Well, for starters, they'll need to wash it.
Well, for starters, they'll need to wash it.
Well, is washing something they can do before loading it onto a transport and hauling it back to the workshop? Or is it best done back at the workshop?
Well, for starters, they'll need to wash it.
Well, is washing something they can do before loading it onto a transport and hauling it back to the workshop? Or is it best done back at the workshop?
I imagine that it would be most easily done if the core is mounted horizontally on those circular rings, rotating like a bird on a spit while a pressure washer slowly moves from one end to the other, kind of like a lathe.
How much force is needed to remove the soot, anyways? You certainly don't want to use too much water pressure and accidentally damage the skin.
Whatever they do, they're not going to power wash the stages in the HIF. I don't think that's an environment you want to be splashing water everywhere. As we head into 2016, with the very real possibility of returning up to 12 or more cores, they'll need to find/build some storage space. IMO, HIF is for what it stands for, Integration. As their launch tempo increases, they'll need a new facility for cleaning, inspecting, storing before it arrives at an HIF to be integrated for launch. For all we know they have already identified such a building or space to erect a new one. And if they haven't, I suspect after this successful landing, they're doing so now with added haste.Well, for starters, they'll need to wash it.
Well, is washing something they can do before loading it onto a transport and hauling it back to the workshop? Or is it best done back at the workshop?
Well, for starters, they'll need to wash it.
Why does it need to be washed in the first place?
Why does it need to be washed in the first place?
As flight rates increase, will we inevitably see reusable rockets evolve towards designs meant for easy-swappability?
Maybe the layer of ice that will accumulates on the LOX tank kinda alleviates this problem (eq. it is white & has bad thermal conductivity)?Why does it need to be washed in the first place?
One reason I've seen is that rocket fuselages are painted white in order to help keep the LOX from boiling off too quickly. Black soot would defeat that purpose, by causing solar radiation to be absorbed and therefore increasing the boil-off rate of the LOX.
Why does it need to be washed in the first place?
One reason I've seen is that rocket fuselages are painted white in order to help keep the LOX from boiling off too quickly. Black soot would defeat that purpose, by causing solar radiation to be absorbed and therefore increasing the boil-off rate of the LOX.
It seems predictable that the early period will involve more painstaking inspections, which will then later give way to more specialized inspections once you know which places experience the most wear and tear, and which places experience much less wear and tear.
Will we ever see things reach the equivalent of a Formula-1 racing pit-crew, where they can quickly unbolt the "tires", etc, and swap on fresh ones, etc, to rapidly make the vehicle ready for use again? I thought that perhaps that Formula-1 racing is a better analogy than conventional aircraft maintainenance, since the typical aircraft doesn't take as much punishment during its flight to warrant the same level of parts replacement so frequently.
As flight rates increase, will we inevitably see reusable rockets evolve towards designs meant for easy-swappability?
People may be prematurely celebrating the end of the expendable era.. They may soon be nostalgic for the age of brand spanking shiny new rockets. Should we really celebrate spaceflight joining the modern age of sooty vehicles, shitty inflight service, vandalised seats adorned with chewing gum.. something unidentifiable and sticky.. and the smell of wee? :)Yes.
People may be prematurely celebrating the end of the expendable era.. They may soon be nostalgic for the age of brand spanking shiny new rockets. Should we really celebrate spaceflight joining the modern age of sooty vehicles, shitty inflight service, vandalised seats adorned with chewing gum.
I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
Preloved.
I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
Preloved.
Prelaunched.
Flight tested.I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
Preloved.
Prelaunched.
Proven.
Things like thermal stresses during tank/detank operations are always considered. Even an EELV may go through several. But SpaceX needs more than "several".
But - seriously - do you really doubt that they're only now getting to it? It may not be "normal" in the rocket industry, but it sure took place with Shuttle, and it sure takes place in the aircraft, shipbuilding and car industries. (and many others, of course)
I understand that the FTS is rendered inert at some point in the flight. Is it rendered so inert that it cannot be reactivated (sounds like a good thing) and so is one thing that must be replaced?
Things like thermal stresses during tank/detank operations are always considered. Even an EELV may go through several. But SpaceX needs more than "several".
But - seriously - do you really doubt that they're only now getting to it? It may not be "normal" in the rocket industry, but it sure took place with Shuttle, and it sure takes place in the aircraft, shipbuilding and car industries. (and many others, of course)
Fair enough - I'd imagine that thermal stress cycling must have been a prerequisite, given all the
fueling-cancelation-defueling-refueling-etc that happens.
But when it comes to flight dynamic stresses - that's got to be tough to accurately simulate Max-Q and everything else. Furthermore, what do you do when you discover that your recovered booster now has a wicked shimmy in it?
Sounds like it's time to scrap that booster and pull a brand new one off the assembly line.
From what I see, when the fuselage structure exhibits issues during acoustic testing, then that recovered booster is pretty much a write-off. Just cannibalize some parts off it.
Which then also makes me wonder - can the design evolution of the stages/vehicles also move towards maximizing recyclability? Whatever else is wrong with the recovered stage/vehicle, you at least want to be able to scavenge some useful parts off it for possible re-use.
I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
Preloved.
Prelaunched.
Proven.
Previously landed.I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
Preloved.
Prelaunched.
Proven.
Provocative.
CERTIFIED: By Previously flight testing.Previously landed.I wonder how long it will be until there's a "used spaceship" market? Or maybe the term "pre-owned" would sound better.
But seriously, I'd like to know how extensively the various construction materials and components have been tested for "cycle life". It's one thing to expect your O-ring to flex properly during one launch, but after how many launches will it give out?
Is cycle life something that's normally tested for in the rocket industry?
Preloved.
Prelaunched.
Proven.
Provocative.
You know, I've been thing about this reusable situation. There is an organization that has been flying reusable rocket for many years and that's called NASA! I would have thought that Space X would have had more than a few conversations about what surprised them after a Shuttle flight[/b{ that they needed to inspect and what they did not. It sounds like the Shuttle needed a lot more work than they originally thought.
Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Just thinking out loud...QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Isn't this news almost as significant as the landing itself?
Refurbishment cost is often cited as a reason why re-use may not be economic. This seems like a pretty significant datum point against that argument to me.
Has anybody asked the question. Can they just refly the booster with maybe a cap on the interstage. That way they don't risk any hardware like the second stage or payload? That way validating just refuel and fly.The loading wouldn't be right without a second stage. The accelerations would be much greater than normal unless they throttled back, but then it wouldn't be a proper test.
Has anybody asked the question. Can they just refly the booster with maybe a cap on the interstage. That way they don't risk any hardware like the second stage or payload? That way validating just refuel and fly.The loading wouldn't be right without a second stage. The accelerations would be much greater than normal unless they throttled back, but then it wouldn't be a proper test.
I would have thought that Space X would have had more than a few conversations about what surprised them after a Shuttle flight that they needed to inspect and what they did not.Unfortunately NASA did not even ask the laid off USA employees for their opinions on the reasons for the high Shuttle refurbishment costs, which were about ten times what was predicted. Fortunately SpaceX has a pretty good idea where NASA missed the boat and has approached reuse in a much more practical way.
How bad was the shuttle if you don't count tiles, engine rebuilds, external tanks with their infernal foam and redoing solid boosters every flight? Also, no HPUs, no H2. It seems like about 95% of the things that made the Shuttle such a bear aren't applicable to Falcon.I would have thought that Space X would have had more than a few conversations about what surprised them after a Shuttle flight that they needed to inspect and what they did not.Unfortunately NASA did not even ask the laid off USA employees for their opinions on the reasons for the high Shuttle refurbishment costs, which were about ten times what was predicted. Fortunately SpaceX has a pretty good idea where NASA missed the boat and has approached reuse in a much more practical way.
Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Gosh, and here I thought we had an interesting thread going, and Mr Buzzkill Elon Musk tells us that no refurbishment may be necessary - other than soot removal and a fresh coat of paint.
But seriously - that's certainly incredible news, if it holds up after further testing.
Personally, I think Musk should delay gratification to reap more rewards sooner - forget about the souvenir thing, or turning the booster into a museum display. Inspect the hell out of that thing and even re-fly it again if possible. Gaining more data on reusability will be far more important than showcasing their triumphs to the public.
And if a re-flight is successful, then re-fly that one again, too. Like Grasshopper, fly it until it breaks.
How should testing across multiple re-flights differ from the kind of testing that's been done uptil now? Isn't it going to require an even finer level of monitoring to detect the kinds of problems that will arise from multiple re-uses?
I think this F9 is too valuable to refly. They can learn so much from this returned stage, things that they could only guess at previously.
Wait for the next stage to be successfully returned and then refly this one. That way you always have one on hand to learn from.
And if a re-flight is successful, then re-fly that one again, too. Like Grasshopper, fly it until it breaks.
QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Isn't this news almost as significant as the landing itself?
Refurbishment cost is often cited as a reason why re-use may not be economic. This seems like a pretty significant datum point against that argument to me.
QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Gosh, and here I thought we had an interesting thread going, and Mr Buzzkill Elon Musk tells us that no refurbishment may be necessary - other than soot removal and a fresh coat of paint.
Anybody know what the theoretical or static-tested value is for the number of times the engines can be re-fired? Surely this must have been measured through rigorous ground testing.
Shouldn't be surprising. The center engine was fired 4 times during the launch and landing; two other engines were fired 3 times (I think - launch, boostback, and braking burns?) Unless there was physical damage due to interaction with stuff on the ground (sand, grit, gators ...), there's no reason they couldn't just be fired up again - they're designed to be both reusable and restartable.
QuoteFalcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.
Isn't this news almost as significant as the landing itself?
While speculation is popular and is often justified by the absence of facts, there ARE some facts available.
In an interesting article, space historian David Portree cites a study that looked at the refurbishment costs of the X-15 program that provides probably the most relevant real-world data we have:
"In November 1966, James Love and William Young, engineers at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, completed a brief report in which they noted that the reusable suborbital booster for a reusable orbital spacecraft would undergo pressures, heating rates, and accelerations very similar to those the X-15 experienced."
"The average X-15 refurbishment time was 30 days, a period which had, they noted, hardly changed in four years. Even with identifiable improvements, they doubted that an X-15 could be refurbished in fewer than 20 days.
"At the same time, Love and Young argued that the X-15 program had demonstrated the benefits of reusability. They estimated that refurbishing an X-15 in 1964 had cost about $270,000 per mission.
"Love and Young cited North American Aviation estimates when they placed the cost of a new X-15 at about $9 million. They then calculated that 27 missions using expendable X-15s would have cost a total of $243 million. This meant, they wrote, that the cost of the reusable X-15 program in 1964 had amounted to just 3% of the cost of building 27 X-15s and throwing each one away after a single flight.
My bold.
http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-x-15-rocket-plane-reusable-space-shuttle-boosters-1966/
While speculation is popular and is often justified by the absence of facts, there ARE some facts available.
In an interesting article, space historian David Portree cites a study that looked at the refurbishment costs of the X-15 program that provides probably the most relevant real-world data we have:
"In November 1966, James Love and William Young, engineers at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, completed a brief report in which they noted that the reusable suborbital booster for a reusable orbital spacecraft would undergo pressures, heating rates, and accelerations very similar to those the X-15 experienced."
"The average X-15 refurbishment time was 30 days, a period which had, they noted, hardly changed in four years. Even with identifiable improvements, they doubted that an X-15 could be refurbished in fewer than 20 days.
"At the same time, Love and Young argued that the X-15 program had demonstrated the benefits of reusability. They estimated that refurbishing an X-15 in 1964 had cost about $270,000 per mission.
"Love and Young cited North American Aviation estimates when they placed the cost of a new X-15 at about $9 million. They then calculated that 27 missions using expendable X-15s would have cost a total of $243 million. This meant, they wrote, that the cost of the reusable X-15 program in 1964 had amounted to just 3% of the cost of building 27 X-15s and throwing each one away after a single flight.
My bold.
http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-x-15-rocket-plane-reusable-space-shuttle-boosters-1966/
That means almost nothing for F9R reuse.
X-15 was an experimental aircraft with 50 yr old tech.
X-15 used outdated rockets, used wings, outdated structural materials, and was a government driven program.
The Shuttle used far more up to date technology, but the need to do orbital re-entry with all of those thermal tiles. And there are many other big problems.
SpaceX has designed this first stage to be reusable. With the state of the art materials (that aren't uber expensive).
I suggest reviewing discussion pre F9R first flight that Musk demanded massive margins (for a single flight) precisely in order to make reuse possible.
That means almost nothing for F9R reuse.
X-15 was an experimental aircraft with 50 yr old tech.
X-15 used outdated rockets, used wings, outdated structural materials, and was a government driven program.
The Shuttle used far more up to date technology, but the need to do orbital re-entry with all of those thermal tiles. And there are many other big problems.
SpaceX has designed this first stage to be reusable. With the state of the art materials (that aren't uber expensive).
I suggest reviewing discussion pre F9R first flight that Musk demanded massive margins (for a single flight) precisely in order to make reuse possible.
Nothing? Surely it gives an approximate baseline? They doubt it could be refurbed in 20 days. F9R should be less than that for exactly the reasons you specify.
While speculation is popular and is often justified by the absence of facts, there ARE some facts available.
In an interesting article, space historian David Portree cites a study that looked at the refurbishment costs of the X-15 program that provides probably the most relevant real-world data we have:
"In November 1966, James Love and William Young, engineers at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, completed a brief report in which they noted that the reusable suborbital booster for a reusable orbital spacecraft would undergo pressures, heating rates, and accelerations very similar to those the X-15 experienced."
"The average X-15 refurbishment time was 30 days, a period which had, they noted, hardly changed in four years. Even with identifiable improvements, they doubted that an X-15 could be refurbished in fewer than 20 days.
"At the same time, Love and Young argued that the X-15 program had demonstrated the benefits of reusability. They estimated that refurbishing an X-15 in 1964 had cost about $270,000 per mission.
"Love and Young cited North American Aviation estimates when they placed the cost of a new X-15 at about $9 million. They then calculated that 27 missions using expendable X-15s would have cost a total of $243 million. This meant, they wrote, that the cost of the reusable X-15 program in 1964 had amounted to just 3% of the cost of building 27 X-15s and throwing each one away after a single flight.
My bold.
http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-x-15-rocket-plane-reusable-space-shuttle-boosters-1966/
That means almost nothing for F9R reuse.
X-15 was an experimental aircraft with 50 yr old tech.
X-15 used outdated rockets, used wings, outdated structural materials, and was a government driven program.
The Shuttle used far more up to date technology, but the need to do orbital re-entry with all of those thermal tiles. And there are many other big problems.
SpaceX has designed this first stage to be reusable. With the state of the art materials (that aren't uber expensive).
I suggest reviewing discussion pre F9R first flight that Musk demanded massive margins (for a single flight) precisely in order to make reuse possible.
Nothing? Surely it gives an approximate baseline? They doubt it could be refurbed in 20 days. F9R should be less than that for exactly the reasons you specify.
That means almost nothing for F9R reuse.
X-15 was an experimental aircraft with 50 yr old tech.
X-15 used outdated rockets, used wings, outdated structural materials, and was a government driven program.
The Shuttle used far more up to date technology, but the need to do orbital re-entry with all of those thermal tiles. And there are many other big problems.
SpaceX has designed this first stage to be reusable. With the state of the art materials (that aren't uber expensive).
I suggest reviewing discussion pre F9R first flight that Musk demanded massive margins (for a single flight) precisely in order to make reuse possible.
Shouldn't be surprising. The center engine was fired 4 times during the launch and landing; two other engines were fired 3 times (I think - launch, boostback, and braking burns?) Unless there was physical damage due to interaction with stuff on the ground (sand, grit, gators ...), there's no reason they couldn't just be fired up again - they're designed to be both reusable and restartable.
Would they do it that way, wouldn't that tend to make them unnecessarily swap engine positions later? Wouldn't it be cheaper to apply a sequential even spread choice (with the possible exception of the center engine for the final single engine burn), as even as the octagon allows? I guess I am asking for photo evidence or other information on engine use.
The center engine is used in all burns. And as far as why you would use the same other two engines for multiple burns - we don't know - but it has been assumed, since when each engine has a its own supply of ignition fluids (TEA/TEB) it makes more sense to just give 3 engines more of it instead of giving all engines the same restart capability. (It is nasty dangerous stuff) But I could be wrong on the last point.
The center engine is used in all burns. And as far as why you would use the same other two engines for multiple burns - we don't know - but it has been assumed, since when each engine has a its own supply of ignition fluids (TEA/TEB) it makes more sense to just give 3 engines more of it instead of giving all engines the same restart capability. (It is nasty dangerous stuff) But I could be wrong on the last point.
So on the one hand there's the idea that across multiple reflights, you keep the same engines in the same spots, using them in exactly the same way again and again. This means that the 3 engines used for multiple burns within a flight are a bit more suped up - particularly that central engine that gets used for landing.
Then on the other hand, there's the idea that you "rotate the tires" across multiple reflights - swapping the less used engines in place of the more used ones, so that they all get their fair share of wear and tear.
Which way is the better way out of those 2 approaches - and why? Are there any other approaches that might be better still? Why?
Anybody know what the theoretical or static-tested value is for the number of times the engines can be re-fired? Surely this must have been measured through rigorous ground testing.
I don't know if they have tested any of the engines to destruction, so it's hard to say. I recall Ms. Shotwell noting at one point, a good year ago, that they were figuring on being able to fly each stage at least 10 times, but that their then-current testing indicated that the actual number of re-flights might become open-ended. The phrase "maybe 40 or 50, maybe more" sticks in my head.
I won't be surprised if the actual number is a lot less than 40 or 50. But I don't think anything official has been stated in terms of expected number of re-uses, and that SpaceX seems to think that 10 re-flights is a good number to toss out, but might be really conservative.
Here is the quote " “If you are able to refly your first stage, you need to establish how many times can you refly it -- is it 20 times, 40 times, 50 times?” SpaceX does not know. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-13/spacex-plans-to-try-again-to-land-rocket-booster-on-barge-at-sea
That's for the airframe. They were and probably are not yet sure how many reflights they can do with that. But there is the statement of Elon Musk about the engines. 40 cycles, which was assumed to be ignitions between refurbishments. But the engines have no meaningful limit of use. After 40 cycles some highly stressed components need to be replaced.A wise man on this site (not Jim) once suggested that the Helium COPV bottles may be the items with the shortest useful life, both in time and cycles. I tend to agree.
So on the one hand there's the idea that across multiple reflights, you keep the same engines in the same spots, using them in exactly the same way again and again. This means that the 3 engines used for multiple burns within a flight are a bit more suped up - particularly that central engine that gets used for landing.
Then on the other hand, there's the idea that you "rotate the tires" across multiple reflights - swapping the less used engines in place of the more used ones, so that they all get their fair share of wear and tear.
Which way is the better way out of those 2 approaches - and why? Are there any other approaches that might be better still? Why?
Early on SpaceX may be taking engines off at a much higher rate to validate empirically how they're doing, so let's ignore that for right now.
Once they have validated engine reliability, I'm not familiar with how airlines handle this but I would imagine that you would not remove an engine unless there is a reason you don't want it to fly on the next flight.
Over time you're going to end up with a mix of used engines, including the potential for some to be flown on new stages, so "rotating" them is not going to add much value, especially the eight outboard engines.
The center engine is used in all burns. And as far as why you would use the same other two engines for multiple burns - we don't know - but it has been assumed, since when each engine has a its own supply of ignition fluids (TEA/TEB) it makes more sense to just give 3 engines more of it instead of giving all engines the same restart capability. (It is nasty dangerous stuff) But I could be wrong on the last point.
I am assuming something else. All engines are ground started from an external supply. So why would they not be air started by a common supply? It would be a pure software command, which engine restarts. That would make it possible to use the outer engines in turn. Only the center engine would need to be replaced/refurbished sooner. Unless there are other reasons in the geometry of the stage to always use the same engines.
Though I've not seen any mention of it, from a reusable /refurb perspective, I wonder if it would make sense to get away from high pressure gas, and He altogether by going in some IVF path? Then you can drop the COPV He bottles and associated struts
Umm, right now I doubt that structural issues will be the limiting factor for the number of reuses. Right now a significant number of their payloads need to use the margin they have for landing the stage so it can't be reused. Judging by their manifest that makes it unlikely they're going to get more than two or three reflights out of a core so the discussion is quite moot for F9.
I know, those here who haven't really done the maths on how much reuse saves (but that's another thread) think those payloads will go on a heavy but given the cost associated with that this is unlikely.
So... Nice theory exercise for MCT and BFR but not really relevant for F9...
I know, those here who haven't really done the maths on how much reuse saves (but that's another thread) think those payloads will go on a heavy but given the cost associated with that this is unlikely.
Their manifest says otherwise.
And no, it's not their concept to use heavy for everything. They have stated that they might eventually do that but everything beyond that is amazing people fantasy.
Right now a significant number of their payloads need to use the margin they have for landing the stage so it can't be reused.Shotwell has cited the main benefit of the F9FT is allowing a barge landing on flights that wouldn't have been able to in the past (GTO). It has yet to be established just how heavy a payload the F9FT can throw to GTO and still carry legs and reserve propellant for a downrange landing. A barge landing is estimated to require a ~15% performance margin. I am guessing we won't really know for sure immediately as the next GTO payload (SES-9) is quite heavy.
Payload Mass Dest Recovery Possible? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jason-3 533kg LEO Yes CRS-8 ?kg LEO Yes CRS-9 ?kg LEO Yes SES-9 5330kg GTO Possibly (based on evidence that a barge landing will be attempted) SES-10 5300kg GTO Possibly Thaicom 8 3100kg GTO Yes ABS 2A, Eutelsat 117 West B ~4000kg? GTO Possibly (based on ABS-3A, Eutelsat 115 West B mass) JCSAT-14 ~3400kg? GTO Probably (based on JCSAT-15 mass) BulgariaSat-1 ~3400kg? GTO Probably (based on JCSAT-15 mass, same SSL-1300 bus) JCSAT-16 ~3400kg? GTO Probably (based on JCSAT-15 mass) KoreaSat-5 4465kg GTO Possibly Es'hail-2 ~3000kg GTO Probably CRS-11 ?kg LEO Yes CRS-12 ?kg LEO Yes Formosat-5 525kg SSO Yes Iridium NEXT 1 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass) Iridium NEXT 2 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass) Iridium NEXT 3 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass) Iridium NEXT 4 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass) Iridium NEXT 5 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass) |
From back-of-the-envelope calculations of the four improvements (cooled fuel, full thrust, bigger second stage, better ISP of second stage), and Musk's comments about staging velocity, ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1463298#msg1463298 ) it's possible SES-9 could be recoverable, particularly if they are willing to accept an 1800 m/s deficit to GEO (apogee at GEO, no inclination reduction).Right now a significant number of their payloads need to use the margin they have for landing the stage so it can't be reused.... It has yet to be established just how heavy a payload the F9FT can throw to GTO and still carry legs and reserve propellant for a downrange landing. A barge landing is estimated to require a ~15% performance margin. I am guessing we won't really know for sure immediately as the next GTO payload (SES-9) is quite heavy.
According to Wiki the heaviest bird F9 has thrown to GTO was TurkmenAlem52E/MonacoSAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurkmenAlem52E/MonacoSAT at 4707kg. According to Gunter's, SES-9 is 5330kg, so it will be the heaviest payload to GTO for F9 to date.
From back-of-the-envelope calculations of the four improvements (cooled fuel, full thrust, bigger second stage, better ISP of second stage), and Musk's comments about staging velocity, ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1463298#msg1463298 ) it's possible SES-9 could be recoverable, particularly if they are willing to accept an 1800 m/s deficit to GEO (apogee at GEO, no inclination reduction).Right. I originally classified the SES payloads as "possible", but I decided to be a little more conservative instead. I do think it is possible we see legs on SES-9, which would have interesting repercussions...
Total work days from recovery is at 14 days so far with 6 days (weekends + holidays) as probably no work = 8 work days of single shift crew.
Question becomes how many average crew over the period 10,20,50 100? My guess is at 20 only so far
Thanks for this OAG. My only real figure for staff costs was the average figure full up cost for a full time employee on the Shuttle programme at around $128k each. That $740/day figure will come in handy.
That would be a current balance for refurbishment cost at 8 days X $740 per day X 20 workers + $50,000 in equipment charges and other charges = $168,400 so far.
Refurbishment labor costs (1 to 2 months of 50 crew)+misc costs $.5-1M
Replacement parts? $0-10M [largest ticket item are engines]
3 engines swapped out is only a charge of $3-4.5M plus $1M in other parts brings a probable refurbishment cost to a range of $1.5M to $6.5M.
Falcon 9/Heavy is probably not going to change since that would take significant engineering resources for a product/system that is already "good enough".True. One thing we know is SX really does not like to retain 2 different versions of something. Once Raptor is ready and the BFR is ready the question becomes "Retain RP1 and install CH4 piping or go CH4 for everything?"
Of course that assumes that the He pressurization system doesn't continue to be their Achilles Heal...That's a bit harsh.
True. Theoretically a central system adds flexibility and saves weight.The center engine is used in all burns. And as far as why you would use the same other two engines for multiple burns - we don't know - but it has been assumed, since when each engine has a its own supply of ignition fluids (TEA/TEB) it makes more sense to just give 3 engines more of it instead of giving all engines the same restart capability. (It is nasty dangerous stuff) But I could be wrong on the last point.
I am assuming something else. All engines are ground started from an external supply. So why would they not be air started by a common supply? It would be a pure software command, which engine restarts. That would make it possible to use the outer engines in turn. Only the center engine would need to be replaced/refurbished sooner. Unless there are other reasons in the geometry of the stage to always use the same engines.
You might be right. We don't know if there is a central source of TEA-TEB, or if the engines have their own supply.
SX have shown themselves well aware of the cost of storing more complex inventories than they need to.
The distribution system for TEA/TEB is already in place, it is needed for the ground start.Is this confirmed? The starting tank for an SR71 was only about 4" in dia. It was good for several (more than 1 but I think less than 10) starts.
The distribution system for TEA/TEB is already in place, it is needed for the ground start.Is this confirmed? The starting tank for an SR71 was only about 4" in dia. It was good for several (more than 1 but I think less than 10) starts.
Personally, I foresee that the first reuse flight will be something that does not require full flight-duration of the core in any case like the Dragon aerial abort test. You will want the core instrumented to hell and back anyway for the sake of the test and it only needs to last until Max-Q (+1:00 to +1:30-ish, IIRC). The Dragon will fly with 'live' abort software anyway, so if the core fails early, you'd have some confidence of salvaging the payload; the upper stage simulator isn't an issue.
It would be more sensible to do this than to risk a paying customer's payload.
The most logical layout would be an S2 dummy that's actually a big water tank.
Fly up with the tank full, then empty the tank at apogee (simulating the weight change of S2 sep).
Or would the S2 simulator be expendable ? A risk that thing crashing into the ground in NM and hurting someone.
Just thinking out loud...
Personally, I foresee that the first reuse flight will be something that does not require full flight-duration of the core in any case like the Dragon aerial abort test. You will want the core instrumented to hell and back anyway for the sake of the test and it only needs to last until Max-Q (+1:00 to +1:30-ish, IIRC). The Dragon will fly with 'live' abort software anyway, so if the core fails early, you'd have some confidence of salvaging the payload; the upper stage simulator isn't an issue.
It would be more sensible to do this than to risk a paying customer's payload.
True. But they do have a stage ready for that flight, that cannot be used otherwise. With all confidence I would not use a flown stage in the very first reflight for such an important CC-milestone.
OT On second thought the test stage is a 1.1. Can they still fly it?
I would assume the first or first few flights as tests with upper stage dummy and RTLS. Or as pure first stage flights in New Mexico.
Ground start supply was for the He to spin up the turbines which is followed by a small amount of TEA/TEB to get the two combustion chambers burning and to continue quick ramp up of the turbine speeds. In flight the restart is done via a common He bottle on same supply line isolated from external by a valve. BTW the He supply line and start bottle is redundant. This is known due to a startup problem on one flight of the valve/supply line malfunction on a V1.0 launch abort when an M1C engine did not start. For M1D the lines were made redundant because the engines needed to be insured they would start in flight.The distribution system for TEA/TEB is already in place, it is needed for the ground start.Is this confirmed? The starting tank for an SR71 was only about 4" in dia. It was good for several (more than 1 but I think less than 10) starts.
I have no insight. But ground supply for engine start was mentioned repeatedly and I assumed it is true.
Jason-3 533kg LEO Yes
533kg -- that's tiny! They could have launched it on a Falcon 1 almost, but then I guess that you couldn't re-use the booster. Still, I guess that F9 second stage is pretty much just a Falcon 1 first stage anyway, so if they recover the booster maybe the net costs will be similar.
I guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.
When Jason 3 was booked they used the v1.0 performance as the vehicle they were buying a ride on. It just so happens the vehicle they are riding on the v1.1 has 30% more than that one. It almost ended on a F9FT with more than 2 x the performance. The reason SpaceX got the contract was because of price and the unwillingness to use the last Delta II (an almost equal cost vehicle for such a small payload) on a low priority mission.
533kg -- that's tiny! They could have launched it on a Falcon 1 almost, but then I guess that you couldn't re-use the booster. Still, I guess that F9 second stage is pretty much just a Falcon 1 first stage anyway, so if they recover the booster maybe the net costs will be similar.
I guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.
Delta II and Atlas V
I guess that there just aren't any credible and reliable American launchers smaller than F9 that NASA could have selected these days.
Delta II and Atlas V
The most logical layout would be an S2 dummy that's actually a big water tank.
Fly up with the tank full, then empty the tank at apogee (simulating the weight change of S2 sep).
Or would the S2 simulator be expendable ? A risk that thing crashing into the ground in NM and hurting someone.
Just thinking out loud...
They will probably fly a paying customer at a significant discount (that discount should be deep enough to cover insurance increase and provide profit incentive and/or an early launch slot). How many dummy payloads have they launched to date for all the development work done?
The most logical layout would be an S2 dummy that's actually a big water tank.
Fly up with the tank full, then empty the tank at apogee (simulating the weight change of S2 sep).
Or would the S2 simulator be expendable ? A risk that thing crashing into the ground in NM and hurting someone.
Just thinking out loud...
They will probably fly a paying customer at a significant discount (that discount should be deep enough to cover insurance increase and provide profit incentive and/or an early launch slot). How many dummy payloads have they launched to date for all the development work done?
I was thinking NM SpacePort America fly until it breaks test cycle.
If its going up in the cape, then yes, it would be a full orbital re-launch.
AFAIK NM doesn't allow orbital launches.
The Cape probably can't support a dozen test launches.
I was thinking NM SpacePort America fly until it breaks test cycle.
If its going up in the cape, then yes, it would be a full orbital re-launch.
AFAIK NM doesn't allow orbital launches.
The Cape probably can't support a dozen test launches.
I like the spacex method. No test flight with dummy stuff. Just fly real stuff at a big discount. That way its still a test flight but real paying things get launched. As they get more test flights done the price gets higher and higher. I see the price on a already flown booster eventually getting a higher price than a new booster.
What will happen to a merlin engine after 30-50 firings (or whatever they establish as the lifetime of the engine)? Will they disassemble it and replace worn parts and put it back on a F9, or junk it and use a new merlin?
What will happen to a merlin engine after 30-50 firings (or whatever they establish as the lifetime of the engine)? Will they disassemble it and replace worn parts and put it back on a F9, or junk it and use a new merlin?
Junk it, presumably. Once the large components start to degrade - like the engine bell with wall chambers - it is not cost effective to repair it. But that's not a big deal... They are already building 100+ engines per year.
This image appears to show, at the base of the engine bells, what looks like a stitched material (curved, divided into relatively small squares by what looks like the stitching, darker black than most of surrounding image)? Can that be true? Either way, what is it and what are its likely eventual failure modes?Looks like a TPS blanket to seal the compartment from recirculating combustion gases will allowing the engines to swivel.
But if it is just the preburner or easily accessible components of the turbo pump they may replace them.What preburner?
What preburner?
Merlin runs a gas generator cycle.
This image appears to show, at the base of the engine bells, what looks like a stitched material (curved, divided into relatively small squares by what looks like the stitching, darker black than most of surrounding image)? Can that be true? Either way, what is it and what are its likely eventual failure modes?
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38148.0;attach=1091667)
Personally I think the biggest shock is Musks statement that it costs $60m to build an F9I think it is very much in doubt that is the cost. We know $60m is the ballpark price of most commercial F9 flights to date. Seems much more likely he is generally referring to price to launch and not the cost to build. At a minimum I would guess it is the cost to launch (meaning no profit) rather than cost to build (losing money on every launch).
Personally I think the biggest shock is Musks statement that it costs $60m to build an F9I think it is very much in doubt that is the cost. We know $60m is the ballpark price of most commercial F9 flights to date. Seems much more likely he is generally referring to price to launch and not the cost to build. At a minimum I would guess it is the cost to launch (meaning no profit) rather than cost to build (losing money on every launch).
The relevant quote is "The Falcon 9 rocket costs about $60 million to build." You can make up whatever you want but the literal interpretation (meaning he is not exercising any of the wild thought exercises you list) is that it does in fact cost about $60 million to build the rocket, in which case SpaceX is losing money on every commercial launch.That's a bit pessimistic given Shotwell has said the actual price for a comm sat launch is more like the $100m Arianespace charge. Wheather that and the NASA COTS contracts keeps them solidly in the Black is another matter.
EDIT: Further question: How does the following, from the transcript of the post RTLS conference call factor it? Is this the retracted statement you are referring to?
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/postlanding-teleconference-with-elon-musk-2015-12-22#Quote[1:29]
If you can perfect this technology to the point where you can begin actually reusing boosters can you give us a sense of what that might mean for lowering launch costs?
Yeah, absolutely. The Falcon 9 rocket costs about $60 million to build. It's kind of like a big jet. But, the cost of the propellant, which is mostly oxygen and the gas, is only about $200,000. That means that the potential cost reduction over the long term is probably in excess of a factor of 100.
this seems a quite unguarded comment
Well it was new to me. :) Although according to Wikipedia they were projecting a cost for F9 in 2005 of $35m for the 5m fairing. That's annual compound inflation of 5.9%, when average US inflation over the same period was about 2.9%this seems a quite unguarded comment
Yeah, "unguarded".
Well it was new to me. :) Although according to Wikipedia they were projecting a cost for F9 in 2005 of $35m for the 5m fairing. That's annual compound inflation of 5.9%, when average US inflation over the same period was about 2.9%this seems a quite unguarded comment
Yeah, "unguarded".
Perhaps I should add an entry in my costing game.....
The relevant quote is "The Falcon 9 rocket costs about $60 million to build." You can make up whatever you want but the literal interpretation (meaning he is not exercising any of the wild thought exercises you list) is that it does in fact cost about $60 million to build the rocket, in which case SpaceX is losing money on every commercial launch.
The word is build. That's quite specific.
Fascinating that we need an interpretation of whenever Elon says something, its as if he is speaking a different language. Perhaps it's some "Martian dialect".. Just sayin'... ;D
The SpaceX website advertises the cost of a F9 missions at $61.2 million. Presumably, that means that it costs far less to build the rocket. I thought Musk said that the construction cost was $16 million, but this could be mistaken.I wonder if Elon did in fact say "sixteen million", not "sixty million" in that teleconference. The recording I heard was rather noisy, and it could have been either. I understand that the cost of the engines is typically 90% of the total cost to build a rocket. $5.4 million per M1D engine seems high to me. Is $1.44 million per engine a reasonable amount?
Is $1.44 million per engine a reasonable amount?
I understand that the cost of the engines is typically 90% of the total cost to build a rocket.
I don't think that's true. ULA has a pie chart of cost breakdown of Atlas 401, it shows 1st stage engine is about 60% of the 1st stage cost, and 2nd stage engine is about 25% of the 2nd stage cost.
Well if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M.
So something's gotta give.
Because apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different. If the Merlins are 1.5 Million, then the engine stack is 15M. So the structures would have to be some 30M to get the entire rocket to 60M.Well if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M.
So something's gotta give.
It's an Atlas slide. Why would you assume F9 has identical cost breakdowns? It's a completely different vehicle.
Because apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different.
Both are fruit... Some things are similar.QuoteBecause apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different.
I'd be more inclined to agree if you were talking about *mass* ratios, but you're not.
You're talking about *cost* ratios of completely different components on a completely different rocket. How is the cost of one RD-180 related to the cost of nine M1D's? Not to mention different production processes for tanks, etc.
Apples and oranges.
The long term reusability strategy that gets the F9 below $10 million has to include keeping the fixed costs low and upping the frequency of launches significantly. Reusing stages will help keep their fixed costs close to what they are now while upping their revenue and making better use of their facilities and capabilities.There are a few problems with this line of thinking.
All of this trying to reinterpret Elon Musk's comment about Falcon 9 costing $60M is silly. Why would he publicly state what their internal cost is? It cost's Spacex about $60M to build and launch a rocket when you include the profit margins their business model allows for.A nice pragmatic reading of his comments. But he said cost and that usually excludes gross profit margin, which makes it price to customer. OTOH 2% could be the net profit after all the indirect costs have been taken out of the gross profit. Keeping 3 000 staff fed, watered, air conditioned and with a reasonable place for hygiene breaks more or less 24/7/365 is a fairly substantial (and expensive) logistics task in its own right.
The comment was made in context of the gains from reusability. When they reuse a stage a significant portion of the approximately 60% that is spent on first stage manufacturing won't have to be repeated. They know they need $200k for fuel, plus some refurb cost and increased profit. The final number is still likely to be pretty low.Neglecting the new build 2nd stage you're going to need to make the launch work of course.
Also, on the engine cost, and other parts, don't forget the high material prices for stuff like Inconel and the high cost of machine time for manufacturing. The cost of maintenance and depreciation on some of those machines used in engine production could easily compete with the salary for the workers that likely tend to several of them at once.Quite possibly.
The real question is how close to gas and go do we think they will be able to get? They certainly seem to be able to test fire them at will with little consequences. The magnitude of the refurb cost will matter much more then how much it actually costs to manufacture a first stage.Let's see. Rough numbers $61m vs $200k that's 305 to 1.
All of this trying to reinterpret Elon Musk's comment about Falcon 9 costing $60M is silly. Why would he publicly state what their internal cost is? It cost's Spacex about $60M to build and launch a rocket when you include the profit margins their business model allows for.
The comment was made in context of the gains from reusability. When they reuse a stage a significant portion of the approximately 60% that is spent on first stage manufacturing won't have to be repeated. They know they need $200k for fuel, plus some refurb cost and increased profit. The final number is still likely to be pretty low.
The real question is how close to gas and go do we think they will be able to get? They certainly seem to be able to test fire them at will with little consequences. The magnitude of the refurb cost will matter much more then how much it actually costs to manufacture a first stage.
I'm finding the reading of $60M as the cost to 'build' only rather odd. When you pay to have a house built that pays for the materials, the planning permission, the archeological survey, the builders salaries, (which would include the building companies premises and corporation costs) as well as a multitude of other things. Same applies to rockets.
That $60Ms going to include a lot of SpaceX running costs. Not just the materials costs, but labour, launch costs, design costs, factory running costs, EM's salary etc.
The equation for reuse cost savings is
cost of manufacture of a non-reusable stage> (cost of manufacture of a reusable stage/number of uses) + ((number of uses-1)*Cost of refurbishment/number of uses)
Many of the assumptions is that refurbishment would cost around $10M. But what we are currently witnessing from the first datapoint is something a lot less than $10M probably a lot closer to $2M.
What that would mean is that even at only 2 flights it would be cheaper, almost 25% cheaper. At $10M refurbishment costs for a stage costing $20M for the reusable stage vs $16M for a non-reusable stage (note I don't think there is that much difference in the added systems and design to make the basic F9 into a reusable F9), use would need to be about 4. Its all a matter of assumptions of the % of manufacture costs that refurbishment costs would be and just how much more expensive it would be to build a reusable stage vs a non-reusable one.
In order for 10 uses to reach break even point assumes that a reusable stage costs significantly more than that of a non-reusable one to manufacture and the refurbishment costs are greater than 50% of the cost to manufacture a non-reusable stage. I don't think those assumptions are applicable to the F9.
The additional costs looks to be about 10% increase in manufacture costs and the refurbishment costs at no more than 20%. This means that no matter how many uses occur even if it is only 2, the result is a price reduction over that of a non-reusable version of an F9.
Both are fruit... Some things are similar.QuoteBecause apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different.
I'd be more inclined to agree if you were talking about *mass* ratios, but you're not.
You're talking about *cost* ratios of completely different components on a completely different rocket. How is the cost of one RD-180 related to the cost of nine M1D's? Not to mention different production processes for tanks, etc.
Apples and oranges.
If the engines are $15M, what costs $45M?
The tanks? The Atlas cost breakdown doesn't apply directly, but it gives you an idea...
Both are fruit... Some things are similar.QuoteBecause apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different.
I'd be more inclined to agree if you were talking about *mass* ratios, but you're not.
You're talking about *cost* ratios of completely different components on a completely different rocket. How is the cost of one RD-180 related to the cost of nine M1D's? Not to mention different production processes for tanks, etc.
Apples and oranges.
If the engines are $15M, what costs $45M?
The tanks? The Atlas cost breakdown doesn't apply directly, but it gives you an idea...
The answer is probably along the lines of what JamesH wrote above. The $1.5M engine cost is probably an "unburdened" cost number, ie only *direct* labor and materials to build that one item, without any overhead.
But the total $60M vehicle cost figure Elon refers to has to be a partially or fully burdened number including overhead of facilities, support and admin staff, etc, etc.
So if you assume a 70/30 cost split between S1 and S2, say it's $42M partially or fully burdened cost for S1, a lot of which is overhead. Subtract maybe $12M overhead and you're left with $30M direct labor and materials costs, half of which is for 9 engines, and then you get splits closer to ULA's pie chart, with F9's making up 50% of S1 *direct* costs.
Or, put another way, if you burdened that F9 engine proportionally with overhead, I'm betting the number would be more than $1.5M and the proportions would tilt towards ULA's numbers.
This means that no matter how many uses occur even if it is only 2, the result is a price reduction over that of a non-reusable version of an F9.That fits with what Musk said. When asked recently how many reuses of F9 S1 were needed to make it financially viable he replied "one".
Because apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different. If the Merlins are 1.5 Million, then the engine stack is 15M. So the structures would have to be some 30M to get the entire rocket to 60M.Well if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M.
So something's gotta give.
It's an Atlas slide. Why would you assume F9 has identical cost breakdowns? It's a completely different vehicle.
That's very far from the Atlas breakdown... 2:1 instead of 1:2....
Because apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different. If the Merlins are 1.5 Million, then the engine stack is 15M. So the structures would have to be some 30M to get the entire rocket to 60M.Well if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M.
So something's gotta give.
It's an Atlas slide. Why would you assume F9 has identical cost breakdowns? It's a completely different vehicle.
That's very far from the Atlas breakdown... 2:1 instead of 1:2....
Yes, it can be very different. For one simple example that jumps out from the chart, I expect the cost of avionics is very different, and seems to be a good chunk of ULA's costs, by the pie chart shown.
ULA uses typical radiation resistant aerospace components and systems; SpaceX uses pretty COTS components for its systems and software, getting reliability by redundancy in the systems (many CPU's, etc), running much more modern software. Given the cost of those modern components (which are far faster than anything you can get "radiation hardened"), I don't understand how to spend the kind of money that ULA current has to spend, despite having to have that redundancy; modern semiconductor technology and Moore's law being what it has been. SpaceX gave a talk at a Linux conference a few years ago describing (to the extent that the export control laws allow) what they were doing in their systems.
Sometimes, by revisiting systems from scratch, you can get to a very different (better) point that following the path of "incremental improvement". Clean sheets can be a real advantage; but you don't get them very often. SpaceX did a "clean sheet" on most everything.
So don't presume the actual costs in the different rockets are "the same", unless you are comparing fundamental costs (e.g. propellants, or N kilograms of aluminum alloy)... And one of Musk's strengths is that he thinks terms of those fundamental costs, rather than what people have traditionally paid....
The answer is probably along the lines of what JamesH wrote above. The $1.5M engine cost is probably an "unburdened" cost number, ie only *direct* labor and materials to build that one item, without any overhead.In accountancy this is the "gross profit" and the "net profit"
But the total $60M vehicle cost figure Elon refers to has to be a partially or fully burdened number including overhead of facilities, support and admin staff, etc, etc.
So if you assume a 70/30 cost split between S1 and S2, say it's $42M partially or fully burdened cost for S1, a lot of which is overhead. Subtract maybe $12M overhead and you're left with $30M direct labor and materials costs, half of which is for 9 engines, and then you get splits closer to ULA's pie chart, with F9's making up 50% of S1 *direct* costs.
Or, put another way, if you burdened that F9 engine proportionally with overhead, I'm betting the number would be more than $1.5M and the proportions would tilt towards ULA's numbers.
The cost for rad hard electronics is staggering, but I think people exaggerate it given the relatively small proportion of the hardware that uses it.
ULA uses typical radiation resistant aerospace components and systems; SpaceX uses pretty COTS components for its systems and software, getting reliability by redundancy in the systems (many CPU's, etc), running much more modern software. Given the cost of those modern components (which are far faster than anything you can get "radiation hardened"), I don't understand how to spend the kind of money that ULA current has to spend, despite having to have that redundancy; modern semiconductor technology and Moore's law being what it has been. SpaceX gave a talk at a Linux conference a few years ago describing (to the extent that the export control laws allow) what they were doing in their systems.
This will all get much more serious for vehicles going to Mars, all of which will leave even the limited protection of the Earth's magnetic field. SX may have to go the full rad hard route for that, but that's probably 10 years ahead. [EDIT Which is not to say that someone within SX is not already working the issues to see what they could get away with.
They may have to, but I imagine the first thing they'll try is additional redundancy. But I agree that someone within SpaceX will be working this, though I suspect the FH will be throwing stuff to Mars well within 10 years.Quite likely but I think they'll be a rad level where every processor is in the process of reboot so none is processing any workload.
Considering SpaceX just hot fired the recovered stage at SLC-40 this speaks to the cost of refurbishment for a stage to be almost nil on the order of less than $2M toward an amount of $.5M.You're jumping the gun just a little bit:
What does that do to the reuse price of a F9/FH?
Considering SpaceX just hot fired the recovered stage at SLC-40 this speaks to the cost of refurbishment for a stage to be almost nil on the order of less than $2M toward an amount of $.5M.Not a lot. :( See my costing game for details.
What does that do to the reuse price of a F9/FH?
Presumably, whatever knowledge SpaceX does acquire in terms of what components erode fastest and require the most frequent monitoring and replacement, will be kept a trade secret by them, since this would be the key to maintaining their 'first mover advantage'. So it seems doubtful that they would reveal/publish/comment on this stuff much, when it becomes part of the bread-and-butter of their business model.If delays were not so common with SpaceX I would suspect the recent changes in launch dates were based off something SpaceX saw in the returned first stage.
But perhaps we'll be able to glean information from any upcoming design changes which may result from their knowledge gained from reusable flights.
NET February 6 - SES-9 - Falcon 9 FT - Canaveral SLC-40 (or late NET January 23)
NET February 7 March 20 - Dragon SpX-8 (CRS8), BEAM (Bigelow Expandable Activity Module) - Falcon 9 FT - Canaveral SLC-40 - 04:20 21:01
1st quarter NET February March (TBD) - Eutelsat 117 West B (Satmex 9), ABS 2A - Falcon 9 FT - Canaveral SLC-40
NET 1st quarter February March - JCSat-14 - Falcon 9 FT - Canaveral SLC-40
NET February March - AMOS 6 - Falcon 9 FT - Canaveral SLC-40 (or midyear)
March 21 NET April - Dragon SpX-9 (CRS9) - Falcon 9 FT - Canaveral SLC-40 ~04:00
spring April-May - FORMOSAT 5, SHERPA SSO: Arkyd-6, CNUSail 1, KAUSAT 5, SIGMA, CANYVAL-X 1, CANYVAL-X 2, STEP Cube [/qoute]
Later Friday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk reported on Twitter that one of the outer Merlin engines had not performed perfectly.
“Conducted hold-down firing of returned Falcon rocket,” said Musk. “Data looks good overall, but engine 9 showed thrust fluctuations.”
Musk said inspections would quickly investigate if debris had gotten into the engine.
It would be interesting, if it was one of the two other engines, which had to perform the retroboost.
Does anyone have an idea how much work is required to replace an engine?
If they have plenty of them due to reuse of rocketstages, they could replace damaged engines and refurbish them seperately.
Because apart from the engines, it's a similar structure, similar fuel, similar size... It can't be THAT different. If the Merlins are 1.5 Million, then the engine stack is 15M. So the structures would have to be some 30M to get the entire rocket to 60M.Well if the engines are ~$1.5M, and if the Atlas slide is correct, than the F9 does not cost $60M.
So something's gotta give.
It's an Atlas slide. Why would you assume F9 has identical cost breakdowns? It's a completely different vehicle.
That's very far from the Atlas breakdown... 2:1 instead of 1:2....
Yes, it can be very different. For one simple example that jumps out from the chart, I expect the cost of avionics is very different, and seems to be a good chunk of ULA's costs, by the pie chart shown.
ULA uses typical radiation resistant aerospace components and systems; SpaceX uses pretty COTS components for its systems and software, getting reliability by redundancy in the systems (many CPU's, etc), running much more modern software. Given the cost of those modern components (which are far faster than anything you can get "radiation hardened"), I don't understand how to spend the kind of money that ULA current has to spend, despite having to have that redundancy; modern semiconductor technology and Moore's law being what it has been. SpaceX gave a talk at a Linux conference a few years ago describing (to the extent that the export control laws allow) what they were doing in their systems.
Sometimes, by revisiting systems from scratch, you can get to a very different (better) point that following the path of "incremental improvement". Clean sheets can be a real advantage; but you don't get them very often. SpaceX did a "clean sheet" on most everything.
So don't presume the actual costs in the different rockets are "the same", unless you are comparing fundamental costs (e.g. propellants, or N kilograms of aluminum alloy)... And one of Musk's strengths is that he thinks terms of those fundamental costs, rather than what people have traditionally paid....
Since the first stage doesn't go into space, does ULA, SpaceX or any other company bother to use rad-hardened electronics on the first stage?
If so, then why?
Then how does a Falcon 9 first stage do RTLS without avionics?
Spacex doesn't use rad hard electronics for any of their avionics, it's all off the shelf technology with error check/correction and voting redundancies handling the errors.
(you can also see the double TEA-TEB flash on this mission too)My guess: it's a single TEA-TEB firing which is obscured by the very bright RP-1 burning before the engines get to full thrust.
(you can also see the double TEA-TEB flash on this mission too)My guess: it's a single TEA-TEB firing which is obscured by the very bright RP-1 burning before the engines get to full thrust.
So if debris is coming into the engines, is that likely then happening during the descent through the atmosphere?Not really. Maybe it is something from landing pad blasted by center engine or just soot.
Since the first stage doesn't go into space, does ULA, SpaceX or any other company bother to use rad-hardened electronics on the first stage?
If so, then why?
That's like 5 or 6 orders of magnitude difference. The difference in rad levels between LEO and deep space is much, MUCH smaller than that, just a factor of 2 or so different. And heck, you don't even need ANY redundancy... You could use just a watchdog timer hooked up to a reset. That's what is done on cubesats using off-the-shelf microcontrollers. People, as usual, make radiation to be this big scary thing that cannot be dealt with or which HAS to always be dealt with in a certain way.They may have to, but I imagine the first thing they'll try is additional redundancy. But I agree that someone within SpaceX will be working this, though I suspect the FH will be throwing stuff to Mars well within 10 years.Quite likely but I think they'll be a rad level where every processor is in the process of reboot so none is processing any workload.
Shielding would be another option, say a chunk of plastic (high H atom density)...Not for electronics. Cosmic radiation is too low intensity to be a major concern. It's the much higher intensity but lower per-particle energy radiation from solar storms and passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly (when you're in LEO) that matter more. So metal is used for shielding electronics.
This image appears to show, at the base of the engine bells, what looks like a stitched material (curved, divided into relatively small squares by what looks like the stitching, darker black than most of surrounding image)? Can that be true? Either way, what is it and what are its likely eventual failure modes?
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38148.0;attach=1091667)
This image appears to show, at the base of the engine bells, what looks like a stitched material (curved, divided into relatively small squares by what looks like the stitching, darker black than most of surrounding image)? Can that be true? Either way, what is it and what are its likely eventual failure modes?
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=38148.0;attach=1091667)
The engines are wrapped in a bullet proof shroud intended to prevent cascading failures in the event that an engine has a catastrophic failure. This is what you see, I'm sure it also fulfills all the other uses mentioned earlier in the thread.
Right now a significant number of their payloads need to use the margin they have for landing the stage so it can't be reused.Shotwell has cited the main benefit of the F9FT is allowing a barge landing on flights that wouldn't have been able to in the past (GTO). It has yet to be established just how heavy a payload the F9FT can throw to GTO and still carry legs and reserve propellant for a downrange landing. A barge landing is estimated to require a ~15% performance margin. I am guessing we won't really know for sure immediately as the next GTO payload (SES-9) is quite heavy.
According to Wiki the heaviest bird F9 has thrown to GTO was TurkmenAlem52E/MonacoSAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurkmenAlem52E/MonacoSAT at 4707kg. According to Gunter's, SES-9 is 5330kg, so it will be the heaviest payload to GTO for F9 to date.
I threw together a quick table of upcoming flights and masses to get an idea of how many recovery flights might be possible over the next year or so. I didn't spend a ton of time vetting these so some flights might have been delayed/canceled/whatever. Masses are from Gunter's and I note when I am estimating based on a similar bird. I categorized payload recovery as Yes, Probably, Possibly, and Unlikely based on mass and past history, and taking into account the ~33% payload increase to GTO that F9FT is supposed to provide.
Payload Mass Dest Recovery Possible?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason-3 533kg LEO Yes
CRS-8 ?kg LEO Yes
CRS-9 ?kg LEO Yes
SES-9 5330kg GTO Possibly (based on evidence that a barge landing will be attempted)
SES-10 5300kg GTO Possibly
Thaicom 8 3100kg GTO Yes
ABS 2A, Eutelsat 117 West B ~4000kg? GTO Possibly (based on ABS-3A, Eutelsat 115 West B mass)
JCSAT-14 ~3400kg? GTO Probably (based on JCSAT-15 mass)
BulgariaSat-1 ~3400kg? GTO Probably (based on JCSAT-15 mass, same SSL-1300 bus)
JCSAT-16 ~3400kg? GTO Probably (based on JCSAT-15 mass)
KoreaSat-5 4465kg GTO Possibly
Es'hail-2 ~3000kg GTO Probably
CRS-11 ?kg LEO Yes
CRS-12 ?kg LEO Yes
Formosat-5 525kg SSO Yes
Iridium NEXT 1 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass)
Iridium NEXT 2 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass)
Iridium NEXT 3 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass)
Iridium NEXT 4 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass)
Iridium NEXT 5 ~8000kg? LEO Yes (800kg x 9 + estimated adapter mass)
Based on this I count 15 likely recovery flights out of 20. That's a far cry from "only a few flights" being possible for recovery. And that's arguably conservative, as F9FT should have enough margin to recover anything that has previously flown on an F91.1 (up to 4707kg).
Corrections welcome, I am sure there is some stuff that will likely need to be fixed here.
Update: I've updated SES-9 and 10 to "possibly" based on news that an application for barge landing has been filed. That means that, theoretically, all of the upcoming launches will allow for recovery.
Since the first stage doesn't go into space, does ULA, SpaceX or any other company bother to use rad-hardened electronics on the first stage?
If so, then why?
2. Unlike almost all other space companies, SpaceX does not use radiation hardened electronics - instead they go for "radiation tolerant". Rad hardened electronics mean chips with a structure size that was state of the art in the 1980's. That means their performance is sub par by roughly 30 years and they are also extremely expensive and in some cases very hard to get to.
There are rad hard multiple core (2) PowerPC processors running at 800MHz which are about 10 years out of date compared to current state of the art processors. So it is not as bad as it seems but if you need high power capability for something like image (objects in an image) recognition for automatic robotic functions, using a Rad hard processor is just not going to be enough.
Since the first stage doesn't go into space, does ULA, SpaceX or any other company bother to use rad-hardened electronics on the first stage?
If so, then why?
2. Unlike almost all other space companies, SpaceX does not use radiation hardened electronics - instead they go for "radiation tolerant". Rad hardened electronics mean chips with a structure size that was state of the art in the 1980's. That means their performance is sub par by roughly 30 years and they are also extremely expensive and in some cases very hard to get to.
I'd say that 15 to 20 years is more accurate.
By the way, it is possible to use more recent mainstream semiconductor process technology to build relatively
radiation hardened processors and ASICs using specific techniques in circuit design, logic design, and layout.
This is done in mission critical computers (mainframes and high end Unix servers) where the goal is to make
the chance of an undetected error under normal terrestrial background radiation extremely close to zero over
the operating life of the machine (a decade or more).
The problem is the market volumes for rad hard are so small it is hard to justify the extra design effort (which
would also makes the devices somewhat larger, slower, and more power hungry than straight commercial
products) or going the usual way, the expense of keeping a true rad hard process in production and porting
over an obsolete commercial processor design under license.
About those 'thrust fluctuations':
Seems that debris blown back up at an engine, maybe during touchdown, is a suspect.
Would it be possible to e.g. cold vent some LOX through the eight non-firing engines to help stop any debris being blown back into them? Are the engines even capable of doing this, and would it create a bit of a fireball?
About those 'thrust fluctuations':I sincerely doubt that. The throat is very small compared to the nozzle and it's dead air with nowhere to go.
Seems that debris blown back up at an engine, maybe during touchdown, is a suspect.
...
I will repeat my post from another thread, as it is more relevant here.About those 'thrust fluctuations':
Seems that debris blown back up at an engine, maybe during touchdown, is a suspect.
Would it be possible to e.g. cold vent some LOX through the eight non-firing engines to help stop any debris being blown back into them? Are the engines even capable of doing this, and would it create a bit of a fireball?
My reading of GS comments is that they discovered something awry with the returned stage, and that has delayed the current launch. Now ingested FOD on landing would not do that, because that doesn't affect launch, so I suspect something else has been discovered, that was caused during the returned stage's launch. Supposition of course, but fits what we know. All good of course, every time they discover something, makes the next flight more reliable.
What are the speculations or educated guesses on what will be required for refurbishment of stages/vehicles that have been recovered after flight, in order to make them flight-worthy again? (Was thinking mainly of the F9R booster, but Dragon would be relevant too)
...
SpaceX's Shotwell: the Falcon 9 first stage we recovered was in remarkable shape. Goal is no refurbishment.#satellite2016
SpaceX's goal is no refurbishment which Shotwell reiterated today:
...Keep in mind that the Merlins have a finite total burn time and finite number of engine startups.
I tend to think it will not just be ten 3 second static firings; perhaps a series of firings at different lengths and thrust levels? Are there sufficient sensors on the stage to provide all the diagnostic information needed? Will they also borescope the engines? Laser scan the tanks to look for slight deformations?
...
Keep in mind that the Merlins have a finite total burn time and finite number of engine startups.
Doing borescoping and laser scans are time consuming. So doing such tasks for returned cores is unlikely IMO without some indication of problems from the telemetry.
What else is appropriate to do?
ps. I think he said they will wash it also.
...Keep in mind that the Merlins have a finite total burn time and finite number of engine startups.
I tend to think it will not just be ten 3 second static firings; perhaps a series of firings at different lengths and thrust levels? Are there sufficient sensors on the stage to provide all the diagnostic information needed? Will they also borescope the engines? Laser scan the tanks to look for slight deformations?
...
Doing borescoping and laser scans are time consuming. So doing such tasks for returned cores is unlikely IMO without some indication of problems from the telemetry.
Keep in mind that the Merlins have a finite total burn time and finite number of engine startups.
Elon Musk has stated they have no meaningful limit. They just need exchange of some highly stressed parts.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but... the same could be said of almost any engine... rocket, aircraft or automotive.Except for engines which smash into the ocean after each use, needless to say.
The question is not: Will additional inspection-refurbishment-rebuild of various components be required; but: How often and at what cost? IMHO, I hope and expect that SpaceX has done their homework, engineered appropriately, and that inspection-refurbishment-rebuild is cost effective. And if not, I hope and expect they will make improvements to make them cost effective.I would beg to differ. They recovered, inspected, and static-fired the ORBCOMM-2 core, and declared it ready to refuel and refly. That one will be shipped to Hawthorne instead and put on display, but they anticipate reflying the CRS-8 booster within about two months, they said. Even single reuse of a single core that represents 70% of the cost of the rocket - as they've said - has a very large impact on the cost of your launch, and you'd need one hell of a lot of recovery and refurbishment spending to get up to 35% of the cost of the vehicle.
In any case, too early to tell.
I would beg to differ. They recovered, inspected, and static-fired the ORBCOMM-2 core, and declared it ready to refuel and refly.
Elon Musk has stated they have no meaningful limit. They just need exchange of some highly stressed parts.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but... the same could be said of almost any engine... rocket, aircraft or automotive.
The question is not: Will additional inspection-refurbishment-rebuild of various components be required; but: How often and at what cost? IMHO, I hope and expect that SpaceX has done their homework, engineered appropriately, and that inspection-refurbishment-rebuild is cost effective. And if not, I hope and expect they will make improvements to make them cost effective.
In any case, too early to tell.
I would beg to differ. They recovered, inspected, and static-fired the ORBCOMM-2 core, and declared it ready to refuel and refly.
Maybe I missed it, but didn't they have thrust fluctuations during the static fire and that was the last we heard about it?
The change was minor, from what I was told. Probably not subject to open discussion due to ITAR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Elon Musk has stated they have no meaningful limit. They just need exchange of some highly stressed parts.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but... the same could be said of almost any engine... rocket, aircraft or automotive.
The question is not: Will additional inspection-refurbishment-rebuild of various components be required; but: How often and at what cost? IMHO, I hope and expect that SpaceX has done their homework, engineered appropriately, and that inspection-refurbishment-rebuild is cost effective. And if not, I hope and expect they will make improvements to make them cost effective.
In any case, too early to tell.
Lots of pictures posted on the OCISLY Return thread. This one caught my eye at the last picture on this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40002.msg1520179#msg1520179).
Was wondering (on another probably the wrong thread) about a more significant dedicated refurbishment facility. Here is an awful lot of steel beams sitting out getting rusty within spitting distance of the Falcon. Hmmm.
FYI, the fence behind the structural steel has been the "property line" for SpaceX's space since they moved to Port Canaveral. Apparently they got permission from the neighbors to put their anchor block on the foreground side of the fence. I don't believe the steel has anything to do with SpaceX.
From earlier in that thread...
So much material to read ...
grrrr. :-[ Thanks.
On the other hand refitting cork each time seems time consuming so that may be a redesigned area with a different material? or a strengthened surface but cork still there?
I think there's not much doubt any longer about why the bottom third or so of the stage is so dark compared to the upper portions, after these closeup views. At the very least I expect the white paint will be reapplied for direct thermal control purposes pre-launch due to color, and to sacrifically ablate away during flight to help protect the cork surface. I suspect they may change paint formulations, however, as they learn how to reprocess stages.
Kabloona are you sure the rotation is the same? I see your marks (fluid connections, the flag, etc) but my eyes aren't good enough to tell that from the image of both stages... to my way of thinking the leg marks show that there was some rotation... the pair of engines still there are either 3 and 4 or maybe 7 and 8 in your sketch, but I can't spot the white rectangle and may be confused.
Which pair do you think are the two engines in a row still there (closest to the camera and the other stage)? If 3 and 4 then engine 1 (which you identified as one of the boostback engines) is also still there, no? Because the next engine up from 3 is 2, which is missing, and after that is 1, which is still there.
This why I think maybe there was some rotation because I rather think the theory about pulling the two boostback, the landing (1,5,9) and one near and one far makes a lot of sense...
If OrbCom core is going to be a static display. Do they need to keep the flight engines on it for display or just mount the a set of bells when it get back to Hawthorne? Keep the flight engines in serviceable condition. Use the dinged up bells from CRS8 Core for display. Maybe mount the flight engines on another core. Get a price for engine only reuse, compared to full reuse.
Which pair do you think are the two engines in a row still there (closest to the camera and the other stage)? If 3 and 4 then engine 1 (which you identified as one of the boostback engines) is also still there, no? Because the next engine up from 3 is 2, which is missing, and after that is 1, which is still there.
This why I think maybe there was some rotation because I rather think the theory about pulling the two boostback, the landing (1,5,9) and one near and one far makes a lot of sense...
2 and 3 are the pair nearest us. 1,4,5, 7, and 9 are missing. 6 and 8 are still there on the far side.
Yes, there was some slight rotation clockwise between the two photos, maybe one-half-an-o'clock. ;)
And now this pic from Elon shows those three engines (#1, #5, #9) missing, which tends to support the hypothesis that those are, in fact, the restartable engines. (The other missing engines are #4 and #7).Perhaps those five are:
Or they could be the 5 they happen to have removed so far to analyze the heck out and gut before converting the rocket into lawn display. My guess is that all the engines are coming off and we're looking at a work in progress.And now this pic from Elon shows those three engines (#1, #5, #9) missing, which tends to support the hypothesis that those are, in fact, the restartable engines. (The other missing engines are #4 and #7).Perhaps those five are:
- the restartable engines
- the engine that showed thrust fluctuation in the post-flight burn
- one of the other non-restarted engines that was ok in the post-flight burn.
and they want to use the "good" engine as a baseline for comparison for the one that didn't behave.
