View Single Post
  #30  
Old January 12th 19, 01:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

In article ,
says...

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.


These have been public statements by people high in the company like
Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell. You may not like that evidence, but it
is evidence nonetheless.

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.


We shall see, won't we?

I'm of the opinion that launch vehicles aren't nearly as hard as some
would have us believe. You don't need bleeding edge technology to make
it into orbit anymore. Rocketlab and SpaceX both have launch vehicles
whose very existence supports that assertion. Even without reuse, their
vehicles are far cheaper to manufacture and fly than the competition.

Besides, the environment experienced by the Falcon 9 first stage isn't
all that "harsh". Vacuum isn't all that hard to deal with, especially
for the few minutes Falcon 9's first stage experiences it. Aerodynamic
loads are worse for the payload fairing than the first stage. The first
stage reentry burn insures that reentry heating is kept withing limits.

The secret sauce here is Merlin. And we have ample evidence from
repeated test stand runs that Merlin is, in fact, a fine reusable
engine.

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?


I'm pointing out that this is your opinion. Shotwell's job is to
translate Elon Musk's vision into reality. Her other job is to make
sure that the business side of things runs smoothly. Everything I've
read about her suggests she wouldn't be sticking around if she didn't
believe in the company and what it's doing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu.../she-launches-
spaceships-sells-rockets-and-deals-with-elon-musk

Basically I'm saying if Shotwell said 100 flights for a booster isn't
ever going to work, I'd believe her because she knows what's going on
inside SpaceX. We're outside observers.

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.


Again, you're making your assertions without any evidence. When Elon
Musk says Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters are designed to be flown 100 times
each with refurbishment every 10 flights, I tend to believe him because
he's the one that made that requirement. And Falcon/Merlin has flown
*and been recovered* enough times to give them the kind of data they
need to make that a reality.

This is aerospace engineering.

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


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


The conclusion here is that we disagree. I'm snipping further
discussion of this "issue" in this reply since I have no desire to keep
beating a dead horse.

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.


Hand waving. You have zero evidence that SpaceX is pricing their
expendable launches such that it negatively impacts "resources and cash
flow".

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


I've never heard anyone make that assertion. Cite?

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.


SpaceX has announced they're laying off about 10% of their employees.
Sounds like they're making the transition from Falcon, Merlin, Dragon,
and Dragon 2 development (which are all essentially done) to BFR/BFS,
Raptor (which was changed again recently), and Starlink development.
This sort of thing is unfortunate for those that lose their jobs, but is
*extremely* common in the aerospace industry when companies shift
resources from large projects which are winding down to large projects
which are spinning up.

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" is the keyword here. You have provided zero evidence that shows
that a DOD Falcon 9 expendable launch is less profitable than, say, a
commercial Falcon 9 launch that recover the first stage.

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


Another area where we can agree. Only SpaceX knows for sure. But
they'd have to be really stupid to price an expendable launch such that
they don't make a goodly amount of profit. I personally don't think
Shotwell is that stupid.

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.


From what I've read, Falcon production is nowhere near "full
production". They're producing as many Falcons as they need. IMHO,
2019 will likely see fewer launches than 2018, because they've worked
off the backlog at this point. Less immediate need means less immediate
production. You know, cash flow and all that.

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 keep saying this like SpaceX doesn't know that. The fact is they
won't need as much production in 2019. Until they start launching
Starlink, demand on SpaceX launch services will be *down*, not up when
compared to 2018.

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.


For a "smoke and mirrors sales person" he sure as hell knows a lot more
about launch vehicles.

SpaceX single handedly brought back the majority of the *global* launch
market back to the US. That's factual results, not "smoke and mirrors".
The data doesn't lie. SpaceX is really hurting the other participants
in the global launch market right now. I don't see that changing as
long as Falcon keeps flying.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.