Elon Musk confirms Falcon 9 first stage single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) capable.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

I doubt “She did fine last week, and we just gassed her up” will count as man–rating and I know you didn’t mean that either.  On the other hand, not every launch needs to be man–rated and Musk has been very adamant that while NASA is a big customer, it is not SpaceX's only customer. The obvious business model for individual Falcon 9 boosters will likely be something along these lines

1. man—rated launches
2. top—dollar unmanned launches (large communications satellites, etc)
3. ISS supply runs
4. lower grade unmanned launches (irridum, gps, etc)
5. cubesat launches
6. college-sponsored satellites
7. cubesat sponsored by a forum of wannabe-space-agency simulator nerds
8. fuel depot for Elon's Mars mission

For each subsequent launch the going rate for the booster will drop (as it wears out and the chances of failure increase) but it will also allow launches to parties that couldn't afford them in the past. Surely you'd be insane to use a booster on it's fifth flight for a crew replacement flight to the ISS (not until there are dozens of such launches proving that there's no risk, at least). But with a booster that's been paid for many times over you can offer launches at extremely competitive rates to parties who are more than happy to run the risk of a failure at that point.

Seperate Falcon 9 cubesat launches? What is this insanity?

Edited January 8, 2016 by fredinno

[Kerbart]

12 hours ago, fredinno said:

Seperate Falcon 9 cubesat launches? What is this insanity?

The world would be an awesome place if that is the worst kind of insanity encountered!

[Rune]

13 hours ago, fredinno said:

Seperate Falcon 9 cubesat launches? What is this insanity?

You can bunch cubesats, you know. It is their main thing, that they come in standardized deployment racks that allow big numbers of them to be flown simultaneously and dispersed through an orbital plane. We would be talking about a big number of cubesats, but I actually see a ~yearly flight (maybe two, not more) at low price rates at least half-full, meaning the upper stage could target two different (close) orbital planes. And while the big birds have shrunk, the smallguys are growing all the time, with 6U cubesats being pretty common these days. They are becoming respectable sats, with propulsion and attitude control and everything, and pretty useful for on-orbit validation of hardware.

 

Rune. Like, say, the latest Orbcomm launch, those are almost big-cubesat sized.

[fredinno]

44 minutes ago, Rune said:

You can bunch cubesats, you know. It is their main thing, that they come in standardized deployment racks that allow big numbers of them to be flown simultaneously and dispersed through an orbital plane. We would be talking about a big number of cubesats, but I actually see a ~yearly flight (maybe two, not more) at low price rates at least half-full, meaning the upper stage could target two different (close) orbital planes. And while the big birds have shrunk, the smallguys are growing all the time, with 6U cubesats being pretty common these days. They are becoming respectable sats, with propulsion and attitude control and everything, and pretty useful for on-orbit validation of hardware.

 

Rune. Like, say, the latest Orbcomm launch, those are almost big-cubesat sized.

I know what you are saying- but damn! Unless these are being put into GEO for some reason, it's really a waste. Seriously, the F9 is a 15T to LEO rocket. Even a GEO Cubesats mission is OP for even a large sluster of 16 kg 6U CubeSats. Secondary payload Cubesats make sense, but primary payload Cubesats do not, unless your rocket is smaller than 1-2T to LEO.

[Elukka]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

I know what you are saying- but damn! Unless these are being put into GEO for some reason, it's really a waste. Seriously, the F9 is a 15T to LEO rocket. Even a GEO Cubesats mission is OP for even a large sluster of 16 kg 6U CubeSats. Secondary payload Cubesats make sense, but primary payload Cubesats do not, unless your rocket is smaller than 1-2T to LEO.

Well... Jason-3 is only 525 kg and not going to a very high orbit. Still gets a whole Falcon 9. Considering small rockets like Pegasus (30 times less payload!) or Minotaur appear to cost almost as much as a Falcon 9 I could see it launching more small payloads in the future.

[fredinno]

15 minutes ago, Elukka said:

Well... Jason-3 is only 525 kg and not going to a very high orbit. Still gets a whole Falcon 9. Considering small rockets like Pegasus (30 times less payload!) or Minotaur appear to cost almost as much as a Falcon 9 I could see it launching more small payloads in the future.

Pegasus is an extreme example- it's one of the most expensive/pound launchers, and I suspect it's only still alive because NASA wants Orbital to keep it alive. A better comparison is SPARK/Super Stripi to Falcon 9- $15-12 Million compared to $61.2 Million (V1.1)- or in the case of something else that can launch Jason-3 cheaper, Minotaur I ($28.8 Million) or Minotaur IV ($50 Million) to Falcon 9- and since Antares isn't available, and Delta II and Atlas V 401 are more expensive.

I'm suspecting it is in a complex orbit requiring multiple burns (that wasn't capable by the HAPS), but liquid-fueled cubesat launchers like Electron are also being built.

 

http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/spark-super-strypi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_I

 

Falcon 9 will literally have no advantage for smallsat launches once Firefly Alpha and Electron get operational. And the few that need to be in a complex orbit, but are larger than 500 kg, Antares is the way to go.

[Elukka]

Payloads like Jason seem to be a bit awkward for most dedicated smallsat launchers. Minotaur I seems too small (331 kg to SSO), Pegasus couldn't quite do it. Firefly Alpha and Electron likewise seem to be too small.

I'm sure a smaller rocket would be more efficient, it's just there's a bit of a dearth of suitable launchers right now and in their absence Falcon is cheap enough to be tolerable. SpaceX themselves were going to have a launcher in the 1000 kg to LEO class (Falcon 1e) but in the end decided to launch those on Falcon 9s, though preferably as secondary payloads.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Elukka

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Elukka said:

Payloads like Jason seem to be a bit awkward for most dedicated smallsat launchers. Minotaur I seems too small (331 kg to SSO), Pegasus couldn't quite do it. Firefly Alpha and Electron likewise seem to be too small.

I'm sure a smaller rocket would be more efficient, it's just there's a bit of a dearth of suitable launchers right now and in their absence Falcon is cheap enough to be tolerable. SpaceX themselves were going to have a launcher in the 1000 kg to LEO class (Falcon 1e) but in the end decided to launch those on Falcon 9s, though preferably as secondary payloads.

In case you didn't read my comment above competely, Minotaur IV/V and Antares can still do the job cheaper. The only problem with them is that they're solid launchers-but even then, you can use the Satellite's  propulsion to do precise injection. Jason does not have one, probably due to being based off a spacecraft design that used the Delta II, which is liquid fueled. If ULA's Vulcan cost goals of half the Atlas' are correct, then Vulcan 401 could work just fine too. 

 

Not to mention Orbital has the HAPS and Super HAPS stages for Minotaur- which can themselves do some precise orbital adjustments.

 

Jason-3 is an anomaly. It's too big for Cubesat launchers, but too small for a liquid fueled medium-lift rocket. 

[Rakaydos]

12 hours ago, fredinno said:

I know what you are saying- but damn! Unless these are being put into GEO for some reason, it's really a waste. Seriously, the F9 is a 15T to LEO rocket. Even a GEO Cubesats mission is OP for even a large sluster of 16 kg 6U CubeSats. Secondary payload Cubesats make sense, but primary payload Cubesats do not, unless your rocket is smaller than 1-2T to LEO.

900 cubesats in a single launch?

[wumpus]

22 hours ago, fredinno said:

Pegasus is an extreme example- it's one of the most expensive/pound launchers, and I suspect it's only still alive because NASA wants Orbital to keep it alive. A better comparison is SPARK/Super Stripi to Falcon 9- $15-12 Million compared to $61.2 Million (V1.1)- or in the case of something else that can launch Jason-3 cheaper, Minotaur I ($28.8 Million) or Minotaur IV ($50 Million) to Falcon 9- and since Antares isn't available, and Delta II and Atlas V 401 are more expensive.

I'm suspecting it is in a complex orbit requiring multiple burns (that wasn't capable by the HAPS), but liquid-fueled cubesat launchers like Electron are also being built.

 

http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/spark-super-strypi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_v1.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_I

 

Falcon 9 will literally have no advantage for smallsat launches once Firefly Alpha and Electron get operational. And the few that need to be in a complex orbit, but are larger than 500 kg, Antares is the way to go.

First they have to have a proven means to orbit.  Then they need the customers.  Then they need launch.  Only after all that can you really say they are "operational and have all these advantages".

The real reason that Falcon 9 will not be able to compete with them (aside from offering "extra space" on other launches) is that the payloads are more like Falcon 1.  If SpaceX really cared for this market, they could presumably revive Falcon 1 (note that landing Falcon 9 requires tricks not available in Falcon 1, like "virtually" throttling by a factor of 9 by only burning on one motor on the way down).  In the unlikely event that SpaceX cares enough to compete in this market (they don't), there is almost no way they are going to recover a Falcon1 booster.

While the designs look good (have to love the idea of a carbon-pressure fed aerospike), there is always the knowledge that powerpoint slides always out perform real rockets.  I love how Firefly's (conventional bell) ISP is at least 10% higher than SpaceX's turbopump fed system (and something like 30% higher than their first orbiting engine in falcon1).  They also say nothing about ISP at 1bar (much of the point of the aerospike), not that I'd really believe it anyway.  I'd have to see them in orbit before announcing Antares dead.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

First they have to have a proven means to orbit.  Then they need the customers.  Then they need launch.  Only after all that can you really say they are "operational and have all these advantages".

The real reason that Falcon 9 will not be able to compete with them (aside from offering "extra space" on other launches) is that the payloads are more like Falcon 1.  If SpaceX really cared for this market, they could presumably revive Falcon 1 (note that landing Falcon 9 requires tricks not available in Falcon 1, like "virtually" throttling by a factor of 9 by only burning on one motor on the way down).  In the unlikely event that SpaceX cares enough to compete in this market (they don't), there is almost no way they are going to recover a Falcon1 booster.

While the designs look good (have to love the idea of a carbon-pressure fed aerospike), there is always the knowledge that powerpoint slides always out perform real rockets.  I love how Firefly's (conventional bell) ISP is at least 10% higher than SpaceX's turbopump fed system (and something like 30% higher than their first orbiting engine in falcon1).  They also say nothing about ISP at 1bar (much of the point of the aerospike), not that I'd really believe it anyway.  I'd have to see them in orbit before announcing Antares dead.

I never said Antares was dead. Also, it's not wholly difficult to get a higher ISP than Merlin with RP-1 LOX. NK-33 did it, and that was using a "bell-type" system, and made during the space race.