Jump to content

Musk to Mars


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, fredinno said:

But then you'd be referring the a partial failure, and the 1st of them...

The current partial failure they would call an experiment, the loss of the ISS delivery was a failure, but the dragon test was a sucess. if its an experiment, its not a failure unless it failed to reach  the experimental/data gathering phase. They are a businees so at some point they are trying to make a profit and test at the same time, where as NASA and the soviets have the luxury of a money-maker at the backside. There are qualifications, so the current mission was three part, two sats and a landing, the landing suceeded in all but one respect, data was collected but not all that they hoped for, or more than they hoped for since science is somewhat insideous. We have to take it on Musks word that it was experimental, that one engine underperformed, so whatever data they were looking for the hard engine slam prolly compromised that in part. One thing they do know now, its not such a good idea retroing 3 rocket engines at 100% because ther are no margins for weakness, sonthats one thing they learned. CRS-7 was a midlaunch failure and a second failure because no return and no backup chute deployment to rescue the payload. But again they learned that such contingencies need to be programmed in. 

Im pretty OK with this level of failure for unmanned stuff, as long as the corperate attitude is we are still learning and testing new cheaper ways of doing things. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, PB666 said:

And they will have another piece of toast once OCISLY gets back.

 

True, and it provides them with a detailed structural analysis of how a rocket responds to ludicrous amounts of heat and gives them ideas on how to rebuild their rockets to better withstand reentry forces and deacceleration procedures. There's still the 1.3 Falcon 9 to develop after all.

13 hours ago, PB666 said:

Im pretty OK with this level of failure for unmanned stuff, as long as the corperate attitude is we are still learning and testing new cheaper ways of doing things. 

 

Well, the CRS 7 wouldn't have been a failure (in terms of 'darn it, there goes the payload) if they had the software patch installed by that point. Which would be perfectly fine for humans if that had happened to them. So, basically despite that SpaceX's launch history has been perfectly human-safe for the F9.

Edited by CptRichardson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CptRichardson said:

True, and it provides them with a detailed structural analysis of how a rocket responds to ludicrous amounts of heat and gives them ideas on how to rebuild their rockets to better withstand reentry forces and deacceleration procedures. There's still the 1.3 Falcon 9 to develop after all.

Well, the CRS 7 wouldn't have been a failure (in terms of 'darn it, there goes the payload) if they had the software patch installed by that point. Which would be perfectly fine for humans if that had happened to them. So, basically despite that SpaceX's launch history has been perfectly human-safe for the F9.

Agreed. Just growing pains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/6/2016 at 11:27 PM, fredinno said:

Big Dumb Booster actually had high reliability. It was "dumb" for using low-tech, simpler solutions to rocketry, like pressure-fed engines.

Yes, but they weren't going for a 100%, not like the delta IV or the arianne 5. And the falcon9 had a philosophy of being extremely simple (until the remade it for reusability), just the turbo-pumps and other elements with the current manufacturing tech aren't that difficult and expensive to do, so it could be added.

On 16/6/2016 at 11:28 PM, PB666 said:

The last failure for SpaceX was a contract failure do to inability to reach targeted velocity before circularization, falling below the safety of dV required to dock with ISS.

I didn't say about the reability of the falcon9, just that the numbers doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kunok said:

I didn't say about the reliability of the falcon9, just that the numbers doesn't make sense.

Falcon9 numbers make sense if they are the primary product of a growth company in a growth industry. At some point the operation will have to become more efficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Falcon9 numbers make sense if they are the primary product of a growth company in a growth industry. At some point the operation will have to become more efficient.

I was talking about the @Kerbart numbers, not the spaceX numbers (no ofense, kerbart)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kunok said:

I was talking about the @Kerbart numbers, not the spaceX numbers (no ofense, kerbart)

Why not, im sure that comsats now are a production item, if the cost is much lower than a ULA launch its an extremely good decision, SX just sent up two on one 70 million dollar luach so thats 35 mil each. not bad. 

Orbcomm is writing off $12 million dollars for each satellite loss, so  they can really afford losses on F9 at the rate of 2 in 25 launches if the launch cost is reduced by 2/3rds. There may be times that a sat company may choose to launch a dozen sats on ULA, either because of its payload or because of booking issues with competitors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

The numbers I purely mentioned as a fictional calculation example? Those numbers?

I know that numbers are a pure fictional example, but people read this numbers and keep saying the 10x reduction like it's real, without understanding that is merely an example. I'm explaining very bad... I'm not a native english speaker, and today i have a hangover big as hell

39 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Why not, im sure that comsats now are a production item, if the cost is much lower than a ULA launch its an extremely good decision, SX just sent up two on one 70 million dollar luach so thats 35 mil each. not bad. 

Orbcomm is writing off $12 million dollars for each satellite loss, so  they can really afford losses on F9 at the rate of 2 in 25 launches if the launch cost is reduced by 2/3rds. There may be times that a sat company may choose to launch a dozen sats on ULA, either because of its payload or because of booking issues with competitors. 

