Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[hugix]

when running a airline company, you'll learn that msot of the costs do not go towards the airplanes. But all the subsystems around it.

Yet airline companies rather keep a complex system at all their landing sites dedicated to refurbishing and repairing the airplanes than just buy a new one.

Talk about how much it will save is useless. 90% 10 percent of 35% of 50%, less than half. There is one way to find out and that is by trying it.

The way SpaceX is going on with re usability is a big step up form the space shuttle boosters. If all systems are functioning properly that is.

[StrandedonEarth]

Just a tad bit off topic, but did SpaceX ever disclose any information on what caused the in flight termination of the F9R Dev vehicle?

"SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk said in a statement Tuesday that the cause of the prototype rocket's demise was a "blocked sensor port."

Garrett Reisman, who heads SpaceX's effort to develop a private space taxi for NASA astronauts, said Wednesday that the investigation into the loss of the rocket testbed is not yet complete.

"I can tell you that it certainly looks like it was basically a single-point failure that existed on that test article that does not exist on the Falcon 9," Reisman said. "We think it was a failure of a single sensor, and Falcon 9 has multiple sensors in its algorithm that it uses. So if the same failure occurred on the Falcon 9 it would not affect the mission in any way."

The sensor failure in one of the three Merlin 1D engines on the Falcon 9R caused the vehicle to stray from its intended flight path, triggering an automatic self-destruct command to ensure it did not threaten nearby people and property.

Reisman said an operational Falcon 9 flight, which uses nine first stage engines, could overcome the loss of an engine. On the three-engine Falcon 9R, such redundancy does not exist."

Link

[magnemoe]

"SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk said in a statement Tuesday that the cause of the prototype rocket's demise was a "blocked sensor port."

Garrett Reisman, who heads SpaceX's effort to develop a private space taxi for NASA astronauts, said Wednesday that the investigation into the loss of the rocket testbed is not yet complete.

"I can tell you that it certainly looks like it was basically a single-point failure that existed on that test article that does not exist on the Falcon 9," Reisman said. "We think it was a failure of a single sensor, and Falcon 9 has multiple sensors in its algorithm that it uses. So if the same failure occurred on the Falcon 9 it would not affect the mission in any way."

The sensor failure in one of the three Merlin 1D engines on the Falcon 9R caused the vehicle to stray from its intended flight path, triggering an automatic self-destruct command to ensure it did not threaten nearby people and property.

Reisman said an operational Falcon 9 flight, which uses nine first stage engines, could overcome the loss of an engine. On the three-engine Falcon 9R, such redundancy does not exist."

Link

Yes they also thought it would be more useful to try to work directly with returning stages, the grasshopper was probably planned to be tested until crashed anyway with more and more hairy operations, time will tell if making an new one would be more economical in that they could start recover stages faster.

[softweir]

...

Yet airline companies rather keep a complex system at all their landing sites dedicated to refurbishing and repairing the airplanes than just buy a new one. ..

Airline companies are require, by law, to perform multiple checks and maintenance on each aircraft right from the moment it is purchased. There is only a very small difference in running costs between an old plane and a new plane, so buying new saves very little in maintenance and costs a lot in capital outlay. It actually costs more to take aircraft out of service and fly them to a central maintenance facility than it does to have multiple maintenance crews scattered across the globe; and besides, they need that many ground staff anyway in order to perform the checks, so why not have them split up into several teams? It's not like the engineers at airports are ever hanging around for very long, they are amongst the busiest people you can find!

[codepoet]

A difference between and airline and spacex is that spacex is both the operator and manufacturer. Maybe the cost saves start to come once a rocket is a standardized commodity that other launch providers purchase and operate. The maintenance and refurbishment also become commoditised so it could be outsourced to a third party specialist. If stages do start being recovered then there will be more of them hanging around, so perhaps there comes when someone else offers to buy up and operate old ones, or even new ones.

[Exoscientist]

SpaceX Checks Throttle Valve After Flawed Falcon 9 Recovery Attempt.

Apr 16, 2015 Guy Norris Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

"Video of the stage descending to the landing ship showed the vehicle

approaching quickly but decelerating. However, closer to the platform the

Falcon 9 showed an excessive horizontal velocity component that prompted the

single engine used for landing to gimbal to correct the flight path angle.

Exhaust from the Merlin engine could be seen raising clouds of water from

around the platform as the stage maneuvered close to the edge of the landing

zone. The control system then commanded vectoring of the engine nozzle to an

angle that effectively over-compensated for the previous flight path angle

correction. By this time the vehicle was too low to make further corrections

and landed at too great a tilt and speed to safely land."

http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-checks-throttle-valve-after-flawed-falcon-9-recovery-attempt

The video released by SpaceX shows the Falcon 9 coming in too fast:

____________________________________________________

Elon Musk @elonmusk

Apr 15

High resolution, color corrected, slow motion rocket landing video

https://youtu.be/BhMSzC1crr0

____________________________________________________

Actually, since this is slow motion it actually landed faster than this.

And Elon has acknowledged the present configuration, which can't hover, will

cause high g landings:

____________________________________________________

@ID_AA_Carmack Thanks! 3 of 9 engines are lit initially, dropping to 1 near

ground. Even w 1 lit, it can't hover, so always land at high g

- Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 15, 2015

____________________________________________________

Study of the video of both failed landings suggest both could have landed

safely with hovering capability. Then the suggestion is made to make some

relatively low cost modifications to give the Falcon 9 hovering ability:

Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9.

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/04/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html

Bob Clark

[sgt_flyer]

Guess adding hovering capabilities to the f9R will still be a hard choice - among the solutions they proposed, the ones restricting the exhaust flow in one way or another would be somehow cheap to devellop (though, will they have the clearance needed to add such extensions on the center engine without reworking the legs) at the cost of ISP during the landing. (If you 'divert' some of your downward thrust, you're still burning the same amount of fuel - but you need a way to prevent this diverted exhaust flux from damaging other components - + added weight - so lower ISP + more dry weight will lower the payload limit a bit more for f9-r.

Reworking the merlin 1D to be even deeper throttable - it would need to redesign the engine - and getting to such low thrust levels might also lower a bit the ISP of the engines / add complexity / weight, so potentially less reliability / more expensive engines, and harder to maintain after recovery.

Use a different central engine - they proposed the use of a modified deeply throttable lower thrust merlin 1a -

Problems will be, they'll lose a bit of their 'failsafes' - if the center engine is less powerful, they might have tighter TWR margins if one of the other engines fails (and need the opposing engine to shut down)

It'll also lower the commonality of the rocket - so they'll need to keep a distinct production line and tooling for this engine.

All those solutions have some downsides to them to add hover capabilities to the f9-R

[Dkmdlb]

All those solutions have some downsides to them to add hover capabilities to the f9-R

Which explains why they are trying so hard to avoid having to make any of the changes.

[CptRichardson]

Another option: giant spring-loaded nets to catch the damn thing if it starts tipping over.

Option: More Boost- *ahem* Moar RCS thrusters at the top and bottom to give better emergency control at landing.

[Airlock]

[bigdad84]

[Airlock]

Wonder if they will stream it?

[magnemoe]

Airline companies are require, by law, to perform multiple checks and maintenance on each aircraft right from the moment it is purchased. There is only a very small difference in running costs between an old plane and a new plane, so buying new saves very little in maintenance and costs a lot in capital outlay. It actually costs more to take aircraft out of service and fly them to a central maintenance facility than it does to have multiple maintenance crews scattered across the globe; and besides, they need that many ground staff anyway in order to perform the checks, so why not have them split up into several teams? It's not like the engineers at airports are ever hanging around for very long, they are amongst the busiest people you can find!

Don't agree on the "very small difference in running costs between an old plane and a new plane" planes wears out, this is not an problem for an airline company who just buy new ones.

Its an major issue for air forces who have lots of specialized planes, AWACS, maritime patrol, mid air refueling who works great but wear out and integrating this features in an new air frame is expensive.

[Nibb31]

I think the solution is in the software. They need to change the landing trajectory to cancel out the horizontal velocity higher up in order to limit low altitude gimballing.

[AngelLestat]

You forgot the factory they own, their test range, 3 launch sites, and their regional offices. On top of management and services (security, cleaning, and parking spots) for those buildings, there's also the property ownership tax.

It will be a little harder to reach a rought number in this case.. If they are the owners and they are not renting, then the cost does not change so much. But yeah, not sure about the cost of this.

- - - Updated - - -

Media Accreditation Opens for SpaceX Commercial Crew Pad Abort Test

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/side_image/public/thumbnails/image/pad_abort_1_30_15.jpg?itok=7mD32gRr

[Rakaydos]

You forgot the factory they own, their test range, 3 launch sites, and their regional offices. On top of management and services (security, cleaning, and parking spots) for those buildings, there's also the property ownership tax.

Why does it matter if they own it or not... whoever did own it would charge them as much regardless.

If anything having all that in house saves the markup of outsourcing to some other corporations profits.

[SeaDog]

I think the solution is in the software. They need to change the landing trajectory to cancel out the horizontal velocity higher up in order to limit low altitude gimballing.

Well, the horizontal velocity is on purpose. In case of engine failure, they don't want to crash hard into the barge. I don't think it's necessary to get rid of that feature anyway, even if it probably would be slightly easier if they did.

[softweir]

Why does it matter if they own it or not... whoever did own it would charge them as much regardless.

If anything having all that in house saves the markup of outsourcing to some other corporations profits.

The point wasn't "who owns it" but "doesn't all this cost a lot!"

[Rakaydos]

The point wasn't "who owns it" but "doesn't all this cost a lot?"

operating expences dont get figured into per-launch costs directly- spacex has to estimate a per-launch profit to cover the gap between launches, but it IS profit per launch.

If SpaceX was launching 5 rockets per day, their operating overhead would be neglible, and the price-per-launch, even with a modest profit margin, would be the dominant value.

For now, its somewhere in between. Fire a few janators and put up a few posters about keeping your workplace clean.

[Nibb31]

operating expences dont get figured into per-launch costs directly- spacex has to estimate a per-launch profit to cover the gap between launches, but it IS profit per launch.

If SpaceX was launching 5 rockets per day, their operating overhead would be neglible, and the price-per-launch, even with a modest profit margin, would be the dominant value.

Yes, costs go down when the number of launches goes up. Reducing launch costs is about economies of scale more than reusability. Reusability is just one way of doing it, and mass-production is another, but those only make sense if demand increases dramatically.

To break the vicious circle, you have to start somewhere. Will reducing the price of a launch by 10% increase the global launch market volume by more than 10%?

For now, its somewhere in between. Fire a few janators and put up a few posters about keeping your workplace clean.

SpaceX is already a lean machine. It's set up to be about as low-cost as a launch operator can be without taking too many risks. I'm pretty sure that haven't overhired in the janitor department.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[AngelLestat]

In few hours SpaceX with the falcon9 will launch the Thales Alenia Space (Turkmenistan communications satellite into GTO).

http://livestream.com/spacex/events/3995038

Not recovery attempt for this mission.

[Frida Space]

In few hours SpaceX with the falcon9 will launch the Thales Alenia Space (Turkmenistan communications satellite into GTO).

http://livestream.com/spacex/events/3995038

Not recovery attempt for this mission.

Thales Alenia Space are the guys that made the satellite (sort of the European version of Lockheed Martin or Boeing). The satellite is TurkmenAlem 52E/MonacoSat.

[AngelLestat]

Yeah I know.. it was an english sentence problem, not one related to understanding..

Thanks for the correction anyway.

[Frida Space]

Yeah I know.. it was an english sentence problem, not one related to understanding..

Thanks for the correction anyway.

Oh ok, I'm sorry then :-) BTW, the status board now shows conditions are "red" again in violation of the attached anvil rule.

[Kryten]

Webcast is now live, but launch is currently no-go due to weather issues.