Alternative to reusable

[magnemoe]

13 minutes ago, todofwar said:

Fair point, but we have tried and failed for 50 years to improve, when we could have been turning those efforts to manufacturing technology instead. At the end of the day, getting to space is hard because of the ridiculous physics involved just in terms of energy. Engines that can start more than once are difficult, engines that can throttle are difficult, mostly because they go through such extreme stresses during launch. I still think any engine that has burned its way to space is going to need all kinds of refitting to be used again, which is what killed the shuttle in the end. 

I don't disagree with what people have said here about the issues that will be faced, but as has been pointed out SpaceX has managed to get costs down but doing some of the things I mentioned, now if they cut out their reuse program and poured all that RnD into an assembly line that can pump out a Merlin engine on the cheap, they could probably see similar savings to what they would get with successfully reusing boosters. 

Throttling is pretty cheap, you would want to adjust fuel and oxidizer flow anyway, gimballing is more complex. The real expensive part of an rocket engine is the turbo pump, many dumb booster ideas use pressure feed only but this has an significant performance cost. 
main issue is that the cargo is expensive so you need high reliability, only place left to save is by making the rocket with lower performance like pressure feed, perhaps thicker lower performance materials, this will increase weight for the same payload but this will also increase handling and launch cost. More stages and boosters help but also reduce reliability and increase costs. 

[KSK]

1 hour ago, todofwar said:

I would say its "making more of the same better and cheaper" vs "risking it all on something untested and expensive". Nothing has topped the Saturn V in terms of payload, so we really haven't advanced at all by that metric (yeah yeah Falcon Heavy, not done yet so it doesn't count). In terms of launching we have all the tech we need to reach Mars (or Venus) or anywhere else we like. There are plenty of other challenges associated with such missions, and we should absolutely be investing in how to solve those. But in terms of launch vehicles, I think it's time to shift focus a little. 

Fair point but you also seem to be assuming that this is an either/or situation, when it's more likely to be both. I very much doubt that SpaceX (sorry to keep banging on about them but they're the example I know best) will be sitting on their hands when it comes to further manufacturing improvements - after all any savings they can make during manufacture is a straight improvement to their bottom line. And I've seen it pointed out on another forum that - and I agree - that the drive for reusability is going to be absolutely priceless for generating actual empirical data to feed back into those manufacturing improvements.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by KSK

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, KSK said:

A lot of that sounds like steps that SpaceX have already taken, which is why the F9 is comparatively cheap even without taking re-use into account.

Small number of designs geared for mass production - Check. They don't have a light launcher but they do have a medium one (Falcon 9) and a heavy one (Falcon Heavy) under development, supposedly due for a (much delayed) maiden flight this autumn.

Going for Subarus rather than Ferraris - check. The Merlin engine is deliberately not a cutting edge engine in terms of raw performance (kerolox instead of hydrolox, relatively simple combustion cycle) but is geared towards ease of manufacture and acceptable performance for it's price.

Interchangeable parts - check. The Falcon 9 upper stage tanks are essentially a short version of the lower stage tanks. Same diameter, same materials, storing the same propellants, churned out on the same tools. The lower stage tanks do have the unavoidable extra complexity of needing to feed nine engines rather than one. Speaking of engines - the Merlin-vac used on the Falcon 9 upper stage is (I believe) essentially the same as the Merlin engines used on the lower stage, with (relatively) minor nozzle modifications to optimize it for vacuum use.

I imagine there are other examples but those are the ones I'm aware of.

Commonality - check. The Falcon Heavy lower stage is basically three Falcon 9 cores strapped together, taking a leaf from the Delta IV design book. The F9 core was (allegedly) designed from the outset with that in mind - time will tell how successful it is.

 

I actually think the Angara concept is better in the way it's also modular, but uses only 1 engine on each stage, reducing complexity.

However, the 1st stage engine is quite advanced. I think it would benefit significantly from engine reuse.

6 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

Proton-M has a reliability of 91% in 86 launches (BTW, it had 100% for 13 launches in a row after being introduced).

SOYUZ 2.1A/B has a reliability if 92% in 38 launches.
 

EDIT: Source: The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2014
 

At least Soyuz 2 launches smaller, cheaper satellites easier to replace in a launch failure. Proton-M does not, it launches expensive ones. However, the Big Dumb Booster concept is supposed to be for the big satellites, thus, it faces the same market problems Proton-M does.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

Fair point but you also seem to be assuming that this is an either/or situation, when it's more likely to be both. I very much doubt that SpaceX (sorry to keep banging on about them but they're the example I know best) will be sitting on their hands when it comes to further manufacturing improvements - after all any savings they can make during manufacture is a straight improvement to their bottom line. And I've seen it pointed out on another forum that - and I agree - that the drive for reusability is going to be absolutely priceless for generating actual empirical data to feed back into those manufacturing improvements.

 

Another, often uncited reason for SpaceX being so cheap is because they can hire cheaper, young employees easily and overwork them, as there is a large line of them waiting to join SpaceX. Only they have that competitive advantage.

Edited April 8, 2016 by fredinno

[KSK]

59 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Another, often uncited reason for SpaceX being so cheap is because they can hire cheaper, young employees easily and overwork them, as there is a large line of them waiting to join SpaceX. Only they have that competitive advantage.

Which, with respect, is entirely irrelevant to this particular thread. I'd also like to see some actual links to support this (it seems to come around a lot on these forums) because the examples I've seen so far aren't particularly convincing. 

[magnemoe]

6 minutes ago, KSK said:

Which, with respect, is entirely irrelevant to this particular thread. I'd also like to see some actual links to support this (it seems to come around a lot on these forums) because the examples I've seen so far aren't particularly convincing. 

Just having an young company gives benefit in less worked in bureaucracy and legacy systems.
They have an benefit regarding reusablity in that if they are not able to get reusable first stages to work they have to increase the production of rocket a lot as they have an long backlog. 

[Nuke]

i like the whole idea of salvagable components. you can build the main booster and use the tankage materials for lithobreaking keeping the salvageable hardware in a relatively safe location. design tankage with crumple zones. oversized tail fins that provide a drag source behind the empty cg (with high drag retractable control surfaces) to keep the nose to the wind. clear out the any trace combustables with a venting system driven by airflow through the tankage on the way back to the ground. pretty much has the landing profile of a lawn dart. the whole tail assembly could be as much as 90% salvageable after impact. start seeing rocket junkyards and parts left on the side of the road. sound familiar?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Nuke

[kunok]

3 hours ago, KSK said:

Fair point but you also seem to be assuming that this is an either/or situation, when it's more likely to be both. I very much doubt that SpaceX (sorry to keep banging on about them but they're the example I know best) will be sitting on their hands when it comes to further manufacturing improvements - after all any savings they can make during manufacture is a straight improvement to their bottom line. And I've seen it pointed out on another forum that - and I agree - that the drive for reusability is going to be absolutely priceless for generating actual empirical data to feed back into those manufacturing improvements.

Doesn't make sense focusing in manufacturing and re-usability at the same time. Mass production and reusability are extremely opposed points. They already have an oversized factory for the current production, with reusability it will be worse.

Taking the point that SpaceX way is simpler and easier to manufacture, doesn't make sense at all reusability.

You want the optimal design if you want to reuse it lots of times, or you want cheap non reusable unoptimal designs.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Another, often uncited reason for SpaceX being so cheap is because they can hire cheaper, young employees easily and overwork them, as there is a large line of them waiting to join SpaceX. Only they have that competitive advantage.

And that's a bigger part of the cost than most people thinks. That, with charging extra to the government programs I think are the keys for their price.

 

36 minutes ago, KSK said:

Which, with respect, is entirely irrelevant to this particular thread. I'd also like to see some actual links to support this (it seems to come around a lot on these forums) because the examples I've seen so far aren't particularly convincing. 

Look here https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Reviews-E40371.htm

The first worker is like: they pay me low and wouldn't go much better, I work 12 or more hours at a day, I hadn't any formation, I can't growth here, BUT HEY I like the PURPOSETM

Others are pretty the same, they also talk how bad are they organised (i would bet that is because the high rotation of workers),  I read there the same problems that are in every bad work (I'm myself in a excrementsty job with that things currently)  but here people gives good points to the company even after saying how bad are the things. They hire their fanboys, and there are always more waiting for a job. I feel that very unrespectful, and very unethical playing with the illusions of the young to get more profit, but people are more like they are aiming for the humanity, call me incredulous but I think nope.

Edited April 8, 2016 by kunok
I dont like the censor software

[KSK]

First of all, thanks for pointing me at the website - that was the kind of information I was looking for. A company with a 4 (out of 5) star rating, where 95% of reviewers approve of the CEO and 81% would recommend the place to a friend - doesn't sound like a bad place to work to me. I'm seeing some bad points (show me a company which has no bad points) but plenty of good points too.

"I feel that very unrespectful, and very unethical playing with the illusions of the young to get more profit,"

Or alternatively the young have taken a clear look at the job they're offered and decided it's worth taking, if only to grab a couple years top-flight experience. We could both cherry pick quotes all day, to suit our point of view but:

"Work: Fast-paced and exciting. No better training ground for a young engineer"

"You will learn more per year working at SpaceX than anywhere else I know."

"Looks great on a resume."

"Mgt is flexible on hours, and if you need to go to a doctor or something."

"Quick and efficient interview process"

"Clear interview process."

The last two are the important ones to my mind. If you're given realistic expectations at interview then you can make an informed decision about whether to take the job. And before you say it - yes I expect that a lot of people applying for a job at SpaceX are good enough (lets face it, SpaceX can afford to be choosy) that they do have a genuine choice.

[kunok]

I'm not cherrypicking look at the info of how is the work, you look at the score and you think wow it should be a good place but then you read it and is not a good job, is a low paid with too many hours (this is even illegal where I live), without training and you need to be buddy with the right people to growth. Their employees are fanboys and they put a high score, look at some of their positive points...Mars? You are making a difference?. Or the benefits they are putting a perfect score in things they comment they never used

29 minutes ago, KSK said:

they're offered and decided it's worth taking, if only to grab a couple years top-flight experience

I had jobs this way, that doesn't make at all a good job only worthy.

32 minutes ago, KSK said:

The last two are the important ones to my mind. If you're given realistic expectations at interview then you can make an informed decision about whether to take the job.

You are putting like is a equal informed and in equal conditions both. One is professional recruiter and the other mostly is a fresh boy from the uni. One is an important Company and the other is a inexperienced worker in need for experience or cv. Is not equal by far.

I'm somewhat a syndicalist, I care about people, not an unproven ultimate goal. If they really want to make that goal and no profit why not make an non-profit organism, a foundation? Or a cooperative? I would collaborate myself.

But we are derailing the thread. We can continue by PM, but I don't think we will have an arrangement.

[KSK]

We are derailing the thread and I agree that we probably won't find an arrangement off-thread. So on that note, lets call it a day. Thank you for the civilized discussion.

 

[YumonStudios]

On 4/8/2016 at 11:32 AM, Nuke said:

i like the whole idea of salvagable components. you can build the main booster and use the tankage materials for lithobreaking keeping the salvageable hardware in a relatively safe location. design tankage with crumple zones. oversized tail fins that provide a drag source behind the empty cg (with high drag retractable control surfaces) to keep the nose to the wind. clear out the any trace combustables with a venting system driven by airflow through the tankage on the way back to the ground. pretty much has the landing profile of a lawn dart. the whole tail assembly could be as much as 90% salvageable after impact. start seeing rocket junkyards and parts left on the side of the road. sound familiar?

Good luck getting people to agree on that. Noone likes a crashed rocket in their backyard. Not to mention rocket bodies land in oceans in places like Cape Canaveral anyways.

On 4/8/2016 at 0:22 PM, KSK said:

First of all, thanks for pointing me at the website - that was the kind of information I was looking for. A company with a 4 (out of 5) star rating, where 95% of reviewers approve of the CEO and 81% would recommend the place to a friend - doesn't sound like a bad place to work to me. I'm seeing some bad points (show me a company which has no bad points) but plenty of good points too.

"I feel that very unrespectful, and very unethical playing with the illusions of the young to get more profit,"

Or alternatively the young have taken a clear look at the job they're offered and decided it's worth taking, if only to grab a couple years top-flight experience. We could both cherry pick quotes all day, to suit our point of view but:

"Work: Fast-paced and exciting. No better training ground for a young engineer"

"You will learn more per year working at SpaceX than anywhere else I know."

"Looks great on a resume."

"Mgt is flexible on hours, and if you need to go to a doctor or something."

"Quick and efficient interview process"

"Clear interview process."

The last two are the important ones to my mind. If you're given realistic expectations at interview then you can make an informed decision about whether to take the job. And before you say it - yes I expect that a lot of people applying for a job at SpaceX are good enough (lets face it, SpaceX can afford to be choosy) that they do have a genuine choice.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-work-for-elon-musk-2014-6

Quote

When Elon came out he walked past the press and first addressed the company. Although his exact words escape me in how he started off, the essence of his comments were that:

• We knew this was going to be hard, it is after all rocket science; then listed the half dozen or so countries who had failed to even successfully execute a first stage flight and get to outer space, a feat we had accomplished successfully that day.
• Elon has (in his infinite wisdom) prepared for the possibility of an issue with the flight by taking on a significant investment (from Draper Fisher Jurvetson if I recall correctly) providing SpaceX with ample financial resources to attempt 2 more launches; giving us security until at least flight 5 if needed.
• And that we need to pick ourselves up, and dust ourselves off, because we have a lot of work to do. Then he said, with as much fortitude and ferocity as he could muster after having been awake for like 20+ hours by this point that, "For my part, I will never give up and I mean never," and that if we stick with him, we will win.

I think most of us would have followed him into the gates of hell carrying suntan oil after that. It was the most impressive display of leadership that I have ever witnessed. Within moments the energy of the building went from despair and defeat to a massive buzz of determination as people began to focus on moving forward instead of looking back. This shift happened collectively, across all 300+ people in a matter of not more than 5 seconds. I wish I had video footage as I would love to analyze the shifts in body language that occurred over those 5 seconds. It was an unbelievably powerful experience.

Quote

If you want a family or hobbies or to see any other aspect of life other than the boundaries of your cubicle, SpaceX is not for you and Elon doesn't give a damn...

This side of the truth of what it's like to work with Elon shows that absolutely no one likes working with Elon. You can always tell when someone's left an Elon meeting: they're defeated. These are some of the hardest working and brightest people in the world, mind you. And they are universally defeated. At least in engineering, who knows what HR and finance does. So often, PR is the real product of SpaceX so I imagine that everyone who isn't an engineer at SpaceX gets treated fairly well.

The reason for this is that Elon's version of reality is highly skewed; it's much like Steve Jobs's "reality distortion field" except Elon is terrible at public speaking and even worse at motivating people. If you believe that a task should take a year then Elon wants it done in a week. He won't hesitate to throw out six months of work because it's not pretty enough or it's not "badass" enough. But in so doing he doesn't change the schedule.

Quote

The engineer continues by saying that Musk's leadership is "best compared to a master who berates and smacks his dog for not being able to read his mind."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-work-with-Elon-Musk

http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-lawsuit-alleges-elon-musks-rocket-company-forced-hourly-employees-work-clock-2151993