Or they could be the 5 they happen to have removed so far to analyze the heck out and gut before converting the rocket into lawn display. My guess is that all the engines are coming off and we're looking at a work in progress.Wait, are you saying that maybe we're overanalysing based on incomplete data??? We never do that here. Never.
Or they could be the 5 they happen to have removed so far to analyze the heck out and gut before converting the rocket into lawn display. My guess is that all the engines are coming off and we're looking at a work in progress.
Or they could be the 5 they happen to have removed so far to analyze the heck out and gut before converting the rocket into lawn display. My guess is that all the engines are coming off and we're looking at a work in progress.Wait, are you saying that maybe we're overanalysing based on incomplete data??? We never do that here. Never.
I would still like to hear from SpaceX the rational for removing the legs before transport. So if Chris is sending questions to them or if our SpaceX NSF friend here could let us know it would be greatly appreciated. Good luck with the refurbishment! :)
I would still like to hear from SpaceX the rational for removing the legs before transport. So if Chris is sending questions to them or if our SpaceX NSF friend here could let us know it would be greatly appreciated. Good luck with the refurbishment! :)
They probably want the legs removed for inspection. Perhaps it is easier to remove the legs when vertical than trying to repack them, then later removing them at the hangar.
You both have good "speculative" reasons, I just want to hear from the proverbial "horse's mouth" at SpaceX...I would still like to hear from SpaceX the rational for removing the legs before transport. So if Chris is sending questions to them or if our SpaceX NSF friend here could let us know it would be greatly appreciated. Good luck with the refurbishment! :)
They probably want the legs removed for inspection. Perhaps it is easier to remove the legs when vertical than trying to repack them, then later removing them at the hangar.
Agree 100%.
I would further speculate that it might be a regular part of the turn-around process to swap legs to ensure a full trusted set are on every core (until they get more comfortable) and that the grid fins are an easy enough swap to perform simply for convenience.
I would still like to hear from SpaceX the rational for removing the legs before transport. So if Chris is sending questions to them or if our SpaceX NSF friend here could let us know it would be greatly appreciated. Good luck with the refurbishment! :)I have heard that the current leg design has no way to collapse the legs once they have extended.
Here's a side by side image for comparison (OG2 stage on the left, CRS-8 stage on the right):
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CgcvT0CUUAAee00.jpg-large.jpg
I would look for the legs to be collapsed for transport on the next recovered stage.
Future versions of the legs will rectify that, of course. I would guess the next flown mission will have the capacity to do that.
Optimize for cost, not weight. Don't go crazy about it but don't be afraid of adding some weight if it shaves days off the refurb cycle. (That's my thinking on their thinking)Future versions of the legs will rectify that, of course. I would guess the next flown mission will have the capacity to do that.
Why? As long as the rocket does not lift off while standing on its legs, there will always be engineers present when taking off or folding the legs. If re-folding adds weight, it would not be such a good thing to do.
Arianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
Here ia an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
Also, I suspect the are taking flown hardware and getting various piece parts into a refurb cycle for reuse. Bead blast, repainted things, remove electronics for flight requalification (firmware updates?), NDI, etc.
Following the aircraft model, might we see FAA get involved with 100 hour inspection requirements on engines and/or overhauls every certain time period? I am thinking govt agencies be come more interested particularly if people transport becomes common on re-used space vehicles.
Here ia an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
I'm dubious.
For one thing it's wishful thinking, because if he's right, all is well at Arianespace, but if he's wrong, his job is in trouble, and for another the production facility is going to be busy cranking out S2s so the cost of having an idle line? isn't. This seems more or less the same FUD that ULA (inadvertantly in my view) served up with Dr. Sowers' spreadsheet on reuse business case.
Time wil tell.
Here ia an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
I'm dubious.
For one thing it's wishful thinking, because if he's right, all is well at Arianespace, but if he's wrong, his job is in trouble, and for another the production facility is going to be busy cranking out S2s so the cost of having an idle line? isn't. This seems more or less the same FUD that ULA (inadvertantly in my view) served up with Dr. Sowers' spreadsheet on reuse business case.
Time wil tell.Also, I suspect the are taking flown hardware and getting various piece parts into a refurb cycle for reuse. Bead blast, repainted things, remove electronics for flight requalification (firmware updates?), NDI, etc.
I'm dubious about this as well. At least steady state, if things need to be disassembled after every flight, we're back to refurbishment rather than reuse. I expect SpaceX will design out refurbishment wherever possible. First few cycles? Sure. Lots to inspect and test and learn from, but over time, every touch will be looked at for possible elimination.
It could be that what makes sense for ULA and Arianespace isn't the case for SpaceX. Because SpaceX is vertically integrated, it might be easier for them to reuse their first stage and continue to keep their production line open.
It could be that what makes sense for ULA and Arianespace isn't the case for SpaceX. Because SpaceX is vertically integrated, it might be easier for them to reuse their first stage and continue to keep their production line open.
Exactly. If you are a "rockets are LEGO elements" company like OrbitalATK that assembles things and each stage is dissimilar, if you start reusing S1 a lot, you (or your S1 vendor) have a vacant S1 line, and repurposing it for, say, lunar landers, or in space tugs, is a lot harder. Your S2 is from a different vendor so you can't repurpose the S1 line to make them...
Whether it was dumb luck forced on them due to limited resources, or shrewd thinking (I think the latter but I'm biased), SpaceX does not have this problem. S2 is made on the SAME line as S1... same tankage, a lot of the same internal fixtures, etc, just shorter. yes, it's different, but reconfiguring the line to make 3x ... and then 5X... and then 10X (as reuse fraction goes up) S2 as you do S1 isn't nearly as hard.
(and this is what kind of bugs me about the talk of a Raptor upper stage for F9... all of a sudden you're eroding a lot of commonality. ESPECIALLY if you go to a different tank size like so many people here like)
Unless NASA or DOD is funding it for super-heavy lift, it would just be a very low volume research and development demonstrator to prove MCT concepts, and would only go up on a fraction of Heavy launches.
Here ia an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for-customers/QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
QuoteArianespace Chief Executive Stephane Israel, in an April 23 briefing at Europe’s Guiana Space Center here on the northeast coast of South America, said Europe’s launch sector can only guess at how much SpaceX will need to spend to refurbish its Falcon 9 first stages. Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest.
The assumption of the article is if you can't profit from the direct investment in the short or medium term (lets say 5-10 years) with financial returns greater than the investment, then it shouldn't be done. And in a typical business envioronment ignoring these kinds of "rules" spells death to a company. Arianespace and other oldSpace companies have this mindset because they have to answer to shareholders. Lost profitability turns into lost jobs for presidents.True. This is the launch business.
I believe that SpaceX and their investors operate from a completely different paradigm, incompatible with the former view. They measure success so radically differently that it is not even comprehensible to their competition.Or they can afford to take a longer perspective on their payoff.
Reuse will completely remake the launch marketplace as much as mass productionAt this point it's partial reuse and it's a hope it will remake the launch services marketplace.
It enables thousands of launches per year instead of hundreds.Not when you still throw away a whole stage costing tens of millions er launch.
SpaceX may leverage some of that launch capacity to put up a global satellite Internet service array less expensively than anyone else can do. Leveraging the capital from this to fund the next steps.We'll see how this works.
Beyond that, SpaceX and the investor group may be looking to own Mars. I don't mean planet domination, but founder's position, which can be the best leverage, for of all commercial endeavors on an entirely new planet! These will be new businesses, new franchises, and new industries.The last time someone tried to start a thread about that it was locked. :(
Threads get locked partly because people get on hobbyhorses about things and try to drag discussion off topic repeatedly. There are other reasons but that's one.Beyond that, SpaceX and the investor group may be looking to own Mars. I don't mean planet domination, but founder's position, which can be the best leverage, for of all commercial endeavors on an entirely new planet! These will be new businesses, new franchises, and new industries.The last time someone tried to start a thread about that it was locked. :(
I note Musk has stated that even shipping Crack Cocaine from Mars would not make a profit. Historically quite a lot of of fortunes have been founded on shipping surpluses to existing markets.
Musk believes this option is impossible. :(
The big question for me is whether SpaceX is going to test a refurbished stage by flying it again, but with some ballast for a second stage, and then try to fly the stage back to Cape Canaveral. How that would fit into their current launch manifest is TBD, but I suspect that they currently have no scheduled launches involving a refurbished stage, so the manifest does not currently support a test flight.
The big question for me is whether SpaceX is going to test a refurbished stage by flying it again, but with some ballast for a second stage, and then try to fly the stage back to Cape Canaveral. How that would fit into their current launch manifest is TBD, but I suspect that they currently have no scheduled launches involving a refurbished stage, so the manifest does not currently support a test flight.
Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.
The big question for me is whether SpaceX is going to test a refurbished stage by flying it again, but with some ballast for a second stage, and then try to fly the stage back to Cape Canaveral. How that would fit into their current launch manifest is TBD, but I suspect that they currently have no scheduled launches involving a refurbished stage, so the manifest does not currently support a test flight.
Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.
SES also apparently said they want a 50% price cut, which is not what SpaceX has been talking about, yet. I'm sure supply will meet the demand at some point tho.
So maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.We surely don't have perfect visibility to SpaceX's pricing strategy. It's not outside the realm of possibility that SpaceX says "45M is the price. And we're not budging on that. BUT because we love you, SES, you can have the first one for 30, and we'll make up the 15M short by charging you 50 each for the next three"[1] or something... .who knows. Or maybe they'll just give SES that price once. Or maybe it's all public posturing.
Threads get locked partly because people get on hobbyhorses about things and try to drag discussion off topic repeatedly. There are other reasons but that's one.Noted.
That's not exactly what he meant and it's been overcome by events. More importantly, we have had many many threads on the economics of resource exploitation. This isn't one of them. See above.I was not planning on discussing it further here.
And it shouldn't take long to reach that point of supply and demand meeting. SpaceX's notional $20M price reduction for reuse puts an F9 flight at around $40M, which is cheaper than a Pegasus, for goodness sake.Is Pegasus known as the worlds most expensive launcher in terms of $/lb to orbit?
So maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.With numbers this public this looks like the start of a negotiation.
I took the 50% to be a "first time only" number, cheaper because of the possible risk associated with the first re-flight, not a desired price for all launches with re-flown stages.TBH I would agree. offering a (fairly) substantial discount is SOP for first launches on new LV's.
So maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.We surely don't have perfect visibility to SpaceX's pricing strategy. It's not outside the realm of possibility that SpaceX says "45M is the price. And we're not budging on that. BUT because we love you, SES, you can have the first one for 30, and we'll make up the 15M short by charging you 50 each for the next three"[1] or something... .who knows. Or maybe they'll just give SES that price once. Or maybe it's all public posturing.
But I think you're spot on in saying that if people are posturing or negotiating, that it's very unlikely that the first relaunch will be boilerplate. All parties are already on record as saying that isn't the plan...
1 - Notional numbers
James Dean on Twitter:
SpaceX on next landing attempt: booster "will be subject to extreme velocities and re-entry heating, making a successful landing unlikely."
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean)
So maybe 50% off is SES's opening bid, but they have to know that's not realistic.We surely don't have perfect visibility to SpaceX's pricing strategy. It's not outside the realm of possibility that SpaceX says "45M is the price. And we're not budging on that. BUT because we love you, SES, you can have the first one for 30, and we'll make up the 15M short by charging you 50 each for the next three"[1] or something... .who knows. Or maybe they'll just give SES that price once. Or maybe it's all public posturing.
But I think you're spot on in saying that if people are posturing or negotiating, that it's very unlikely that the first relaunch will be boilerplate. All parties are already on record as saying that isn't the plan...
1 - Notional numbers
I'm not a salesman but I have found that it's hard to raise prices if you offer a lower 'get to know us' rate.
This quote is from the JCSAT-14 - May 5, 2016 - DISCUSSION thread:James Dean on Twitter:
SpaceX on next landing attempt: booster "will be subject to extreme velocities and re-entry heating, making a successful landing unlikely."
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean)
This makes me curious. When SpaceX has gotten a few more returned stages under its belt, presumably they will have a better understanding of how likely, statistically, it will be that they can recover a first stage on future launches.
So if a customer was an edge case, as an example let's say there was only a 40% chance of recovery, would the customer be charged the "expendable" rate, the reusable rate, or some sort of sliding scale? Or would they be charged as expendable but receive a rebate if the stage was recovered?
So if a customer was an edge case, as an example let's say there was only a 40% chance of recovery, would the customer be charged the "expendable" rate, the reusable rate, or some sort of sliding scale? Or would they be charged as expendable but receive a rebate if the stage was recovered?
snip...
Out of curiosity, how possible is it that in the future they might have some system where every time a stage gets successfully re-used everybody who's previously flown on that particular stage gets a certain amount of money back (or a discount for their next launch?) so that by the end of the stage's life - however many re-uses that may be - every user has effectively paid the same amount for their use of the stage including initial manufacturing, upkeep and refurb costs for the whole stage lifetime? This would probably get a bit complicated because of all the money changing hands for every re-use but it seems to me that it's probably the fairest way to split the launch costs assuming equal reliability and value between new and used stages etc.
I'm not a fan of the rebate idea. It shifts the risks to the customer and more importantly does not open access to launches for customers that can only afford to the reusable cost. Imagine agreeing to get a rebate if the UPS truck doesn't get in an accident.So if a customer was an edge case, as an example let's say there was only a 40% chance of recovery, would the customer be charged the "expendable" rate, the reusable rate, or some sort of sliding scale? Or would they be charged as expendable but receive a rebate if the stage was recovered?
I'd think that the whole rebate idea is probably the thing they are most likely to do, especially in the early stages of re-use when everything is still uncertain, and it's not known whether a stage will definitely be re-used for revenue-earning missions, dissected or tested to destruction etc.
Out of curiosity, how possible is it that in the future they might have some system where every time a stage gets successfully re-used everybody who's previously flown on that particular stage gets a certain amount of money back (or a discount for their next launch?) so that by the end of the stage's life - however many re-uses that may be - every user has effectively paid the same amount for their use of the stage including initial manufacturing, upkeep and refurb costs for the whole stage lifetime? This would probably get a bit complicated because of all the money changing hands for every re-use but it seems to me that it's probably the fairest way to split the launch costs assuming equal reliability and value between new and used stages etc.
I think that ultimately SpaceX will price launches based on the likelihood of the rocket continuing to exist to live out whatever amortization schedule evolves.
Every user is buying a service. If that service comes with more or less risk, there may be a price adjustment. But if you're assuming equal reliability between new and used, then there is no difference in risk and thus no adjustment to price.
The price adjustments will be driven by the service provided. How much mass, to what orbit, with how much lead time, what quantity of launches, what integration services, and any special services.
Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.All of the appropriate parties have been saying this, but I wonder if it is wise.
SpaceX has no interest in losing a customer payload. SpaceX has no interest in deterring the adoption of reusable boosters. Customers have no interest in losing a payload. I take the fact that SpaceX *and* SES are so bullish on flying a real payload as evidence that they know something we don't.Not sure I agree with that. SES has been very vocal about wanting to be the first customer to fly on a previously flown stage. I think it is entirely possible that SpaceX will forego any dummy payloads and just go straight to a commercial launch. That's what they are saying they are going to do, after all.All of the appropriate parties have been saying this, but I wonder if it is wise.
Then again, in the event of a LOM on a reused booster, it probably has the same effect on SpaceX launches regardless of payload. That's something that hasn't been discussed enough, IMHO. Specifically: what is the risk to SpaceX if the reused booster fails? I don't think you can handwave it away as "but it was reused". You probably need to stand down the fleet and investigate the failure as if it were a normal failure on a new booster. What if the issue wasn't the reuse but something that might happen on a new flight, after all? Figuring out that it was due to reuse might be challenging.
I'd hate to see SpaceX lose a reused booster and have a similar impact to the CRS-7 LOM. Of course, they're going to do it, because they are bold where I am not...
Then again, in the event of a LOM on a reused booster, it probably has the same effect on SpaceX launches regardless of payload. That's something that hasn't been discussed enough, IMHO. Specifically: what is the risk to SpaceX if the reused booster fails? I don't think you can handwave it away as "but it was reused". You probably need to stand down the fleet and investigate the failure as if it were a normal failure on a new booster. What if the issue wasn't the reuse but something that might happen on a new flight, after all? Figuring out that it was due to reuse might be challenging.
I'd hate to see SpaceX lose a reused booster and have a similar impact to the CRS-7 LOM. Of course, they're going to do it, because they are bold where I am not...
Highly unlikely.So basically you're saying there will be no reduction in price to orbit?
Every user is buying a service. If that service comes with more or less risk, there may be a price adjustment. But if you're assuming equal reliability between new and used, then there is no difference in risk and thus no adjustment to price.
The price adjustments will be driven by the service provided. How much mass, to what orbit, with how much lead time, what quantity of launches, what integration services, and any special services.
Those two customers will pay the full price for the boosters and service for commercial customers has the needed boosters basically for free.You're confusing price and cost.
Falcon cores will be under scrutiny initially as they are reused, but that scrutiny will be based on the idea that a reused core is at higher risk than a new core. If they have an early reuse failure I don't see it grounding the new cores automatically, but I see it seriously delaying when clients get/want the opportunity to launch on a reused core.While I understand the logic, I'm not sure about that. Let's hope we don't have to find out...
Parabolicarc.com
@spacecom
Hoffman: second booster is being refurbished, hope to relaunch it later this year.
Edward Ellegood
@FLSPACErePORT
SpaceX at #SpaceCongress2016: Initial reuse of Falcon-9 limited to components: engines, landing legs, paddles, etc. Not entire booster
SpaceX: We'll be meeting w/ insurance underwriters in coming weeks to walk them through our reusable-stage certification process.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/737469017896542208?s=09
The price will definitely go down if used stages are nearly as reliable as new ones,logically they should be more reliable as we know now all the the parts have been through the launch cycle.
Assuming, of course, that there is a market for lower cost launches and that they still would turn a profit for the launch provider... Which are both true IMO.The question has always been is there enough market increase for the amount that the supplier is planning to reduce their prices by? :(
Space News' Peter B de Selding (@pbdes):This is huge if SX are far enough into their development that they can show improved reliability and that commercial launches will have lower insurance costs on an F9SR.QuoteSpaceX: We'll be meeting w/ insurance underwriters in coming weeks to walk them through our reusable-stage certification process.https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/737469017896542208?s=09
The question has always been is there enough market increase for the amount that the supplier is planning to reduce their prices by? :(
Given this is still a semi reusable system with one stage thrown away we don't know if the systems costs can be be cut to a level that the prices SX want to charge will give them the market growth they need to make this work out.
Even if the stages are damaged beyond repair the engines might still be possible to reuse?
If there's any chance of a lesson being learned that is what I expect them to desire. If the mission allows for a landing then there's really not a big risk of doing so (other than punching another hole in the droneship)Even if the stages are damaged beyond repair the engines might still be possible to reuse?
Yes, but do they need more than they already have? And more are coming soon. There seems to be a better than even chance they'll get a good core from LEO RTLS as soon as july.
Even if the stages are damaged beyond repair the engines might still be possible to reuse?
Yes, but do they need more than they already have? And more are coming soon. There seems to be a better than even chance they'll get a good core from LEO RTLS as soon as july.
...They're already piling up and starting to look ridiculous...
Jaded or not it doesn't matter what people thought a year ago. The current reality is that four F9 1.2 cores have been recovered out of the five that have flown. Last I heard was they planned to fly 18 times this year. Even if they don't reach that, many more cores are coming. First reflight is hopefully, fingers crossed by the end of this year. The current practice of stuffing them into 39A HIF is not sustainable. If they have 14 cores by the end of the year it will be a problem and will look ridiculous. SpaceX knows that. Even if you're a dog that caught a bus, if you realize it's going to problem station you'd do well to get off it.
The Fate of Four Landed Falcon 9's - Space Pod 6/1/16He got the thing with the damage to the stage of Flight 24 wrong (like so many). Elon Musk had already clarified on twitter that the stage is NOT too damaged to fly again, but they simply chose to not do that. Instead they are taking it apart and making it the baseline for their inspections since it had been subjected to the maximum expected stresses.
TMRO
Published on Jun 1, 2016
This week, SpaceMike asks, now that SpaceX has four landed Falcon 9 first stages, what are they going to do with them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTi9xWQ6W6k?t=001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTi9xWQ6W6k
He got the thing with the damage to the stage of Flight 24 wrong (like so many). Elon Musk had already clarified on twitter that the stage is NOT too damaged to fly again, but they simply chose to not do that.This does not say too much. You could theoretically rebuild even very damaged stage. It would just cost more (possibly more than new stage).
He got the thing with the damage to the stage of Flight 24 wrong (like so many). Elon Musk had already clarified on twitter that the stage is NOT too damaged to fly again, but they simply chose to not do that.This does not say too much. You could theoretically rebuild even very damaged stage. It would just cost more (possibly more than new stage).
All Elon has actually said is that the more beat-up returned stages are the obvious ones to use for requalification testing, and also that they could still refly.Exactly! People are too quick to jump to conclusions.
We might want to be cautious about inferring too much about how much refurb is required. For one thing, SpaceX might not know much themselves, pending the tests and inspections. For another, looks can be deceiving. It looked to some people like SES-9 had proven that the three-engine landing burn from GTO missions didn't work. The next time they tried it, it did.
They referred to the last landing as "experimental landing" in the webcast for a reason.Well, yeh, that's my point. In fact they say that just about every time.
They referred to the last landing as "experimental landing" in the webcast for a reason.
