Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.

[meekGee]

Falcon 9 can do all Atlas V 401 launches with RTLS or low energy ASDS landings.  There are maybe 20-30 Atlas launches to go -- ever.
A single Falcon 9 Block 5 could launch most all of them.

Lets talk some reality.  A single Falcon 9 Block 5 is only one upper stage and fairing.  That is one launch, much less than 20-30.

Now does it makes sense?  He is stating that a single Falcon 9 Block 5 can launch the remaining (20-30) Atlas V 401 launches

That's a nitpick.

The cost of an F9 second stage << cost of F9 first stage << cost of Atlas.

And once F9 S1 production rate drops, making more S2s will be easy since the infrastructure won't have to grow.

So same upshot.

[meekGee]

Descope is when you promise an ISS of a certain size, and then deliver half of it and call it complete. Itsy is an intermediate step to the same scope.

This is how certain people explain away implications of ITSy's existence, huh.

What I predict will happen (since ITSy details arent known yet)? Instead of ITS we will have ITSy and ITS will be deferred to vague future. Totally not descoping.

Keep calling it notional of you want, but the track record is not on your side.

Track record of what? If we are talking about schedules and timelines, certainly SpaceX's record so far shows ITSy will be years later than they will say it will be. In fact, SpaceX is already very well known for that

They have a track record of delivering technology much faster than their competition.

The fact that developing new technology often slips is hardly new.

So they are a bit late - to a goal that 10 years ago was considered laughable.

And if something is "descope" e.g. F9S2 reuse, it's only because there are bigger fish to fry, that include that very same goal.

Most people, last year  have felt that going straight to ITS was a giant step.  Justified or not,  doesn't matter.  So now there is an ITSy->ITS progression, using shared technology.  Sounds good to me.

[Jcc]

Connecting a few dots that relate Starlink with SpaceX competitiveness in launch and otherwise...

. Block 5 first stage will be more easily reusable, but upper stage and fairing and dispenser not so much. To pick a number, let's say they can reuse S1 5 times, so they can move staff and resources to increase S2 production by a factor of 5. They can do the same with the fairing, but making that recoverable and reusable will help, which is apparently within reach, perhaps with the mythical Fairing 2.0. Dispenser mass produced with the satellites.

. They have proven reuse of S1 twice, and have plenty of recovered stages, but fewer customers willing to fly with reused boosters at present. With Starlink, the lack of customers for reflown boosters goes away completely. They can also efficiently  fill every possible launch slot.  Any delays due to a payload not being ready can be filled with a Starlink launch.

. OneWeb is making some impressive first moves with their constellation development. They have an inherent disadvantage in that launch costs per satellite will surely be many times greater than Starlink, and that cost has to be recovered for the investors making service more expensive. Interesting that OneWeb is using "only" 900 satellites, whereas Starlink has many times more satellites, so even with launch costs being a fraction, they could end up being comparable for the whole constellation. So for SpaceX to be more competitive they need to show greater value for their internet services, and the ability to handle greater volume of traffic and customers, which presumably a larger constellation will provide.

.Lastly with regard to competitiveness, they will end up with a far greater number of launches and/or total lift capacity per year than anyone else, which already is starting to happen this year. That has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of schedule, a customer that needs a guaranteed slot and schedule, and has plenty of money, they may still want to go with a traditional launch provider.

.For small sats, it is possible that air launch providers could scale up to a great volume of launches, since they are not dependent on range and weather so much, but that remains to be seen. Pegasus is not that competitive price-wise, and air launched rockets are all expendable so far.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The realty is that SpaceX can manufacture 18 S1/S2 cores sets per year (stated by SpaceX recently). And that from this year's data can manufacture 2 S2s for every S1 not manufactured. SpaceX will have manufactured for this year 20 S2s and 16 S1s. This supports this 2 for 1 swap rate in manufacturing supposition. So this is all tied to the number of used boosters flown vs the number of new ones. SpaceX want to by the end of year 2018 to be at a 60% to 70% used booster to all launches rate. This is their plan. At only 60% rate that means that the current production rate and the swap rate results in a 26 total launch rate. 70% would be 28 launches. If the 2 for 1 swap is a low value and it is closer to 3 for 1 then the 60% would result in 30 launches per year rate and 70% in 34. A BTW is that if average of booster flights is just 3 total (1 as new and 2 as used) an easily possible number for Blk5 with some only flying 2 times and other 4 times averaging out to 3 because some boosters get down checked and others being approved for an additional launch based on inspections and a pessimistic approval methodology. A 3 total flight average is a 66% reuse rate.

