Quote from: JamesH65 on 06/24/2016 03:20 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 06/24/2016 03:08 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/23/2016 09:57 pmIt's beginning to sound like Shuttle all over again if there's to be a reprocessing facility - no "gas-n-go".It's unclear to me how much this "reprocessing facility" would actually reprocess versus being just another hangar.Flush residual fuel, hose down the stage, prepare for trailing, stick on a trailer. As you suggest temporary storage as well.Cannot see it being used for much more than housekeeping.There is more to refurbishment than that. There is removal of TPS and reapplication of the same. There is R&R of avionics. There is some structural and propulsion system repair. Maybe painting. Stuff that takes more time, access, GSE and tools than what is done in the processing hangars.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 06/24/2016 03:08 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/23/2016 09:57 pmIt's beginning to sound like Shuttle all over again if there's to be a reprocessing facility - no "gas-n-go".It's unclear to me how much this "reprocessing facility" would actually reprocess versus being just another hangar.Flush residual fuel, hose down the stage, prepare for trailing, stick on a trailer. As you suggest temporary storage as well.Cannot see it being used for much more than housekeeping.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/23/2016 09:57 pmIt's beginning to sound like Shuttle all over again if there's to be a reprocessing facility - no "gas-n-go".It's unclear to me how much this "reprocessing facility" would actually reprocess versus being just another hangar.
It's beginning to sound like Shuttle all over again if there's to be a reprocessing facility - no "gas-n-go".
I think they will have an integrated reusable second stage / dispenser.The whole thing will integrate to the first stage.For >50 launches per year, I see no other way.
Quote from: Jim on 06/24/2016 03:57 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 06/24/2016 03:20 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 06/24/2016 03:08 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/23/2016 09:57 pmIt's beginning to sound like Shuttle all over again if there's to be a reprocessing facility - no "gas-n-go".It's unclear to me how much this "reprocessing facility" would actually reprocess versus being just another hangar.Flush residual fuel, hose down the stage, prepare for trailing, stick on a trailer. As you suggest temporary storage as well.Cannot see it being used for much more than housekeeping.There is more to refurbishment than that. There is removal of TPS and reapplication of the same. There is R&R of avionics. There is some structural and propulsion system repair. Maybe painting. Stuff that takes more time, access, GSE and tools than what is done in the processing hangars. They will have to transition away from that in order to accomplish their goals.
I would expect a lot more instrumentation on the stages, to detect issues with stuff like avionics, structure and propulsion.
Quote from: MP99 on 06/24/2016 06:15 pmI would expect a lot more instrumentation on the stages, to detect issues with stuff like avionics, structure and propulsion. They have been trending the other way. Instrumentation cost money and takes time to install.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/24/2016 04:46 pmI think they will have an integrated reusable second stage / dispenser.The whole thing will integrate to the first stage.For >50 launches per year, I see no other way.Having independent second stages makes it easier. The payloads, second stages and first stages can be easily interchanged and be more responsive. The vehicle can be ready to accept any payload and would be a higher throughput. An integrated second stage / dispenser would require a separate facility from the pad hangar and the payload processing building. Preparing the whole vehicle separately from the payload, as is done now, is much like artillery munitions, where the warhead and charge are kept separate until loaded into the piece.
1. My guess is that commX will be such a full time job that it will have its own processing facility.2. Since it's all LEO, they'd get the second stage back, and save mass by integrating the two. (Second stage and dispenser)3. This is not some random launch. This is 50-per-year on an ongoing basis... at least... It's almost like the rest of the launch market combined...And if you can save the cost of the second stage and dispenser and fairing... Aince you're your own customer, it's straight into your bottom line...
Quote from: meekGee on 06/24/2016 09:39 pm1. My guess is that commX will be such a full time job that it will have its own processing facility.2. Since it's all LEO, they'd get the second stage back, and save mass by integrating the two. (Second stage and dispenser)3. This is not some random launch. This is 50-per-year on an ongoing basis... at least... It's almost like the rest of the launch market combined...And if you can save the cost of the second stage and dispenser and fairing... Aince you're your own customer, it's straight into your bottom line...1. And that still doesn't play in this. The spacecrafts and the dispensers can be off in a dedicated facility away from the launch pad, doing their own thing. Launch vehicle and spacecraft processing are two separate tasks that have different requirements and environments.2. There is no mass to be saved by that. It doesn't change that the second stage is still just tanks, forward skirt with avionics, adapter with dispenser, and fairing. Making it "integral" doesn't change anything.3. And is the main reason for keeping the payload processing away from the pad and launch vehicle testing and doing the spacecraft mate late as possible. Bringing the upperstage with the payload will push it to the right and increase pad time for the payload. Booster and upperstage have not been tested together. They are not separate vehicles that fly independently. Most the time in the hangar is spent testing the whole vehicle and not just the parts. 4. There is no savings from the integral design. Just more since the design different than the others. Spacex MO is to minimize configurations. They aren't designing for LEO but for Mars
Concentrate on the cost savings.In a conventional design. Generic second stage reuse is not pursued, because there's a large mass penalty, and because most non-Dragon flights are currently GEO, which is even harder.In CommX, it's LEO, and it's probably not mass constrained, because of the way orbital slots work.So what they need is a very low cost to launch often, and launch light.Everything comes together to make it the best case for re-using a second stage.When you're throwing away a second stage, a dispenser, and fairing every time (and ocean fairing recovery is not exactly ideal) - EVERY WEEK - I'm sure you're starting to think about how to solve this.Especially when you can't pass the cost to the customer, because the customer is you...If they can do this, they can launch really really cheaply, and have a huge advantage on competitors.
And as stated there are no cost savings associated with an "integral" dispenser and upperstage. Since they are manufactured separately and there is no advantage in joining them earlier. A fairing is going to a separate item from the second stage. The only way of eliminating the fairing and dispenser is to make them like the Dragon. So take the original Orbcomm pancake spacecraft. Make the outer edge with the ability to handle the ascent environment. Stack ten to 20 of them and add a simple nose cone on the last one. There is your integral dispenser and fairing.
Quote from: meekGee on 06/24/2016 11:21 pmConcentrate on the cost savings.In a conventional design. Generic second stage reuse is not pursued, because there's a large mass penalty, and because most non-Dragon flights are currently GEO, which is even harder.In CommX, it's LEO, and it's probably not mass constrained, because of the way orbital slots work.So what they need is a very low cost to launch often, and launch light.Everything comes together to make it the best case for re-using a second stage.When you're throwing away a second stage, a dispenser, and fairing every time (and ocean fairing recovery is not exactly ideal) - EVERY WEEK - I'm sure you're starting to think about how to solve this.Especially when you can't pass the cost to the customer, because the customer is you...If they can do this, they can launch really really cheaply, and have a huge advantage on competitors.And as stated there are no cost savings associated with an "integral" dispenser and upperstage. Since they are manufactured separately and there is no advantage in joining them earlier. A fairing is going to a separate item from the second stage. The only way of eliminating the fairing and dispenser is to make them like the Dragon. So take the original Orbcomm pancake spacecraft. Make the outer edge with the ability to handle the ascent environment. Stack ten to 20 of them and add a simple nose cone on the last one. There is your integral dispenser and fairing.
The only way of eliminating the fairing and dispenser is to make them like the Dragon. So take the original Orbcomm pancake spacecraft. Make the outer edge with the ability to handle the ascent environment. Stack ten to 20 of them and add a simple nose cone on the last one. There is your integral dispenser and fairing.
Quote from: Jim on 06/24/2016 06:45 pmQuote from: MP99 on 06/24/2016 06:15 pmI would expect a lot more instrumentation on the stages, to detect issues with stuff like avionics, structure and propulsion. They have been trending the other way. Instrumentation cost money and takes time to install. And time to analyze, and telemetry bandwidth. All costs, mass and complexity.
Quote from: baldusi on 06/24/2016 08:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/24/2016 06:45 pmQuote from: MP99 on 06/24/2016 06:15 pmI would expect a lot more instrumentation on the stages, to detect issues with stuff like avionics, structure and propulsion. They have been trending the other way. Instrumentation cost money and takes time to install. And time to analyze, and telemetry bandwidth. All costs, mass and complexity.No need for telemetry - just plug into a laptop after recovery.
Quote from: MP99 on 06/25/2016 06:57 amQuote from: baldusi on 06/24/2016 08:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 06/24/2016 06:45 pmQuote from: MP99 on 06/24/2016 06:15 pmI would expect a lot more instrumentation on the stages, to detect issues with stuff like avionics, structure and propulsion. They have been trending the other way. Instrumentation cost money and takes time to install. And time to analyze, and telemetry bandwidth. All costs, mass and complexity.No need for telemetry - just plug into a laptop after recovery.Whether it is transmitted or kept on board, it is not much different. There still has to be a data system with sensors and wiring. That is where all the work is. Keeping it onboard not only eliminates the transmitter but also impedes the ability to find out what went wrong.