We might want to be cautious about inferring too much about how much refurb is required. For one thing, SpaceX might not know much themselves, pending the tests and inspections.
How about instead of these stages needing refurbishment it is merely a case that the stages are more valuable to just take apart and learn from. I'm sure there are a ton of rocket engineers that would just love to get there hands on a used stage to refine their calculations of reliability and such. They don't have a lot of demand for used stages right now.Well of course and that is what they essentially said. They were taking them apart instead of reflying them because they want to analyze them and learn from what they find.
They referred to the last landing as "experimental landing" in the webcast for a reason.
There have been four successful landings of an orbital rocket in the history of rocketry -- three at the time of that launch. They probably have a bit more time to use that phraseology, especially as they are exploring the return profile parameter space.
Four successful landings of an orbital rocket BOOSTER. The 1st stage does not go into orbit.
The Shuttle was an orbital rocket. That's landed loads of times.Although without it's main fuel tank.
All this "comparison" and "who did it first" is a can of worms, because you always end up comparing peaches with apples.Big can of worms, but relevant discussion in the reuse thread...
If you classify the Falcon9 1st stage as merely a suborbital booster, then even Blue Origin landed one before they did - yet its hardly comparable as certain diagrams have aptly visualized.
Big can of worms, but relevant discussion in the reuse thread...
The Shuttle Orbiter landed many times, but was neither a orbital rocket (i.e. complete launch vehicle) nor an orbital class booster. It was a reentry vehicle with orbital engines. The SRBs were orbital class boosters but they were never landed (or barged), they splashed. Blue Origin hasn't flown a orbital class booster, nevermind landed one.
To my knowledge, SpaceX is the first to land (or barge) a heavy lift orbital class booster. It's not interesting because of who was the first to do it, but because it is indeed a novel accomplishment.
Only SRB's and Blue Origin have reused their hardware. Landed stages that aren't reused are a novel but meaningless accomplishment.Right...
It doesn't matter if landed or splashed or orbital or suborbital.
Only SRB's and Blue Origin have reused their hardware. Landed stages that aren't reused are a novel but meaningless accomplishment.
Big can of worms, but relevant discussion in the reuse thread...
The Shuttle Orbiter landed many times, but was neither a orbital rocket (i.e. complete launch vehicle) nor an orbital class booster. It was a reentry vehicle with orbital engines. The SRBs were orbital class boosters but they were never landed (or barged), they splashed. Blue Origin hasn't flown a orbital class booster, nevermind landed one.
To my knowledge, SpaceX is the first to land (or barge) a heavy lift orbital class booster. It's not interesting because of who was the first to do it, but because it is indeed a novel accomplishment.
It doesn't matter if landed or splashed or orbital or suborbital.
Only SRB's and Blue Origin have reused their hardware. Landed stages that aren't reused are a novel but meaningless accomplishment.
Absolute rubbish.
For one massive reason. In order to use a stage again, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LAND IT FIRST. Therefor being able to land a stage IS NOT MEANINGLESS, whether or not a particular stage is in fact reused.
Not sure how many times you need to be told this.
SpaceX can
....launch Falcon 1 but they'll never scale it up.
....launch a Dragon but they'll never get it to dock with ISS
....launch a Dragon but payload fairings are hard.
....launch stuff but they never will be able to beat the incumbents on price
....launch stuff for less but they MUST be losing money
....launch for NASA and commercial but never DOD
....never launch to GTO orbits, F9 is a LEO launcher only.
....never launch two satellites at once
....never land a booster
....never land a booster on an ASDS
....never land a HIGH ENERGY booster on an ASDS
did I miss any?
Absolute rubbish.
For one massive reason. In order to use a stage again, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LAND IT FIRST. Therefor being able to land a stage IS NOT MEANINGLESS, whether or not a particular stage is in fact reused.
Not sure how many times you need to be told this.
Wrong. Again, landing a stage doesn't mean it can be reused. I don't know how many times you need to be told this.
Absolute rubbish.
For one massive reason. In order to use a stage again, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO LAND IT FIRST. Therefor being able to land a stage IS NOT MEANINGLESS, whether or not a particular stage is in fact reused.
Not sure how many times you need to be told this.
Wrong. Again, landing a stage doesn't mean it can be reused. I don't know how many times you need to be told this.
Anything can be reused with enough effort. Whether it's economical to expend that effort is a different question... one that's not yet been answered for Falcon. Successfully landing is definitely on the critical path though, and the landings will generate interest at least until that question is answered.
Interesting to see the reuse issue veer from "it's not possible" to "it's probably not financially worth it."
The more that reuse is proven, the more the goal posts are moved towards almost-unanswerable questions. Like, how would it be possible for outsiders to know for sure whether the financial cost of reuse is much lower than making a new stage? At some point, you need to just trust that those who are doing it are doing it for a real reason. But it's ALWAYS possible to claim, "well, it's not REALLY reuse that is lowering their costs..."
Right...Yes.
SpaceX can
....launch Falcon 1 but they'll never scale it up.
....launch a Dragon but they'll never get it to dock with ISS
....launch a Dragon but payload fairings are hard.
....launch stuff but they never will be able to beat the incumbents on price
....launch stuff for less but they MUST be losing money
....launch for NASA and commercial but never DOD
....never launch to GTO orbits, F9 is a LEO launcher only.
....never launch two satellites at once
....never land a booster
....never land a booster on an ASDS
....never land a HIGH ENERGY booster on an ASDS
did I miss any?
Betting that they won't crack reuse eventually and make it cost effective? Fools bet. (If you want to bet that way and are serious, contact me, I'll cover the other side of it)Actually that's two bets. Crack reuse (do you mean full reuse or just the first stage?) and cost effective reuse?
After they reuse one, I can just hear it nowAnd that would be a third bet.
....never reuse one more than once, that was a fluke....
Wrong. Again, landing a stage doesn't mean it can be reused.True. It's not a sufficient requirement. It is however a necessary requirement, and it does mean SX have actual hardware that has been through the full launch/separation//land cycle and now know what damage that cycle inflicts on the the systems and structures of the stage.
Interesting to see the reuse issue veer from "it's not possible" to "it's probably not financially worth it."Indeed. Funny how that works.
The more that reuse is proven, the more the goal posts are moved towards almost-unanswerable questions. Like, how would it be possible for outsiders to know for sure whether the financial cost of reuse is much lower than making a new stage? At some point, you need to just trust that those who are doing it are doing it for a real reason. But it's ALWAYS possible to claim, "well, it's not REALLY reuse that is lowering their costs..."
... snip ...
I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.Where structural damage is concerned looks can be very misleading. :(
The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.
The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
Sounds like such an examination itself would demand a high cost to carry out. You're talking about information necessary to /certify/ a stage, versus the original poster talking about someone making a judgement call based on the available evidence.My guess is that they are doing just that with flight number 24. It is the one that should have experienced the highest stresses of all the stages they had recovered to that point. So it makes sense for them to take that one apart and see how materials got affected by the reentry and landing. Some of that testing will probably be destructive, which is why they are not flying it again (not because it is too damaged to fly again).
You missed my point. The original poster (which you trimmed) was saying what an engineer would say if they had to make a judgement call based on given information whether the stage could or couldn't be reflown. Obviously you're going to do more actual analysis, but that's besides the point.Sounds like such an examination itself would demand a high cost to carry out. You're talking about information necessary to /certify/ a stage, versus the original poster talking about someone making a judgement call based on the available evidence.My guess is that they are doing just that with flight number 24. It is the one that should have experienced the highest stresses of all the stages they had recovered to that point. So it makes sense for them to take that one apart and see how materials got affected by the reentry and landing. Some of that testing will probably be destructive, which is why they are not flying it again (not because it is too damaged to fly again).
Mostly-shiny CRS-8 stage.
Looks like CRS-8 to me.Room for one more at the Inn! :)
SpaceX @SpaceX 4m4 minutes ago
Fantastic four
Nice to see one all shined back up! CRS-8?
If so, she's got her grid fin mounts again and her interstage has had its decals touched up.
Edit: The soot pattern on the leftmost booster seems consistent with ORBCOMM-2, though it looks as if she has been rotated since the last photo.
I think you're right. I reversed the core designations in my original analysis. With correct positioning, the shiny one would be OG-2.It doesn't seem to make sense to repaint the display unit. Maybe they have rearranged the units and painted CRS-8?
looks like the inside surface of the interstage of the cleaned one is black while the others seem to be white.
It definitely looks cleaned rather than re-painted. If you look closer you can tell that the surface has some less reflective areas suggesting a cleaning.
Maybe just a sandblaster with cork or dry ice media.
looks like the inside surface of the interstage of the cleaned one is black while the others seem to be white.
The others show light and shadow where that one just shows black. It looks like a black textile cover. Could be to protect newly installed or cleaned components, or it could be to cover up something that we weren't supposed to see.
That's fine for a first-of-its-kind-ever flight.I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.
The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
No. An unbiased engineer with an understanding of metallurgy and aerospace structural design would say "Show me the post-flight material sample tests, the visual and NDE examinations of the structures, and the financial reports demonstrating the material and labor costs for refurbishment necessary arising from the above, plus any TPS removal and reapplication."
EDIT: Damn autocorrect; grammar.
Of course. But there has as yet been no reflight. Therefore no unbiased engineer can possibly say the recovered stages we have seen to date will need only minor refurbishment. None of us here have access to the kind of detailed data SpaceX requires to make the determination about the degree of repair or refurbishment necessary after one flight, let alone what might be necessary after two, five, ten ... Anyone who thinks otherwise is willfully deluding himself.
Just my opinion.
How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them.
Then again they did no test flight of Falcon 9 1.1 or Falcon Full Thrust.
What would a test flight show on a reused booster- it already flew once.
Now they've gone and sold one maybe two flights on reused boosters, now we don't get to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters.
Of course. But there has as yet been no reflight. Therefore no unbiased engineer can possibly say the recovered stages we have seen to date will need only minor refurbishment. None of us here have access to the kind of detailed data SpaceX requires to make the determination about the degree of repair or refurbishment necessary after one flight, let alone what might be necessary after two, five, ten ... Anyone who thinks otherwise is willfully deluding himself.
Fuel tanks in the reusable rockets are designed to withstand thousands of uses, while the engines can be reused more than 100 times by repairing them. SpaceX will aim to reuse rockets 10 times for the time being, said Shotwell.
Just my opinion.
How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them.
Then again they did no test flight of Falcon 9 1.1 or Falcon Full Thrust.
What would a test flight show on a reused booster- it already flew once.
Now they've gone and sold one maybe two flights on reused boosters, now we don't get to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters.
I think "how dare they" is a bit strong. There's an important point to be consider - you can't sell if no one is willing to buy. We don't have to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters - we know it as a cold, hard fact.
It's all about risk/reward. And if the customer is willing to take the risk - and, more importantly, their insurance companies are willing to underwrite the risk - then why shouldn't SpaceX fly with a live payload?
Presumably the customer(s) are eager because:
A) they'll get a significant discount for being the first ones to fly on a used booster
and
B) they trust SpaceX
I think people seriously underestimate "B". SpaceX has no interest in losing a customer's payload. Also, the customer will have a lot of insight into why SpaceX believes it can safely refly the booster and you can be sure the contract will include the need to sign off on the launch.Presumably the customer(s) are eager because:Just my opinion.
How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them. ...
I think "how dare they" is a bit strong. There's an important point to be consider - you can't sell if no one is willing to buy. We don't have to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters - we know it as a cold, hard fact.
...
A) they'll get a significant discount for being the first ones to fly on a used booster
and
B) they trust SpaceX
...
And C) Bragging rights. Or put another way: Demonstrating that they are a forward looking company in touch with the cutting edge of technology!
Just my opinion.
How dare Spacex skip the test flight of a re-used booster. They've gone straight to selling them.
>
now we don't get to speculate if customers will be interested in used boosters.[/n]
I think it's a shame to wash the booster that they are going to put on their front lawn. To me the charring pattern of a landed F9 first stage is what makes it so distinctive.
IMHO SX regards relaunch as launch. That within days/weeks of receiving booster, it can be comfortably chosen for reflight.Or, the engines that have they have obviously removed from the rockets have been tested in McGregor without the stage attached already and we just don't know it. And I am pretty sure that they are waiting to see the test results for their "baseline" booster from flight 24. I presume that they are being thorough.
So, they got recovered stages. And more. Weeks of them. They are not comfortable with reflight.
This suggests significant work underway. Note also that 39A could have had a stage doing fit checks, cold flows, etc while they work the issues. No hint of that. That tells you that Dragon 2 and FH aren't pressing issues for them, to advance 39A.
Also, there's no additional static fires for reflight. They need more of something before that happens. Suggest engine/engine section issues that need to be worked/tested/qualified to advance "comfort".
It may be that refurbishment is not the issue, but design/operation of a non refurbished vehicle that doesn't violate "comfort" issues is the logjam for 39A/reflight/FH/Dragon 2.
It may be that refurbishment is not the issue, but design/operation of a non refurbished vehicle that doesn't violate "comfort" issues is the logjam for 39A/reflight/FH/Dragon 2.
He is not going to establish reflight as the low cost alternative.
Reflight absolutely needs to be at least as reliable as flying a new core.
I think guckyfan's point, which I totally agree with, is that while reuse is going to lower cost, it's also actually going to improve reliability. The notion that the first flight is the reliable, expensive one, and subsequent flights are risky, second class ones that only are attractive because of cost, isn't SpaceX's.
The second and subsequent flights of aircraft aren't riskier than the maiden flight.
SpaceX is saying not only are reflights going to cost less, they are also going to be more reliable.
So, there were those stripes on the engine bell for the Thaicom flight. Have we seen a post-flight picture of that same engine?IIRC there were images that showed that bell post-flight. Unfortunately I don't have a link for you.
Any conclusions on what it was all about?Chris B already has definitively stated that it is a TPS experiment.
So, there were those stripes on the engine bell for the Thaicom flight. Have we seen a post-flight picture of that same engine?IIRC there were images that showed that bell post-flight. Unfortunately I don't have a link for you.QuoteAny conclusions on what it was all about?Chris B already has definitively stated that it is a TPS experiment.
In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." ;)
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price.
So, there were those stripes on the engine bell for the Thaicom flight. Have we seen a post-flight picture of that same engine?IIRC there were images that showed that bell post-flight. Unfortunately I don't have a link for you.QuoteAny conclusions on what it was all about?Chris B already has definitively stated that it is a TPS experiment.
I think this is the striped one:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40393.msg1543815#msg1543815
IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. :(In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." ;)
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
I'll chime in for a sec to concur. As was said by Elon a few years back that his goal was full re-usability (what I call "gas n' go") with his airliner model. He also went further to say that if he did't get to that point he would fold up his tent, which raised my brows thus-sly ???QuoteI think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price.
I'm not convinced that's the case. Musk has been adamant about driving down the cost of space access and has talked a lot about ultimately getting to the point where the marginal cost of reuse (theoretically) is only the cost of refuelling and launching. I may be wrong but he seems genuinely more interested in reducing the cost of space access for customers than in maximizing profit.
And even if they reduce the cost of reflight by, say, $20M, but pass only half of that savings on to the customer, that's still win-win.
False. If new companies enter the market and are able to reduce their costs, there is naturally more competition (because more players), and so prices come down.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. :(In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." ;)
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.
This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
False. If new companies enter the market and are able to reduce their costs, there is naturally more competition (because more players), and so prices come down.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. :(In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." ;)
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.
This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
This can happen even without costs coming down, but pretty soon you'll have companies going bankrupt and exiting. So in reality, yes, reducing costs will allow prices to be reduced in a competitive market.
No. "This will therefor (sic) make no change to the size of the existing market." is false. SpaceX lowering costs will allow them to compete much better (force others to respond in kind), thus lowering prices and increasing the size of the existing market (which is growing in any case).False. If new companies enter the market and are able to reduce their costs, there is naturally more competition (because more players), and so prices come down.IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. :(In other words, he meant "reflight is not going to be the low *reliability* alternative?" Then I wish he'd said "reliability" instead of "cost." ;)
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices.
This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
This can happen even without costs coming down, but pretty soon you'll have companies going bankrupt and exiting. So in reality, yes, reducing costs will allow prices to be reduced in a competitive market.
In other words:
False. But true.
IOW exactly like every other LV supplier. :( You're saying that basically SX is looking to lower it's costs, but not it's prices. This will therefor make no change to the size of the existing market.
I think it really may be more about cost. When reflight is reliable, SpaceX still wants to sell for full price. SpaceX only need outbid everyone else and be as reliable or better.
Think of it like this. SpaceX is selling an orbited payload. The value of that from the paying customer's perspective doesn't change with the cost of the method. SpaceX will price at the best price they can get from the market unless they are doing something for charitable reasons.
Tried and gave up at educating about why insurance underwriting costs have dropped for F9, and will drop further. Just accept it. Cannot "understand it for you".
Because insurers are always a little skeptical when something new is introduced, the information from the upcoming meeting will enable them to assess the risks of flying with a reusable rocket, Poliseno said.
The original point that kicked of this chain was "Would reflight be a low cost" alternative? I think Elon has made comments that the answer to that is "No". They are selling orbits for a flat price plus upgrades.
Shotwell said it was too early to set precise prices for a reused Falcon 9, but that if the fuel on the first stage costs $1 million or less, and a reused first stage could be prepared for reflight for $3 million or so, a price reduction of 30 percent – to around $40 million – should be possible.
I think flown stages will be seen as less reliable for a while, until they rack up history.
Bathtub curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve) applies only to mature reusable launch vehicle tech. Currently, while used stage certainly gets rid of most "infant mortality" issues, it still has largerly unknown "wear out" issues.
So for some time (few years?) used rockets will be cheaper. After maturation of reusable rocket tech, price will reflect failure risk - cheaper at beginning and close to end of life, normal in middle. Launches of same stage/rocket in middle of life won't have same price anyway, as every customer and every launch has ever so slightly different needs, but that's different story.
QuoteThe original point that kicked of this chain was "Would reflight be a low cost" alternative? I think Elon has made comments that the answer to that is "No". They are selling orbits for a flat price plus upgrades.
Reference, please? SpaceX (Elon, Gwynne) have been repeatedly quoted as saying reuse would allow them to cut F9 launch prices.
I don't think they are trying to market "Hey. Our used boosters get you 30% off".
Nothing in that quote states or even implies that the price of new stages will remain the same. It can and has been understood by some to mean that regular reflight of stages will permit an across the board price reduction of 30%. Reflight will permit price reductions compared to current prices, not necessarily compared to new booster prices at that time.
QuoteI don't think they are trying to market "Hey. Our used boosters get you 30% off".
Except that's pretty much exactly what Gwynne said may happen in the quote I posted above. And telling customers they may get a 30% (or thereabouts) price cut for a reflight fits my loose definition of "marketing." If you're not planning to sell something, you don't tell your customers in public how much they may save by buying it.
Not sure how you square that with a "fixed price per orbit" concept, but I will read any such quotes from Elon or Gwynne with interest if you can find them. Maybe that's a baseline price structure for launches of "new" F9's, before the discount for reflown stages.
SpaceX may not have much reason to lower prices right now. They already have incredibly low prices and a long manifest that they're trying as hard as they can to fulfill.A one off launch reusing a booster you're probably right.
Reuse will make it easier for them to fly out their current manifest, clear the schedule a bit, and give SpaceX incentive to lower cost even further to fill the manifest back up,
As long as there's available market share that SpaceX hasn't gained and as long as SpaceX can keep up with their manifest (which they can't quite do, yet), there will be incentive to reduce prices a bit. But SpaceX will also be filling their manifest with their own launches.
I know this is off topic...
Is there anyway that thread links posted could automatically show the name of the thread?
This talk of 'new' and 'reused' boosters may be a bit too black and white.
SpaceX themselves have indicated that different components of the vehicle are expected to have different life cycles.
Who's to say that an otherwise brand new stage might not be fitted with refurbished engines, legs, etc?
Stages might become essentially a high-tech version of Trigger's Broom.
I imagine that it would be most easily done if the core is mounted horizontally on those circular rings, rotating like a bird on a spit while a pressure washer slowly moves from one end to the other, kind of like a lathe.Indeed, once you can put the stage on a horizontal rotating mounting you can carry out all sorts of inspection and repair tasks on it.
How much force is needed to remove the soot, anyways? You certainly don't want to use too much water pressure and accidentally damage the skin.
I've seen cork being applied to the interstage on a Hawthorne tour. Also the logo and American flag being painted on using rollers and a stencil, not as I expected, an adhesive sticker.
Composites are generally heat intolerant as far as I know, so TPS on the interstage.
And matthewkantar made a good point about why there would be cork on the (composite) interstage but not the (aluminum) tanks:It's been pointed out that even a coat of paint is sufficient to stop LOX boiloff.QuoteComposites are generally heat intolerant as far as I know, so TPS on the interstage.
Looks like a landed stage is on the move.Cleaned it up a bit not sure if it helps ! Just using snapseed on my phone
Stephen Smith indicates it is NOT the cleaned up stage from the "Fantastic Four" picture.
I think orientation in the HIF indicates that it is the stage on the far left of the fantastic four picture, so possibly CRS-8.
Headed to McGregor?
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/742062804761448449
Definitely looks like the cleaned up stage is furthest left in that pic. So is that one CRS 8 and we can speculate that the cleanup is for the purposes of reflight?
the first recovered booster, from the OG-2 mission, is in the final stages of preparing to depart the 39A HIF for its trip to SpaceX’s HQ in Hawthorne, California.
And matthewkantar made a good point about why there would be cork on the (composite) interstage but not the (aluminum) tanks:QuoteComposites are generally heat intolerant as far as I know, so TPS on the interstage.
I see two cores off to the passenger side of that truck, so the one leaving would be the left-center (core 24).
On the subject of TPS, we have confirmation from The Roadie posting in another thread that yes, the interstage is covered in (painted) cork:QuoteI've seen cork being applied to the interstage on a Hawthorne tour. Also the logo and American flag being painted on using rollers and a stencil, not as I expected, an adhesive sticker.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40393.msg1547806#msg1547806
And matthewkantar made a good point about why there would be cork on the (composite) interstage but not the (aluminum) tanks:QuoteComposites are generally heat intolerant as far as I know, so TPS on the interstage.
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/742062804761448449Any update or sightings of used rockets at Hawthorne, CA or McGregor, TX?
Looks like a landed stage is on the move. Headed to McGregor?
Stephen Smith indicates it is NOT the cleaned up stage from the "Fantastic Four" picture.
https://twitter.com/SpaceKSCBlog/status/742062804761448449Any update or sightings of used rockets at Hawthorne, CA or McGregor, TX?
Looks like a landed stage is on the move. Headed to McGregor?
Stephen Smith indicates it is NOT the cleaned up stage from the "Fantastic Four" picture.
ORBCOMM2 - 021 has been spotted on I-8 entering California by Facebook group members Genesis Adam and Tracy Black
Added: Although it's odd that all the engines look to be there under the tarp. Hmmm.
I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.
The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
It's high velocity entry that is the challenge. You could have high velocity entry from LEO, too, if you were near the edge of the rocket's performance. Likewise you could have a fairly benign entry from GTO if the payload were small.I think from the high-res images of the landed stages any unbiased engineer would say that they are either already can be reused with minor refurb, or that first stage design will need only minor tweaks to make that possible.
The stages are clearly not heavily damaged.
Form what I can see LEO mission stages likely can be reused but GTO ones seem to take a fair amount of damage.
ORBCOMM2 - 021 has been spotted on I-8 entering California by Facebook members Genesis Adam and Tracy Black
Added: Although it's odd that all the engines look to be there under the tarp. Hmmm.
The 1st stage on the truck that was spotted in Arizona has made it back to the factory in Hawthorne CA!
Looks like it must be the F9-021 core from the Orbcomm-2 landing.
Click on link to see pictures http://imgur.com/a/bu62W (http://imgur.com/a/bu62W)
The 1st stage on the truck that was spotted in Arizona has made it back to the factory in Hawthorne CA!
Looks like it must be the F9-021 core from the Orbcomm-2 landing.
Click on link to see pictures http://imgur.com/a/bu62W (http://imgur.com/a/bu62W)
A truck bringing a flown booster back to the factory. I know, I know... museum piece. Still, that seems just... wrong. ;D
A truck bringing a flown booster back to the factory. I know, I know... museum piece. Still, that seems just... wrong. ;D
Not sure it is dirt that can be washed off. I think more likely it is paint discoloration caused by heat.
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)
http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)
http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)
http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)
http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.
Some great closeups of the OG-2 stage on the street in Hawthorne:One just has got to admire SpaceX for putting two cores outside and confuse the h*ll out all of us for a full day. "Which core is what?" Brilliant! :)
http://imgur.com/a/q7yoL
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.
Then why not just tweet a photo of it in the factory, rather than parking it out in the street and hoping someone recognizes it?
There must really be "no vacancy" at the Falcon Motel.
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.
Then why not just tweet a photo of it in the factory, rather than parking it out in the street and hoping someone recognizes it?
There must really be "no vacancy" at the Falcon Motel.
I think they did it for a laugh. The timing was such that interested people would be there with cameras for the Orbcom landed stage. There is no way the missing cover and the timing were accidental.
Edit: corrected quoting.
It may even have been their intention to show Falcon Heavy hardware to the world without being too obvious about it. To raise some confidence in making the 2016 launch date.We've seen FH side booster nose cones in SpX pics from the factory floor months ago, and I was on a tour and saw a FH (perhaps test article, can't be sure) interstage also a couple of months ago. It was distinctive for having extra large cutouts where struts would have to go to the top of the LOX tank structure - bottom of the interstage.
Not sure it is dirt that can be washed off. I think more likely it is paint discoloration caused by heat.
The general suspicion is that it can be washed off.
(Not an expert)
SSME and M1D have huge fundamental differences- propellant being an obvious one, but also a completely different engine cycle. So the actual components are doing different jobs, a bit like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. SSME was also designed in the 70s, Merlin can draw on another three decades of development (perhaps not as big an advantage as it should be)
I don't personally know what refurbishing each of these engines entails, but a few points to consider:
1) where do you draw the line between refurb and inspection? You might not replace a component, but you might still want to whip it out and check e.g. tolerance on a bearing seal.
2) There will be a trade between the hassle and cost if inspection/refurb, and the hassle and cost of engine failure. That scale will be weighted massively in favour of not losing the vehicle.
3) There may also (and I'm starting to speculate a little here) be a trade between cost, performance, and service intervals. Is it worth building a no-refurb engine if it comes at the cost of performance loss? Would you buy a car that didn't need refuelled until the next service interval- of course not, that would mean driving around lugging 20,000 miles worth of fuel with you. Absurd example but I hope it illustrates the point.
(Not an expert)
SSME and M1D have huge fundamental differences- propellant being an obvious one, but also a completely different engine cycle. So the actual components are doing different jobs, a bit like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. SSME was also designed in the 70s, Merlin can draw on another three decades of development (perhaps not as big an advantage as it should be)
I don't personally know what refurbishing each of these engines entails, but a few points to consider:
1) where do you draw the line between refurb and inspection? You might not replace a component, but you might still want to whip it out and check e.g. tolerance on a bearing seal.
2) There will be a trade between the hassle and cost if inspection/refurb, and the hassle and cost of engine failure. That scale will be weighted massively in favour of not losing the vehicle.
3) There may also (and I'm starting to speculate a little here) be a trade between cost, performance, and service intervals. Is it worth building a no-refurb engine if it comes at the cost of performance loss? Would you buy a car that didn't need refuelled until the next service interval- of course not, that would mean driving around lugging 20,000 miles worth of fuel with you. Absurd example but I hope it illustrates the point.
Pretty decent wash job. I wonder how long the current paint and logos will last in the local environment before everything starts to flake, peel, and fade.
If doesn't have to launch again, there are descent outdoor paints at home depot...
Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.
If doesn't have to launch again, there are descent outdoor paints at home depot...
There you go...If doesn't have to launch again, there are descent outdoor paints at home depot...
Why Home Depot? There must be someone at the SX CTO's side business at Fremont that have some expertise in outdoor paints for external metal surfaces.
If doesn't have to launch again, there are descent outdoor paints at home depot...
Why Home Depot? There must be someone at the SX CTO's side business at Fremont that have some expertise in outdoor paints for external metal surfaces. :P
Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
The first stage to land on a barge wouldn't have survived if that was true. It was pitching and rolling in the wind pretty good during and after landing. They obviously weren't going to tow it in like that, but the legs did the job until the crew got there to anchor it.Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
Perhaps, but they're not good enough for "keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea" which is why they use the jacks and weld them to the deck ASAP after landing.
It wouldn't 'look right' if it were supported by jack stands.
Granted, there might still be reasons you wouldn't want to leave the stage solely on the legs permanently.
The one that skittered across the deck demonstrated that the legs themselves are insufficient to secure the stage at sea. "Until the crew got there" is not "keeping", that's the point. Sure the legs are good to land on and hold it up, but they are not intended to be the sole support at sea.The first stage to land on a barge wouldn't have survived if that was true. It was pitching and rolling in the wind pretty good during and after landing. They obviously weren't going to tow it in like that, but the legs did the job until the crew got there to anchor it.Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
Perhaps, but they're not good enough for "keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea" which is why they use the jacks and weld them to the deck ASAP after landing.
Granted, there might still be reasons you wouldn't want to leave the stage solely on the legs permanently.
Odds are the legs and mounts are "rigidified" and their feet bolted to the slab.
Interesting that I did see on one of the close-up shots of the struts... on the ground prior to installation, that they were marked "flown articles."Saw that also, but I wouldn't be surprised if the crush core had been replaced with a solid/rigid one.
No, not quite. The chains that are welded to the deck are there to prevent the stage from sliding off the deck. However, the chains are put under tension to such an extend that the legs alone no longer suffice. That's why jacks are placed underneath the stage.Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
Perhaps, but they're not good enough for "keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea" which is why they use the jacks and weld them to the deck ASAP after landing.
my worry is not whether they can take the load now but rather if they can take the load continuously for years and years, as the materials deteriorate.A used-car dealership in my home town has had a load bearing carbon fibre pole sitting out in the open, exposed to the elements for the past 29 years. The prime material of that pole (a painted-over moisture resistant carbon fibre reinforced polymer) hasn't degraded one d*mn bit, despite the lousy climate here.
Not a given.No, not quite. The chains that are welded to the deck are there to prevent the stage from sliding off the deck. However, the chains are put under tension to such an extend that the legs alone no longer suffice. That's why jacks are placed underneath the stage.Am I reading these reports correctly that this stage is supported only by the landing legs? Seems there should be something more substantial for long term display.If the legs alone are good enough for absorbing the impact of landing and subsequently keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea then they should be more than good enough for keeping the stage upright on a solid piece of concrete in Hawthorne. All that needs to be done is to anchor the legs to the ground.
Perhaps, but they're not good enough for "keeping the stage upright on a rolling platform in a gusty sea" which is why they use the jacks and weld them to the deck ASAP after landing.
Given that the stage at Hawthorne is in no danger of sliding off a deck, there is no need to secure the stage in place via chains and jacks. The legs alone are adequate enough.
my worry is not whether they can take the load now but rather if they can take the load continuously for years and years, as the materials deteriorate.A used-car dealership in my home town has had a load bearing carbon fibre pole sitting out in the open, exposed to the elements for the past 29 years. The prime material of that pole (a painted-over moisture resistant carbon fibre reinforced polymer) hasn't degraded one d*mn bit, despite the lousy climate here.
Given that SpaceX has those legs made from aerospace-grade CFRP and other UV and corrossion resistant materials, I'm not too worried about materials deterioration anytime soon.
my worry is not whether [the legs] can take the load now but rather if they can take the load continuously for years and years, as the materials deteriorate.
Not sure why all the worry about paint, weather, and lightning, etc. Except for earthquakes, the LA Area is a far more benign environment than Florida. KSC has 6 months of extreme humidity, near constant aerosol salt spray, frequent high thunderstorm winds, torrential downpours, lots of lightning, and an occasional Tropical Storm or Hurricane, and they manage to keep the Rocket Garden display looking good:
Odds are the legs and mounts are "rigidified" and their feet bolted to the slab.Exactly what I was going to say.
QuoteHoffman: took one of the Falcon 9 landed boosters to Texas; fired it 7 times so far with no refurbishment. #AIAASpacehttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775815358812782593 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775815358812782593)QuoteHoffman: expect to take a couple years to refine the refurb process and costs. See “significant” cost savings in a few years. #AIAASpacehttps://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775816294234857474 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/775816294234857474)
While speculation is popular and is often justified by the absence of facts, there ARE some facts available.
In an interesting article, space historian David Portree cites a study that looked at the refurbishment costs of the X-15 program that provides probably the most relevant real-world data we have:
"In November 1966, James Love and William Young, engineers at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, completed a brief report in which they noted that the reusable suborbital booster for a reusable orbital spacecraft would undergo pressures, heating rates, and accelerations very similar to those the X-15 experienced."
"The average X-15 refurbishment time was 30 days, a period which had, they noted, hardly changed in four years. Even with identifiable improvements, they doubted that an X-15 could be refurbished in fewer than 20 days.
"At the same time, Love and Young argued that the X-15 program had demonstrated the benefits of reusability. They estimated that refurbishing an X-15 in 1964 had cost about $270,000 per mission.
"Love and Young cited North American Aviation estimates when they placed the cost of a new X-15 at about $9 million. They then calculated that 27 missions using expendable X-15s would have cost a total of $243 million. This meant, they wrote, that the cost of the reusable X-15 program in 1964 had amounted to just 3% of the cost of building 27 X-15s and throwing each one away after a single flight.
My bold.
http://www.wired.com/2013/05/the-x-15-rocket-plane-reusable-space-shuttle-boosters-1966/
The X-15 program has provided more than 5 years of actual flight experience from which data on operations and costs for a reusable space vehicle can be obtained. The information applicable to reusable space vehicles has been presented in this paper, but not attempt has been made to determine how the information should be applied to future studies.
In 1964, 27 X-15 flights were accomplished at a total cost of $16,268,000. The average cost per flight has been more than $602,000, and the average turnaround time has been 30 days per mission. Both of these factors are greater than estimates for a reusable booster, because of the research nature of the X-15 program and because the X-15 airplane is equivalent to a prototype vehicle. An estimated 33-precent reduction in turnaround time and a proportionate cost reduction would result fro the elimination of the X-15 research requirement. And additional reduction in turnaround time would have resulted if a product-improvement phase had been undertaken. Even so, the present estimates and extrapolations for future reusable boosters and orbital space vehicles appear to be overly optimistic in comparison to the actual X-15 experience, especially in the length of time required for turnaround.
The X-15, through 7 years of actual flight experience, has provided data which can be used as a basis for estimating operational costs of reusable space vehicles. The 32 flights accomplished in 1965 cost $13.017 million or $407,000 per flight and represent about 8 percent of the initial program cost. The high reuse of the X-15 indicates a 10- to 15-day turnaround time for first-generation reusable space vehicles.
The X-15 has shown that realistic specifications and environmental conditions must be established as early in a project as possible, and specifications must be adhered to during acceptance testing and revised when found to be inappropriate. Also, a component-improvement program coupled with a timely and practical deficiency reporting system has been shown to be necessary for any new type of vehicle program regardless of its original anticipated project life
We know, of course, how things panned out in the long run. Consistent with the conference paper, a 14-day turnaround time was promised for the first-generation reusable space vehicle, the Shuttle. In reality, turnaround times were even longer than the 30 days mentioned in internal report.Irrelevant. Shuttle was not a reusable booster. Completely different requirements.
I think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.
I believe Bezos tweeted about his first reuse and there was a small skirmish with Musk over the scale of the achievement. This has all been discussed ad nauseum. Jim has extensively pointed out that the Shuttle was in some sense the first reused orbital stage.I think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.Simple question, not to say that I am not also curious - why?
And in terms of relative comparison, has Blue Origin? If they did I honestly missed it...
Thank you -
Well we know the engines came off for one.
I believe Bezos tweeted about his first reuse and there was a small skirmish with Musk over the scale of the achievement. This has all been discussed ad nauseum. Jim has extensively pointed out that the Shuttle was in some sense the first reused orbital stage.I think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.Simple question, not to say that I am not also curious - why?
And in terms of relative comparison, has Blue Origin? If they did I honestly missed it...
Thank you -
What I'm saying is that there's a lot of hype over this flight, while we are not really sure to what extent it will be any more remarkable than, say, a space shuttle flight. Knowing Musk he will tweet out something about it being the first orbital booster reuse. But if it was subject to an extensive rebuild, then it is not unlike the Ship of Theseus, that is, not the same ship it once was.
...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...
It will be some time before the reconditioning process is streamlined enough to demonstrate whether the promised cost savings will actually happen.
...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...
You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused? And what about New Shepard's booster?
Uhoh, now you've done it...last time I suggested that [edit: to clarify, I stated that the Shuttle SRBs were reusable boosters] it resulted in a very long and unproductive discussion.
...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...
You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused?
And what about New Shepard's booster?I think it's helpful to mentally add "orbital class" in the discussion here.
...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...
You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused? And what about New Shepard's booster?
I don't believe that New Shepherd's booster has flown yet, only the hydrolox upper stage.
I don't believe that New Shepherd's booster has flown yet, only the hydrolox upper stage.AFAIK, New Shepherd never will have a 'booster', as you seem to be thinking of it. It is a single stage suborbital hydrolox rocket, a rather strange, over-engineered combination enabled by the particular talent set the DC-X team brought with them.
...I don't believe that New Shepherd's booster has flown yet, only the hydrolox upper stage...
...As for the SRBs, weren't they melted down and recast? At the very least, the only thing recovered were the propellent casings and parachute securing points.
I believe Bezos tweeted about his first reuse and there was a small skirmish with Musk over the scale of the achievement. This has all been discussed ad nauseum. Jim has extensively pointed out that the Shuttle was in some sense the first reused orbital stage.I think SpaceX should be open about how much of the stage was replaced or rebuilt before announcing any world records. I am going to call this the Stage of Theseus until we know what happened during those 4 months.Simple question, not to say that I am not also curious - why?
And in terms of relative comparison, has Blue Origin? If they did I honestly missed it...
Thank you -
What I'm saying is that there's a lot of hype over this flight, while we are not really sure to what extent it will be any more remarkable than, say, a space shuttle flight. Knowing Musk he will tweet out something about it being the first orbital booster reuse. But if it was subject to an extensive rebuild, then it is not unlike the Ship of Theseus, that is, not the same ship it once was.
...That said, the first reusable booster in US spaceflight history...
You mean the Shuttle SRB's weren't boosters and were never reused?
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
No, Columbia qualifies as the first
No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
No, Columbia qualifies as the first
I have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.
No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
No, Columbia qualifies as the first
I have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.
No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
No, Columbia qualifies as the first
I have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.
That definition is fine, but Columbia never re-flew an ET. So SES-10 is still the first re-flight of an orbital main stage, just not the first re-flight of the propulsion section of a orbital main stage.
No, Jim is correct. The orbiter, along with the ET was the main stage of STS. The only difference from a "regular" rocket is that upon MECO the tankage was separated from the propulsion unit.
This will be the first RE-FLIGHT of an orbital main stage.
No, Columbia qualifies as the first
I have a hard time calling something that doesn't carry it's own fuel and can't get off the ground by itself a main stage. What Columbia did (orbit and back while and carrying people!) was far more impressive but obviously quite different than the Falcon 9 booster.
That definition is fine, but Columbia never re-flew an ET. So SES-10 is still the first re-flight of an orbital main stage, just not the first re-flight of the propulsion section of a orbital main stage.
STS's first stage is the SRBs. They were reflown.
STS's second stage is the ET + SSME's. The SSME's were reflown.
STS's third stage is the OMS system. It was reflown.
I would argue that the conversion from STS to Falcon looks like this:
SRBs = Falcon 9 first stage
ET = Falcon 9 second stage tank
SSME's = MVAC
OMS system (and orbiter) = Dragon.
So, STS did one thing Falcon 9 will never do (re-fly second stage propulsion system), and STS did everything Falcon 9 will soon do (hopefully), with the exception of the first-stage landing destination (sea versus barge or land). Someday, hopefully, Dragon will make its first land landing.
SRBs = Atlas V SRMs=F9 N/A
ET/Orbiter = Atlas V core= F9 core
SSME's = RD-180= 9 Merlins
OMS system = Centaur= F9 second stage
(Not an expert)SSME was designed in a pre CFD, pre CAD world, when Supercomputing power was measured in MIPS, today its measured in 6+ orders of magnitude higher.
SSME and M1D have huge fundamental differences- propellant being an obvious one, but also a completely different engine cycle. So the actual components are doing different jobs, a bit like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. SSME was also designed in the 70s, Merlin can draw on another three decades of development (perhaps not as big an advantage as it should be)
I don't personally know what refurbishing each of these engines entails, but a few points to consider:
1) where do you draw the line between refurb and inspection? You might not replace a component, but you might still want to whip it out and check e.g. tolerance on a bearing seal.
2) There will be a trade between the hassle and cost if inspection/refurb, and the hassle and cost of engine failure. That scale will be weighted massively in favour of not losing the vehicle.
3) There may also (and I'm starting to speculate a little here) be a trade between cost, performance, and service intervals. Is it worth building a no-refurb engine if it comes at the cost of performance loss? Would you buy a car that didn't need refuelled until the next service interval- of course not, that would mean driving around lugging 20,000 miles worth of fuel with you. Absurd example but I hope it illustrates the point.
What's a Merlin these days? About $2m apiece?And since you seem to have insight into SpaceX's cost structure: how much of these 2mil are fixed costs (tooling, minimum staff,...) that you don't save on if you build one less?
Well worth the costs of recovery and refurb.
Returning to Shuttle for a moment - STS-1 was a narrow thing, with lots of learning for the launch system, orbiter, and recovery of vehicle. It was a laboratory experiment, where we learned more of "what not to do".
Would not begrudge SX/BO on early reuse here. NS/F9 are the smallest reusable booster systems ever, and the margins are the smallest they'll ever be. Flight history here tells you much in the puzzle of "how you thought it would work" vs "how it works".
"Waterfall" and "agile" play this quite differently from my direct observation. Typically waterfall is looking for adequate margins against design validation. Agile on the other hand has a bunch of stochastic guesses where they were under/over margin.
What I like about the first is adherence to schedule/pressure (some may say "hide bound") . What I like about the second is that you get more exposure to pushing the bounds beyond the firsts implied "safe limits" (some may say "reckless").
So those four months of reprocessing ... does it result in a vehicle that achieves rapid reuse (e.g. less than a week) ... or just three months of reprocessing? The former is likely economic, the latter is not. And why Shuttle taught us all to doubt economic reuse.
That's how to "grade" effectiveness IMHO.
What's a Merlin these days? About $2m apiece?And since you seem to have insight into SpaceX's cost structure: how much of these 2mil are fixed costs (tooling, minimum staff,...) that you don't save on if you build one less?
Well worth the costs of recovery and refurb.
What's a Merlin these days? About $2m apiece?And since you seem to have insight into SpaceX's cost structure: how much of these 2mil are fixed costs (tooling, minimum staff,...) that you don't save on if you build one less?
Well worth the costs of recovery and refurb.
No idea :)
Given that the engines appear able to be re-used with minimal work - the JCSAT-14 core has (apparently) had 8 (?) full-duration firings since recovery - that *suggests* there is value in recovered engines?
The proposed Vulcan recovery method also suggests that engines are the driving force behind recovery and re-use.
From a personal - and yes, uninformed - point of view, I suspect we may see re-use of stages a lot fewer times than is currently being touted, e.g. two or three uses in Recovery mode, then a final flight in Expendable configuration. That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
What's a Merlin these days? About $2m apiece?And since you seem to have insight into SpaceX's cost structure: how much of these 2mil are fixed costs (tooling, minimum staff,...) that you don't save on if you build one less?
Well worth the costs of recovery and refurb.
No idea :)
Given that the engines appear able to be re-used with minimal work - the JCSAT-14 core has (apparently) had 8 (?) full-duration firings since recovery - that *suggests* there is value in recovered engines?
The proposed Vulcan recovery method also suggests that engines are the driving force behind recovery and re-use.
From a personal - and yes, uninformed - point of view, I suspect we may see re-use of stages a lot fewer times than is currently being touted, e.g. two or three uses in Recovery mode, then a final flight in Expendable configuration. That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
Rocket = aluminium alloy tube with Things bolted on to it.
Things = Engines, grid fins, hydraulics, legs, plus some electronics and connectors, some pipes 'n stuff.
Really Expensive things subset = engines, legs.
To me, the cost of the engines is the major component of the cost of the stage. Recovering them seems a no brainer, however you do it.
SRBs = Falcon 9 first stage
ET = Falcon 9 second stage tank
SSME's = MVAC
OMS system (and orbiter) = Dragon.
... So those four months of reprocessing ...
... So those four months of reprocessing ...
Where does this reference to four months of processing come from? Did SpaceX tell us how much time went into 'processing' and how long the stage was just sitting there?
... So those four months of reprocessing ...
Where does this reference to four months of processing come from? Did SpaceX tell us how much time went into 'processing' and how long the stage was just sitting there?
Peter B. de Selding of Space Intel Report:
Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.
Peter B. de Selding of Space Intel Report:
Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832
That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
SRBs = Falcon 9 first stage
ET = Falcon 9 second stage tank
SSME's = MVAC
OMS system (and orbiter) = Dragon.
Since people disagree, I guess I should explain my thinking.
The STS SRBs are both tank and engine (like Falcon 9 stage 1) which provide most of the thrust for first-stage flight and which stage at about the same speed at which the Falcon 9 first stage separates from the second stage when Falcon is used in reusable mode.
The ET and SSME's each achieve orbital velocity, just like the Falcon 9 second stage and the MVac. This is an enormously higher speed than SRB staging/Falcon stage 1 sep.
The orbiter and its OMS pods do the same thing as Dragon and its RCS system - allow small delta-V changes on orbit to the cargo/person carrying system, and achieve re-entry.
That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
Well, but that's the point, isn't it: how many new engines will be built to "cover" these fixed costs.
If flight rates don't go up dramatically the result of re-use will be that these newly built engines will become more expensive than before, so "how much does an engine cost" will no longer be the same.
These metrics are more important than average figures at some current state.
You can attribute these costs wherever you like but they won't go away, it's not like "oh, SpaceX now reuses engines 90% of the time so they are saving 90% of the cost". In Reality, between fixed costs, refurbishment etc. it will probably be closer to 50% or so.
There's a reason SpaceX estimates the overall cost savings through reuse at about 30%.
That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
Well, but that's the point, isn't it: how many new engines will be built to "cover" these fixed costs.
If flight rates don't go up dramatically the result of re-use will be that these newly built engines will become more expensive than before, so "how much does an engine cost" will no longer be the same.
These metrics are more important than average figures at some current state.
You can attribute these costs wherever you like but they won't go away, it's not like "oh, SpaceX now reuses engines 90% of the time so they are saving 90% of the cost". In Reality, between fixed costs, refurbishment etc. it will probably be closer to 50% or so.
There's a reason SpaceX estimates the overall cost savings through reuse at about 30%.
Except SX still needs to make lots and lots and lots of 2nd stage engines and fairings. Those productivity gains can now be redirected to making perhaps 3x as many 2nd stage/fairings. Booster / regular M1D resources can be reallocated to making more 2nd stages / M1Dvac.That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
Well, but that's the point, isn't it: how many new engines will be built to "cover" these fixed costs.
If flight rates don't go up dramatically the result of re-use will be that these newly built engines will become more expensive than before, so "how much does an engine cost" will no longer be the same.
These metrics are more important than average figures at some current state.
You can attribute these costs wherever you like but they won't go away, it's not like "oh, SpaceX now reuses engines 90% of the time so they are saving 90% of the cost". In Reality, between fixed costs, refurbishment etc. it will probably be closer to 50% or so.
There's a reason SpaceX estimates the overall cost savings through reuse at about 30%.
I suspect there is a wide hysteresis in the cost curve. On the way up, economies of higher production rates can significantly decrease unit costs. On the way back down (decreasing production rate after production process is mature), the increase in unit cost should be much less than the efficiencies on way up.
Think of it this way... on way up, a manufacturer fully automates the production process (or nearly so). Robots, tooling, 3D printers, whatever are bought and manufacturing process debugged to get required quality and production rate. Once there, a cutback in production doesn't necessarily increase the unit cost at all.
Well, in reality, due to inflexibilities in your workforce and asset use it's typically the other way around. You have to invest and add costs before you take in economies of scale and the costs don't go away as quickly if you reduce production.That means there's still going to be a need to build new engines; and the fixed costs will still keep being covered.
Well, but that's the point, isn't it: how many new engines will be built to "cover" these fixed costs.
If flight rates don't go up dramatically the result of re-use will be that these newly built engines will become more expensive than before, so "how much does an engine cost" will no longer be the same.
These metrics are more important than average figures at some current state.
You can attribute these costs wherever you like but they won't go away, it's not like "oh, SpaceX now reuses engines 90% of the time so they are saving 90% of the cost". In Reality, between fixed costs, refurbishment etc. it will probably be closer to 50% or so.
There's a reason SpaceX estimates the overall cost savings through reuse at about 30%.
I suspect there is a wide hysteresis in the cost curve. On the way up, economies of higher production rates can significantly decrease unit costs. On the way back down (decreasing production rate after production process is mature), the increase in unit cost should be much less than the efficiencies on way up.
Think of it this way... on way up, a manufacturer fully automates the production process (or nearly so). Robots, tooling, 3D printers, whatever are bought and manufacturing process debugged to get required quality and production rate. Once there, a cutback in production doesn't necessarily increase the unit cost at all.
I am confident the workforce can mostly switch to building Raptor without losing the ability to build Merlins.
So the cost per unit should not go up too much.
I do believe that they will switch to all methane Raptor vehicles not too far in the future, less than 10 years.
And let's not forget a Raptor powered stage needs to be pretty large to land.New Glenn sized should do nicely.
Can Raptor throttle that deep? Isn't Raptor quite a bit bigger than BE-4?And let's not forget a Raptor powered stage needs to be pretty large to land.New Glenn sized should do nicely.
Much deeper than Merlin. Supposedly to 20%Can Raptor throttle that deep? Isn't Raptor quite a bit bigger than BE-4?And let's not forget a Raptor powered stage needs to be pretty large to land.New Glenn sized should do nicely.
It needn't be about building less of them. They can build the same number of them with the existing factory line yet fly far more missions. In fact, I think that is actually the plan.What's a Merlin these days? About $2m apiece?And since you seem to have insight into SpaceX's cost structure: how much of these 2mil are fixed costs (tooling, minimum staff,...) that you don't save on if you build one less?
Well worth the costs of recovery and refurb.
It may take SpaceX another 4-5 years to get to 10+ flights per core and a 1-2 month turn around, which will still be worth it.If it takes them another 4-5 years to get to that stage, then something has gone terribly wrong. Perhaps wrong enough that it means they've been on the wrong track.
The question is: deeper than BE-4?Much deeper than Merlin. Supposedly to 20%Can Raptor throttle that deep? Isn't Raptor quite a bit bigger than BE-4?And let's not forget a Raptor powered stage needs to be pretty large to land.New Glenn sized should do nicely.
The question is: deeper than BE-4?BE-4 can probably throttle way below what's needed for hovering NG. I've heard as low as 18% minimum throttle, while I estimate New Glenn needs 33% of one engine just to hover while empty, since the booster should mass about 80 tonnes.
Lim said, with the new process in place, SpaceX no longer will have to send boosters to a company facility in Texas for testing.
"They will be staying in Florida — outside of a quick trip to outer space," Lim said.
Within a few months, rocket refurbishing times will be cut to two to four weeks, down from the current six to eight weeks, Lim said.
Hard to imagine 2-4 weeks not being 'economically viable.'
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.
SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later. That's quite feasible.
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.
SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later. That's quite feasible.
Peter B. de Selding of Space Intel Report:
Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832
I have not seen where we can justify this supposition --> 4 months was an all but complete (or a complete) teardown/uninstall, inspect/blueprint, rebuild.
That is my supposition
Presumably they will not be doing complete teardown, inspect, rebuilds in the future. Or at least they intend to learn what they do not need to refurbish, or at least the refurbishment per flight rate they need?
Speculation, they should do a complete teardown/rebuild on all reused stages before reflight for at least the first 100+ re-uses to get a feel for what needs to be done?
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.
SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later. That's quite feasible.
Hmm, not sure about that. It might simply be a manpower thing, which may or may not be improved with an assembly line process (which they may already do anyway). Some things don't benefit from assembly lines.
“This facility is going to be a key to our future success in this very important hardware throughput model for us,” said Lim. “We’re going to have a very busy 2017.”
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
Hard to imagine 2-4 weeks not being 'economically viable.'
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
With the additional efficiencies created by the Port Canaveral facility, Lim said he also expects rocket refurbishing times will be reduced.
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required. It assumes a lot.
Hard to imagine 2-4 weeks not being 'economically viable.'
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
What is this based on? I'm not seeing this quoted anywhere. The Florida Today article doesn't have the "rocket refurbishing times will be cut to two to four weeks, down from the current six to eight weeks" verbiage anymore, either. it saysQuoteWith the additional efficiencies created by the Port Canaveral facility, Lim said he also expects rocket refurbishing times will be reduced.
What is this based on? I'm not seeing this quoted anywhere. The Florida Today article doesn't have the "rocket refurbishing times will be cut to two to four weeks, down from the current six to eight weeks" verbiage anymore, either. it saysQuoteWith the additional efficiencies created by the Port Canaveral facility, Lim said he also expects rocket refurbishing times will be reduced.
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required. It assumes a lot.
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required. It assumes a lot.
Maybe. You should clarify this with Mr. Lim and let us know.
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.
That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required. It assumes a lot.
Maybe. You should clarify this with Mr. Lim and let us know.
I assumed Lim was talking about the average case, and Jim seems to be talking about the worst case. Both can be true. Fortunately, when it comes to reducing costs only the average refurb effort matters, and they probably have enough data to estimate that pretty accurately at this point.
Worst case is 100% damage. (well, worst case for the rocket, at least).
The only measure that makes sense in the context of rate and viability of reuse is the average.
First article took 4 months, then it's down to 6-8 weeks just because it's not a pathfinder anymore, and then with streamlining and with the move to newer hardware, I'm sure they'll get it down to 1-2 weeks or even less, at a point 1-2 years from now.
Well we know that "current" refurbish times are shorter, so clearly they've done other one(s) and it went faster alreadyWorst case is 100% damage. (well, worst case for the rocket, at least).
The only measure that makes sense in the context of rate and viability of reuse is the average.
First article took 4 months, then it's down to 6-8 weeks just because it's not a pathfinder anymore, and then with streamlining and with the move to newer hardware, I'm sure they'll get it down to 1-2 weeks or even less, at a point 1-2 years from now.
Very true. We don't know WHAT was refurbished in these 4 month. For all we know they replaced all parts to the point that a new stage was cheaper. Or that they took it apart, inspected all pieces and put it together again after noticing that nothing has to be replaced. We simply don't know. The amount of required inspection and refurbishment for the the future stages determines if the reputability strategy works. But they still have to learn exactly what will require inspection and replacement. We will learn that within the next 2- 3 years. At moment, no show-stoppers emerged as far as we know. But that doesn't mean there are none. The current refurbishment timing do not tell us much how successful the process was so far. The only information we have is, that refurbishment is possible, given the evidence of the SES-10 mission.
The newer refurbs might have gone faster, but that doesn't mean they were successful. None of what they've done has proved the concept. Just as landing a stage wasn't really proved until they got one back intact, on the 29th (hopefully) we'll find out if refurb can be done. I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works! Go SpaceX!It wasn't proven, sure.
doesn't mean they were successful ... None of what they've done has proved the concept ... we'll find out if refurb can be done ... I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works!
nitpicking
Of course this method, elegant as it appears to be, has failed to fully lock a leg at least once, with resultant loss of the vehicle.
From the "last second" deployment before touchdown,I assume that the landing legs deploy and lock mostly passively, under the Gs generated by the landing deceleration, perhaps aided by an internal spring or compressed gas cylinder. There also seems to be some form of actuator on the hull near to top of the folded leg, which I would guess kicks off the process, but pics of them post-landing appear to show a stroke length only a fraction of what would be required for those actuators to fully extend the leg, and show that they are no longer attached to the leg, only to the hull.
This may be a very simple and lightweight design for deploying the legs, but would seem to preclude the legs being deployed against the slipstream at altitude. Of course this method, elegant as it appears to be, has failed to fully lock a leg at least once, with resultant loss of the vehicle.
Anyone have any idea if there has been discussions here about the stress testing of the fuselage of the reused F9?
doesn't mean they were successful ... None of what they've done has proved the concept ... we'll find out if refurb can be done ... I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works!nitpicking
I believe the colloquial term is "concern trolling."
doesn't mean they were successful ... None of what they've done has proved the concept ... we'll find out if refurb can be done ... I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works!nitpicking
I believe the colloquial term is "concern trolling."
it is. And it's not really a good thing to do. Please dial back the concern a bit Brian45...
In reading about re-use of a first stage, all I've seen are concerns about the engines, pumps, tanks, etc. ie the "guts" of the rocket. Was there any discussion about the actual structure of the metal tube that holds everything together?
No.doesn't mean they were successful ... None of what they've done has proved the concept ... we'll find out if refurb can be done ... I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works!nitpicking
I believe the colloquial term is "concern trolling."
it is. And it's not really a good thing to do. Please dial back the concern a bit Brian45...
So now anyone who points out that "unknown unknowns" are a real danger in aerospace is now "concern trolling" and essentially told to pipe down? I'm disappointed, frankly.
Fueling a rocket on a pad was pretty well-known until someone tried something outside the experience base and things went pear-shaped. For every commercially-manufactured aircraft that flies, there are thousands of flight-hours logged in rigorous test-flights to prove out the structures, the systems and the operating procedures, and these things STILL fall out of the air or fly into the dirt with depressing regularity.
SpaceX has launched a few dozen rockets and recovered a small-ish percentage of those. There are plenty of unknown unknowns out there, especially if reuse become a real thing. If NSF isn't the place to discuss what SpaceX may have done to narrow those down, and what they might or might not have done for whatever reason, in a sober, rational and thoughtful way without being labeled or attacked for raising the discussion, where is?
QuoteOur CTO Martin Halliwell talks about #SES10 and the launch on #flightproven rocket!
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818 (https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/846742078310690818)
https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7 (https://www.periscope.tv/w/a6kjoTFETEtCeURWT2FEUUp8MWpNSmdZd3JPYXlLTOkPzfjLKb6zX572-CwWcPxK89_4GMQLEeCpVDy3-Oo7)
Here are some notes:
* Mass is 5281.7 kg, insertion orbit will be 35410 km x 218 km at 26.2º, so barely subsynchronous GTO. Orbit raising will be done with chemical engines.
* SES block bought SES-10, SES-11, SES-14, SES-16. Then last August they were approached with the opportunity to use a pre-flown booster.
* Essentially no change in the insurance premium, 100th of a percent.
* First stage booster is contractually obligated to make certain altitude, velocity, downrange, etc. SpaceX works with the leftovers for landing. This will be a very hot landing, but if it comes back, SES gets "bits" for their boardroom.
* Satellite requires 13 hours of checkouts once the full stack is vertical on the pad.
The odds on bet must be that SX will get some things wrong. The worst case being they are unable to recover the stage.Wrong. Worst case is that there will be launch faliure.
Literally true, although SX have a history of finding new ways to have a launch failure it does seem a little early for another one, and we know the first stage has functioned flawlessly already, which raises confidence in 50% of the vehicle stages (or 90% of the engines) already.The odds on bet must be that SX will get some things wrong. The worst case being they are unable to recover the stage.Wrong. Worst case is that there will be launch faliure.
Essentially the whole history of first stage reuse started with the first Grasshopper landing. Everything prior to this for the reuse or reflight of high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV's was theoretical.
Neither have put a payload into orbit and brought a booster back from hypersonic velocities nor did they use boosters capable of that. Hence the explicit mention of doing it with a "high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV."Essentially the whole history of first stage reuse started with the first Grasshopper landing. Everything prior to this for the reuse or reflight of high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV's was theoretical.
I think Armadillo Aerospace and Masten might disagree with this statement. They both demonstrated Grasshopper levels of control, albeit on a smaller scale.
Neither have put a payload into orbit and brought a booster back from hypersonic velocities nor did they use boosters capable of that. Hence the explicit mention of doing it with a "high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV."Essentially the whole history of first stage reuse started with the first Grasshopper landing. Everything prior to this for the reuse or reflight of high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV's was theoretical.
I think Armadillo Aerospace and Masten might disagree with this statement. They both demonstrated Grasshopper levels of control, albeit on a smaller scale.
We (the forum) always get into a Simpsons did it first arguments. I know people sometimes make outrageous claims about SpaceX firstyness/bestyness, but this one seemed fairly explicitly constrained.
Actually, I have done a disservice to the DC-X which was I believe the first to do it.In fact you could go back to the Apollo landing and takeoff simulator.
I have no problem with people 'firsting', but when the statement is clearly false, it should not be left to stand. Grasshopper was not the start of the history of first stage reuse.
SO I came to this thread from the SES-10 one. There was a user concerned about the possible failure of that first stage because it survived a hot re-entry.
Maybe this has discussed before - I did not find that. An no, apparently people need to have this disclaimer, I am not trying to "second guess" SpaceX.
To the point: I am absolutely not an aluminium-lithium alloy metallurgist, but are there chances that the hot re-entry might have annealed the alloy and made it lose certain properties? For the very little I know, aluminium anneals at relatively low temperatures. I know they have tested the stages apparently with a "top" hold-down, so that the thrust generated by the engines is applied to the structural parts of the rocket. Just wondering what more experienced people think of the issue.
There was a user concerned about the possible failure of that first stage because it survived a hot re-entry.I thought this relaunch was using a booster used for CRS-8, which was not a hot re-entry inasmuch as it used a boost back burn to return to LZ1 and wasn't a high speed hoverslam landing.
Question. Does anyone know - and I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere - if B1021 will be flying this time with its original engines? We know that they were removed after its first flight.In the Q&A with the SES CTO he stated that no engines were replaced and that the booster is essentially all the original parts. No significant part replacements occurred.
- Ed Kyle
The relevant question and answer start at about 14:40.Yesterday's SES press briefing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZqFCaaLEBc)
Edit: including reference to video
I thought this relaunch was using a booster used for CRS-8, which was not a hot re-entry inasmuch as it used a boost back burn to return to LZ1 and wasn't a high speed hoverslam landing.Actually, it was even easier. They did use a small boostback, and a near vertical reentry burn. But the small boostback was because CRS-8 did not land at LZ-1, but rather further downrange, on the barge.
As was mentioned by Herb they have likely exhaustively tested samples from returned pieces. I would also think that thermal protection is applied anywhere that heat weakening of the structure is a possibility. I couldn't find anything in a google search about the annealing temp, but Al-Li alloys tend to have melting temps on the order of 500-600 degrees C.
I thought this relaunch was using a booster used for CRS-8, which was not a hot re-entry inasmuch as it used a boost back burn to return to LZ1 and wasn't a high speed hoverslam landing.Actually, it was even easier. They did use a small boostback, and a near vertical reentry burn. But the small boostback was because CRS-8 did not land at LZ-1, but rather further downrange, on the barge.
As was mentioned by Herb they have likely exhaustively tested samples from returned pieces. I would also think that thermal protection is applied anywhere that heat weakening of the structure is a possibility. I couldn't find anything in a google search about the annealing temp, but Al-Li alloys tend to have melting temps on the order of 500-600 degrees C.
Lightly used, indeed, in comparison with the comsat launches.
but are there chances that the hot re-entry might have annealed the alloy and made it lose certain properties? For the very little I know, aluminium anneals at relatively low temperatures.I have not seen this mentioned, and it's completely obvious, but I'm sure the very first thing SpaceX did is to measure the temperature reached by the various pieces during each re-entry. Presumably they would plaster as many temperature sensors as practical over the stage, then use models to compute the temperature of places they could not directly measure. Plus perhaps IR imaging during flight or other methods of recording peak temperature as well.
but are there chances that the hot re-entry might have annealed the alloy and made it lose certain properties? For the very little I know, aluminium anneals at relatively low temperatures.I have not seen this mentioned, and it's completely obvious, but I'm sure the very first thing SpaceX did is to measure the temperature reached by the various pieces during each re-entry. Presumably they would plaster as many temperature sensors as practical over the stage, then use models to compute the temperature of places they could not directly measure. Plus perhaps IR imaging during flight or other methods of recording peak temperature as well.
So for the places that did not get too hot, there should be no worry about annealing. For the places that did get hot enough to worry about, run the battery of tests mentioned above, consider re-design or material change, etc. Real-world temperature measurements would remove a lot of worries about potentially changed material properties. I'd be astonished if this was not their first step to deal with this potential problem.
...assuming aluminium-lithium alloys can be annealed...It definitely can be annealed. I found a NASA research poster discussing a novel method of using annealing to make it possible to form the ends of pressure tanks out of Al-Li, something that was at the time (2014) not being done due to the difficulty of forming Al-Li into dome-type shapes.
Neither have put a payload into orbit and brought a booster back from hypersonic velocities nor did they use boosters capable of that. Hence the explicit mention of doing it with a "high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV."Essentially the whole history of first stage reuse started with the first Grasshopper landing. Everything prior to this for the reuse or reflight of high aspect ratio TSTO VTO LV's was theoretical.
I think Armadillo Aerospace and Masten might disagree with this statement. They both demonstrated Grasshopper levels of control, albeit on a smaller scale.
We (the forum) always get into a Simpsons did it first arguments. I know people sometimes make outrageous claims about SpaceX firstyness/bestyness, but this one seemed fairly explicitly constrained.
Clearly there are further hurdles to overcome when coming in from orbit, but vertical take off and landing was done well before grasshopper, which, clearly was not an orbital booster, and was the referenced craft. Please refer back to the original quote.
Actually, I have done a disservice to the DC-X which was I believe the first to do it.
I have no problem with people 'firsting', but when the statement is clearly false, it should not be left to stand. Grasshopper was not the start of the history of first stage reuse.
...assuming aluminium-lithium alloys can be annealed...It definitely can be annealed. I found a NASA research poster discussing a novel method of using annealing to make it possible to form the ends of pressure tanks out of Al-Li, something that was at the time (2014) not being done due to the difficulty of forming Al-Li into dome-type shapes.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011717.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011717.pdf)
Edit: adding date and a grammar fix
The fuel tanks feature a common bulkhead design for the liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene. Falcon 9’s propellant tank walls and domes are both made from an aluminum-lithium alloy.
The linked poster discusses spin forming and its drawbacks compared to annealing and form molding. I wasn't suggesting that tank ends couldn't be made from Al-Li but rather the linked poster suggested the annealing process used for making tank ends out of steel didn't work unmodified to make them out of Al-Li....assuming aluminium-lithium alloys can be annealed...It definitely can be annealed. I found a NASA research poster discussing a novel method of using annealing to make it possible to form the ends of pressure tanks out of Al-Li, something that was at the time (2014) not being done due to the difficulty of forming Al-Li into dome-type shapes.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011717.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011717.pdf)
Edit: adding date and a grammar fix
SpaceX was spin-forming Al-Li alloy tank domes in 2013:QuoteThe fuel tanks feature a common bulkhead design for the liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene. Falcon 9’s propellant tank walls and domes are both made from an aluminum-lithium alloy.
http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/09/24/production-spacex
Video of hot-spin forming a 12-ft diameter dome:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BNhYjqRgo3f/?hl=en
- why titanium and not inconel or tungsten, if the issue is resisting to the heat. (Yeah I know tungsten is crazy). However, and I am no titanium metallurgist, is it really good at high temperatures? I will do some research but while I am pretty sure it can easily beat aluminum, I did not know titanium was considered in high temperature applications. Now that I think about the Blackbird was made out of titanium, so my concerns here are bogusTungsten is super dense approaching that of lead. A piece of tungsten that large would be crazy heavy. It would definitely provide the thermal capacity though with a melting point of a few thousand degrees. I don't think the grid fins require quite that much heat tolerance, especially at that weight penalty.
- Mr. E. Musk apparently mentioned a forging process for such structure, and the biggest in the world for titanium. Why not machine it? (And I probably show my complete ignorance with this question)Forging is likely much faster to produce and much simpler. Machining something as large as the grid fins would take a really long time and you still likely have to forge the original billet that gets machined.[/quote]
- Titanium is much denser than Alu, and it may be that in this application, they just need large area to have enough control authority, so they won't be able to make the structure thinner - they might have to take a mass penalty for the sake of reuse. And it's totally fine, just worth noting.They may be able to alter the configuration a little to maintain the same amount of control surfaces while maintaining the same weight as those made from Al.
During the presser, Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.If I understand that correctly they want to increase the amount of aerobraking done by the grid fins in order to decrease fuel margin required for landing. Yes?
During the presser, Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.Also could be used to decrease peak heating by flying through the upper atmosphere a bit longer. Reducing TPS needs or re-entry burn length, etc. Lots of ways to optimize for best results.
Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.
Also could be used to decrease peak heating by flying through the upper atmosphere a bit longer. Reducing TPS needs or re-entry burn length, etc. Lots of ways to optimize for best results.
Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.
This sounds quite an interesting concept but I have no idea what is a L/D of 1. Would you explain a little more in detail this concept?
TPS = thermal protection system??Also could be used to decrease peak heating by flying through the upper atmosphere a bit longer. Reducing TPS needs or re-entry burn length, etc. Lots of ways to optimize for best results.
What is TPS in this case? This means it will arrive further downrange? Not sure having to go much further with the barge contributes to "rapid" reusability...
The grid fins don't themselves have a L/D, it is the vehicle as a whole which does.A greater L/D might also allow a few more missions to RTLS.
A L/D of 1 would be an increase/improvement over the current design. It means that the stage can travel as far horizontally as it does vertically.
Landing further downrange is perfectly acceptable if it opens up reusability of heavier and hotter flights. An extra day or two of barge steaming time is insignificant. They will have lots of cores and can always build more barges.
https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/847774460933439488
"Congratulations SpaceX. It's been nearly six years since we've seen the launch of a reused rocket. #spaceshuttle"
During the presser, Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.If I understand that correctly they want to increase the amount of aerobraking done by the grid fins in order to decrease fuel margin required for landing. Yes?
Ok so is the idea to make the re-entry profile flatter so more aerobraking can be accomplished on the way down rather than having it fall more vertically where it would have less time to bleed off speed via aerobraking? Essentially more glider like and less meteor like?During the presser, Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.If I understand that correctly they want to increase the amount of aerobraking done by the grid fins in order to decrease fuel margin required for landing. Yes?
Provide lift so it stays longer in high altitude thin air. It seemed New Glenn intends to reenter without reentry burn. At least the animation did not show one. Maybe block 5 can do that too. It would be a large saving of propellant. If New Glenn can indeed do that with its higher reentry speed then why not Falcon?
Ok so is the idea to make the re-entry profile flatter so more aerobraking can be accomplished on the way down rather than having it fall more vertically where it would have less time to bleed off speed via aerobraking? Essentially more glider like and less meteor like?During the presser, Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.If I understand that correctly they want to increase the amount of aerobraking done by the grid fins in order to decrease fuel margin required for landing. Yes?
Provide lift so it stays longer in high altitude thin air. It seemed New Glenn intends to reenter without reentry burn. At least the animation did not show one. Maybe block 5 can do that too. It would be a large saving of propellant. If New Glenn can indeed do that with its higher reentry speed then why not Falcon?
During the presser, Musk said that the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1, which will actually have the net effect of increasing payload to orbit by reducing the fuel needs for landing.If I understand that correctly they want to increase the amount of aerobraking done by the grid fins in order to decrease fuel margin required for landing. Yes?
Provide lift so it stays longer in high altitude thin air. It seemed New Glenn intends to reenter without reentry burn. At least the animation did not show one. Maybe block 5 can do that too. It would be a large saving of propellant. If New Glenn can indeed do that with its higher reentry speed then why not Falcon?
New Glenn will stage faster, and enter the atmosphere at shallower angle. F9 comes in at a much steeper angle, and when doing RTLS it almost drops vertically straight down. So they may not be able to do the same.
New Glenn will stage faster, and enter the atmosphere at shallower angle. F9 comes in at a much steeper angle, and when doing RTLS it almost drops vertically straight down. So they may not be able to do the same.
They are flying the trajectory that makes most sense with the present method of reentry. They can change the trajectory for new needs.
My favourite quote from the SES 10 press conference was when Elon mentioned "building up the space fleet" when answering a question on what they were doing with the flown rockets at the cape I think. It made me smile! :-)
Today Mr. E. Musk suggested they might replace the aluminum grid find with titanium ones. Follow up metallurgical questions:When looking at materials for aerospace the density matters.
- why titanium and not inconel or tungsten, if the issue is resisting to the heat. (Yeah I know tungsten is crazy). However, and I am no titanium metallurgist, is it really good at high temperatures?
I will do some research but while I am pretty sure it can easily beat aluminum, I did not know titanium was considered in high temperature applications. Now that I think about the Blackbird was made out of titanium, so my concerns here are bogusActually a fair question given you need a very big press to forge it. Machining loses a lot of material and forging does give a better "grain" to metal (yes metal grain is a thing in high performance applications).
- Mr. E. Musk apparently mentioned a forging process for such structure, and the biggest in the world for titanium. Why not machine it? (And I probably show my complete ignorance with this question)
- Titanium is much denser than Alu, and it may be that in this application, they just need large area to have enough control authority, so they won't be able to make the structure thinner - they might have to take a mass penalty for the sake of reuse. And it's totally fine, just worth noting.There is also reliability. Up till now the grid fins have been Aluminum or Aluminum coated with a Thermal Protection System, probably the SX version of the PICA ablative NASA developed.
Increased.
I have read such page and now I am somewhat familiar, on a qualitative basis, with the L/D ratio. Now, when Mr. E. Musk said "the new titanium alloy grid fins will be a larger design which provides enough control authority to give the stage an L/D of approximately 1", this means that the L/D ratio is going to be increased or decreased compared to the "current" aluminum ones?
So if you have the fuel for RTLS, do that and maybe only reduce the reentry burn to 1 engine. But on marginal missions for downrange landing do a lower trajectory, that is where saving is most needed.
So if you have the fuel for RTLS, do that and maybe only reduce the reentry burn to 1 engine. But on marginal missions for downrange landing do a lower trajectory, that is where saving is most needed.
No, you don't seem to understand. The higher trajectory *IS* the optimal one. The stage isn't thrusting upwards... It merely cancels and reverses its horizontal vector. The same apogee would have been reached with or without a boost-back burn. Doing a shallower boost-back profile does in fact consume MORE propellant.
So if you have the fuel for RTLS, do that and maybe only reduce the reentry burn to 1 engine. But on marginal missions for downrange landing do a lower trajectory, that is where saving is most needed.
No, you don't seem to understand. The higher trajectory *IS* the optimal one. The stage isn't thrusting upwards... It merely cancels and reverses its horizontal vector. The same apogee would have been reached with or without a boost-back burn. Doing a shallower boost-back profile does in fact consume MORE propellant.
I am wondering if with the new larger and more heat resistant grid fins there is enough control authority to actually turn, not just slow down by getting some lift. If you could turn around you might be able to RTLS even with a less lofted profile. Wings by any other name?
Probably not.
Sigh, if something has lift and has control authority why can't it turn? Things with actual wings turn all the time. They bleed off speed turning and they bleed off altitude too (or more speed if you "set the flaps" higher)
Sigh, if something has lift and has control authority why can't it turn? Things with actual wings turn all the time.
At present that suggests the refurb team can do 3 stages a year, but we don't know how big that team is or how many teams they can form. If it's 100 strong you don't want too many such teams. If it's just a couple of guys then you could have dozens of them.
I the presser Musk said the refurb took about 4 months of actual time and the replaced pretty much everything that looked even slightly worn.
The jokers in this process are
1)How many staff did it take
2)How variable can it be. Consistency really helps in staff planning.
3)Once they are satisfied most stuff does not need replacing what could it go down to?
At present that suggests the refurb team can do 3 stages a year, but we don't know how big that team is or how many teams they can form. If it's 100 strong you don't want too many such teams. If it's just a couple of guys then you could have dozens of them.
I the presser Musk said the refurb took about 4 months of actual time and the replaced pretty much everything that looked even slightly worn.
The jokers in this process are
1)How many staff did it take
2)How variable can it be. Consistency really helps in staff planning.
3)Once they are satisfied most stuff does not need replacing what could it go down to?
At present that suggests the refurb team can do 3 stages a year, but we don't know how big that team is or how many teams they can form. If it's 100 strong you don't want too many such teams. If it's just a couple of guys then you could have dozens of them.
Yes. Where was it reported?At present that suggests the refurb team can do 3 stages a year, but we don't know how big that team is or how many teams they can form. If it's 100 strong you don't want too many such teams. If it's just a couple of guys then you could have dozens of them.
Did you miss that the refurbishment time is already down to 6 weeks, even ahead of block 5 which is supposed to make it much easier?
Yes. Where was it reported?At present that suggests the refurb team can do 3 stages a year, but we don't know how big that team is or how many teams they can form. If it's 100 strong you don't want too many such teams. If it's just a couple of guys then you could have dozens of them.
Did you miss that the refurbishment time is already down to 6 weeks, even ahead of block 5 which is supposed to make it much easier?
a few months back I toyed with the idea of using the legs to generate lift and control...Mechanically, current legs are a non-starter on this. I don't know whether Block 5 will have automatically retractable legs, but probably not.
a few months back I toyed with the idea of using the legs to generate lift and control...Mechanically, current legs are a non-starter on this. I don't know whether Block 5 will have automatically retractable legs, but probably not.
And aerodynamically...no, I don't think this works. Even with the COM being so far forward, the drag on those legs at anything over a few km/s would flip the stage like a shuttlecock.
a few months back I toyed with the idea of using the legs to generate lift and control...Mechanically, current legs are a non-starter on this. I don't know whether Block 5 will have automatically retractable legs, but probably not.
And aerodynamically...no, I don't think this works. Even with the COM being so far forward, the drag on those legs at anything over a few km/s would flip the stage like a shuttlecock.
Elon Musk has just said, the gridfins become a lot larger and provide more drag. That could counter some more drag of the legs. Or just one leg. He did announce too that the rocket can do some more lift as well. I don't believe that helps on ascent but can increase drag on the way down. The increase of capability must come from somewhere and not from more engine thrust alone.
a few months back I toyed with the idea of using the legs to generate lift and control...Mechanically, current legs are a non-starter on this. I don't know whether Block 5 will have automatically retractable legs, but probably not.
And aerodynamically...no, I don't think this works. Even with the COM being so far forward, the drag on those legs at anything over a few km/s would flip the stage like a shuttlecock.
Elon Musk has just said, the gridfins become a lot larger and provide more drag. That could counter some more drag of the legs. Or just one leg. He did announce too that the rocket can do some more lift as well. I don't believe that helps on ascent but can increase drag on the way down. The increase of capability must come from somewhere and not from more engine thrust alone.
They might switch to an ablative coat that can be quickly applied and removed. Something that provides good thermal insulation, and protects the core from re-entry heating. Better ablative paint would allow them to try even hotter landing which use shorter re-entry burns, and in turn with the stronger titanium grid-fins allow them to glide and aerobrake.
Copying here as more appropriate on this thread:They might switch to an ablative coat that can be quickly applied and removed. Something that provides good thermal insulation, and protects the core from re-entry heating. Better ablative paint would allow them to try even hotter landing which use shorter re-entry burns, and in turn with the stronger titanium grid-fins allow them to glide and aerobrake.
Surely to get very rapid re-use there needs to be less use of ablative coatings? How else are 10 re-uses without refurbishment, and a potential 24 hrs between flights, going to be achieved?
Does anyone happen to know whether COTS spray-on ablative materials are even available? Washing the soot off the stage and spraying on a fresh coat of ablative protection probably wouldn't count as a full "refurb" and could be done after each flight.
@jeff_foust on Twiiter currently reporting on Shotwell's talk at 33SS.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust)
@jeff_foust on Twiiter currently reporting on Shotwell's talk at 33SS.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust)
From the tweet: "Shotwell: Refurbishment cost is substantially less than half of a new one, and will get better"
What is substantially less? Is that 40%, 30%?
@jeff_foust on Twiiter currently reporting on Shotwell's talk at 33SS.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust)
From the tweet: "Shotwell: Refurbishment cost is substantially less than half of a new one, and will get better"
What is substantially less? Is that 40%, 30%?
I find it astounding that going through that stage with a fine comb, doing things that have never been done, and finding out all that needed finding out was done with less than 50% of the cost of building a new one.
It can only go way down from there.
I find it astounding that going through that stage with a fine comb, doing things that have never been done, and finding out all that needed finding out was done with less than 50% of the cost of building a new one.
It can only go way down from there.
Materials cost? Labour to make the big tanks and engines? Both very time consuming I assume.
Is there an official statement about the reasons not to refly again the SES-10 first stage?Elon Musk thinks it is of historic value and wants to donate it to the cape as a display piece of sorts.
Is there an official statement about the reasons not to refly again the SES-10 first stage?Elon Musk thinks it is of historic value and wants to donate it to the cape as a display piece of sorts.
Don't know where else to post this. Gwynne Shotwell's talk at the 33rd Space Symposium shot on someone's mobile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQw2tI-ljnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQw2tI-ljnw)
Seems to include most of the Q&A too.
At about 10:30 in the video Gwynne says something about future refurbishment cost that I can't quite make out. There's a "10" and "labour" but I'm not sure what else.Don't know where else to post this. Gwynne Shotwell's talk at the 33rd Space Symposium shot on someone's mobile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQw2tI-ljnw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQw2tI-ljnw)
Seems to include most of the Q&A too.
You could always have a door in the top of the core storage facility and install a rack system like fridge soda can dispenser... ::) ???
I find it astounding that going through that stage with a fine comb, doing things that have never been done, and finding out all that needed finding out was done with less than 50% of the cost of building a new one.
It can only go way down from there.
...
"It will be on the order of a tenth the work, the labor."
Is there any information on which parts of the falcon are predicted to wear out fastest?
A friend at SpaceX (who is extremely closed-mouthed about everything) said that one thing he could tell me is that you will recognize a Block 5 first stage instantly by the heat shields around the base - it's going to be all Inconel.Is there any information on which parts of the falcon are predicted to wear out fastest?
Well, for stuff we know wears out - crush cores in the legs, fairing and second stage are both one-use, as well as payload adaptors.
At least some, perhaps most of the ablative under the engines covering 'stuff' seems likely to at least need monitoring if not replacement every flight.
The grid fins used to wear quite a lot - titanium may wholly fix this.
NASA have expressed concerns about cracking in turbopump rotors, but it's not clear if this is a wear item.
The paint often seems rather torn up.
A friend at SpaceX (who is extremely closed-mouthed about everything) said that one thing he could tell me is that you will recognize a Block 5 first stage instantly by the heat shields around the base - it's going to be all Inconel.
If they don't mind a little mild radioactivity, they could instead use HK31, an alloy of magnesium, thorium, and zirconium which is no longer in use since the three percent that is thorium makes the alloy radioactive.
It's much lighter and reradiates heat faster while still retaining the same thermal capacity.
In the 1970's we were calibrating a scintillation counter with a source. When the source was withdrawn, there were still counts. Traced it back to the brick walkway and mentioned it to the facilities people after lead shielding the side of the wall so we could get on with the instrument work.I'd take a wild guess and suspect it could be traced back to the debris from some of the 1st generation reactors built for (and disposed of) by the Manhattan project.
One of the costs of refurbishment of the Shuttle's TPS was the need to address the multiple elements of its design and fabrication, for it to function on the next flight. Hot structures don't just function by themselves, you need to have supports and means to isolate / attach them. Even the choice of materials / alloys can become critical to such.Indeed. People seem to forget there's a reason they are called thermal protection systems
Heat capacity and convection/conduction of materials matters a great deal, as well as the means to support repeatable use, possibly w/o refurbishment.I've just heard the interview Dave Masten recently gave on the "Broadsword" dual expander Methalox engine.
Earlier use of thoriated alloys allowed for some of these options, which is why it was brought up, as an alternative to much more heavy inconel. An old trade for those that remember it.There was a time... <sigh>.
]That is a surprise.
Not to mention some of the work the DLR did also on metallic heat shields for X-38.
The family was developed so that you could alter both the ceramic substrate material and theMe either.
polymer impregnant. You could optimize the material for whatever application you had in mind.”
“It turns out that PICA had a higher heat ablative performance which was of interest to SpaceX, but
they also use a variant of SIRCA on the back shell which they call XIRCA, a flexible silica blanket
that has silicone impregnation”, Rasky told us. SpaceX developed PICA-X, a version of NASA’s PICA,
to protect the Dragon spacecraft on its return to Earth"
"PICA heat shield
Rasky had been a key part of the PICA-X carbon tile, without which there would have been no Mars
Curiosity on Mars in 2013.
I was curious about the applications of such a material in electronics or semiconductor processes
such as a heat shielding material that might be used in conjunction with a heat sink in high
temperature areas. I asked Rasky if such an application has been found. Rasky replied that, yes, the
one for electronics is a cousin to PICA called SIRCA, that is, Silicone Impregnated Resuable Ceramic
Ablator. It’s a silica-based tile with silicone impregnation. It’s RF transparent and non-conductive, so
unlike the carbon-fiber PICA material, it would not conduct electricity or block RF signals. The
SIRCA material would be good around antennas in that it would not interfere with the RF
transmission/reception.
Rasky continued, “So SIRCA is a sort of ‘sibling’ to PICA. They were developed as a family of what’s
called a lightweight ceramic ablator that started with ceramic substrates. So you could use a silica
substrate or a carbon substrate and then add in a polymer impregnant that you can add in. In effect,
you add silicone into the silica substrate and get SIRCA; you add phenolic to the carbon substrate
and get PICA.
The family was developed so that you could alter both the ceramic substrate material and the
polymer impregnant. You could optimize the material for whatever application you had in mind.”
“It turns out that PICA had a higher heat ablative performance which was of interest to SpaceX, but
they also use a variant of SIRCA on the back shell which they call XIRCA, a flexible silica blanket
that has silicone impregnation”, Rasky told us. SpaceX developed PICA-X, a version of NASA’s PICA,
to protect the Dragon spacecraft on its return to Earth"
Is that pieces of the nozzle that was cut out for analysis, or am I seeing things? ;)There seem to be also holes(*) in the part of each engine bell closest to the outside of the rocket, at the very ends.
There seem to be also holes(*) in the part of each engine bell closest to the outside of the rocket, at the very ends.
And the cutouts(holes?) don't go all the way through - as the shadows for the right-hand-side of the image are wrong, as is the background of the shadowed area. Could this be a thermal layer over the bells?
https://twitter.com/ses_satellites/status/931083202705461248 - coincidentally, presentation of flown bits of SES10, of a size possibly consistent with the above cutouts.
OT, but Elon seems to be going grey....or breaking up with Amber, which seems to have hit him hard.
Presumably, Model 3 production is taking its toll...