Lets not forget that with a Mars colony as planned there will be a bunch of full size ITS boosters sitting idle between synods unless they have a job.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 03/29/2017 06:15 amQuote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 08:59 pmYou are quite wrong... The transportation industry is a perfect example of the opposite. Things get delivered in oversized vehicles all the time. All my mail and boxed deliveries are delivered in large trucks. How is that "right size"? Most people drive alone in a car that can sit 4-8 people. How is that "right size"? Small items get shipped across the ocean in massive cargo ships. How is that "right size"?No, bulk freight wins out every time there is a choice. For almost every cargo the "right size" is indeed massively oversized. The only reason that you see various sized transports is due to the sheer VOLUME of cargo that allows lots of niches of vehicles, and sizes of those vehicles. If there is a sufficient volume of space launches, all sizes of launch vehicles will find a niche to be successful. But bulk will always be the more efficient and lower cost way to go.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/28/2017 08:59 pmYou are quite wrong... The transportation industry is a perfect example of the opposite. Things get delivered in oversized vehicles all the time. All my mail and boxed deliveries are delivered in large trucks. How is that "right size"? Most people drive alone in a car that can sit 4-8 people. How is that "right size"? Small items get shipped across the ocean in massive cargo ships. How is that "right size"?No, bulk freight wins out every time there is a choice. For almost every cargo the "right size" is indeed massively oversized. The only reason that you see various sized transports is due to the sheer VOLUME of cargo that allows lots of niches of vehicles, and sizes of those vehicles. If there is a sufficient volume of space launches, all sizes of launch vehicles will find a niche to be successful. But bulk will always be the more efficient and lower cost way to go.
You are quite wrong... The transportation industry is a perfect example of the opposite. Things get delivered in oversized vehicles all the time. All my mail and boxed deliveries are delivered in large trucks. How is that "right size"? Most people drive alone in a car that can sit 4-8 people. How is that "right size"? Small items get shipped across the ocean in massive cargo ships. How is that "right size"?No, bulk freight wins out every time there is a choice. For almost every cargo the "right size" is indeed massively oversized. The only reason that you see various sized transports is due to the sheer VOLUME of cargo that allows lots of niches of vehicles, and sizes of those vehicles. If there is a sufficient volume of space launches, all sizes of launch vehicles will find a niche to be successful. But bulk will always be the more efficient and lower cost way to go.
Its normal to be skeptical, after all SpaceX goals are lofting. But one the eve of the first booster relaunch I would hope most would realize that being a naysayer will look silly if SpaceX achieves their goals, which are hard but are certainly within the realm of possibility.
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 03/28/2017 08:42 pmI assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.Why? Do you think Boeing had a retirement date picked out for the 737 when they first introduced it 49 years ago?
I assume SpaceX has a plan for when it'll retire F9.
Who knows? My guess is they will keep F9 operational for as long as it is profitable.
That PoV demonstrates yet again how the ICBM architecture has warped space launch.
In every other transport mode except space launch there is the idea of a "right size" for a vehicle to carry a load and what that vehicle should carry.
Quote from: nacnud on 03/28/2017 08:45 pmWho knows? My guess is they will keep F9 operational for as long as it is profitable.Makes sense. But how can some other vendor launch payloads cheaper? Perhaps:(a) A design that uses a low cost second stage. Probably needs a larger first stage, since the second won't be as efficient. But if the first stage is reliably recovered, it could be lower total cost.(b) A recoverable second stage. With this they might undercut the F9 price. Again probably needs a larger first stage.(c) Comsats grow to about 7000 kg. Now SpaceX has to bid a F9 expendable or FH. A vendor with a 50% bigger single-core rocket might be cheaper.(d) Some technical shift we can't see working yet. Laser launch powered from the ground? Air breathing first stages?None of these seem likely in the next decade or so, so I'm guessing a long life for the F9.
Doesn't have to be competitive pressure that leads to Falcon retiring. Falcon has some operational issues that can't really be resolved without a near-complete redesign, like hazardous TEA-TEB ops, Merlin life limitations due to coking, fluids that are an extra pain like nitrogen and especially helium, and the relatively high cost of RP-1 compared to LNG.If SpaceX can reduce improve profits by reducing operational expenses they might retire Falcon even if it's still competitive with other commercial launchers.
There isn't going to be a reusable second stage
Quote from: macpacheco on 03/29/2017 07:03 amLets not forget that with a Mars colony as planned there will be a bunch of full size ITS boosters sitting idle between synods unless they have a job.The bigger issue is what to do with the spaceships between synods, since according to SpaceX's figures, they're the most expensive part of the system - yet would just be sitting idle most of the time.*Cough* Venus *cough*. Sorry, clearing my throat.
Quote from: Rei on 03/29/2017 09:26 amQuote from: macpacheco on 03/29/2017 07:03 amLets not forget that with a Mars colony as planned there will be a bunch of full size ITS boosters sitting idle between synods unless they have a job.The bigger issue is what to do with the spaceships between synods, since according to SpaceX's figures, they're the most expensive part of the system - yet would just be sitting idle most of the time.*Cough* Venus *cough*. Sorry, clearing my throat.You need to balance their extra cost with the data that the spaceship isn't expected to last 1000 launches. If my memory serves the space ship is expected to last an order of magnitude less, which makes it too special to launch all the time unless there's SpaceX needs to launch it full with people.