Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[sevenperforce]

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

They will tumble if they are not aerodynamic stable, its no way to avoid this because the large surface to weight factor. 
Not sure how much mechanical and electrical system its on them, probably the seams, might be oter issues like you don't want salt water between layers so air capture would be beneficial. 
Guess they did not think about fairing reuse until they found that they survived until impact. 

I am sure that they already were considering reuse. After all, they did put GoPro cameras on them.

[The Yellow Dart]

1 minute ago, YumonStudios said:

They still need to thoroughly inspect it for cracks and anomalies, and clean it off, which will mean that the labor costs will decrease only minimally. The savings will be material costs.

So you are saying that inspecting the tankage, test firing, and cleaning off the rocket add up to close to the same amount of labor as manufacturing all of the in-house-made parts and assembling the whole rocket, engine and all?

Besides, they do inspections and test firings for for every new rocket already, so if this is the case (according to you), the only additional cost would be for cleaning the outside. All other costs are essentially the same as a normal launch minus the cost of the entire first stage.

[Nibb31]

19 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said:

So you are saying that inspecting the tankage, test firing, and cleaning off the rocket add up to close to the same amount of labor as manufacturing all of the in-house-made parts and assembling the whole rocket, engine and all?

Besides, they do inspections and test firings for for every new rocket already, so if this is the case (according to you), the only additional cost would be for cleaning the outside. All other costs are essentially the same as a normal launch minus the cost of the entire first stage.

Yes, reusing boosters will save some money. How much, nobody knows, and that is why the entire industry is in "wait and see" mode, watching SpaceX very closely. Nobody doubts they can do it technically, but can they do it economically?

Do not assume that the largest cost factor in operating a launch service is manufacturing the first stage. It isn't. The largest cost is the manpower that operates the launch service, and SpaceX is already about as cheap as it can be on that side (unless they start outsourcing to India, which I doubt). Even with reuse, they will still have to maintain that huge factory in Hawthorne (which is actually scaled for mass production, not reuse). Producing less Merlins and stages means that the unit cost of each Merlin and stage increases dramatically.

And even if launch services cost 10% less than it does now, that is a tiny drop in the total cost of operating a satellite for the end customers, so it won't be a huge stimulus that will create an overwhelming demand. Launch offerings have never been the bottleneck for the space industry.

The barriers to reusability aren't technical, they are economical. The reason NASA or the historical aerospace industry haven't done isn't because they are stupid. It's because it has never got past the trade study review phase. With low launch rates, it isn't worth the effort. When the need for high launch rates and fast turnaround appears, then reusability will happen naturally, with or without SpaceX.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Nibb31

[YumonStudios]

13 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said:

So you are saying that inspecting the tankage, test firing, and cleaning off the rocket add up to close to the same amount of labor as manufacturing all of the in-house-made parts and assembling the whole rocket, engine and all?

Besides, they do inspections and test firings for for every new rocket already, so if this is the case (according to you), the only additional cost would be for cleaning the outside. All other costs are essentially the same as a normal launch minus the cost of the entire first stage.

They likely need to take the engines out for inspection too.

But ok, maybe I'm being a little too pessimistic.

But all the testing on a new rocket needs to be done on a reused rocket. The only employees layed off are the manufacturers, and considering a through cleaning of the inside and outside is still needed, the vast majority of the overall workforce will still be there.

[magnemoe]

48 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

To be fair, the STS was a much more complex machine that the F9 first stage. Those SSMEs were beasts of complexity. 

The F9 is much smaller, much simpler, has no TPS, no payload connections, no doors, no life support, no coolant loops, no fuel cells, no tires, a much simpler hydraulic system, simpler avionics, etc... Each Merlin engine is already test-fired dozens of times before launch without being taken apart and refurbished. There is no reason to believe that they can't technically reuse boosters.

On the other hand, the logistics, infrastructure, stacking, payload integration, testing, ground personnel, overhead, etc... all remain the same. There are no real gains there. It takes weeks to prepare a rocket for launch, and I don't see why reusability will make that any faster. The only saving is the manufacturing cost of the first stage, which probably isn't that high to begin with, because SpaceX is a pretty lean machine when it comes to production.

Where I have my doubts is in the economics of it. Launch rates aren't high enough to justify it, and the small cost reductions for SpaceX won't necessarily translate to cost reduction for customers. Remember that launch cost is just a tiny part of the total cost of operating a satellite for the end customer. Manufacturing of the first stage is just a tiny part of the launch cost.

And the launch cost is not the launch price. SpaceX has no incentive to cut prices by 10% more when they are already 50% cheaper than their competition and they already have a huge backlog. In fact, it would be a stupid move.

Problem with the STS, first you had to take everything to orbit and it was very feature rich you get an upper stage dry weight is twice as much as the payload. 
Now add that everything was pushed to the limit making it more like an formula 1 car than an pickup. 

You are right that the payload integration and launch will be the same, fixed cost will also be the same.
on the other hand testing is far cheaper than building an new stage, this is not an STS mess require 200 man to get ready. 

Falcon 9 first stage reusable is just an modified falcon 9, it was an fairly cheap modification, part of spacex reason for reuse is that the other option is to expand the production line, they have an backlog. 
And yes satellites are more expensive than the cost of launching them. 

22 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said:

So you are saying that inspecting the tankage, test firing, and cleaning off the rocket add up to close to the same amount of labor as manufacturing all of the in-house-made parts and assembling the whole rocket, engine and all?

Besides, they do inspections and test firings for for every new rocket already, so if this is the case (according to you), the only additional cost would be for cleaning the outside. All other costs are essentially the same as a normal launch minus the cost of the entire first stage.

Good point, note that an rocket who is used will be less likely to fail as its more likely to fail the first time, less the next and then less and less likely until it get old. 
Same for every product. 

[YumonStudios]

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Good point, note that an rocket who is used will be less likely to fail as its more likely to fail the first time, less the next and then less and less likely until it get old. 

That's no reason to skimp on the testing.

[kujuman]

43 minutes ago, YumonStudios said:

The Shuttle would have never been made unless the USAF got involved.

And the main reason it had a crew cabin was that it was originally intended to service a giant space station, that would grow to 50 men. When it became apparent that was a fantasy, NASA changed the mission to launching satellites, but had to keep the crew cabin because so much work had already been done assuming it was there.

 

2 hours ago, YumonStudios said:

That's what the Shuttle was supposed to be like. And we all know how well that plan worked .

One of these things is not like the other...

 

It's just unwise to compare F9 or NS to the STS, in practically any capacity. F9 is designed to be an economically competitive choice. STS was designed to get support from Congress. Re-using F9 stages is an opportunity to reduce costs. If it doesn't work out economically/practically, SpaceX doesn't continue the reuse avenue, and just flies expendable F9s. When the STS wasn't easy to turn around, well, what are you going to do? Tell Congress you need to design a new vehicle? Build new orbiters for each launch?

For a really quick and dirty breakdown of labor costs at SpaceX by type (manufacturing, engineering, overhead), just look at the careers page at SpaceX's site--the vast majority of positions are for manufacturing, so one should not just say, oh, SpaceX overhead isn't reduced, therefore reusability is DOA economically; okay, so what? (Yes, there are differences in wages and costs other than wages per position, and turnover probably doesn't occur at the same rate, but as a first level approximation, it ain't bad). Sure, maybe 20% of departments at SpaceX don't need to see increased labor costs w/ increased flight rate, but that 20% might have 50% of the labor.

20-30% in cost/price reduction w/ reusing first stages doesn't seem like a wildly inaccurate claim. It won't happen for several years, and the launch rate might need to reach some minimum first before it approaches that territory, but it's probably a reasonable guess. Unless we know Musk's assumptions (we don't) we can't judge very accurately the validity of the choice. Betting the company to save 20% might not make sense for established players, but betting the company for 20% if the company is a start-up has a better expected value. Reduced prices by 20% on top of 50% compared to competitors might sway customers who are on the fence already. But all of this without data is just faffing about. :-) Nibb is absolutely right: SpaceX is taking a gamble--if it pays off, others will soon follow suit, if it doesn't maybe SpaceX will vanish or be bought-out. We get to see how things go too; but until then, let's just be glad there are amazing efforts to do things a little better :-)

[YumonStudios]

7 minutes ago, kujuman said:

 

One of these things is not like the other...

 

It's just unwise to compare F9 or NS to the STS, in practically any capacity. F9 is designed to be an economically competitive choice. STS was designed to get support from Congress. Re-using F9 stages is an opportunity to reduce costs. If it doesn't work out economically/practically, SpaceX doesn't continue the reuse avenue, and just flies expendable F9s. When the STS wasn't easy to turn around, well, what are you going to do? Tell Congress you need to design a new vehicle? Build new orbiters for each launch?

For a really quick and dirty breakdown of labor costs at SpaceX by type (manufacturing, engineering, overhead), just look at the careers page at SpaceX's site--the vast majority of positions are for manufacturing, so one should not just say, oh, SpaceX overhead isn't reduced, therefore reusability is DOA economically; okay, so what? (Yes, there are differences in wages and costs other than wages per position, and turnover probably doesn't occur at the same rate, but as a first level approximation, it ain't bad). Sure, maybe 20% of departments at SpaceX don't need to see increased labor costs w/ increased flight rate, but that 20% might have 50% of the labor.

20-30% in cost/price reduction w/ reusing first stages doesn't seem like a wildly inaccurate claim. It won't happen for several years, and the launch rate might need to reach some minimum first before it approaches that territory, but it's probably a reasonable guess. Unless we know Musk's assumptions (we don't) we can't judge very accurately the validity of the choice. Betting the company to save 20% might not make sense for established players, but betting the company for 20% if the company is a start-up has a better expected value. Reduced prices by 20% on top of 50% compared to competitors might sway customers who are on the fence already. But all of this without data is just faffing about. :-) Nibb is absolutely right: SpaceX is taking a gamble--if it pays off, others will soon follow suit, if it doesn't maybe SpaceX will vanish or be bought-out. We get to see how things go too; but until then, let's just be glad there are amazing efforts to do things a little better :-)

I already calculated the actual cost savings is 15% vs a cheap expendable rocket due to the major performance hit.

But, I got the Shuttle VS SpaceX message a long time ago, no need to keep hammering it in

[Kryten]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Yes, reusing boosters will save some money. How much, nobody knows, and that is why the entire industry is in "wait and see" mode, watching SpaceX very closely. Nobody doubts they can do it technically, but can they do it economically?

Do not assume that the largest cost factor in operating a launch service is manufacturing the first stage. It isn't. The largest cost is the manpower that operates the launch service, and SpaceX is already about as cheap as it can be on that side (unless they start outsourcing to India, which I doubt). Even with reuse, they will still have to maintain that huge factory in Hawthorne (which is actually scaled for mass production, not reuse). Producing less Merlins and stages means that the unit cost of each Merlin and stage increases dramatically.

And even if launch services cost 10% less than it does now, that is a tiny drop in the total cost of operating a satellite for the end customers, so it won't be a huge stimulus that will create an overwhelming demand. Launch offerings have never been the bottleneck for the space industry.

The barriers to reusability aren't technical, they are economical. The reason NASA or the historical aerospace industry haven't done isn't because they are stupid. It's because it has never got past the trade study review phase. With low launch rates, it isn't worth the effort. When the need for high launch rates and fast turnaround appears, then reusability will happen naturally, with or without SpaceX.

As far as I can see, simply saving on the cost of first stage production isn't really what SpaceX are aiming for; they want to eliminate the time involved in producing that first stage, increasing the flight rate possible with roughly the same workforce and so amortising pay over a larger number of launches. That is why they're looking at cost savings higher than the first stage cost, about 30%.

[Wingman703]

Interjecting into this debate(carry on, enjoying this), but Dragon was successfully grappled by the ISS. Mission Success. 

[Kerbal01]

ASDS OCISLY under tow by Elsbeth III is 200 miles west of Port Caneveral, moving southeast, possibly to get around a storm.

[AngelLestat]

9 hours ago, YumonStudios said:

Then reuse will likely never save more than 15% in the near future.

Why?  there is an spy inside spacex saying that the operation, planning, ground and other related cost are so high?  because if you calculate the men hours that all those process might take is not close to the men hours + hardware and materials for the cost of one stage.  My guess all those cost (now) = less of 1st stage cost.
And those cost can be highly reduced if you increase launch rate.

Quote

The question is if launch rates will ever increase to what is needed for RLV mass production. Very unlikely, considering history has shown that the satellite market is about as inelastic as a diabetic's need for insulin.

I had this discussion many times with Nibb31 in the past, even today there are many signs to point this is not the case. There are no more sats because the time of delay from order to launch is still of many years and the launch cost very high.
Even in this conditions, you can see that demand is growing and everyone had their hands full.
Many other space applications are coming that promise massive amount of launches requirements. There is also a massive need to remove the space junk.

Quote

Because if you extrapolate the 10% cost savings from the 1st stage, ou save a mere 0.62 million in launch costs. I don't think you'll recover the r+D money, but Elon is Elon, so

Again, where you get those numbers?  you think spacex president is lying?

Quote

...and the RCS and quidance are also resistant to salt water? Either way, the aluminum will still corrode in the salt...

RCS? why a faring needs thrusters?  Of course the guidance system and gps is inside a sealed container, or that is too much high tech?

How the aluminum will corrode if is covered by carbon fiber and other layers?

Quote

No, the fairings will come in at around the same time. You need 3 helis, one for the 1st fairing piece, one for the 2nd, and one as a backup.

hahaha.  first if you have a guide system both fairings can splash in the same place (because you force them to that),  in case your helicopter has a problem, you sent a boat days after or you leave it there, there is no need to have 2 helicopters for the same task.. 3 seems more like a joke.

8 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Producing less Merlins and stages means that the unit cost of each Merlin and stage increases dramatically.

No, because they still launch falcon heavy and if they increase the launch rate it means they need to increase 2stage production, they also can use free time to manufacture other things.  3d printing and programmed arm robots makes any production line quite dynamic. Someone smart like elon musk will be sure to exploit each resource to reduce the lazy time of machine and operators. 

Quote

And even if launch services cost 10% less than it does now, that is a tiny drop in the total cost of operating a satellite for the end customers, so it won't be a huge stimulus that will create an overwhelming demand. Launch offerings have never been the bottleneck for the space industry.

We have an official info that said that prepare for launch and refuel a stage will cost 4 millon to spacex slashing about $18 million from the total rocket’s cost, that give you an estimate on the total 1st stage cost.
And that cost does not reduce profits, so if you have another source that disprove those values please share.

You are also ignoring some factors on business strategies, let me explain:
You said that it will be silly to cut prices when in fact competence prices double that, but is not.
Why?  because a satellite is made and designed in base to the launch cost, and it takes time to make a new satellite, you can not said one day.. I will reduce cost now and instantly increase your demand.
If they reduce cost now (keeping its profit) they incentivize that all companies will start to design new satellites with that cost in mind, so this reduce the chance they will change of launch provider later on, making the long term strategy of other companies fall.
If you do this you get another big benefit, like you have a big difference in price and huge client fights to have an early launch access for this price, they will pay the launch cost early on so spacex will have a huge amount of money that can use to match its new launch demand. 

Quote

When the need for high launch rates and fast turnaround appears, then reusability will happen naturally, with or without SpaceX.

Your congrats and best wishes to spacex for the landing does not seem to match your overall opinion

Edited April 10, 2016 by AngelLestat

[tater]

The SpaceX people have an incentive to be as rosy as possible in their predictions. 

No one posting here has any hard data on resuse, and spacex has little data on it as well. Until they have numerous relaunches under their belts, saying it will save gross amounts of money in actual practice is nonsense. Is it false? I have no idea. The idea of cost savings is completely plausible. The amounts quoted? Seem plausible, if optimistic. 

I'll wait for some actual data to make a judgement.

[Kryten]

The biggest problem SpaceX have had is keeping their launch rate up; consider they have over 5,000 employees now. If we're generous and assume their famously low pay and long overtime keeps the costs to $120,000 a person, about half the aerospace industry average, that's $600 million a year. That don't have pay that all from launches-they are getting quite a lot from NASA for commercial cargo flights and commercial crew development milestones-but it's still hard to see how they could have made any money at all last year, with only seven launches at $60 million list price. If reuse ends up saving them no money, but gets their flight rate above the break-even point (maybe 12 or 13 flights a year) it will have very much been worth it.

[AngelLestat]

1 hour ago, Kryten said:

The biggest problem SpaceX have had is keeping their launch rate up; consider they have over 5,000 employees now. If we're generous and assume their famously low pay and long overtime keeps the costs to $120,000 a person, about half the aerospace industry average, that's $600 million a year. That don't have pay that all from launches-they are getting quite a lot from NASA for commercial cargo flights and commercial crew development milestones-but it's still hard to see how they could have made any money at all last year, with only seven launches at $60 million list price. If reuse ends up saving them no money, but gets their flight rate above the break-even point (maybe 12 or 13 flights a year) it will have very much been worth it.

That is a common estimation mistake that everyone does with spacex.
1- no everyone working in spacex is a high grade engineer, a technician needs a engineer title to control a machine or press some buttons in a repetitive task?
120000 anually means 10000 US$ by month, but the average salary in USA is 3300 US$, the average salary for engineers is 9000 US$.

2-No all spacex employers work in base to spacex profits or related to falcon9.
Much of the spacex income comes from their investors which is destined to development research.  So if you want to know the real cost of falcon9 you need to have a small % of those 5000 employees with a 7000 US$ average salary.
There you will have a better estimate on the falcon9 cost.

Edited April 10, 2016 by AngelLestat

[PB666]

8 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

That is a common estimation mistake that everyone does with spacex.
1- no everyone working in spacex is a high grade engineer, a technician needs a engineer title to control a machine or press some buttons in a repetitive task?
120000 anually means 10000 US$ by month, but the average salary in USA is 3300 US$, the average salary for engineers is 9000 US$.

2-No all spacex employers work in base to spacex profits or related to falcon9.
Much of the spacex income comes from their investors which is destined to development research.  So if you want to know the real cost of falcon9 you need to have a small % of those 5000 employees with a 7000 US$ average salary.
There you will have a better estimate on the falcon9 cost.

So you have a welder making a stage 1 rocket engine that is carrying a couple of million dollar payload, some cases much more, and of course failure means higher insurance rates and potential loss of business (in a more competitive markets), are you going to hire a starting level welder and pay him $20/hour (40,000 dollars per year). Take a look at base pay for offshore oil industry, that will give you a good idea where salaries skilled laborers are.

Of course they have people at the management sites that do janatorial work (which can be contracted out), landscaping, etc. But even here, when you have to final assemble a rocket's payload fairings and cap in a clean area you are also thinking about upgrading the salaries of the lowest level people also. For the Mars missions, for example, everything that reaches Mars orbit has to be free of Earth critters. There is not much elbow room for the untrained in these industries.

[totalitor]

One more point why reuse rockets: used boosters drop to the sea (when launched from USA). Reducing garbage everywhere is good to do. Even if it will cost more! Right?

[PTNLemay]

I've been wondering how much SpaceX sacrifices on performance by making the first stage come back, but the numbers are sort of hard to come by, and I'm not that good with the equations.

