Rakaydos Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 11 minutes ago, tater said: They've said 10-20, and I think they actually regard the real number as possibly much higher from things I have read. Sure, but I think we've already established that SpaceX SHOULD be charging whatever the market will bear for every (paid) launch, so there ought to be a tidy profit margin off those first 20-odd a year. If they run off another 10-20 upperstages at the same time they do the first 30, and produce more Dragons for in-house use, Elon can run his private space program for effectively peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 9 hours ago, KSK said: *dons Captain Obvious hat* I guess it depends whether it would be cheaper to use a Falcon Heavy in reusable configuration to lift 20 ton payloads. Which, in turn, depends on how reusable Falcon Heavy actually is and how much of a saving reusability actually gives them. My gut feeling is that Falcon (expendable) would probably be cheaper than Falcon Heavy (reusable) for a 20-23 payload but then my gut knows exactly diddly-squat about rocket science. *doffs Captain Obvious hat* Also depend on how long they will reuse one stage, it might well be cheaper to use an old first stage who would need serious maintenance for more use rather than an FH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 When is the next launch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewas Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ The next one is Thaicomm 8, currently schedules for may 26th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 On 5/14/2016 at 9:57 AM, Motokid600 said: "fully expendable configuration," That reminds me I've been meaning to ask. Will the Falcon 9 ever fly fully expendable again? Will likely be required for some NASA or DoD high-energy mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 18 hours ago, andrewas said: https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ The next one is Thaicomm 8, currently schedules for may 26th. According to SpaceXStats it's on the 27th... https://spacexstats.com/missions/thaicom-8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 The ETR doesn't reopen until the 27th, so it can't be earlier than the 27th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, DarthVader said: The ETR doesn't reopen until the 27th, so it can't be earlier than the 27th What's ETR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Eastern Test Range Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 3 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said: According to SpaceXStats it's on the 27th... https://spacexstats.com/missions/thaicom-8 spacexstats converts times and dates into your local time zone. Since there's no time, just a date, it's probably assumed the launch will happen at 12:00 am on that day, UTC. For me, it comes up with the 26th. After mousing over the date, I selected UTC, and it showed the 27th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, Robotengineer said: Yes it is, Elon! So start kicking those Falcons out of the nest already so they can fly again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Two out of those three have already been written off as not flying again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 I know one is scheduled for display at Hawthorne, but what rules out the other? Or are you just guessing because of the stresses from the hotter/faster landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, Wingman703 said: I know one is scheduled for display at Hawthorne, but what rules out the other? Or are you just guessing because of the stresses from the hotter/faster landing? What he said. @sojourner, where'd you about the second disqualified booster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) After hearing about that in this thread, I found this: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/spacex/2016/05/16/landed-spacex-rocket-suffered-max-damage/84454230/ Edited May 17, 2016 by StrandedonEarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: After hearing about that in this thread, I found this: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/spacex/2016/05/16/landed-spacex-rocket-suffered-max-damage/84454230/ "Now we know what kind of conditions to expect, I want the Falcon Heavy core to be able to survive twice as much." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Will sound silly, but what conditions except speed and temperature they should expect - and what except the construction thickening can they undertake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 9 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: spacexstats converts times and dates into your local time zone. Since there's no time, just a date, it's probably assumed the launch will happen at 12:00 am on that day, UTC. For me, it comes up with the 26th. After mousing over the date, I selected UTC, and it showed the 27th. Yea my time zone is CET, so it's 27th for me Is there any more information on the 2018 mars mission? The only info I found was from 2 weeks ago when the tweet actually came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Well, that article surmises (not reports) that the booster "may" not be in shape to fly again. That's not really confirming anything at all. The relevant thread on r/SpaceX has over three hundred posts in it, and so it's difficult to get a good overview, but so far I've not seen any confirmation there either. Even EchoLogic, who's very obviously in cahoots with various insiders in the company, is just speculating. I do like the top comment by u/BridgesOfKoniksberg in there though, so I recommend everyone to check it out here. Gives some background on what the heck a "life leader" actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 Another question. For small payloads, eg cubesats, wouldn't it be cheaper to have them as primary payloads on an upgraded falcon 1 (merlin 1d+ engine instead of merlin 1c for example), instead of having them as secondary payloads in the falcon 9? I imagine it would also be better for the satellite producers since they would not have to wait until the big primary payload is finished to launch on a falcon 9 months or even years away, instead they could expect a sooner launch of just a month or 2 of waiting time. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 There are dozens of "new space" operators lining up to cater for the small sat launch business. There hasn't been much of a market for it, which is why SpaceX abandoned the Falcon 1 in the first place. Cubesat operators typically don't have money, so are they are not really a viable market. They would rather to wait for a free/cheap ride with another payload than pay for their own rocket. There is no indication that a Falcon 1 would be cheaper than a piggyback ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said: Another question. For small payloads, eg cubesats, wouldn't it be cheaper to have them as primary payloads on an upgraded falcon 1 (merlin 1d+ engine instead of merlin 1c for example), instead of having them as secondary payloads in the falcon 9? I imagine it would also be better for the satellite producers since they would not have to wait until the big primary payload is finished to launch on a falcon 9 months or even years away, instead they could expect a sooner launch of just a month or 2 of waiting time. Any thoughts? There are economies of scale with rockets. Larger launchers generally post significantly better $-per-kg-to-orbit figures. Examples: - Vector Space Systems plans to offer 25kg to sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) for $2 million with their yet unnamed, dedicated "microsat launcher". - Rocket Lab is offering their Electron rocket for $5 million, and it's rated to loft 150kg to SSO. Now, there are many different SSO's, and Vector Space Systems didn't really specify which one they meant, but based on the payload-to-LEO drop of their vehicle comparted to that of the Electron, it's highly likely that both companies are advertising the same 574 km low-altitude SSO here. - The Falcon 9 is advertised with 'up to 5.5 metric tons to GTO' (not current capabilities, but the capability you get when you buy a launch today) for $62 million, rocket only. The launch campaign itself costs another 40% to 50% on top of that, so let's say $90 million total. In this case, you pay: - $80,000 per kg to low SSO with Vector's tiny rocket - $33,333 per kg to low SSO with the somewhat larger Electron - $16,363 per kg to GTO with the much larger Falcon 9 - and geostationary transfer is a much more demanding destination than the low altitude SSO the other two companies advertise. To that same orbit, I would speculate that the F9 would be down to four digits. So even 'classical' large launchers that aren't as aggressively cheap as the F9 will still beat the Electron in price every time. This also assumes that the two smaller companies are quoting the entire launch (vehicle + campaign), and not just the vehicle. If they quoted vehicle only, the balance would shift even more towards larger rockets. The only reason the smallsat launch providers still think they can make money is because ridesharing on large rockets is inherently problematic - you may have to wait for years to find a rocket that goes where you want to go. Some small satellite customers have said they are willing to pay a bit extra for dedicated launches that go when they want, where they want. 1 hour ago, Nibb31 said: There are dozens of "new space" operators lining up to cater for the small sat launch business. There hasn't been much of a market for it, which is why SpaceX abandoned the Falcon 1 in the first place. Rocket Lab "has already secured commitments for at least the first 30 launches" of the Electron, according to this article. Even if that's just expressions of interest and not sales, that's fairly impressive for a rocket that has never flown, targeting a market that doesn't exist... (As far as sales go, last I read there are a minimum of seven paid flights on the manifest, but unfortunately I don't remember where I read it, sorry. It was months ago.) Edited May 17, 2016 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 @Streetwind Ah I see your point. Still, I would like to see SoaceX do back to their roots... Well ultimately money is everything, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 17, 2016 Share Posted May 17, 2016 7 hours ago, Rakaydos said: "Now we know what kind of conditions to expect, I want the Falcon Heavy core to be able to survive twice as much." They may plan on the FH core to carry a larger reserve propellant budget so it can brake heavily in boostback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts