kerbiloid Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Also heavy infrastructure required for hypothetical ITS could be in fact purposed for more close aims than hypothetical Mars colonization. (Makes a notice in a handbook: watch Moonraker again.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylon Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 Let's say Bigelow want to launch a space hotel, with a module bigger than the BA 2100. Could that be an inscentive to speed up development of the ITS booster? Another thing, what does the 300t reusable price mean? Does that include the ship as well? Or just the booster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Prices generally are for payload to orbit; how it gets there is the launch provider's job to figure out. The more interesting question is: will SpaceX design a purely propulsive stage 2 with a generic cargo adapter, so the system can be used for other things than to launch the ITS spacecraft? Because if no, then the price is more of an internal reference point anyway. Something like "it costs us this much to launch our own rocket for our own purposes". Though if you wanted to lease an ITS spacecraft for on-orbit operations, I'm sure SpaceX will be willing to offer you a deal. However, that deal would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and cost more than just the launch itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Streetwind said: Prices generally are for payload to orbit; how it gets there is the launch provider's job to figure out. The more interesting question is: will SpaceX design a purely propulsive stage 2 with a generic cargo adapter, so the system can be used for other things than to launch the ITS spacecraft? Because if no, then the price is more of an internal reference point anyway. Something like "it costs us this much to launch our own rocket for our own purposes". Though if you wanted to lease an ITS spacecraft for on-orbit operations, I'm sure SpaceX will be willing to offer you a deal. However, that deal would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and cost more than just the launch itself. More likely they will make an cargo version with just an large cargo hold. It will reenter on the side, think space shuttle with no wings so using an fairing will mess up this. Main issue I see is that ITS is a bit of an overkill for most uses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSE Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 10 hours ago, sojourner said: The customers don't care about the fate of the first stage once the second stage has separated. @blowfish has it right: as a customer riding on a re-flown booster, you care about the handling during the turnaround before your flight; we've already seen that changes to refuelling processes can put the payload at risk on a proven version of the booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 4 hours ago, CSE said: @blowfish has it right: as a customer riding on a re-flown booster, you care about the handling during the turnaround before your flight; we've already seen that changes to refuelling processes can put the payload at risk on a proven version of the booster. Except that those changes are for both new and used flights, and a new booster exploded. And while the [uncrewed] payload might be at risk, it certainly looks like the army of technicians needed are not (or at least much less at risk). This seems to be the type of change you make if you plan on having a launch cadence like spacex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, wumpus said: Except that those changes are for both new and used flights, and a new booster exploded. Both F9 failures were the second stage, never the booster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, tater said: Both F9 failures were the second stage, never the booster. Obviously that was new as well. I was annoyed at the claim that fueling used boosters (early) was somehow more dangerous. I don't recall there being much left of the booster in either failure (although for in the one in question, I think the cargo wasn't destroyed until the second stage could no longer support it and it crashed into the pad/fire). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbinorbiter Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Falcon 9 will launch tomorrow and the 25th GO TEAM ELON!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 14 minutes ago, wumpus said: Obviously that was new as well. I was annoyed at the claim that fueling used boosters (early) was somehow more dangerous. I don't recall there being much left of the booster in either failure (although for in the one in question, I think the cargo wasn't destroyed until the second stage could no longer support it and it crashed into the pad/fire). I was merely pointing out a factual issue, the 1st stages have not yet failed for Falcon 9, used/"flight-proven" or not. I agree that used boosters have not shown themselves to be more dangerous (they've test fired them, even if not flown, after all!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 SpaceX posted a link to this video (montage of various launches with music): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylon Posted June 22, 2017 Author Share Posted June 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, tater said: SpaceX posted a link to this video (montage of various launches with music): Thanks for posting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 The Space Show interviewed Shotwell today: (highlights taken from NSF post) "Looking at the utility of it [Raptor] on Falcon" Still doing in-flight abort test between DM1 and DM2, all three scheduled first half of next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) Launch at 2:10 pm local time, FL (a little over 5 hours from now). Launch moved to middle of window at 3:10 FL time. Edited June 23, 2017 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Kerman Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 21 hours ago, tater said: I was merely pointing out a factual issue, the 1st stages have not yet failed for Falcon 9, used/"flight-proven" or not. I agree that used boosters have not shown themselves to be more dangerous (they've test fired them, even if not flown, after all!). They flew a used booster once before, CRS 11 if I remember correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, Brent Kerman said: They flew a used booster once before, CRS 11 if I remember correctly. SES-10 actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) Can we get the hype train going? Edited June 23, 2017 by Spaceception Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpens Solidus Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 39 minutes ago, Spaceception said: Can we get the hype train going? If it gets bumped, it's my fault. Once again I have the day off. Stupid broken tooth. Stupid dentist. Would rather go out & catch the booster bare handed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Spoiler 38 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Stupid broken tooth. That's why they put teeth protectors before giving full throttle - in Expanse season 1. (Though later they forgot about that detail and fly unprotected) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour 6 minutes to launch. Hype intensifies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 KSP music at the beginning of the stream Let's hope it will be a good omen - not a sign of impending explosions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, tater said: Well thats interesting, I wonder why? Mission profile, or a deliberate test to push the envelope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.