I found on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 and here http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/ that the Falcon 9 FT's total mass is around 541 tons.  The first stage propellant is around 409 tons.  So, using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, we can discern how much delta V the first stage provides.  Assuming around 3000 m/s exhaust velocity, (sea level ISP is 282, vacuum is 311, so 300 seems like a good average for the flight) I get around 4238 m/s deltaV.  How much of this needs to be kept for the re-entry?  Both for the ground landing and for the ocean landing.

[CatastrophicFailure]

5 hours ago, Wingman703 said:

Interjecting into this debate(carry on, enjoying this), but Dragon was successfully grappled by the ISS. Mission Success. 

Thanks for the update. We went out last night to wach the ISS pass over, and sure enuf there was the lil bitty Dragon dot chasing after it!

5 hours ago, DarthVader said:

ASDS OCISLY under tow by Elsbeth III is 200 miles west of Port Caneveral, moving southeast, possibly to get around a storm.

Wait, west? How far out was it in the first place? And why is it in the Gulf now?

[Rakaydos]

4 minutes ago, PTNLemay said:

I've been wondering how much SpaceX sacrifices on performance by making the first stage come back, but the numbers are sort of hard to come by, and I'm not that good with the equations.

I found on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 and here http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-ft/ that the Falcon 9 FT's total mass is around 541 tons.  The first stage propellant is around 409 tons.  So, using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, we can discern how much delta V the first stage provides.  Assuming around 3000 m/s exhaust velocity, (sea level ISP is 282, vacuum is 311, so 300 seems like a good average for the flight) I get around 4238 m/s deltaV.  How much of this needs to be kept for the re-entry?  Both for the ground landing and for the ocean landing.

Keep in mind that after the second stage separates, the 1st stage dry mass drops dramatically, (it's not carrying upperstage engine, fuel and Dragon) forcing you to recalculate it's DV. because the stage is so much lighter, a hundred DV lost for the main payload or so balloons into more than enough for a breaking burn, reentry burn and landing.

[AngelLestat]

@PB666 I am taking as salary average 7000 US$ for spacex, which is more than double the US salary average. 

An engineer working in a repetitive task will made a worse job than someone else due psychologic reasons and lack of love for his work.
Experience in those cases is what most payoff. 

Insurance cost depends on the rocket cost and sat cost.. if you reduce rocket cost, then sat cost also reduce which reduce the insurance cost.
Reusability will add as spacex president say, confidence in the hardware, because it was used before and it works fine.
How much insurance cost you will paid for an airplane that just come out from factory vs one that fly every week?

Edited April 10, 2016 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

46 minutes ago, PB666 said:

So you have a welder making a stage 1 rocket engine that is carrying a couple of million dollar payload, some cases much more, and of course failure means higher insurance rates and potential loss of business (in a more competitive markets), are you going to hire a starting level welder and pay him $20/hour (40,000 dollars per year). Take a look at base pay for offshore oil industry, that will give you a good idea where salaries skilled laborers are.

And once you've done that, also try taking into account that almost all of this work is in California, where wages are among the highest in the US.

[HebaruSan]

I don't know that $7000/month is going to get you much of an aerospace workforce. That's just $5k/yr above the median household income for white people, and these are high skill, high education jobs. I guess it's decent for entry-level, so a lot may depend on how true it is that they actively recruit young people who want to pad their resumes (and how many of those households have two incomes).

[Frybert]

2 minutes ago, Kryten said:

And once you've done that, also try taking into account that almost all of this work is in California, where wages are among the highest in the US.

Whereas all of the recovery/refurbishing is done in Florida, where wages are lower.

[PTNLemay]

50 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Keep in mind that after the second stage separates, the 1st stage dry mass drops dramatically, (it's not carrying upperstage engine, fuel and Dragon) forcing you to recalculate it's DV. because the stage is so much lighter, a hundred DV lost for the main payload or so balloons into more than enough for a breaking burn, reentry burn and landing.

Hmm, but does anyone know the threshold?  On the wiki it says that it can get 10 tons to LEO, or 4.8 tons to GTO.  I'm guessing this means it can do that and land the rocket in the ocean.  How much lighter do the payloads need to be in order for the rocket to come back and land on land?