Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[magnemoe]

It is speculation, but recovering the boosters seems to fit with their business plan. There hasn't been an official announcement that I'm aware of.

What is worrying is that landing on a barge in the middle of the ocean appears to bring a whole new set of constraints (barge maintenance and availability, oceanic weather, etc...) which added to the launch constraints that are dictated by the payload (pad weather, launch windows, etc...), is going to make commercial offerings a bit awkward.

Speculations were that they would offer a discount for FH launches with recoverable boosters, but the recoverable booster option is not only going to have a much reduced payload, but is also going to have extra launch constraints tied to weather conditions at the recovery site and to the availability of the barge. Customers will have to accept a higher risk of scrubs and operational delays, which reduces the value of the reusable offering. Also increasing the possibility of recovery-related delays puts more pressure on SpaceX's already tight launch schedule. In the end, it might not all be worth it from a business perspective.

Good point, the recovery don't affect the customer much, an used stage has downsides but also some benefits, however the recovery itself is not the customers problem.

Falcon heavy booster would be easier to fly back to pad as they drop earlier however the core will demand an barge landing.

As for now the barge is for testing it might be used later but then probably something larger and more sturdy.

[Woopert]

Aren't the names pretty much interchangeable? They are less then a mile from each other...

Absolutely not! Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is a military base and is very strict. Taking pictures while on the base is actually illegal. KSC is much more liberal with its rules and is a NASA facility. That being said, NASA and other companies do use USAF's launch pads with permission.

Another thing to note is that KSC is NOT actually on Cape Canaveral; rather, it is located on Merritt Island.

Cheers

[Sean Mirrsen]

Absolutely not! Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is a military base and is very strict. Taking pictures while on the base is actually illegal. KSC is much more liberal with its rules and is a NASA facility. That being said, NASA and other companies do use USAF's launch pads with permission.

Another thing to note is that KSC is NOT actually on Cape Canaveral; rather, it is located on Merritt Island.

Cheers

I forgot the details of the discussion, and was rather confused for a minute there as to which KSC you're talking about. XD

[Northstar1989]

What is worrying is that landing on a barge in the middle of the ocean appears to bring a whole new set of constraints (barge maintenance and availability, oceanic weather, etc...) which added to the launch constraints that are dictated by the payload (pad weather, launch windows, etc...), is going to make commercial offerings a bit awkward.

Yeah, but the barge is just for testing. That's not how they're planning on recovering the boosters.

Speculations were that they would offer a discount for FH launches with recoverable boosters, but the recoverable booster option is not only going to have a much reduced payload, but is also going to have extra launch constraints tied to weather conditions at the recovery site and to the availability of the barge. Customers will have to accept a higher risk of scrubs and operational delays, which reduces the value of the reusable offering. Also increasing the possibility of recovery-related delays puts more pressure on SpaceX's already tight launch schedule. In the end, it might not all be worth it from a business perspective.

Weather won't create delays when landing on land. They were able to successfully hover over stormy oceans with their last attempt- the problem was just that the barge didn't make a stable landing platform. On land, that's not an issue. Any weather that's good enough to launch during is good enough to pilot the launch stage back to the launch pad in 15 minutes later...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. As a side-note, why are you always so cynical about any possibility for advancing the state of spaceflight Nibb31? You've took the altitude that nothing can be improved, and every new idea is worthless on at least 3 or 4 other threads like this I've posted on in the past month...

[Airlock]

Yeah, but the barge is just for testing. That's not how they're planning on recovering the boosters.

Only partially true. It's the only way SpaceX can recover the FH center core without a ridiculous impact on payload.

Weather won't create delays when landing on land. They were able to successfully hover over stormy oceans with their last attempt- the problem was just that the barge didn't make a stable landing platform. On land, that's not an issue. Any weather that's good enough to launch during is good enough to pilot the launch stage back to the launch pad in 15 minutes later...

True.

[Nibb31]

Yeah, but the barge is just for testing. That's not how they're planning on recovering the boosters.

We don't know for sure. Building a barge for 2 or 3 test landings only is a bit of an expense. "Speculation" indicates that it will be repurposed to recover Falcon Heavy center cores or even Falcon 9 stages that can't take the performance hit of flyback manoeuvres. That hypothesis is supported by the fact that SpaceX is building a second barge for east coast launches, which would make no sense if it was just for a test campaign.

Weather won't create delays when landing on land. They were able to successfully hover over stormy oceans with their last attempt- the problem was just that the barge didn't make a stable landing platform. On land, that's not an issue. Any weather that's good enough to launch during is good enough to pilot the launch stage back to the launch pad in 15 minutes later...

Sure, on land it's not a problem, and I'm pretty confident that the land landings will be easier to pull off. I was specifically talking about water landings for the cases mentioned above. Weather certainly was a problem last time, and in this case, the launch window was linked to the payload and recovering the booster was a secondary concern. In the future, when customers are getting discounts for recovered boosters and the recovery is an operational requirement, high-sea weather and availability of the barge will become additional launch constraints. In such a context, either the launch would have been postponed for several weeks, or the customer would have to pay the additional cost of disposing the booster.

P.S. As a side-note, why are you always so cynical about any possibility for advancing the state of spaceflight Nibb31? You've took the altitude that nothing can be improved, and every new idea is worthless on at least 3 or 4 other threads like this I've posted on in the past month...

I might sometimes sound a bit pessimistic, but it's probably because I have been sitting here looking at how the World works for a few more years than you, and there isn't really much to be optimistic about. However, one thing that bugs me is armchair engineers who think that they have it all figured out after playing KSP for a few months, when some of the smartest and most talented people on this planet are those working for big aerospace companies and agencies. Many of those armchair engineers love to assume that thousands of engineers and scientists are either all corrupt or simply stupid because they haven't built space elevators, launch loops, or microwave powered spaceplanes.

Aerospace companies know about these technologies. They have usually run trade-studies on them, because their business is to make money, and if they crack the holy grail of cheap access to space, they will make more money. They are stong R&D companies. Studying new stuff is their bread and butter. The reason they are not building those things is because their internal studies have shown that they are not viable, for various reasons.

What SpaceX is doing is impressive. The engineering behind it is impressive, and the results are spectacular. So why haven't other space agencies pursued recoverable boosters? There have been dozens of studies since the days of Apollo, with all sorts of technical solutions. They are not doing it because real-world engineering is much harder and more expensive than it seems and because with current launch rates, the economics of recovering boosters does not make sense to them.

The key to cheap space access is demand, not technology. It's a vicious circle that is driven by economics more than technology. Costs will come down mechanically when there is volume, the actual technology that we will use by then doesn't really matter. It might happen in 20 or 200 or 2000 years, but when a substantial and viable demand appears, we will find a way.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[Mighty1]

Anyone know what is the plan for the launch profile of the F9 heavy. I know that after booster seperation they turn around and go back, but the core will be going realy fast when it's done it's work. Will it turn back, land somewhere in the atlantic or africa or will it make one turn around the earth and then land.

Also, the last I heard is that the plans for 2nd stage have been scraped. Any changes in that plan?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Many of those armchair engineers love to assume that thousands of engineers and scientists are either all corrupt or simply stupid

Um...

their business is to make money, and if they crack the holy grail of cheap access to space, they will make more money

The key to cheap space access is demand, not technology. It's a vicious circle that is driven by economics more than technology.

I don't know about you, but from a purely armchair engineer standpoint, the above qualifies for either one, or both, of the epithets in the first quote.

Yes, I know, "that's how the world works". Well, then the world as it is, is stupid and/or corrupt. Being active parts of that world, the thousands of engineers and scientists you mention will also qualify.

[magnemoe]

Anyone know what is the plan for the launch profile of the F9 heavy. I know that after booster seperation they turn around and go back, but the core will be going realy fast when it's done it's work. Will it turn back, land somewhere in the atlantic or africa or will it make one turn around the earth and then land.

Also, the last I heard is that the plans for 2nd stage have been scraped. Any changes in that plan?

The boosters will separate earlier, than the falcon 9 first stage making flyback easier. The core will overfly Florida if launched from Texas, it will go so fast it would be very expensive even with an braking burn to land in Florida or the Caribbean so you probably need an barge to recover it.

The barge is also an option if you can increase the payload on a Falcon 9 recoverable. If barge landings become common I guess they will use an larger one.

Current project is for testing only, if it was the real deal the first thing you would do would be to get the equipment below deck.

[Nibb31]

Anyone know what is the plan for the launch profile of the F9 heavy. I know that after booster seperation they turn around and go back, but the core will be going realy fast when it's done it's work. Will it turn back, land somewhere in the atlantic or africa or will it make one turn around the earth and then land.

Also, the last I heard is that the plans for 2nd stage have been scraped. Any changes in that plan?

SpaceX doesn't publish its plans, so all of the options are pure speculation. As I said, SpaceX is building a second droneship for west coast launches, so they certainly think that they will be useful for regular operations after the test campaign. Since they are upgrading Vandenberg to launch Falcon Heavy, we can reasonably assume that they plan to recover the core boosters by landing them on the droneships in the middle of the ocean. Once the capability is operational, I don't see why they couldn't use it to recover Falcon 9 stages for some launches that can't afford the flyback manoeuver expenditure.

2nd stage recovery isn't realistic or viable at this point. It might happen for whatever comes later, but I doubt we will see a fully recoverable Falcon.

