Orbital ATK believes in satellite servicing, but not rocket reusability

[fredinno]

Quote

MUNICH — Satellite and rocket builder Orbital ATK on March 1 said it would begin substantial investment this year into a commercial satellite in-orbit servicing vehicle that should be operational by early 2019 without any government development support.

The company said it is also throttling up spending on a new launch vehicle with substantially more lift capacity than its newly re-engined Antares rocket, with early development co-funded by the U.S. Air Force.

The new vehicle, which will target commercial and government satellite markets, will not include any of the reusability features that competitors SpaceX and United Launch Alliance have incorporated into their rocket designs. (It's a non-resuable solid rocket- OrbitalATK is sceptical of reuse.)

 

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-believes-in-satellite-servicing-but-not-in-rocket-reusability/#sthash.pqovQAKt.dpuf

Quote

Orbital surprised investors by announcing that, while it is steering clear of reusable rockets, it’s going all-in on three investments that will consume a combined $75 million in free cash flow in 2016 and between $250 million and $300 million in cash in the next three years.

Thompson said that, once fully operational at the end of the decade, the three projects could generate $500 million in incremental annual revenue. He declined to provide the split among the three – a new generation of precision weapons, the new launch vehicle and commercial satellite in-orbit servicing – both in terms of spending and revenue potential.

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-believes-in-satellite-servicing-but-not-in-rocket-reusability/#sthash.pqovQAKt.dpuf

Hmm, looks like Satellite repair is OrbitalATK's pet project , similar to ULA's IVF and Space Tugs, or SpaceX's reuse, but looks like OrbitalATK is committed to this to become operational without outside support, unlike ULA. I say good luck to them-especially with all the research being done to satellite repair.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Red Iron Crown
Trimmed title length. :)

[Hysterrics]

I wonder if throwing away rocket parts will soon sound unthinkable.

[fredinno]

24 minutes ago, Sequinox said:

I wonder if throwing away rocket parts will soon sound unthinkable.

I wonder if that will happen within ~50 years.

[Hysterrics]

6 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I wonder if that will happen within ~50 years.

I feel like that's likely.

[Red Iron Crown]

@fredinno I trimmed the topic title a bit for you, no need to have the source URL there.

[kerbiloid]

According to Musk, one flight costs about 60 M$.
According to wiki, one F22 costs 66 M$.
F22 weight ~= 22 t, Falcon dry weight ~= 30 t.
So, Falcon ~= F22.
Any fighter is by default an expendable resource, that's why they are produced by the hundreds and thousands.

Falcon lifespan say ~= 10 flights (the best of Shuttle engines was used for 19 times afaik).
I.e. any reusable Falcon flight would cost at least 10-15 M$ including the refusbirhing. Not much less than a single-use flight.

So, while F22/F35 are produced by thousands, not much sense in a reusable rocket.

Edited March 3, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Sequinox said:

I wonder if throwing away rocket parts will soon sound unthinkable.

When you're the biggest producer of large SRMs, you don't really have the choice.

Reusability only makes sense with high flight rates, which requires huge demand. Reusability at current flight rates doesn't make much of a saving. However, once you reach high enough flight rates, other economies of scale kick in, which means that cheap disposable boosters make as much sense as expensive reusable boosters.

[Mitchz95]

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

When you're the biggest producer of large SRMs, you don't really have the choice.

Reusability only makes sense with high flight rates, which requires huge demand. Reusability at current flight rates doesn't make much of a saving. However, once you reach high enough flight rates, other economies of scale kick in, which means that cheap disposable boosters make as much sense as expensive reusable boosters.

Are cheap boosters really viable for space launches, though? Mass producing cars works fine because the underlying machinery is fairly simple and it doesn't need to undergo all that much force. But a rocket launch is ... well, we all know how technically challenging it is. Even the most advanced rockets in service today are prone to malfunctions and failures, and I doubt many people with a payload to launch would have much trust in a subpar vehicle when you could fly it on a Falcon 9 that's already flown before and is known to be sound.

In time that might change, but I expect re-usable rockets will have cornered the market long before "big dumb boosters" become a viable launch market.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Mitchz95

[p1t1o]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

According to Musk, one flight costs about 60 M$.
According to wiki, one F22 costs 66 M$.
F22 weight ~= 22 t, Falcon dry weight ~= 30 t.
So, Falcon ~= F22.
Any fighter is by default an expendable resource, that's why they are produced by the hundreds and thousands.

Falcon lifespan say ~= 10 flights (the best of Shuttle engines was used for 19 times afaik).
I.e. any reusable Falcon flight would cost at least 10-15 M$ including the refusbirhing. Not much less than a single-use flight.

So, while F22/F35 are produced by thousands, not much sense in a reusable rocket.

I find this comparison a little uncomfortable for some reason...an expendable fleet of thousands of F22s...just doesn't seem to match reality.

**edit**

Any aircraft with proper undercarriage (and the occasional one without) is by definition, designed to be reusable.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by p1t1o

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Are cheap boosters really viable for space launches, though? Mass producing cars works fine because the underlying machinery is fairly simple and it doesn't need to undergo all that much force. But a rocket launch is ... well, we all know how technically challenging it is. Even the most advanced rockets in service today are prone to malfunctions and failures, and I doubt many people with a payload to launch would have much trust in a subpar vehicle when you could fly it on a Falcon 9 that's already flown before and is known to be sound.

In time that might change, but I expect re-usable rockets will have cornered the market long before "big dumb boosters" become a viable launch market.

I doubt fighters last for 10s of flights (being in war) so there's that....

But rocket's are basically controlled explosives, something that makes reuse so much more difficult.

[sevenperforce]

SpaceX is betting on humanity. 

Big Dumb Boosters are betting on...something else?

[Mitchz95]

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

SpaceX is betting on humanity. 

Big Dumb Boosters are betting on...something else?

I'm pretty sure the specifics don't matter. Whatever is cheaper and more effective will benefit humanity more.

[Exploro]

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

According to Musk, one flight costs about 60 M$.
According to wiki, one F22 costs 66 M$.
F22 weight ~= 22 t, Falcon dry weight ~= 30 t.
So, Falcon ~= F22.
Any fighter is by default an expendable resource, that's why they are produced by the hundreds and thousands.

Falcon lifespan say ~= 10 flights (the best of Shuttle engines was used for 19 times afaik).
I.e. any reusable Falcon flight would cost at least 10-15 M$ including the refusbirhing. Not much less than a single-use flight.

So, while F22/F35 are produced by thousands, not much sense in a reusable rocket.

Depending on the source the flyaway cost of an F-22 was between $100 Million and $150 Million. And to echo P1t1o point; a fighter that cost that much is certainly not an expendable machines.

[fredinno]

26 minutes ago, Exploro said:

Depending on the source the flyaway cost of an F-22 was between $100 Million and $150 Million. And to echo P1t1o point; a fighter that cost that much is certainly not an expendable machines.

Well, ICBMs are expendable machines, and costs on those per kg to orbit are very low.

[Bill Phil]

8 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Are cheap boosters really viable for space launches, though? Mass producing cars works fine because the underlying machinery is fairly simple and it doesn't need to undergo all that much force. But a rocket launch is ... well, we all know how technically challenging it is. Even the most advanced rockets in service today are prone to malfunctions and failures, and I doubt many people with a payload to launch would have much trust in a subpar vehicle when you could fly it on a Falcon 9 that's already flown before and is known to be sound.

In time that might change, but I expect re-usable rockets will have cornered the market long before "big dumb boosters" become a viable launch market.

Except that when you re use a rocket, it's likeky you've replaced/refurbished enough components to call it a new rocket.

[Mitchz95]

7 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Except that when you re use a rocket, it's likeky you've replaced/refurbished enough components to call it a new rocket.

Over the course of ten launches, maybe. But I highly doubt a single launch would be that damaging to the vehicle. Otherwise the reusable program would have been a non-starter.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, Mitchz95 said:

Over the course of ten launches, maybe. But I highly doubt a single launch would be that damaging to the vehicle. Otherwise the reusable program would have been a non-starter.

With improved materials it could be done, and we have good ones, but nothing that can allow TPs to be multi use, at least the super high performance ones. And there's a lot that could happen to a rocket...

[sevenperforce]

Yeah, turnaround on the first few relaunches for each Falcon 9 will be fairly short, with little refurbishment. Probably more work required after the 4th or 5th relaunch, then chopped for parts after a dozen launches total. Though chopping will be more along the lines of rebuilding each component to reuse abt 80% in a "new" rocket. 

[UmbralRaptor]

On 3/4/2016 at 6:06 PM, Mitchz95 said:

Over the course of ten launches, maybe. But I highly doubt a single launch would be that damaging to the vehicle. Otherwise the reusable program would have been a non-starter.

Well, didn't the engines get pretty beat up each launch the last time reusability was seriously done? (I'm also ignoring that Orbital has operated a launcher with a fully reusable 0th stage for ~25 years, and it's even worse in $/kg)

[fredinno]

7 minutes ago, UmbralRaptor said:

Well, didn't the engines get pretty beat up each launch the last time reusability was seriously done? (I'm also ignoring that Orbital has operated a launcher with a fully reusable 0th stage for ~25 years, and it's even worse in $/kg)

Not everyone is a fan of reuse in both the forums, and IRL.

[UmbralRaptor]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Not everyone is a fan of reuse in both the forums, and IRL.

Fair enough. I just get annoyed at how it gets thrown around in lots of places like reusing rocket parts is easy and certain to be cheaper. In some ways it feels more like 1976 than 2016 (though I'll admit to sometimes treating the present more like 1996 or 2006 than 2016).

[kunok]

People often don't know that there are lot of times that is easier and cheaper to make a new part than refurbish it, even when it's perfectly possible.

Even more if you have high production capabilities as Space X has.

One of the reasons is that refurbishment is always more artisan job than making a new part, so economies of scale doesn't apply well.

[Mitchz95]

Didn't Elon Must tweet that the rocket they landed in December had no damage and probably could have flown again?

[UmbralRaptor]

28 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

Didn't Elon Must tweet that the rocket they landed in December had no damage and probably could have flown again?

He did. But they managed to rather mess up a test firing, and damage 8 of the engines as I understand it.

[sevenperforce]

30 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

Didn't Elon Must tweet that the rocket they landed in December had no damage and probably could have flown again?

They put it through the inspection and refurb program they'll be ordinarily using, and I think it was ready for flight again in a week or two. 

These engines were designed for in-flight restart from the beginning so they are pretty sturdy.