View Single Post
  #29  
Old January 12th 19, 11:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 12 Jan 2019
02:03:02 -0500:

On 2019-01-03 07:47, Jeff Findley wrote:

You don't know this because you don't know what the inspections have
found after the first, second, and third flights of the Block 5. SpaceX
is still a private company.


Yet, you are allowed to state that Block 5 is good for 100 flights with
a major maintenance every 10 flights. So Obviously, you have time travel
capability and are able to access data that doesn't yet exist that shows
this Musk dream will become reality.


You really need to learn to read. And to think.


Yes. That's generally how businesses work. The guy at the top sets the
direction and the people under them does what it takes to make that
happen.


The problem I have is people taking Musk's dreams as accomplished deeds.
They are dreams.


No, the problem you have is twofold. You can't read what people say
and you think we're still doing engineering the way cathedrals were
built.

So just because Musk said 100 flights doesn't mean this is the actual
limit they will set. And if the max is 3 flights so far, they are not
even close to knowing what the limi9ts for "easy" reflight , "reflight
after major maintenance" and "likmit for reflights" are.


This reads like your opinion, not something Shotwell said.


Did I state that Shotwell said that?


You certainly tried to misinterpret a Shotwell statement and imply
that it was said, yes.

Specifically, in the video you saw, did Shotwell say that Falcon 9 Block
5 has failed to meet Musk's goal of 10 flights without refurbishment and
up to 100 flights with refurbishment? Be specific.


No and I didn't claim this. The point is that aspirational goals are
not accomplished deeds. Stating the goal is 100 flights is correct.
Stating Falcon 9 block 5 will do 100 flights is not because we don't
know yet how many flights it will REALLY do.


The point is that they're not "aspirational goals". They are
engineering direction.


I personally think they already have "solid experience in reflights".


Not enough to know they can do 100 flights on a Falcon 9.


But almost certainly enough to know what the minimum likely threshold
between refurbishments is.


And I'm not sure the number 100 has been decided.


Oh so now you agree. So all this time you were twisting my words just to
insult me.


Nobody needs to "twist your words" to insult you. You're stupid and
cannot read simple English statements.


Bull****. Again, SpaceX has the production capacity to sell expendable
Falcon boosters if that is what the customer wants.


This issue is of resources and cash flow. If BFR/BFS was planned based
on rapid succession Falcon 9 being reused and much reduced production
rate of new ones, and the environment has changed where it will rely on
new Falcon 9s, this changes the economics and cash flow and may affect
finding for BFR/BFS.


And if BFR/BFS was planned assuming monkeys will fly out your butt,
that's yet a different problem. NOBODY said Falcon 9 production was
going to end next Tuesday. It has ALWAYS been assumed that some
number of Falcon 9 first stages would have to be expended (like the
GPS launch) or lost due to accident (like the one that went in the
water). If SpaceX can build two dozen booster cores a year (and that
figure seems reasonable, given their current flight rate) and they
expend four or so per year (which is in keeping with the 12 Block 5
cores that were built last year and a loss of two of those 12), the
inventory of usable booster cores will grow by about 20 per year. They
currently have 10 Block 5 cores in hand and have demonstrated that
they can turn and refly a Block 5 booster in 3 months. Given the 10
boosters currently in hand before they build ANY they can fly as many
missions as they flew this year. That means ALL the boosters they
manufacture this year need not be flown. Even if you assume they can
only make 12 booster cores a year (which is preposterously low, given
their flight rates) the booster pool would grow by at least 8 brand
new booster cores (expending 4). So now at the end of this year
they'd have 16 cores in hand. Since you're not doing any redesign of
the Block 5, all the development engineers can move over to BFR/BFS
now. Given 16 cores on hand and assuming they continue to expend 4
per year (which is probably high), at the end of 2019 they'll have
more than enough cores to get to 2022. If they continue to
manufacture another dozen cores in 2020 they would have 24 cores in
inventory and most of them would have two flights or less on them and
a bunch of those would have no flights. If they shut down production
at the end of 2020, they would have enough cores on hand to fly
through 2024. All that assumes a paltry dozen Falcon 9 cores per year
are built and that no payloads are diverted to Falcon Heavy so that
four cores a year are expended.

Now take your shoes off and go back and read that again.


Apparently, the staiunless steel stunt with the "tiny" BFS "hopper" is
to meet a requirememnt by one of the investors.


Cite for this claim? Name the investor and the requirement.


If BFR/BFS is to be
built on the grandiose scale that Musk dreams of, it will need grandiose
amount of cash which SpaceX doesn't have yet. So anything which affects
cash flow affects BFR/BFS.


By this thinking, no new anything can be built because funding for the
total production run is not yet in hand. Preposterous!


SpaceX will charge
a premium for this and will therefore still make a profit on an
expendable launch.


A DoD launch on a new expandable Falcon9 may be profitable, but if it is
less profitable than one on a used Falcon9 that is reused afterwards,
then this reduces the cash flow available for BFR/BFS development.

If it is more profitable then this is good. But neither you or I know
for sure.

Remember that keeping the production line staffed works well when they
are at full production rate to stock up on Falcon9s. But if they are
kept to satistfy DoD contracts that are well below capacity, this
becomes far less efficient and eats up into cash flow.

It all depends on what Musk promised investors and whatever
milestones/caveats investors have required from Musk. It all depends on
what SpaceX projected in terms of cash flow generated from Falcon9
operations and whether they will meet or exceed it.

So any changes to production plans and launch revenues for Falcon9 are
very material. They may help or hinder it. But to state that they are
immatedial is wrong.


You're ****ing hopeless! See my basic analysis above.


Remember that BFR/BFS is a HUGE project. This is going to require a lot
of money. Musk may have great dreams and be a gread smoke and mirros
sales person, but the folks below him have to deal with reality and
reality starts with cash to pay for development of some huge rocket
system that is beyond the scope of anything ever built before.


You know that Musk is an ENGINEER, right?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn