"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
Yeah, I guess I didn't add the comment I thought I had, but I suspect
SpaceX
feels it's cheaper to do a live test because for them it's a fairly small
incremental cost (fuel and if there's overtime added to the workflow).
For
Boeing, it's a much steeper cost and they probably are comfortable enough
saying it's cheaper to do ground testing than "waste" a booster.

Wikipedia shows that test as scheduled for late July using a previously
flown booster, but I wonder if the abort test will destroy the booster.

The abort test will reportedly use an actual fueled upper stage but no
flight worthy Merlin vacuum engine. And from what I've read, SpaceX
does not believe that the booster will survive the test. Some reports
have said they don't even plan on trying to recover the booster.

So they're planning on expending an entire Falcon 9, minus one Merlin
vacuum engine, for this test. That's got to be hardware worth tens of
millions of dollars.


True, I had overlooked the cost of the upper stage! That is not a small
chunk of change, though without the engine, they're definitely saving some
money there.

As for the booster, yeah, assuming they can't recover it, it's a loss, but
still cheaper than ULA because they're both cheaper to start with and they
can afford to lose a re-used stage since in a sense it's already been paid
for.


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/