fredinno
-
Posts
3,068 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by fredinno
-
-
Well, most manned spaceflight does science as the end goal (ie space station turnover) or as a secondary mission (Space Shuttle).
3 hours ago, tater said:If you build spacecraft for other people to launch, you are a "contractor."
My definition is if you are selling the product in the first place, than that's being a contractor. ESA is a contractor to NASA when NASA buys/barters the Orion SM from them. And often, the launching and construction of a satellite is done within one company (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuSTAR ) which was built and launched by Orbital.
3 hours ago, tater said:If you launch spacecraft for your own purposes without the requirement that all your funding come at gunpoint, you are a "private space program." If you launch crew for money for a national space program, you are still a private space program, just like Delta is an airline, but not an airforce, even though the USAF flies passengers (troops) in "airliners" that they own. If Delta bombed places for money, they'd be a private airforce.
Why a different definition for crew? That's confusing.
Don't have a double standard for crew.
Also, Space is different than air. A company selling only airborne cargo flights is still and airline, is it not?
"If you launch spacecraft for your own purposes without the requirement that all your funding come at gunpoint, you are a "private space program." "
So if SpaceX launches a internally-made internet satellite on a F9, does that make them a private space program?
What space program directly owns and operates internet sats? (TDRS is for spacecraft radio communications, not internet)
4 hours ago, tater said:So to be called a Space Program you have to use other people's money? SpaceX qualifies there. Or you cannot do it with a profit motive? I think if you look into the history of NASA, and how some of LBJ's buddies made out, NASA might not qualify
.
I think it's enough to launch vehicles for your own purposes to be called a Space Program, though this is pretty much a semantic argument.
Look above.
Also,
QuoteOr you cannot do it with a profit motive? I think if you look into the history of NASA, and how some of LBJ's buddies made out, NASA might not qualify
.
Source?
-
On 5/16/2016 at 4:04 PM, tater said:
So what? NASA gets money, too, it's just out of people;s pockets. Heck, BO is launching from its own facility, I don;t see how that's not a space program, albeit a tiny one. Once SpaceX gets the TX launch facility done, they will be more capable than most countries with space programs, particularly once D2 is flying.
BO is doing their research program in the anticipation of cash in the future from selling their products (especially now that BE-4 and BE-3 are slated for the next gen OrbitalATK EELV and Vulcan). NASA, is not doing it for money. That's the difference.
And SpaceX is already more capable than most nations with space programs- most of them don't have a orbital rocket at all!
On 5/16/2016 at 4:21 PM, PB666 said:They are behind schedule, they ran into a problem due to the underlying softness and compressibility of the backwater they are building into, it is by thier estimate will be 2018 before they can complete a launch sitre.
QuoteWell, that was a REAL surprise.
On 5/17/2016 at 5:42 PM, tater said:The work on the landing site in CA has been progressing well, OTOH, though that's at Vandenberg AFB.
Not surprising, it's pretty much composed of a few giant asphalt circles, on an already drained and flat area of land. Not that complex or difficult.
-
On the plus side, the Earth is now apparently greener than ever. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener
-
On 2016-05-13 at 11:26 AM, shynung said:
That's an exhaust velocity of around 39 km/sec. 100 kN would mean a mass flow of a touch above 2.5 kg/sec. Accelerating that propellant would need just over 1.9 MW, plus energy needed to ionize 2.5 kg/sec of propellant.
How large of a 50% efficiency solar panel would you need?
-
On 2016-04-08 at 10:05 AM, Eveeloo said:
Well it isn't but it's Kerbal
so?
On 2016-04-08 at 11:25 AM, nosirrbro said:Actually giant captured comet is entirely feasible, the albedo of the surface makes its temperature -50 so it's going to be predominantly water ice with some small amounts of salts to give it that minty blue color and slow any sublimation that might still exist.
Only problem is the vapor pressure makes the ice sublimate.
On 2016-04-20 at 7:03 AM, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:Oh man... I never even thought of microorganisms XD
I'm betting the Kerbals don't eat the birds around the KSC, because they're scary and Kerbals don't understand how they can fly without rocket fuel.
There were birds in KSP?
On 2016-04-20 at 11:57 AM, Xorth Tanovar said:IT's a large chunk of topaz, most likely a rogue moon captured into the Kerbol system; that's my story and I 'm sticking to it!
INcredibly unlikely. Topaz needs flourine, which you rarely ever find. It is more reasonable than mint ice cream, however.
On 2016-04-27 at 6:19 PM, John Nowak said:When was Minmus captured?
On 2016-05-13 at 3:14 PM, Blunderbuss said:I'm not certain of Minmus' composition, but I *am* pretty sure of one thing:
Women are made from sand.
"I don't like sand. It's course, rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere..."
On 2016-05-15 at 7:33 PM, Fireheart318 said:Astronaut ice cream wasn't actually a thing. Space bacon was.
Wait what? Source?
On 2016-05-15 at 2:22 PM, FirstSecondThird said:Comet's don't have to be made of ice to be cyan, I postulate that it's a captured comet made of frozen Methane (the gas that makes up most of farts) plus another chemical that has properties like being cyan colored. Although, keep in mind that it's still viable for Minmus to be a ice comet, because of the fact that the vacuum surrounding it is extremely cold, thus allowing Minmus to grow ice back in case it evaporates because of occasional vacuum heating (Things like Black-body radiation explains what I am talking about there). But, ice comet or not, it's most likely to be a Methane + Cyan colored element comet IMO.
Methane would sublimate very quickly. And there is something called vapor pressure, which is why icey objects are only seen beyond Ceres.
-
1 minute ago, tater said:
They they launch anything at all, for any reason whatsoever without a customer paying for it---they are a private space program.
Send an empty capsule to Mars? Private space program. There is no requirement to achieve X "science" per flight to count as such. They are doing "rocket science," not planetary in that case (engineering, really, but that's the first thing NASA did, too). Their interstage camera, or flying a go pro to Mars would be vastly superior to any instruments NASA imaged Mars with for decades.
Blue Origin? Private space program.
Both outfits are hybrids, they have customers, but they also do things because they want to do them. There is no formal definition of "space program," so you can't argue that they aren't one, really.
OK, but Blue Origin is still doing its stuff for money- it's engines and New Shepard are supposed to be Orbital LVs and Suborbital tourism respectively, which are actual markets.
-
On 2016-05-14 at 3:35 AM, kunok said:
I run the numbers myself comparing to an arianne 5 and is like a little more than 50% of reduction to gto, and that's compared to a very very expensive but very reliable rocket. If you run the numbers to anything below gto, the reduction goes a lot lower, because is very inefficient to BLEO.
Which is why Elon seriously needs a 1x SuperDraco or STAR upper stage as standard for GTO. It's done by most companies using a non H2 2nd stage for a reason. It's a lot cheaper per kg to than not to.
On 2016-05-14 at 8:14 AM, Rakaydos said:" “If SpaceX determines they can’t make the 2018 window and wants to look at the next target of opportunity, then NASA will reassess at that time where we are, and determine at that time whether we want to continue the partnership,” McAlister says. “As it stands right now, the agreement goes out through 2022, but most of the technical area is tied to this first mission.” "
Yea, SpaceX is going to move heaven and earth to make 2018 happen. The opportunity is too good to get "reassessed" and miss out on NASA goodies.
I honestly think it's going to 2020 if NASA doesn't fund any experiments, and 2022 or 2024-5 if NASA decides to put experiments on it (likely requiring solar panels to be added to deploy from the hatch of Red Dragon).
On 2016-05-14 at 2:21 AM, Nibb31 said:Source? DragonLab has been manifested since 2008 for flights in 2011.
Do you have any info on the customers who are buying these flights and what's going up on them ?
No. I guess you're right.
On 2016-05-14 at 8:12 AM, tater said:If they launch red dragon to Mars at all, then they are a private space program, as it is not a contracted NASA launch,
On 2016-05-14 at 7:55 AM, Rakaydos said:At the same time, if the difference between costs to spaceX and costs to customer is as large as some sources suggest, Nibbs refrain about spaceX "not being a private space program" might be overstating things. If they earn enough on every paid launch, after expenses, to refurbish a lower stage and replace an upper stage, every commercial launch gives SpaceX a larger fleet of private spacecraft, already paid for.
They aren't really a private Space program. Do you see them putting scientific experiments on Red Dragon without NASA sponsorship?
I haven't heard of a space probe from NASA or Rocosmos without scientific experiments since the space race.
Do you see them building private space stations?
A "private" space program is extremely unlikely, because it means that the company will have to pour money into unprofitable endeavors.
Even if the information is being sold off to a government space agency (like some are planning to do) it's not really a "private space program"- more a contractor, who sells and caters to others, just like any other contractor.
-
On 2016-05-14 at 5:44 PM, PB666 said:
Never stopped us from doing it in KSP. How to land on hilly slope , drop an atomic bomb, therefore notching out the slope. Land, let the other guy get out first. lol.
Actually I went to a island small town in Japan, where they don't allow cars or trucks, almost everything is brought in on back or via golf cart like vehicles across a pedestrian causeway, when we crossed there were workers carrying items on their backs.
Try landing 20 Red Dragons in quick succession in KSP RSS, in a 1km radius.
Have fun.
I want to see that mission.
On 2016-05-14 at 9:07 PM, Rakaydos said:So appaently there's more information about the Red Dragon misssion, but it;'s behind a paywall.
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/nasa-outlines-mars-red-dragon-deal-spacex
I have the full article.
I copied and pasted it. Here.
Red Planet Retro
NASA expects to spend “on the order of $30 million” helping SpaceX send a modified Dragon vehicle to the surface of Mars in the 2018 planetary launch window, but the entry, descent and landing (EDL) data alone it may obtain in return would be a bargain at 10 times the price.
Officials believe an amendment to NASA’s unfunded Space Act Agreement (SAA) with the ambitious spaceflight company could someday help the agency land heavy payloads on Mars using supersonic retropropulsion. NASA already is using infrared photography to study the technique on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first-stage landings.
Expanding that work to Mars with onboard cameras, sensors—and perhaps even imagery collected from below by one of the two NASA rovers operating on the planet—would be extremely useful to engineers at the space agency who are trying to figure out how to land 20-ton payloads there.
“If we had a complete stand-alone technology demonstration mission, it would be an order of magnitude larger than this [in cost],” says Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight development at NASA headquarters.
In return, the Hawthorne, California-based company founded by entrepreneur Elon Musk will be able to: use the Deep Space Network for tracking and communications on the “Red Dragon” mission; touch down on the surface of Mars using landing-site data collected by NASA spacecraft; apply technical advice from NASA experts to a range of mission issues; and learn how to abide by international planetary-protection protocols.
The publicly funded technical data set could help SpaceX develop a commercial payload delivery service to Mars, charging customers to land robots and other payloads there just as it now charges them to orbit satellites and deliver supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). Six pages of the nine-page SAA amendment signed by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell on April 25 and by McAlister the following day are devoted to intellectual property rights and postmission data handling, including publication.
“This is the private sector’s mission,” says McAlister. “We are here to help them, and we think that is in our guidance in the Space Act. We are supposed to help commercial space to the fullest extent possible.”
In addition to deep-space communications and planetary protection, the SAA amendment covering the Red Dragon mission lists navigation and trajectory design; aerodynamic and aerothermal database development and “general interplanetary mission and hardware consultation and advice” as “representative areas” of NASA support for SpaceX. But it is the two-way EDL data exchange that heads NASA’s technology priority list for the endeavor.
“In all cases we have concluded that no matter what our architecture is, we are going to need to use supersonic retropropulsion,” says Jim Reuter, deputy associate administrator in the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). “Parachutes will not get us there at the landing masses that we have—20-plus tons. So this is a technology demonstration of what we consider to be one of the most critical technologies for us to get humans to Mars.”
Although SpaceX has not revealed many details about its Red Dragon mission, imagery posted on the company website suggests it plans to use the same landing technique on Mars that it is developing to extend the reusability of its Crew Dragon capsule. It would employ a variant of the “SuperDraco” engines in development for launch abort and dry-land touchdowns to settle the six-ton capsule on the surface of Mars (see illustration).
Described to Aviation Week by SpaceX CEO Musk as being “a tricky thing to develop,” the SuperDraco engines remain one of the most significant technical challenges of the Crew Dragon development underway to deliver astronauts to the ISS. Fueled by a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine, the engines deliver 33,000-lb. thrust from each of four two-engine “jet packs.”
They operate at a chamber pressure of around 1,000 psi and are fed from the propellant tanks located around the base of the vehicle. Designed for deep throttling, high power and quick reactions, the SuperDraco is configured with a fuel-centered injector designed to provide fast shut-off capability by sealing off the propellants from the combustion chamber.
NASA used retropropulsion in its “Sky Crane” EDL system to place the 1-ton Curiosity rover on the floor of Mars’s Gale Crater, the upper limit of the mass that could be landed with that technique. After the rover touched down, the Sky Crane flew away to avoid disturbing the terrain at the landing site.
That will not be possible with Red Dragon, which will keep its rockets firing all the way to the surface. NASA hopes the private vehicle will be able to provide data on the effects of terminal retropulsion on the Martian surface as well as on supersonic retropulsion in the Martian atmosphere.
“The primary difference between the Falcon 9 data and what we will get at Mars is the atmosphere and how the plume will expand and behave,” says Michelle Munk, who is overseeing the infrared analysis of Falcon 9 landings as STMD principal technologist. “The configuration is perhaps a little closer to a future Mars vehicle, and the ground surface interaction is really very interesting to us, because we will likely have a configuration where the plumes will interact very much with the Mars surface. That is obviously not something we are getting in the Falcon 9 data.”
Intelligence. Analysis. Insight.
This story is a selection from the May 16, 2016 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology. New content posted daily online.
Subscribe now or browse the current issue
Musk has said he will outline specific plans for the Red Dragon mission at the International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico, in September. But his company’s agreement with NASA covers a launch only in the April-May 2018 planetary window.
