Also, don't forget the forthcoming "final" (final) [final?] thrust increase to the Fuller-Thrust version of the F9, that will likely help minimize the margin for recovery as well.
So we have the upcoming "final" thrust improvement which increases payload to orbit because of the reduction of gravity losses.Has anybody calculated the 10 second no acceleration between meco and second stage startup. That would also seem to be a gravity loss and probably why the russians do the difficult start second stage before first stage shutdown.
is a measure of the loss in the net performance of a rocket while it is thrusting in a gravitational field.
Sounds too easy but also right.
They may not try to recover at all asa) the price for going first on a recovered stage and b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.Edit: TPS not GPS.
Quote from: alang on 08/30/2016 08:03 pmThey may not try to recover at all asa) the price for going first on a recovered stage and b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.Edit: TPS not GPS.They are not going for reuse (singular) -- they are going for many reuses, something like 10 between refurbishments and 100 overall. I suspect the unintended loss rate will remain the limiting factor of how many reflights they achieve for a significant time.
Q) will the price charged for the re-flown booster go down with each re-use? $40M for 1st reuse, $30M second reuse .... Min $25M? I know Ms Shotwell said ~$40M for reflown booster, but they've never reflown one. Will cost and time spent readying boosters for reuse go down with time. Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.
Quote from: AncientU on 08/30/2016 08:53 pmQuote from: alang on 08/30/2016 08:03 pmThey may not try to recover at all asa) the price for going first on a recovered stage and b) reducing processing costs by not having to reapply thermal protection.Also SpaceX may have decided they've learned all they need to prior to the next iteration which may not only be an engine upgrade but a TPS upgrade as well.Edit: TPS not GPS.They are not going for reuse (singular) -- they are going for many reuses, something like 10 between refurbishments and 100 overall. I suspect the unintended loss rate will remain the limiting factor of how many reflights they achieve for a significant time.I disagree. The size of the global market for space launch is limiting. Even at 5 flights per frame they would likely be able to serve 100% of the available market (excluding government funded launches for Russia, China, Europe and India) with 5-6 cores per year.
Can anyone explain the "R-023" in the current thread title (as of August 30, 2016)? Although the CRS-8 first stage did boost the 23rd flight, there is information in other threads that the booster itself is serial number "B1021". http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40044.msg1572912#msg1572912 - Ed Kyle
If your not burning any fuel... how is that a gravity loss ?... I call that..."coasting in an upward direction... trading velocity for altitude... while clearances improve between a 210klbs thrust rocket engine... and some rather important hardware you plan to recover..."
Quote from: Wolfram66 on 08/30/2016 09:23 pmQ) will the price charged for the re-flown booster go down with each re-use? $40M for 1st reuse, $30M second reuse .... Min $25M? I know Ms Shotwell said ~$40M for reflown booster, but they've never reflown one. Will cost and time spent readying boosters for reuse go down with time. Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.Probably not. The overhead costs of launch - using the range, paying everyone who works there, payload integration, fuel, etc. - all stay the same. Also they are still building a new second stage every time, so there's the same overhead costs for that every time. Plus the additional costs for the first stage recovery, of shipping and testing all components, refurbishment if necessary, etc. will need to be there.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 08/30/2016 09:31 pmQuote from: Wolfram66 on 08/30/2016 09:23 pmQ) will the price charged for the re-flown booster go down with each re-use? $40M for 1st reuse, $30M second reuse .... Min $25M? I know Ms Shotwell said ~$40M for reflown booster, but they've never reflown one. Will cost and time spent readying boosters for reuse go down with time. Need to call in NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, or NHRA teams for processing strategies and brainstorming sessions.Probably not. The overhead costs of launch - using the range, paying everyone who works there, payload integration, fuel, etc. - all stay the same. Also they are still building a new second stage every time, so there's the same overhead costs for that every time. Plus the additional costs for the first stage recovery, of shipping and testing all components, refurbishment if necessary, etc. will need to be there.Obviously your will always have your OpeX costs, refurbishment costs and range costs for each launch along with the 2nd stage costs. However the more launches you can get out of a 1st stage, the more launches you can amortize the costs of the initial build of the 1st stage.
If we assume the boosters cost $25M each to manufacture, then the recovery/refurb cost is of order 10%... cost of one booster or so for each ten in the barn -- the situation which could exist at the end of 2016 (20 weeks from now). Therefore, only 8-9 are officially free.