An average flights per core of 5 is a 80% reuse rate. At that rate the manufacturing would be able to support at the 2 for 1 swap rate 30 launches /year. At the 3 for 1 swap rate 38 launches per year.

This is the stark data. But it also assumes that SpaceX will not increase its ability to manufacture units.

A 10% manufacturing rate increase gives:
at 2 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 29 launches , 80% reuse rate 34 launches
at 3 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 34 launches , 80% reuse rate 42 launches

A 20% manufacturing rate increase gives:
at 2 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 32 launches , 80% reuse rate 37 launches
at 3 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 38 launches , 80% reuse rate 48 launches

A reuse rate of 60% is the minimal the Blk5 will acheive. The maximum is not a known value even though the goal for spaceX is 10 total flights per booster is a 90% reuse rate.
The possible max values becomes
A 20% manufacturing rate increase gives:
at 2 for 1 swap - 90% reuse rate 40 launches
at 3 for 1 swap - 90% reuse rate 56 launches

[meekGee]

The realty is that SpaceX can manufacture 18 S1/S2 cores sets per year (stated by SpaceX recently). And that from this year's data can manufacture 2 S2s for every S1 not manufactured. SpaceX will have manufactured for this year 20 S2s and 16 S1s. This supports this 2 for 1 swap rate in manufacturing supposition. So this is all tied to the number of used boosters flown vs the number of new ones. SpaceX want to by the end of year 2018 to be at a 60% to 70% used booster to all launches rate. This is their plan. At only 60% rate that means that the current production rate and the swap rate results in a 26 total launch rate. 70% would be 28 launches. If the 2 for 1 swap is a low value and it is closer to 3 for 1 then the 60% would result in 30 launches per year rate and 70% in 34. A BTW is that if average of booster flights is just 3 total (1 as new and 2 as used) an easily possible number for Blk5 with some only flying 2 times and other 4 times averaging out to 3 because some boosters get down checked and others being approved for an additional launch based on inspections and a pessimistic approval methodology. A 3 total flight average is a 66% reuse rate.

An average flights per core of 5 is a 80% reuse rate. At that rate the manufacturing would be able to support at the 2 for 1 swap rate 30 launches /year. At the 3 for 1 swap rate 38 launches per year.

This is the stark data. But it also assumes that SpaceX will not increase its ability to manufacture units.

A 10% manufacturing rate increase gives:
at 2 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 29 launches , 80% reuse rate 34 launches
at 3 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 34 launches , 80% reuse rate 42 launches

A 20% manufacturing rate increase gives:
at 2 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 32 launches , 80% reuse rate 37 launches
at 3 for 1 swap - 60% reuse rate 38 launches , 80% reuse rate 48 launches

A reuse rate of 60% is the minimal the Blk5 will acheive. The maximum is not a known value even though the goal for spaceX is 10 total flights per booster is a 90% reuse rate.
The possible max values becomes
A 20% manufacturing rate increase gives:
at 2 for 1 swap - 90% reuse rate 40 launches
at 3 for 1 swap - 90% reuse rate 56 launches

That's the right way to look at it.  However the one data point we have (two S1s less) is the root of the curve.  I doubt they put much effort into the conversion.

Counting components, clearly S9 is 1/9 the engines, tho MVac is more complex (still same power pack), ~1/4 side wall, same domes, similar avionics, 1/9 engine controllers.

So 2:1 on production is not unreasonable, but on the low side.  I'd have guessed 3:1, with the bottleneck becoming the dome spinning and welding equipment.  Add some of that, and I'd guess 4:1.  (Or whatever the sidewall ratio is)

[Jcc]

Falcon 9 can do all Atlas V 401 launches with RTLS or low energy ASDS landings.  There are maybe 20-30 Atlas launches to go -- ever.
A single Falcon 9 Block 5 could launch most all of them.

Lets talk some reality.  A single Falcon 9 Block 5 is only one upper stage and fairing.  That is one launch, much less than 20-30.

Now does it makes sense?  He is stating that a single Falcon 9 Block 5 can launch the remaining (20-30) Atlas V 401 launches

Do you suppose he meant to say a single stick Falcon 9, in other words FH not needed?

[Lar]

Falcon 9 can do all Atlas V 401 launches with RTLS or low energy ASDS landings.  There are maybe 20-30 Atlas launches to go -- ever.
A single Falcon 9 Block 5 could launch most all of them.

Lets talk some reality.  A single Falcon 9 Block 5 is only one upper stage and fairing.  That is one launch, much less than 20-30.

Now does it makes sense?  He is stating that a single Falcon 9 Block 5 can launch the remaining (20-30) Atlas V 401 launches

Do you suppose he meant to say a single stick Falcon 9, in other words FH not needed?

No, I think he meant a single launcher (and a lot of new S2s) since (by one claim) Block 5 should be good for10 launches before refurbishment and 100 total. I think that may be a bit of a stretch but 3-4 launchers (and a lot of new S2s) might be able to fly out all the 401 launches without too much effort IF the block 5 is good for 10 launches...

[AncientU]

The Starlink Constellation (if that is what it will be called) requires a hundred F9 launches per year or more.  It starts flying in 2019.  The rest of the World's launches only need to increase 10% for there to be 100s of launches per year in early-2020s.

What is 'distant' or 'fantasy' about this?

The SpaceX constellation seems set to use small satellites, perhaps 100 kg each, plus or minus.  SpaceX is almost certainly planning to launch these in big groups on Falcon 9 or Heavy.  It could launch thousands of satellites using only a few dozen launches during a period of several years.  If the company needed 100 Falcon 9 launches per year just to support this constellation, it would be a very bad business plan, IMO.  (I'm skeptical of the plan even if they are launched en-mass, but we'll see.)

 - Ed Kyle

I thought the number was much higher than 100 kg....   More like 500 kg....  To the point where we weren't sure if a single F9 can do a full orbital plane's worth in one shot.

Recent FCC testimony said the 4,425 sats summed to 1,700t IIRC.  So, 384kg each.  At 16-20 per F9, that's 220-280 launches.  Three times that for the 12,000 sat constellation.

At a 6 year mean lifetime (5-7 years in FCC application), that's 2000 per year indefinitely -- 100-125 F9 launches.  This is why many see ITSy as the natural solution to Starlink deployment.

[DreamyPickle]

Recent FCC testimony said the 4,425 sats summed to 1,700t IIRC.  So, 384kg each.  At 16-20 per F9, that's 220-280 launches.  Three times that for the 12,000 sat constellation. At a 6 year mean lifetime (5-7 years in FCC application), that's 2000 per year indefinitely -- 100-125 F9 launches.

It will take a long time for the SpaceX constellation to grow to it's full advertised size, the initial deployment will be much smaller. So far SpaceX hasn't even launched a prototype and all of Elon's business ventures have had trouble with scaling according to schedule.

Also, that 6 year lifetime seems dubious. Isn't it relatively common for satellites to keep operating beyond their expected lifetime? They might be giving a lower estimate to make approval easier and file for extensions later.

Falcon 9 can do all Atlas V 401 launches with RTLS or low energy ASDS landings.  There are maybe 20-30 Atlas launches to go -- ever. A single Falcon 9 Block 5 could launch most all of them.

Only with a very optimistic estimate of Block 5 reusability. So far SpaceX has only scheduled 3 boosters for relaunch, all from relatively light missions. There are various non-official reports that boosters recovered from higher-energy missions were "retired" or just scrapped. This shows that a recovered booster is not automatically reusable and the exact thresholds won't be public.

But isn't this thread supposed to be about potential competition? Bringing in excessive optimism regarding SpaceX plans is not helpful.

[jpo234]

Only New Glenn is taking a shot at reusability but I think it's too large to be effective.

Size is not a relevant metric. Only cost is.

The 2016 ITS tanker with a payload to LEO of 380000 kg had an eventual target cost of less than $5mln per launch. If this ever happens, it would then make sense to launch a 500 kg satellite on this grotesquely oversized launcher instead of a small sat launcher that would cost 50% more per launch.

[meekGee]

The Starlink Constellation (if that is what it will be called) requires a hundred F9 launches per year or more.  It starts flying in 2019.  The rest of the World's launches only need to increase 10% for there to be 100s of launches per year in early-2020s.

What is 'distant' or 'fantasy' about this?

The SpaceX constellation seems set to use small satellites, perhaps 100 kg each, plus or minus.  SpaceX is almost certainly planning to launch these in big groups on Falcon 9 or Heavy.  It could launch thousands of satellites using only a few dozen launches during a period of several years.  If the company needed 100 Falcon 9 launches per year just to support this constellation, it would be a very bad business plan, IMO.  (I'm skeptical of the plan even if they are launched en-mass, but we'll see.)

 - Ed Kyle

I thought the number was much higher than 100 kg....   More like 500 kg....  To the point where we weren't sure if a single F9 can do a full orbital plane's worth in one shot.

Recent FCC testimony said the 4,425 sats summed to 1,700t IIRC.  So, 384kg each.  At 16-20 per F9, that's 220-280 launches.  Three times that for the 12,000 sat constellation.

At a 6 year mean lifetime (5-7 years in FCC application), that's 2000 per year indefinitely -- 100-125 F9 launches.  This is why many see ITSy as the natural solution to Starlink deployment.

Yeah, those are the numbers I remember, didn't know why Ed said 100 kg.

And there's no reason why the mass won't grow with time.

Agreed ITSy will become the workhorse.  Not sure about the relative timelines of ITSy and BFC.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

From my earlier post what is the probably impact of being able to do up to 35 launches per year?

20 of those are similar to the ones occurring this year. The added 15 are new payload categories: commercial crew, and the large LEO constellations deployments. But at a size of 385kg and with a dispenser more likely an average weight to orbit of 400kg, how many can an F9 or an FH deliver to the 1200km circular or transfer orbit (300X1200km)? That is a speculation with a spread of 16 to 25 for F9 depending on many assumptions and unknowns. One of those unknowns is the max based on volume that would fit in the F9 faring. Without a larger (longer) faring the FH would not be able to probably increase the per launch deployment number.

So watch for a elongated faring for use on FH. This would allow for possibly enough sats to populate a single orbit plane in one launch (as many as 64) if the volume is nearly 3 times that of the F9 standard faring. If not then only at best the doubling of the number to probably 32 to 40 in one FH launch. So if this is done and the remaining of the 13 unalocated launches are all FH carrying the constellation birds the cost per sat will be 75% of that using an F9 (all three cores are reused as many as 5 times, boosters definitely since they RTLS but the center core may only achieve 3 flights).

What is the overall effect of this on the prices for other launches. Some significant economies of scale start to occur. Some of those is the lowering of the engine tests (not as many M1Ds (SL) are needed as well as the initial stage testing in Texas for a new stage is reduced. Used stages will eventually never return to Texas and stay at the launch sites until scrapped. But M1DVAC tests rise. The net is fewer tests. The manufacturing costs rise some but at a slower/less amount that number of launches increases. Procedures streamline (unnecessary steps removed based on significant experience), manufacturing becomes more efficient, and transportation costs decrease because used S1s are not shipped across country. All of this causes the average cost per launch to drop dramatically such as the cost of manufacture is for an equivalent 20 cores but that supports 35 launches a average 43% drop in manufacturing costs per launch. With all other cost savings for other portions of the complete launch life cycle this results in the SpaceX estimated overall 30% drop in per launch costs.

Now what is the new prices for F9 and FH launches? For and F9 it could be as much as $15M for an FH as much as $35M with new prices of F9 ->$47.5 to $50M($10M of profit) FH->$55M to $60M ($15M of profit).

Now using this data and the probably number of sats at SpaceX costs per launch not price resolves to at best expected for F9 $2M/sat and using FH $1.5M/sat. At the original count of 4425 sats using FH to deploy them vs using an F9, SpaceX saves >$2B.

Such that this changes a marginal business case into a big money maker. So the incentives for SpaceX is to increase their manufacturing rates as well as using an FH with larger(longer) faring to be able to achieve savings on the deployments.

Now competitors. OneWeb has contracted (or is it at this point still a MOA( with BO to use NG for deployments in 2020/21. This vehicle would deploy approximately double the number of SpaceX since the faring is much larger and sats are half the size. This would eventually enable OneWeb to offer similar prices on $/bit as SpaceX. So SpaceX won't put them out of business but the competition will cause prices to encroach into the prices offered by many ground ISPs/Backhaul companies. Price wars could ensue between the space based Internet data providers and the ground based Internet providers. In which case we win but the general to this as prices drop so does usage go up even more as more people access the Internet around the world because prices drop enables them to have direct acces to the Internet in their homes.

[ChaoticFlounder]

Recent FCC testimony said the 4,425 sats summed to 1,700t IIRC.  So, 384kg each.  At 16-20 per F9, that's 220-280 launches.  Three times that for the 12,000 sat constellation. At a 6 year mean lifetime (5-7 years in FCC application), that's 2000 per year indefinitely -- 100-125 F9 launches.

It will take a long time for the SpaceX constellation to grow to it's full advertised size, the initial deployment will be much smaller. So far SpaceX hasn't even launched a prototype and all of Elon's business ventures have had trouble with scaling according to schedule.

Also, that 6 year lifetime seems dubious. Isn't it relatively common for satellites to keep operating beyond their expected lifetime? They might be giving a lower estimate to make approval easier and file for extensions later.

Falcon 9 can do all Atlas V 401 launches with RTLS or low energy ASDS landings.  There are maybe 20-30 Atlas launches to go -- ever. A single Falcon 9 Block 5 could launch most all of them.

Only with a very optimistic estimate of Block 5 reusability. So far SpaceX has only scheduled 3 boosters for relaunch, all from relatively light missions. There are various non-official reports that boosters recovered from higher-energy missions were "retired" or just scrapped. This shows that a recovered booster is not automatically reusable and the exact thresholds won't be public.

But isn't this thread supposed to be about potential competition? Bringing in excessive optimism regarding SpaceX plans is not helpful.

Please note, I have added bold to the quote above for emphasis.

This is the bottleneck.  Rocket reuse, in their words, is the key to minimizing launch cost which will alter the intersection point on the supply vs demand curve and drive the need for increased production, if i'm reading what has been posted on this forum correctly...

For their current business model, until this can be successfully demonstrated ad nauseam, nothing else really matters.

Remember, SpaceX likes to flaunt their successes ... the fact that we haven't seen detailed info on what had to be done to turn the re flown boosters around / why more haven't been used, most likely means that it ended up being a good bit more difficult  ($$$) than they thought it was going to be.

Btw, there was a program called the Space Transportation System that tried to do this a good while ago, they successfully reused alotta vehicles, that were far more advanced than the F9 first stage, but ran into a lot of trouble doing it cost effectively...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

C

Edit for clarity...

[mme]

Recent FCC testimony said the 4,425 sats summed to 1,700t IIRC.  So, 384kg each.  At 16-20 per F9, that's 220-280 launches.  Three times that for the 12,000 sat constellation. At a 6 year mean lifetime (5-7 years in FCC application), that's 2000 per year indefinitely -- 100-125 F9 launches.

It will take a long time for the SpaceX constellation to grow to it's full advertised size, the initial deployment will be much smaller. So far SpaceX hasn't even launched a prototype and all of Elon's business ventures have had trouble with scaling according to schedule.

Also, that 6 year lifetime seems dubious. Isn't it relatively common for satellites to keep operating beyond their expected lifetime? They might be giving a lower estimate to make approval easier and file for extensions later.

Falcon 9 can do all Atlas V 401 launches with RTLS or low energy ASDS landings.  There are maybe 20-30 Atlas launches to go -- ever. A single Falcon 9 Block 5 could launch most all of them.

Only with a very optimistic estimate of Block 5 reusability. So far SpaceX has only scheduled 3 boosters for relaunch, all from relatively light missions. There are various non-official reports that boosters recovered from higher-energy missions were "retired" or just scrapped. This shows that a recovered booster is not automatically reusable and the exact thresholds won't be public.

But isn't this thread supposed to be about potential competition? Bringing in excessive optimism regarding SpaceX plans is not helpful.

Please note, I have added bold to the quote above for emphasis.

This is the bottleneck.  Rocket reuse, in their words, is the key to minimizing launch cost which will alter the intersection point on the supply vs demand curve and drive the need for increased production, if i'm reading what has been posted on this forum correctly...

For their current business model, until this can be successfully demonstrated ad nauseam, nothing else really matters.

Remember, SpaceX likes to flaunt their successes ... the fact that we haven't seen detailed info on what had to be done to turn the re flown boosters around / why more haven't been used, most likely means that it ended up being a good bit more difficult  ($$$) than they thought it was going to be.

Btw, there was a program called the Space Transportation System that tried to do this a good while ago, they successfully reused alotta vehicles, far more advanced than the F9 first stage, but ran into a lot of trouble doing it cost effectively...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

C

Edit for clarity...

Shotwell has spoken openly about the effort of going over the first boosters for reflight with a fine tooth come, how that was still significantly less expensive than building a new booster and how all the "lessons learned" are being applied to the Block 5 design. I don't know what sort of details you expect from a private company beyond that. If you read these forums you should have a good idea of the design changes going into Block 5.

I find it confusing that people are still arguing that SpaceX won't be able to get close to their design goals for Block 5. What is so hard to believe about 10 reuses before a major refurbishment? They retrieved a total of 13 boosters, I think they have a clue were the issues are.

The old SLS canard?  As if material sciences, aerospace engineering, and computer simulations have not progressed at all in the last 30 years.  Ignoring that on top of the fact that it's a completely different approach to reusability that does not require manually inspecting and repairing thousands of tiles and completely rebuilding the main engines seems silly.

The SLS traded cost up front for operational costs.  SpaceX will not make that choice.

[Mader Levap]

Btw, there was a program called the Space Transportation System that tried to do this a good while ago, they successfully reused alotta vehicles, far more advanced than the F9 first stage, but ran into a lot of trouble doing it cost effectively...

Since about only common thing between F9 and Shuttle is that they both go to space, any prediction of F9 problems with reusability based on Shuttle's experience is going to be utterly useless.

[meekGee]

Btw, there was a program called the Space Transportation System that tried to do this a good while ago, they successfully reused alotta vehicles, far more advanced than the F9 first stage, but ran into a lot of trouble doing it cost effectively...

Since about only common thing between F9 and Shuttle is that they both go to space, any prediction of F9 problems with reusability based on Shuttle's experience is going to be utterly useless.

heh, well phrased..

[ChaoticFlounder]

Btw, there was a program called the Space Transportation System that tried to do this a good while ago, they successfully reused alotta vehicles, far more advanced than the F9 first stage, but ran into a lot of trouble doing it cost effectively...

Since about only common thing between F9 and Shuttle is that they both go to space, any prediction of F9 problems with reusability based on Shuttle's experience is going to be utterly useless.

heh, well phrased..

this is pretty much the kind of response that is to be expected here on the SpaceX forum ...

The whole point of the shuttle reference was not in the detail design, not in the system architecture, but in the sole fact that the vehicle was purpose built to be reusable, from the start.  Their funding was far greater, support was far greater, and you had some of the best people available ... many were the same people that just got off the Apollo program.

    Its main design goal, from the beginning, was to bring the cost of space access down.

Now, if the Shuttle Program was not able to do that, with all the resources they had, why do you so quickly accept it as fact that Elon can?

Why do you not question the details of how they will execute their plan given SX's track record of project plan vs actual delivery?

Mme, please link the details of where you have seen the information on Shotwell's discussion of Stage 1 refurbishment.  I have not seen this information.

Also, please link the information you have on the SSME and how it needs to be rebuilt every time.  I was aware that it needed to be removed to be inspected but not that the turbo machinery had to be completely rebuilt.

Also, if you can confirm that the above statement is fully true, how is this applicable to SSME but not the turbopump on Merlin 1-D?

C

[skybum]

    Its main design goal, from the beginning, was to bring the cost of space access down.

False. The Space Shuttles' primary goal was to satisfy the requirements of as many stakeholders as possible, starting with the need to distribute funds across as many congressional districts as possible in order to ensure congressional support. Reducing the cost of space access did nothing whatsoever to ensure congressional support, and there are innumerable design decisions one can point to which make it clear that congressional support was the overriding priority.

Source: talking with Max Faget over the years at various conferences. I'm quite sure he knew what he was talking about, since he, more than anyone else, designed the Space Shuttle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Faget

He was a very smart guy with a very frustrating customer. If he'd had Elon's ability to make executive decisions, the results would have been very different than the shuttle.

And the fact that even before any reusability economics kick in, SpaceX is flying profitably at 1/10th the price of the Shuttle's marginal cost ought to be enough proof that their approach is incomparably different.

Back to the subject at hand: I hope Blue Origin gives SpaceX some stiff competition. I'd also like to see some non-American ventures step up, but don't see anything particularly promising on the horizon yet.

[meekGee]

Btw, there was a program called the Space Transportation System that tried to do this a good while ago, they successfully reused alotta vehicles, far more advanced than the F9 first stage, but ran into a lot of trouble doing it cost effectively...

Since about only common thing between F9 and Shuttle is that they both go to space, any prediction of F9 problems with reusability based on Shuttle's experience is going to be utterly useless.

heh, well phrased..

this is pretty much the kind of response that is to be expected here on the SpaceX forum ...

The whole point of the shuttle reference was not in the detail design, not in the system architecture, but in the sole fact that the vehicle was purpose built to be reusable, from the start.  Their funding was far greater, support was far greater, and you had some of the best people available ... many were the same people that just got off the Apollo program.

    Its main design goal, from the beginning, was to bring the cost of space access down.

Now, if the Shuttle Program was not able to do that, with all the resources they had, why do you so quickly accept it as fact that Elon can?

Why do you not question the details of how they will execute their plan given SX's track record of project plan vs actual delivery?

Mme, please link the details of where you have seen the information on Shotwell's discussion of Stage 1 refurbishment.  I have not seen this information.

Also, please link the information you have on the SSME and how it needs to be rebuilt every time.  I was aware that it needed to be removed to be inspected but not that the turbo machinery had to be completely rebuilt.

Also, if you can confirm that the above statement is fully true, how is this applicable to SSME but not the turbopump on Merlin 1-D?

C

I understand how, during STS's tenure, some people couldn't see how misguided it was.

But >10 years later, with the full benefit of hindsight, with enough time to gain perspective, and with a "how to do it right" example right there in front of you - to still not see it - that's just astounding..

[woods170]

    Its main design goal, from the beginning, was to bring the cost of space access down.

False. The Space Shuttles' primary goal was to satisfy the requirements of as many stakeholders as possible, starting with the need to distribute funds across as many congressional districts as possible in order to ensure congressional support. Reducing the cost of space access did nothing whatsoever to ensure congressional support, and there are innumerable design decisions one can point to which make it clear that congressional support was the overriding priority.

Source: talking with Max Faget over the years at various conferences. I'm quite sure he knew what he was talking about, since he, more than anyone else, designed the Space Shuttle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Faget

You are correct.

The felgercarb about STS supposedly being designed to bring down the cost of access to space came from NASA.
NASA HQ made a whole lot of completely unrealistic promises about STS just to "sell" the vehicle to the politicians.
For example: NASA HQ stated that a single orbiter could fly at least 20 times each year while they d*mn well knew it was in fact impossible to fly each orbiter 20 times per year.