Author Topic: Reusability effect on costs  (Read 147361 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6412
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 5517
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #720 on: 10/30/2017 07:20 AM »
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.
With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.

And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.
So you're going to Mars to seek a better life. What does that mean to you? Always spot a fanbois by how they react to their idols failures.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9101
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5782
  • Likes Given: 3871
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #721 on: 10/30/2017 09:39 AM »
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.

Nobody can force you to bet if you don't want to, but not being willing to put up or shut up dilutes your credibility to some of us. Stridency and profanity don't help either. Nor does a sneering tone. Points to ponder.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27138
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7107
  • Likes Given: 4936
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #722 on: 10/30/2017 09:54 AM »
 
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!

Past history of SpaceX's performance deadline-wise is zero evidence, got it.

Hell, even Musk himself, very well known for his optimism in timeline matters, said that date is merely "aspirational". In other words, it is never going to launch in 2022.

EDIT: I forgot he was talking about Mars in this context. Still I find it extremely unlikely SpaceX for once will do everything on time. That would be pretty much miracle.

Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.
Okay! So you acknowledge they have at least a 20% chance that they'll accomplish BFR to orbit by 2022. Glad we have that settled!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 930
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #723 on: 10/30/2017 10:49 AM »
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.
Okay! So you acknowledge they have at least a 20% chance that they'll accomplish BFR to orbit by 2022. Glad we have that settled!

Sure, sure, only reason that I wouldn't bet 5$ is that I cannot afford losing that kind of money in case I lose that bet.  ::)

 
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!
Past history of SpaceX's performance deadline-wise is zero evidence, got it.
Okay! Guessing by your lack of answer you acknowledge that there is, in fact, evidence for claim that they are very unlikely to meet that deadline. Glad we have that settled!
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 804
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #724 on: 10/30/2017 10:59 AM »
<snip - of blisks>
TBH I'm amazed this was not designed in from day one, given the substantial amount of touch labor involved in assembling all those blades on a disk.

Interesting also that close to a century after the first use of turbines in a rocket turbo pump they are still getting cracking issues.
Designing is easy.
Manufacturing is not.
Which is why historically turbine mfgs have gone with making the disks out of one alloy and the blades out of another, allowing them to use the optimal choice of both material properties and grain growth direction for optimum performance. This is the "high performance" option.

The joker in the pack is the large number of blade/disk interfaces, which can act as stress concentrators if not properly designed.

Blisk or Bling designs are always a compromise in material properties and crystal growth axis. Given SX has always been strongly cost driven I was surprised they went for the high cost/high performance option.
............

Its quite possible that SpaceX considers more expensive material/parts OK, when used on 1st stage that is designed/expected to fly 10+ times

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Liked: 1375
  • Likes Given: 915
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #725 on: 10/30/2017 12:07 PM »
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.
With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.

And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?

I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9101
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5782
  • Likes Given: 3871
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #726 on: 10/30/2017 01:14 PM »
I wasn't helping (sadly) but we probably are a bit off topic. Let's see what we can do to move from SpaceX credibility to the effect that reusability has on costs.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2946
  • Liked: 1375
  • Likes Given: 915
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #727 on: 10/30/2017 01:30 PM »
Does anyone know if NASA is getting a price break for agreeing to fly CRS-13 on a used booster? Is there anything in the CRS contract that would allow this?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2272
  • Likes Given: 2840
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #728 on: 10/30/2017 01:49 PM »
Does anyone know if NASA is getting a price break for agreeing to fly CRS-13 on a used booster? Is there anything in the CRS contract that would allow this?

I would assume there is something, since it is the service provider NASA is paying (i.e. SpaceX) that wants to change the service offering (i.e. reflown rocket and spacecraft vs new for both). I would not be surprised if we can't see the info though...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1549
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 810
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #729 on: 10/30/2017 01:59 PM »
Does anyone know if NASA is getting a price break for agreeing to fly CRS-13 on a used booster? Is there anything in the CRS contract that would allow this?