I was just complaining to the numbers, I agree with the general idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-06-17 at 9:03 AM, CptRichardson said:

True, and it provides them with a detailed structural analysis of how a rocket responds to ludicrous amounts of heat and gives them ideas on how to rebuild their rockets to better withstand reentry forces and deacceleration procedures. There's still the 1.3 Falcon 9 to develop after all.

Well, the CRS 7 wouldn't have been a failure (in terms of 'darn it, there goes the payload) if they had the software patch installed by that point. Which would be perfectly fine for humans if that had happened to them. So, basically despite that SpaceX's launch history has been perfectly human-safe for the F9.

No, the mission would still have been a failure- it delivered 0 cargo to the ISS. If a manned mission fails in its goal, but manages to abort, is it successful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

Also, do you have a source for the 1.3 Falcon 9?

7 hours ago, kunok said:

Yes, but they weren't going for a 100%, not like the delta IV or the arianne 5. And the falcon9 had a philosophy of being extremely simple (until the remade it for reusability), just the turbo-pumps and other elements with the current manufacturing tech aren't that difficult and expensive to do, so it could be added.

I didn't say about the reability of the falcon9, just that the numbers doesn't make sense.

It wasn't really a "big dumb booster", more a mix. 969909921_d2497bc50f.jpg

6 hours ago, PB666 said:

Why not, im sure that comsats now are a production item, if the cost is much lower than a ULA launch its an extremely good decision, SX just sent up two on one 70 million dollar luach so thats 35 mil each. not bad. 

Orbcomm is writing off $12 million dollars for each satellite loss, so  they can really afford losses on F9 at the rate of 2 in 25 launches if the launch cost is reduced by 2/3rds. There may be times that a sat company may choose to launch a dozen sats on ULA, either because of its payload or because of booking issues with competitors. 

But those satellites aren't relavent, since each is ~200kg and even clustered for a single launch, are vastly undersized for F9.

The real ones of relavence are GEO sats, which are still more expensive than ULA sats, and are not going to get any cheaper (in fact, quite the opposite- they are getting bigger and more expensive... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fredinno said:

No, the mission would still have been a failure- it delivered 0 cargo to the ISS. If a manned mission fails in its goal, but manages to abort, is it successful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

Also, do you have a source for the 1.3 Falcon 9?

It wasn't really a "big dumb booster", more a mix. 969909921_d2497bc50f.jpg

But those satellites aren't relavent, since each is ~200kg and even clustered for a single launch, are vastly undersized for F9.

The real ones of relavence are GEO sats, which are still more expensive than ULA sats, and are not going to get any cheaper (in fact, quite the opposite- they are getting bigger and more expensive... :P

Still not 700 mil to GSO on a F9-launch costs so as long as F9 can GTO it and the sat can circukarize you are still way better off on an F9. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PB666 said:

Still not 700 mil to GSO on a F9-launch costs so as long as F9 can GTO it and the sat can circukarize you are still way better off on an F9. 

UNless it's too big fr reuse, or too small for a F9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

UNless it's too big fr reuse, or too small for a F9.

Lame. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_702

1700 to 3000 kg. From the wiki, and i expect this to satisfy your squirm. 

On June 1, 2015, it was announced that ABS was so happy with the performance of ABS-3A, even before it reached its operative orbit, that they decided to order a new 702SP, ABS-8, to be launched by late 2017. When launched on a Falcon 9, the total investment was so low that it would be profitable even if they do not find another satellite to pair it for the launch.[19]The failure to renew the charter of the Ex-Im Bank during 2015 meant that it couldn't finance the operation. As such, the order was not finalized, but Boeing and ABS were still in talk for possible options.[20]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSL_1300

Those are the platforms for the latest launch. The second of which The platform for the Eutelsat 117 West B satellite is also the platform for the most powerful broadband satelliete currently in operation. 5500 to 6000 kg mass.

 

Edited by PB666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PB666 said:

Why not, im sure that comsats now are a production item, if the cost is much lower than a ULA launch its an extremely good decision, SX just sent up two on one 70 million dollar luach so thats 35 mil each. not bad. 

Typical GTO comsats cost between $250 - 500 million. The Orbcomm birds are much cheaper and smaller and not really representative of the global comsat market at this point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Typical GTO comsats cost between $250 - 500 million. The Orbcomm birds are much cheaper and smaller and not really representative of the global comsat market at this point.

 

 

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Typical GTO comsats cost between $250 - 500 million. The Orbcomm birds are much cheaper and smaller and not really representative of the global comsat market at this point.

 

See above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Typical GTO comsats cost between $250 - 500 million. The Orbcomm birds are much cheaper and smaller and not really representative of the global comsat market at this point.

 

The last launch was two typical comsat birds, not Orbcom. So, yeah. If that $250-$500 mil figure is only for the LV, then SpaceX just blew that out of the water so hard that price escaped the solar system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

did you hear what Musk called it? he called it a Rapid Unplanned Disassembly!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D

Where do you think the KSP community got the phrase from? We borrowed it from the real world, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KSK said:

Where do you think the KSP community got the phrase from? We borrowed it from the real world, not the other way around.

I wish people would use the search function before they posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...