Four things SpaceX can do in 2017

[Robotbeat]

But FH has changed a lot since then.

[AncientU]

In 2017? Or ever?

Ever is a long time but as currently configured it will not launch a FH.

Is there a single show-stopper, or just general upgrades of TEL, etc. needed to deal with latest design iteration (which hopefully will be the final 'Block' for a while)?

Maybe the saturated ground in Boca Chica will be a blessing in disguise... it postponed development of the launch facility while FH (and F9 Block 5) was still a moving target.

[ShawnGSE]

Ok, you've got my curiosity going. Memory says that the Vandeburg launch site was modified to do F9 or FH and at one time the first FH launch would be there.

I can't go into detailed specifics really but Google images of the Vandy pad show pretty clearly why.  While several things have been upgraded, you can clearly see the differences in the Vandy launch frame versus what is proposed in the last FH video from 39A. 

[matthewkantar]

I thought the base of the TEL had removable plugs so that it could adapt to F9 or FH. Is it that the flame trench is not wide enough?

Matthew

[ShawnGSE]

As shown in the 39A illustration that would only affect the hold downs that touch the single stick on east and west sides.  There isn't a "plug" that has 3 hold downs on it. 

[Aussie_Space_Nut]

Yes Elon's Mars/Solar System colonisation vision is completely nuts!

That is what makes it so exciting. We've all read our sci-fi books for years and can't wait to see it.

Without progressing this vision in some real ways the people alongside him, his team, will lose heart and move on.

Yes Elon needs to keep the money rolling in through a successful workhorse rocket. Without this, his team will not get paid and eventually move on.

So for me its not about what can be done but what should be done to balance these 2 goals.

I don't see some cazy eyed nut case throwing away reason while bankrupting the company on a crazy dream. Take the falcon heavy for a great example. We are only just now seeing hardware. This has been a measured approach building off earlier successes. He did'nt try and do it all at once. But by progressing the falcon 9 he was always working towards it. We see this again with retropropulsion, great for landing used 1st stages here on Earth, great for learning how to do it on Mars.

If the recent past is anything to go by I think Musk will balance the "Mars" stuff and the workhorse stuff really well.

[Vultur]

A few people on a Mars base are indeed not helpful.  Even a single million will do the trick though, and this can be done in under 100 years.

Not under anything close to a rational economic model, and not with chemical rockets.  Never going to happen.  Not even close.

1) I don't think any meaningful statements about economics can be made this far into the future. Our current economy was IMO not predictable from the standpoint of, say, 1920.

2) The assumption that normal economics apply to this situation is not necessarily true, even in the much nearer term. Multibillionaires like Musk and Bezos investing in space primarily for its own sake rather than for financial returns change the picture rather dramatically. There's a definitely non-zero chance that, say, Tesla gets hugely successful in the next decade or two and Musk gets enough money to fund the Mars colony by himself.

EDIT:

Digitize (at least) a few hundred thousand individuals' DNA sequences. Pack them into a spacecraft that also contains all the precursor chemicals to turn the digital data into human beings, as well as enough servos and AI to control the process.

The problem is that this level of biotech and AI is way harder than building ITS. ITS, if I remember correctly, contains no undemonstrated technologies - it's just much larger scale.

Building a human from chemicals, no starting cells, is incredibly hard and would be pretty much a fundamental breakthrough.

AI capable of raising a functional human child would effectively be strong AI, which requires a fundamental breakthrough (and electronic computers are different enough from brains that I don't think we can even say that it's known to be possible at all - non-electronic computers like quantum computers or DNA computers are very primitive or largely theoretical.)

[Vultur]

As long as they insist on innovating and upgrading the platform, they're going to find new and exciting ways to blow up, and I don't think they should shy away from that.  Customers just have to be aware that they are trading risk for cost.  As long as that risk can be quantified (and insured against), I don't think they'll have any issues with future orders.

This. If the RTF blew up, that would be really bad for them, but they're enough cheaper than ULA that they don't need ULA-level reliability to be commercially viable. I don't think most commercial payloads cost enough that paying the difference (for an ULA flight) is worth it for a few percent improvement in reliability (say 93% to 99%). Wasn't the one destroyed "only" $200 million or so? If so, you'd need something like a 20% reliability difference (79% vs 99%) to make up for a (say) $40 million cost difference.

The real problem will be Commercial Crew.

[meekGee]

I think the economic model is not crazy at all, it's just that it hasn't been used in a couple of centuries....

But this certainly is not one of the four things they need to do in 2017..

[matthewkantar]

The real problem will be Commercial Crew.

If the LAS works as hoped Spacex could lose a mission, and not lose a crew. I don't think that would be so bad.

If they lose a crew, that would be very bad for all concerned.

Matthew

[JamesH65]

Starting from this premise, it is never going to happen because you (and people/companies like you) won't try.  Other pretty brilliant people are starting from the position that it is possible... they at least have a chance.  Reuse is another such example.

Reuse is a billion times easier.  Heck, it's been done before for over 35 years, and it doesn't require launching tens of thousands of people - and everything they need to support them - at every opposition to a planet with no ability to support their lives.

Landing tens of thousands of tons on Mars every two years economically with chemical rockets is just not going to happen.

Doing with nuclear rockets is even less likely.

It's less likely because it's damn sight more difficult to do than building the ITS. Someone who knows (Henry Spencer) is of the opinion that inner planets exploration is best done with chemical, you only need nuclear for the outer planets, which is much longer term goal anyway.

And note, NO ONE is developing nuclear engines, and the cost to do so would dwarf the cost of the ITS system anyway.

ITS is cheapest done with chemical - it's a known technology.

[john smith 19]

This. If the RTF blew up, that would be really bad for them, but they're enough cheaper than ULA that they don't need ULA-level reliability to be commercially viable.

They are substantially cheaper than ULA but not Ariane 5, merely competitive AFAIK.

I don't think most commercial payloads cost enough that paying the difference (for an ULA flight) is worth it for a few percent improvement in reliability (say 93% to 99%). Wasn't the one destroyed "only" $200 million or so? If so, you'd need something like a 20% reliability difference (79% vs 99%) to make up for a (say) $40 million cost difference.

The real problem will be Commercial Crew.

[DOCinCT]

It's less likely because it's damn sight more difficult to do than building the ITS. Someone who knows (Henry Spencer) is of the opinion that inner planets exploration is best done with chemical, you only need nuclear for the outer planets, which is much longer term goal anyway.
And note, NO ONE is developing nuclear engines, and the cost to do so would dwarf the cost of the ITS system anyway.

The combined cost of combined Rover/NERVA programs (1955 to 1972) is about $7.6B, F1 cost $3B, SMEE $4B (and counting). Not quite "dwarfing" cost of ITS (which is more likely more than the $10B Musk is speculating on.
The  NR-1 (RIFT) program was a close to flight prototype; proposed designs are more sophisticated and advanced. One way to pay for the cost is in avoiding multiple SLS launches needed for chemical alternatives. 
NASA still spends money on testing core materials as the concept of NRP has never really gone away. see: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140002718.pdf and spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon10-12/Borowski_6-27-12/Borowski_6-27-12.ppt

[IainMcClatchie]

I recognise that comsats are less exciting than Mars, uh, occupation.  But there is no business case for occupation.  Without profit it cannot scale.

Comsats have been shown to be profitable.  A LEO last-mile constellation addresses a growing trillion-dollar market, but has, so far, cost too much to deploy.

If SpaceX can drop the cost of a LEO constellation enough to make last-mile internet service cost effective, that will change them and the world utterly.  Apple is a nearly $200B/year company.  SpaceX can be a > $500B/year company.  The available profit will force them to hire hundreds of thousands of people.  They will end up in very high stakes negotiations with most countries.  The real estate of space will become vastly more valuable, and therefore there will be more struggle to control it, both commercially and militarily.  Huge numbers of people who currently do not care at all about space stuff because it does not affect them will become interested.

Therefore, the most important thing SpaceX can do in 2017 is make progress on the constellation.  Launch a couple demo satellites.

[AncientU]

It's less likely because it's damn sight more difficult to do than building the ITS. Someone who knows (Henry Spencer) is of the opinion that inner planets exploration is best done with chemical, you only need nuclear for the outer planets, which is much longer term goal anyway.
And note, NO ONE is developing nuclear engines, and the cost to do so would dwarf the cost of the ITS system anyway.

The combined cost of combined Rover/NERVA programs (1955 to 1972) is about $7.6B, F1 cost $3B, SMEE $4B (and counting). Not quite "dwarfing" cost of ITS (which is more likely more than the $10B Musk is speculating on.
The  NR-1 (RIFT) program was a close to flight prototype; proposed designs are more sophisticated and advanced. One way to pay for the cost is in avoiding multiple SLS launches needed for chemical alternatives. 
NASA still spends money on testing core materials as the concept of NRP has never really gone away. see: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140002718.pdf and spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon10-12/Borowski_6-27-12/Borowski_6-27-12.ppt

One of the four things Spacex must do in 2017 is ignore the nuclear in-space engine option.

1. They already have a prototype of their in-space engine which is common with their booster engine thus incredibly cost effective;
2. The 30-40% improvement on IMLEO with nuclear is insignificant when an orders of magnitude improvement is needed to make Mars viable; and
3. The cost of the 25klbf engine program exceeds the cost of the entire ITS.

Reusability and refueling are game changers -- nuclear is not. 

(Don't be distracted by shiny objects.)
(Don't wade into the swamp of anti-nuclear public opinion.)

Edit: Added quote

[Robotbeat]

I recognise that comsats are less exciting than Mars, uh, occupation.  But there is no business case for occupation.  Without profit it cannot scale.

Comsats have been shown to be profitable.  A LEO last-mile constellation addresses a growing trillion-dollar market, but has, so far, cost too much to deploy.

If SpaceX can drop the cost of a LEO constellation enough to make last-mile internet service cost effective, that will change them and the world utterly.  Apple is a nearly $200B/year company.  SpaceX can be a > $500B/year company.  The available profit will force them to hire hundreds of thousands of people.  They will end up in very high stakes negotiations with most countries.  The real estate of space will become vastly more valuable, and therefore there will be more struggle to control it, both commercially and militarily.  Huge numbers of people who currently do not care at all about space stuff because it does not affect them will become interested.

Therefore, the most important thing SpaceX can do in 2017 is make progress on the constellation.  Launch a couple demo satellites.

Good point.

I'd argue that getting F9 on solid footing (preferably with actual reuse) is a nearer-term priority, but you're absolutely right about the constellation.

If they are highly successful with F9 and the constellation, they'll have plenty of resources for everything else.

[john smith 19]

I recognise that comsats are less exciting than Mars, uh, occupation.  But there is no business case for occupation.  Without profit it cannot scale.

As always it depends. Can SX develop the system for a low enough price that they can recoup the costs on the passenger? $500k for a 100 passengers. That's $50m. Full reusability means the more flights the more profit if the operating costs are a (fairly) small fraction of total customer revenue.

Comsats have been shown to be profitable.  A LEO last-mile constellation addresses a growing trillion-dollar market, but has, so far, cost too much to deploy.

Actually Orbcomm worked but their goals were more modest. Iridium worked once the company went bankrupt and re-financed.

Huge numbers of people who currently do not care at all about space stuff because it does not affect them will become interested.

Huge number of people depend on the GPS system but how many of them think about it's satellite based?  There's a rather amusing Sky news report where one of their reporters is interviewing someone from Reaction Engines. The reporter is literally unaware that what they do depends on comm sats working.

Unless the service is directly delivered to them by "SpacexBroadand (TM)" I doubt anyone will notice it.

The money it generates is another matter. If the revenue produced is that great all of SX's goals become easier.

Therefore, the most important thing SpaceX can do in 2017 is make progress on the constellation.  Launch a couple demo satellites.

Certainly on their todo list.

[Lee Jay]

As always it depends. Can SX develop the system for a low enough price that they can recoup the costs on the passenger? $500k for a 100 passengers. That's $50m. Full reusability means the more flights the more profit if the operating costs are a (fairly) small fraction of total customer revenue.

That's less than the cost of just the fuel and oxidizer - on Earth - for those 100 passengers and the supplies and equipment they'll need to survive the trip and the stay.  So, even if the rockets are free, the operations costs are free, the supplies and equipment are free, and you have 100% reusability, it'll cost more than that.

[Robotbeat]

I recognise that comsats are less exciting than Mars, uh, occupation.  But there is no business case for occupation.  Without profit it cannot scale.

As always it depends. Can SX develop the system for a low enough price that they can recoup the costs on the passenger? $500k for a 100 passengers. That's $50m. Full reusability means the more flights the more profit if the operating costs are a (fairly) small fraction of total customer revenue.

Comsats have been shown to be profitable.  A LEO last-mile constellation addresses a growing trillion-dollar market, but has, so far, cost too much to deploy.

Actually Orbcomm worked but their goals were more modest. Iridium worked once the company went bankrupt and re-financed.

Huge numbers of people who currently do not care at all about space stuff because it does not affect them will become interested.

Huge number of people depend on the GPS system but how many of them think about it's satellite based?  There's a rather amusing Sky news report where one of their reporters is interviewing someone from Reaction Engines. The reporter is literally unaware that what they do depends on comm sats working.

Unless the service is directly delivered to them by "SpacexBroadand (TM)" I doubt anyone will notice it.

The money it generates is another matter. If the revenue produced is that great all of SX's goals become easier.

Therefore, the most important thing SpaceX can do in 2017 is make progress on the constellation.  Launch a couple demo satellites.

Certainly on their todo list.

Yeah, I agree. Most people have no idea about space, and I doubt the constellation will change that. Heck, we'll have a million people and Mars and other places, and most people still won't think about it.

[Robotbeat]

As always it depends. Can SX develop the system for a low enough price that they can recoup the costs on the passenger? $500k for a 100 passengers. That's $50m. Full reusability means the more flights the more profit if the operating costs are a (fairly) small fraction of total customer revenue.

That's less than the cost of just the fuel and oxidizer - on Earth - for those 100 passengers and the supplies and equipment they'll need to survive the trip and the stay.  So, even if the rockets are free, the operations costs are free, the supplies and equipment are free, and you have 100% reusability, it'll cost more than that.

If you use RP1, maybe. Not industrial methane and oxygen in bulk.