I would assume there is something, since it is the service provider NASA is paying (i.e. SpaceX) that wants to change the service offering (i.e. reflown rocket and spacecraft vs new for both). I would not be surprised if we can't see the info though...
Disagree; SpaceX isn't changing the service, they are offering the same payload to the same orbit for the same price (meaning, not increasing the price).  If they could use a magic carpet to do it for free they still would be offering the same service.

Also, I think that's about price and not cost and is therefore slightly off-topic, although it is at least close to the mark.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 02:00 PM by abaddon »

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #730 on: 10/30/2017 03:25 PM »
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.
With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.

And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?

I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.

This, and by the time the BFR is flying, they will have built a lot of Block 5 boosters, so really, no need at all to retain any of the older blocks. I'd scrap them and sell the bits off as souvenirs.

Offline IntoTheVoid

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • USA
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #731 on: 10/30/2017 06:08 PM »
I'd scrap them and sell the bits off as souvenirs.

Can't do this. The Chinese would probably drive the price up out of the reach of common folks, and then a year later we'd be seeing an F9 rocket mosaic in Beijing.  :o

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2118
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1504
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #732 on: 10/30/2017 06:26 PM »
 
First, as others noted, it will be many years before BFR flies (and it will not fly in 2022, forget it).
Really? An assertion backed by ZERO evidence. In bold, too!

Past history of SpaceX's performance deadline-wise is zero evidence, got it.

Hell, even Musk himself, very well known for his optimism in timeline matters, said that date is merely "aspirational". In other words, it is never going to launch in 2022.

EDIT: I forgot he was talking about Mars in this context. Still I find it extremely unlikely SpaceX for once will do everything on time. That would be pretty much miracle.

Okay. Let's bet on it. If you're so confident it won't happen, you should be willing to take 4:1 odds against it happening. 4 beverages of my choice (value of each not to exceed $5) to your 1 beverage ($5) if BFR successfully launches to orbit by the end of 2022 UTC. Deal?
I am not betting man, bragging rights are enough for me.


I'm also rather doubtful that BFR will launch before 2022, but certainly not stridently so.  And if they don't make it, I'll consider it a minor disappointment, not something to brag about.


I don't even understand the concept of bragging over someone else's failures.  Seems to me to be of rather dubious taste, at a minimum.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2118
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1504
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #733 on: 10/30/2017 06:28 PM »
I'd scrap them and sell the bits off as souvenirs.

Can't do this. The Chinese would probably drive the price up out of the reach of common folks, and then a year later we'd be seeing an F9 rocket mosaic in Beijing.  :o


I wouldn't be surprised to see a Chinese Falconoid rocket in a few years as it is.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6412
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 5517
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #734 on: 10/30/2017 06:30 PM »
I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot.
Me either.  It depends. If they run 3 shifts they could move to 2 or 1, but if they already run 1 anyway..
Quote from: envy887
BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely.
Hasn't Musk said it's getting a new factory with water access? I'm sure this has been mentioned. If they can retain the staff but relocate and retrain them that would be the ideal approach. Head count remains the same but different use of resources.
Quote from: envy887
They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.
Until BFS is proved out SX will have to keep mfg upper stages, unless the FH test flight produces absolutely astonishing results in this area. Time will tell if it does.

How many F9 boosters you need depends on how many re-flights you get out of them and how fast the BFR is flight ready. We know Musks "aspirations" but IRL this is a "How long is a piece of string" question.  :(

What's F9 Blk 5 meant to do? 5? 10? 100? If it's a 100 and they build 10 of them that's a 1000 launches (provided there are [EDIT no]  losses). No problem.

Time will tell if SX can manage to deliver that.   
Its quite possible that SpaceX considers more expensive material/parts OK, when used on 1st stage that is designed/expected to fly 10+ times
You have it backwards.

SX are already using the high performance design.

Blings/Blisks (it depends if the object is mostly disk with little blades or mostly blades with little disk) reduce design flexibility (all made of one alloy. No choice on blade mounting. No ability to replace blades) but reduce assembly time to zero (1 single part) at the risk of having to scrap the whole unit if there are mistakes in machining and/or casting.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2017 06:34 AM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.
So you're going to Mars to seek a better life. What does that mean to you? Always spot a fanbois by how they react to their idols failures.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27138
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7107
  • Likes Given: 4936
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #735 on: 10/31/2017 01:45 AM »
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.
With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.

And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?

I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.
I don't think it will take BFR long to fly.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6412
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 5517
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #736 on: 10/31/2017 07:31 AM »
I don't think it will take BFR long to fly.
Unfortunately that's only half a vehicle.  :(

SX could do the old Saturn 1/Saturn V trick of sticking the F9 US on top of a BFR as a stop gap but that would be so far below its design goals I think half the first stage engines would have to stay off at launch not to destroy it.  :(

BFR does not need a full spec, Mars ready, human capable BFS, but it does need something more or less that size and shape sitting on top of it.

Testing that out will be quite tough.


"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.
So you're going to Mars to seek a better life. What does that mean to you? Always spot a fanbois by how they react to their idols failures.

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #737 on: 10/31/2017 07:36 AM »
Part of the effect of reuse is that it allows you to shut down your production line after a while.
With the caveat that the number of reuses has to be high enough or the number of systems built is high enough and the systems have to be fully reusable.

And of course what do you do when those numbers run out?

I highly doubt they are going to completely shut down F9 production before BFR is flying, just slow it down a lot. BFR needs new floor space and new tooling anyway, so the only major manufacturing resource conflict is for labor hours, which are reasonably easy to draw down without cutting off completely. They need to keep making F9 upper stages for a while, so it won't be that difficult to turn out a new booster once in a while.
I don't think it will take BFR long to fly.


Optimism is great.

I'm optimistic, I see a prototype  flying in 4 years. But only a prototype. More years after that before its reliable enough to stop building/using F9.



Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 2498
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #738 on: 10/31/2017 01:32 PM »
I suspect SpaceX is warehousing the pre-5 landed boosters as a way to get a jump on stockpiling F9 cores as a risk-reduction measure so they can switch the line to BFR as early as possible.

So even if they never fly them post-5: It's an insurance policy. They can still refly those recovered cores (or part them out) in case BFR has teething problems and is delayed after they shut down the F9 booster line.
SpaceX is stockpiling boosters because they don't have anything to use them for right now. Specially those that have been to GTO trajectories.
Customers so far are only ok with reflying on boosters that only did CRS/Iridium launches (LEO/Polar).
There are still boosters left that only been to LEO once.
Customers aren't signing open reflight contracts that let SpaceX choose any booster they want, they're hand picking them.
With Iridium officially on board and NASA apparently on board now we have the chance of LEO-LEO-GTO and LEO-LEO-LEO reuse sequences.
The boosters that have been to GTO once or LEO-GTO will likely be remanufactured into FH side boosters like its been done already, except SpaceX needs customers being OK with that before tying up the factory and testing assets for that effort. And that depends on a few successful FH launches.

So far there has been less reflight opportunities than boosters landed from low energy trajectories.

Once enough customers are onboard, reflying on a once flown CRS/Iridium booster becomes the norm and in order to jump the line customers will have to sign up for 3rd (used to low energy only flights) or to re-fly on boosters that been to GTO trajectories before.

Come to think of it, this next FH launch is super duper important, because if it succeeds it could create a business case for SpaceX to make Block V F9 boosters with aggressive reuse of parts from landed Block III boosters (remanufacture). Depending on how much factory time that saves, it could be a great deal to increase Block V F9 booster production rate in 2018.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline RDMM2081

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Reusability effect on costs
« Reply #739 on: 10/31/2017 03:31 PM »
I don't recall seeing anything about how many times it may be possible to reuse the FH side boosters.

Making a couple assumptions about the flight profile and stresses involved and why they chose GTO cores in the first place, might these be the first cores to see their third liftoff?

And following that, if they can in fact reuse the side boosters more than a first stage core, this makes the current stockpile even more attractive.  ;)

Tags: