Jump to content



Photo

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon


457 replies to this topic

#376 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 16 July 2014 - 18:48

Colorado congressmen. ULA is headquartered in Colorado. Imagine that :whistle:

 

BTW:

these morons want financial and launch issues data on Falcon 9 because taxpayers paid for it.

Problems,

1) the GAO already published a review of Falcon 9 v1.0's development costs and ruled it cost about 1/3 as much as normal development.

2) both Falcon.9 v1.0 and v1.1 were developed on SpaceX's dime, no taxpayer funding. Whatever testing facilities and technical assistance they got from the NASA centers they paid for.

3) what about the Atlas V and Delta IV stand-downs due to problems with the Centaur upper stage? Etc. They WERE taxpayer funded.

Only living fool here is Musk: he launched war against ula w/ Just demo rocket on his own hands. Now, he's doomed to face perfect storm at financial & media level. + in fact, the're many dimies from gov. to SpX. ;)




#377 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,101 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 16 July 2014 - 18:59

Only living fool here is Musk: he launched war against ula w/ Just demo rocket on his own hands. Now, he's doomed to face perfect storm at financial & media level. + in fact, the're many dimies from gov. to SpX. ;)

 

Would that be the same "demo" rocket that's been taking satellites and supplies to the ISS for the past year or two?

 

At least when Musk launches a "demo", it doesn't turn turtle and smash back into the ground, destroying millions of dollars of irreplaceable satellite.



#378 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 16 July 2014 - 19:06

Would that be the same demo rocket that's been taking satellites and supplies to ISS for the past year or two?

yes, it is :) nobody cares it can deliver sats on orbits -- everyone cares how pricey it. Musk has claimed the lowest cost thanks to reusability, but his scheme has left Just paper tiger.



#379 watkinsx2

watkinsx2

    Neowinian

  • 342 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 01
  • Location: Hertfordshire
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: HTC One/Lumia 920

Posted 16 July 2014 - 19:47

yes, it is :) nobody cares it can deliver sats on orbits -- everyone cares how pricey it. Musk has claimed the lowest cost thanks to reusability, but his scheme has left Just paper tiger.

 

Can you please show me a cheaper rocket per tonne of payload to orbit, in words that I can understand, using independently verifiable sources? If SpaceX's launch costs are more than they claim, why aren't ULA disputing them? Cheaper access to space benefits everyone.



#380 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 July 2014 - 21:42

ORBCOMM is paying about $42.5 million for TWO launches. They were originally manifested for Falcon 1e then moved to Falcon 9 when F1e was discontinued. At the time there wasn't a major small satellite market. That changed as tech improved. FireFly and others will fill that market slot, but SpaceX made good for their customer, and other potential customers noticed.

#381 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 16 July 2014 - 21:48

Can you please show me a cheaper rocket per tonne of payload to orbit, in words that I can understand, using independently verifiable sources? If SpaceX's launch costs are more than they claim, why aren't ULA disputing them? Cheaper access to space benefits everyone.

iirc, Musk claimed $27 mln per launch, now it's at 56 & it looks no like final cost. if about lowest price:

 

In a study of 16 launchers, the Zenit-2 was, as of March 18, 2001, the lowest cost vehicle for achieving LEO in terms of payload weight per launch ($1,167-1,667 per pound or 2,567-3,667 per kg), and one of the lowest in terms of total costs per launch ($35–$50 million)
 
http://en.wikipedia....(rocket_family)


ORBCOMM is paying about $42.5 million for TWO launches. They were originally manifested for Falcon 1e then moved to Falcon 9 when F1e was discontinued. At the time there wasn't a major small satellite market. That changed as tech improved. FireFly and others will fill that market slot, but SpaceX made good for their customer, and other potential customers noticed. And they'll likely still make money since an F9 only costs them about $30m to build.

if no top secret, you're saying about reusable mode? :)



#382 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 July 2014 - 21:58

Zenit 2 is cheap because it's so unreliable they had to offer low prices to sell any.

Launches: 36
Failures: 8 (7 total, 1 partial)
Failure rate: 22.2%

Typical failure rate: 2-3%

And there is also the downside of launching at Baikonur (limited inclinations).

Falcon 9 is batting 100%, and can fly to any orbit (more sites) with more mass.

Low cost of manufacture + reusability would drastically lower launch costs, possibly to <$10m. That said, even without it SpaceX makes a good profit.

#383 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 16 July 2014 - 22:22

Zenit 2 is cheap because it's so unreliable they had to offer low prices to sell any.

Launches: 36
Failures: 8 (7 total, 1 partial)
Failure rate: 22.2%

Typical failure rate: 2-3%

And there is also the downside of launching at Baikonur (limited inclinations).

Falcon 9 is batting 100%, and can fly to any orbit (more sites) with more mass.

Low cost of manufacture + reusability would drastically lower launch costs, possibly to <$10m. That said, even without it SpaceX makes a good profit.

in fact, bad reliability only boosts prices ahead. about reusability: no the least example was introduced to back such optimistic claims. i said you many times: Musk's scheme to flyback has no solid methods to estimate needful propellant. fuel consumption gets affected by hella dozen of low predictable causes. hardware malfunctions & Atmospheric conditions make stage free falling at "last mile". even if free falling is about 1 meter, stage could be severe damaged w/ impact on surface.



#384 Andrew

Andrew

    Guardian

  • 25,382 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 17 July 2014 - 16:04

Topic cleaned

 

Drop the Russia vs US hostility.

 

The amount of posts I have had to hide in this topic is unacceptable. Any more issues from this topic and it will be closed immediately.



#385 Beittil

Beittil

    Neowinian

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 13

Posted 27 July 2014 - 21:40

@Rand_Simberg: @FLspacereport Talked to Gwynne yesterday and she confirmed that they're working permission on flyback, but next landing will be on a barge.

#386 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 27 July 2014 - 22:06

Most likely a jack-up barge or semi-submersible ship. The next landing mission Dragon CRS-4 to ISS, tentatively in September.

#387 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 28 July 2014 - 07:40

@Rand_Simberg: @FLspacereport Talked to Gwynne yesterday and she confirmed that they're working permission on flyback, but next landing will be on a barge.


Here's more of the above conversation with Shotwell,

Rand Simberg ‏@Rand_Simberg 8 h
@JustIncidentals No more water landings. And Spaceport America has cost more and taken longer than expected. @flspacereport @spacecom



#388 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 28 July 2014 - 21:11

Most likely a jack-up barge or semi-submersible ship. The next landing mission Dragon CRS-4 to ISS, tentatively in September.

funny as they come. Recently, you did downgrade such scheme as absurd. i would share more & much more nicey solutions, but now i'd like just to watch: it gonna be funny-bunny :)



#389 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 July 2014 - 01:26

Only a few experimental barge landings to prove accuracy to the FAA, not operational. They'll land on islands or the coast if at all possible.

At Vandenberg they'll be using land near their existing SLC-4E facility for F9R and Falcon Heavy booster core landings. Should have enough room for 2 landing pads.

One possibility discussed by outsiders for Falcon Heavy center cores, which go further downrange, is San Nicholas Island in the California Channel Islands - 120 miles South of Vandenberg. San Nicholas is part of the Pacific Missile Range so it has radar, telemetry etc. and it has been used for research launches. Perfect.

At KSC rumors are they'll take over Launch Complex 13 (LC-13) for landings. They may also use another vertical landing pad KSC is planning for its extreme North end well past LC-39B near the coast.

Boca Chica will have its own landing facilities.

BFR facilities will also need landing zones, and be remote. Probably 20 miles from anywhere.

#390 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 July 2014 - 03:26

Update:

NASASpaceFlight is now confirming that SpaceX Vandenberg F9R and FHR (Falcon Heavy Reusable) booster landings will be at Space Launch Complex 4W (SLC-4W - next or their existing pad), and that they will also use KSC Launch Complex 13 (LC-13) for landings.

They also report FHR center cores at Vandenber are expected to be on an island, likely one of California's Channel Islands. Again, one of the more likely candidates is San Nicholas Island.