-
#840
by
mme
on 31 Mar, 2017 18:50
-
Some folks have commented that they were really nervous during the landing an I must say I felt the opposite... I quietly sat there smiling at the screen watching the grid-fins doing their thing, one taking a little heat... I felt very confident that SpaceX had done their due diligence on the refurbishment with the knowledge gained. The video drop-out caused an anxious moment but a second later a beautiful sight appeared followed by my clenched fist and my exclamation "yes"!
So a new page has been turned with a new phrase firmly ensconced in my mind "SpaceX=Confidence"
I think they've stopped calling it an "experimental" landing. Now it's just landing. (I could be wrong. Too busy to recheck videos. But I will watch them again.
)
-
#841
by
deruch
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:09
-
The big problem is, of course, that the Eastern Range is not set up to support launches every 24 hours. So, even if they can get a rocket back to flight readiness in 24 hours, it is a bit of a moot point.
Now that AFTS is operational they can. I recommend reading (or re-reading) NSF's article on
USAF plans to support up to 48 launches per year from Cape Canaveral:
Moreover, Brig. Gen. Monteith stated that this new AFTS combined with two operational SpaceX pads at Kennedy and the CCAFS will allow the company to launch two Falcon 9 rockets – one from 39A and one from SLC-40 – within 16 to 18 hours of each other.
“When pad 40 is up and operating, [it will] give us the capability of launching a Falcon from both pad 39A and pad 40 on the same day,” stated the Brig. Gen.
“Now if we did that and we had an Atlas V or a Delta IV launch, within 36 hours we could do three launches. So that’s how we’re going to get to 48 launches a year. It’s a great problem to have.” (bold added)
-
#842
by
cscott
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:12
-
I think of all the companies, BO is taking the most pragmatic, well funded, and deliberate path. They are learning from SpaceX's mistakes letting Elon forge the path and spend the capital finding the way forward on reusable. Then improving on that.
I think the future will be BO and SpaceX eclipsing ULA, while ULA will keep its friends in the DoD and NRO for a while to come.
"Well funded"? Hrm. If you're a billionaire who doesn't need a ROI maybe.
SpaceX had hands-down the best business model, which got them the funding to get to recovery w/o bleeding funds from Elon's much-more-limited pockets. Antares/Cygnus would have been the better "fast followers", if they'd managed to invest the same NASA CRS boot-strapping into a competitive rocket. BO is following everything but the business model of SpaceX, but I think it's the business model which has been most impressive and which gives confidence that further innovation is possible.
-
#843
by
abaddon
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:15
-
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:
So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit
Since when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
-
#844
by
manoweb
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:24
-
Without dragging you through the math again...
[...]It also could eliminate hypersonic exposure if the engine is encapsulated. Logistics are minimal (no ship, etc)
No ship but you need helicopters big enough to catch the thing and have enough fuel to take it back... Is it really cheaper? Maybe the helicopter will need to be re-fueled in flight or taken out with a ship for the most demanding missions?
In the case of SES-10, we have the barge and two ships, but I think it's still in the "experimental" phase, hopefully in the future human presence out at sea will be reduced.
-
#845
by
Basto
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:25
-
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit
Since when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
He may be referring to the fact that the booster that was reused was originally flown on a CRS mission.
It really comes down to damage control if you ask me. Would love to see SpaceX reuse one of the prior GTO birds to take that away from him.
-
#846
by
Eagandale4114
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:30
-
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit
Since when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
He may be referring to the fact that the booster that was reused was originally flown on a CRS mission.
It really comes down to damage control if you ask me. Would love to see SpaceX reuse one of the prior GTO birds to take that away from him.
Thaicom 8 (GTO iirc) is going to be a side booster on FH.
-
#847
by
JasonAW3
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:38
-
Well, Elon did say in the presser they were going to titanium fins.
If they use the same grade of titanium that the SR-71 used, the grid fins will just get stronger with each landin that they're attached to the stage.
-
#848
by
ZachS09
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:40
-
I think they've stopped calling it an "experimental" landing. Now it's just landing. (I could be wrong. Too busy to recheck videos. But I will watch them again. )
Up until JCSat 16 in August 2016, SpaceX called the landings "experimental". However, starting with the first Iridium-NEXT mission last January, SpaceX decided to remove the word "experimental" since the success rate of the landings was increasing and they were becoming a routine procedure.
-
#849
by
Lar
on 31 Mar, 2017 19:46
-
Tory is a class act. His congrats to SpaceX are what we want to see from rival execs (and Dr. Sowers was also gracious)...
But I think the numbers are already staring him in the face, he just can't say that out loud. SpaceX optimized for cost from the get go and has lots of margin to play with. ULA optimizes for performance so they don't have the margins. And they don't have the funding from B/L to play catchup fast. Vulcan is the best they can do.
Jeff Bezos congratulations were ... well I didn't find any yet... maybe you did... But Amazon is a master at Fast-Follower. You can be sure the Blue team are studying every single scrap of publicly available data and figuring out how to do it better faster and cheaper. Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
But this is almost all offtopic for a mission specific thread. Not sure which thread to move it to.
-
#850
by
rsdavis9
on 31 Mar, 2017 20:29
-
Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
Maybe that why elon is thinking S2 reuse. Faster than ITS for full reuse to compete with blue.
-
#851
by
darkenfast
on 31 Mar, 2017 20:31
-
Martin and Elon made an important point in the press conference: this will be the new "normal". The idea of throwing away big rockets is going to be obsolete.
If your company or nation is shackled to launchers that were never designed for re-use, you are swimming in shark-infested waters with a cinder block tied to your ankle.
ULA didn't start talking about engine re-use until SpaceX convinced them that they better be seen to be doing something in that area.
Arianespace didn't start talking about re-use of engines on their new Ariane until SpaceX convinced them of the same thing.
One man convinced a bunch of other people to take risks, work their butts off and CHANGE what's "normal". That is a big accomplishment.
-
#852
by
S.Paulissen
on 31 Mar, 2017 20:43
-
Tory is a class act. His congrats to SpaceX are what we want to see from rival execs (and Dr. Sowers was also gracious)...
But I think the numbers are already staring him in the face, he just can't say that out loud. SpaceX optimized for cost from the get go and has lots of margin to play with. ULA optimizes for performance so they don't have the margins. And they don't have the funding from B/L to play catchup fast. Vulcan is the best they can do.
Jeff Bezos congratulations were ... well I didn't find any yet... maybe you did... But Amazon is a master at Fast-Follower. You can be sure the Blue team are studying every single scrap of publicly available data and figuring out how to do it better faster and cheaper. Blue is what should keep Elon up at night, not ULA.
But this is almost all offtopic for a mission specific thread. Not sure which thread to move it to.
I think it's clear by now (and I've been thinking this for months now) that Arianespace is the true "SpaceX adversary" if there is such a thing, not ULA. In fact, I'm not sure why ULA keeps getting singled out as SpX's nemesis.
ULA, by competitor status, isn't going to go out of their way to compliment SpX etc. and this makes sense. However the neutral to mild-congratulatory tone, to me at least, speaks volumes about their respect for SpX and their approach, even if they don't follow the same path. Vulcan engine reuse in response to SpX says the rest IMO.
On the other hand, it's well documented the animosity some Arianespace reps have spoken about SpaceX. I recall one panel where the Ariane representative essentially answered the question about how they will compete with SpaceX reuse by saying, "We aren't going to compete with a dream." THAT WAS WITH GYWNNE SITTING TWO SEATS AWAY. Talk about a in public dismissal.
TL;DR: Ariane hates SpX, ULA doesn't.
-
#853
by
clegg78
on 31 Mar, 2017 20:51
-
I think of all the companies, BO is taking the most pragmatic, well funded, and deliberate path. They are learning from SpaceX's mistakes letting Elon forge the path and spend the capital finding the way forward on reusable. Then improving on that.
I think the future will be BO and SpaceX eclipsing ULA, while ULA will keep its friends in the DoD and NRO for a while to come.
"Well funded"? Hrm. If you're a billionaire who doesn't need a ROI maybe.
SpaceX had hands-down the best business model, which got them the funding to get to recovery w/o bleeding funds from Elon's much-more-limited pockets. Antares/Cygnus would have been the better "fast followers", if they'd managed to invest the same NASA CRS boot-strapping into a competitive rocket. BO is following everything but the business model of SpaceX, but I think it's the business model which has been most impressive and which gives confidence that further innovation is possible.
I was wearing a SpaceX shirt watching the launch yesterday, I am a big fan of SpaceX. But Bezos, is a quiet, methodical person who is great at execution. And yes he has virtually unlimited funds to build his rocket program to what ever he wants, THEN turn it into a business. Maybe not the best "startup" model, but impressive none the less. I have real admiration of both these guys. They are both incredible at what they are doing.
-
#854
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 31 Mar, 2017 20:52
-
Anyone else notice this weird burp/flame in the rocket plume?
Looks like some amount of unburned kero got shot out and burned up once it hit the air?
Screenshots of the flame and one frame before.
-
#855
by
Jarnis
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:03
-
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit
Since when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
He still thinks Falcon Heavy is not a thing. Once those three boosters all land and there is a vehicle that has performance for everything ULA can fly... maybe he then realizes his mistake?
-
#856
by
IntoTheVoid
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:06
-
I think it's clear by now (and I've been thinking this for months now) that Arianespace is the true "SpaceX adversary" if there is such a thing, not ULA. In fact, I'm not sure why ULA keeps getting singled out as SpX's nemesis.
Sure based on their markets Arianespace competes more missions against SpaceX than ULA does even if some of those competitions are unofficial. But, with the EELV certification, ULA is the only other company who can compete every mission/contract. CRS and comercial crew might be a small exception, but ULA is still contracted for Cygnus, Dreamchaser, and Starliner, just not as the prime.
-
#857
by
riney
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:10
-
Yeah, I noticed a bit of a flash in the video. Obviously didn't affect much.
Anyone else notice this weird burp/flame in the rocket plume?
Looks like some amount of unburned kero got shot out and burned up once it hit the air?
Screenshots of the flame and one frame before.
-
#858
by
ugordan
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:14
-
Anyone else notice this weird burp/flame in the rocket plume?
I wonder if it could be the plume ingesting the remaining tyvek cover on one of the legs that didn't get pulled off at liftoff like all the other ones?
-
#859
by
edkyle99
on 31 Mar, 2017 21:43
-
The part of the Bruno quote that really got me was this one:So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit
Since when is a 5.2 metric ton spacecraft "small" and going to a geosynchronous transfer orbit "not especially difficult"? Is there any reasonable way that this statement can be interpreted as anything but straight-up denial? That's an honest question, I am open to hearing otherwise.
It's all relative. Falcon 9 has so far lifted no more than 5.282 tonnes to GTO (GEO-~1800m/s) while recovering its first stage. Even Falcon Heavy will only be able to boost 8 tonnes to GTO while recovering its lower stages. ULA has a rocket (Delta 4 Heavy) that can lift up to 13.8 tonnes to the same orbit. Vulcan/ACES will be able to lift maybe 15 tonnes to GTO.
From Mr. Bruno's point of view, the lift capability given up for recovery is a kind of lost business opportunity. His point is that this all does have a cost. Even Mr. Musk said yesterday that it has cost the company $1 billion in recovery systems development so far. Imagine how much smaller and cheaper Falcon could be if it was fully expendable while carrying the same payloads. It wouldn't need 10 Merlin engines per launch, for starters.
It is a fascinating debate. The answer will be given not by the words spoken by anyone, but by the results of the hardware and procedures and bottom-line budgets of these companies over the next decade.
- Ed Kyle
)