“If SpaceX determines they can’t make the 2018 window and wants to look at the next target of opportunity, then NASA will reassess at that time where we are, and determine at that time whether we want to continue the partnership,” McAlister says. “As it stands right now, the agreement goes out through 2022, but most of the technical area is tied to this first mission.”
The EDL data NASA wants will be relayed back to Earth via NASA’s Mars orbiters, in real time as much as possible in case the landing ends badly. Details are still being worked out in regular meetings between company and agency engineers, but higher-bandwidth data recorded and relayed after a successful landing could include video of plume interactions with the atmosphere and the surface collected by onboard cameras and perhaps even one of the rovers.
“That is a possibility,” says Munk. “That will be worked into the mission design, exactly what the landing point is. I think with the short time line to the actual entry, descent and landing, we are planning to assist SpaceX with the Mars surface data that we have and what we can gather between now and EDL. So it most likely will be a site that has been heavily surveyed in the past.”
For the Red Dragon mission, SpaceX will use its planned Falcon Heavy vehicle, with three Falcon 9 core stages carrying a total of 27 Merlin engines to deliver 5.1 million lb. thrust at sea level. The heavy-lift variant is designed to be able to deliver 13.6 metric tons (29,980 lb.) to the surface of Mars, according to the company website.
SpaceX will decide what the payload will be, but NASA has already developed a list of instruments and other gear it would like to send to Mars, if the company can accommodate them in the 2018 window or later. Among them are Mars-weather sensors, instruments to analyze atmospheric dust, and experimental in situ resource utilization gear.
Regardless of how the Red Dragon collaboration works out, McAlister says it is a harbinger of the way NASA wants to conduct spaceflight operations in the future. SpaceX is one of four companies with “nonreimbursable” SAAs awarded in December 2014. The “Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities” (CCSC) effort was designed to make private-sector hardware and skills available to NASA exploration programs.
“That is inherently beneficial to the nation,” says McAlister. “It is inherently beneficial to NASA. The goal of the CCSC agreements was to help accelerate these private-sector activities so that in the future NASA could just buy services.”
QuoteSpaceX will decide what the payload will be, but NASA has already developed a list of instruments and other gear it would like to send to Mars, if the company can accommodate them in the 2018 window or later. Among them are Mars-weather sensors, instruments to analyze atmospheric dust, and experimental in situ resource utilization gear.
It would probably be launching in 2022 or 2020 if they decide to include any experiments on it.
On 2016-05-14 at 0:53 AM, CptRichardson said:Why would they need to research stronger chutes? They've made it abundantly clear that they're propulsively landing, have a manner and method by which they intend to do it, and have demonstrated all the required components to make it work. They don't need R&D for 'more powerful antennas', as the easy thing to do would be to use the Deep Space Network (the thing explicitly designed to make it easier for probes with weaker antennas to be designed).
As for the D2, once more, why do you think that these insane costs are going to be the case when SpaceX has demonstrated that they are more than capable of lowering them (by outright orders of magnitude). I've already pointed out how silly it is to propose that the D2 will be a limited production craft when there will be clear and necessary need for a much larger stable of them for future commercial activity. I've pointed out to you multiple times that the current price (PROJECTED, no less) for a FH launch is going to drop rapidly once SpaceX starts relaunching rockets (starting this month no less). I've pointed out to you multiple times that that price tag is vastly excessive for the likely real price point of a D2 by simple fact that they're going to be in a much larger production stable.
You're inanely pessimistic about a company that has actually demonstrated themselves as better than NASA at launching things, continually proclaiming them unable to do the things that they've already demonstrated IRL in action. If it weren't for an outside party screwing them over last year, we'd already have their first relaunch now. Your worst case scenario is at most $250 million, easily affordable and repeatable given the ever-increasing launch tempo building up a cash reserve. I make no bones about the fact that their schedule has slipped in the past, but the fact of the matter is that they've managed to either achieve everything they've set out to do so far, or outright make it obsolete in a few cases. Why do you insist on underestimating the company and swearing they'll never last even while they are beating every last one of their competitors upside the head like Jebidiah Kerman and the controls of any vehicle? How many times does it take before you realize that they're more than capable of doing it?
Land a rocket? Done.
Land on a barge? Done.
Cut launch costs to a tenth of previous? Done, going even further down.
Land from GTO? Done.
Relaunch? Twelve days to done.
FH? Being done right now.
And as for the MCT being 'vaporware', that's the latest in a pile of falsehoods, inanities, and pessimism. Musk wants to go to mars. More importantly, everyone else would rather like having a lift to LEO rating of 'yes' grade rocket for setting up proper orbital infrastructure, and we already know of at least two companies who will pay SpaceX for building it no matter what.
Just, stop. SpaceX will do it. They might be a year or two late, but they have a consistent track record of 'Yes, yes we will'.
QuoteWhy would they need to research stronger chutes? They've made it abundantly clear that they're propulsively landing, have a manner and method by which they intend to do it, and have demonstrated all the required components to make it work. They don't need R&D for 'more powerful antennas', as the easy thing to do would be to use the Deep Space Network (the thing explicitly designed to make it easier for probes with weaker antennas to be designed).
They need stronger chutes, because without chutes, Dragon would have nowhere near the amount of fuel needed to do a Mars landing (about 400m/s delta v)
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/33f75a/just_how_much_deltav_will_the_dragon_2_capsule/
The need more powerful antennas-or do slight modifications on the ones NASA uses to work on Dragon V2, which needs R+D- they can use the DSN,but you need to first get the information off Mars to get to an orbiter. The more experiments, the bigger the antenna needed.
QuoteAs for the D2, once more, why do you think that these insane costs are going to be the case when SpaceX has demonstrated that they are more than capable of lowering them (by outright orders of magnitude). I've already pointed out how silly it is to propose that the D2 will be a limited production craft when there will be clear and necessary need for a much larger stable of them for future commercial activity. I've pointed out to you multiple times that the current price (PROJECTED, no less) for a FH launch is going to drop rapidly once SpaceX starts relaunching rockets (starting this month no less). I've pointed out to you multiple times that that price tag is vastly excessive for the likely real price point of a D2 by simple fact that they're going to be in a much larger production stable.
Tell me one contract SpaceX has for Dragon or Dragon 2 NOT related to NASA. (or DragonLab, which I've discussed before and is apparently dead).
Lol you think Falcon Heavy is going to have prices fall after launches? Why? You do realize companies generally ark down prices to far below the initial procurement price, right? That price goes down over time (more with reuse), but since that price decrease generally happens over a reltively short period of time, I would be very surprised if the listed price actually went down after the 1st launch.
Same thing happens with Cellphones- people who buy the first ones produced always pay the most.
Stop drinking SpaceX koolaid. Please.
QuoteYou're inanely pessimistic about a company that has actually demonstrated themselves as better than NASA at launching things, continually proclaiming them unable to do the things that they've already demonstrated IRL in action. If it weren't for an outside party screwing them over last year, we'd already have their first relaunch now. Your worst case scenario is at most $250 million, easily affordable and repeatable given the ever-increasing launch tempo building up a cash reserve. I make no bones about the fact that their schedule has slipped in the past, but the fact of the matter is that they've managed to either achieve everything they've set out to do so far, or outright make it obsolete in a few cases. Why do you insist on underestimating the company and swearing they'll never last even while they are beating every last one of their competitors upside the head like Jebidiah Kerman and the controls of any vehicle? How many times does it take before you realize that they're more than capable of doing it?
Better than NASA at launching things?
NASA is a government agency, and will have pork straddled to it, while SpaceX is a private company was made with streamlining costs as its primary goal.
My "worst case scenario", no, that's the best case scenario. It's only "worst case" because you handwaved all other costs associated with a planetary mission, esp. R+D. Is Dragon intended for 6 months interplanetary transit? There you go.
SpaceX has not done everything they set out to do, and many of those things were not superseded.
Here are a few, off the top of my head:
2nd stage reuse? Abandoned.
Falcon 1e? Elon decided to give up on the smallsat market, even though it was on the verge of a boom.
Falcon 9 Air? Gave up.
There were valid reasons for not doing these things, but it shows they don't do everything they set out to do eventually.
Also, I never said SpaceX would never last. I simply stated Red Dragon would cost $500 Million, and be mostly a stunt flight.
Read my comments before ranting.
QuoteCut launch costs to a tenth of previous? Done, going even further down.
I'll let Nibb31 Address this one
QuoteRelaunch? Twelve days to done.
Source?
QuoteLand from GTO? Done.
They haven't actually landed anything that has gone to GTO, nor anything from a high speed reentry that is most reminiscent of a Red Dragon landing.
QuoteAnd as for the MCT being 'vaporware', that's the latest in a pile of falsehoods, inanities, and pessimism. Musk wants to go to mars. More importantly, everyone else would rather like having a lift to LEO rating of 'yes' grade rocket for setting up proper orbital infrastructure, and we already know of at least two companies who will pay SpaceX for building it no matter what.
Just, stop. SpaceX will do it. They might be a year or two late, but they have a consistent track record of 'Yes, yes we will'.
http://www.wired.com/2012/08/is-a-privately-funded-manned-mission-to-mars-possible/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
A minimal mars mission (Mars Direct, which was chided by NASA for being too optimistic, leading to Mars Semi-Direct, which added a launch) is supposed to be $5 Billion dollars.
Keep in mind, this is Zubrin talking, which is very similar to Elon that he's an immense optimist and you always have to take his dates and costs with a grain of salt (esp. since AeroSpace dates almost always move to the right, and costs always are higher than anticipated- look at how long it's taking for a 'minimal modification' F9H to be made....)
I would take the $30 Billion dollar number if I were you.
However, in any case, it doesn't matter. Elon wants a huge Mars mission, that can be scaled up to colony development, shown by the 100T to Mars Injection MCT, which is incredibly OP for Mars Direct.
That needs FAR more new equipment than the SHuttle-station derived Mars Direct, raising development costs through the roof.
Then you wonder why we're skeptical.
Also, MCT is something we don't even know the design to. Right now, it's on the same level of vaporware as:
QuoteJust, stop. SpaceX will do it. They might be a year or two late, but they have a consistent track record of 'Yes, yes we will'.
On 2016-05-14 at 1:58 AM, Nibb31 said:Cut launch costs to a tenth of previous? Done, going even further down.
BTW, Source?
On 2016-05-15 at 5:55 PM, StrandedonEarth said:Yes, it seems we need to agree to disagree and see what the future actually brings
That would be faaaaantastic! Then the movie studios would have a real idea on how it should look for their movies.
Didn't they plan on that for InSight? I'm not sure, so
-
4 hours ago, Rakaydos said:
Good thing they dont land boosters sideways anymore. And a Dragon capsule is smaller, more responsive, and has a more stable center ov gravity. I dont think landing them in proximity from one another is going to be terribly difficult.
The Falcons also landed with far less speed.
-
On 5/12/2016 at 6:16 AM, eddiew said:
There's quite a good illustration of it here: http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/modern-atomic-theory/ionization-energy.html
Noble gasses are pretty tough to ionise because they're already at their most stable state. Asking them to lose an electron requires them to be unstable. Lithium and sodium on the other hand, are relatively eager to dump electrons - but they're also dangerously reactive and you wouldn't really want to carry them on your space ship
I suspect (haven't researched) that Xenon is used because it is 100% un-reactive, and the heaviest non-radioactive noble gas, meaning you can carry a bigger weight of eject-able mass in a lower pressure container without worrying about it turning into something else or bonding with the container during the trip.
Looking at that, Aluminum looks like a decent idea (its melting point probably makes it a meh idea though)
However, Gallium seems like another good idea, being lighter than Xenon, and being able to melt and be put through an engine easily.
IN that same vein, Beryllium Hydride seems even better. You'd get amazing ISP for a energy cost slightly lower than Xenon.
Unfortunately, Beryllium costs an arm and a leg, so...
How about compounds? CO looks like a great idea, with a Xenon-level ionization energy, a gas at STP, and a great ISP, though the oxygen's reactivity and Carbon soot probably kills the idea.
Is there a Aluminum or Magnesium compound that is a Gas? That would be great for an ION drive....
On 5/12/2016 at 8:57 AM, wumpus said:I'm more a fan of argon for such things. Xenon is preferred (presumably over magnesium) to being a noble gas, but so is argon. But xenon is impossibly rare while argon is more common than carbon dioxide (I seriously hope this remains true). The reason you prefer xenon is that the extra weight (it has about three times the mass) means that you get three times the momentum for about 75% of the ionization energy (expect to want to put a lot more energy into adding momentum when using argon).
I've heard blasting off of bits of PVC is useful for much smaller satellites, not sure if it is feasible for microsats or not.
Argon's only big advantage seems to be being common, and a somewhat higher ISP.
BTW, how much energy would you need to get 100kN (around RL10 level) ION drive, with a 4000s ISP?
-
On 5/12/2016 at 9:59 AM, Rakaydos said:
Keep in mind, this is the company that hit a football field sized target with a statue of libery sized rocket, from space, on the first try, with locked-up maneuvering fins. (it exploded because it landed almost sideways, but they still hit the target)
Yeah, it exploded because it landed sideways. Try that on the higher speed of a Mars Landing, and the Dragon will probably be ruined.
On 5/12/2016 at 9:59 AM, Rakaydos said:assuming for a moment that 100 yards = 100m (close enough for ballpark estimate), and you need as much safty room to land a dragon on mars as a falcon core on earth, (which is blatabtly over-compensating) thats still a 10x10 grid of Dragons in a single square KM
Not all land on Mars is flat. A good scientific or resource location may be too hilly to land 100s of Dragons.
On 5/12/2016 at 9:59 AM, Rakaydos said:A car doesnt fly. A Dragon is already designed to land using a technique that works on low-air bodies.
You dont take a refrigerator truck to go grocery shopping, or a city bus to take the kids to school. You use the car you have, install car seats, pull out/fold away the back seat to fit that awkward piece of furnature you bought, and tie the christmas tree to the roofracks.
And you don't resupply a grocery store with a compact car.
On 5/12/2016 at 10:03 AM, Nibb31 said:DragonLab has been a commercial offering for over 5 years now. No customers have shown any interest yet, not even NASA. It's quite possible that RedDragon might follow the same path.
