fredinno

What's THAT supposed to mean?

So, basically a giant RP?

That's too ridiculous. I know @ChrisSpace. IN any case, would you like to become a part of this team?

I wonder if F9H will ever be able to do Ariane-6 esque dual launch...? This. Inclinations are a pain in the ass. GEO sats all tend to go to one. Not the case for LEO, or MEO.

The Soviets were freaking madmen. Why is VTOL bad? IN any case, we don't even have a Concorde 2.0. I wonder why. Was noone using it? Trump? JK, don't kill me plz But VASMIR IS worthwhile, just as a conventional ION drive would.... what IS SCP ANYWAYS Hitler might have funded it. Or do the Nintendo Strategy and go to the stock market and invest. What else would they do with some $5 Billion they don't know what to do with? IN the EU, you would lose money by investing in the Central bank.... Or donate the $$$. Also, relavent It's government stimulus in action

HEy, FINALLY, I'M BACK! Kind of. Let's start working. What was I to start on ChrisSpace?

No, it IS a problem. That multi-satellite Oorbocomm launch was only 1.2T in payload. And LEO/MEO sats can rarely be dual launched, since they generally go into different orbits. Unless they are in a consteallation of smallsats, but that generally isn't the case.

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities No, SpaceX sells F9 for $62 million. Thus, the satellite, if it is $250 million, the satellite costs 4X the launch cost. For the biggest satellites, you would use a FH rocket... which should also let you launch directly into GEO, meaning a longer satellite lifetime/margin fuel. For smaller satellites (mainly 8-10T to LEO class), I would say use a F5 FT. If it existed. If SpaceX used modular F5s instead...

FUel is a miniscule portion of launch costs. By that logic, they should be launching and building near an aluminum mine. DeepWater already started again in the gulf a long time ago. For example, the Jack oil field is starting to pump oil. Only problem is cost is too low to fund more oil wells right now. Hell, I'd argue it's a lot more alive than the Canadian Arctic Island oil right now. I'm calling it, in 15 years, we'll see people drilling around Greenland's waters and into the greenlandic ice sheet. Along with offshore Arctic, and European Shale. IN any case, SpaceX funding an offshore LNG project makes more sense. If BFR is sea-launched, (even just on a platform, which would make sense, since BFR would generate insane amounts of noise that would likely require building an entire lagoon just to launch without dealing with people sueing them for breaking Grandma's eardrums. Sure, but if I was Elon, I would just launch everything going polar or retrograde (which is also impossible from Brownsville or Cape, and there ARE a few DOD retrograde orbit Satellites) from Vandenberg- in case Trump is elected... I don't think Mexico would be very happy giving the US gov a $10 Billion check... One question tho, is it possible that all the cape pads would be moved to Brownsville in the near future- if BFR isn't using LC-39A, it's really way too expensive to run on the long term, unless SLS is also capable of using it (would have been possible if the Blue Origin/ULA alliance proposal went through instead of FH) not to mention SpaceX didn't pretty much rebuild LC-39A like NASA did with LC-39B. Something tells me they aren't planning on using it for long, and will move operations away from LC-39A, and it's more just an "intrem" between the Brownsville pads to relieve LC-40. Would it be worth it for SpaceX to cancel their NASA rent contract early, and how much would that cost? (I think the rent was to 2040 or something...) Maybe OrbitalATK's "Liberty 2.0" EELV could use LC-39A with it also being used as a SLS backup pad- they both use Shuttle SRB-derived booster stages, and possibly "Liberty 2.0" would just use the SLS rocket carrier and structure- meaning minimal modifications. Not to mention Orbital doesn't have any pads that can host that rocket right now. The very low development cost and dual use might be enough to offset the higher cost using such a huge pad... But SpaceX going into oil/Gas is stupid, really. Not 100% of F9s are vertical integrated, and SpaceX has no experience in the energy sector anyways (why would it?) Not to mention it would save bat sh*t. It would be better for SpaceX to fund Keystone XL or some other Oil/Gas project- though that could bite them in the rear later by Telsa cars being less economical.... Honestly, SpaceX could just truck in LNG, or have a small CNG pipeline built. It's not like NASA or ULA has Hydrogen pipelines to their pads... It is. And F9 apparently. Why not? Isn't there a huge amount of refineries @ the gulf, and that old Atlantic LNG import terminal?

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

ExoMars had technical problems, not financial ones. http://spacenews.com/q-a-european-russian-space-agencies-delay-2nd-exomars-mission-to-2020/ Also, wouldn't making major cuts by one country anger the others, or how does that work? Well, the columbia disaster didn't result in the same bump, and the program was canned by 2 years anyways. Neither did Curiosity PR. What would they use an engine like that for, aside from a Skylon-esque system.? Source? Also, the Japanese space budget was low, even before that tsunami... Well, there was money to be made on the Americas. Not so much on the Moon. For the forseeable future. Also, the governments still have their own space programs... NASA and ESA aren't using off-the-shelf tech. Planetary exploration is pretty far from "off the shelf", and their primary directives are generally research. So not really. China's major space investment right now is mainly military, not civil. And they bought the buran wreakage? Why, for a museum? Also, source?

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. 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...

I know that, it's not "commerical" tho, either. Generally, anything NASA contracts out by its design is "done internally". And they have a bunch of other modern X-planes, some are classified tho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-56

I don't get it? Capabilities increasing?

But it's not in a stable orbit. If the prize is delayed (not unlikely), the entire spacecrafts must be redesigned, and a new LV bought. Also, hypersonic would work, but it's still not easy, and we don't even have a Concorde 2.0 anyways. What would be the point, there doesn't seem to be a real demand. Well, NASA has to always file a report explaining why there was no competition for that contract if there is no competition for an SLS contract. So, they aren't truely failing.

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

http://spacenews.com/bezos-suggests-nasa-pursue-prizes-and-gigantic-technology-programs/ I think a lot of people here have similar sentiments, but let's not forget that space prizes have a spotty history- Bigelow's Space Crew Transportation prize fell flat, the Google Lunar X-Prize has constantly been delayed, and a similar prize is unlikely to be repeated. Honestly, a more "CCdev" solution is probably better (Bezos apparently didn't like it tho, they felt NASA had too much involvement in it), with there being less of a prize, than a contract for spacecraft based off that design. This would likely limit that program to Orbiters (and possibly asteroid sample return missions/ asteroid probes in general, since asteroids and comets have huge amounts of variety, and a similar design can be used for each.) More specialized things like Mars Sample Return, and rovers could then instead be placed into NASA's Discovery, New Frontiers, and Flagship Programs- thus, allowing for more 'experimental' missions in those programs that can't use a common design, and putting less pressure on (esp. Discovery Program). After all, only "big" companies like LockMart, OrbitalATK, SpaceX, etc. would be able to compete, and similar things, like Mariner, using the same baseline design, were a success (though did it actually save $$$?). Only problem is Mars Sample Return ends up in the Flagship Program anyways. Probably not a huge deal, considering it's nearly a HUGE NASA priority (right next to Titan/Enceledus, and Uranus) and we already have the caching rover in development, and the orbiter being pitched to Congress. The pickup rover can be derived off MER, and a Pheonix-based lander carrying a rocket to rendezvous with the orbiter. That section only may just fit in the New Frontiers budget. I doubt that would work. Way too experimental and risky for a private company to get into (unforeseen difficulties in the technology), and especially nuclear reactors are something it would be difficult to even get funding. There's a reason NASA doesn't X-planes and tech development internally.

But their GDP is similar to US and China. I think the question that's just as big is why China and Japan aren't spending more in space... Thankfully, NASA has been resisting a lot of Obama's 'dumber' NASA personal projects that don't make much sense, and holding it back purposefully (or it seems to be) - ARM being an example. None of them really have made much progress, if at all- probably since no one at NASA really likes them. Seriously, I get the feeling NASA could do everything it's been doing now, with 1/2 the budget, if Congress and the White House didn't try to micromanage it. Honestly, I wonder what caused NASA's budget to get a small bump in 1990. Maybe we could learn a bit from that bump. But yeah, it's a lot easier to get space budgets go down than up.

Wait, what? You mean the rocket blowing up on launch?

The cost of the barge isn't very high compared to the rocket. Big Dumb Booster actually had high reliability. It was "dumb" for using low-tech, simpler solutions to rocketry, like pressure-fed engines. Well, it's not really "a small amount of propellant". It's on the number of several Tons. Parachutes aren't really heavier, just harder to reuse and more complex, going against a lot of SpaceX philosophy. And I wonder if it would be possible for a barge to 'catch' the rocket from a parachuting rocket by moving quickly around. (the final burn would be done by the rocket's main engines, which would need to be restartable anyways). Or landing a rocket horizontally with dedicated small solid landing engines, which would be designed to be "easily" detachable from the rocket. It would slow down the rocket more, saving mass, and be more stable, though, it would cost more. Probably best for higher-speed landings. Those 2 satellites were designed for dual launch. We might get a 4-satellite launch one day, but only if the satellites are small enough and designed for that. That doesn't seem to be the case for the next few launches.

INdeed, and SpaceX's "good enough relibability" price turns out to be higher than 95%. It seems that lower rates don't tend to be too favorable for satellite operators.

Holy cow, how is any of that relavent to this discussion?

No excuse to cut costs on testing. I would argue the opposite, since that would attract satellite operators from those other companies. Seriously, would you buy a 99% reliability rating for a Car (over a period of a year, just because it's cheaper (and the other one percent of the time, the car goes boom?) Now explain why a satellite operator would accept a lower than 90% launch rating. IN many cases, it would actually increase net costs to choose the cheap but unreliable, due to insurance costs. SO MUCH LOST IN TRANSLATION HOLY FREAKING COW! I said IF they lower reliability ratings as you proposed- or I think you did. You need to improve on your writing, I usually can't fully understand it.... That was hyperbole. I can tell you aren't the best in detecting it. And large GEO Satellites generally cost in the ~$1Billion range. (which is also SpaceX's primary market). Anger them, and now it's mainly only NASA paying you. You can see why satellite operators would rather choose reliable over cost saving. Which is likely why ULA gets any commercial launches at all. List 1 (one) comsat that has ever been sent to SE-L1, or ANY L point. One. I dare you. No such market exists. The closest thing to what you would be talking about is a ION/NTR (unlikely) reusable space tug from LEO to GEO, with the needed thrust to get to Mars. Probably not economical to use the space tug versions as Mars tugs, (without modifications, that is). But even then, that's only a small portion of a Mars mission. You still need a HLV, unless you're planning only a few, Mars-Direct esque missions (which Elon does not seem to want to do- after all, he wants to colonize Mars.)

....wut? Really? It's debateable whether Elon will even get to Mars, let alone make a colony there. Also, doing exactly what you suggest (writing off failures as costs) has been empirically proved to be a horrible idea. ie Aquarius, ie Proton after its recent failures. No one wants to send a payload 2x (average, assuming F9) the cost of the rocket, only for it to go kaboom. Unless you're talking about Mars Missions here, that's unlikely. There will be no expansion if SpaceX constantly screws up it's launches, even screwing up 10% of the time is enough for satellite operators to run off in horror to ArianeSpace or ULA. In fact, there will be a contraction. Doing what you propose is what doomed the Proton in recent years in the commerical market, even though it was cheap.

Granted, so far F9 is cheaper than any smallsat operator, but that's largely because no one has come about to actually do a SpaceX style cost reduction there (why did the F1 have to be retired, why. It just had to wait a few years for it to shine again... ) And one is not better than the other, necessarily. However, generally, satellite operators would rather choose one at a time (unless they are building a constellation of sats) than end up having to do inclination change maneuvers and decreasing satellite lifetime a few years just because that was slightly cheaper to launch on. Many smallsats lack good engines anyways, meaning that it would be very difficult to capture the smallsat market on a single 29T to LEO rocket. Making one big rocket would actually reduce demand for a rocket compared to a modular system. SpaceX mainly couldn't be bothered to care about smallsat markets right now when they have the higher $$$ GTO market to capture from ArianeSpace. (If you want, you could get a NASAspaceflight account and continue the debate there and not just with me, but just remember that the mods are a little more strict over there and probably won't tolerate stuff like snarky image macros as much) I can't imagine mods being even more strict than they are on here. I got slammed for saying the f-word, even though I censored myself. Really? As I said earlier, with 60s tech, rockets up to at least 210 T expendable were proposed for LC-39A/B. With modern engines, tankage, and tech, I would image And I can't imagine they'd be much interference, or at least any more than they already get from the Cape. SLS can only launch 3x per year, max. LC-39B will be empty most of the year, 9 months out of 12 months if we make the pessimistic assumption NASA decides to hog LC-39 for a month every time SLS launches. Plus, NASA still has empty land right above LC-39B that was supposed to host LC-39C, and still remains empty (because no one has ever needed that extra megapad). It would probably be cheaper than building a new pad if they needed they extra launch capability, since the land was drained in the 60s, and there's already plentiful experience launching the world's biggest rockets from that location. They would have to start back to the very start of that process at Brownsville. Maybe they eventually plan to move all F9 Cape pads there to save rent costs. Don't think the cost would ever be recuperated, but SpaceX isn't my company. One thing I am concerned about BFR are the engines. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/f1.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine) They're too small, even for a monolithic SLS Block II sized rocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine) http://www.astronautix.com/engines/f1.htm To match the trust of the Saturn V, you would need 17 engines total on a single core. The last time that configuration was conjured up... well. Yeah. That might be a problem.... Thankfully, we have almost 50 years of experience with rockets since then, and realistically, a 130T BFR would need less engines due to higher efficiency, but... still. I fear for the BFR. If it blows up (especially with humans), SpaceX's Mars Dreams go along with it. Regardless, I did some calculations: http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html Using the Raptor on the 1st stage (27x!- talk about N-1 parallels), and a H2 staged combustion 2nd stage (4x SSME-Vac on the 2nd stage)SSME-Vac on the 3rd stage) (I know what you're going to say, but this is strictly about maximizing payload- and it's probably not going to fly too much anyways, at first, and thus, they have plenty of time to iron out the difficulties with making reusable H2 stage combustion much cheaper (and have a huge amount of SSME work to build on). It's definitely not impossible, since NASA engineers have tried their hand on it plenty of times. It's just more difficult). Adding a nozzle extension promotes ISP by ~40s. SpaceX also uses propellant densification on all stages, and coupled with SpaceX's amazing ability to increase mass fractions to very high levels, a 2 stage rocket with Raptor and SSMEs would resemble N-1 (we should call it the N-2 :P)- but it would have amazing payload- 380208 kg, or 380T to LEO! And that's keeping within the thrust and mass/size limitations of LC-39A (defined by the Saturn C-8)! We can assume the "3rd stage" is part of the payload. A 3-stage configuration sent to LEO (minus payload) could probably get well into 450T to LEO- the Saturn V with 2 stages held up 116T to LEO, while it held up to 140T to LEO under a 3 stage config. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint21.htm SpaceX could use LC-39A for BFR if they wanted to. They don't. Why is the real question.