Um...

I don't know about you, but from a purely armchair engineer standpoint, the above qualifies for either one, or both, of the epithets in the first quote.

Only if you assume that running a business means that you are necessarily corrupt or stupid.

Rockets are an expensive and very low margin business. The business has been fine-tuned over the decades to be optimized for the demand levels that exist in the real world. When you are in that kind of market, you only do stuff if it makes sense economically. Just because you have "better" technology doesn't mean that your solution is economically viable.

(I use quotes on "better", because the "best" technology is the one that is optimal for a given set of requirements. In business, reusability, wings, fast turnaround, cool PR, or spectacular looks are not part of those requirements. The requirements are mission suitability and economical viability.)

Edited February 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[SeaDog]

We don't know for sure. Building a barge for 2 or 3 test landings only is a bit of an expense. "Speculation" indicates that it will be repurposed to recover Falcon Heavy center cores or even Falcon 9 stages that can't take the performance hit of flyback manoeuvres. That hypothesis is supported by the fact that SpaceX is building a second barge for east coast launches, which would make no sense if it was just for a test campaign.

Sure, on land it's not a problem, and I'm pretty confident that the land landings will be easier to pull off. I was specifically talking about water landings for the cases mentioned above. Weather certainly was a problem last time, and in this case, the launch window was linked to the payload and recovering the booster was a secondary concern. In the future, when customers are getting discounts for recovered boosters and the recovery is an operational requirement, high-sea weather and availability of the barge will become additional launch constraints. In such a context, either the launch would have been postponed for several weeks, or the customer would have to pay the additional cost of disposing the booster.

I might sometimes sound a bit pessimistic, but it's probably because I have been sitting here looking at how the World works for a few more years than you, and there isn't really much to be optimistic about. However, one thing that bugs me is armchair engineers who think that they have it all figured out after playing KSP for a few months, when some of the smartest and most talented people on this planet are those working for big aerospace companies and agencies. Many of those armchair engineers love to assume that thousands of engineers and scientists are either all corrupt or simply stupid because they haven't built space elevators, launch loops, or microwave powered spaceplanes.

Aerospace companies know about these technologies. They have usually run trade-studies on them, because their business is to make money, and if they crack the holy grail of cheap access to space, they will make more money. Studying new stuff is their bread and butter. The reason they are not building those things is because their internal studies have shown that they are not viable, for various reasons.

What SpaceX is doing is impressive. The engineering behind it is impressive, and the results are spectacular. So why haven't other space agencies pursued recoverable boosters? There have been dozens of studies since the days of Apollo, with all sorts of technical solutions. They are not doing it because real-world engineering is much harder and more expensive than it seems and because with current launch rates, the economics of recovering boosters does not make sense to them.

The key to cheap space access is demand, not technology. It's a vicious circle that is driven by economics more than technology. Costs will come down automatically when there is volume, the actual technology that we will use by then doesn't really matter. It might happen in 20 or 200 or 2000 years, but when a substantial and viable demand appears, we will find a way.

I agree that there are many armchair engineers who don't understand the difficulties of complex systems. My own field is more related to robotics and automatic control than rocketry, and I often feel the need to be the party pooper who tells everyone that the robots from for example boston dynamics arent really that revolutionary. They're basically just a development of 70's technology and that the real reason why our world isn't run by robots is simply because it's still insanely expensive to have robot do something that you can have a poor human do for one dollar per hour. We're absolutely not on the edge of some sci-fi robot revolution, sorry.

At the same time though, I do think you have to realize that simply because major players don't do something doesn't mean it's impossible. Back to my own field of autonomous control, I think major car manufacturers are lazy when it comes autonomous vehicles and machines. I think the basic problem is that they're good at making cars and machines that are fun, safe and easy to drive. All manufacturers develop their machines around the operator. If you try to make self driving machines, you're bringing the operator out of the equation, and nothing scares the major manufacturers more than that, becuase building around the operator is what they think they're good at. So they only do halfhearted attempts, because they feel the idea is fundamentally bad. I've been in touch with the industry on these halfhearted attempts, and it's amazing to se a company try and do something that it actually doesn't believe in. They're doing a project mostly to show investors that it doesn't work. Mindboggling. That's not to say that all new ideas would work, but many companies are not really trying new stuff even though they say they do.

And without having detailed knowledge about rocketry, I think the problem could be similar here. Major rocket developers feel that their strength lies in producing cheap rockets from serial production that need a bare minimum amount fuel. For reusability, you're strapping on extra fuel in order to reduce production series. That just does not fit in the mindsets of these developers, it seems stupid. It is the opposite of what they've been doing. So they try halfhearted stuff like reusable boosters, but they would never dare to do rockets that are designed to be reusable to begin with, because it would make their primary strenghts useless. It would be like admitting that what they've been doing before was leading down the wrong path.

[Frozen_Heart]

Also, the last I heard is that the plans for 2nd stage have been scraped. Any changes in that plan?

They can't do it without impacting the payload of the Falcon 9 so much that it is no longer worth it. The ISP of Kerosene is just too low which is partially why they are switching to methane for the Raptor engine. As the Falcon Heavy uses the same upper stage as the Falcon 9 by extension it will also not be able to have it reused.

Personally I think that a 9 Raptor, methane powered launch system would be a good option. Similar thrust to the Falcon Heavy but single core and benefits from the Raptors much higher ISP. They core would also not be nearly as far downrange as the central core of the Heavy and so easier to recover.

[magnemoe]

I agree that there are many armchair engineers who don't understand the difficulties of complex systems. My own field is more related to robotics and automatic control than rocketry, and I often feel the need to be the party pooper who tells everyone that the robots from for example boston dynamics arent really that revolutionary. They're basically just a development of 70's technology and that the real reason why our world isn't run by robots is simply because it's still insanely expensive to have robot do something that you can have a poor human do for one dollar per hour. We're absolutely not on the edge of some sci-fi robot revolution, sorry.

At the same time though, I do think you have to realize that simply because major players don't do something doesn't mean it's impossible. Back to my own field of autonomous control, I think major car manufacturers are lazy when it comes autonomous vehicles and machines. I think the basic problem is that they're good at making cars and machines that are fun, safe and easy to drive. All manufacturers develop their machines around the operator. If you try to make self driving machines, you're bringing the operator out of the equation, and nothing scares the major manufacturers more than that, becuase building around the operator is what they think they're good at. So they only do halfhearted attempts, because they feel the idea is fundamentally bad. I've been in touch with the industry on these halfhearted attempts, and it's amazing to se a company try and do something that it actually doesn't believe in. They're doing a project mostly to show investors that it doesn't work. Mindboggling. That's not to say that all new ideas would work, but many companies are not really trying new stuff even though they say they do.

And without having detailed knowledge about rocketry, I think the problem could be similar here. Major rocket developers feel that their strength lies in producing cheap rockets from serial production that need a bare minimum amount fuel. For reusability, you're strapping on extra fuel in order to reduce production series. That just does not fit in the mindsets of these developers, it seems stupid. It is the opposite of what they've been doing. So they try halfhearted stuff like reusable boosters, but they would never dare to do rockets that are designed to be reusable to begin with, because it would make their primary strenghts useless. It would be like admitting that what they've been doing before was leading down the wrong path.

None took self driving cars seriously before the Darpa challenges even if it would have obvious benefits for military use. Afterwards everyone want to use them in normal traffic who is far harder because you can not have many accidents, however its where the big money is.

Space rocket evolved from ICBM and still share some of the thinking.

Another issue is that perfect is the enemy of good enough, or why bother just reusing the first stage, most of the earlier reusable designs has used wings. This is an obvious solution however it transfer your booster into an huge supersonic plane something who is expensive. You then have to calculate the development costs against the expected number of launches. Then find the cash to develop it.

[bigdad84]

Soooooo, when's the next launch?

[sgt_flyer]

http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Tandem sat launch - with a launch window between 03h49 AM and 4h34 AM on march 2nd (GMT time). (10H49 PM / 11h34 PM on march 1st EST time). First tandem launch falcon 9 has to make - but very heavy (seems they did not add the landing legs on this one - so no recovery attempt, they need the full payload capability)

The two sats uses boeing 702sp satellite bus - no chemical propellants onboard, those use only ion thrusters

[Kryten]

It's not really a tandem launch from the Spacex side; these sats are built to connect together without any extra support structures, and separate after orbital insertion.

[Streetwind]

Soooooo, when's the next launch?

The next booster recovery attempt is expected to be CRS flight 6, tentatively scheduled no earlier than the second week of April.

Two more launches in between now and then, but neither will have the fuel margins for landing attempts.

[Airlock]

Is that a Falcon on your strongback, or are you just happy to see me?

There will be no landing attempt on this flight, so I will not be covering the launch in the OP.

[Airlock]

JRTI is in port in JAX. Under repairs after that wave damage.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[RocketPilot573]

Weather 90% GO!

[Wingman703]

Stream just went live, even though its another 'boring' sat launch, still tuning in.

[Frida Space]

[astropapi1]

Did I... Did I miss something?

Damn, just tuned in to the guy saying "Thanks for watching!"

[lajoswinkler]

We had a few moments to enjoy zero G liquid oxygen tank interior. Very nice, like some magic portal.

[Airlock]