Source? They still have missions manifested for 2016 and 2018..
-
On 5/11/2016 at 6:28 PM, magnemoe said:
Yes, the Orbital plan is pretty simple and might work for jwst too, you grab the rocket engine on jwst and then use the service satellite for reaction wheel and rcs.
Problem with jwst is that it has an huge sunshade on one side and the telescope on the other side, it might be hard to connect to.
On the other hand this would be an far simpler solution than an jwst replacement.Can the Sunsheild be retracted back? That might be needed for a potential repair.
-
On 5/12/2016 at 3:25 AM, Sereneti said:
they have achived a force of 2,5 g...
Doesn't seem too comfortable.
1G is more than enough.
On 5/12/2016 at 8:40 AM, wumpus said:This is another reason he isn't building it (besides being stretched thin enough already). He could likely build the parts reasonably close to the budget. Getting the land, the permits and the politics will cost at least an order of magnitude more. There just isn't any way this is going to make more sense than aircraft/current (slow) rail.
The US rail system is quite efficient. In many ways it is better than Europe's. But nearly all it carries is bulk cargo, not passengers (presumably because the right of way is from the 19th century). You would need entirely new railways, likely between cities that already have heavy commuting in exactly the directions you want to go (on the East Coast you will pretty much follow I-95, the most populated area most of the way. I suspect the West Coast has similar issues. In the mid-west, you are still going to want a 737). Even worst, if you try to work within the old rail system (ignoring the curves you can't make with a hyperloop), you are probably disrupting absolutely critical coal deliveries (don't ask how many coal trains go from West Virginia to Washington DC every day).
"He could likely build the parts reasonably close to the budget."
Doubtful. Pylons don't grow out of the ground.
" Getting the land, the permits and the politics will cost at least an order of magnitude more. There just isn't any way this is going to make more sense than aircraft/current (slow) rail."
It could, in a post-oil world, where passenger planes need to be powered by ethanol (which is 1/2 the energy density of jet fuel) meaning building these kinds of ultra high speed rail across continents (and possibly eventually oceans), making hyperloop a lot more attractive as a replacement.
There's a time and place for everything.
It's not the time for Hyperloop to shine. Yet.
22 hours ago, AngelLestat said:I think that by the end of 2014 could be completed the first track (city to city), with 6 years of development and 2 or 3 for construction.
I dont know much about all different approaches, but this seems fit for its purpose very nice and cheap enough (not sure why other companies did not took advantage of eddy currents way before):They can even solve the curve accelerations issues just adding more aluminum in that side of the curve (so acceleration for the passengers always point down), the cost of aluminum is important, but no so much compared to the tube or other kind of alternatives.
It does not seem like a source, also not sure what are the similarities with hyperloop.. more details please.
"They can even solve the curve accelerations issues just adding more aluminum in that side of the curve (so acceleration for the passengers always point down), the cost of aluminum is important, but no so much compared to the tube or other kind of alternatives."
How would that help?
"I think that by the end of 2014 could be completed the first track (city to city), with 6 years of development and 2 or 3 for construction.
I dont know much about all different approaches, but this seems fit for its purpose very nice and cheap enough (not sure why other companies did not took advantage of eddy currents way before):"Brother, it's 2016. And Elon doesn't have a time machine.
22 hours ago, justidutch said:CEO of Hyperloop One has wondered aloud if this technology could "solve some problems in Canada"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hyperloop-one-test-nevada-1.3577990
Sure, a high speed rail across the Windsor-Montreal Corridor would be cool.
Would it be done? Probably not.
-
21 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
So?
If the Falcon Heavy is going to be required to begin with, then why worry about trying to minimize launch mass? It's not like they are going to save money on fuel or something.
Because it's the difference between a extra rocket launched and no extra rocket. BTW, cost per launch is more important for a Mars Colony, which is what SpaceX wants.
1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:SpaceX isn't a space program with unlimited funds. Their business model is to sell launch services to customers who pay for them. There is only one customer buying Dragon 2 flights, and it's NASA. They have committed to 6 to 10 manned Dragon flights, and that's it. After that, the ISS is splashed and there are no destinations for Dragon in LEO (unless Bigelow finds some magical customers too).
That isn't going to change soon. Even if SpaceX offers rides to Mars, they still need to find customers who are willing to pay to send stuff to Mars.
The MCT is vaporware at this point, and there is no business model for a Mars colony. The rest is pure speculation.
There's DragonLab. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lack of a long-term market is a big concern for Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada- at least the divisions working on the capsules.
NASA might launch a BIOS-esque program for space capsules, just to maintain the capability to send humans to LEO if required, and keep the capsules in production.
Cygnus has a huge advantage in long term viability, since it's possible to expand the pressurized module to a Lunar Space Station/deep space HAB/resupply module, something that NASA needs for going pretty much anywhere outside of the moon (and even then, it's highly desirable.)
-
On 2016-05-11 at 2:46 AM, SargeRho said:
Redundancy. If you drop 20 Dragon 2s, and of those, 2-3 resculpt Mars a little, you still have most of your cargo. If your single cargo ship decides to lithobrake, you're screwed.
How are you supposed to land 20 Dragon 2s in succession on a km wide landing spot?
That's never been done before, and trying to land them next to each other is a logistical nightmare.
It might not be AS bad for the 1st few missions, but once you start base-building....
You're going to run out of places to land in a km wide area, FAST.
On 2016-05-11 at 7:11 AM, 78stonewobble said:1. So... guesswork?
2. So... List prise isn't all there is to it?
3. The price is still set on the promise of as much reuse as possible. Sure, spacex can burn money on an individual launch... but they cannot do that indefinately, sooner or later the price will catch up, if reuse doesn't work out as planned.
4. The cores might have been reused before... but throwing them away before end of life, is less profit. Also again... The reuse comes at the price of less payload. The graphics on nibb31's graphic are entirely misleading in that regard.
5. So... what you're saying is... it's gonna cost more than the list price in nibb31's graphic?
And apart from the guesswork... what is the final price on sending red dragon to mars?
6. "If they can manage the projected 10 launches before refurbishment...", not to mention as of yet incalculable cost and effort in maintenance other than complete refurbishment.
1. He just forgot to give the source. Here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
2. Not really, in some cases.
Most specifically, one off payloads needing modifications and R+D (Red Dragon)
4. The graphics show the GTO payload, which is correct for reusable FHs.
They also show LEO numbers, which are not correct w/o reuse. They're only shown for bragging rights, since noone will ever need that much payload.
5. No one knows. An educated guess shows $500 Million, or discovery-class.
On 2016-05-11 at 7:42 AM, Nibb31 said:If they were dropping 20 Dragon 2s on Mars, that's at least twice the number of Dragon 2s they are going to be flying for NASA. They would be better off designing a whole new purpose-built mass-produced disposable lander bus for 20 Mars missions rather than modifying a reusable crew taxi that is only going to fly half a dozen times.
I think that guy was using the "mass production" argument.\
The problem is that a Dragon 2 is too small to be useful for a Martian, so a larger cargo module is the only good way to go here.
On 2016-05-11 at 9:02 AM, CptRichardson said:Why would it cost '500 million'? We already have SpaceX's figures for the worst-case launch of a FH, and it's less than a sixth of that. Do you REALLY think the capsule itself would make up the balance? Please, they'll be mass-producing that, too. A SpaceX mission to drop a RD on mars would probably be $120 million-ish at most, possibly down to only half of that if they get re-use properly working.
Not they won't be mass producing ANY Dragon V2s, since they are supposed to be reused (and are used only a total of about a dozen times).
And a $90 Million F9H + $160 Million Dragon V2 means a minimum cost of $250 Million.
Add another $250 Million for R+D costs (for the stronger chutes needed and more powerful antennas, for example), and you get the $500 Million dollar cost mark.
A interplanetary mission costing only $500 Million is actually on the cheap end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_V2
23 hours ago, Rakaydos said:If we are presuming the MAV is delivered by SLS , then NASA would be footing the bill for presupply.
The question for SpaceX then would be if spaceX would save more with an R+D program for a dedicated mars lander and mass produce that, or simply mass produce their "proven" (after 2018) Red Dragon design.
In general, it seems R&D is expensive. If Red Dragon is "good enough", they might stick with it instead of going back to the drawing board.
23 hours ago, sevenperforce said:This is the part that I keep coming back to. Development of a dedicated lander is NOT cheap...not even close.
If you're starting from scratch? Sure, in theory it is cheaper to develop, build, and test a dedicated Mars lander alone than it is to develop, build, and test a multiplanetary lander capable of dropping payloads on any terrestrial world. No question about it. But if your Earth lander that you ALREADY developed with NASA's money happens to be overengineered enough that it can serve as a passable Martian lander or a moon lander with only moderate modifications, then it is almost certain that those modifications will be vastly cheaper than developing a purpose-built lander for each target world.
If SpaceX can do a Mars mission or a moon landing or any other shot by modifying the lander they already have, it makes a lot of sense to prefer that approach over the development of a completely new spacecraft. Would a new spacecraft be more mass-efficient? Probably. Does a 15% mass-efficiency increase justify a 400% increase in development cost? I doubt it.
You can modify a car to become a plane.
It's cheaper, and better to develop and build your own dedicated plane.
R+D costs don't disappear because your spacecraft/rocket is derived off something else. Look at the Ares 1 disaster. Technically "derived" off Shuttle SRBs, in practice, it was probably better to build a new 5m diameter rocket.
And I doubt a Martian would EVER want to live in a 10m3 volume, stretched out over 20+ capsules.
You need a dedicated HAB module, which can then be emptied out to become a storage/ resupply module.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_V2
You can also modify a Shuttle to become a Mars lander. Would you?
-
9 hours ago, Rakaydos said:
Red Dragon isnt a manned mission- but it can be a pre-supply probe for one.
Say SpaceX clears the entire mars window of commercial launches, on both the bo chika and florida pads, and that they have cores lined up for launching on a weekly tempo from each pad. (certantly not in 2018, but 2026, perhaps.). Over a 2 month launch window, they put 16 Red Dragons onto mars intercept orbits, for 32+ tons of supplies, as well as a number of livable pressure vessels.
Send a MAV on one SLS, and a MDV on another, and you should have a decent manned mission every 4 years.
But why would you do that? I'd be a lot better for the crew if they had one big storage vessel than a lot of small ones, spread out over a km wide landing zone. Not to mention Dragon V2s use low isp propellant, and the small size, conbined, make it very mass inefficient.
They also lack unpressurized cargo space (it's in the ejected trunk),
Just use a modified MDV/HAB to store cargo. Problem solved, and that simplifies the mission enormously.
Maybe SpaceX could replace the core + upperstage of the SLS with a 8m diameter RP-1 or CH4 tank to make their own LV for the first manned missions to Mars- the tanks being made by SpaceX in NASA faciliities,a nd the engines at SpaceX? Probably not realistic, but would be good to build up a cheaper Mars mission capability quickly before MCT.
Either that, or a cluster of F9 tanks (1st and 2nd stage) using a Saturn IB arrangement of 7 F9 cores and 7 F9 2nd stages, for a ~10m diameter rocket with 63 Merlins on the bottom.
What a sight. Jeb would be proud.
-
1 hour ago, tater said:
Nonsense.
2015: 7 launches, 1 failure.
2014: 6
If they continue at this rate, then you are correct, but we have no idea if that is the case. Also, they use 2 pads (KSC and Vandenberg). My statement was 100% correct, they might exceed 1 launch per month in the future (over a year, we were talking about total launches per year), possibly even this year. We'll have to see, but 1 per month is double what they have done in the recent past.
We're talking about Red Dragon, so we're not talking about F9 in that category at all, only FH. FH could presumably take some BEO missions at some point, but again, they'd be lucky to get even one such mission every few years (which was what I said that you originally quoted). So in the indeterminate future, when FH is a thing, SpaceX might get a FH launch from NASA every few years. In context, this was about launch rates, and lower prices, and I was replying to the idea that somehow they could sell more launches to NASA, as if NASA is gonna crank out more BEO probes just because launch costs have dropped by 20% (which they won't
).
1.Oh, whoops. Forgot that the F9 failure prevented the 1-time a year launch manifest for 2015.
It would have otherwise.
2. Still doubt it, considering SpaceX is cranking up the launch rate- and any use for FH is generally covered by SLS (excpet maybe things that would otherwise go on Delta IV Heavy.)
15 minutes ago, KSK said:Red Dragon might not be the greatest science platform around (as has been extensively discussed on this thread) but properly packed, it would seem to make a serviceable enough uncrewed supply craft for any eventual Mars plans.
I think a 4T payload is too small for even a 4-man Mars base, especially since Launch windows open every 2 years...
48 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:A: I can certainly see them stripping away a lot of the structural mass. Won't be quite as lightweight as a purpose-built Mars Bus but it will be improved.
B: The posted prices are for a brand new rocket in a mission profile that allows a chance of partial reuse. The discount is applied when you elect to use recovered boosters.
C: Citation? Last I heard, Elon said that the side boosters could "probably" be recovered.
A: What is the point to a Dragon V2 bus derived lander? Really, there's not much on a Dragon V2 to use. Once the shell is gone, the computer equipment is junk (it's resistant to vacuum, but not designed for it.)
B: Citation?
C: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2bz9dw/what_is_the_leo_payload_of_a_fully_reusable/
According to this, you "should" be able to recover the core if you do a high speed landing. Just speculation though.
-
3 hours ago, KSK said:
Looks like the Icarus paper is just the formal academic paper with the raw data available as pointed out by tater.
Not sure if this link works for everyone (I work at a university so we have library access to assorted online journals) but give it a go:
http://sservi.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/LRO_Icarus_SpecIssue.pdf
Found through a quick Google search (lunar reconnaissance orbiter six years) and it's a NASA link so presumably they're OK with it being out there.
I wonder if the Lunar Precursor Robotic Program will be revived in the future... a L2 radio telescope would be nice, or a lunar resources prospector.
In any case, how long will LRO last in the future?
