Streetwind Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Shame that I couldn't watch the launch (after midnight on a weekday is a no-no with my schedule). Great to hear that it went well, though. Especially with the people at SpaceX in mind, who have been putting in ridiculous hours for so many years. Euphoria must be running as high as with the first successful landing. I'll get to watch the replay another... *checks clock* ...10 hours from now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Any news on the fairing recovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said: Any news on the fairing recovery? Buried in one of those NSF threads, last I saw was that at least one had landed in the ocean, and they had photos of it. Beyond that I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannu2 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 5 hours ago, munlander1 said: So with launching again 24 hours later do they plan to use another rocket? It would make much more since to have several rockets, and have a que of refurbished first stages. Trying to refurbish a rocket in 24 hours seems like a daunting task, with many mistakes made because of the pace required. I think they put new second stage and payload and run first stage again. I do not see any severe obstacles, but of course it needs years if not decades development work and smaller achievements. In that phase there should not be much refurbishment work. Just some basic checks like airplanes have now. Larger refurbishing with in depth tests and replacement of some wearing parts may be needed after 5 or 10 flights. That would give very significant cost advantage compared to current situation. 7 hours ago, KerbalSaver said: At the risk of sounding dramatic, it's possible that historians will mark today as the beginning of a new age in spaceflight. If you have any champagne, now's the time to open it. It depends on following development. If SpaceX succeed to develop re-using to give significant time and cost savings, this flight will probably be important milestone for future historians. But if not, this will be one mundane record with countless other very specific technical records. Fortunately it seems that they have now good possibility to success. Their way are clearly much better than any reusing before. Their starting point is very competitive rocket and every improvement in cost efficiency gives more profit and more ability to compete later when other reusable rockets will come into market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannu2 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said: The only relevant question is a bottom line, apples-to-apples comparison - can the vehicle perform it's designed mission? A complete Shuttle stack consists of an Orbiter, an ET, and a pair of SRB's. The Shuttle throws aways the ET, without which it cannot perform it's mission. A complete F9 stack consists of a first stage and a second stage. The F9 throws away it's second stage, without which it cannot perform it's mission. The F9, when treated as a stack (exactly as you treat the Shuttle), is exactly the same as the Shuttle - it throws away parts without which it cannot complete it's designed mission. Whether or not it can fire it's engines is irrelevant. Whether or not it can SSTO (in which case it's neither recoverable nor capable of performing the same mission as the F9) is irrelevant. The most relevant question is costs per kg on orbit. Other things are artificial records for nerds. In that sense Falcon 9 is overwhelming in most practical purposes compared to Shuttle (except those specialties which exceed Falcon 9's capability, but it is much more cheap and fast to develop Falcon 9 to carry more (Falcon Heavy) or carry crew (Dragon capsule) than to develop Shuttle to compete with Falcons at costs. Shuttle was insanely expensive even with its primitive reusability and it was retired for a good reason. Falcon 9 is very cost effective rocket even when used as expendable. And returning of practically intact first stage with 9 expensive engines, hydraulic systems and fuel tanks gives very promising potential to lower costs significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 On March 30, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Streetwind said: http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-gives-sneak-peek-of-crew-capsule/ They promised windows. And by Odin, they are delivering windows. Also, do my eyes deceive me or are they hiding the abort motor in a most cheeky fashion? Yeah. I don't like that solid rocket abort motor in the middle of the passenger compartment. Bob Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I imagine the thinking goes something along the lines of: "well if something goes catastrophically wrong with the abort motor, it won't matter whether its right in the middle of the cabin or a foot below the floor" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 7:20 PM, kerbiloid said: Everest. Top of the Everest. No air drag, close to equator, 8 km altitude bonus. Not everest. Chimborazo Factoring in equatorial bulge, it's farther from earths center than everest, even though everest is technically taller. And it IS in the equator, with all the DV bonuses that gives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 hours ago, Hannu2 said: The most relevant question is costs per kg on orbit. Other things are artificial records for nerds. In that sense Falcon 9 is overwhelming in most practical purposes compared to Shuttle (except those specialties which exceed Falcon 9's capability, but it is much more cheap and fast to develop Falcon 9 to carry more (Falcon Heavy) or carry crew (Dragon capsule) than to develop Shuttle to compete with Falcons at costs. Shuttle was insanely expensive even with its primitive reusability and it was retired for a good reason. Falcon 9 is very cost effective rocket even when used as expendable. And returning of practically intact first stage with 9 expensive engines, hydraulic systems and fuel tanks gives very promising potential to lower costs significantly. Come on, dude. You simply can't compare the cost to orbit for kg of satellite versus half a dozen human beings. That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Come on, dude. You simply can't compare the cost to orbit for kg of satellite versus half a dozen human beings. That's ridiculous. How about cost per kg of astronaut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Come on, dude. You simply can't compare the cost to orbit for kg of satellite versus half a dozen human beings. That's ridiculous. And what will you say when Dragon puts half a dozen humen beings on orbit? That it's ridiculous to compare, because it didn't do both in the same flight? Let's face it, it is a ridiculous comparison. The Falcon/Dragon combo is much more the shuttle NASA originally wanted (a partially reusable, safe, and most of all, economical way to lift payloads and humans to LEO) than the STS ever was. (Oh, and kudos to SpaceX for the historic achievement. Now go fulfill that manifest already!) Rune. Which is all kinds of funny, in retrospective. Edited March 31, 2017 by Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Just now, Rakaydos said: How about cost per kg of astronaut? It doesn't work that way. Not all kgs are the same. You could buy 4-5 Cessna 152 airplanes for the price of the fuel it takes to fill up the A380 tanks. But what does that mean? Pretty much it means absolutely nothing, because the two airplanes are so different in capability and purpose that making such comparisons is silly. In much the same way, comparing the cost per kg of a ship designed to carry half a dozen people up to LEO for a week+ of time, and also bring a satellite or two, and also de-orbit all those people plus a bunch of cargo, is just not comparable to the cost of delivering a couple satellites. And yeah, Dragon or CST100 or Soyuz is (or is going to be) more efficient than the Shuttle if all you are doing is bringing crew members up to the ISS. But riding your bike to the lake is more efficient than driving a 18-wheel truck to the lake if all you want to do is bring yourself to the lake. It's good to have options, and the shuttle was a really expensive way to ferry crew to the ISS. On the other hand, the shuttle also delivered most of the ISS to orbit, plus the crew to assemble it and the living space to stay there while they did it, all at the same time. Different missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: It doesn't work that way. Not all kgs are the same. You could buy 4-5 Cessna 152 airplanes for the price of the fuel it takes to fill up the A380 tanks. But what does that mean? Pretty much it means absolutely nothing, because the two airplanes are so different in capability and purpose that making such comparisons is silly. In much the same way, comparing the cost per kg of a ship designed to carry half a dozen people up to LEO for a week+ of time, and also bring a satellite or two, and also de-orbit all those people plus a bunch of cargo, is just not comparable to the cost of delivering a couple satellites. And yeah, Dragon or CST100 or Soyuz is (or is going to be) more efficient than the Shuttle if all you are doing is bringing crew members up to the ISS. But riding your bike to the lake is more efficient than driving a 18-wheel truck to the lake if all you want to do is bring yourself to the lake. So by next year, what could the shuttle have done that couldnt be done by a fleet of 2 crew dragons and a Falcon Heavy, for the cost of 3 upperstages and possibly a center core? 13 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: It's good to have options, and the shuttle was a really expensive way to ferry crew to the ISS. On the other hand, the shuttle also delivered most of the ISS to orbit, plus the crew to assemble it and the living space to stay there while they did it, all at the same time. Different missions. The shuttle sucked at space stations too. Skylab was a single module, bigger than anything the shuttle could deliver, for cheaper than any given shuttle flight. They ran out of Saturn 5s before they could try assembling anything bigger though. THAT's not an issue wiith Falcon. Edited March 31, 2017 by Rakaydos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Just now, Rakaydos said: So by next year, what could the shuttle have done that couldnt be done by a fleet of 2 crew dragons and a Falcon Heavy, for the cost of 3 upperstages and possibly a center core? Hey, at the very least, consider that means one shuttle launch = 2-3 Falcon launches, so obviously it's silly to compare them 1-1. Now what is Dragon's expected crew capacity time? The shuttle could keep them up there for something like 50+ man-days without needing any other access to a station. Dragon is supposed to take seven people, but I am assuming that it's designed to support those seven people only for a day or two. Am I wrong about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: Hey, at the very least, consider that means one shuttle launch = 2-3 Falcon launches, so obviously it's silly to compare them 1-1. Now what is Dragon's expected crew capacity time? The shuttle could keep them up there for something like 50+ man-days without needing any other access to a station. Dragon is supposed to take seven people, but I am assuming that it's designed to support those seven people only for a day or two. Am I wrong about that? The upcoming circomlunar mission is 2 people for a week. I think it's unlikely to be consumable-limited (more like 2 adventurers paying through the nose for a private flight) but if we DO take that as a limit, then you might need to launch additional resupply dragons to match the shuttle's endurance. And at the Falcon's price per Kg, STILL be cheaper than the shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I'm an aeronautical engineer. I'm terribly familiar with the problem that a vehicle designed with a certain capacity is inefficient for any smaller capacity, and yet is completely impossible to use for any larger capacity. Like I said before, it's good to have options. Falcon/Dragon is better suited than the shuttle to servicing the ISS. Much more efficiently sized for that. Not to mention 40 years newer in technology. But directly comparing shuttle flight costs to Falcon/Dragon flight costs is silly. Any mission Falcon/Dragon can do, it will do cheaper. And any mission it can't do, well how can you possibly compare the costs when only one of them can do the mission at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I'm an aeronautical engineer. I'm terribly familiar with the problem that a vehicle designed with a certain capacity is inefficient for any smaller capacity, and yet is completely impossible to use for any larger capacity. Like I said before, it's good to have options. Falcon/Dragon is better suited than the shuttle to servicing the ISS. Much more efficiently sized for that. Not to mention 40 years newer in technology. But directly comparing shuttle flight costs to Falcon/Dragon flight costs is silly. Any mission Falcon/Dragon can do, it will do cheaper. And any mission it can't do, well how can you possibly compare the costs when only one of them can do the mission at all? The problem with that, is that the shuttle's unique cabability is it's hybrid nature- bringing crew and cargo up in the same load to do things together. But with rendevous perfected over the ISS years, a single hybrid vehical can be out performed with a pair of dedicated vehicals that can match the individual performance. If Falcon Heavy can lift any thing that fit in the shuttle bay, and a crew dragon can meet it to do space-work, then the shuttle doesnt have a unique selling point anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 13 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: We now live in the future! Told you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Exoscientist said: Yeah. I don't like that solid rocket abort motor in the middle of the passenger compartment. I have to imagine that "handrail" would get pretty toasty in an abort. Which, again, would be the least of anyone's worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) The crew + cargo aspect is probably somewhat overrated, really. The thing about ISS is that it was built as a project for Shuttle, so it is obviously well suited for shuttle. If it was designed around efficiency, they'd have lofted it in a few Shuttle C flights (had that been built). I suppose as a reuse comparison, you'd compare the cost of a launch of a refurbed vehicle with that of a new vehicle, and look at the % savings. It's hard to find the actual cost of a new shuttle, but I found something that said that Endeavour cost 1.7 B$ to build. That is just the orbiter, though. With relaunch costing supposedly 450 M$, then it seems safe to say that it was at least a 75% savings vs throwing orbiters away---which is not bad, really, it's just the ante was so high to begin with. We can't know the same data for F9, since it's a business. We know what they charge, but we don't know how it is marked up. Relaunch might charge 45M, and a new vehicle 62M, but we don't actually know how much the actual cost to manufacture is. If relaunch ends up costing 20M$, then maybe shuttle still recycled a higher % of new cost---but that largely because the orbiter was so incredibly expensive. Even back in the 80s people realized that cheaper expendables would be more cost effective. This current reuse paradigm will hopefully be a combination of both (cheaper to begin with, and then the savings of reuse with little refurb required). That is assuming that they can turn it around quickly with little labor, and that they pay no penalty in loss rate, etc. That's the part that entirely remains to be seen I think. Edited March 31, 2017 by tater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: I have to imagine that "handrail" would get pretty toasty in an abort. Which, again, would be the least of anyone's worries. Yeah if someone isn't fully strapped down in a couch during the abort then having a burnt hand probably isn't their main worry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Was the booster reused entirely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: Was the booster reused entirely? They replaced anything they though could be a potential source of failure. Their hope is that by analysing the state parts that come back they can design them so that in the future they don't have to any replace parts for the life-cycle of the booster (or at least make it so that each part would have a lifetime of multiple flights) so that they can move towards their 24h turnaround time. Edited March 31, 2017 by Steel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Just now, Steel said: They replaced anything they though could be a potential source of failure. I understand. These potentially are: 9 engines, 2 tanks, legs and avionics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: I understand. These potentially are: 9 engines, 2 tanks, legs and avionics. Yeah I meant to say small components, all the major systems (AFAIK) were left alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts