Aren't the unknowns he cites precisely the targets of the experimental research that SpaceX is pursuing? It's reasonable to remain skeptical about the economics of reusability, given that nobody knows at present how much it will cost to make a returned rocket flight ready, how much of a market there will be for used rockets, and how the decreased demand for new materiel will affect the profitability of the company. The issue he raises of loss of performance, however, suggests that he doubts that the modifications to the rocket will achieve what SpaceX has said that they do.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/23/2015 12:14 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 12/22/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/22/2015 06:04 pmClassic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.I disagree. SpaceX wants to get to 40 launches per year with their Falcons. They currently are at 6. Even with fairly high reuse, they'll need much more rocket stages (upper stages mostly) and about as many rocket engines (when you include occasionally expended boosters plus occasional failed landing/barging plus the eventual retirement due to fatigue and obsolescence). It will take them several years to get to 40 launches, but it will also take several years to get to very high reuse fractions (i.e. 90% of flights reused, and reused for 10 flights). This is also a key point that that Arianespace CEO falters: he fails to grasp the size of SpaceX's launch market ambitions as well as the possibility of continued significant launch market growth (driven in part by lowering launch costs, but some just due to economic growth... though these are interconnected). Reuse will allow SpaceX to do an order of magnitude more launches while keeping their existing manufacturing capabilities well-utilized but also not needing them to be greatly expanded.And yes, by that time, we'll be talking about BFR and BFS, which WILL need expansion of capability (in terms of size, though not so much numbers except for BFS which will need lots more manufacturing capability). And before SpaceX is really flying BFR/BFS significantly, they'll need to expand manufacturing for their constellation. So yeah, I doubt SpaceX will downsize if reuse works like a charm. Instead, they'll just grow.C’est une belle réussite technologique dans le cadre d’une mission en orbite basse qui demandait peu de performance au lanceur, libérant ainsi celle exigée par la récupération. The Ariane Space CEO's first point is that the Orbcomm mission didn't require much from the rocket in terms of performance, thus saving enough fuel for landing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the modifications to the rocket and the use of super-cooled propellants intended to make feasible GTO missions lifting large communications satellites that also enabled landing?Mais pour l’équation économique, les choses restent encore très incertaines.He challenges the economic equation and lists a number of factors.Perte de performance liée à la récupération, moindre cadence industrielle, coût de remise en état de l’étage, difficulté à convaincre les clients d’utiliser un lanceur d’occasion, incertitudes sur la fiabilité: ce serait une erreur de considérer que la réutilisation est l’alpha et l’oméga de l’innovation de rupture dans le domaine des lanceurs. 1) Loss of performance linked to recovery;2) Lowered industrial rate, presumably referring to diminished use of productive capacity;3) Refurbishment costs;4) Uncertainty regarding the reliability of "used" rockets.He then concludes that it would be an error to think of reusability as the alpha and omaga of disruptive innovation in the area of rockets.Aren't the unknowns he cites precisely the targets of the experimental research that SpaceX is pursuing? It's reasonable to remain skeptical about the economics of reusability, given that nobody knows at present how much it will cost to make a returned rocket flight ready, how much of a market there will be for used rockets, and how the decreased demand for new materiel will affect the profitability of the company. The issue he raises of loss of performance, however, suggests that he doubts that the modifications to the rocket will achieve what SpaceX has said that they do.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/22/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/22/2015 06:04 pmClassic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.I disagree. SpaceX wants to get to 40 launches per year with their Falcons. They currently are at 6. Even with fairly high reuse, they'll need much more rocket stages (upper stages mostly) and about as many rocket engines (when you include occasionally expended boosters plus occasional failed landing/barging plus the eventual retirement due to fatigue and obsolescence). It will take them several years to get to 40 launches, but it will also take several years to get to very high reuse fractions (i.e. 90% of flights reused, and reused for 10 flights). This is also a key point that that Arianespace CEO falters: he fails to grasp the size of SpaceX's launch market ambitions as well as the possibility of continued significant launch market growth (driven in part by lowering launch costs, but some just due to economic growth... though these are interconnected). Reuse will allow SpaceX to do an order of magnitude more launches while keeping their existing manufacturing capabilities well-utilized but also not needing them to be greatly expanded.And yes, by that time, we'll be talking about BFR and BFS, which WILL need expansion of capability (in terms of size, though not so much numbers except for BFS which will need lots more manufacturing capability). And before SpaceX is really flying BFR/BFS significantly, they'll need to expand manufacturing for their constellation. So yeah, I doubt SpaceX will downsize if reuse works like a charm. Instead, they'll just grow.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/22/2015 06:04 pmClassic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.
Classic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.
Quote from: WindyCity on 12/23/2015 01:51 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/23/2015 12:14 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 12/22/2015 07:29 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/22/2015 06:04 pmClassic. The "it ain't proven yet" line starts at the top.If it were his own company, he might have worried about the possibility that it might actually work instead of clinging to the hope that it won't.A Arianespace factory worker has less to worry about in near term from the F9 recovery than SpaceX factory worker. Every recovered booster is one less that SpaceX needs to produce and SpaceX are not known for carrying surplus workers.I disagree. SpaceX wants to get to 40 launches per year with their Falcons. They currently are at 6. Even with fairly high reuse, they'll need much more rocket stages (upper stages mostly) and about as many rocket engines (when you include occasionally expended boosters plus occasional failed landing/barging plus the eventual retirement due to fatigue and obsolescence). It will take them several years to get to 40 launches, but it will also take several years to get to very high reuse fractions (i.e. 90% of flights reused, and reused for 10 flights). This is also a key point that that Arianespace CEO falters: he fails to grasp the size of SpaceX's launch market ambitions as well as the possibility of continued significant launch market growth (driven in part by lowering launch costs, but some just due to economic growth... though these are interconnected). Reuse will allow SpaceX to do an order of magnitude more launches while keeping their existing manufacturing capabilities well-utilized but also not needing them to be greatly expanded.And yes, by that time, we'll be talking about BFR and BFS, which WILL need expansion of capability (in terms of size, though not so much numbers except for BFS which will need lots more manufacturing capability). And before SpaceX is really flying BFR/BFS significantly, they'll need to expand manufacturing for their constellation. So yeah, I doubt SpaceX will downsize if reuse works like a charm. Instead, they'll just grow.C’est une belle réussite technologique dans le cadre d’une mission en orbite basse qui demandait peu de performance au lanceur, libérant ainsi celle exigée par la récupération. The Ariane Space CEO's first point is that the Orbcomm mission didn't require much from the rocket in terms of performance, thus saving enough fuel for landing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the modifications to the rocket and the use of super-cooled propellants intended to make feasible GTO missions lifting large communications satellites that also enabled landing?Mais pour l’équation économique, les choses restent encore très incertaines.He challenges the economic equation and lists a number of factors.Perte de performance liée à la récupération, moindre cadence industrielle, coût de remise en état de l’étage, difficulté à convaincre les clients d’utiliser un lanceur d’occasion, incertitudes sur la fiabilité: ce serait une erreur de considérer que la réutilisation est l’alpha et l’oméga de l’innovation de rupture dans le domaine des lanceurs. 1) Loss of performance linked to recovery;2) Lowered industrial rate, presumably referring to diminished use of productive capacity;3) Refurbishment costs;4) Uncertainty regarding the reliability of "used" rockets.He then concludes that it would be an error to think of reusability as the alpha and omaga of disruptive innovation in the area of rockets.Aren't the unknowns he cites precisely the targets of the experimental research that SpaceX is pursuing? It's reasonable to remain skeptical about the economics of reusability, given that nobody knows at present how much it will cost to make a returned rocket flight ready, how much of a market there will be for used rockets, and how the decreased demand for new materiel will affect the profitability of the company. The issue he raises of loss of performance, however, suggests that he doubts that the modifications to the rocket will achieve what SpaceX has said that they do.https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pound_the_tableThis guy is pounding on the table, as nothing else is really on his side.He'll never admit that F9R is threatening the economic viability of Ariane 5 already (right now, without reuse), because of the big-little launch model.He'll never admit that FH even without reuse could be the kiss of death for Ariane.Add S1 reuse for F9R and FHR, and the whole Ariane model is economically in-viable without billions of Euros in anual subsidies.I'm really curious what he'll claim when the first FH launch the 3 sticks get recovered...
The European launcher does have an edge in reliability that will take some time to beat, if SpaceX can beat it. 69 successes in a row is reassuring when you want to put an 8 or 9 billion dollar telescope in orbit.Matthew
Did they bring the ground mount to the landing pad after the landing? Or did the crane take the rocket somewhere else?
So do we know how the rocket is processed?Did they bring the ground mount to the landing pad after the landing? Or did the crane take the rocket somewhere else?Are the legs folded in, or removed right there?
Quote from: meekGee on 12/23/2015 02:56 amSo do we know how the rocket is processed?Did they bring the ground mount to the landing pad after the landing? Or did the crane take the rocket somewhere else?Are the legs folded in, or removed right there?When I left the cape at 5PM this evening the first stage was still at LZ-1 with a large crane attached to the top of the interstage.
Quote from: matthewkantar on 12/23/2015 02:58 amThe European launcher does have an edge in reliability that will take some time to beat, if SpaceX can beat it. 69 successes in a row is reassuring when you want to put an 8 or 9 billion dollar telescope in orbit.MatthewAriane 5 had SEVERAL major failures in its first flights. Falcon 9 has had 1 out of 20. SpaceX will beat it in time.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/23/2015 03:09 amQuote from: matthewkantar on 12/23/2015 02:58 amThe European launcher does have an edge in reliability that will take some time to beat, if SpaceX can beat it. 69 successes in a row is reassuring when you want to put an 8 or 9 billion dollar telescope in orbit.MatthewAriane 5 had SEVERAL major failures in its first flights. Falcon 9 has had 1 out of 20. SpaceX will beat it in time.I am familiar with Ariane's teething problems. If Spacex is flawless from here out, it will still be several years before they have 69 successes in a row. The tension between constant innovation and reliability is real.
meekGee - There's an environmental assesment (http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141107-004.pdf) that has crane paths and a trailer/pedestal area marked on pages 23/24. It looks to me like they just pick it up off the pad with the crane and drive over there to set it down on the stand. Once you have to move the whole rocket upright at all a few thousand feet probably isn't much more work than a few hundred.