-
1 hour ago, kunok said:
They already are doing that? Doesn't look like that. I know another similar project, about using one modified adapter for two satellites of the ariane 5, as one of this satellite services, so they optimize the launch capabilities.
Yeah maneuvering can be an option but everything else not. Won't be the worst limitation of the mission the coolant? (I'm not sure at all)
Pardon my grammar. WILL.
In 2 years.
-
16 hours ago, PB666 said:
As it is if SX cannot get a recycle on the fairings they are going to have to double down on carbon fiber fabriation facilities. Butbif they can they will have a huge advantage over the competition.
Not really, considering fairings cost ~6-8 million.
A 30% savings is $1.3 Million saved.
10 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:I did say 4 tonnes, didn't i? Which the F9 supposedly can according to that graphic. I'd probably bet it won't be at the price listed there offcourse...
Dragon V2 is 6T without payload.
2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:A: And no, we don't add $62 million to the FH launch cost; the $90 million pricetag is the cost of all three boosters, plus the second stage, plus launch services and launch support. $90 million is the price for a Falcon Heavy launch regardless of whether they can recover the boosters.
However, that's the price for a completely new launch vehicle. SpaceX will be reusing cores for the Red Dragon mission. A reused launch comes with a discount -- probably 30-40% for F9Ft. Let's say 30% to be conservative, and let's say that the center core is new, so only the side boosters (which will be recoverable for the Red Dragon mission) are reused. That's 18 of the 28 engines being re-launched (rather than 9 out of 10 engines as in a Falcon 9FT) so we will reduce that discount to 21%. The FH launch price can thus be estimated at $71.1 million, less than 41% of the Atlas V 541.
"What about the capsule?" you say. Uh...what about it? The capsule is the payload for the launch vehicle. The 3.9 tonnes of Mars Science Laboratory wasn't the downmass to Mars; that was the launch mass of the entire transfer spacecraft: cruise stage, cruise propulsion system, battery and solar array, heat shield, EDL, and the Curiosity rover. The price of the spacecraft was not part of the Atlas V ELV.
B: The dry mass of a Dragon V2 is nearly double the MSL mass, at 6.4 tonnes. Add 1400 kg of propellant and the claimed 4 tonne payload to Mars, and you have a launch payload mass of 11.8 tonnes. So on a price-per-kg basis, the Falcon Heavy's payload to Mars is 13% the price of an Atlas V payload to Mars.
I'd say that's transformative.
C: Oh, but wait...according to this source, NASA paid $215.1 million for launch services associated with MSL. So actually, that's 10.9% on a per-kg basis.
Again, it depends on how you look at it. 100% of SSME flights required a rebuild. Let us suppose that only 10% of Merlin flights require a rebuild, and 0.1% of airline engine flights require a rebuild. 10% is a lot close to 0.1% than it is to 100%, wouldn't you agree? Looking at it on a percentage basis means that as long as you have more than two flights between rebuilds, you're closer to the 0% point (infinite reusability) than the SSMEs.
How accurate is that 0.1% number, anyway? The airline industry uses a metric called Time Between Overhaul, or TBO. This represents the runtime (usually given in standardized hours) before an engine needs to be removed, disassembled, and overhauled. For high-performance jet turbofan engines, the TBO is around 3,000 hours. Let's take an eight-hour transatlantic flight as an example. That means 375 flights between engine overhauls, or 0.27% of flights requiring a rebuild. Again, 10% is a lot closer to 0.27% than it is to 100%.
D: Let's also take into account that restarts and shutdowns produce high stress on an engine. The SSMEs could not be restarted in flight and had to be refurbished after each test firing, and most airline engines only start and shutdown once per flight. The Merlin 1D, on the other hand, is usually test-fired twice before each launch, and the central engine fires up to four times per flight (for RTLS profiles). The CRS-8 booster will do ten test-fires before reuse, but let's say that eventually we'll be looking at closer to four test-fires before reuse. That means ten restart/shutdown cycles per flight. If they can manage the projected 10 launches before refurbishment, then we're looking at 100 cycles before refurbishment, or 1% of all cycles requiring a rebuild. 1% is within an order of magnitude of 0.27% and quite far from 100%.
E: The central booster will probably not be reused on the Red Dragon shot, and they definitely will not land the FH core as a single piece. Rather than using crossfeed, the center booster will throttle down rapidly after launch to maintain closer to constant acceleration on the vehicle as a whole; this will leave it with a large fuel reserve at separation, but not so much that it has trouble maintaining acceleration.
A: But SpaceX is making the cost estimate ASSUMING Booster reuse. It already accounts for it- why wouldn't they, the F9R is set to reuse a booster in a few months, and companies love to make biases to make themselves look better.
B: Only you would never use the Red Dragon to carry 4T to Mars due to power and hatch restrictions.
C: Probably because it was NASA making the contract. Let's assume that's not the case to compare apples to apples.
D: Yes, it's a great idea to make SpaceX cut costs on reliability! Satellite Operators hate reliability! That's why they love Proton!
In any case, the F9 actually does way more than 2 burns on launch- it's closer to 5-6.
Also, landing and launch puts more stress on a booster than static fire.
E: Apparently the core can do a high-speed barge landing with the Red Dragon.
-
5 minutes ago, tater said:
You're not replying to the context of my statement. I was explicitly addressing BEO missions only.
I also addressed that. SpaceX will likely never get any. Look at my quoted comment for an explanation why.
3 minutes ago, kunok said:You know what i was expecting? I was expecting that they discard the idea of a red dragon capsule and made a "mars bus" derived from the dragon, based only in the heat-shield, and maybe the lower part of the structural frame. There is no use for the rest of the capsule, and will limit a lot the scientific capabilities.
That's pretty pointless, at that point, the modifications needed means you're better off making a new Mars Bus entirely. Hopefully with a seperatable covering to protect it from dust upon landing.
-
16 hours ago, John JACK said:
NASA is not only space agency on our planet. There are more countries that want and can make stuff to put in space than launch service providers.
Funny fact: in 2015 Turkmenistan launched it's first satellite. On a Falcon, of course. And there were things like SMAP, Earth monitoring is more than just cameras. New applications are developed constantly, and someone need to launch them.
Universities also launch tons of stuff. Mostly sounding rockets and cubesats, but several institutions combined can afford pretty big satellite.
We talk ramping launches by several per year for a start. It will reduce costs, make reuse more advantageous and — after several years — at last increase demand. And reducing costs is always good for profit.
Right, just like it was obvious from the beginning, Musk has a dream, and SpaceX make money to support a dream. And we here can either marvel their achievements, or waste time trying to prove they do not.
Interplanetary used Dragons cost cheap, but provide priceless experimental data. And maybe even some bonus science.
Yeah? But how many more will new entrants end up launching? 1x more launches a year total?
SpaceX already has several per year. Technically ULA also does several a year.
And Interplanetary Dragons are a one-time thing. Unless Elon also wants to do a moon landing, or is willing to waste a few billion on stunt flights (each Red Dragon costs around $500 million) of the Dragon V2 (that would be cool, but probably not economical.)
16 hours ago, PB666 said:Its not going back on topic no matter how hard you try, we are talking abount the economy of going to mars, part of which is the reuse and reliabity issue because it determines profitability, alas and we back. The Mars mission has a window of 2018' which if they cannot make enough money by then to afford then they have to postpone two years. Seems to me that they have about 7 months to duplicate the canaveral launch pad on boca chica if they want to keep their contracts current to 2018.
It's not economy. Red Dragon likely costs around $500 Million. If SpaceX hasn't made enough money for that by 2018, they're probably not managing their money well.
The problem is making sure the modifications and landing systems are completed and throughly tested (especially the landings- a circumlunar Dragon V2 might be cool to see, but that's probably not happening).
Dragon V2 is operational 2018. I don't think Red Dragon will ever go before the first orbital test of a propulsive landing system on the Dragon V2.
16 hours ago, tater said:Absolutely. A few a year, maybe. So they might get up to more than 1 launch per month. Awesome, and fine within the current pricing. This conversation is about the fantasy of charging grossly less than current pricing, and somehow making more money...
SpaceX is already more than 1 launch a month, and is at the max. (empirically proven) modern rocket pad launch rate of around 14x a year for large rockets.
-
17 hours ago, John JACK said:
It's a graph of all launches combined, not that 12 purely commercial that @tater talks about. There is even visible drop in 1991 — because Soviet space program was no more and USA space program lost it's main purpose.
There are several landers on Mars and several satellites near Mars. Someone put them there and got paid for going that. Isn't it a market? SpaceX sell transportation, and they will put your payload anywhere in Solar System. And if there are means to do it, someone will pay for it.
Of course, interplanetary probes cost several times more than launch. But Moon is near, and it can be studied by inexpensive machines, student project level. And coloured Dragons are means to get probes somewhere, without risks of sailing space on their own.There was also a satellite Market crash in the late 90s- early 00s.
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh13.html
QuoteDelta 3's tough start had cost business, and the collapsing commercial satellite market had caused more to vanish. But there was another factor in play. Boeing had poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Sea Launch, an international commercial launch venture, even before Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas. Sea Launch Zenit could out-lift Delta 3 by a sizable margin - and its first two launches had succeeded.
In 2000, Boeing also purchased Hughes Space & Communications, the satellite builder. Satellite profit margins were sizeable. Launch services profit margins were slim to none, especially with emerging competition from Russia. Unlike McDonnell Douglas, Boeing had little incentive to continue to support Delta 3 in a shrinking commercial satellite launch market.
17 hours ago, tater said:NASA is indeed a customer, but now you're talking about maybe a single launch every few years.
It's actually once or twice a year (at most), and for ULA primarily- F9 can capture the Earth Observations and TDRS market (though that's less valuable), but not the time-sensitive planetary launch that brings the big bucks (and rockets)- SpaceX is way to busy to guarantee a launch slot when NASA needs it.
Also, SpaceX will likely do dual launch for NASA earth payloads, they're generally pretty small, and undersized for a RTLS landing F9R.
16 hours ago, Rakaydos said:I think the best near-term market increase for price increase is university STEM departments. Even if it's a special educational discount limited to cheap, unrefurbished (and unreliable) relaunched boosters, a satelite launched per semester pushes student investment/interest, which will pay off for spaceX when those university students graduate into the aerospace field.
That's really only in the smallsat/cubesat market.
If we were arguing about the economics of the booming F1-grade market, I'd agree, but F9- market is stagnant right now.
16 hours ago, tater said:Because SpaceX makes more money by giving discounts?
$800,000 is a lot of money for a handful of students to work on a spacecraft. Cubesats are far cheaper, and can indeed hit rides, to go at greatly reduced cost, but that's not a model for making more money.
I'm trying to stay on topic... Red Dragon, and possible future Mars exploration by SpaceX as groundwork for their grandiose plans. That takes money. My thought is that they can blow their leftover EOL launchers on this, and do their experiments/hobby launches on the cheap, having gotten other customers to already have paid for the rockets a few times over.
The government gives discounts.
16 hours ago, PB666 said:SpaceX just signed an 83 million dollar contract to lauch a miltary satellite, its first, there will be more.
That's not a new market, or even a increase in market (maybe a 5% increase in 5-10 years, composed of an extra backup GPS or comsat).
That's taking from ULA.
Not to mention, the DOD is moving more towards commercial uses, most specifically commercial spysats and whether sats (earth observation) and later potentially also comsats.
That's bad for ULA, but also bad for SpaceX, because they've gotten a market that will be on the decline in the future, unless WWIII happens.
That probably means more total sats launched, though, due to lower cost. How much is up to debate.
-
17 hours ago, John JACK said:19 hours ago, tater said:
And next is almost infinite market for science — telescopes, Moon exploration, maybe asteroids and interplanetary probes.
Space Agencies are the only market for Science. And that's not an "infinite market"- they have small, finite budgets.
17 hours ago, PB666 said:Fredinno, take a hint, break up your responses your quoting is corrupted because you are putting to many responses into one quote.
QuoteI hate this forum software.
17 hours ago, John JACK said:And Red Dragon (yay for on-topic again!) is an example of just that, expanding markets further than LEO.
Red Dragon is a tech demonstrator and a stunt flight.
That's not a "expanding market."
That'd be like if NASA made a new Mars Probe, and you said that there was now a "new era" in Mars Space Exploration.
17 hours ago, PB666 said:I think that answered itself. Sure the Russian program is credible, but not suitable for all payloads. The eyes of Putin are upon you . . . . .
QuoteIt's good for the commercial payloads that are the focus of this thread.
17 hours ago, PB666 said:Actually no I wouldn't, doesn't seem very wise that Iceland or Ireland would have a launch site unless they contracted for polar orbits, same with Canada.
QuoteWhy don't the Saudis have one then?
It's not that high in demand.
17 hours ago, PB666 said:QuoteBrownsville is 24 degrees from the equator. Ecuador is on the equator.
It's the closest to the equator other than Guiana, and a Brazil launch complex.
But really though, Sea Launch has shown that Sea Launch doesn't work because it can only be used for commerical launches. Why would SpaceX bother building on a failed project?
17 hours ago, John JACK said:18 hours ago, fredinno said:By not spending 400K$/kg to shave off several last kilos of mass. Lower reliability, right. No need for triple redundancy and shielded electronics everywhere — if it fails, we'll just launch next. But mostly, by lowering materials and construction cost. Use thicker plates instead of isogrid, dural and titanium instead of carbon, monoprop RSC instead of ion. Satellite will be bigger, but launch per kg is affordable, no need to jam it into smallest booster possible.
And what standardisation could be there with 12 launches market?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_702
Not really standardized, as much as bus standardization.
Lower reliability isn't possible until space repair takes off.
I doubt the material cost of a satellite is enough to justify moving away from isogrid.
But the monoprop instead of ION is a good idea.
I can see what you mean- though I feel reusable space tugs and repair are a far bigger driver for that than cheaper launches.
17 hours ago, John JACK said:18 hours ago, fredinno said:It was done the wrong way. We are talking about reusing rocket parts, not assembling new at factory.
That wasn't what we were discussing, you were arguing that attaching engines again was too complex.
.
Ion-engine, low trust? -Conservation of energy, newtons law
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Just for an RL-10 sized engine?