a Shuttle flyback booster. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980237254.pdf
Wings, jet engines, horizontal landings. It looks ridiculous now. Can you imagine a FH launch using those? To say nothing about the center core or F9 missions. Yet until a few short years ago, that was state of the art for booster reuse. Why was vertical landing ignored for so long?
Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
Nearly everybody in the press is mixing up their terms (no surprise). All Falcons are potentially reusable. Not all of them are used that way. For WIRED to say that NASA is going to use "reusable" rockets is a bad choice of words. They should rather say that the rockets were previously used (which sounds like we're talking about a used car), or use SpaceX's phrase "flight proven".
Reusable sounds better - like it's following its intended path.
Reused seems like a secondhand afterthought of lower quality.
How many years until this is so commonplace the adjective gets dropped all together? We don't use it for flying on airplanes.
We'll probably be living with the adjective for a good while yet. Most rockets are expendable, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
No.
From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/28/1499967787-screen-shot-2017-07-13-at-13630-pm.png)
A supermajority of marketable launches will soon be SpaceX launches, and they will be re-using their Block 5 F9s many times. Not only are you laughably wrong, within 1 to 2 years the majority of launches where national vanity or security are not the over-riding concern will be on returned boosters. When the BFR/BFS is in operation, almost all tons of material orbited as a percentage of tons orbited will be on systems intended from the outset for 100% re-fuel to refly systems.
I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s. Two, the chart you referenced does not take into account government launches. Three, SpaceX may have been awarded the bulk of commercial launch contracts for next year; however, those flights haven't launched yet, and it is foolish to count chickens before they hatch.
Also, while SpaceX has had a great year in 2017 and I wish them only the best going forward, a failure or partial failure next year could easily interrupt their launch cadence for at least a couple of months. If that failure occurs on a first stage which is being re-flown, it could temper the speed with which the industry is willing to embrace reuse.
I stand by my previous post. One, regardless of SpaceX's commercial market share, most rockets - note that I did NOT say most launches - will be expendable well into the 2020s.
So you argue, that because SpaceX reuses their first stages, they fly less rockets than others? They have more launches, but because of reuse, less rockets.
Correct, but what is the point you are trying to make?
My point is that until the early 2020s, the only rocket being reused will be the Falcon 9. I'm not arguing the number of launches performed or cores produced or the number of launches of re-used cores. I'm just stating that of all the different types of rockets available for launch now and for the next 4-5 years (Atlas V, Delta IV, Vulcan, New Sheppard, Ariane 5 and 6, etc.), the only one being re-used is the Falcon 9. That was what I meant when I said "most" rockets are currently expendable and will be fore the foreseeable future.
My point is that until the early 2020s, the only rocket being reused will be the Falcon 9. I'm not arguing the number of launches performed or cores produced or the number of launches of re-used cores. I'm just stating that of all the different types of rockets available for launch now and for the next 4-5 years (Atlas V, Delta IV, Vulcan, New Sheppard, Ariane 5 and 6, etc.), the only one being re-used is the Falcon 9. That was what I meant when I said "most" rockets are currently expendable and will be fore the foreseeable future.New Shepard really doesn't belong on that list, although if you want to include it you should note that it is fully reusable. Also, New Glenn should be on that list and is equivalent in reuse to the F9.
Counting by number of rocket types is kind of pointless though, number of launches is what matters.
Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.
SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
Dont take sexisim where none is intended. I know enough military females who may not have "a particular bit of bioligy", but certifiably have big brass ones where it counts.Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.
SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it. Wings were used to return to the launch site not because of a lack of testicles, but because that was the state of the art back then. In fact, wings were a big improvement over a parachute plopping a can of astronauts into the water. You might even say that wings were leading edge technology ;)
Finally, there are hordes of excellent female engineers who manage to get all sorts of innovative stuff done without needing the male organs. The organ they use is their brains. Your misplaced fixation on a particular bit of biology ignores a lot of facts.
Wings were not "state of the art". Propulsive landings were feasible back then too.Because the entrenched aerospace industry in the USA didn't have the b*lls to turn science fiction into reality. It took a new-comer with a clear vision to kick down the wall. In fact, I will go so far as to state that it took somebody, not originally hailing from the USA, to kick down the wall. This South-African/Canadian guy is the best thing to have happened to US space endeavours in the past 40 years.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.
SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it. Wings were used to return to the launch site not because of a lack of testicles, but because that was the state of the art back then. In fact, wings were a big improvement over a parachute plopping a can of astronauts into the water. You might even say that wings were leading edge technology ;)
Finally, there are hordes of excellent female engineers who manage to get all sorts of innovative stuff done without needing the male organs. The organ they use is their brains. Your misplaced fixation on a particular bit of biology ignores a lot of facts.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.
SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it.
They had the Delta Clipper. But not the conjones to fund it sufficiently.
That and the fact that DC-X eventually ended up in the hands of NASA. It had no love for DC-X given that it directly competed with NASA's own X33/VentureStar endeavour at the time. So when DC-XA sufferend a setback by tipping over on its last flight NASA killed it.
SpaceX however did not have itself stopped by failures. They just pushed on, and succeeded in the end. That's b*lls vs no b*alls.
Cojones or balls have nothing to do with the case. It's simply that customers didn't care (and from the sense of this thread still don't) about whether the booster is reused or not, as long as the payload gets to the correct orbit for an affordable price. DC-XA wasn't killed because it fell over, it was killed because the customer didn't want it.
DC-XA didn't have a customer to begin with. NASA took over the program from SDIO after the public success of DC-X became an embarrassment to NASA. Under NASA guidance it was similar to when it was managed by SDIO: R&D program.
In case you had failed to notice: that is exactly how SpaceX started booster recovery: as a pure R&D program. SpaceX didn't have customers for booster recovery either.
But when SpaceX succeeded, multiple times, in booster recovery (both land and sea) it did not take all that much to take the next step: booster reuse of an orbital vehicle.
And that's where NASA failed: to look beyond the mere technical aspect of vertically landing a booster. NASA never bothered to make the transition from the prototype, 1/3rd scale DC-X, to a full-size orbital vehicle. They (as well as SDIO) lacked the guts (b*lls if you will) to have a vision AND carry it through all the way to reality.
It is exactly this lack of vision, this lack of guts, that (unfortunately) managed to kill propulsive landing on Crew Dragon.
The only reason why NASA is OK with SpaceX reusing Cargo Dragon and flying on reused boosters is because they have an enormous database about the reuse of orbital launch systems and orbital spacecraft (courtesy of STS).
But propulsive landing of a crewed vehicle is completely new to them and it shows: NASA chickened out.
I don't see the link you are making to 'forbidding' the propulsive landing of Dragon.
The only reason why NASA is OK with SpaceX reusing Cargo Dragon and flying on reused boosters is because they have an enormous database about the reuse of orbital launch systems and orbital spacecraft (courtesy of STS).
But propulsive landing of a crewed vehicle is completely new to them and it shows: NASA chickened out.
There appear to be no valid similarities between information gained from STS reuse, and that required for landing a booster as SpaceX do.
Woerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933269213703262208
Did he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at leasthttps://twitter.com/planetguy_bln/status/933271153854025729
No, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933271439255404544
Comment from ESA head:QuoteWoerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933269213703262208QuoteDid he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at leasthttps://twitter.com/planetguy_bln/status/933271153854025729QuoteNo, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933271439255404544
I’m with Elon on this, in that I don’t understand the issue with using fuel to land (and thus reducing payload mass). What matters is the cost to launch the payloads you want to launch, not how much you could have launched on the same rocket if expendable. (I’m assuming costs reflect reuse development costs.)
...
Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.
Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off.
Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
Comment from ESA head:QuoteWoerner: I’m a fan of reusability, but not the way Elon Musk is doing it. We’re looking at other ways. #Space17https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933269213703262208QuoteDid he specify what other ways might be? The @elonmusk way seems to be working at leasthttps://twitter.com/planetguy_bln/status/933271153854025729QuoteNo, but there have been studies of recovering the engines or other elements of the first stage without a propulsive landing.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/933271439255404544
I’m with Elon on this, in that I don’t understand the issue with using fuel to land (and thus reducing payload mass). What matters is the cost to launch the payloads you want to launch, not how much you could have launched on the same rocket if expendable. (I’m assuming costs reflect reuse development costs.)
Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.
Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off.
Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
Two words:Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.
Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off.
Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
Two words:Although Jan Woerner claims to be a fan of reusability his beliefs are - unfortunately - still firmly rooted in the expendable way of thinking. For multiple decades space agencies like ESA, CNES and DLR lived-and-worked with the principle that every bit of performance of a rocket MUST be used to maximize payload capacity.
Having excess performance to - God forbid! - return the booster stage to Earth just doesn't fit their view-on-spaceflight. From contacts inside ESA and DLR it has become clear to me that both agencies have a hard time adjusting to the new reality. Both have cited STS as an example why, in their opinion, reusability might not pay-off.
Which is really silly because both agencies know d*mn well that STS cannot be compared to the current SpaceX reusability efforts.
As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
Public money.
Remember when Ariane 501 auto-terminated? The public fall-out over it was significant. And when Ariane 502 had issues as well some nasty questions were asked about Ariane funding in the parliaments of France and Germany.
That repeated when the first Ariane 5 ECA was a complete failure.
So, it's nice that SpaceX spends it private money to land (and occasionally fail to land) F9 booster stages. But the average European tax-payer (note my use of the word "average") will not like the prospect of "their" money being spent on failed booster landings.
Even getting enough public funding authorised for the "safe" development option (Ariane 6 as currently being developed) has been a big problem.
But I digress. This thread is after all about SpaceX customers' views on reuse.
As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
Working or not, the stage is lost. Why don't give a try and do some tests?
As a European, it hurts to see this happening. I agree with your assessment. Which hurts even more. They fear, that if they built a launch vehicle that is supposed to land like F9 it would crash a few times before it works, like F9. That is a absolute no no for them. It has to work the first time or they would not try it. I am unsure why that is though.
Working or not, the stage is lost. Why don't give a try and do some tests?
And this 'Musk' approach works no matter which reuse technology one thinks is preferable.
So, relax Jan, and watch the kaboomy goodness.
It’s a different thing for Elon Musk to joke about expecting some RUD events or making some craters and a bureaucrat using public funds and responsible to political pressure. Musk put out a video montage of SpaceX best crashes. Imagine DOD, NASA, ESA or one of their subcontractors doing that. It may be perfectly understandable rationally but crashes will be used by political opposition and the images will look like evidence of failure and mismanagement to some people. Musk can joke about it because he’s using his own money and isn’t endangering lives. A politician or bureaucrat knows they can’t get away with the same attitude no matter how rational it may be.
Two words:Superficially your argument makes perfect sense.
Public money.
Remember when Ariane 501 auto-terminated? The public fall-out over it was significant. And when Ariane 502 had issues as well some nasty questions were asked about Ariane funding in the parliaments of France and Germany.
That repeated when the first Ariane 5 ECA was a complete failure.
So, it's nice that SpaceX spends it private money to land (and occasionally fail to land) F9 booster stages. But the average European tax-payer (note my use of the word "average") will not like the prospect of "their" money being spent on failed booster landings.
It may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.
QuoteIt may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.
How long can a boutique provider of expendable NSS launches survive in a world in which BFR and NG are flying frequently with demonstrated reliability and low cost?
ULA says it needs ten flights per year to survive, half of which need to be commercial because of the paucity of USG launches. That is where the rub exists... must compete in the commercial market to remain viable.
ArianeGroup may find itself in a similar situation, where a handful of flights are guaranteed by Europe's national program's, but there is still a significant fraction (again, maybe half) that must be toe-to-toe competed.
So, boutique might work when subsidies are high, but that doesn't appear to be a future prospect.
How long can a boutique provider of expendable NSS launches survive in a world in which BFR and NG are flying frequently with demonstrated reliability and low cost?Indefinitely of course, as they are not being driven by any need to make an economical vehicle, merely one that completely satisfies their govt sponsors and never fails. Launch price inflation or "assured access" charges then become part of the landscape.
Many scenarios to encompass NSS need are possible. NSS need itself is changing - right now getting up rapidly a fresh set of assets. Examples might include comprehensive contracts requiring priority to having a dedicated provider running a launch service with its own set of vehicles obtained from a non-compete commercial launch provider.The fundamental problem with National Security Space requirements is the word National
As always, meet/secure a need in a way that leverages common in-use capability without compromise of missions.
...
Turning the question on its head. Knowing that recovery and reuse is possible why would you not design in R&R friendly features to your new booster design from day one? Not necessarily for immediate use but available once its flight qualified for you target market.
Don't neglect the second word Security. Just as important.Many scenarios to encompass NSS need are possible. NSS need itself is changing - right now getting up rapidly a fresh set of assets. Examples might include comprehensive contracts requiring priority to having a dedicated provider running a launch service with its own set of vehicles obtained from a non-compete commercial launch provider.The fundamental problem with National Security Space requirements is the word National
As always, meet/secure a need in a way that leverages common in-use capability without compromise of missions.
It implies a launch system under direct control of relevant country or block of countries.
Current VTO TSTO rockets are so bound up with the intimate details of their entire GSE that it's virtually impossible to deliver a complete system to another country without telling them so much about it that it would violate ITAR restrictions, not to mention their deep ICBM heritage.
What I think some of SX's competitors are missing is that the baseline has fundamentally shifted. Booster stage recovery and reflight is no longer a hypothesis or a concept, it has now happened.Yes they are in denial. Because they are dealing with larger scale problems first. Cost of maintaining industrial base/supply chain/labor costs.
Turning the question on its head. Knowing that recovery and reuse is possible why would you not design in R&R friendly features to your new booster design from day one? Not necessarily for immediate use but available once its flight qualified for you target market.Because it interferes with the direct costing of your narrow mission, because you cannot "unwind" things that you need from things the way they've been done in the past.
For both Vulcan and Ariane 6, and probably Soyuz 5 and others, day one has already passed. Not too late for a reset, IMO, but quickly becoming so.Nah. It's mostly a mindset problem. For some, systems engineering suggests a "larger turning radius" for the LV "battleship".
even if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
So we're straining at gnats again. A 0.6 mT sat at earth's L1 point. Whee!Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
If you widen out from 2017, F9 did launch DSCOVR.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2017/11/20/jpg/epic_1b_20171120054200.jpg
And - well - heavy, RSN.
Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.
You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.
Didn't give a full and detailed list, nor are all of Ariane 5's capabilities for missions and the leadership position it hold well known.Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
This is true for Atlas, but not so for Ariane 5, the latter mainly launches communications satellites, with a few Galileo, planetary/cislunar/large NSS is very few and far between.
You're taking a very long route to basically say the same thing... Plus some added psychology that doesn't add any value.Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.
You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.Didn't give a full and detailed list, nor are all of Ariane 5's capabilities for missions and the leadership position it hold well known.Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
This is true for Atlas, but not so for Ariane 5, the latter mainly launches communications satellites, with a few Galileo, planetary/cislunar/large NSS is very few and far between.
They know them, and won't accept a launch that exceeds them. As any provider does. As SX does.
If you ask for a mission bid that is outside proven capability, the provider will tell you that its not currently possible. They will also tell you a eventual means by which they may work up to such a mission in the fullness of time, and likely by performing other missions to augment capabilities. We're talking years, possibly decades. They may also alter the mission in ways to have a desired outcome through proven capabilities.
To do otherwise would be foolish.
This does not diminish any provider. Just addresses that there are limits/scope present one works within.
If you ask for a mission bid that is outside proven capability, the provider will tell you that its not currently possible. They will also tell you a eventual means by which they may work up to such a mission in the fullness of time, and likely by performing other missions to augment capabilities. We're talking years, possibly decades. They may also alter the mission in ways to have a desired outcome through proven capabilities.An interesting question would be what would be the reaction at the DoD if ULA or SX said (doesn't matter why) "We're not doing this anymore. We'll launch the contracts we have with you and our other customers but we're walking away. No new business."
To do otherwise would be foolish.
This does not diminish any provider. Just addresses that there are limits/scope present one works within.
Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.
You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.
No, you entirely miss the point. Perhaps because you need to.
A leader must address more than a subset of launch capabilities. Because you never know when that particular capability will be required. A leader cannot be just a niche provider.
...
(You are proving to me that you are beginning to "get it".)Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.
You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.
No, you entirely miss the point. Perhaps because you need to.
A leader must address more than a subset of launch capabilities. Because you never know when that particular capability will be required. A leader cannot be just a niche provider.
...
There is no question that Atlas V and Ariane 5 have traditionally carried the highest dollar payloads and that because of their impeccable launch records and long-established 'leadership' positions. Similar track record would make AJR the 'industry leader' in rocket engines.
Much of this 'leadership' is based on an industry that reached stasis (stagnation to most observers) and thus is highly resistant to change (see Block Buy which placed most of this decade's NSS launches with one provider) or very long lead selection of the launch provider (see JWST).Careful with the "stagnation" and "highly resistant to change" as it is too nonspecific, bordering on the worst to claim.
Most definitions of leadership include the aspect of 'followership.' In the launch industry, now that it appears to be moving again, are the followers emulating the Atlas V/Ariane 5 model? Are new vehicles choosing AJR engines? Which of these 'leaders' are advancing the state of the art in rocketry? Who are their followers (not traditional customers only)?You follow when the lead breaks a certain path. Realize that Shuttle was an example of a long, hard, proven ... false path.
Falcon 9 (soon FH) are gaining ascendancy and capability quite rapidly. The most flexible/nimble customers are following their lead to lower cost and reusable rockets. And major launch providers across the globe are following, too, but from a distance and time lag that demonstrates the inertia of the launch industry.No - not at all.
2019 will present an opportunity for Phase 2 NSS launches to be openly competed (as will this year's handful of Phase 1A offerings, though many are 'just' GPS-IIIs). That competition plus the ongoing competition on the commercial side will demonstrate who is a niche/boutique provider and who leads the US/global launch industry.Nope, not at all.
Minor nitpick. Interplanetary and research launches are THE niche market. Commercial sats are the opposite, they form the majority of launches. So ULA/Ariane are the niche providers, not SpaceX.You are speaking of market segmentation, which is meant for economic comparison.
I'm not going to argue whether that makes a change to any leadership - they are very different markets with different requirements, and you can have leaders in both.
Minor nitpick. Interplanetary and research launches are THE niche market. Commercial sats are the opposite, they form the majority of launches. So ULA/Ariane are the niche providers, not SpaceX.You are speaking of market segmentation, which is meant for economic comparison.
I am speaking in the context of leadership of industry, where all segments need to be present for the consideration of leadership.
(Space launch isn't a "real" market because it is too small in numbers, thus being a category or segment leader is nonsensically small. Remember that markets work by statistics in the hundreds minimally per sample, not ones.)
Absolutely.Minor nitpick. Interplanetary and research launches are THE niche market. Commercial sats are the opposite, they form the majority of launches. So ULA/Ariane are the niche providers, not SpaceX.You are speaking of market segmentation, which is meant for economic comparison.
I am speaking in the context of leadership of industry, where all segments need to be present for the consideration of leadership.
(Space launch isn't a "real" market because it is too small in numbers, thus being a category or segment leader is nonsensically small. Remember that markets work by statistics in the hundreds minimally per sample, not ones.)
"Quantity has a quality all its own"
If SpaceX can do 30 launches next year, I don't think there's any doubt they're the industry leader even if they couldn't do somethings like Vertical Integration.If they do 30 next year, all others will be on short rations, and the effects of reuse will be un-ignorable as a consequence of space launch.
600 years on and it seems we still have "condottieri" of the 21st century.
The current administration, even more so than the former, has an interest in commercialization of "national security". This means taking it out of the direct purview of agencies and placing it, its management and oversight, in private hands, sometimes with little/no scrutiny.
Under the guise of being cheap, it also is easier to manipulate to justify your own "confirmation bias", which is exactly what is desired at the moment. Also, leakage into the commercial sector and use for political games becomes more possible, the further it is from the guise of duty to country. Which should concern all more than it appears to at the moment.
To illustrate the point in a related manner, a recent death of a soldier in Niger was directly traceable to commercial extraction with no viable backup/cover. We left a man behind to horrible end. It was the whole universe lost to that one, for all the wrong reasons.
The reasons for control, chain of custody, and chain of command come in the compromises/consequences of security.
As to "national", its more about indigenous source to not be beholden to another. As well as economic results of maintaining a key industrial capability and its share of the global economy. However, for this look to JSF "good and bad".Highly appropriate to Arianespace and the whole history of European LV development.
QuoteTurning the question on its head. Knowing that recovery and reuse is possible why would you not design in R&R friendly features to your new booster design from day one? Not necessarily for immediate use but available once its flight qualified for you target market.Because it interferes with the direct costing of your narrow mission, because you cannot "unwind" things that you need from things the way they've been done in the past.
So you separate the two in a modern context, get that to work to do your mission, then examine how to make it viable in a actual, bidded cost environment where you are competing at a like level. Which is what Vulcan and Ariane 6 are about.
Which is why you can't do "R&R friendly features in your new booster design from day one", you need to "unwind" first. Which is why we are here, no surprise.
Why is it important to be a leader?
To get those accomplishments took decades and hard work to maintain, also dealing with a certain aspect of terror in potentially losing it. Watching someone else bumble along fecklessly and always appear golden, where disaster might be in the next step, dripping arrogance and condescension,
This is a rookie business mistake, and ULA will not be the first to make it. GM thought Japan could only make entry level cars. US Steel thought foreign entrants could only make rebar and other less demanding alloys.Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success.Of course you can argue that the mantle of leadership has not passed yet. But the signs are on the wall....
Exactly so. This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.This is a rookie business mistake, and ULA will not be the first to make it. GM thought Japan could only make entry level cars. US Steel thought foreign entrants could only make rebar and other less demanding alloys.Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
The problem is that it's easier for the low-cost, high volume entrant to improve their capability, than for the high-cost, low volume entrant to lower their prices. It's a standard business school study (https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation):QuoteEntrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success.Of course you can argue that the mantle of leadership has not passed yet. But the signs are on the wall....
Why is it important to be a leader?Thank you. Your concise comment (really good habit you have here) puts the finger on it.
When you are not satisfied with the status quo or have a vision for the future that is not happening with existing structures (as Bert & I put it, "You can't get there from here..."), then you must become a leader -- or shut it."To challenge leadership." Yes.
The only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .Nope. Just one non-LEO, non-GTO mission. Not enough to earn the confidence Atlas/Ariane has in doing more capable missions yet.
I'd take bumbling and feckless over 'leadership'.One spends billions on certain payloads. So you don't think being responsible in launching them ... matters? How thoughtful.
And just out of interest, where is this arrogance and condescension? I see it from over zealous fans, but there is little SpaceX do about them!Perhaps ... in their remarks concerning flight/payload/test risks prior? Or in like kind exchanges with equally arrogant and condescending BO?
This is a rookie business mistake, and ULA will not be the first to make it. GM thought Japan could only make entry level cars. US Steel thought foreign entrants could only make rebar and other less demanding alloys.
The problem is that it's easier for the low-cost, high volume entrant to improve their capability, than for the high-cost, low volume entrant to lower their prices. It's a standard business school study (https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation):You didn't have to go over the top, so you're addressing the "lack of competitive response" with a sledgehammer.QuoteEntrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success.
Of course you can argue that the mantle of leadership has not passed yet. But the signs are on the wall....No argument that in demonstrating/executing the vision they're bucking for it. Any can see that's the intent.
Exactly so. This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.Still missing the point. The prior leader sets the storyline of what it means to be leader (cf my post WRT "bumbling" et al), while the challenger makes a counter that it uses to replace that narrative by pushing it out of all, not some, of its areas. Like a huge wrestler unsettling and throwing down an opponent. Obvious and total.
For years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.
For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.
Exactly so. This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.Still missing the point. The prior leader sets the storyline of what it means to be leader (cf my post WRT "bumbling" et al), while the challenger makes a counter that it uses to replace that narrative by pushing it out of all, not some, of its areas. Like a huge wrestler unsettling and throwing down an opponent. Obvious and total.QuoteFor years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.
For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.
FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.
Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".
Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.
Closest in retail right now is Walmart in pivoting from rapacious consumption of middle American communities it mined out and left high and dry, to an all out application of all/any technology to "me too" Amazon to grab a fraction of its market share, so they might eventually improve upon it.
While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch, others are still considering it.
FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.Completely OT but I am curious. Hindsight is always 20/20 but at the time did (what became) Amazon stand out or was it Yet Another Web Retailer?
Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".
Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.Indeed. People forget as a challenger you can choose your initial battleground, while an incumbent has to fight any (and all) positions. However if you want to take over you have to eventually occupy those as well.
While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch, others are still considering it.Can you unpack that a little? "Europe is lost" but at the same time committed to "grasp market share in space launch?"
Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.
Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.
Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.That's a very fair point WRT to reuse. SX's discovery that engine TVC did not give sufficient control authority basically demonstrated that all proposals to retrofit stage recovery to existing stages were essentially rubbish.
Even ULA and Arianne's current attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.
Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.
The fact remains if I do something you can't, and the customers we both pursue want that then like it or not I am in a leadership position WRT that thing. If NASA wants a probe to go anywhere the first people they call probably won't be SX. Yes it's clear SX want to be leaders in all markets, but they are not there yet.Quote from: meekGeeLeadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.That's a very fair point WRT to reuse. SX's discovery that engine TVC did not give sufficient control authority basically demonstrated that all proposals to retrofit stage recovery to existing stages were essentially rubbish.
Even ULA and Arianne's current attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.
This point "Bruno is revisting reuse" should not be missed. (And the fact that vehicle strategy allows for it.)Exactly so. This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.Still missing the point. The prior leader sets the storyline of what it means to be leader (cf my post WRT "bumbling" et al), while the challenger makes a counter that it uses to replace that narrative by pushing it out of all, not some, of its areas. Like a huge wrestler unsettling and throwing down an opponent. Obvious and total.QuoteFor years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.
For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.
FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.
Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".
Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.
Closest in retail right now is Walmart in pivoting from rapacious consumption of middle American communities it mined out and left high and dry, to an all out application of all/any technology to "me too" Amazon to grab a fraction of its market share, so they might eventually improve upon it.
While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch, others are still considering it.
I don't think there's much point to be missed.
ULA (and its parents) and Arianne (and its parents) are in denial. They blame everyone but themselves. The truth is that they simply don't have what it takes to change the trajectory.
Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.That's a bit harsh. Understandable given how passions run.
Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.
Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.Leadership won by challengers, yes.
Even ULA and Arianne's current attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.Omits drenching influence of Shuttle as distraction. Heard deafeningly seconds after SX hinted at landing booster.
So clearly there is a leader, and there's reluctant followers.Europe side knows the economics cold, but has carefully calculated it's only course is to need to respond with a financial disaster.
BO, otoh, is an enthusiastic and maybe capable follower, but that's yet to be seen.
Short OT no more after please. When people were disappointed that Amazon didn't shift over to granting dividends or doing momentum in the stock market juicing its value, they decided to bad mouth it as a "mail order sales" company they were tricked into buying (circa 2003 or so). The funny thing was they kept on buying the stock, Bezos used this as a debt carry and financed retail expansion off of it, going wide into retailing (he got out of online auctions too). He then relentlessly accumulated market share til reaching tipping point a few years back.FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.Completely OT but I am curious. Hindsight is always 20/20 but at the time did (what became) Amazon stand out or was it Yet Another Web Retailer?
Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".
Correct. All ULA knows that cold. Wish that many here did too.Quote from: Space Ghost 1962Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.Indeed. People forget as a challenger you can choose your initial battleground, while an incumbent has to fight any (and all) positions. However if you want to take over you have to eventually occupy those as well.
Sure. Europe won't adapt to retain market share just retain marginal indigenous launch, thus "lost" to it and own industrial base.Quote from: Space Ghost 1962While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch, others are still considering it.Can you unpack that a little? "Europe is lost" but at the same time committed to "grasp market share in space launch?"
I note ULA does seem to be hampered by its parents treating it as a cash cow. To extend the metaphor a bit more if you keep choking the Goose that lays the golden eggs don't be too surprised if you end up with a dead goose on your hands. :("Crawl walk run." Vulcan BE4 / Centaur V / Booster Reuse? Keep in mind Bruno's penchant for rapidly moving development.
Exactly.Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.
Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.
The fact remains if I do something you can't, and the customers we both pursue want that then like it or not I am in a leadership position WRT that thing. If NASA wants a probe to go anywhere the first people they call probably won't be SX. Yes it's clear SX want to be leaders in all markets, but they are not there yet.
Careful. Jim's still claiming just more props and it'll work. He may be right. BO thinks so to.Quote from: meekGeeLeadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.That's a very fair point WRT to reuse. SX's discovery that engine TVC did not give sufficient control authority basically demonstrated that all proposals to retrofit stage recovery to existing stages were essentially rubbish.
Even ULA and Arianne's current attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.Everyone wants to see Block 5.
SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.Aren't you confusing vision with leadership? I can have a vision of teleportation but has nothing to do with leadership in achieving it.
That's a leadership stance.
...
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.
SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.Aren't you confusing vision with leadership? I can have a vision of teleportation but has nothing to do with leadership in achieving it.
That's a leadership stance.
As clear as mud. ???SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.Aren't you confusing vision with leadership? I can have a vision of teleportation but has nothing to do with leadership in achieving it.
That's a leadership stance.
No, they implemented the first two already, and are absolutely executing on a plan for the third. Industry is reacting to the first two, and most of the old industry simply is unable to digest the third.
In contrast, how's your teleportation project going? (Hoping for a surprise answer here...)Didn't you notice? I was standing right in front of you! Sheesh!
Improved reuse <> improved reliability of payload delivery.
Citation needed.
Seriously doubt your assumption, stated as fact, is true. They've certainly improved many features that make repeated reuse more possible. Findings like the blade cracking have been fixed (or about to be).
Improved reuse <> improved reliability of payload delivery.The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.
Citation needed.
Seriously doubt your assumption, stated as fact, is true. They've certainly improved many features that make repeated reuse more possible. Findings like the blade cracking have been fixed (or about to be).
As a customer I don't care if SX gets its stage back. I care it got the US to the right altitude, velocity and attitude for it to do its job and get my payload to its target orbit.
[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket. We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early. And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion. It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back. And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back. But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here. We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.
...
A leader must address more than a subset of launch capabilities. Because you never know when that particular capability will be required. A leader cannot be just a niche provider.
And this is in part why FH and Dragon 2 are being done. To increase the spanning set of capabilities, as SX chooses to approach a leadership position. Their choice, not mine, not others.
It has taken a long time for others to establish a leadership position, as they have built and proven leadership. There list of accomplished missions, by scope and not frequency, is how others assess them.
JWST will launch on Ariane 5. It was designed with this in mind. Never will it launch on a FH. Why is that? Because of agreement to use a leadership provider who could bring off such a launch. Perhaps some day a similar mission might be able to be done on a FH, but the skills and experience and flight history isn't there, which is even more important than the vehicle capabilities to even make it possible.
...
The only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .Nope. Just one non-LEO, non-GTO mission. Not enough to earn the confidence Atlas/Ariane has in doing more capable missions yet.
I would compare by payload mass orbited.
Large interplanetary and large NSS launches (read: very expensive payloads) are a very small market segment that doesn't pay all that well compared to HSF support and commsats. The payloads/trajectories also aren't amenable to reuse. That's why they haven't been a major priority for SpaceX - they can get a bigger piece of the pie with other launches while making more progress with reuse. Thus the focus on other customers.Funny you should say that.
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.
But the raw numbers are.
15+ F9 launched from the last one going bang.
80 Ariane 5 without a mishap despite being completely expendable.
60+ Atlas V without a mishap despite being completely expendable.
Improved reuse <> improved reliability of payload delivery.You appear to be struggling with the idea of a qualified statement.
Here's Gwen Shotwell telling you that you're wrong (from her speech at the 2016 FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference):Quote[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket. We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early. And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion. It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back. And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back. But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here. We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.
So farshould have alerted you to the idea.
I would compare by payload mass orbited. The result shows different leaders in different categories, at least for 2017 to date. Ariane 5 leads in mass to GTO/beyond LEO (~48 tonnes to ~36 tonnes for Falcon 9, ~25 tonnes for Proton, and maybe only ~17 tonnes for Atlas 5 and ~16 tonnes for DF-5 based CZ). Falcon 9 leads a bit in LEO mass (~59 tonnes compared to 52 tonnes for R-7 and ~11+ tonnes for Atlas 5). For its part, R-7 has accounted for all three of the crewed launches this year, so there is a third category "leader", Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 being the other two.Quoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
No launches, worldwide, have gone beyond earth orbit this year to date, which might be considered a fourth category. Atlas 5 and Proton accounted for the two heliocentric launches in 2016, and Proton's payload weighed more than the Atlas 5 payload. If you aggregate the last 5 or 10 years, Atlas 5 leads in solar orbit launches.
Now, if this comparison is extended back a few years, a different picture emerges. Here are/were your "world leaders".
Category Leaders, Total Mass or No. Crew Launched
LEO >LEO Solar Crew
--------------------------------------------
2010 R7 Proton H-2A STS
2011 R7 Ariane 5 Atlas 5 STS
2012 R7 Ariane 5 - R7
2013 R7 Ariane 5 Atlas 5 R7
2014 R7 Ariane 5 H-2A R7
2015 R7 Ariane 5 - R7
2016 R7 Ariane 5 Proton R7
2017 Falcon 9 Ariane 5 - R7
--------------------------------------------
- Ed Kyle
Large interplanetary and large NSS launches (read: very expensive payloads) are a very small market segment that doesn't pay all that well compared to HSF support and commsats. The payloads/trajectories also aren't amenable to reuse. That's why they haven't been a major priority for SpaceX - they can get a bigger piece of the pie with other launches while making more progress with reuse. Thus the focus on other customers.Funny you should say that.
Shotwell stated that NSS is a key market for any serious LV mfg because it's pretty large.
NSS is a small market in terms of launches but a big one in terms of value, and the customers (DoD, NRO) place a premium on their payloads not getting blown up.
There's a big difference in launch energies for the three payload categories. That is why I did the categories. 6 tonnes to GTO requires a lot more work than 6 tonnes to LEO, so a direct comparison isn't correct.
Here's Gwen Shotwell telling you that you're wrong (from her speech at the 2016 FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference):My point was not that it won't happen. It was that it does not seemed to have happened yetQuote[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket. We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early. And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion. It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back. And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back. But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here. We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.
Sure. Europe won't adapt to retain market share just retain marginal indigenous launch, thus "lost" to it and own industrial base.Yes, it looks like A6 is going to happen and the results are not looking good :(
It slips through their hands due to lack of competitive responds/base. Others not Europe haven't committed yet.
Hence my questions about wheather ULA is committed to engine module reuse or might reconsider full stage recovery?
"Crawl walk run." Vulcan BE4 / Centaur V / Booster Reuse? Keep in mind Bruno's penchant for rapidly moving development.
I am extremely wary of arguing with Jim but that would imply that the SX design team had simply missed that option.
Careful. Jim's still claiming just more props and it'll work. He may be right. BO thinks so to.
We are told it will be the ultimate flowering of the F9 architecture, except Shotwell mentions she expects the FH will have at least a 2nd spin of the design, and was still willing to look at cross feed if someone needs a 60t+ payload. IDK maybe that would help with US recovery as well.
Everyone wants to see Block 5.
Actually there is a way that Jim is both right and wrong.Jim is always right about "it".
The only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .Nope. Just one non-LEO, non-GTO mission. Not enough to earn the confidence Atlas/Ariane has in doing more capable missions yet.
QuoteI'd take bumbling and feckless over 'leadership'.One spends billions on certain payloads. So you don't think being responsible in launching them ... matters? How thoughtful.
QuoteAnd just out of interest, where is this arrogance and condescension? I see it from over zealous fans, but there is little SpaceX do about them!Perhaps ... in their remarks concerning flight/payload/test risks prior? Or in like kind exchanges with equally arrogant and condescending BO?
...arrogant and condescending is (was) old space to new. Recall CEO Gass, or many old school on this forum.Yeah, but uncomfortable as it is to watch, it is this attitude that drove the inaction back when action could still made a difference.
Interesting how some try to turn the phrase.
SES, Bulsatcom, NASA CRS, Iridium. Who's next?
@LouScheffer: In addition to the mission-specific increase in margins, you also get a margin increase because a reusable rocket is expected to address a more general market than does a dial-a-rocket. This might not be so relevant with the biggest GTO launches where the rocket is near its performance limits, but it could be substantial additional margin factor on LEO flights. For a majority of its flights, Falcon 9 Block 5 will have huge margins, as far as these things go.You can get this margin with dial-a-rockets, too, by buying a configuration bigger than the minimum one that meets your requirements. I've heard it stated that national security payloads sometime do this. It's like buying insurance against performance shortfalls.
Ah, we are talking at cross purposes about what "it" is.Quote from: John smith 19My point was not that it won't happen. It was that it does not seemed to have happened yet
QuoteIt may be that government need splits off from commercial forever at this point, because the lack of need/desire/budget to compete forever rents the economic fabric globally. And that you have a smaller handful of providers with commercial market share at a fraction of the price of dedicated national ones, who are painfully subsidized to maintain minimal flight rate.
How long can a boutique provider of expendable NSS launches survive in a world in which BFR and NG are flying frequently with demonstrated reliability and low cost?
Excellent post. And (belated) welcome to the forum!QuoteSES, Bulsatcom, NASA CRS, Iridium. Who's next?
abaddon, I appreciate your note so much that I'm using my first post (after lurking for a long time) to respond.
As much fun as it is to debate our thoughts on reuse, and competitors' thoughts on reuse (really I enjoy it!), customers will speak through their actions. They will choose SpaceX or not, they will be willing to fly on reused boosters or not.
Perhaps this thread could benefit from a running list of actual data:
Date Customer Name Pertinent Event
--------- ---------------- -----------------
Where a pertinent event might be
* Announcement of plan to accept reused boosters
* Customer comment they will never use reused boosters, or not until X time
* Link to article quoting customers about experience with reuse
* Flights of reused boosters
* Responses to flight successes/failures that affect customer view of reuse
It could be interesting to see a flow of customer decisions over time.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?
That's the disconnect.
My apologies for not making my PoV clearer. I had thought it obvious from the context of my comments, but obviously not. I will have to work on making them more comprehensible to you in future.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?
That's the disconnect.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?
Long runs of consecutive successes are, of course, required for a launch system to be considered reliable. They are not, however, indicators or guarantees of a 100% success rate. R7 once ran up a string of 133 consecutive successes, then did it again a few years later. F7 still ranks among the world's most reliable launch vehicles. Nevertheless, R7 failures still occur.
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?
That's the disconnect.
My apologies for not making my PoV clearer. I had thought it obvious from the context of my comments, but obviously not. I will have to work on making them more comprehensible to you in future.
And your disconnect is that since the current build of Falcon became current, they have 16 of 16 successes.
That's 100% success rate.
To the extent there are known unaddressed issue with the current build, which may be legacy from previous builds, you have a fair point to make. So, no known point to make.
- Ed Kyle
I'm talking about the actual flight record of F9's. So far that's what 16 flights from last explosion?
And because of this F9 might be able to acquire Category 3 certification from NASA. Not sure NRO and USAF have the same standards, but they were looking at collaborating with NASA on this. Bottom line the explosion at this point is probably a non-issue.
Certification is what matters, and we presently don't know what the certification matrix will be for a reusable F9 or a FH. This is what will tell us what future missions might be available and how these customers truly feel about reuse.
EDIT: WAG they are waiting for reusable F9 Block 5 to get Category 3 certification. This could help getting the same certification for FH and BFR easier.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/935910448821669888QuoteNASA’s Bill Gerstenmaier confirms SpaceX has approved use of previously-flown booster (from June’s CRS-13 cargo launch) for upcoming space station resupply launch set for Dec. 8.
It's probably NASA that gave the approval and the booster was from CRS-11, but here it is.
Ultimately, NASA will consider flying on used Falcon 9s on a case-by-case basis going forward, the space agency said.
So, while it's true that they could have kept going back to delta-cert the vehicle I think they are just waiting to Block 5 and doing it all then.
Perhaps this thread could benefit from a running list of actual data:
Date Customer Name Pertinent Event
--------- ---------------- -----------------
Where a pertinent event might be
* Announcement of plan to accept reused boosters
* Customer comment they will never use reused boosters, or not until X time
* Link to article quoting customers about experience with reuse
* Flights of reused boosters
* Responses to flight successes/failures that affect customer view of reuse
It could be interesting to see a flow of customer decisions over time.
Date (y/m/d) | Organisation | Event |
15/06/17 | SES | M. Halliwell says SES want to re-use F9 booster (http://spacenews.com/spacex-early-adopter-ses-ready-to-reuse-falcon-9-%C2%AD-for-the-right-price/) |
16/08/30 | SES | 1st booster re-use agreement announced (SES-11) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34057.msg1574781#msg1574781) |
17/03/15 | USAF | Claire Leon: no plans for reuse, might consider in future (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42527.msg1654941#msg1654941) |
17/03/30 | SES | SES-10 launch: 1st F9 booster re-use (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/) |
17/03/30 | SES | M Halliwell@post SES-10 launch press conference: 2 of 3 further SES 2017 launches likely to reuse boosters (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-new-spaceflight-successful-core-reuse/) |
17/04/11 | NASA | Dan Hartmann (Deputy Manager ISS Program): Just started discussing reuse; may not be 2017, but shortly after (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1665907#msg1665907) |
17/04/06 | USAF | Gen Raymond (Head of Space Command) says USAF would be comfortable with reuse (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1664669#msg1664668) |
17/05/05 | Bulsatcom | Announcement that BulgariaSat-1 will launch on a re-used booster (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1674922#msg1674922) |
17/06/15 | Iridium | Matt Desch says Iridium would re-use in 2018 (for big discount/schedule improvement) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1691740#msg1691740) |
17/06/23 | Bulsatcom | BulgariaSat-1 launch: 2nd F9 booster re-use (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/spacex-falcon-9-second-flight-bulgariasat-1-mission/) |
17/10/11 | SES | SES-11 launch: 3rd F9 booster re-use (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/falcon-9-second-launch-week-ses-11/) |
17/10/19 | Iridium | Announcement that Iridium NEXT 4 flight will reuse booster (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/iridium-4-flight-proven-falcon-9-rtls-vandenberg-delayed/) |
17/11/29 | NASA | Gerst makes official long-rumoured booster reuse for CRS-13 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44271.msg1754178#msg1754178) |
As is the the 100% rate of Ariane 5 for the last 80+ flights or the Atlas V at 60+
And your disconnect is that since the current build of Falcon became current, they have 16 of 16 successes.
That's 100% success rate.
To the extent there are known unaddressed issue with the current build, which may be legacy from previous builds, you have a fair point to make. So, no known point to make.
You keep saying this, but not a single 2nd stage (the ones that actually exploded) have been inspected post flight. Because 2nd stages are not recovered. So there is no opportunity for reuse to directly improve 2nd stage reliability.exactly the same with both Atlas V and Ariane 5. Yet both have a considerably longer list of successful launches.
First stages have been recovered, and not a single M1D 1st stage has failed.That's the interesting point. ULA and Arianspace have no reuse and have achieved very long runs of successful flights. So far SX have only achieved 16. But neither has visibility of the real effects of flight on the second stage.
So where is the disconnect? You can't criticize reuse for not improving the reliability of expendable hardware.
You CAN criticize the flight record of F9 versus other launchers, but it's not relevant to a reuse thread. Except to maybe show that expendable hardware is less reliable than reusable hardware?Actually give number of flights flown Vs success rate the revers is being demonstrated so far.
Quote from: Norm38You CAN criticize the flight record of F9 versus other launchers, but it's not relevant to a reuse thread. Except to maybe show that expendable hardware is less reliable than reusable hardware?Actually give number of flights flown Vs success rate the revers is being demonstrated so far.
That's what I do not understand.
Bottom line, the F9's failures are fully decoupled from reuse. Where did anyone lead you to believe that the 2nd stage would magically be made more reliable?
“We get the equivalent reliability of the reused booster that we would expect from a new booster,” he said.(Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations.)
As is the the 100% rate of Ariane 5 for the last 80+ flights or the Atlas V at 60+
F9 should be better.
So far it is not.
The Falcon 9 family overall has a success a rate of 94.3 percent, 41.5 successes out of 44 intentions to launch. This includes Amos6 as a failure.If Amos 6 is included, I come up with the following. It seems to me that v1.0 was much different than v1.1 and v1.2, so I've grouped the latter two together for some comparisons. Different engines, different thrust section, etc. We'll have to revisit the Stage 1 reflight numbers in a year or so.
Variant Successes Raw Point 95%
/Failures Rate Estimate C/I
----------------------------------------------
v1.0 4/5 0.80 0.71 0.36-0.98
v1.1 14/15 0.93 0.88 0.68-1.00
v1.2 24/25 0.96 0.93 0.79-1.00
----------------------------------------------
v1.1+1.2 38/40 0.95 0.93 0.83-1.00
v1.1+v1.2
Stg1 Only 40/40 1.00 0.98 0.92-1.00
Stg1 Refly 3/3 1.00 0.80 0.47-1.00
TOTAL 42/45 0.93 0.91 0.81-0.98
Ed Kyle
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Your view of the the two incidents is accepted by most.The Falcon 9 family overall has a success a rate of 94.3 percent, 41.5 successes out of 44 intentions to launch. This includes Amos6 as a failure.If Amos 6 is included, I come up with the following. It seems to me that v1.0 was much different than v1.1 and v1.2, so I've grouped the latter two together for some comparisons. Different engines, different thrust section, etc. We'll have to revisit the Stage 1 reflight numbers in a year or so.
Variant Successes Raw Point 95%
/Failures Rate Estimate C/I
----------------------------------------------
v1.0 4/5 0.80 0.71 0.36-0.98
v1.1 14/15 0.93 0.88 0.68-1.00
v1.2 24/25 0.96 0.93 0.79-1.00
----------------------------------------------
v1.1+1.2 38/40 0.95 0.93 0.83-1.00
v1.1+v1.2
Stg1 Only 40/40 1.00 0.98 0.92-1.00
Stg1 Refly 3/3 1.00 0.80 0.47-1.00
TOTAL 42/45 0.93 0.91 0.81-0.98
Ed Kyle
Again, thanks for a more robust treatment of the statistics. It is clarifying to note that the 3-for-3 success rate of the reused boosters still yield a much lower confidence interval than the numbers that include failures.
Issues:
1) Your call that there is one v1.0 'failure' is a significant judgement call when the primary payload was delivered, and the secondary waved off due to NASA ground rules. There was a very high likelihood that the second stage would have delivered the secondary to proper orbit (90+ percent IIRC) in spite of the booster engine failure on ascent. The ground rule failed, not the rocket. Calling this entire launch a flat failure is inaccurate at best.
2) AMOS was a test procedure failure that destroyed a rocket and payload. That's very bad, or even very stupid, but even the insurance companies didn't call that one a launch failure (since it obviously wasn't).
Changing these two cases or their weighting significantly changes the bottom line*.
Bottom line is that statics tell a subjective tale, not (necessarily) an objective one.
Those who believe otherwise are naive.
Mark Twain (possibly originally by Disraeli):Quote"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
* The change to the bottom line would be in my subjective judgement a much more accurate representation of launcher reliability -- but still subjective.
I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Emphasis mine.I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates (https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html): YYYY-MM-DD.
As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.Emphasis mine.I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates (https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html): YYYY-MM-DD.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.
As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.Emphasis mine.I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates (https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html): YYYY-MM-DD.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.
The months will be designated 0..B of course.As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.Emphasis mine.I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates (https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html): YYYY-MM-DD.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.
So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.
The months will be designated 0..B of course.As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.Emphasis mine.I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates (https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html): YYYY-MM-DD.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.
So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.
Thus: 2017B0
Can't do the year in hex since the whole business of B.C. and A.D. just confuses the hell out of everyone.The months will be designated 0..B of course.As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.Emphasis mine.I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.
Lol. You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date. I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates (https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html): YYYY-MM-DD.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.
So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.
Thus: 2017B0
0x7E1B0 you mean? If we're going hex, might as well do the year too!
Issues:It is objective for me, because I follow a rule. The rule is this. If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure. The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km. The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed). I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons. I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure.
1) Your call that there is one v1.0 'failure' is a significant judgement call when the primary payload was delivered, and the secondary waved off due to NASA ground rules. There was a very high likelihood that the second stage would have delivered the secondary to proper orbit (90+ percent IIRC) in spite of the booster engine failure on ascent. The ground rule failed, not the rocket. Calling this entire launch a flat failure is inaccurate at best.
2) AMOS was a test procedure failure that destroyed a rocket and payload. That's very bad, or even very stupid, but even the insurance companies didn't call that one a launch failure (since it obviously wasn't).
Changing these two cases or their weighting significantly changes the bottom line*.
Bottom line is that statics tell a subjective tale, not (necessarily) an objective one.
Those who believe otherwise are naive.
- Ed Kyle
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule. The rule is this. If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure. The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km. The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed). I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons. I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule. The rule is this. If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure. The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km. The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed). I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons. I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure
By that strict method, surely you would also count all scrubs as launch failures, as they fail to attain the specified orbit.
If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.
Thank you for the feedback on the 1st post summary list.
I’ve hopefully addressed the comments raised. I’ve gone with colouring the launches as they are different from and, IMHO, more significant than many of the other entries. I think it’s also interesting to see how other events and announcements relate to launch dates.
It is objective for me, because I follow a rule. The rule is this. If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.
My only further note would be that I think the purple color is very hard to distinguish from the black of normal text.
http://spacenews.com/glavkosmos-denies-launch-vehicle-caused-cubesat-failures/
So not a launch vehicle failure based on currently-available information.
- Ed Kyle
Working with NASA [on re-use] since Jan. Equivalent risk established. All groups meeting for several months.
2 weeks before launch was when the decision had to be made.
NASA went off on their own to come up with what they wanted to see for Falcon 9 reuse. NASA put on constraints. Only single reflight agreed to. Only a CRS-like mission is where that booster could come from. Decision was made so finely. Re-flgiht Readiness Review (RFRR).
NASA was so late making decision because RFRR came in so only allow official decision.
New booster could have effected the launch date.
Transcript of the Pre-Launch presser:
https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/23433626cb5ff08b0c6ad87ae33e9aeb
Marcia Dunn: Marcia Dunn, Associated Press. For Kirk, if I might. Do you expect your anxiety level to be slightly higher tomorrow, given that this is a reused rocket that you'll be reusing for the first time at NASA?
Kirk Shireman: Every time we launch a rocket, I'm anxious. It's still a dangerous business, so I will be anxious tomorrow. I can tell you a number of things. First off, reusability. The shuttle was reused, we reused the boosters, we reused the main engines. And so the notion of reusability is not new. We did an extensive review, and by we I mean the entire agency. We engaged rocket experts from around the agency, to define, first off, what NASA would like to see in terms of data, and analysis, and testing, and even inspection in between the flights. And then we met with SpaceX and reviewed what they did. And we're very comfortable that the risk posture is not significantly greater than a new booster. The way we look at it, we've retired some risks, some risks are actually less on a re-flown booster, and some risks are actually a little greater, and the net result is about equivalent risk. So we think of it as equivalent risk. Which is not to say zero risk. So we'll be anxious, but I wouldn't say a higher level of anxiety for this reflown booster than a new booster.
James Dean: James Dean, Florida Today. For Kirk Shireman. [...] And regarding reuse, do you also see this as important to the future of spaceflight, reducing costs, the things Jessica mentioned earlier? Or are you really just doing it because SpaceX wants to and you verified that their data looks good?
Kirk Shireman: [...] As for reuse, I think there's no question that reusability, especially reusability without a tremendous amount of hardware replacement, can change the economics of launch, and the reality is that the business of space is dominated by launch costs. Certainly in the human space flight world it's dominated by launch costs. So getting the costs down is important for everyone. It's important for NASA. It's important for the future of human spaceflight. It's important for commerce in space, and so it's certainly a positive thing. So we're very much supportive of this activity. What we need to be careful about is, from a NASA perspective, that we understand the risk. So we get to decide the risk level that we will accept, and we are doing that. SpaceX has been very cooperative with us in answering all of our questions and sharing data with us. We've even had people participate in some of the testing. So I think the effort going on between NASA and SpaceX is excellent with respect to reuse, and we certainly see that as an avenue for reduced costs in the future.
Chris Gebhardt: Chris Gebhardt with NasaSpaceFlight. I'm wondering, for Kirk and maybe Jessica, if you could talk a little bit more about the decision for the flight-proven booster? When was that decision made? It was only confirmed last week, so I'm wondering, was there a contingency plan to use a new core if NASA had decided to not to use the re-flown booster?
Jessica Jensen: So I guess I can start with that one. So we've been working with NASA since January of this year on the process for insuring that a flight-proven booster is of equivalent risk to a new booster. And so like Kirk mentioned, we've been having technical meetings with NASA for each different group. So for example, dynamics on the vehicle, propulsion, avionics, each of those different groups have been meeting with their NASA counterparts for several months. So we've been working at this for many, many months. And as we get closer to the launch date, the way it works, as you know we can have turnaround times of roughly two weeks. So about two weeks before launch is the absolute, drop dead of when a decision needs to be made to not impact the launch date.
Kirk Shireman: I wanted to add to that, if I could. [...]. But in terms of reusability, absolutely, we have. What I described earlier, NASA went off on their own and said hey, if we were going to fly a Falcon 9, reuse a Falcon 9, what would we like to see in terms of analysis, testing, inspection between the flights and so on. And so we did that. We laid it out ourselves, independently. We then met with SpaceX and went through their data and their certification package. We put on some constraints, by the way, I didn't mention earlier. We agreed to a single re-flight, and at this point we've agreed to a single re-flight of a booster that's flown to a benign mission, like ours. Like a CRS-1 flight. So we only agreed to a single re-flight, and a Low Earth Orbit mission for the first launch. The reason the decision was made so finely is, like we said, there's the general certification. And then there's the actual inspection of the booster. And then finally there's a review conducted by SpaceX, a Re-flight Readiness Review. Think of it as a Flight Readiness Review for that particular booster. And so NASA was part of the generic certification. NASA reviewed the inspection plan in between the flights. And we were waiting for that Re-flight Readiness Review to be complete, to go over all the issues, and make sure at that point we were still comfortable with the risk level for this flight. And that's why the actual official decision. The letter, we sent a contract letter to SpaceX here, I think a week and a half ago, two Wednesdays ago, if I'm not mistaken, I can look that up if you need it, but very, very recently. At some point in time, we knew that there would be a change. We told SpaceX that we were heading down this path, but we weren't ready to commit until that final Re-flight Readiness Review was conducted, and that we understood that if we changed position, if we changed paths and used a new booster, it might affect the launch date. SpaceX understood, and we were partnering all along. And so we were waiting for that final decision, that final Re-flight Readiness Review, and then NASA decided and sent the letter.
And another one, Canadian eh:
https://spaceq.ca/radarsat-constellation-mission-to-fly-on-refurbished-spacex-falcon-9-rocket/
There are two inflection points that I’m interested in seeing: 1) the point where customers ask SpaceX for used before SpaceX asks them and 2) the point where no one cares whether it’s used or not and it’s just a ride to space. It may be difficult to know exactly when we cross each of those but they seem like significant landmarks of the shift in thinking about reuse.
I suspect you’re right that it has occurred, but since it’s not confirmed and it seems an important one I included it. It also strikes me as nothing short of amazing as to how fast this has become normalized. It was just 9 months ago that we were watching the first reuse happen. It almost seems old hat at this point. And it seems to have rapidly gained momentum amongst customers.There are two inflection points that I’m interested in seeing: 1) the point where customers ask SpaceX for used before SpaceX asks them and 2) the point where no one cares whether it’s used or not and it’s just a ride to space. It may be difficult to know exactly when we cross each of those but they seem like significant landmarks of the shift in thinking about reuse.
I suspect your 1st inflection point has happened. It’s not clear from this report (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1695202#msg1695202) in June whether customers approached SoaceX first or not. But if they hadn’t by then I’d be surprised if it hadn’t happened since, especially with more reports since June of schedule benefits and NASA on-board.
The important distinction to me is re-use of boosters that went to LEO. We haven't seen a re-used GTO flight or a third flight of the same booster. Those are important milestones that hopefully will happen in 2018. They may require block 5.I agree those are important technical milestones. Given the thread is about customer views I was focused on the customer-related milestones. I would think this first LEO-LEO booster is a candidate for a third reflight but I won’t be surprised if both of your scenarios wait until Block 5 sometime next year.
The important distinction to me is re-use of boosters that went to LEO. We haven't seen a re-used GTO flight or a third flight of the same booster. Those are important milestones that hopefully will happen in 2018. They may require block 5.The booster that previously flew during the Thaicom-8 mission is going to fly as a Falcon Heavy side booster, so this is going to be the first GTO reflight, not as a Falcon 9 though. Anyway, the supply of once-flown LEO mission boosters is limited, and with more and more customers willing to use a flight-proven booster, I think they may want to fly a GTO booster for the second time or a double-LEO booster for the third time even before introducing Block 5. And I'm almost sure I've seen it mentioned that Block 4 may actually fly more than twice.
The important distinction to me is re-use of boosters that went to LEO. We haven't seen a re-used GTO flight or a third flight of the same booster. Those are important milestones that hopefully will happen in 2018. They may require block 5.A distinct possibility is a test launch for 2nd stage reuse or launching the first SpaceX Starlink satellites. Probably OR.
I suspect you’re right that it has occurred, but since it’s not confirmed and it seems an important one I included it. It also strikes me as nothing short of amazing as to how fast this has become normalized. It was just 9 months ago that we were watching the first reuse happen. It almost seems old hat at this point. And it seems to have rapidly gained momentum amongst customers.There are two inflection points that I’m interested in seeing: 1) the point where customers ask SpaceX for used before SpaceX asks them and 2) the point where no one cares whether it’s used or not and it’s just a ride to space. It may be difficult to know exactly when we cross each of those but they seem like significant landmarks of the shift in thinking about reuse.
I suspect your 1st inflection point has happened. It’s not clear from this report (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42685.msg1695202#msg1695202) in June whether customers approached SoaceX first or not. But if they hadn’t by then I’d be surprised if it hadn’t happened since, especially with more reports since June of schedule benefits and NASA on-board.
Ashby: recalling being in a meeting 10 years ago with Air Force Space Command Gen. Chilton, along with AFRL and NASA personnel, who concluded that flyback boosters were not viable. Technology and private funding changed that. #NSRC2017https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/942789272507158533
Sorry but that's Incorrect. The technology is not all that revolutionary, it's been an engineering issue more than anything. And in terms of money, private reusability systems will cost a fraction of what NASA spends on just a capsule! Reuse is really about VISION and GUTS.https://twitter.com/JonathanOC/status/942790926115643392
If they are running out of cores to be reused and about to go into Block V? Could they say we can pay full price if your able to recover & reuse it. we could get 10% credit that could be used on a future flight or something.They aren't running out of cores to be reused.
If they are running out of cores to be reused and about to go into Block V? Could they say we can pay full price if your able to recover & reuse it. we could get 10% credit that could be used on a future flight or something.They aren't running out of cores to be reused.
They have too many cores available for reuse, and Block V which seems to be close to maiden launch which should support 10 relaunches with refurb so quick it should eventually be done in a day or two (however the first few Block V refurbs will likely be longer to be triple sure everything is performing as designed).
Block III boosters that are doing their 2nd flight aren't valuable enough to keep at this point.
Block IVs might fly 3 times. Maybe.
In my view the main use for 2nd flights of Block IVs will be to perform expendable missions that can't be performed by Block V with ASDS landing. Save the Block Vs as much as possible for reuse. Block IV does have more performance than Block IIIs, and likely will be launched with Block V upper stages which should have more performance too.
Shotwell said the only FH to ever fly with non-Block 5 cores will be the maiden launch.
Shotwell said the only FH to ever fly with non-Block 5 cores will be the maiden launch.
STP-2 should fly three new cores* and possibly keep flying the same three on FHs down the road. I think we'll all be surprised to find how few Block 5 cores it takes to fly a 30-launch manifest. My guess is three for FH, and a pair of F9 at each of three three pads. About ten total... easily fab'd by mid-2018.
* assumes the maiden launch goes well enough to not need repeating.
I think 3 F9 first stages per launch site is more likely as at times one stage will have to be undergoing its every 10 launches refurbishment. But 2018 may continue to see a skew in the S1:S2 ratio (we have no hard evidence, nothing except inference but it surely has already started)
@IridiumBoss with the move to allow using flight proven cores, would Iridium now be open to being the first company to use reused Fairings?
We're open to anything if it can be proven to improve risk, schedule and cost. We're about getting our amazing next generation network in space as fast and safely as we can, not creating history for its own sake (though happy to do that this week with our fourth launch)!
I’m hoping someone can find info on another customer electing to reuse?
A good sign:
SpaceX Opens Media Accreditation for PAZ Mission
HAWTHORNE, Calif. – December 22, 2017. Media accreditation is now open for SpaceX's PAZ mission from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The launch is targeted for no earlier than late January 2018.
A flight-proven Falcon 9 will deliver PAZ to a low-Earth orbit (LEO).
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.
ESA member states are encouraged to "fly Ariane" but it is not an obligation. In fact, not even all ESA missions fly Ariane.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.
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.Disagree a bit.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.It's the idea of a "comfort zone" and how close SX have been to delivering bing in that zone. The whole idea of putting a "toe in the water."
As always, corrections and additions welcome.
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
[notAviewIagreeWith]
Doesn't count, it's just t-shirts and Tang.
[/notAviewIagreeWith]
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
[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."
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
[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...
I agree that the stability of Block 5 is needed for USAF certification. 2018 should see many fly, and refly, so certification is soon to follow.
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
[notAviewIagreeWith]
Doesn't count, it's just t-shirts and Tang.
[/notAviewIagreeWith]
What is controversial about ISS program (and C3PO?) having a higher tolerance for risk in supply missions than LSP generally does? They had very explicitly defined CRS missions as all Category D payloads, though some trunk payloads may have bumped this up on specific flights. But, I actually thought that was one of the more interesting tidbits during the recent CRS-13 prelaunch briefing. The ISS program deputy (can't remember his name), talked about their process to determine what data they wanted to see from SpaceX before moving ahead with the preflown booster's use. He specifically stated that LSP had been included in discussions/evaluations/decisions (?).From memory, it was also mentioned that while some risks may increase, some may decrease, and their best estimates are that it's a wash.
I agree that the stability of Block 5 is needed for USAF certification. 2018 should see many fly, and refly, so certification is soon to follow.
By 2019 (or perhaps even late next year), F9B5 could be flying more launches in a hot/busy month than Atlas V or Ariane 5 fly in a year.
When asked if recycled rockets could be used for launches as soon as EELV Phase 1A, Raymond was unwilling to commit to a timetable, but said, “I’m open to it.” SMC’s Leon expressed similar optimism with a bit more caution. “We don’t have a schedule for it yet” at EELV, she said. She thinks the Air Force is more likely to use recycled boosters first in “experimental-class programs” that can take advantage of rapid acquisition authorities. “You’re not going to see it in phase 1A as far as I can tell,” Leon said.
By late next year F9 is not going to be flying 7+ times a month. That's more than double the flight rate SpaceX is aiming for next year.More than double the rate indeed.
I agree that the stability of Block 5 is needed for USAF certification. 2018 should see many fly, and refly, so certification is soon to follow.
By 2019 (or perhaps even late next year), F9B5 could be flying more launches in a hot/busy month than Atlas V or Ariane 5 fly in a year.
By late next year F9 is not going to be flying 7+ times a month. That's more than double the flight rate SpaceX is aiming for next year.
Here is an excerpt from an Air Force Magazine article on EELV (http://airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/September%202017/Space-Launch-Competition.aspx):QuoteWhen asked if recycled rockets could be used for launches as soon as EELV Phase 1A, Raymond was unwilling to commit to a timetable, but said, “I’m open to it.” SMC’s Leon expressed similar optimism with a bit more caution. “We don’t have a schedule for it yet” at EELV, she said. She thinks the Air Force is more likely to use recycled boosters first in “experimental-class programs” that can take advantage of rapid acquisition authorities. “You’re not going to see it in phase 1A as far as I can tell,” Leon said.
For the first part of the Pentagon’s competitive space launch contracts — dubbed Phase 1A — the Air Force has decided not to allow previously flown boosters for any missions.http://spacenews.com/air-force-ask-spacex-ula-to-bid-on-a-five-launch-contract/
Leon said that approving reusable-rocket technology would require an entirely new certification process, at a time when the military wants to focus certifying things like the Falcon Heavy or new entrants like Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.
However, the service is open to eventually accepting reusable technology as part of a company’s bid.
“We are trying to reduce the cost of launch, and if this is the offering from commercial providers we need to get on board,” Leon said. “It’s just going to take us a little bit of time, but it is something we are starting to study first. Longer term my hope is any company that’s offering flight proven hardware demonstrates or develops a track record that helps us build confidence.”
I agree that the stability of Block 5 is needed for USAF certification. 2018 should see many fly, and refly, so certification is soon to follow.
By 2019 (or perhaps even late next year), F9B5 could be flying more launches in a hot/busy month than Atlas V or Ariane 5 fly in a year.
By late next year F9 is not going to be flying 7+ times a month. That's more than double the flight rate SpaceX is aiming for next year.
Here is an excerpt from an Air Force Magazine article on EELV (http://airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/September%202017/Space-Launch-Competition.aspx):QuoteWhen asked if recycled rockets could be used for launches as soon as EELV Phase 1A, Raymond was unwilling to commit to a timetable, but said, “I’m open to it.” SMC’s Leon expressed similar optimism with a bit more caution. “We don’t have a schedule for it yet” at EELV, she said. She thinks the Air Force is more likely to use recycled boosters first in “experimental-class programs” that can take advantage of rapid acquisition authorities. “You’re not going to see it in phase 1A as far as I can tell,” Leon said.
Quote from: SpaceFlightNowSES is considering launching its next satellite — SES 16 developed in partnership with the government of Luxembourg — with a reused Falcon 9 booster in January.
Article Link (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/12/spacex-launches-its-15th-mission-of-the-year/)
SES 16 slips to January and on a re-used booster (as I think can be expected for most SES flights from here on out).
I love the table in the first post but I wonder if there is some way to distinguish among announcments, planned launches, and actual launches in a visual manner that isn't dependent on color.
I’m sorry, I completely missed the last couple of posts, my apologies.
I’ve tried doing the re-use dates in bold in the first post. I haven’t put the names in bold as well due to the extra width it would use. Not sure if I’m happy with the result or not, but at least I think the re-use entries stand out more!
Russia’s Proton rocket falls on hard times
After 53 years in service, the main Russian launcher is running out of customers.
The Proton rocket, Russia’s primary commercial launch vehicle, faces a life-and-death struggle to remain a competitive player on the international launch market, industry sources say. The veteran Soviet space rocket has spent nearly a quarter of a century as the vehicle of choice for operators of communications satellites all over the world. But it has fallen to near-irrelevance in just a matter of two years. After reaching a peak of 12 launches in 2010, the Proton is now staring at a real possibility of flying just a couple of missions this year and not delivering a single commercial payload.
All these technical, political, and financial problems combined to leave GKNPTs Khrunichev deeply in debt and triggered the exodus of customers last year—as many as five deals were reportedly lost in the second half of 2017.https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/russias-proton-rocket-falls-on-hard-times/
Maybe highlighting 1st reuse, 2nd reuse, etc. in 'Event' column would not mess with formatting but still raise visibility.
Availability of Block 5, customer early acceptance, and Khrunichev's quality problems have created the perfect storm:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/russias-proton-rocket-falls-on-hard-times/
Maybe this prediction (below) wasn't so much fantasy as many here pooh-pooh'd.
Looks like half of all flights in 2018 will be used boosters:
Looks like half of all flights in 2018 will be used boosters:
"WIRED learned from sources with knowledge of the manifest that in 2018, the company intends to fly 50 percent of its 30 planned missions on recycled rockets."
https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-gears-up-to-finally-actually-launch-the-falcon-heavy/?mbid=social_twitter_onsiteshare
When will reused first stages be the majority of launches?
The serial full duration tests of the JCSAT-14 booster at McGregor let me think about this. We are getting near to proof that the landed boosters are all capable of reflight. I move a reply in the SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4 here because it is not appropriate there. I argue that contracts signed today for new boosters will not delay the transition. They can and will be renegotiated.bolds mineThere is not going to be any sudden rush to buy reused cores, especially before one has flown.
.................
Let's give SpaceX a chance to actually qualify a booster for reflight and their customers a chance to get comfortable with the idea before we start assuming everything will suddenly start flying on reused cores.
Absolutely true, I agree. But I would bet (just a phrase, I don't bet) that in 2019 most launches will be on reused boosters including contracts already signed for new ones. The contracts will be renegotiated with reusable prices. By that time they will probably have enough cores in store that they don't need to build new ones before the Falcon family is phased out.
Looks like half of all flights in 2018 will be used boosters:
"WIRED learned from sources with knowledge of the manifest that in 2018, the company intends to fly 50 percent of its 30 planned missions on recycled rockets."
https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-gears-up-to-finally-actually-launch-the-falcon-heavy/?mbid=social_twitter_onsiteshare
QuoteWhile Musk takes a lot of credit for his vision, in Shotwell he found the perfect executive to run SpaceX like a finely oiled machine. She is one of the most admired and respected executives in our industry, and an inspiration for young women around the world.
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/march-2018/2017-satellite-executive-of-the-year-gwynne-shotwell-president-and-coo-spacex/
Couple of interesting snippets in the interview:QuoteWe have 26-30 flights in 2018, but around half of those will be flight proven.
[...]
@IridiumBoss - Fairing reuse by @SpaceX is close to here. Your view? Iridium will: "be first to"/"ok to, but not FIRST to"/"never" reuse a fairing? Do you see any major risks in reuse? Your thought leadership matters.
Replying to @lar_p @SpaceX
Open to considering, but have a fiduciary duty to customers/employees/investors etc to make the right decision balancing risk and reward. ? is hypothetical; would need to understand risks and rewards - which include schedule, cost, etc. Can't be guinea pig for science's sake.
Matt answered me
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/968242780429602816QuoteReplying to @lar_p @SpaceX
Open to considering, but have a fiduciary duty to customers/employees/investors etc to make the right decision balancing risk and reward. ? is hypothetical; would need to understand risks and rewards - which include schedule, cost, etc. Can't be guinea pig for science's sake.
Fair enough, I guess... but eventually everyone will want the discount (presumably SpaceX will start charging different prices)...
Matt answered meI bolded what seems to be the important part. Matt has been a great SpaceX supporter, but he is probably not thinking about reused fairings beyond the fan perspective. Professionally he's hoping to have his constellation finished before a reasonable expectation of fairing reuse.
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/968242780429602816QuoteReplying to @lar_p @SpaceX
Open to considering, but have a fiduciary duty to customers/employees/investors etc to make the right decision balancing risk and reward. ? is hypothetical; would need to understand risks and rewards - which include schedule, cost, etc. Can't be guinea pig for science's sake.
Professionally he's hoping to have his constellation finished before a reasonable expectation of fairing reuse.
Matt answered me
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/968242780429602816QuoteReplying to @lar_p @SpaceX
Open to considering, but have a fiduciary duty to customers/employees/investors etc to make the right decision balancing risk and reward. ? is hypothetical; would need to understand risks and rewards - which include schedule, cost, etc. Can't be guinea pig for science's sake.
Fair enough, I guess... but eventually everyone will want the discount (presumably SpaceX will start charging different prices)...
A type of reuse I haven’t noticed customers discussing before:Quote@IridiumBoss with the move to allow using flight proven cores, would Iridium now be open to being the first company to use reused Fairings?
https://twitter.com/beeberunner/status/943544314096955397QuoteWe're open to anything if it can be proven to improve risk, schedule and cost. We're about getting our amazing next generation network in space as fast and safely as we can, not creating history for its own sake (though happy to do that this week with our fourth launch)!
https://twitter.com/iridiumboss/status/943547579001987073
Two new launches:QuoteMaxar Technologies’ DigitalGlobe Selects SpaceX to Launch its Next-generation WorldView Legion SatellitesQuoteThe initial block of the multi-satellite WorldView Legion constellation will be launched by two flight-proven Falcon 9 rockets in 2021.https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180314005049/en/Maxar-Technologies%E2%80%99-DigitalGlobe-Selects-SpaceX-Launch-Next-generation
QuoteNASA’s upcoming CRS-14 ISS resupply mission will re-fly SpaceX Falcon 9 booster flown on CRS-12. Dragon previously flew CRS-8.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/974719813162602496 (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/974719813162602496)
Something else to keep in mind is that they are currently beating all their competitors on price. No real reason to lower you costs further when you are already the most affordable option in town. If and when we see competitive prices from the other launchers then I expect to see F9 prices start to come down.
Some relevant Tweets:QuoteTagnan (https://twitter.com/mrtagnan/status/964675873365463046):
What about iridium 6? At the very least do you know if it will be reused or not?
Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/964695563110404096):
Considering, but its a ride share so a little more complicated and hasn't been totally finalized...
Tagnan (https://twitter.com/mrtagnan/status/964698939613237248):
How much do ride shares get to decide in terms of vehicle used and other options?
Matt Desch (https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/964844838867931136):
It's a cooperative effort, and mostly decided up front in a contract, or in ongoing discussions as you jointly prepare and project manage towards the launch. In this case, we're the lead with SpaceX, but we work to make sure decisions are right for our rideshare partner too.
This launch [Iridium-6 w/GRACE-FO] will be on a flight proven booster
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/976575188614762496
Iridium boss senses shift in SpaceX rhythm with another launch set for Friday
On the eve of the Iridium’s fifth launch with SpaceX, the mobile telecom satellite operator’s chief executive says he no longer has to wait for SpaceX’s rockets to be ready. Instead, Iridium’s satellite team is racing to keep pace churning spacecraft off their assembly line.
“I’m satisfied. It’s meeting our needs,” Desch said of the launch cadence. “We really are focused on completing our Iridium Next constellation this year. I’d like it completed in the third quarter if possible. What I’m really pleased with is that SpaceX has stepped up this year so far. I saw a quote from (SpaceX president and chief operating officer) Gwynne (Shotwell) last week saying it’s nice that she’s waiting on her customers versus the other way around. I think that, at least as it relates to us, is true. We’ve just got to get the satellites ready.
At the time, he said made the change after receiving assurances the previously-flown boosters were no more risky — and perhaps less so — than a newly-built rocket. The switch to reused rockets also kept Iridium’s launch campaigns on schedule — it was clear that waiting for new boosters from SpaceX’s factory would delay the upgraded network’s deployment, Desch said.https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/29/iridium-boss-senses-shift-in-spacex-rhythm/
“We’d be in a different place if we were using new rockets,” Desch said.
After one year, reusable rockets becoming routine for SpaceX
“I don’t want to get complacent, but I think we understand reusable boosters,” CEO Elon Musk said Feb. 6, after two recycled boosters assisted the successful debut of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket.
What seemed very risky a year ago has quickly won buy-in from customers.
Six of SpaceX’s last nine launches have used pre-flown boosters, not including the Falcon Heavy test flight.
“It’s becoming de rigueur now,” said Martin Halliwell, chief technology officer of Luxembourg-based SES, the first company to take a chance launching on a pre-flown Falcon. “It’s becoming commonplace, which is quite extraordinary in the time of a year.”
Buy-in from customers has come surprisingly quickly.
Space industry consultant Jim Muncy, founder of PoliSpace, is bullish, predicting it won't be long before Cape Canaveral hosts 50 to 100 launches a year, thanks to SpaceX’s reusable rockets and another being designed by Blue Origin, the firm backed by Amazon.com founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos.https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/03/30/after-one-year-reusable-rockets-becoming-routine-spacex/470757002/
“They didn’t do this as a science experiment,” said Muncy. “They did it because it’s the right answer economically and financially for the industry, for their customers, for themselves as venture.”
Just noticed that last week marked the first anniversary of this thread. I must admit things have moved rather quicker than I expected then.
Currently I'm still maintaining the re-use summary in the thread's first post. However, with Block 5 introduction imminent, and it seems general customer acceptance of re-use, I'm wondering if this thread is reaching the point where it's served it's purpose? Or do we keep going until at least fairing re-use is established?
Views welcome.
Several launches away, but SpaceX has opened media accreditation for SES-12. "The launch (from SLC-40) is targeted for no earlier than May."
"A flight-proven Falcon 9 rocket will deliver SES-12 to a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO)."
SES-12: ses.com/our-coverage/s…
Just noticed that last week marked the first anniversary of this thread. I must admit things have moved rather quicker than I expected then.
Currently I'm still maintaining the re-use summary in the thread's first post. However, with Block 5 introduction imminent, and it seems general customer acceptance of re-use, I'm wondering if this thread is reaching the point where it's served it's purpose? Or do we keep going until at least fairing re-use is established?
Views welcome.
Key points from SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann at a NASA Social event a few moments ago.
- Confirmed landing on OCISLY
[...]
Edit: I forgot an important one!
- The plan is for this booster to fly again on the next CRS mission pending NASA approval.
I'd say it still has function at least out until FH stops flying, and BFS takes over.
Which is at least a couple of years away :)
2020 at the earliest. It will likely take several iterations to get to recovery if it works at all. Then it will probably take a dev cycle to actually make the 2nd stage reusable after being recovered.I'd say it still has function at least out until FH stops flying, and BFS takes over.
Which is at least a couple of years away :)
And it just became a whole lot more relevant again.
Might 2019 be the year when the first reused S2 flies?
It only took 15 months from 1st first stage recovery to first time they reused a booster on a flight. Could take longer or shorter. So if they get lucky and do it during the first few attempts, it could definitely be by 2019.2020 at the earliest. It will likely take several iterations to get to recovery if it works at all. Then it will probably take a dev cycle to actually make the 2nd stage reusable after being recovered.I'd say it still has function at least out until FH stops flying, and BFS takes over.
Which is at least a couple of years away :)
And it just became a whole lot more relevant again.
Might 2019 be the year when the first reused S2 flies?
China sees rocket tech boost
Nation in position to 'challenge US monopoly'
At an aerospace industry seminar on Tuesday, leading Chinese carrier rocket designer Long Lehao said that China is expected to realize vertical recycling - similar to the technology employed by US-based firm SpaceX - by 2020 at the earliest on its CZ-8 rockets. This will further lower the price tag of a launch and boost China's chances of getting international commercial satellite launch orders, the CCTV report said.http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtml
Customer acceptance in the marketplace and China's play to compete:[QUOTE ]So far, SpaceX has only conducted a few launches with used rockets and the company has not achieved profitability, Yang pointed out. [/QUOTE]QuoteChina sees rocket tech boost
Nation in position to 'challenge US monopoly'QuoteAt an aerospace industry seminar on Tuesday, leading Chinese carrier rocket designer Long Lehao said that China is expected to realize vertical recycling - similar to the technology employed by US-based firm SpaceX - by 2020 at the earliest on its CZ-8 rockets. This will further lower the price tag of a launch and boost China's chances of getting international commercial satellite launch orders, the CCTV report said.http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtml
Except by the end of the first half of 2018 SpaceX reflight rate of boosters will be 9 used out of a total of 15 flown = 60% reflight rate. That is with just BLK3 and 4s.Customer acceptance in the marketplace and China's play to compete:QuoteChina sees rocket tech boost
Nation in position to 'challenge US monopoly'QuoteAt an aerospace industry seminar on Tuesday, leading Chinese carrier rocket designer Long Lehao said that China is expected to realize vertical recycling - similar to the technology employed by US-based firm SpaceX - by 2020 at the earliest on its CZ-8 rockets. This will further lower the price tag of a launch and boost China's chances of getting international commercial satellite launch orders, the CCTV report said.http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtmlQuoteSo far, SpaceX has only conducted a few launches with used rockets and the company has not achieved profitability, Yang pointed out.
Yet they're still going to persue the technology. Uh huh. Sure.
QuoteSo far, SpaceX has only conducted a few launches with used rockets and the company has not achieved profitability, Yang pointed out.
Yet they're still going to persue the technology. Uh huh. Sure.
Customer acceptance in the marketplace and China's play to compete:QuoteChina sees rocket tech boost
Nation in position to 'challenge US monopoly'QuoteAt an aerospace industry seminar on Tuesday, leading Chinese carrier rocket designer Long Lehao said that China is expected to realize vertical recycling - similar to the technology employed by US-based firm SpaceX - by 2020 at the earliest on its CZ-8 rockets. This will further lower the price tag of a launch and boost China's chances of getting international commercial satellite launch orders, the CCTV report said.http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtml
The original quote is talking about the company not the F9 as a product. But @octavo's response to that Chinese quote was that if they didn't think SpaceX/F9 with reuse was going to be profitable, then why are they trying to copy them?QuoteSo far, SpaceX has only conducted a few launches with used rockets and the company has not achieved profitability, Yang pointed out.
Yet they're still going to persue the technology. Uh huh. Sure.
F9 as a whole is profitable. There is little reason reused F9s wouldn't be profitable right now
Customer acceptance in the marketplace and China's play to compete:QuoteChina sees rocket tech boost
Nation in position to 'challenge US monopoly'QuoteAt an aerospace industry seminar on Tuesday, leading Chinese carrier rocket designer Long Lehao said that China is expected to realize vertical recycling - similar to the technology employed by US-based firm SpaceX - by 2020 at the earliest on its CZ-8 rockets. This will further lower the price tag of a launch and boost China's chances of getting international commercial satellite launch orders, the CCTV report said.http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtml
"In fact, it is the US' pursuit of recycled space transport vehicles that has delayed the US rocket sector, and opened up a precious window for Europe's Ariane rockets and Chinese rockets to take off in the global commercial launch market," Yang told the Global Times on Thursday.
China is great at bullying companies into coughing up IP or just stealing it outright. SpaceX may possibly be harder to steal from, but I wouldn't bet against China getting their hands on the data. The reusability project has used up a billion dollars according to spaceX, paying someone tens of millions of dollars the secrets is a no brainer for the unscrupulous.What to build is only part of the battle. How to build it is just as challenging, as is actually building and testing it. Even with a complete set of blueprints, it would take at least two years to get a F9 clone tooled, built, and tested. Probably much longer.
The original quote is talking about the company not the F9 as a product. But @octavo's response to that Chinese quote was that if they didn't think SpaceX/F9 with reuse was going to be profitable, then why are they trying to copy them?QuoteSo far, SpaceX has only conducted a few launches with used rockets and the company has not achieved profitability, Yang pointed out.
Yet they're still going to persue the technology. Uh huh. Sure.
F9 as a whole is profitable. There is little reason reused F9s wouldn't be profitable right now
Customer acceptance in the marketplace and China's play to compete:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtml
There's a large amount of nonsense in this article.Quote"In fact, it is the US' pursuit of recycled space transport vehicles that has delayed the US rocket sector, and opened up a precious window for Europe's Ariane rockets and Chinese rockets to take off in the global commercial launch market," Yang told the Global Times on Thursday.
Typical Chinese propaganda.
But it's interesting that they feel threatened enough by SpaceX to at least claim to be on the verge of catching up. Even Chinese propaganda can't just ignore them any more.
China is great at bullying companies into coughing up IP or just stealing it outright. SpaceX may possibly be harder to steal from, but I wouldn't bet against China getting their hands on the data. The reusability project has used up a billion dollars according to spaceX, paying someone tens of millions of dollars the secrets is a no brainer for the unscrupulous.SpaceX's major strengths are not IP related.
As long as China never gets the flight flash code embedded in the ECM's onboard... they will have have a very hard time getting a blueprint clone to work... ;D
Examples...
It's rumored the Merlin startup sequence is not as simple as it looks...
"how do you start this thing and not blow it up"... :P
The landing code is rumored to be rather complex math wise...
"how do you land this thing and not crash"... :P
Actually I look forward to them (or anyone else) trying to build reusable rockets on their own dime and time...
SpaceX has such a head start on the next generation... they will always be behind and flying less then really needed to work out the bugs...
...
The harder the efforts of others and the more frequent their failures, the more value that will be placed on the Falcon. It could easily be over ten years (maybe 20) before another end-of-development 'Block 5' analog emerges*.
There is one major difference between now and when SpaceX started down the path to reusability: SpaceX has demonstrated that what was formerly considered impossible, and therefore not worth trying, is indeed possible. One set of blinders has been removed from the engineering community at large. There is no shortage of engineers out there that given a clear goal and knowing it is possible to achieve that goal, and given the money to work on that goal, can eventually accomplish it.
(I like this thread concept.)
I’ve been following the space industry since I was a kid, and it’s been a frustrating experience. I’m not in it for the fireworks – I’m in it for the goal of expanding humanity beyond Earth.
IMO, SpaceX is a game changer – far apart from anything that preceded it – and the most likely entity to break out of the cycle that the space industry has been stuck in for the last 40 years. This does not mean that they are perfect – I share the frustrations that have been voiced on this forum many times – but it does mean that in the grand scheme of things, these frustrations are insignificant.
The reason SpaceX is unique is that it is the first company that brings together technical competency, vision, and the ability to negotiate the business and political world – what I called “balls” in the Venn diagram.
Competency: By this time their list of accomplishments speaks for itself. In 10 years, they went from zero to having completed the Merlin 1D, F9 1.1 and FH (almost), Dragon 1.0, and GH. Within 2 years more, they will have very likely completed another iteration of Merlin (based on retrieved engines), F9R/FHR, and Dragon 2.0. This has never been done before by any group, “old space” or “new space”.
Vision: “SpaceX was founded to develop the technology to get humans to Mars – to make humanity multi-planetary. Everything we do is an incremental step towards that goal, including Dragon developments.” Not hedging much, are they. Remember how NASA couldn’t say “Mars” and “manned” in the same sentence? We don’t know much about MCT, but we do know that it is a step above FH, and part of an overall Mars transport system. That’s a lot of muscle power to back up a lot of vision.
Balls and business smarts: F9R is not the first attempt to create a reusable launcher – but it’s the first to be based on a profit generating ELV. This takes business genius, not technical genius. And similarly, the way F9 grew out of F1 – a combination of planning and adaptability (e.g. dumping F5). The way Dragon will transition from a parachuted capsule with a pusher LAS to a propulsive landing capsule. This is the kind of strategic thinking that differentiates a smart CEO from a smart proposal writer. COTS/CRS was there on time for them, but NASA and SpaceX fed off of each other on that. There was a lot of behind-the-scenes work needed to make it happen – Elon didn't just stand there and get hit by good luck. SpaceX has now matured from an experiment to a company that’s taking the game deep into ULA’s half of the court.
Schedule slips? I can live with them. SpaceX never pretended to be a 40 year veteran with a rocket that is a 4th generation evolution of the original hardware. Schedule slips come with the territory when you're developing at the breakneck pace that they are. I hope they don't slow down.
So there. I’m tired of seeing power points, and I’m tired of hearing that “this is as good as it gets”. SpaceX is proving, in hardware, that it can get better.
Customer acceptance in the marketplace and China's play to compete:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1099856.shtml
There's a large amount of nonsense in this article.Quote"In fact, it is the US' pursuit of recycled space transport vehicles that has delayed the US rocket sector, and opened up a precious window for Europe's Ariane rockets and Chinese rockets to take off in the global commercial launch market," Yang told the Global Times on Thursday.
Typical Chinese propaganda.
But it's interesting that they feel threatened enough by SpaceX to at least claim to be on the verge of catching up. Even Chinese propaganda can't just ignore them any more.
IMO this is a reference to the Space Shuttle program, not SpaceX' F9 reuse. It sounds correct to me in that context.
There is one major difference between now and when SpaceX started down the path to reusability: SpaceX has demonstrated that what was formerly considered impossible, and therefore not worth trying, is indeed possible. One set of blinders has been removed from the engineering community at large. There is no shortage of engineers out there that given a clear goal and knowing it is possible to achieve that goal, and given the money to work on that goal, can eventually accomplish it.
Not really. You can just hire ex-SpaceX people and copy a lot of SpaceX’s features like grid fins, legs, etc. if I were starting a launch company now, I’d probably do a lot more suborbital tests than SpaceX did in order to non-destructively build confidence cheaply.You can also skip the parachutes and airbags plan and accept you need grid fins or equivalent to give adequate control authority from day one and demands a T/W of at least 150:1.
Not really. You can just hire ex-SpaceX people and copy a lot of SpaceX’s features like grid fins, legs, etc. if I were starting a launch company now, I’d probably do a lot more suborbital tests than SpaceX did in order to non-destructively build confidence cheaply.You can also skip the parachutes and airbags plan and accept you need grid fins or equivalent to give adequate control authority from day one and demands a T/W of at least 150:1.
It also suggest you should go directly to Methalox if you want to have a decent shot at US reuse.
The problem with "fast followers" is that they have no idea how to lead.
Case in point - BO. They gathered all their strength for that one big jump from NS to NG. They basically aimed for an "FH killer", "how to do an FH with all the benefit of hindsight" and without baggage that stretched back to F9.0 or even F1.
Announced it (September 2016) to great fanfare, and clearly from that point they can do it a lot faster than it took SpaceX to get to FH (though of course BO is as old as SpaceX). Maybe 2020 timeframe even.
and then - BFR, and a year later, a plan to retire the whole F9/FH line in the forseeable future.
This is the downside of "follower" culture.
China is great at bullying companies into coughing up IP or just stealing it outright. SpaceX may possibly be harder to steal from, but I wouldn't bet against China getting their hands on the data. The reusability project has used up a billion dollars according to spaceX, paying someone tens of millions of dollars the secrets is a no brainer for the unscrupulous.
I know everyone wants lower cost launches but SpaceX is already the lowest cost option today. I'm not demanding lower prices because we're getting a great service. You don't ask an airline to discount fares because the plane is old. -[Matt] Desch [Iridium] #PaxEx
A couple of hours ago at the Space Tech Expo in Pasadena, Joshua Brost of SpaceX spoke as part of a panel discussion. He said that once they start flying boosters 10 times, risk averse customers may choose to take the second flight of a particular booster rather than the first. The first would serve as a kind of check-out/test flight.This seems entirely plausible (likely even, I'd say). The first flight can be seen as the end-to-end verification that the booster is free from (serious) workmanship errors.
SpaceX achievements generate growing interest in reusable launchers
As SpaceX launched another Falcon 9 with a previously-flown first stage May 22, both the company and its competitors are seeing a growing acceptance of reusable vehicles in the overall market.https://mailchi.mp/spacenews/spacetechexpo-show-daily-spacex-achievements-generate-growing-interest-in-reusable-launchers-industry-warns-of-launch-vehicle-glut
So with the last non-block 5 orbital launch successfully completed, I guess we await news of which customer will be the first to use a flight proven block 5?
What we should watch for is the first customer which chooses a flight-proven booster because it is flight proven... For quite a while, members of NSF have been predicting these reused boosters will be more reliable than maiden voyage boosters -- time is approaching when that prediction will be demonstrated. Soon after, it should become "we've always known that..."
This paradigm shift is what will make BFS acceptable without launch abort hardware.
So with the last non-block 5 orbital launch successfully completed, I guess we await news of which customer will be the first to use a flight proven block 5?Actually what we all await is what price SX will charge for it.
So with the last non-block 5 orbital launch successfully completed, I guess we await news of which customer will be the first to use a flight proven block 5?Actually what we all await is what price SX will charge for it.
Since every Block 4 was long since sold when he said that...'Sold' ... terminology that is quickly becoming obsolete, as far as rockets are concerned.
'Hired' better? Maybe 'booked'.Since every Block 4 was long since sold when he said that...'Sold' ... terminology that is quickly becoming obsolete, as far as rockets are concerned.
Has any major rocket vendor ever actually sold the rockets?Since every Block 4 was long since sold when he said that...'Sold' ... terminology that is quickly becoming obsolete, as far as rockets are concerned.
That's the least interesting number since until such time that competition shows up, SpaceX can keep margins arbitrarily highSo with the last non-block 5 orbital launch successfully completed, I guess we await news of which customer will be the first to use a flight proven block 5?Actually what we all await is what price SX will charge for it.
No. I'm not sure how it worked historically but most of the recent designs are launched by a crew working for a "Launch Services Provider" that's basically another part of the mfg. I think in the 60's some were launched by USAF crews.Has any major rocket vendor ever actually sold the rockets?Since every Block 4 was long since sold when he said that...'Sold' ... terminology that is quickly becoming obsolete, as far as rockets are concerned.
Um..No. I'm not sure how it worked historically but most of the recent designs are launched by a crew working for a "Launch Services Provider" that's basically another part of the mfg. I think in the 60's some were launched by USAF crews.Has any major rocket vendor ever actually sold the rockets?Since every Block 4 was long since sold when he said that...'Sold' ... terminology that is quickly becoming obsolete, as far as rockets are concerned.
It's a misconception customers (IE the people with the payloads) actually "buy" a rocket. They buy a "Ticket to ride" with the usual 1 in 50 failure risk. AIUI F9 will be on its 39th launch since RTF.
Um..No. I'm not sure how it worked historically but most of the recent designs are launched by a crew working for a "Launch Services Provider" that's basically another part of the mfg. I think in the 60's some were launched by USAF crews.Has any major rocket vendor ever actually sold the rockets?Since every Block 4 was long since sold when he said that...'Sold' ... terminology that is quickly becoming obsolete, as far as rockets are concerned.
It's a misconception customers (IE the people with the payloads) actually "buy" a rocket. They buy a "Ticket to ride" with the usual 1 in 50 failure risk. AIUI F9 will be on its 39th launch since RTF.
18 (2017) + 12 (2018) = 40
The real item is that in the last 6 months 9 used boosters have flown out of a total of 14 boosters flown. Such that it is now more likely that a flight will use a flown booster than a new one. 64% reflight rate.
What this generally means customers are less concerned with whether the booster is new or used but how much the price is. Acceptance is climbing for customers to near total across the board. Currently only the DOD seems to be the only holdout. But that is likely to change by EOY 2018.
18 (2017) + 12 (2018) =4030 (which brings up where did 39 come from?
Currently only the DOD seems to be the only holdout. But that is likely to change by EOY 2018.
Currently only the DOD seems to be the only holdout. But that is likely to change by EOY 2018.
Also NASA LSP and NASA Commercial Crew(?). I don't think we've ever seen any direct comments addressing reuse from the Crew office, but I doubt they'd accept it yet. Also, since I haven't seen any public info supporting your stated timeline, I'm highly dubious that USAF will be prepared to accept reuse that soon. The latest statements that I recall on this topic was that, while they are interested and willing, USAF still hadn't even fully determined what information they needed and how exactly they would go about certifying reused boosters. Maybe with FH they won't have as much of a choice if SpaceX is pretty much only offering flights on reused boosters? But I'm sure SpaceX would agree to producing bespoke rockets for them if USAF asked for it.
Um..Looked up the list of Falcon 9 and FH launches on Wikipedia and counted them, excluding AMOS 6.
18 (2017) + 12 (2018) =4030 (which brings up where did 39 come from?
The real item is that in the last 6 months 9 used boosters have flown out of a total of 14 boosters flown. Such that it is now more likely that a flight will use a flown booster than a new one. 64% reflight rate.
What this generally means customers are less concerned with whether the booster is new or used but how much the price is. Acceptance is climbing for customers to near total across the board. Currently only the DOD seems to be the only holdout. But that is likely to change by EOY 2018.
He said 30-50, indicating that 30 is enough for the number of anticipated launches. But if some customers keep demanding new vehicles they may need 50.
It seems to me that the Airforce is actively working on certifying flown boosters for operational flights but have no clue on the timeline. Anyone have a clue on the Airforce possibly accepting flown boosters for the upcoming demo flight?
Um..See other post.
18 (2017) + 12 (2018) =4030 (which brings up where did 39 come from?
The real item is that in the last 6 months 9 used boosters have flown out of a total of 14 boosters flown. Such that it is now more likely that a flight will use a flown booster than a new one. 64% reflight rate.OTOH the failure of the FH core in landing (which was the new build booster) does not build confidence in the FH as a design.
What this generally means customers are less concerned with whether the booster is new or used but how much the price is. Acceptance is climbing for customers to near total across the board. Currently only the DOD seems to be the only holdout. But that is likely to change by EOY 2018.
Um..See other post.
18 (2017) + 12 (2018) =4030 (which brings up where did 39 come from?Quote from: oldAtlas_EguyThe real item is that in the last 6 months 9 used boosters have flown out of a total of 14 boosters flown. Such that it is now more likely that a flight will use a flown booster than a new one. 64% reflight rate.OTOH the failure of the FH core in landing (which was the new build booster) does not build confidence in the FH as a design.
What this generally means customers are less concerned with whether the booster is new or used but how much the price is. Acceptance is climbing for customers to near total across the board. Currently only the DOD seems to be the only holdout. But that is likely to change by EOY 2018.
How serious an impact that has on SX's business remains to be seen.
From the customers PoV reuse only matters to them when it
a) Changes the price over a new build booster
b) Changes the reliability WRT a new build booster.
IIRC SX are offering F9 launches with pre flown boosters at $50m, a sufficient price reduction to be worth looking at.
For various parts of the USG the question will be what's the reliability differential of flying pre flown? OTOH if they haven't even worked up a the questions they feel they need to have answered to feel comfortable this is likely to be a long process. It would be in SX's interests to find ways to accelerate this process but how that could be done (by them or others) is OT for this thread.
BTW Can you remember if Block 4 was originally claimed to be capable of up to 10 flights?
OTOH the failure of the FH core in landing (which was the new build booster) does not build confidence in the FH as a design.
How serious an impact that has on SX's business remains to be seen.
Utterly stupid comment. As stated above, the core didn't fail actually fail. You seem to be saying that its a design fault if, for example, you failed to put enough fuel in your race car and it stops before the end of the race. No. That's not a design fault. That's a procedural error. And I can guarantee- once you done it once, you don't do it again!I would have agreed with you, but it's not the first that an F9 booster has run out of fluid, is it?
So the effect on Spacex's business? Zero, zilch, nada, rien, F-all.Doesn't that depend on the root cause analysis of why it happened in the first place?
From the reporting on the issue, it is not at all clear that root issue which led to the FH center core crashing was strictly limited to TEA/TEB supply. SpaceX has plenty of experience with relighting engines for the various burns to allow landing cores on the ASDS. If the TEA/TEB ran out too soon that is an indication that something else (unexpected) occurred as opposed to them overstepping the boundary on how little igniter fluid is needed.Exactly.
Concern trolling. It’s what he does. Let’s move on.
Concern trolling. It’s what he does. Let’s move on.(mod) That term is not usually appropriate. Play the ball not the man.
Congress takes smart steps to make space launch reusability the norm
Under Section 1605 of the current draft, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program is renamed the “National Security Space Launch Program”. This is a step forward in recognizing that reusability can and should be part of our nation’s launch portfolio, but the key developments follow next.http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/395163-congress-is-taking-smart-steps-to-make-space-launch-reusability-the
That same section also outlines a requirement that the Secretary of Defense pursue a strategy that includes reusability — partial or fully reusable rockets — in national security launches; mandates the continuation of certification processes to validate the use of these components; and requires justification for why a national security launch contract awards excludes reusable rockets.
OTOH the failure of the FH core in landing (which was the new build booster) does not build confidence in the FH as a design.
How serious an impact that has on SX's business remains to be seen.
BTW Can you remember if Block 4 was originally claimed to be capable of up to 10 flights?
Congress seems to be on board.
Congress seems to be on board.
Would this be the same Congress that regularly gets the holy living crap beat out of them here for being SLS amazing peoples instead of SpaceX amazing peoples? How did their endorsement suddenly become a good thing instead of the evidence of backroom, pocket-filling corruption and senility as described in the SLS-basher threads?
How did their endorsement suddenly become a good thing instead of the evidence of backroom, pocket-filling corruption and senility as described in the SLS-basher threads?Congress is of course not monolithic, as a customer or as a deliberative body. If their endorsement is based on sound economics that will promote the progress of exploring space while saving the tax payer money, then that is a "good thing". If it's the Alabama contingent of Shelby and Brooks who are shoveling that money to their districts without regard to good sense, that is a "bad thing". And Congress being Congress, it could be a bit of both at once.
Congress seems to be on board.
Would this be the same Congress that regularly gets the holy living crap beat out of them here for being SLS amazing peoples instead of SpaceX amazing peoples? How did their endorsement suddenly become a good thing instead of the evidence of backroom, pocket-filling corruption and senility as described in the SLS-basher threads?
Congress seems to be on board.
Would this be the same Congress that regularly gets the holy living crap beat out of them here for being SLS amazing peoples instead of SpaceX amazing peoples? How did their endorsement suddenly become a good thing instead of the evidence of backroom, pocket-filling corruption and senility as described in the SLS-basher threads?
Mind you, the conclusion "Congress seems to be on board" is a premature one given that the 2019 NDAA is a draft only at this time.
Also, this proposed language concerns the future National Security Space Launch Program (currently known as the EELV program) which has nothing to do with SLS whatsoever.
I'm in awe that SpaceX has flown 14 cores in the first 6 months of the year.If you have multiple pads that flight rate is not that impressive, although it's toward the higher end.
And that 9 of those 14 were reused. 64.3% reuse on boosters so far this year.That is impressive. And only one crash in all those landings. That's a 2.63% failure rate on stage recoveries since they got most of the bugs out of the process.
Amazing.
the one failure (not crash, failure) was from a development/test flight, not a production one, since the FH center core was coming back from a much tougher flight regime. This has been pointed out multiple times (every time you gloat about the failure) and yet you still persist. Not helpful.And that 9 of those 14 were reused. 64.3% reuse on boosters so far this year.That is impressive. And only one crash in all those landings. That's a 2.63% failure rate on stage recoveries since they got most of the bugs out of the process.
Amazing.
That is impressive. And only one crash in all those landings. That's a 2.63% failure rate on stage recoveries since they got most of the bugs out of the process.
...
And even that was only because that center core didn't have wings yet!the one failure (not crash, failure) was from a development/test flight, not a production one, since the FH center core was coming back from a much tougher flight regime. This has been pointed out multiple times (every time you gloat about the failure) and yet you still persist. Not helpful.And that 9 of those 14 were reused. 64.3% reuse on boosters so far this year.That is impressive. And only one crash in all those landings. That's a 2.63% failure rate on stage recoveries since they got most of the bugs out of the process.
Amazing.
Well, I don't mind you classifying the FH center core recovery as a failure (spades being spades, and all that), but math errors are another matter! How do you get 2.63% = 1/38 when there have only been 25 landing to date? Care to recompute?My Q&D analysis assumed all flights had landed the first stage.
the one failure (not crash, failure) was from a development/test flight, not a production one, since the FH center core was coming back from a much tougher flight regime.Much tougher? Wouldn't that have an effect on the stress and thermal loads, rather than engine reignition?
This has been pointed out multiple times (every time you gloat about the failure) and yet you still persist. Not helpful.I called it a crash because that tends to be what happens when engines fail to start to stop it hitting something (like the ground) at high speed.
... From the PoV of this thread the question would affect not the next FH customer, but the first FH core customers looking to fly a pre-flown core.
IIRC there are 2 more FH launches scheduled for late this year. It's only an issues if the second launch is going to use the recovered core from the first, which seems pretty improbable to me.
... From the PoV of this thread the question would affect not the next FH customer, but the first FH core customers looking to fly a pre-flown core.
IIRC there are 2 more FH launches scheduled for late this year. It's only an issues if the second launch is going to use the recovered core from the first, which seems pretty improbable to me.
I'm having trouble following this line of argument. Failure to restart the engines (pre-flown or otherwise) for a landing is of no concern to the customer, because it has no bearing on the success of the primary mission.
The only engine starts of concern to the customer are at launch, and only to the extent that a start failure would cause a launch abort, and hence a delay. Are you suggesting that a re-used engine is less likely to start at launch?
The concern isn't for the performance of the rocket core. But, you cannot re-fly a full falcon heavy first stage without first landing all 3 of the rocket boosters/core. So there will not be any previously flown falcon heavy launches until the center core is able to land.
The concern isn't for the performance of the rocket core. But, you cannot re-fly a full falcon heavy first stage without first landing all 3 of the rocket boosters/core. So there will not be any previously flown falcon heavy launches until the center core is able to land.
It is not the customers that are seeking to re-use block 5 boosters, it is SpaceX. Once sufficient block 5 boosters have been landed, they will be offered for re-use, by both F9 and FH (and as all block 5 boosters are now interchangeable, they don't actually need to land a FH core first). Again, the customer will not be concerned if a FH core is not able to land.
I think the intent of that original statement was that there would likely be a schedule impact due to an unplanned lack of an available center core.Correct.
This is only a potential issue if SpaceX is limiting their production of FH center cores such that they won't have an extra on-hand (IMO, likely). But, this issue is probably only a potential schedule risk for the third and/or fourth FH flights. It will be obviated by successful landings or SpaceX recognizing that they'll need to increase planned production of center cores until they figure out their recovery. Either way, this is still much more a "SpaceX problem" than anything the customers will care about. reuse.FH is 2x bigger than any other available LV. That means anyone who designs a payload to use the full capacity for this has no alternate LV. History has taught designers to be very wary of this situation. I suspect the most frequent cases have been EELV's where the payload mass growth has forced them to move up the versions either in terms of numbers of SRB's or from Delta IV to DIVH.
(and as all block 5 boosters are now interchangeable, they don't actually need to land a FH core first). Again, the customer will not be concerned if a FH core is not able to land.AFAIK all boosters at the same level have always been interchangeable.
Quote from: deruchThis is only a potential issue if SpaceX is limiting their production of FH center cores such that they won't have an extra on-hand (IMO, likely). But, this issue is probably only a potential schedule risk for the third and/or fourth FH flights. It will be obviated by successful landings or SpaceX recognizing that they'll need to increase planned production of center cores until they figure out their recovery. Either way, this is still much more a "SpaceX problem" than anything the customers will care about. reuse.FH is 2x bigger than any other available LV. That means anyone who designs a payload to use the full capacity for this has no alternate LV. History has taught designers to be very wary of this situation. I suspect the most frequent cases have been EELV's where the payload mass growth has forced them to move up the versions either in terms of numbers of SRB's or from Delta IV to DIVH.
Ride shares are possible but again you have this quite small slice of the market that's
a) Too big for F9 to give the orbit they want and
b) Small enough to fit another payload(s) on the same vehicle with it.
IOW a sort of "Goldilocks" ride share. Not too big (so you can't fit another payload on), not too small (so it could launch on an F9 or other vehicle).
IIRC synchronizing the logistics of 2 payloads was an issue for Arianspace as average comm sat size rose and it became harder to find two primary payloads that matched.
FH is 2x bigger than any other available LV. That means anyone who designs a payload to use the full capacity for this has no alternate LV.If the payload is unitary.
All B5 cores can serve as a FH center core. This was confirmed a few weeks ago. There is no longer any center core limitation. A loss of a center core would only impact the schedule if there were not enough boosters available to service the manifest. This seems unlikely if their production rate and rapid re-use goals are achieved.This almost sounds like the FH demo center core was a BLK5 prototype structure but without the BLK5 engines.
All B5 cores can serve as a FH center core. This was confirmed a few weeks ago.Do you have a source for that? The only public information tells us that any B5 F9 first stage can be used as a FH side-boorster, but that FH cores are very different.
All B5 cores can serve as a FH center core. This was confirmed a few weeks ago. There is no longer any center core limitation. A loss of a center core would only impact the schedule if there were not enough boosters available to service the manifest. This seems unlikely if their production rate and rapid re-use goals are achieved.If correct that would takes any FH center core supply limitations off the table then.
If the payload is unitary.Isn't that what BFR is for?
Either constellations or supplies, or a vehicle with very large tanks might be a plausible payload.
The alternate would be either just more launches, or launch dry and rendevous.
All B5 cores can serve as a FH center core. This was confirmed a few weeks ago.Do you have a source for that? The only public information tells us that any B5 F9 first stage can be used as a FH side-boorster, but that FH cores are very different.
If someone was to be designing a payload now, for 2022 launch, they would likely not be considering BFR unless it is OK if it's contingent on BFR flying.Either constellations or supplies, or a vehicle with very large tanks might be a plausible payload.Isn't that what BFR is for?
The alternate would be either just more launches, or launch dry and rendevous.
Yes it would make sense to use a BLK5 structure design for the FH demo core but we do not have any confirmation on that. Plus they would need to do a demonstration on the BLK5 structure changes including a qual test of structure strength. It definitely would make sense to combine this use of the FH demo core flight as another data point to validate the dry weight/structure for BLK5 prior to a full up BLK5 operational flight. They would even gather landing data related to the problems with landing a heavier stage.All B5 cores can serve as a FH center core. This was confirmed a few weeks ago.Do you have a source for that? The only public information tells us that any B5 F9 first stage can be used as a FH side-boorster, but that FH cores are very different.
There is public information that block 4 S1 can be converted to a block 4 FH booster, and that the block 4 FH core was a special build. There is no such information for block 5, but I can tell you from my analysis of the FH demo mission that the core stage either had a lot of unused propellant, or it had a lot more dry mass than a regular block 4 stage. Similarly, from the block 5 Bangabandhu-1 mission, either it ran at less than 100% thrust, and also had a lot of unused propellant, or it had a similar dry mass to the FH demo core stage. This is admittedly not hard proof, but I do suspect that all block 5 first stages are structurally similar. This may have been deemed necessary to meet the 1.4 factor of safety requirement for the commercial crew program.
So now back to customers views on reuse.That's the issue. As usual it's back when does "small changes" become "complete redesign" ?
The customers want a large baseline (flights) of a single design and not significant variants. Having a FH core stage as a significant variant from the standard BLK5 would make customers uncomfortable with using a stage that would have very low flight numbers and not fly very often (a couple of times a year as in 1 to 4 vs F9 standard BLK5 at 20 to 50 times a year).
And I have visual confirmation from Tom Cross that the booster is indeed sooty and thus B1046.2 :) photos incoming.
Edit: the tweet!
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1025074341040533504
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjnLq05U0AEnovq.jpg?format=jpg&name=orig)
So now back to customers views on reuse.That's the issue. As usual it's back when does "small changes" become "complete redesign" ?
The customers want a large baseline (flights) of a single design and not significant variants. Having a FH core stage as a significant variant from the standard BLK5 would make customers uncomfortable with using a stage that would have very low flight numbers and not fly very often (a couple of times a year as in 1 to 4 vs F9 standard BLK5 at 20 to 50 times a year).
The booster that will be used to perform the first land landing on the west coast is B1048.2 which previously flew Iridium-7 on July 25th. The change to a flight-proven booster was finalized only a few weeks ago.
Maybe you can't fly a standard F9 as an FH core, but is there any reason they can't use an FH core as an F9? A few extra tons of dry weight isn't going to affect payload that much.
The customers want a large baseline (flights) of a single design and not significant variants. Having a FH core stage as a significant variant from the standard BLK5 would make customers uncomfortable with using a stage that would have very low flight numbers and not fly very often (a couple of times a year as in 1 to 4 vs F9 standard BLK5 at 20 to 50 times a year).
How about on that token, you need FH Booster, convert, you need F9 convert again. maybe that could swap them or just keep FH stored.Maybe you can't fly a standard F9 as an FH core, but is there any reason they can't use an FH core as an F9? A few extra tons of dry weight isn't going to affect payload that much.
The customers want a large baseline (flights) of a single design and not significant variants. Having a FH core stage as a significant variant from the standard BLK5 would make customers uncomfortable with using a stage that would have very low flight numbers and not fly very often (a couple of times a year as in 1 to 4 vs F9 standard BLK5 at 20 to 50 times a year).
That depends on just how much of a F9 needs to be changed to create a FH centre core.How about on that token, you need FH Booster, convert, you need F9 convert again. maybe that could swap them or just keep FH stored.Maybe you can't fly a standard F9 as an FH core, but is there any reason they can't use an FH core as an F9? A few extra tons of dry weight isn't going to affect payload that much.
The customers want a large baseline (flights) of a single design and not significant variants. Having a FH core stage as a significant variant from the standard BLK5 would make customers uncomfortable with using a stage that would have very low flight numbers and not fly very often (a couple of times a year as in 1 to 4 vs F9 standard BLK5 at 20 to 50 times a year).
From the customers PoV reuse only matters to them when it
a) Changes the price over a new build booster
b) Changes the reliability WRT a new build booster.
ISTR statements by SpaceX that the center core ran out of starter fluid because earlier starts used more, and that was because they had to start the engines during a tougher flight regime.the one failure (not crash, failure) was from a development/test flight, not a production one, since the FH center core was coming back from a much tougher flight regime.Much tougher? Wouldn't that have an effect on the stress and thermal loads, rather than engine reignition?
NASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
By Eric Ralph
Posted on August 30, 2018
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.
Basic economics and the political realities of funding available for NASA mean that there's nothing suprising in the views Jim Bridenstine expressed, but still noteworthy that he said them and made only the briefest mention of SLS:I've not seen the new Administrator speak before.QuoteNASA head hints that reusable rocket cos. like SpaceX will enable Moon return
By Eric Ralph
Posted on August 30, 2018
In a series of thoroughly unexpected and impassioned introductory remarks at one of several 2018 Advisory Council meetings, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine bucked at least two decades of norms by all but explicitly stating that reusable rockets built by innovative private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin will enable the true future of space exploration.
https://www.teslarati.com/nasa-head-reusable-rockets-spacex-blue-origin-future/
It sounds like a pretty coherent policy (which is not something I'd expected from this President).Not such a coherent policy since he can't explain why he wants a Lunar "gateway"at all. And even his reasons for going to the Moon at all are strange (Get water for Mars propellant?)
That said I'm not really sure this is really the place for a post on this subject. It does talk about commercial suppliers a bit but beyond reusable technology being a "good thing" I'm not sure it's that well focused on "views on reuse."
I think its insteresting to point out that bridenstine has a business degree instead of science, engineering, or law. Reuse makes perfect sense from a business perspective. Going to the moon might not make science sense, but at least we may do it on the cheap hah.Hah?
I think its insteresting to point out that bridenstine has a business degree instead of science, engineering, or law.
>
But I think we may be seeing a sea change here at the top. Bridenstine is paying less lip service to SLS and ULA than Bolden did, I think. If NASA is allowed to truly embrace reuse for the bulk of what they do, even if saddled with SLS, that's significant.
If proven reuse capabilities start to notably drop launch prices then I think the political will is there to exploit it and I don’t see congress stopping that.I think we have passed the tipping point already. The Air Force took the first leap (on the government side) but now it's almost status quo.
If proven reuse capabilities start to notably drop launch prices then I think the political will is there to exploit it and I don’t see congress stopping that.I think we have passed the tipping point already. The Air Force took the first leap (on the government side) but now it's almost status quo.
If proven reuse capabilities start to notably drop launch prices then I think the political will is there to exploit it and I don’t see congress stopping that.I think we have passed the tipping point already. The Air Force took the first leap (on the government side) but now it's almost status quo.
I know of a Jim who would disagree a bit.
If proven reuse capabilities start to notably drop launch prices then I think the political will is there to exploit it and I don’t see congress stopping that.I think we have passed the tipping point already. The Air Force took the first leap (on the government side) but now it's almost status quo.
I know of a Jim who would disagree a bit.
Don't forget he was also a Navy carrier pilot (E-2C Hawkeye), and is a reserve officer in the Air National GuardThat's important because AFAIK most of the recent administrators have either been internal NASA promotions or with a strong science background.
>
They'd both be right mainly because they'd be talking about different things. The Air Force is at least dipping its toes--and NASA has taken a moderate step--into the commercial reuse waters.
>
>
Moreover, the report says the US Air Force must consider both expendable and reusable launch vehicles as part of its solicitation for military launch contracts. And in the event that a contract is solicited for a mission that a reusable launch vehicle is not eligible to compete for, the Air Force should report back to Congress with the reason why.
>
>
They'd both be right mainly because they'd be talking about different things. The Air Force is at least dipping its toes--and NASA has taken a moderate step--into the commercial reuse waters.
>
They'll need to do more than dip toes given Congressional mandates in the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
Ars Technica... (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/congress-requires-military-to-consider-reusable-rockets-for-launch-contracts/)Quote>
Moreover, the report says the US Air Force must consider both expendable and reusable launch vehicles as part of its solicitation for military launch contracts. And in the event that a contract is solicited for a mission that a reusable launch vehicle is not eligible to compete for, the Air Force should report back to Congress with the reason why.
>
I just don't read the current status as if a full sea change had already taken place. Institutions are like huge sea tankers or container ships. You usually can't change directions on a dime. IMO, expecting such from them is generally unreasonable even when the advantages of those new directions seem blazingly obvious.Actually, I agree with you. The official "on paper" direction has not changed all that much, but the attitudes (and expectations) have dramatically changed, in the institutions and just as importantly in the public perception. There is a reason that Shotwell does not scrub the soot off the boosters. :) So the institutional change may be slow but it's hard to believe that it won't be coming.
...
The only totally new thing is that they must report back their reasons for not accepting bids by a reusable LV for solicitations on which they are theoretically capable.
...
This sound very much like an extra ding against sole source contracting methods and to make the RFP not so narrow that it excludes possible bidders such as those that would be bidding a RLV of some sort. The actual choosing is the rest of the source selection process as defined in the FAR and is very strict and with little wriggle room in interpretation. If you do not meet the requirements such as certification, security provisions, VI, payload mass to specified orbit, or the volume required by the faring. You will be droped either during the preliminary proposal screening or in the actual source selection board evaluation with a poor rating and subsequent loss to another company that had a higher rating....
The only totally new thing is that they must report back their reasons for not accepting bids by a reusable LV for solicitations on which they are theoretically capable.
...
Subtle but important correction: USAF have to report why they are issuing solicitations that no RLV is eligible to bid on. USAF does NOT have to report why they chose an ELV in the case where both ELV and RLV were eligible, regardless of whether both were in fact bid.
The reasons for lack of eligibility could be certification, or lack of VI or long fairings.
Isn't that question more suited for a corespotting/tracking thread than a customer view on reuse thread?Not if the information comes from an announcement from a customer, possibly with verbiage related to why they chose a reused ride. That's happened often enough in the past.
With first West Coast Block 5 re-use and land landing completed, there appear to be 5 more F9 flights likely in 2018 (Es'hail 2, SSO-A, CRS-16, USAF GPS III-1 & Iridium 8).
I can't believe all those flights will use new boosters, but I've not seen any confirmed re-use info despite cores 1046, 1047 & 1049 (and conceivably 1048 just re-used) potentially all being available. (Although maybe re-use on a CRS flight is almost a given now?)
Please post if/when you see something.
Quote from Han's recent talk that SSO-A may be first third re-use.You probably mean "first second reuse" or "first third flight" ;)
https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/1052934106135359488
Here she is heading up the ramp, booster looks sooty, guessing this is B1047.2! 8)
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1061670821368946689
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1061711443295436800
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1063310464870834176
Not sure if this has been noted, but two boosters (1046/7) have completed double GTO flights. Customers don't seem to be worried about reusing these stages after high energy launches/recoveries.
I'm shocked that anyone official would admit to this, as it really points out the whole futility of the project.Not an SLS thread this is, so let's not go there. There is plenty of SLS threads to discuss any concerns related to SLS.
Air Force open to reusable rockets, but SpaceX must first demonstrate performance
by Sandra Erwin — December 16, 2018
The Air Force will need time to review SpaceX’s performance as it executes EELV launches before it would consider flying military payloads on reusable rockets.
It seems at least part of USAF’s uncertainty over flight proven boosters is whether the performance lost to recover the booster significantly affects the chances of carrying out their missions:QuoteAir Force open to reusable rockets, but SpaceX must first demonstrate performance
by Sandra Erwin — December 16, 2018
The Air Force will need time to review SpaceX’s performance as it executes EELV launches before it would consider flying military payloads on reusable rockets.
https://spacenews.com/air-force-open-to-reusable-rockets-but-spacex-must-first-demonstrate-performance/
It seems at least part of USAF’s uncertainty over flight proven boosters is whether the performance lost to recover the booster significantly affects the chances of carrying out their missions:QuoteAir Force open to reusable rockets, but SpaceX must first demonstrate performance
by Sandra Erwin — December 16, 2018
The Air Force will need time to review SpaceX’s performance as it executes EELV launches before it would consider flying military payloads on reusable rockets.
https://spacenews.com/air-force-open-to-reusable-rockets-but-spacex-must-first-demonstrate-performance/
Sems odd to have that as a concern, when every single mission (ignoring the two failures as they were not related to performance) has succeeded, and therefor must have had sufficient performance.
It seems at least part of USAF’s uncertainty over flight proven boosters is whether the performance lost to recover the booster significantly affects the chances of carrying out their missions:QuoteAir Force open to reusable rockets, but SpaceX must first demonstrate performance
by Sandra Erwin — December 16, 2018
The Air Force will need time to review SpaceX’s performance as it executes EELV launches before it would consider flying military payloads on reusable rockets.
https://spacenews.com/air-force-open-to-reusable-rockets-but-spacex-must-first-demonstrate-performance/
Sems odd to have that as a concern, when every single mission (ignoring the two failures as they were not related to performance) has succeeded, and therefor must have had sufficient performance.
The USAF isn't just interested in mission success. They also want to see that predicted performance and expected margins are well aligned with actual performance and achieved margins. If the vehicle is just so "over capable" that it can make up for regular and/or significant shortfalls... Well, that's better than a poke in the eye. But it won't help the AF get more comfortable about their "uncertainties".
It seems at least part of USAF’s uncertainty over flight proven boosters is whether the performance lost to recover the booster significantly affects the chances of carrying out their missions:QuoteAir Force open to reusable rockets, but SpaceX must first demonstrate performance
by Sandra Erwin — December 16, 2018
The Air Force will need time to review SpaceX’s performance as it executes EELV launches before it would consider flying military payloads on reusable rockets.
https://spacenews.com/air-force-open-to-reusable-rockets-but-spacex-must-first-demonstrate-performance/
Sems odd to have that as a concern, when every single mission (ignoring the two failures as they were not related to performance) has succeeded, and therefor must have had sufficient performance.
The USAF isn't just interested in mission success. They also want to see that predicted performance and expected margins are well aligned with actual performance and achieved margins. If the vehicle is just so "over capable" that it can make up for regular and/or significant shortfalls... Well, that's better than a poke in the eye. But it won't help the AF get more comfortable about their "uncertainties".
It is more like this: USAF EELV folks are scared to death by Falcon 9. You see, they weren't there when it was designed, built and tested. Unlike the previous EELV vehicles, such as Delta IV and Atlas V.
So they don't immediately believe SpaceX's claims about the reliability and performance of Falcon 9.
The only way to convince the EELV folks is to build their confidence thru multiple successful launches and demonstrated performance.
>
What was missing from those 62 flights that requires even more testing and information?
It is more like this: USAF EELV folks are scared to death by Falcon 9. You see, they weren't there when it was designed, built and tested. Unlike the previous EELV vehicles, such as Delta IV and Atlas V.
So they don't immediately believe SpaceX's claims about the reliability and performance of Falcon 9.
The only way to convince the EELV folks is to build their confidence thru multiple successful launches and demonstrated performance.
Which they already have I pressume. There have been 62 F9 launches, every single one instrucmented up the hilt. How much more information do they actually need? What was missing from those 62 flights that requires even more testing and information?
EELV boys-and-girls independently monitoring the flight, including all the prepping that went into it. Not just getting all the data from SpaceX after the fact, but being in the factory and on-console, as an embedded team, during the entire thing.
That might seem like just a small difference but it is big issue for USAF's EELV folks.
Fox said the mission will launch on the second of two back-to-back launches of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, after the launch of the Arabsat-6A spacecraft. “It will launch after the successful launch of Arabsat, which is currently manifested for March,” she said.
The two launches, she said, will use the same set of first stage booster cores. “They will recover and reuse the boosters,” she said, with the second launch taking place about a month after the first. “So we’re kind of watching what happens with that first launch.”
It seems at least part of USAF’s uncertainty over flight proven boosters is whether the performance lost to recover the booster significantly affects the chances of carrying out their missions:QuoteAir Force open to reusable rockets, but SpaceX must first demonstrate performance
by Sandra Erwin — December 16, 2018
The Air Force will need time to review SpaceX’s performance as it executes EELV launches before it would consider flying military payloads on reusable rockets.
https://spacenews.com/air-force-open-to-reusable-rockets-but-spacex-must-first-demonstrate-performance/
Sems odd to have that as a concern, when every single mission (ignoring the two failures as they were not related to performance) has succeeded, and therefor must have had sufficient performance.
The USAF isn't just interested in mission success. They also want to see that predicted performance and expected margins are well aligned with actual performance and achieved margins. If the vehicle is just so "over capable" that it can make up for regular and/or significant shortfalls... Well, that's better than a poke in the eye. But it won't help the AF get more comfortable about their "uncertainties".
Video of the Static Fire!
Granted that this is a long distance, low resolution shot, but that static fire looked longer than normal. I count nine seconds of engines burning, before tail off. Even if you allow for the TEA/TEB start, it seems long.
Which is standard procedure for reused boosters.
SpaceX test fires twice-flown Falcon 9 for world’s first commercial Moon mission
By Eric Ralph
Posted on February 19, 2019
[...] PSN-6/GTO-1 will feature either Falcon 9 booster B1047 or B1048, two flight-proven boosters with no know missions assigned that are also known to be in Cape Canaveral.
[...]
With B1048 situated in 39A’s hangar, the lack of any reports of a booster moving from 39A to 40 suggest that B1047 was the Falcon 9 that successfully conducted its third on-pad static fire last night.
SpaceX is gearing up for the first commercial launch of its powerful Falcon Heavy rocket as soon as early April with a communications satellite for Arabsat, and the U.S. Air Force hopes the two side boosters from the Arabsat mission can be safely landed and reused for the military’s first Falcon Heavy mission this summer, an exercise officials said will help certify previously-flown hardware for future national security launches.
Falcon Heavy’s first commercial launch to pave the way for reusable rockets in national security missions
by Sandra Erwin — March 25, 2019
Kendall told SpaceNews. “This will further refine our strategy for the mission assurance activities that we have to conduct to get comfortable with reused boosters,” he said. “Reusability is definitely coming soon. We’re getting close.”
Although the Air Force has not set a deadline for when it will certify previously flown hardware for NSSL [National Security Space Launch] missions, Kendall said it should not be long.
Both fairing halves recovered. Will be flown on Starlink 💫 mission later this year.
Worth noting SpaceX’s plan to reuse fairings for the first time:Or even better, use customer-paid fairings for Starlink, which will be the majority of launches anyway.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1116514068393680896QuoteBoth fairing halves recovered. Will be flown on Starlink mission later this year.
Presumably the plan is demonstrate success on a SpaceX (Starlink) flight so that customers are persuaded it’s safe to do? If they manage to use them on Starlink flight planned for May then good evidence that little refurbishment is required.
NASA had no qualms with the company’s decision to scrub the launch attempt. In fact, confirming educated speculation previously published on Teslarati, NASA had a “vested interest” in the successful recovery of B1056
.@NASA support for reusability with high reliability, the critical breakthrough for orbital rockets, has made a big difference
...This posed a problem for Maxar and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), who seem to have contractually requested that RCM launch on either a new or very gently flight-proven Falcon 9 booster. The problem: SpaceX had none of either option available for RCM after B1050’s unplanned swim and needed to balance the needs of several other important customers. Several Block 5 boosters were technically available but all had two or even three previous launches under their belts.
...
In short, had Maxar/CSA waited for a new booster, RCM’s launch would likely be delayed at least another 30-60 days beyond its current target of June 11th. Instead, they downselected to Falcon 9 B1051, then in the midst of several months of prelaunch preparations for Crew Dragon’s launch debut (DM-1).
...
From an external perspective, forgoing a twice or thrice-flown Falcon 9 Block 5 booster after nearly a dozen successful demonstrations does not exactly appear to be a rational decision. However, whether it was motivated by conservatism, risk-aversion, or something else, Maxar and CSA likely have every contractual right to demand certain conditions, as long as they accept the consequences of those requirements. In the case of RCM, the customers accepted what they likely knew would be months of guaranteed delays to minimize something they perceived as a risk.
QuoteIn the case of RCM, the customers accepted what they likely knew would be months of guaranteed delays to minimize something they perceived as a risk.
In the news this morning:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/europe-says-spacex-dominating-launch-vows-to-develop-falcon-9-like-rocket/?amp=1
"Europe says SpaceX 'dominating' launch, vows to develop Falcon 9-like rocket".
Who'd have think. :)
While I applaud their honesty, what's their path to success once New Glenn comes on-line and Starship begins to roam the inner solar system?
You can skate to where the puck currently is, or to where it's going to be. But how do they compete against a company like SpaceX that will just melt the ice and start a soccer game.
In the news this morning:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/europe-says-spacex-dominating-launch-vows-to-develop-falcon-9-like-rocket/?amp=1
"Europe says SpaceX 'dominating' launch, vows to develop Falcon 9-like rocket".
Who'd have think. :)
The article says they're spending 3 million Euros on the project.
You can't find a better example of too little, too late.
...
And I don't get how you say they're *competing* against the launch providers - they're actively purchasing a launch for their payload. NewSpace isn't going to make the space agencies of the world obsolete. It'll just be a new set of contractors that launch bigger payloads and build bigger spacecraft.
In the news this morning:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/europe-says-spacex-dominating-launch-vows-to-develop-falcon-9-like-rocket/?amp=1
"Europe says SpaceX 'dominating' launch, vows to develop Falcon 9-like rocket".
Who'd have think. :)
The article says they're spending 3 million Euros on the project.
You can't find a better example of too little, too late.
To be a little bit fair, that 3 million is just for a feasibility study.
Maginot Line1 thinking.In the news this morning:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/europe-says-spacex-dominating-launch-vows-to-develop-falcon-9-like-rocket/?amp=1
"Europe says SpaceX 'dominating' launch, vows to develop Falcon 9-like rocket".
Who'd have think. :)
The article says they're spending 3 million Euros on the project.
You can't find a better example of too little, too late.
To be a little bit fair, that 3 million is just for a feasibility study.
Yeah, and that's my point. They're doing nothing but studies for something that might someday match Falcon 9. Meanwhile, SpaceX is building actual hardware in their all-out effort to develop the next-generation vehicle that will be far beyond that.
For the purpose of new development:Maginot Line1 thinking.In the news this morning:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/europe-says-spacex-dominating-launch-vows-to-develop-falcon-9-like-rocket/?amp=1
"Europe says SpaceX 'dominating' launch, vows to develop Falcon 9-like rocket".
Who'd have think. :)
The article says they're spending 3 million Euros on the project.
You can't find a better example of too little, too late.
To be a little bit fair, that 3 million is just for a feasibility study.
Yeah, and that's my point. They're doing nothing but studies for something that might someday match Falcon 9. Meanwhile, SpaceX is building actual hardware in their all-out effort to develop the next-generation vehicle that will be far beyond that.
They need to at least be thinking about a vehicle that competes with Starship. That's playing to where the puck will be. Better if they could think about vehicles that are an order of magnitude cheaper yet (which is going to be tough but that's what they should be thinking about)
If they produce a lovely F9 competitor that comes on line in 2026 (which is blazingly fast for most agencies) it's too little too late by a LOT.
THAT SAID... Elon's plan is WORKING. There will be SpaceX competitors driving price down.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
With all due respect, I have no idea what you're talking about or responding to?While I applaud their honesty, what's their path to success once New Glenn comes on-line and Starship begins to roam the inner solar system?
You can skate to where the puck currently is, or to where it's going to be. But how do they compete against a company like SpaceX that will just melt the ice and start a soccer game.
When that happens, they've probably use boosters for their payloads. And those payloads will be tailored to those boosters to to share rides on those boosters.
Right now, low risk wins over cost - and the cost had already been allocated. This isn't a knock against the future of spaceflight - it was the right thing to do for that payload right now.
As the next generation of boosters matures, you'll see missions designed that use them.
And I don't get how you say they're *competing* against the launch providers - they're actively purchasing a launch for their payload. NewSpace isn't going to make the space agencies of the world obsolete. It'll just be a new set of contractors that launch bigger payloads and build bigger spacecraft.
I don't think Europe will ever develop something like Starship, is there an use case for them?What's the use case for airplanes?
Probably something like a methane-fueled F9 is a much better fit as an A6 replacement, an heavy configuration would give plenty performance growth path if it will be ever required.
Not necessarily bigger is better IMHO.
I don't think Europe will ever develop something like Starship, is there an use case for them?The "use case" for Starship is humanity becoming a spacefaring civilization, not just a one planet civ that happens to dabble a bit iin LEO and launch comsats.
Probably something like a methane-fueled F9 is a much better fit as an A6 replacement, an heavy configuration would give plenty performance growth path if it will be ever required.
Not necessarily bigger is better IMHO.
But for a National Space Agency, what is the purpose of becoming a multiplanetary civilization? Will it win voted in parlement? Is there domestic issues you could be spending that money on?I don't think Europe will ever develop something like Starship, is there an use case for them?The "use case" for Starship is humanity becoming a spacefaring civilization, not just a one planet civ that happens to dabble a bit iin LEO and launch comsats.
Probably something like a methane-fueled F9 is a much better fit as an A6 replacement, an heavy configuration would give plenty performance growth path if it will be ever required.
Not necessarily bigger is better IMHO.
Bigger IS better for that use case.
But for a National Space Agency, what is the purpose of becoming a multiplanetary civilization? Will it win voted in parlement? Is there domestic issues you could be spending that money on?You have just put your finger on the crux of what is wrong with national space programs. 500 years ago the prospect of vast resources was enough to get despots like Ferdinand and Isabella, or the Kings of France, England, etc. to allocate their own resources to go after them, or to grant land patents to companies of investor-adventurers so they could go after them.
If Starship point-to-point is as disruptive to long-haul air travel as seems likely[1] it's Airbus who should be looking to build an equivalent for Europe...Exactly. Some of us have been predicting disruption in various industries for a while now. And been laughed at. That's fine.
[1] Musk has thus far disrupted every industry he's entered.
100x exactly.But for a National Space Agency, what is the purpose of becoming a multiplanetary civilization? Will it win voted in parlement? Is there domestic issues you could be spending that money on?You have just put your finger on the crux of what is wrong with national space programs. 500 years ago the prospect of vast resources was enough to get despots like Ferdinand and Isabella, or the Kings of France, England, etc. to allocate their own resources to go after them, or to grant land patents to companies of investor-adventurers so they could go after them.
Happily we have fewer despots now. Also happily, they aren't needed. We have dotcom billionaires that see the potential and plan to seize the chance to establish it.
Any national space agency that wants to fund a launcher has to compete against that, meaning they have to act like they get it, even if they don't. Or be forever doomed to irrelevancy. Because when the market is using semis, a government jeep isn't going to cut it.
This is far afield from the topic though.If Starship point-to-point is as disruptive to long-haul air travel as seems likely[1] it's Airbus who should be looking to build an equivalent for Europe...Exactly. Some of us have been predicting disruption in various industries for a while now. And been laughed at. That's fine.
[1] Musk has thus far disrupted every industry he's entered.
In the news this morning:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/europe-says-spacex-dominating-launch-vows-to-develop-falcon-9-like-rocket/?amp=1
"Europe says SpaceX 'dominating' launch, vows to develop Falcon 9-like rocket".
Who'd have thunk. :)
If Starship point-to-point is as disruptive to long-haul air travel as seems likely[1] it's Airbus who should be looking to build an equivalent for Europe...
[1] Musk has thus far disrupted every industry he's entered.
Airbus and European aerospace have not had great luck with fast following. A380 and Concorde being two colossal economic failures fed by skating to the wrong spot. I don't think they will be a hurry to follow as radical of an idea as Starship, especially as it relates to point to point passenger travel.
The talk is available at https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2019/videos/195239866
I could see and witness the change in our customers from, I would say, a little bit of skepticism in the beginning of flying a recovered booster, a previously flown booster as we call it, to a “we actually like that, you’ve done all the tests you know this vehicle.”
#2 was to me always the most attractive feature.The talk is available at https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2019/videos/195239866
Hans Koenigsmann today at the AIAA 2019 Propulsion & Energy Forum today, talking about booster reuse:QuoteI could see and witness the change in our customers from, I would say, a little bit of skepticism in the beginning of flying a recovered booster, a previously flown booster as we call it, to a “we actually like that, you’ve done all the tests you know this vehicle.”
He emphasised, as in previous talks, benefits to reliability from reuse, through the understanding gained of how vehicles and components behave. Seems customers agree.
So my impression is that customer perception of reuse benefits are currently (most important first):
1. Greater schedule certainty
2. Improved reliability
3. Reduced cost
Although maybe 1 & 2 are the wrong way around?
So maybe we’re not that far from the point where a flight proven booster costs more than a new one?!
Weather delays are continuing for the latest Starlink (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49765.0) launch, due to needing to have decent weather at both the launch and recovery sites.Wouldn't the upper level winds still be an issue, regardless of the landing zone conditions?
A case of reuse reducing schedule certainty. However, I think a fairly minor and (probably) unusual occurrence (at least unusual to have multiple delays). Knowing that there will be boosters available whenever needed is much more significant.
Wouldn't the upper level winds still be an issue, regardless of the landing zone conditions?
Weather in the recovery area continues to be unfavorable so team is now targeting Monday, January 27 for launch of Starlink, pending Range availability
Now targeting Wednesday, January 29 at 9:06 a.m., 14:06 UTC, for launch of Starlink due to poor weather in the recovery area
In the last 10 months (post CRS-17) the only new boosters SpaceX have flown are the FH centre core, for STP-2 last June, and B.1059 for CRS-19 in December. Of course the FH side cores were reused (and I assume the centre core would have been too if SpaceX had successfully recovered one previously).I count 32 as well but my split is 19 reuses and 13 new.
With all the Starlink launches coming up, I’m guessing that in 2 months time SpaceX may only have flown 3 or 4 new boosters in the previous 12 month period. That’s a huge drop in required booster construction. In 2017 new boosters were used for 13 of the 18 launches.
If I was a SpaceX customer I think at this point I’d prefer a flight proven booster to a new one.
Edit to add:
If I’ve counted correctly, up to and including CRS-20 there have been 32 uses of block 5 cores (FH flights count as 3 and I’m including the CC Dragon launch abort). Of those 32 uses, 23 have been flight proven, or 72%.
Shotwell: I don't actually think we're going to need to fly a Falcon 9 booster more than 10 times, as some government government [sic] customers want new vehicles.
QuoteSpaceX on track to launch first NASA astronauts in May, president says
PUBLISHED TUE, MAR 10 20203:54 PM EDT
Michael Sheetz
KEY POINTS
SpaceX is “gunning for May” to launch NASA astronauts on its first spaceflight with crew, president and COO Gwynne Shotwell said Tuesday.
She noted that the length of the mission is still under consideration, saying its “kind of TBD right now.”
Shotwell also noted that SpaceX is planning to reuse its Crew Dragon capsules, a decision that was in doubt previously.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/spacex-aiming-for-may-astronaut-launch-will-reuse-crew-dragon.html
“We can fly crew more than once on a Crew Dragon,” Shotwell said. “I’m pretty sure NASA is going to be okay with reuse.”
Started this thread to focus on booster reuse, since extended to fairings. I think crew Dragon reuse is also of interest:With 20xCRS missions under their belt, SpaceX know a thing or two about refurbishing Dragon that has been in ocean.QuoteSpaceX on track to launch first NASA astronauts in May, president says
PUBLISHED TUE, MAR 10 20203:54 PM EDT
Michael Sheetz
KEY POINTS
SpaceX is “gunning for May” to launch NASA astronauts on its first spaceflight with crew, president and COO Gwynne Shotwell said Tuesday.
She noted that the length of the mission is still under consideration, saying its “kind of TBD right now.”
Shotwell also noted that SpaceX is planning to reuse its Crew Dragon capsules, a decision that was in doubt previously.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/spacex-aiming-for-may-astronaut-launch-will-reuse-crew-dragon.html
From the article:Quote“We can fly crew more than once on a Crew Dragon,” Shotwell said. “I’m pretty sure NASA is going to be okay with reuse.”
With 20xCRS missions under their belt, SpaceX know a thing or two about refurbishing Dragon that has been in ocean.Which raises the question "How different is Dragon 2 from Dragon 1?"
Let's discuss something a little more useful than dubious claims about risk probabilities...
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1268316718750814209QuoteSpaceX has been given NASA approval to fly flight-proven Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon vehicles during Commercial Crew flights starting with Post-Certification Mission 2, per a modification to SpaceX's contract with NASA.
https://beta.sam.gov/awards/90121604%2BIDV
NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.It seems a pretty strong argument that if reuse is good enough for people, it should be good enough for milsats.
NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.I disagree that's like saying that the SN4 explosion posed a risk to the current Space x demo flight, IMO.
Unfortunately the military doesn't value certain things in the same way many humans do.NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.It seems a pretty strong argument that if reuse is good enough for people, it should be good enough for milsats.
NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.I disagree that's like saying that the SN4 explosion posed a risk to the current Space x demo flight, IMO.
I do agree that NASA allowing Crew Dragon re-use IS a major milestone.
NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.
"They cut the price so much we could not believe what we were looking at."
By my count, the Block 5 variant of the Falcon 9 rocket has now launched 31 times. Of those, just 10 have been new boosters.
Here’s a good statisticI wonder if he's counting the FH flights as one. If 1046 core is the first block 5 then there were 14 cores flown to date. Maybe Eric should take a look at a nifty table on this forum ;D
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1271745784569040901QuoteBy my count, the Block 5 variant of the Falcon 9 rocket has now launched 31 times. Of those, just 10 have been new boosters.
Some articles are mentioning a discount of a few million dollars for the contract changes to allow booster recovery on this flight. There was a contract modification last September that lowered the value by $9.5M.
Here’s a good statisticI wonder if he's counting the FH flights as one. If 1046 core is the first block 5 then there were 14 cores flown to date. Maybe Eric should take a look at a nifty table on this forum ;D
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1271745784569040901QuoteBy my count, the Block 5 variant of the Falcon 9 rocket has now launched 31 times. Of those, just 10 have been new boosters.
Some articles are mentioning a discount of a few million dollars for the contract changes to allow booster recovery on this flight. There was a contract modification last September that lowered the value by $9.5M.
The GPS III-3 launch provides another perspective on reuse. This was originally contracted as a disposable booster even though it clearly fell into the range for recovery. Air Force didn't allow recovery on the Dec. 2018 GPS flight, but the US Space Force is now willing to renegotiate $9.5M off what I believe is a ~$80M flight to allow SpaceX to recover the booster. SpaceX, on the other side, was willing to risk $9.5M in their pocket for the opportunity to recover and reuse this booster, and with a safe landing today, that bet just paid off for both parties.
Some articles are mentioning a discount of a few million dollars for the contract changes to allow booster recovery on this flight. There was a contract modification last September that lowered the value by $9.5M.
The GPS III-3 launch provides another perspective on reuse. This was originally contracted as a disposable booster even though it clearly fell into the range for recovery. Air Force didn't allow recovery on the Dec. 2018 GPS flight, but the US Space Force is now willing to renegotiate $9.5M off what I believe is a ~$80M flight to allow SpaceX to recover the booster. SpaceX, on the other side, was willing to risk $9.5M in their pocket for the opportunity to recover and reuse this booster, and with a safe landing today, that bet just paid off for both parties.
SpaceX paid $9.5m to gain approximately $200m ($20m savings per launch times 10 launches from this one rocket). Ballpark.
Some articles are mentioning a discount of a few million dollars for the contract changes to allow booster recovery on this flight. There was a contract modification last September that lowered the value by $9.5M.
The GPS III-3 launch provides another perspective on reuse. This was originally contracted as a disposable booster even though it clearly fell into the range for recovery. Air Force didn't allow recovery on the Dec. 2018 GPS flight, but the US Space Force is now willing to renegotiate $9.5M off what I believe is a ~$80M flight to allow SpaceX to recover the booster. SpaceX, on the other side, was willing to risk $9.5M in their pocket for the opportunity to recover and reuse this booster, and with a safe landing today, that bet just paid off for both parties.
SpaceX paid $9.5m to gain approximately $200m ($20m savings per launch times 10 launches from this one rocket). Ballpark.
That's not fair reasoning. You're assuming that they're going to launch this first stage 10 more times but if they hadn't taken the $9.5 million hit on this one launch contract then they would have built 10 new stages for those 10 future launches. But, of course, they wouldn't have, they just would have built 1 more first stage and launched it those 10 times. So it's really only fair to count a benefit to SpaceX of not having to build 1 more first stage, not 10. So they really save more like $20 million. The net gain to SpaceX is then $11 million by this logic (plus they get one more launch out of the new stage, so slightly less than $11 million).
However, even if they were losing money on this one contract, it's probably worth it to SpaceX to take the $9.5 million hit on this contract because it sets the precedent for the Air Force to let them land stages in the future. When bidding on competitive contracts in the future the Air Force is more likely to just accept having the stage land as part of the terms of the contract without penalizing SpaceX for it versus another bidder, meaning SpaceX won't have to lower prices in the future to be allowed to land the stage.
Unfortunately the military doesn't value certain things in the same way many humans do.NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.It seems a pretty strong argument that if reuse is good enough for people, it should be good enough for milsats.
Unfortunately the military doesn't value certain things in the same way many humans do.NASA feeling comfortable with re-use for Falcon and Dragon is a big step towards accepting re-use with Starship. This is a big step forward. The last shoe to drop looks to be the military.It seems a pretty strong argument that if reuse is good enough for people, it should be good enough for milsats.
Suggested edit - "Unfortunately the military doesn't value certain things in the same way many [other] humans do."
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, etc., i.e., "the military" are humans, too.
Some articles are mentioning a discount of a few million dollars for the contract changes to allow booster recovery on this flight. There was a contract modification last September that lowered the value by $9.5M.
The GPS III-3 launch provides another perspective on reuse. This was originally contracted as a disposable booster even though it clearly fell into the range for recovery. Air Force didn't allow recovery on the Dec. 2018 GPS flight, but the US Space Force is now willing to renegotiate $9.5M off what I believe is a ~$80M flight to allow SpaceX to recover the booster. SpaceX, on the other side, was willing to risk $9.5M in their pocket for the opportunity to recover and reuse this booster, and with a safe landing today, that bet just paid off for both parties.
SpaceX paid $9.5m to gain approximately $200m ($20m savings per launch times 10 launches from this one rocket). Ballpark.
That's not fair reasoning. You're assuming that they're going to launch this first stage 10 more times but if they hadn't taken the $9.5 million hit on this one launch contract then they would have built 10 new stages for those 10 future launches. But, of course, they wouldn't have, they just would have built 1 more first stage and launched it those 10 times. So it's really only fair to count a benefit to SpaceX of not having to build 1 more first stage, not 10. So they really save more like $20 million. The net gain to SpaceX is then $11 million by this logic (plus they get one more launch out of the new stage, so slightly less than $11 million).
However, even if they were losing money on this one contract, it's probably worth it to SpaceX to take the $9.5 million hit on this contract because it sets the precedent for the Air Force to let them land stages in the future. When bidding on competitive contracts in the future the Air Force is more likely to just accept having the stage land as part of the terms of the contract without penalizing SpaceX for it versus another bidder, meaning SpaceX won't have to lower prices in the future to be allowed to land the stage.
Disagree. This gives them 10 more launches (ok 9 to be precise) in ADDITION to all other boosters that have been built.
Some articles are mentioning a discount of a few million dollars for the contract changes to allow booster recovery on this flight. There was a contract modification last September that lowered the value by $9.5M.
The GPS III-3 launch provides another perspective on reuse. This was originally contracted as a disposable booster even though it clearly fell into the range for recovery. Air Force didn't allow recovery on the Dec. 2018 GPS flight, but the US Space Force is now willing to renegotiate $9.5M off what I believe is a ~$80M flight to allow SpaceX to recover the booster. SpaceX, on the other side, was willing to risk $9.5M in their pocket for the opportunity to recover and reuse this booster, and with a safe landing today, that bet just paid off for both parties.
SpaceX paid $9.5m to gain approximately $200m ($20m savings per launch times 10 launches from this one rocket). Ballpark.
That's not fair reasoning. You're assuming that they're going to launch this first stage 10 more times but if they hadn't taken the $9.5 million hit on this one launch contract then they would have built 10 new stages for those 10 future launches. But, of course, they wouldn't have, they just would have built 1 more first stage and launched it those 10 times. So it's really only fair to count a benefit to SpaceX of not having to build 1 more first stage, not 10. So they really save more like $20 million. The net gain to SpaceX is then $11 million by this logic (plus they get one more launch out of the new stage, so slightly less than $11 million).
However, even if they were losing money on this one contract, it's probably worth it to SpaceX to take the $9.5 million hit on this contract because it sets the precedent for the Air Force to let them land stages in the future. When bidding on competitive contracts in the future the Air Force is more likely to just accept having the stage land as part of the terms of the contract without penalizing SpaceX for it versus another bidder, meaning SpaceX won't have to lower prices in the future to be allowed to land the stage.
Disagree. This gives them 10 more launches (ok 9 to be precise) in ADDITION to all other boosters that have been built.
This is only a factor if they are booster-production-rate limited to the extent that they cannot build one more booster in the necessary time. I highly doubt that's the case, as it would probably take well over a year to get 10 flights on a single booster, which is plenty of time to crank out one extra booster.
The recovered booster is an asset capable of 9 more flights. That’s 9 more flights they could deliver even if they shut down their booster production line today. And every additional new booster they recover adds 9 more flights to their capacity.
The recovered booster is an asset capable of 9 more flights. That’s 9 more flights they could deliver even if they shut down their booster production line today. And every additional new booster they recover adds 9 more flights to their capacity.
If they lost this one and built another new booster instead, that new booster replaces the 9 flights of the lost booster, but at the cost of the additional 9 flights that it would have added on top of the previous 9.
The recovered booster is an asset capable of 9 more flights. That’s 9 more flights they could deliver even if they shut down their booster production line today. And every additional new booster they recover adds 9 more flights to their capacity.
If they lost this one and built another new booster instead, that new booster replaces the 9 flights of the lost booster, but at the cost of the additional 9 flights that it would have added on top of the previous 9.
For your logic to work SpaceX would have to be leaving enormous amounts of money on the table by failing to build enough boosters to meet demand.
If you assume SpaceX continues to build boosters as long as there's demand for them, your logic entirely falls apart.
Of course, they could well get more than 10 flights out of each booster....after all, that is really just an aspirational figure that happens to match the number of fingers/thumbs on Elon's hands.Do we know that? I expect most items on the F9 have design/expected lifetimes. Like engines maybe having been tested for the equivalent of 10 flights! (Do we know?) Perhaps the design life target was 10 flights.... in most cases I assume there is a lot of thought behind Elon's "off the cuff" statements. Obviously as the flight/reuse envelope expands, such predictions have to be validated through monitoring and inspections.
Of course, they could well get more than 10 flights out of each booster....after all, that is really just an aspirational figure that happens to match the number of fingers/thumbs on Elon's hands.
Neither of you are explaining your position adequately.The recovered booster is an asset capable of 9 more flights. That’s 9 more flights they could deliver even if they shut down their booster production line today. And every additional new booster they recover adds 9 more flights to their capacity.
If they lost this one and built another new booster instead, that new booster replaces the 9 flights of the lost booster, but at the cost of the additional 9 flights that it would have added on top of the previous 9.
For your logic to work SpaceX would have to be leaving enormous amounts of money on the table by failing to build enough boosters to meet demand.
If you assume SpaceX continues to build boosters as long as there's demand for them, your logic entirely falls apart.
Of course, they could well get more than 10 flights out of each booster....after all, that is really just an aspirational figure that happens to match the number of fingers/thumbs on Elon's hands.Do we know that? I expect most items on the F9 have design/expected lifetimes. Like engines maybe having been tested for the equivalent of 10 flights! (Do we know?) Perhaps the design life target was 10 flights.... in most cases I assume there is a lot of thought behind Elon's "off the cuff" statements. Obviously as the flight/reuse envelope expands, such predictions have to be validated through monitoring and inspections.
“In principle, we could refly Block 4 probably upwards of 10 times, but with a fair amount of work between each flight,” Musk said. “The key to Block 5 is that it’s designed to do 10 or more flights with no refurbishment between each flight. The only thing that needs to change is to reload propellant and fly again.”
With some refurbishment, a Block 5 first stage should be able to launch 100 times, Musk said."
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1286312153193029633QuoteMcErlean: NASA’s plans call for reusing the Falcon 9 booster from the Crew-1 mission on the Crew-2 mission, and to reuse the Demo-2 capsule for Crew-2 as well.
Previously Next Spaceflight stated that this mission is going to be launched using booster 1059.4, but now it shows "Unknown Vehicle" again, so there may be an assignment shift. I wonder if it's somehow related to the mission delays.
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/90
Next Spaceflight is showing 1059.4 for this flight again, so apparently no assignment changes then.
Is this the first customer payload to go on a 4th booster flight?
Yes, it will be the first! (If you don't count the IFA for Crew Dragon haha)
An indirect data point:Minor correction: They bent the launch corridor to arc around the Delta Heavy. They did arc it to go straight over Miami instead though.
The NRO today allowed a SpaceX launch to proceed even though they had a unique asset sitting on top of the delayed Delta Heavy nearby.
But also, they allowed SpaceX to RTLS....
Only a few years ago, not only was there distrust of the whole idea of rockets flying *towards* the launch site, but there was also this mindset that only the launch matters and the customers don't care about recovery, it's only SpaceX's game...
Fast forward to today, and both concepts - RTLS and recovery being an integral part of the mission - are not even raising eyebrows.
We have arrived.
https://twitter.com/free_space/status/1309515417703120897QuoteAir Force clears @spacex to fly two upcoming GPS satellites on previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 rockets, saving $26m per flight, says Dr Walt Lauderale
Based on the current plan, the GPS 3 SV05 satellite will launch on the same first stage booster set to blast off Friday with the GPS SV04 mission.
https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1327357510022434816QuoteUpdate: Due to onshore winds and recovery operations, @NASA and @SpaceX are targeting launch of the Crew-1 mission with astronauts to the @Space_Station at 7:27 p.m. EST Sunday, Nov. 15. The first stage booster is planned to be reused to fly astronauts on Crew-2. #LaunchAmerica
https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1327357510022434816QuoteUpdate: Due to onshore winds and recovery operations, @NASA and @SpaceX are targeting launch of the Crew-1 mission with astronauts to the @Space_Station at 7:27 p.m. EST Sunday, Nov. 15. The first stage booster is planned to be reused to fly astronauts on Crew-2. #LaunchAmerica
Booster recovery is increasingly becoming a critical launch issue, not just an afterthought or “nice to have”.
https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1327357510022434816QuoteUpdate: Due to onshore winds and recovery operations, @NASA and @SpaceX are targeting launch of the Crew-1 mission with astronauts to the @Space_Station at 7:27 p.m. EST Sunday, Nov. 15. The first stage booster is planned to be reused to fly astronauts on Crew-2. #LaunchAmerica
Booster recovery is increasingly becoming a critical launch issue, not just an afterthought or “nice to have”.
Isn't that a reference to crew recovery in the event of an abort? Onshore winds would blow Dragon under it's chutes back onto land after a pad abort, which would be really bad news for the crew.
Isn't that a reference to crew recovery in the event of an abort? Onshore winds would blow Dragon under it's chutes back onto land after a pad abort, which would be really bad news for the crew.
Teams moved the launch by one day because of onshore winds and to enable recovery of the first stage booster, which is planned to be reused to launch the Crew-2 mission next year. The booster is expected to land on the recovery ship about nine minutes after launch.
“Over the next 18 months we’ll complete the transition to a fully reusable SpaceX fleet,” said Col. Robert Bongiovi, director of the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Launch Enterprise.
“Over the next 18 months we’ll complete the transition to a fully reusable SpaceX fleet,” said Col. Robert Bongiovi, director of the Space and Missile Systems Center’s Launch Enterprise.
That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
"You want me to fly on a non-flight-tested booster? You're crazy!" ... It's only a matter of time.That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
In particular, SpaceX's repeat customers seem to really appreciate the opportunity to fly on the same booster that launched their previous mission. US government customers which are accustomed to having things exactly their way appreciate that even though they're working with a commercial launch provider, they can have their own booster complete with a special paperwork trail. We saw this first with Iridium, then NASA, and soon NSSL. We may see this with future constellation customers. If you make a big enough block buy, you get your own booster to use over and over again for your missions.That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
It can be measured. Recently, the DoD was paid by SpaceX to take reused boosters.
It might be more accurate to say that reused boosters are cheaper than ones you have to build from scratch, and DoD chose not to pay the premium for new ones.That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
It can be measured. Recently, the DoD was paid by SpaceX to take reused boosters.
"You want me to fly on a non-flight-tested booster? You're crazy!" ... It's only a matter of time.That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
"You want me to fly on a non-flight-tested booster? You're crazy!" ... It's only a matter of time.That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.
GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1
All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.
Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches. Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.
Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1
All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.
Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches. Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.
That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount". They can get a new booster and chose not to.
This should really put this debate to bed.
Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1
All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.
Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches. Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.
That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount". They can get a new booster and chose not to.
This should really put this debate to bed.
Some would argue used booster especially one on its 2nd flight is more reliable than new booster. A lot ELVs have failed from assembly errors which should show up in maiden flight of RLV.Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1
All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.
Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches. Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.
That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount". They can get a new booster and chose not to.
This should really put this debate to bed.
It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.
We already knew B, but A is new!
It's nice to see that more customers are getting that now.Some would argue used booster especially one on its 2nd flight is more reliable than new booster. A lot ELVs have failed from assembly errors which should show up in maiden flight of RLV.Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1
All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.
Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches. Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.
That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount". They can get a new booster and chose not to.
This should really put this debate to bed.
It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.
We already knew B, but A is new!
It's nice to see that more customers are getting that now.Some would argue used booster especially one on its 2nd flight is more reliable than new booster. A lot ELVs have failed from assembly errors which should show up in maiden flight of RLV.Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1
All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.
Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches. Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.
That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount". They can get a new booster and chose not to.
This should really put this debate to bed.
It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.
We already knew B, but A is new!
A bunch of people always argue that used boosters are considered less reliable and point to discounts as "proof" - any number of posts to this effect upthread.
With the selection of a used booster for a manned flight, this argument should finally die.
Thinking some more about this, both the last Electron and Vega failures where assembly errors that manifested themselves during first launch with near 100% probability. I can't be bothered to run the numbers right now, but preventing first flight failures could have prevented most recent failures, excluding new LVs.The fact that with ELV's the first flight is also the last flight helped shaped the checklist culture of old space companies (and their attendant costs).
Thinking some more about this, both the last Electron and Vega failures where assembly errors that manifested themselves during first launch with near 100% probability. I can't be bothered to run the numbers right now, but preventing first flight failures could have prevented most recent failures, excluding new LVs.
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1336103465831944192QuoteFalcon 9’s first stage previously supported six missions and one of its fairing halves previously flew on the ANASIS-II mission
QuoteGwynne Shotwell talks about selling flight-proven rockets, Starship
"It was easier to sell 'flight proven' to customers than it was to sell Falcons."
ERIC BERGER - 1/4/2021, 8:45 PM
SpaceX enjoyed its most successful year in 2020. Amidst the pandemic, the company set a record for total number of launches: 26. All met their objectives. The Crew Dragon spacecraft flew humans—Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken—into orbit for the first time. And then it did so again, with the Crew-1 mission in November. SpaceX also made demonstrable progress on its next-generation Starship launch system.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/gwynne-shotwell-talks-about-selling-flight-proven-rockets-starship/
In truth, Shotwell said, it has not been particularly difficult to convince customers to fly on flight-proven rockets. It has been easier to sell customers on the technology than it was selling them on the first Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets.
twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1354800132777267203QuoteNASA plans to reuse a Falcon 9 first stage for the Crew-2 mission later this spring. I asked for an update from Steve Stich, NASA's program manager for commercial crew, and it sounds like they're working through the review process.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1354800376978042880QuoteStich: "So far, the team has not identified any showstoppers and the Commercial Crew Program Control Board continues to review the components for flight using the standard process."
NASA's Steve Stich confirms all remains on track to fly a used first stage for the Crew-2 mission in April. Completed a certification review last Friday.
This is a huge milestone for reusable rockets—NASA putting its most valuable missions on them.
This is a huge milestone for reusable rockets—NASA putting its most valuable missions on them.
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe? That system?QuoteThis is a huge milestone for reusable rockets—NASA putting its most valuable missions on them.
They've done that about 135 times before...
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe? That system?Yes the system to complete ISS, fix Hubble and send/return 22 crews/147 humans to space, all while down 1/4 of the STS fleet of Orbiter Vehicles.
I loved the shuttle, but the system killed more astronauts than all other LVs combined. By a lot.You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe? That system?Yes the system to complete ISS, fix Hubble and send/return 22 crews/147 humans to space, all while down 1/4 of the STS fleet of Orbiter Vehicles.
That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.
I agree SX's efforts at safety shouldn't be handwaved away, if that's what occurred. Many seemingly forget or are simply ignorant of pre-SX history thussly IMO require correction/discussion.I loved the shuttle, but the system killed more astronauts than all other LVs combined. By a lot.You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe? That system?Yes the system to complete ISS, fix Hubble and send/return 22 crews/147 humans to space, all while down 1/4 of the STS fleet of Orbiter Vehicles.
That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.
Feel free to think of that as "political". The fact of the matter is that NASA has higher standards of reliability for CC systems, which Shuttle was not able to reach as a core element of its design. SpaceX reaching those standards with reused booster and capsule should not be handwaved aside because Shuttle existed, which was my original point.
The actual number killed on shuttle is a bad metric IMO.
Sure, 40% of the fleet, or 2 incidents caused by human factors, whatever, anything is better than quantity of souls lost. Unless there's an agenda.The actual number killed on shuttle is a bad metric IMO.
How about vehicle loss? 40% of the fleet was lost to various lack of safety oversight by NASA and its contractors.
The Starship landing certainly looks scary, and personally I think it will be a while until SpaceX allows humans to land in it, and only when they get some sort of crew compartment installed that can survive some form of crash.
But the Shuttle was retired for all the right reasons - it was going to require a LOT of rework and upgrades to maintain what was left of the fleet, and even then there was little for it to do after the ISS was complete. Not political at all, and I say that as someone that initially thought it was a bad idea - I came to realize it was the only logical decision.
For Starship there will be great debate when the first humans fly on it, so we can take our handwringing about crew vehicles in the past and start looking to the future... :D
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe? That system?That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.
What was the topic of this thread again? It's been so long now that I can't remember.
Was able to confirm with NASA that SpaceX now, essentially, chooses which rockets it will use from its fleet to launch astronauts. SpaceX can propose a new booster, or a first stage that has flown once. Further certification is needed for boosters used more than once.
Dr. Lauderdale says SMC has "no other constraints" for SpaceX's use of this Falcon 9 booster after the GPS III SV05 launch, and the military is "certainly open to using" other boosters (i.e., not just ones that launched NSSL missions) for the GPS III SV06 launch.
The lack of constraints is notable as SMC required SpaceX use the booster that launched GPS III SV04 for this first reuse mission.
Interesting SpaceNews article regarding the change in launch site and booster for this mission:
SpaceX moved NROL-85 from the Cape to Vandenberg at no extra cost, in exchange for reusing booster (https://spacenews.com/spacex-moved-nrol-85-from-the-cape-to-vandenberg-at-no-extra-cost-in-exchange-for-reusing-booster/) [dated May 6]Quote from: SpaceNewsThe National Reconnaissance Office’s NROL-85 mission launched April 17 by SpaceX was originally scheduled to fly from Cape Canaveral, Florida. But just 12 months before the launch, the NRO informed SpaceX it needed to send its payload to a different orbit so the launch had to be moved to the western range at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.
“This was a challenge,” NROL-85 mission manager Maj. Jonathan Schirner said this week on the NRO’s “The Dish” podcast.
National security space launch missions are rarely, if ever, moved from coast to coast on such short notice, Schirner said. “It’s the first time we’ve done a range change at the 12 month mark in the NSSL timeframe.”
<snip>
The NRO and SpaceX worked out a deal to move NROL-85 to the West Coast at no extra cost to the government and in exchange the NRO agreed to fly the mission on a reused first stage that had previously flown another NRO mission.
Under the agreement, SpaceX would launch NROL-87 in February at Vandenberg and reuse the boost for NROL-85 in April. Schirner said the deal also was possible because the Space Force’s Space Systems Command was able to examine the recovered booster and approve it for reuse in just two months, a much shorter than usual turnaround.
NROL-85 manager Maj. Jonathan Schirner:
"When we talk about benefits of a reused booster, we’re talking about taxpayer savings on one end but specifically on this mission, we were able to get a priority of the director of the NRO done while spending zero taxpayer dollars."
Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?
Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?SpaceX seem to try to use Starlinks for the riskier flights, as the impact of losing it is less than for customer payloads.
Makes sense. Nobody buys or leases an airliner that hasn't had a test flight (or two or three).Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?SpaceX seem to try to use Starlinks for the riskier flights, as the impact of losing it is less than for customer payloads.
It wouldn't surprise me if flight #1 of a booster is one of the riskier ones, so the first flight of any new booster will be Starlink from now on, unless a customer specifically requests a brand new one.
Once they've proven the new booster with a Starlink launch they'll be willing to put a customer payload on it.
Are there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?
I assumed that they built them because they thought they needed side boosters soon, based on the FH manifest before those missions started slipping. It's easier (I assumed) to build them as side boosters than it is to convert a used F9 booster. Eventually one or more side boosters will get converted to F9 if the FH manifest continues to slip and if another F9 is neededAre there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?
The number of Heavy side boosters built recently, for what's still a fairly thin manifest, suggests that at least some USSF-n launches are contracted for new ones? Some of those date back a few years though.
Are there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?
The number of Heavy side boosters built recently, for what's still a fairly thin manifest, suggests that at least some USSF-n launches are contracted for new ones? Some of those date back a few years though.
Now that 3 boosters have all achieved 13 successful flights and recovery, I’m struggling to see why any customer would now refuse a reused booster with a low number of flights.
For the FH flights I’m not clear the extent to which new side boosters are due to customer request (may be a while ago when flight was ordered?), or SpaceX deciding to build new ones to guarantee side booster availability/avoid the need to convert an F9 booster.
For the FH flights I’m not clear the extent to which new side boosters are due to customer request (may be a while ago when flight was ordered?), or SpaceX deciding to build new ones to guarantee side booster availability/avoid the need to convert an F9 booster.(Note: My speculation/inference based on one comment from Jim)
Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.
Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.
Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.
In the case of "possible but not attempted" they could try for a "water landing" like the early F9 landing experiments. Or possibly SpaceX has given up on further development of FH.
Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.
That might be the case of 1 of those 4 missions (Psyche). I suspect that SpaceX's current launch cadence and the detail that they are 0 for 3 in recovering the core boosters might have influenced the decision not to attempt a recovery, even if that was possible.
That might be the case of 1 of those 4 missions (Psyche). I suspect that SpaceX's current launch cadence and the detail that they are 0 for 3 in recovering the core boosters might have influenced the decision not to attempt a recovery, even if that was possible.
It could still be recovered, but would potentially need additional consideration for TPS, beyond the TPS they already use for boosters. This is true for ULA, too.
Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.
Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.
Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.
Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.
It could still be recovered, but would potentially need additional consideration for TPS, beyond the TPS they already use for boosters. This is true for ULA, too.
If Starship didn't exist and they wanted to use FH for Starlink, it might make sense to get a third or fourth West Coast droneship so you could recover the center core, along with an extended fairing and perhaps recovery of the upper stage (since they'd have the margin to do so and still have it be worth it on Falcon Heavy).
Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.
Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.
It could still be recovered, but would potentially need additional consideration for TPS, beyond the TPS they already use for boosters. This is true for ULA, too.
Actually, for those missions, the need for more TPS (or more likely a longer re-entry burn) might be the least important factor in deciding to not recover those cores.
For at least the USSF launches which will be placing a satellite directly into geostationary orbit, SpaceX would need a third autonomous drone ship off the coast of Florida to consider making the attempt to land the core. While potentially SpaceX could relocate the drone ship on the West coast to Fl, that would likely mean that drone ship would be unavailable for several launches out of Vandenberg.
The Commercial FH mission is also to launch a satellite to geostationary orbit. so it's flight profile might be similar to the two USSF ones.
In the case of Psyche, the propellant that otherwise would be used for the reentry and landing burns might be needed for the primary mission. That potentially could also play a factor in the decision to not attempting to recover the core booster in the other three stages.
Makes sense. Nobody buys or leases an airliner that hasn't had a test flight (or two or three).
Makes sense. Nobody buys or leases an airliner that hasn't had a test flight (or two or three).
This makes me wonder how often SpaceX replace a component after first flight because it is a little out of family? Or, really, on any of the flights.
Cheers, Martin
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1578120999253557248QuoteJean-Luc Froeliger, Intelsat space systems VP, is "very confident" in using a SpaceX fleet-leading booster.
"It’s the same price if you’re the first or the 14th. You pay extra when it’s expendable."
He said Intelsat's next launch in November will use an expendable F9 booster.
So flight proven boosters not yet more expensive than new boosters ;)