mikegarrison Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said: As far as I know, estimates put it somewhere between 1 and 1.5 billion dollars. That's counting refurbishing the Shuttle, recovering and refurbishing the boosters, and rebuilding the exterior tank. No, no, I meant THIS turnaround. The SpaceX launch today. Does anyone know how expensive the testing and refurb work was? Obviously the costs will be different between a very large, manned ship and a fairly small unmanned first stage. But it would be interesting to know whether this launch actually cost more than if they had just used a new one. 18 minutes ago, Camacha said: That seems to happen more often. It is not really a reflight if half the craft is new. The Shuttle was neat, but the reusability was more of a sales pitch than it was reality. You mean half the vehicle new, like "the whole second stage plus payload?" Edited March 30, 2017 by mikegarrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I'm curious ... do you know how expensive this turnaround actually was? No idea, this first one would have had more intensive checking than future flights, but I'm sure it must have been less than a Shuttle Orbiter refurb, which had a standing army to work on it Just the tiles alone on that bird.... The SRB's were essentially remanufactured with a negligible cost saving over new motor casings. Salt water is not kind. It's hard to put a price tag on Shuttle flights, but there's this: Quote By 2011, the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million... When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch Major differences: No thermal tiles (35,000 of them!) to inspect, and the Merlin's were not overhauled like the SSME's were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: You mean new, like "the whole second stage plus payload?" A huge part of the shuttle is the main tank and without it, it would not fly. The SpaceX first stage is, save for some aerodynamic issues, fully capable of flying independently. The two are not comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, Camacha said: It is not really a reflight if half the craft is new. The Shuttle was neat, but the reusability was more of a sales pitch than it was reality. Agreed. But the Orbiters did refly, albeit after a thorough inspection of the entire bird and overhaul of the engines. Each one also had a major, thorough overhaul and upgrade at some point too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: No idea, this first one would have had more intensive checking than future flights, but I'm sure it must have been less than a Shuttle Orbiter refurb, which had a standing army to work on it Just the tiles alone on that bird.... The SRB's were essentially remanufactured with a negligible cost saving over new motor casings. Salt water is not kind. It's hard to put a price tag on Shuttle flights, but there's this: Major differences: No thermal tiles (35,000 of them!) to inspect, and the Merlin's were not overhauled like the SSME's were. Yes, as I said, OF COURSE I'm sure this was less expensive than a Shuttle refurb. Entirely different issues involved with a manned craft that is going to be in orbit for a week versus an unmanned booster that is going to be in flight for eight minutes. What I wondered was whether this launch was more expensive than a new Falcon 9 would have been. That seems entirely possible, considering this was the first reuse flight. Probably lots of first-time non-recurring costs involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Just now, StrandedonEarth said: Agreed. But the Orbiters did refly, albeit after a thorough inspection of the entire bird and overhaul of the engines. Each one also had a major, thorough overhaul and upgrade at some point too. That is why it was concluded that the Space Shuttle as a system did not refly, just parts of it. It was not capable of doing a refly, since the tank always needed to be built new. That is a pretty major and vital part. 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: What I wondered was whether this launch was more expensive than a new Falcon 9 would have been. That seems entirely possible, considering this was the first reuse flight. Probably lots of first-time non-recurring costs involved. Considering everything is likely to be checked many times more than strictly needed, that might be a yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Orders of magnitude less expensive than a shuttle refurb. I'm sure they didn't repaint it, either. The economics of refurb are still an unknown, but I have trouble imagining that F9 refurb costs even 1/10th the cost of a new one. The first few likely cost more since they will test them more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Camacha said: A huge part of the shuttle is the main tank and without it, it would not fly. The SpaceX first stage is, save for some aerodynamic issues, fully capable of flying independently. The two are not comparable. Right. One fuel tank, versus the entire rest of the shuttle launch stack. Obviously for SpaceX fans, there has to be some reason why the Shuttle didn't really count. But it's fine to ignore the second stage of the Falcon not getting reused. Whatever. Congrats to SpaceX for another fine launch and landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Camacha said: That is why it was concluded that the Space Shuttle as a system did not refly, just parts of it. It was not capable of doing a refly, since the tank always needed to be built new. That is a pretty major and vital part. Well, the F9 needs a brand new second stage, and fairings (for now). and, um..... that's it? Apples and really big oranges. I only mentioned the Shuttle before someone started arguing semantics about reflight. And 'lo and behold, we started arguing semantics about reflight. *shrug* This way is much better. But yeah, major Congrats to the whole SpaceX team are in order. So, Congrats! Edited March 31, 2017 by StrandedonEarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: Right. One fuel tank, versus the entire rest of the shuttle launch stack. Obviously for SpaceX fans, there has to be some reason why the Shuttle didn't really count. But it's fine to ignore the second stage of the Falcon not getting reused. There is no need to be offended. The Space Shuttle was a neat apparatus, but that 'one fuel tank' was not only a huge part of the craft, it was also vital to its operation. The boosters were so extensively rebuilt that they were practically manufactured new and the orbiter was overhauled to a large degree too. The facts are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 You'd have trouble spending meaningful amounts of cash in a 24 hour turn around. (Meaningful compared to the cost of a new rocket or a payload). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: Wow, now that will be a huge achievement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Yeah, shuttle was only barely reused in any real sense. A rapid turn around---even measured in weeks would never have been possible for Shuttle. With a 24 hour turn around F9 could deliver a Shuttle payload mass in 2 launches of the same booster, and they'd waste far less than the main tank costs. Heck, the cost of a fully expendable F9 barely puts a dent in shuttle refurb costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Well, the F9 needs a brand new second stage, and fairings (for now). and, um..... that's it? Apples and really big oranges. I only mentioned the Shuttle before someone started arguing semantics about reflight. And 'lo and behold, we started arguing semantics about reflight. *shrug* This way is much better. I guess you could slap on a fairing and go. I think you would get orbit, just without a payload. But whatever the case, it is obviously a very different degree of reuse. That is not surprising, since the Falcon 9 represents 35 years of progress. It is unnecessary that people feel they have to come to the rescue of the Space Shuttle. The thing was amazing for its day. This thing is amazing for today. Why get all worked up? Just now, tater said: Yeah, shuttle was only barely reused in any real sense. A rapid turn around---even measured in weeks would never have been possible for Shuttle. The thing is, you could probably bolt a fairing to a Falcon 9 and launch it, land it and launch it again. Maybe you would just get orbit, maybe you would not. Doing that with the Space Shuttle would be impossible by design, for the simple reason you threw a vital part of the craft away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, tater said: You'd have trouble spending meaningful amounts of cash in a 24 hour turn around. (Meaningful compared to the cost of a new rocket or a payload). Oh, I agree. But not so much trouble doing it in an 11-month turnaround. When they really do have it down to 24 hours, it certainly will change a lot of the economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Major differences: No thermal tiles (35,000 of them!) to inspect, and the Merlin's were not overhauled like the SSME's were. After the first decade, the SSME's weren't overhauled at all - just removed for inspection. By the mid 90's, they were only removed for inspection every third flight or so. By the early 00's, they were only removed 'for cause'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 So... no word on attempted fairing recovery. Not all that surprised, I wonder if it was just like the earliest "half-landing" attempts, where there's no intent to recover, they just took steps to get the fairings down to the surface intact? Testing the glide system, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) Chris Gebhartd is posting live updates from a press conference with Elon: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1661101#msg1661101 Notable info: Fairing landed successfully. ETA: Musk: Upper stage reuse is next. Musk: Hope to provide update to ITS/BFR soon. Come up with number of design refinements. Update on ITS on website in next month or so. First ITS will be uncrewed. Musk: Goal is to get people on Mars before we're dead and company is dead. LOL Edited March 31, 2017 by Mad Rocket Scientist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Camacha said: The thing is, you could probably bolt a fairing to a Falcon 9 and launch it, land it and launch it again. There's no particular reason to do so... all you'd do is spend a bunch of money on fuel and labor without accomplishing anything. But you could if you wanted to. (Easier to just burn the dollar bills in a fireplace though.) 4 minutes ago, Camacha said: Doing that with the Space Shuttle would be impossible by design, for the simple reason you threw a vital part of the craft away. SpaceX throws a vital component away every mission too - the second stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKraken Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 And there it is....bravo Tory Bruno.......come on Jeff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: Notable info: Fairing landed successfully. I guess that's my answer right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Apparently the fairings were landed somehow..... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1661124#msg1661124 Elon says second-stage reusability is next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, Camacha said: It is unnecessary that people feel they have to come to the rescue of the Space Shuttle. The thing was amazing for its day. This thing is amazing for today. Why get all worked up? I don't know. I guess I'm just annoyed by the outright ignoring of historical fact. It would be like saying the 707 was the first jet airliner. I don't have to be a fan of the Comet in order to accept that the 707 wasn't actually the first. The 707 was a lot better, in a lot of ways. But I would make myself look pretty foolish if I claimed it was the first ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, DerekL1963 said: SpaceX throws a vital component away every mission too - the second stage. That is not vital for a relaunch, which is exactly the point. At this point in time, it makes a lot of sense to use two, one for each launch, but it is not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts