SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/tonight-spacex-to-reuse-its-first-block-5-variant-of-the-falcon-9/
77 comments
It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.
Indeed. Could be that having a legacy rocket programme is if anything a hindrance in this new world of reusability - Ariane in particular seems to be in danger of becoming mainly an employment scheme that builds rockets on the side. For fairness I guess I should say SLS isn't looking too clever at this point either.
You're missing the point of Ariane. Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price, and as insurance against a launch monopoly (it upper-bounds what others can charge ESA). Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable, which is very important for some launches (NASA's James Webb telescope is going to launch on Ariane 5, for example). Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price.
This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.
This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.
And yet:
'SpaceX is so cheap that Ariane's CEO worries SpaceX could eventually "kick Europe out of space" if Ariane cannot figure out a way to launch its rockets more cheaply'
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-s...
'SpaceX is so cheap that Ariane's CEO worries SpaceX could eventually "kick Europe out of space" if Ariane cannot figure out a way to launch its rockets more cheaply'
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/02/europe-complains-s...
> Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable
It certainly is reliable, but it's not extremely reliable. It's had 2 total failures and 3 partial failures out of 99 launch attempts, including a partial failure this year on SES-14 that left the satellite in-orbit, but inclined 20 degrees to the equator, which will significantly shorten the satellite's lifespan.
It certainly is reliable, but it's not extremely reliable. It's had 2 total failures and 3 partial failures out of 99 launch attempts, including a partial failure this year on SES-14 that left the satellite in-orbit, but inclined 20 degrees to the equator, which will significantly shorten the satellite's lifespan.
Insurance against a launch monopoly would be more effected by competition in general, no need to build your own rocket. I have also never heard anybody from ESA make that claim.
Ariane 5 is reliable but the primary reason it is launching rather then ULA is not reliability but politics.
> Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price.
That is false. That was exactly what their goal was all the way up to a 1-2 years ago when they finally realized how badly they fucked up.
They spent the last 10 years laughing at SpaceX and telling everybody how stupid SpaceX is and how nothing is gone work and how much better they are.
> This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.
You are repeating what is essentially propaganda that ignores important facts.
The reason Ariane can only launch 10 times a year is because they totally failed in innovating and rested their success for a long time and now that they got 3 billion to develop a new rocket, that they claimed would be competitive. However the totally fucked that up and are not even close to being competitive.
The very reason they go all this money for Ariane 6 was to build something competitive so they could continue to capture commercial launch so that government flights were cheap.
So it is not that re-usability is not worth it, its that they failed to make a commercially viable product and without that they are just monopolistic launch with a low launch rate.
Ariane 5 is reliable but the primary reason it is launching rather then ULA is not reliability but politics.
> Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price.
That is false. That was exactly what their goal was all the way up to a 1-2 years ago when they finally realized how badly they fucked up.
They spent the last 10 years laughing at SpaceX and telling everybody how stupid SpaceX is and how nothing is gone work and how much better they are.
> This is also the reason reusability doesn't make sense for Ariane. With less than ten launches per year, fixed costs make up a large portion of the cost. If they only needed one rocket per year, it wouldn't really get all that much cheaper because they still need the factory.
You are repeating what is essentially propaganda that ignores important facts.
The reason Ariane can only launch 10 times a year is because they totally failed in innovating and rested their success for a long time and now that they got 3 billion to develop a new rocket, that they claimed would be competitive. However the totally fucked that up and are not even close to being competitive.
The very reason they go all this money for Ariane 6 was to build something competitive so they could continue to capture commercial launch so that government flights were cheap.
So it is not that re-usability is not worth it, its that they failed to make a commercially viable product and without that they are just monopolistic launch with a low launch rate.
> Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price
> Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price
Winning commercial contracts is how the price is kept reasonable. As you pointed out fixed costs are very large and launching GTO satellites helps spread them around.
If SpaceX kicks Ariane out of the commercial market then ESA governments will have to pay more for their own launches.
> Ariane's goal is not to win the most commercial contracts or compete with SpaceX on price
Winning commercial contracts is how the price is kept reasonable. As you pointed out fixed costs are very large and launching GTO satellites helps spread them around.
If SpaceX kicks Ariane out of the commercial market then ESA governments will have to pay more for their own launches.
Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price
What if the "reasonable price" changes?
What if the "reasonable price" changes?
It's purpose has always been to be a globally competitive commercial launch provider. A purpose they excelled at for decades. While it's purpose is now shrinking to being Europe's government launcher it should be noted that this is an event that is happening, not merely a continuation of the status quo.
What happens with the JWT if the rocket blows up on launch? How long(and how much $$$) would it take to build another one, having already built one?
Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"
Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"
> Is this an instance where the government should follow the maxim from Contact: "Why build one, when you can build two for twice the cost?"
The maxim in Contact was different - "Why build one, when you can build two, but keep the second one secret", right?
I do hope JWT could be recreated cheaper than costs to create it in the first place. No matter though, we'll still need other space telescopes anyway, so both reliability and price to orbit are important.
The maxim in Contact was different - "Why build one, when you can build two, but keep the second one secret", right?
I do hope JWT could be recreated cheaper than costs to create it in the first place. No matter though, we'll still need other space telescopes anyway, so both reliability and price to orbit are important.
One of the main goals of the Ariane rocket system is also provide jobs,not efficient Lunch system. If they create a reusable lunch system what the workforce will do then?
Given Ariane's French roots I think we can count on the lunch and all other meals being not just efficient, but superbe!
That is false. Historically this was not the reason, this is now the new claim they make but it was never the specific intent.
Build space stations and moon bases?
I don’t think SLS ever looked good, except when evaluating it for pork value.
Here is what I would like to ask the head of NASA if I had the chance to interview him.
First I would ask him to list the various specific missions that the SLS is designed to carry out.
And then I would ask if the BRF lives up to its promises, which of those missions, if any it would not be able to carry out.
First I would ask him to list the various specific missions that the SLS is designed to carry out.
And then I would ask if the BRF lives up to its promises, which of those missions, if any it would not be able to carry out.
If he were able to be completely honest, I imagine his answers would be “satisfy members of Congress by sending money to their districts.” SLS exists by Congressional mandate, and I don’t think NASA actually wants it.
> It was a epoch defining change
Not yet. Costs haven't fallen. The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
Not yet. Costs haven't fallen. The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
> Not yet. Costs haven't fallen.
That is false. You already pay 10 million less. That is 15% of the launch price. And 15% of the extremely cheap price that SpaceX was already selling.
The reality is that SpaceX simply increased its margin. The technology is still epoch defining.
If any competitor comes even close to SpaceX in price, they will simply drop the price again.
That is false. You already pay 10 million less. That is 15% of the launch price. And 15% of the extremely cheap price that SpaceX was already selling.
The reality is that SpaceX simply increased its margin. The technology is still epoch defining.
If any competitor comes even close to SpaceX in price, they will simply drop the price again.
If this current revival of spacecraft innovation goes on to create rapid, fully reusable spacecraft(BFR, New Glen, etc.), I think the epoch changing moment will be seen as the first landing of the first stage Falcon 9 on December 21, 2015. Similar to the first flight at Kitty Hawk. But if we fail to take to the stars, it will soon be forgotten and only remembered as a nostalgic touchstone for a few dreamers. Sort of like how I imagine how people will think of the first moon landing if, in a thousand years, humans have still not made it back.
> Costs haven't fallen.
I disagree. I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters. It is also speculated that at least the first few customers of reused boosters were given a discount.
If you are saying customer cost has not fallen, you may be correct. I would counter with the fact that SpaceX is already a low cost provider, lowering their price more may not increase their overall profits.
> The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
The booster SpaceX plans to reuse today is a "block 5" booster. This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse.
I disagree. I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters. It is also speculated that at least the first few customers of reused boosters were given a discount.
If you are saying customer cost has not fallen, you may be correct. I would counter with the fact that SpaceX is already a low cost provider, lowering their price more may not increase their overall profits.
> The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.
The booster SpaceX plans to reuse today is a "block 5" booster. This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse.
> I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than building new boosters
Well, they are. Which is natural, because the program is still R&D more than mass production.
> This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse
When that rapid re-use is demonstrated, it will mark the epoch. We could retcon to the original re-use, or even booster recovery. But that's premature.
(I'm still super excited about everything SpaceX does.)
Well, they are. Which is natural, because the program is still R&D more than mass production.
> This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little retrofitting reuse
When that rapid re-use is demonstrated, it will mark the epoch. We could retcon to the original re-use, or even booster recovery. But that's premature.
(I'm still super excited about everything SpaceX does.)
Costs have already fallen. Iridium paid far less to launch their next generation fleet despite it being the same number of satellites, each of which are individually quite heavier than the previous generation (meaning, they purchased much greater launch capability but at a strictly lower cost). And several customers have taken advantage of the extreme low costs of reused launchers. Sure, right now it's only maybe $10 million cheaper, but $10 million is still $10 million, and for some that makes the difference between feasibility and infeasability.
Don't forget Roscosmos, who is going to be in a world of hurt when NASA and other customers stop using their services and instead use SpaceX.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/russia-may-lack-the-... sums it up nicely.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/russia-may-lack-the-... sums it up nicely.
>It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.
Nitpicking on the language: why would SpaceX be a steamroller? Steamrollers are slow. Also, what does it mean for a steamroller to be in full force? Steamrollers push downward at a constant force, don't they?
I understand that SpaceX is crushing its competition, so you want to bring the steamroller metaphor, but perhaps for what you are saying other metaphors would be a better fit.
Further reading: Orwell, Politics and the English language[1]
[1]https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79p/
Nitpicking on the language: why would SpaceX be a steamroller? Steamrollers are slow. Also, what does it mean for a steamroller to be in full force? Steamrollers push downward at a constant force, don't they?
I understand that SpaceX is crushing its competition, so you want to bring the steamroller metaphor, but perhaps for what you are saying other metaphors would be a better fit.
Further reading: Orwell, Politics and the English language[1]
[1]https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79p/
It’s an idiom.
It is not clear what "it" you refer to here.
Referring to SpaceX as a steamroller is a metaphor[1].
"In full force" is, indeed, an idiom that generally means "in entirety", "completely"[2]
"Steamroller in full force" is neither a metaphor nor an idiom. It's a mashup of the two, and a phrase hitherto unuttered because it doesn't carry meaning.
Put simply, the set of things that can be "in full force" generally does not include steamrollers.
Please see Orwell's essay I linked to. "Fascist octopus has sung its swan song" is an example there that is a similar mix of metaphors.
There are many ways this can be fixed; steamrollers can gain momentum, for example.
As I said - it's not a principal point; I'm nitpicking. However, I believe clear communication is important - so here is an opportunity to improve.
- [1]https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/
[2]https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+full+force
Referring to SpaceX as a steamroller is a metaphor[1].
"In full force" is, indeed, an idiom that generally means "in entirety", "completely"[2]
"Steamroller in full force" is neither a metaphor nor an idiom. It's a mashup of the two, and a phrase hitherto unuttered because it doesn't carry meaning.
Put simply, the set of things that can be "in full force" generally does not include steamrollers.
Please see Orwell's essay I linked to. "Fascist octopus has sung its swan song" is an example there that is a similar mix of metaphors.
There are many ways this can be fixed; steamrollers can gain momentum, for example.
As I said - it's not a principal point; I'm nitpicking. However, I believe clear communication is important - so here is an opportunity to improve.
- [1]https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/
[2]https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+full+force
Have actual cost saving numbers been published? I remember reading estimates back in 2016 or so of ~60% but I'd be interested in what the real numbers were
Gwynne Shotwell once noted that even the very first refurbished booster cost less than 50 % of a new one to refurbish. They've learned a lot since then and Block V is designed to do at least 10 launches I think without refurbishment (this one has been taken apart, though, since it's the very first one that launched).
This blows my mind and I have naive questions.
How can the materials withstand such forces? Is a piece inside replaced (he said without taking it apart)? Is ablation a factor at all?
It's important to note that the first stage (which is about 70% of the rocket) is the part that is being reused. The top of the rocket (the second stage, the fairings, and the payload) are not reused (At least not yet. They are working on recovering fairings and there are rumors of second stage reuse).
When the stages separate, the first stage is going about 1.5 - 2.5 km/s. Then the second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to orbital speeds of 7+ km/s, and the first stage returns to earth.
So the first stage is going fast (several thousand miles per hour) but not as fast as things that re-enter from orbit. It still does need heat shielding, but not as much as the space shuttle or a capsule.
When the stages separate, the first stage is going about 1.5 - 2.5 km/s. Then the second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to orbital speeds of 7+ km/s, and the first stage returns to earth.
So the first stage is going fast (several thousand miles per hour) but not as fast as things that re-enter from orbit. It still does need heat shielding, but not as much as the space shuttle or a capsule.
The retropropulsion actually helps shield the rocket from heat.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/13935/how-does-the...
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/13935/how-does-the...
They've worked hard to get rid of pieces that have significant re-engineering. A good example is the grid-fins which have been moved to titanium, because they old ones were being worn away.
There is a heat-shield in the button of the rocket. PICA-X is a technology that SpaceX is working on and have been for a long time.
There is heat coating on the new rest of the rocket.
There is heat coating on the new rest of the rocket.
presumably a combination. Most parts on the rocket don't actually see that much stress. Find the parts that take the most stress. Then either make them stronger; or make them quick/easy to replace quickly and cheap to manufacture.
Have they realized their cost savings yet? Or are the teardowns and smaller redesigns still keeping the launch price up? Basically, are we in the future yet?
The refurbishing costs of even their first reused booster was less than half the price of a new booster [1], so something above 50%*70% = 35% saving assuming that the booster is 70% of the cost of the launch. The new block 5 version rocket is supposed to reduce that refurbishing cost by a lot.
However, they have development costs of something like a billion dollars to pay back, and no reason to lower the price drastically at this point, so new launches on reused rockets are going for ~50 million instead of 62 million.
[1] https://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-saving...
However, they have development costs of something like a billion dollars to pay back, and no reason to lower the price drastically at this point, so new launches on reused rockets are going for ~50 million instead of 62 million.
[1] https://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-saving...
From that link. Holy cow: "“Looking forward for reusability, we don’t believe it really, really counts unless you can turn it around rapidly, or almost as rapidly, as you turn around an aircraft,”.
I had no idea they were aiming for this level. That is just mind boggling how drastic a change it's going to be.
I had no idea they were aiming for this level. That is just mind boggling how drastic a change it's going to be.
Musk's Mars plan depends on reducing the marginal costs of launching so much that SpaceX could with minimal expenditure chuck dozens of rockets at Mars every year loaded with supplies and crew.
This is important to keep in mind when wondering why a corporation would continue pushing its costs down after obtaining an effective monopoly. As long as Mars is the goal SpaceX won't turn into a ULA or Ariane. But if for some reason SpaceX ceases to pursue Mars then it would likely recapitulate the same business decisions of every other spacefaring corporation.
This is important to keep in mind when wondering why a corporation would continue pushing its costs down after obtaining an effective monopoly. As long as Mars is the goal SpaceX won't turn into a ULA or Ariane. But if for some reason SpaceX ceases to pursue Mars then it would likely recapitulate the same business decisions of every other spacefaring corporation.
On the other hand, one might argue that SpaceX has already permanently changed the space game. If SpaceX fails to keep moving society forward, it would do little more than create a major vacuum that could be filled by companies such as Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, or other new players.
I think this in particular is really the hugest benefit of privatizing space. When we had the government in charge of space, it living or dying was really subject to nothing more than the whims of a gaggle of politicians. As space has become a prominent part of the private industry with ever increasing competition, you remove that aspect of a single point of failure. I think the odds of us entering into another era of stagnation come regression are rapidly approaching 0, and that's incredibly exciting!
I think this in particular is really the hugest benefit of privatizing space. When we had the government in charge of space, it living or dying was really subject to nothing more than the whims of a gaggle of politicians. As space has become a prominent part of the private industry with ever increasing competition, you remove that aspect of a single point of failure. I think the odds of us entering into another era of stagnation come regression are rapidly approaching 0, and that's incredibly exciting!
one mission to Mars, just think about the workload that ground control would have to deal with. Will there be extra communication satellites involved outside earth's system?
You should check out their presentation [1] from 2017. The whole thing is incredibly interesting but if you want to see some jaw dropping stuff, check the tail end. They plan to use the BFR (big.. falcon.. rocket) to carry out suborbital missions. In other words, you hop on the BFR. Take off in New York, enjoy some silky smooth zero g travel, and less than 30 minutes later you're landing in London.
I have serious doubts about this, but it's about time that people who have the means and ability to make incredible things happen became so aggressively technological that their ideas seemed doubtful. It wasn't that long ago that many believed that complete rocket reusability impossible (to say nothing of autonomous retropulsive landings on barges getting rocked around in the middle of the ocean). Then it changed it uneconomical. Then it changed to 'oh shit, we're now a decade behind technologically.' I now find myself on the doubter side and look anxiously and happily forward to being proven wrong!
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4FY894HyF8
I have serious doubts about this, but it's about time that people who have the means and ability to make incredible things happen became so aggressively technological that their ideas seemed doubtful. It wasn't that long ago that many believed that complete rocket reusability impossible (to say nothing of autonomous retropulsive landings on barges getting rocked around in the middle of the ocean). Then it changed it uneconomical. Then it changed to 'oh shit, we're now a decade behind technologically.' I now find myself on the doubter side and look anxiously and happily forward to being proven wrong!
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4FY894HyF8
I think the use case for the suborbital hops is to reduce transport costs for those BFR that go from CA to FL and then to Mars. Shipping them trough the canal is something I'd like to see close up but also a bit mental. But then, western Europe's launches happen from South America...
24-hour 'rapid reusability' has been their stated goal since at least 2013. It's a core part of their mission, perhaps the core.
OK I get that booster reuse cuts down costs, but the fact is the 2nd stage is still not reused, which limits the economic benefits needed to open new markets. We get a 50% reduction in costs, instead of the 95% reduction in costs.
You can get a 50% reduction in costs just by going to India for launch..
Is SpaceX going for 2nd stage reuse at all? That's going to be a lot harder than booster stage reuse, since you're returning to land at orbital velocity.
And then there's the whole issue of increasing reliability of the 1st stage for reuse hundreds (or thousands) of times needed for new business models...
You can get a 50% reduction in costs just by going to India for launch..
Is SpaceX going for 2nd stage reuse at all? That's going to be a lot harder than booster stage reuse, since you're returning to land at orbital velocity.
And then there's the whole issue of increasing reliability of the 1st stage for reuse hundreds (or thousands) of times needed for new business models...
The first stage represents about 75% of the cost of the vehicle, not 50%. This represents the actual cost of the metal on the launchpad, but not the services around the rocket, including launch control costs, etc.
You can't take a rocket to India and you can't manufacturer that rocket in India (Skilset, US based corporation, ITAR) so you can't achieve your savings that way.
Even Russia - which is using a very old tried and true rocket design - can't match prices at this point. In addition, the budget cuts in Russia have resulted in a massive reduction in reliability, which has blown up their insurance cost recently.
In terms of second stage re-usability, they are looking at that for FalconX, and it's designed in at the start for BFR. Landing something from a second stage is as difficult comparatively vis-a-vis landing the first stage, as landing the first stage was compared to the suborbital hops that Blue Origin is doing.
The latest SpaceX idea (judging by Elon's tweets) appear to be some sort of Ballute based approach.
The first stage re-use should be good for 10 flights without a overhaul, with a complete tear-down on flight 10.
You can't take a rocket to India and you can't manufacturer that rocket in India (Skilset, US based corporation, ITAR) so you can't achieve your savings that way.
Even Russia - which is using a very old tried and true rocket design - can't match prices at this point. In addition, the budget cuts in Russia have resulted in a massive reduction in reliability, which has blown up their insurance cost recently.
In terms of second stage re-usability, they are looking at that for FalconX, and it's designed in at the start for BFR. Landing something from a second stage is as difficult comparatively vis-a-vis landing the first stage, as landing the first stage was compared to the suborbital hops that Blue Origin is doing.
The latest SpaceX idea (judging by Elon's tweets) appear to be some sort of Ballute based approach.
The first stage re-use should be good for 10 flights without a overhaul, with a complete tear-down on flight 10.
"You can't take a rocket to India and you can't manufacturer that rocket in India (Skilset, US based corporation, ITAR) so you can't achieve your savings that way."
Out of curiosity -- can they _fly_ a rocket to India (maybe have a booster return to India instead of a drone ship ? Too far/out of the way ?
That may not help much since stage 2 would still have to be shipped around, which is probably not cost effective, and there might be other regulations that make it infeasible to launch anywhere but in the USA.
Out of curiosity -- can they _fly_ a rocket to India (maybe have a booster return to India instead of a drone ship ? Too far/out of the way ?
That may not help much since stage 2 would still have to be shipped around, which is probably not cost effective, and there might be other regulations that make it infeasible to launch anywhere but in the USA.
As soon as it lands you have violated ITAR, so no.
One of the use cases for BFR is a sub-orbital hop. That would probably work for India (depending on orbital dynamics).
With Falcon, no way. The boosters land out at sea, but nowhere near that far out ;-)
With Falcon, no way. The boosters land out at sea, but nowhere near that far out ;-)
> they are looking at that for FalconX
I have not heard of that one and neither has google.
I have not heard of that one and neither has google.
"Is SpaceX going for 2nd stage reuse at all? That's going to be a lot harder"
Yes, they are (and yes, it will be): "SpaceX also continues to study the feasibility of returning and reusing the second stage of the Falcon 9, and Musk said he’s confident it can be done. The question is what “mass penalty” will have to be paid, primarily in terms of the fuel needed to slow the second stage down so that it can make a controlled descent back through Earth's atmosphere.
"Still, Musk believes the Falcon 9 will get to full reusability. In terms of the rocket’s overall cost, the first stage accounts for 60 percent, the upper stage 20 percent, the fairing 10 percent, and the remainder are costs associated with the launch itself (fuel costs are between $300,000 and $500,000), Musk said."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/spacexs-block-5-rock...
Yes, they are (and yes, it will be): "SpaceX also continues to study the feasibility of returning and reusing the second stage of the Falcon 9, and Musk said he’s confident it can be done. The question is what “mass penalty” will have to be paid, primarily in terms of the fuel needed to slow the second stage down so that it can make a controlled descent back through Earth's atmosphere.
"Still, Musk believes the Falcon 9 will get to full reusability. In terms of the rocket’s overall cost, the first stage accounts for 60 percent, the upper stage 20 percent, the fairing 10 percent, and the remainder are costs associated with the launch itself (fuel costs are between $300,000 and $500,000), Musk said."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/spacexs-block-5-rock...
The answer is, this is Falcon 9's final form. You can get it in single or triple core variants.
All new work is now on BFR, which will have 2nd stage reusability, orbital refueling, better economics etc. I think you're also underestimating how far this Falcon will get them - their timelines suggest that this is what they'll use to launch their global internet satellite network, not BFR.
All new work is now on BFR, which will have 2nd stage reusability, orbital refueling, better economics etc. I think you're also underestimating how far this Falcon will get them - their timelines suggest that this is what they'll use to launch their global internet satellite network, not BFR.
Basically the answer to all of those is SpaceX's next gen BFR rocket. It is scaled up significantly which makes second stage reuse practical. The challenge with a rocket the size of the Falcon 9 is that added significant fixed mass to the second stage (heat shielding, parachutes, etc.) will significantly Affect payload mass / performance.
By going to a much larger class of rocket, those concessions for re-use become a smaller fraction of the total stage 2 mass.
By going to a much larger class of rocket, those concessions for re-use become a smaller fraction of the total stage 2 mass.
[deleted]
India can not launch payloads in the same weight class as Falcon 9.
The first stage is significantly larger and therefore more expensive than the second.
My guess is the first full-reuse rocket you'll see will be the SSTO BFR.
My guess is the first full-reuse rocket you'll see will be the SSTO BFR.
> SSTO BFR
[citation needed] - I don't think BFR is intended to be single-stage to orbit?
[citation needed] - I don't think BFR is intended to be single-stage to orbit?
The BFS (spaceship, i.e. second stage) is supposedly going to have enough performance to make orbit on its own as an SSTO, with a tiny payload. It probably won’t ever be used that way, though.
Human beings going for a 7 day trip around the moon is a tiny payload and some people would pay ..say.. ~ 300 million for a ticket, I would guess.
You need supplies to keep those humans alive for a week, and a huge amount of fuel to boost the ship into a moon-intersecting orbit. Not a tiny payload by any means.
What if it is refueled in orbit?
The BFS presentations hinted at that ability.
To get other BFSes up there with enough fuel to transfer a useful amount would require them to use the first stage booster instead of just being SSTO.
Really there's no point to doing an SSTO launch in practice since the BFR first stage will in theory be just as reusable (if not more so) than the BFS second stage. Using the first stage booster greatly improves payload to orbit and has relatively low marginal cost once you've built and tested the whole system.
Really there's no point to doing an SSTO launch in practice since the BFR first stage will in theory be just as reusable (if not more so) than the BFS second stage. Using the first stage booster greatly improves payload to orbit and has relatively low marginal cost once you've built and tested the whole system.
For a single launch, sure.
What happens if there are regular launches?
Logistically, to me it seems that it would be a great idea to have a refueling station in orbit which is supplied by BFR cargo ships ..say.. once a month.
Launching a BFR for each launch of BFS would require a lot of transportation and duplicated effort. Is this intuition wrong?
Logistically, to me it seems that it would be a great idea to have a refueling station in orbit which is supplied by BFR cargo ships ..say.. once a month.
Launching a BFR for each launch of BFS would require a lot of transportation and duplicated effort. Is this intuition wrong?
The plan is that the BFR lands back at the launch pad in the same cradle it launched from which would reduce operational complexity.
The fuel for your station has to get there somehow, and so does the station itself. The BFS-tanker ships would need to be launched with a BFR booster to bring up a meaningful amount of fuel, and there are going to be way more of those than there will be BFS-crew launches (ignoring the Earth-to-Earth transportation segment, where a centralized fuel station wouldn't make sense since each route will take a very different orbital path).
SSTO-ing the BFS-crew would require another BFR booster-plus-cargo launch anyway to replace the fuel and cargo you could have carried up in the BFS if you had launched it on the BFR booster to begin with.
The only angle that makes sense to me for doing a BFS-crew SSTO with minimal payload would be if it is deemed to be less risky for loss-of-crew. In that case you could have a BFS-tanker already on orbit and fully loaded by multiple BFR-plus-tanker launches, ready to rendevous with the BFS-crew ship after it reaches orbit on fumes.
I think that is unlikely though since such a launch might leave the BFS-crew without the fuel margin required to divert or de-orbit and land propulsively without refuelling.
The fuel for your station has to get there somehow, and so does the station itself. The BFS-tanker ships would need to be launched with a BFR booster to bring up a meaningful amount of fuel, and there are going to be way more of those than there will be BFS-crew launches (ignoring the Earth-to-Earth transportation segment, where a centralized fuel station wouldn't make sense since each route will take a very different orbital path).
SSTO-ing the BFS-crew would require another BFR booster-plus-cargo launch anyway to replace the fuel and cargo you could have carried up in the BFS if you had launched it on the BFR booster to begin with.
The only angle that makes sense to me for doing a BFS-crew SSTO with minimal payload would be if it is deemed to be less risky for loss-of-crew. In that case you could have a BFS-tanker already on orbit and fully loaded by multiple BFR-plus-tanker launches, ready to rendevous with the BFS-crew ship after it reaches orbit on fumes.
I think that is unlikely though since such a launch might leave the BFS-crew without the fuel margin required to divert or de-orbit and land propulsively without refuelling.
Once your payload exceeds the SSTO capability of a single BFS launch, you save effort by doing a two-stage launch. The two-stage launch is more complex and difficult, but the added capacity is far greater.
For intuition, consider moving to a new house. What’s better, renting a tiny car with room for one suitcase, or renting a big truck? The car is cheaper and easier to drive, but unless all of your stuff fits in one suitcase, the truck is going to be much cheaper and easier for this task.
For intuition, consider moving to a new house. What’s better, renting a tiny car with room for one suitcase, or renting a big truck? The car is cheaper and easier to drive, but unless all of your stuff fits in one suitcase, the truck is going to be much cheaper and easier for this task.
You could, but I’d hesitate to call the result an SSTO, and you’d be better off using the whole BFR stack anyway.
Orbital refueling is critical for the Mars plans. BFR can’t launch for Mars without it, so the capability will definitely be there.
Orbital refueling is critical for the Mars plans. BFR can’t launch for Mars without it, so the capability will definitely be there.
Add a refueling station in orbit and this setup requires less BFR + BFS launches.
I am guessing a BFR + specialized fuel container payload will deliver far more fuel to orbit compared to BFR + BFS + fuel.
I am guessing a BFR + specialized fuel container payload will deliver far more fuel to orbit compared to BFR + BFS + fuel.
There is already a plan for a tanker version of the BFS, since as you note it wouldn’t be efficient to refuel with another crewed craft. I don’t see what the station helps with, though. That’s just extra mass to launch.
Managing logistics?
A series of BFR launches to station some fuel in orbit seems like a better choice than having to launch a fuel tanker BFR each time.
Why? I don’t see the advantage. It would make sense if one BFR tanker could launch enough fuel for multiple missions, which you’d then want to store somewhere, but that’s not the case.
Orbit isn't just one thing. The plane changes (some of the most expensive types of burns) involved to get to the same orbit as a tanker and then to the target orbit would vastly outway any potential benefits.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you can get a 50% reduction in costs by going to India, people would be doing it.
It's amazing this happened just a little over a year ago.