Author Topic: SpaceX customers' views on reuse  (Read 88615 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4130
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #300 on: 11/26/2017 04:15 PM »
Quote
even if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet

2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Falcon  = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.

If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.

This is a rookie business mistake, and ULA will not be the first to make it.  GM thought Japan could only make entry level cars.  US Steel thought foreign entrants could only make rebar and other less demanding alloys. 

The problem is that it's easier for the low-cost, high volume entrant to improve their capability, than for the high-cost, low volume entrant to lower their prices.   It's a standard business school study:
Quote
Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success.
Of course you can argue that the mantle of leadership has not passed yet. But the signs are on the wall....
Exactly so.  This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.

For years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.

For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 06:28 PM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2526
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #301 on: 11/26/2017 07:19 PM »
Why is it important to be a leader?
Thank you. Your concise comment (really good habit you have here) puts the finger on it.

Suggest in this thread it depends on the eye of the beholder. (I think AncientU and I were in agreement as to meaning as in the large global case definition of "space launch provider leader", as opposed to something else like maybe "fandom leader" or other.)

So suggest in posts here labeling your meaning here might go a long way in making your point in context, unless the point is to intentionally be ... disruptive ... to understanding ... and to soe discord or entertain.

When you are not satisfied with the status quo or have a vision for the future that is not happening with existing structures (as Bert & I put it, "You can't get there from here..."), then you must become a leader -- or shut it.
"To challenge leadership." Yes.

The only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .
Nope. Just one non-LEO, non-GTO mission. Not enough to earn the confidence Atlas/Ariane has in doing more capable missions yet.

Quote
I'd take bumbling and feckless over 'leadership'.
One spends billions on certain payloads. So you don't think being responsible in launching them ... matters? How thoughtful.

Quote
And just out of interest, where is this arrogance and condescension? I see it from over zealous fans, but there is little SpaceX do about them!
Perhaps ... in their remarks concerning flight/payload/test risks prior? Or in like kind exchanges with equally arrogant and condescending BO?

This is a rookie business mistake, and ULA will not be the first to make it.  GM thought Japan could only make entry level cars.  US Steel thought foreign entrants could only make rebar and other less demanding alloys. 

Give me a break. You're comparing a non market economic activity with the most  largest consumer dollar purchase vehicle business that's doing millions of vehicles instead of few digits.

While great for fandom enthusiasm, it'll be awhile before SX, ULA, or BO sell LV's to automobile customers  ;D Thank you for the humorous vision.

Quote
The problem is that it's easier for the low-cost, high volume entrant to improve their capability, than for the high-cost, low volume entrant to lower their prices.   It's a standard business school study:
Quote
Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success.
You didn't have to go over the top, so you're addressing the "lack of competitive response" with a sledgehammer.

(If you read in my post upthread, you'd also find I wasn't entirely fawning to ULA on the matter, suggest you respond to that as it's more on topic and less bombastic.)

No, ULA did not respond well to it. But ULA isn't SX by a long shot, you should direct your bombast to the parents/Congress as they figure in that decision more, both in the origins of the failure to take your suggested action, as well as the current impudence in continuing to avoid the need to as well. So don't misplace your argument to feed fandom flames.

Quote
Of course you can argue that the mantle of leadership has not passed yet. But the signs are on the wall....
No argument that in demonstrating/executing the vision they're bucking for it. Any can see that's the intent.

But achieving it is the harder part of continuing the onslaught. Is this a surprise?

Exactly so.  This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.
Still missing the point. The prior leader sets the storyline of what it means to be leader (cf my post WRT "bumbling" et al), while the challenger makes a counter that it uses to replace that narrative by pushing it out of all, not some, of its areas. Like a huge wrestler unsettling and throwing down an opponent. Obvious and total.

Quote
For years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.

For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.

FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.

Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".

Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.

Closest in retail right now is Walmart in pivoting from rapacious consumption of middle American communities it mined out and left high and dry, to an all out application of all/any technology to "me too" Amazon to grab a fraction of its market share, so they might eventually improve upon it.

While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch,  others are still considering it.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4130
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #302 on: 11/26/2017 07:29 PM »




Exactly so.  This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.
Still missing the point. The prior leader sets the storyline of what it means to be leader (cf my post WRT "bumbling" et al), while the challenger makes a counter that it uses to replace that narrative by pushing it out of all, not some, of its areas. Like a huge wrestler unsettling and throwing down an opponent. Obvious and total.

Quote
For years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.

For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.

FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.

Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".

Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.

Closest in retail right now is Walmart in pivoting from rapacious consumption of middle American communities it mined out and left high and dry, to an all out application of all/any technology to "me too" Amazon to grab a fraction of its market share, so they might eventually improve upon it.

While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch,  others are still considering it.

I don't think there's much point to be missed.

ULA (and its parents) and Arianne (and its parents) are in denial. They blame everyone but themselves. The truth is that they simply don't have what it takes to change the trajectory.

Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.

Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.

Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.

Even ULA and Arianne's current  attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.

So clearly there is a leader, and there's reluctant followers.

BO, otoh, is an enthusiastic and maybe capable follower, but that's yet to be seen.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6391
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 869
  • Likes Given: 5465
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #303 on: 11/26/2017 08:07 PM »
FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.

Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".
Completely OT but I am curious. Hindsight is always 20/20 but at the time did (what became) Amazon stand out or was it Yet Another Web Retailer?

Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.
Indeed. People forget as a challenger you can choose your initial battleground, while an incumbent has to fight any (and all) positions. However if you want to take over you have to eventually occupy those as well.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch,  others are still considering it.
Can you unpack that a little? "Europe is lost" but at the same time committed to "grasp market share in space launch?"

I note ULA does seem to be hampered by its parents treating it as a cash cow. To extend the metaphor a bit more if you keep choking the Goose that lays the golden eggs don't be too surprised if you end up with a dead goose on your hands. :(
Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.

Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.

The fact remains if I do something you can't, and the customers we both pursue want that then like it or not I am in a leadership position WRT that thing.  If NASA wants a probe to go anywhere the first people they call probably won't be SX. Yes it's clear SX want to be leaders in all markets, but they are not there yet.
Quote from: meekGee
Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.

Even ULA and Arianne's current  attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
That's a very fair point WRT to reuse. SX's discovery that engine TVC did not give sufficient control authority basically demonstrated that all proposals to retrofit stage recovery to existing stages were essentially rubbish.

The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 08:08 PM 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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4130
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #304 on: 11/26/2017 08:37 PM »

Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.

Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.

The fact remains if I do something you can't, and the customers we both pursue want that then like it or not I am in a leadership position WRT that thing.  If NASA wants a probe to go anywhere the first people they call probably won't be SX. Yes it's clear SX want to be leaders in all markets, but they are not there yet.
Quote from: meekGee
Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.

Even ULA and Arianne's current  attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
That's a very fair point WRT to reuse. SX's discovery that engine TVC did not give sufficient control authority basically demonstrated that all proposals to retrofit stage recovery to existing stages were essentially rubbish.

The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.

That's exactly the point though.

We can argue forever about our definitions of "leadership", but there's an objective real-world test out there:

Who is reacting to whom, and how.

That is what defines leadership.

SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.   

That's a leadership stance.

The so-called leaders, they kinda reacted, if you can even call it that.

They mostly like to bring up past achievements, or capabilities based on past development.  Good for them.  Now let's move on.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2526
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #305 on: 11/26/2017 09:29 PM »
Exactly so.  This discussion was never about a snapshot in time, but about the trajectories the companies are on, since that is what corporate governance is about.
Still missing the point. The prior leader sets the storyline of what it means to be leader (cf my post WRT "bumbling" et al), while the challenger makes a counter that it uses to replace that narrative by pushing it out of all, not some, of its areas. Like a huge wrestler unsettling and throwing down an opponent. Obvious and total.

Quote
For years, Amazon was not the biggest retailer, but they had already built such capabilities that they were unstoppable, even back then.

For that matter, back then Sears was clearly "the leader" by a bunch of useless metrics. See how good that does them today.

FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.

Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".

Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.

Closest in retail right now is Walmart in pivoting from rapacious consumption of middle American communities it mined out and left high and dry, to an all out application of all/any technology to "me too" Amazon to grab a fraction of its market share, so they might eventually improve upon it.

While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch,  others are still considering it.

I don't think there's much point to be missed.

ULA (and its parents) and Arianne (and its parents) are in denial. They blame everyone but themselves. The truth is that they simply don't have what it takes to change the trajectory.
This point "Bruno is revisting reuse" should not be missed. (And the fact that vehicle strategy allows for it.)

But I'll grant you it does appear to be lost otherwise. Failure of leadership.

Quote
Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.

Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.
That's a bit harsh. Understandable given how passions run.

My point about those missions addresses the reality of continuity and how it resolves. What you're referring to is how history might read this post facto.

As to the end of the line, perhaps the european example might go like this: the struggling big little, or little big launcher gets rushed to phase out its existing big launcher. But the part that gets there first is a booster, while everything else faces cost overruns/delays and other dual launches on big launcher stretches out things past commercial viability. So little big enters service largely priced out of the market, being too small and/or too costly. So the little big is eventually cancelled, and the small launcher using the booster is only flown with slimmed down NSS payloads when needed. Industry around it atrophies and goes elsewhere on the globe, as volume providers are the only ones using such.

Keep this in mind, as it's the outcome you're referring to. Probably a variation for other American ones as a likely alternative.

Quote
Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.
Leadership won by challengers, yes.

Quote
Even ULA and Arianne's current  attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
Omits drenching influence of Shuttle as distraction. Heard deafeningly seconds after SX hinted at landing booster.

Quote
So clearly there is a leader, and there's reluctant followers.

BO, otoh, is an enthusiastic and maybe capable follower, but that's yet to be seen.
Europe side knows the economics cold, but has carefully calculated it's only course is to need to respond with a financial disaster.

American ones (save one) gradually consider/adapt/execute a means to intercept in a half decade to a decade.

Mind that while the current Falcon path is beginning to look secure,  Musk's  other vehicle company is about to risk augering in with a steep cash flow dive towards bankruptcy (again!)  while he distracts with showmanship after a major "ego-based restructuring" at the most delicate time (huge half million unit production shortfall).

Not the time/place I'd like to place any bets on outcomes.

FWIW, was physically present for the original Amazon pitch - "bookstore of the world". The dark side sell: "we'll know why they bought so well, that we'll be able to sell them on all consequential sales that follow". E.g. take the disruption and roll with it.

Retail was/is in denial. Because "it cannot be done".
Completely OT but I am curious. Hindsight is always 20/20 but at the time did (what became) Amazon stand out or was it Yet Another Web Retailer?
Short OT no more after please. When people were disappointed that Amazon didn't shift over to granting dividends or doing momentum in the stock market juicing its value, they decided to bad mouth it as a "mail order sales" company they were tricked into buying (circa 2003 or so). The funny thing was they kept on buying the stock, Bezos used this as a debt carry and financed retail expansion off of it, going wide into retailing (he got out of online auctions too). He then relentlessly accumulated market share til reaching tipping point a few years back.

Where they are not "traditional ecommerce" is in the exotic means they adapt to optimize gains/losses. Pooh poohed til recently.

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Back to SX/BO disruption - note that the leaders aren't now so much in saying "it cannot be done" as they are in effect saying "we cannot do it with what we are asked to do". Note the embedded appeal.
Indeed. People forget as a challenger you can choose your initial battleground, while an incumbent has to fight any (and all) positions. However if you want to take over you have to eventually occupy those as well.
Correct. All ULA knows that cold. Wish that many here did too.

Quote
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
While on this site I'm beginning to get the feeling that Europe is lost for having the backbone to continue to express long term commitment to grasp market share in space launch,  others are still considering it.
Can you unpack that a little? "Europe is lost" but at the same time committed to "grasp market share in space launch?"
Sure. Europe won't adapt to retain market share just retain marginal indigenous launch, thus "lost" to it and own industrial base.
It slips through their hands due to lack of competitive responds/base. Others not Europe haven't committed yet.

Quote
I note ULA does seem to be hampered by its parents treating it as a cash cow. To extend the metaphor a bit more if you keep choking the Goose that lays the golden eggs don't be too surprised if you end up with a dead goose on your hands. :(
"Crawl walk run." Vulcan BE4 / Centaur V / Booster Reuse? Keep in mind Bruno's penchant for rapidly moving development.

Quote
Your counting off long-lead science missions as some indication of "leadership" supports their denial.

Losing these missions would not be an indication that they lost leadership, it'll simply be the end of the road, the final symptom.

The fact remains if I do something you can't, and the customers we both pursue want that then like it or not I am in a leadership position WRT that thing.  If NASA wants a probe to go anywhere the first people they call probably won't be SX. Yes it's clear SX want to be leaders in all markets, but they are not there yet.
Exactly.

Quote
Quote from: meekGee
Leadership belongs to those that take charge of their destiny and actually lead.

Even ULA and Arianne's current  attempts at partial usability are clearly a reactive move - they never went there until SpaceX did.
That's a very fair point WRT to reuse. SX's discovery that engine TVC did not give sufficient control authority basically demonstrated that all proposals to retrofit stage recovery to existing stages were essentially rubbish.
Careful. Jim's still claiming just more props and it'll work. He may be right. BO thinks so to.

Quote
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.
Everyone wants to see Block 5.

SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.   

That's a leadership stance.
Aren't you confusing vision with leadership? I can have a vision of teleportation but has nothing to do with leadership in achieving it.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2017 09:40 PM by Space Ghost 1962 »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • Liked: 3091
  • Likes Given: 4416
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #306 on: 11/26/2017 09:32 PM »
...

The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.

Citation needed. 

Seriously doubt your assumption, stated as fact, is true.  They've certainly improved many features that make repeated reuse more possible.  Findings like the blade cracking have been fixed (or about to be). 
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7892
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4130
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #307 on: 11/26/2017 09:32 PM »

SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.   

That's a leadership stance.
Aren't you confusing vision with leadership? I can have a vision of teleportation but has nothing to do with leadership in achieving it.

No, they implemented the first two already, and are absolutely executing on a plan for the third.  Industry is reacting to the first two, and most of the old industry simply is unable to digest the third.

In contrast, how's your teleportation project going?  (Hoping for a surprise answer here...)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2549
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2526
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #308 on: 11/26/2017 09:51 PM »

SpaceX introduced a lot of new concepts - vertical business integration, reuse through propulsive landing of first stage, and of course the non-apologetic goal of settling Mars.   

That's a leadership stance.
Aren't you confusing vision with leadership? I can have a vision of teleportation but has nothing to do with leadership in achieving it.

No, they implemented the first two already, and are absolutely executing on a plan for the third.  Industry is reacting to the first two, and most of the old industry simply is unable to digest the third.
As clear as mud.  ???

Quote
In contrast, how's your teleportation project going?  (Hoping for a surprise answer here...)
Didn't you notice? I was standing right in front of you! Sheesh!

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6391
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 869
  • Likes Given: 5465
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #309 on: 11/27/2017 07:14 AM »

Citation needed. 

Seriously doubt your assumption, stated as fact, is true.  They've certainly improved many features that make repeated reuse more possible.  Findings like the blade cracking have been fixed (or about to be).
Improved reuse <> improved reliability of payload delivery. 

As a customer I don't care if SX gets its stage back.  I care it got the US to the right altitude, velocity and attitude for it to do its job and get my payload to its target orbit.

The fact no payload appears to have been lost due to blade cracking suggests there was adequate margin in the design to begin with. If you're planning to get to aircraft levels of reliability you'd then ask
"How does this compare with aircraft turbines? Do they have cracks? Do they have fewer?" If they have none then you'd find out what's causing them and either re-design them to eliminate them for Blk 5 and probably add it to the "Stuff to look out for" in the Raptor design process.

But the raw numbers are.

15+ F9 launched from the last one going bang.
80 Ariane 5 without a mishap despite being completely expendable.
60+ Atlas V without a mishap despite being completely expendable.

So I could put my payload on an F9 and have < 1 in 15 (6.66%) failure rate or put it on an Atlas (if I had to buy American) at <1.66% or if I could go anywhere go Ariane 5 at <1.25%.

If you can get an F9 launch at the sticker price of $63m and you've got insurance at the same rate as an Ariane or an Atlas (which is frankly amazing IMHO) then you've probably got yourself a bargain.

But if you've got a one-of-a-kind $Bn payload you're probably going to have a different perspective, even when building a 2nd payload is likely to be a lot cheaper the question is "Why risk the first one?"

 
"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: 9032
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5719
  • Likes Given: 3815
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #310 on: 11/27/2017 09:21 AM »
So much verbiate to wade through but I[1] am not convinced we are on topic, it seems like some wandering happened. Can we try to be a bit more focused?

1 - and the person who reported to mod...
"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

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1703
  • California
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 1879
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #311 on: 11/27/2017 11:24 AM »
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.

Citation needed. 

Seriously doubt your assumption, stated as fact, is true.  They've certainly improved many features that make repeated reuse more possible.  Findings like the blade cracking have been fixed (or about to be). 
Improved reuse <> improved reliability of payload delivery. 

As a customer I don't care if SX gets its stage back.  I care it got the US to the right altitude, velocity and attitude for it to do its job and get my payload to its target orbit.

Here's Gwen Shotwell telling you that you're wrong (from her speech at the 2016 FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference): 
Quote
[Talking about the first recovered booster] We did take that rocket, moved it over to SLC-40... And we fired her up, and actually we learned something about the rocket.  We went to full thrust on all engines, we did shut down early.  And now we will make our vehicle even more robust for the ascent portion.  It's the first time we've been able to bring hardware back.  And I think [of] almost anyone in the industry, with the exception obviously of Shuttle, where you bring your hardware back and you examine it and not only do you make it more robust so that you can fly to Mars and fly back.  But you make it more robust to drop your satellites off in orbit as well...But it's in full play here.  We're actually going to make some mods based on what we saw on that stage landing and firing again.

Start the video at 2h53m59s

Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2925
  • Liked: 1364
  • Likes Given: 906
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #312 on: 11/27/2017 01:22 PM »
...
A leader must address more than a subset of launch capabilities. Because you never know when that particular capability will be required. A leader cannot be just a niche provider.

And this is in part why FH and Dragon 2 are being done. To increase the spanning set of capabilities, as SX chooses to approach a leadership position. Their choice, not mine, not others.

It has taken a long time for others to establish a leadership position, as they have built and proven leadership. There list of accomplished missions, by scope and not frequency, is how others assess them.

JWST will launch on Ariane 5. It was designed with this in mind. Never will it launch on a FH. Why is that? Because of agreement to use a leadership provider who could bring off such a launch. Perhaps some day a similar mission might be able to be done on a FH, but the skills and experience and flight history isn't there, which is even more important than the vehicle capabilities to even make it possible.
...

Reliability and "leadership" are hardly the main reasons JWST is launching on Ariane 5. It's money. SpaceX wants to get paid to launch payloads. NASA wants to reduce the cost of the program. ESA wants time on JWST, and wants Arianespace to fly more. So it suits everyone's purposes for ESA to pay to fly it on Ariane 5.

Large interplanetary and large NSS launches (read: very expensive payloads) are a very small market segment that doesn't pay all that well compared to HSF support and commsats. The payloads/trajectories also aren't amenable to reuse. That's why they haven't been a major priority for SpaceX - they can get a bigger piece of the pie with other launches while making more progress with reuse. Thus the focus on other customers.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1583
  • Liked: 1819
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #313 on: 11/27/2017 03:15 PM »
A good deal of discussion has gone into the potential reliability increase from inspecting returned stages. This is hard to quantify.  However, there is another source of increased reliability from stages where re-use is planned.  This comes from the necessarily greater margins in such cases.

Even for a GTO recovery, there is a roughly 20 sec x 3 engine entry burn, followed by a 30 second, 1 engine landing burn.  That's 90 more seconds of engine operation, or 10 seconds for the full booster.  This is a huge margin by rocket standards and can help reliability by quite a bit.  (Assuming SpaceX uses this fuel for primary mission before using it for recovery.  I don't think this has been publicly stated, but I'd be shocked if this was not true.)  Here are some of the recent, first-stage, liquid engine anomalies, and whether the additional margin would have helped.

There was the Proton where the accelerometers were installed upside down.  Extra margin would not have helped here.

On the other hand, consider the recent Atlas fuel/oxidizer mixture problem.  This caused the engine to burn 5 seconds short.  Landing margins would have covered this with no need for the second stage to make up the deficit.

On the CRS-1 mission, one Merlin engine died.  If that happened again, the 10 seconds of reserve could surely cover this deficit.

On the Chinese CZ-5 mission, one of the core first-stage engines failed.  The other burned longer but could not compensate.  Again, the extra fuel (and the 9 engine design) of the Falcon-9 would still allow the first stage to achieve desired performance.

For the flaw that killed the Antares mission, extra margin might have helped.  The cause was thought to be an out-of-balance trubopump rotor.  This led to an explosion for likely two reasons - it's not clear the 1970s instrumentation could detect it in time before engine destruction, and even if it could there was no point in shutting down the engine, as with half thrust missing right after takeoff it was doomed.  A similar flaw, an out-of-balance rotor, would likely be detected in a modern engine, the engine shut down, and then the landing fuel used to provide the desired trajectory.

So based on 5 observed anomalies, the extra margin would allow Falcon-9 to still provide nominal performance in 3.5-4 cases.  That's a huge potential increase in reliability.  It also implies that expendable missions, even with the exact same rocket, are considerably less reliable than recoverable mission, since their margins for error are less.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 266
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #314 on: 11/27/2017 03:55 PM »
@LouScheffer:  In addition to the mission-specific increase in margins, you also get a margin increase because a reusable rocket is expected to address a more general market than does a dial-a-rocket.  This might not be so relevant with the biggest GTO launches where the rocket is near its performance limits, but it could be substantial additional margin factor on LEO flights.  For a majority of its flights, Falcon 9 Block 5 will have huge margins, as far as these things go.

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 214
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #315 on: 11/27/2017 04:35 PM »
The only thing SpaceX don't have that ULA and Ariane etc have, is the historical record of flight reliability, and the very heavy lift capability (although F9H should fix that if it works) .
Nope. Just one non-LEO, non-GTO mission. Not enough to earn the confidence Atlas/Ariane has in doing more capable missions yet.


I don't see it being about confidence. I think it's about certification. F9 and FH lacks the certification to consider them for certain missions especially in the case of NASA. How many non-LEO or non-GTO missions that F9 was certified for, but still lost after bidding?
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 05:44 PM by Negan »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12945
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3695
  • Likes Given: 634
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #316 on: 11/27/2017 06:09 PM »
Quote
even if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet

2017:
Atlas V = 6 launches
Arine 5 = 5 launches, 1 planned
Falcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
I would compare by payload mass orbited.  The result shows different leaders in different categories, at least for 2017 to date.  Ariane 5 leads in mass to GTO/beyond LEO (~48 tonnes to ~36 tonnes for Falcon 9, ~25 tonnes for Proton, and maybe only ~17 tonnes for Atlas 5 and ~16 tonnes for DF-5 based CZ).  Falcon 9 leads a bit in LEO mass (~59 tonnes compared to 52 tonnes for R-7 and ~11+ tonnes for Atlas 5).  For its part, R-7 has accounted for all three of the crewed launches this year, so there is a third category "leader", Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 being the other two.

No launches, worldwide, have gone beyond earth orbit this year to date, which might be considered a fourth category.  Atlas 5 and Proton accounted for the two heliocentric launches in 2016, and Proton's payload weighed more than the Atlas 5 payload.  If you aggregate the last 5 or 10 years, Atlas 5 leads in solar orbit launches.

Now, if this comparison is extended back a few years, a different picture emerges. Here are/were your "world leaders".

Category Leaders, Total Mass or No. Crew Launched

       LEO        >LEO        Solar   Crew
--------------------------------------------
2010   R7        Proton      H-2A      STS
2011   R7        Ariane 5    Atlas 5   STS
2012   R7        Ariane 5     -        R7
2013   R7        Ariane 5    Atlas 5   R7
2014   R7        Ariane 5    H-2A      R7
2015   R7        Ariane 5     -        R7
2016   R7        Ariane 5    Proton    R7
2017   Falcon 9  Ariane 5     -        R7
--------------------------------------------

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 07:17 PM by edkyle99 »

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • Liked: 380
  • Likes Given: 1247
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #317 on: 11/27/2017 07:51 PM »
I would compare by payload mass orbited.

I'd go with total kinetic energy delivered to payload. I think F9 wins that. Soyuz wins crew of course.

Online john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6391
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 869
  • Likes Given: 5465
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #318 on: 11/27/2017 08:20 PM »
Large interplanetary and large NSS launches (read: very expensive payloads) are a very small market segment that doesn't pay all that well compared to HSF support and commsats. The payloads/trajectories also aren't amenable to reuse. That's why they haven't been a major priority for SpaceX - they can get a bigger piece of the pie with other launches while making more progress with reuse. Thus the focus on other customers.
Funny you should say that.

Shotwell stated that NSS is a key market for any serious LV mfg because it's pretty large.

NSS is a small market in terms of launches but a big one in terms of value, and the customers (DoD, NRO) place a premium on their payloads not getting blown up.
"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 Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Liked: 417
  • Likes Given: 569
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #319 on: 11/27/2017 08:28 PM »
The problem is that so far the ability study recovered stages and identify exactly where the real wear and tear happens has not (so far) resulted in an increase in LV reliability.

But the raw numbers are.

15+ F9 launched from the last one going bang.
80 Ariane 5 without a mishap despite being completely expendable.
60+ Atlas V without a mishap despite being completely expendable.

I thought we already covered this?  The 1st stage is being recovered, whereas both F9 failures have been on the upper stage. Thus the two are decoupled. There's no way for 1st stage reuse to directly improve 2nd stage reliability.  Even if there was no 1st stage reuse, those 2 second stage failures likely would have still occurred.
Indirectly 1st stage reuse may increase 2nd stage reliability if advanced wear is found on common components.

So I don't see the "problem".  There's no evidence that reuse has made the vehicle less reliable while it continues to drive the technology forward, lower costs and increase market share.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 08:44 PM by Norm38 »

Tags: