Musk lays out plans for reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket

Musk lays out plans for reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket
October 3, 2013 by Yves-A. Grondin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...lity-falcon-9-
rocket/

Tinyrul version of above:
http://tinyurl.com/okgwor9

Musk states the first stage is about 75% of the cost of a Falcon 9. So,
assuming that the upper stage of the Falcon 9 is about the same cost as
the upper stage of a Falcon Heavy, that would make the first stage and
strap-on boosters something like 90% of the cost of the Falcon Heavy.
If SpaceX can successfully fly back those three stages, this will reduce
the cost of a Falcon Heavy by one order of magnitude. That's certainly
nothing to sneeze at.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jeff Findley wrote:


Musk lays out plans for reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket
October 3, 2013 by Yves-A. Grondin
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...lity-falcon-9-
rocket/

Musk explained at the post flight press conference that this
achievement was significant, given that previously SpaceX’s “first
stages always essentially exploded upon re-entering the atmosphere
due to the extreme forces they encountered.�

Ironic he should mention exploding stages there

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/4/2013 8:48 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Musk states the first stage is about 75% of the cost of a Falcon 9. So,
assuming that the upper stage of the Falcon 9 is about the same cost as
the upper stage of a Falcon Heavy, that would make the first stage and
strap-on boosters something like 90% of the cost of the Falcon Heavy.
If SpaceX can successfully fly back those three stages, this will reduce
the cost of a Falcon Heavy by one order of magnitude. That's certainly
nothing to sneeze at.

Can't wait to see photos/videos from the resumption of Grasshopper tests
in New Mexico. I hope SpaceX keeps them coming. I've really appreciated
their philosophy of openness so far.

Anyone seen any time lines for when the 9-R technology might be applied
to the F9H?

Dave

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 1:48:05 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
Musk lays out plans for reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket

October 3, 2013 by Yves-A. Grondin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...lity-falcon-9-

rocket/



Tinyrul version of above:

http://tinyurl.com/okgwor9



Musk states the first stage is about 75% of the cost of a Falcon 9. So,

assuming that the upper stage of the Falcon 9 is about the same cost as

the upper stage of a Falcon Heavy, that would make the first stage and

strap-on boosters something like 90% of the cost of the Falcon Heavy.

If SpaceX can successfully fly back those three stages, this will reduce

the cost of a Falcon Heavy by one order of magnitude. That's certainly

nothing to sneeze at.



Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Yeah, people have been pointing this out since the 1950s, FYI. Buzz Aldrin gave an impassioned speech to an AIAA conference oh, about 30 years ago - in the 1980s. Its pretty straight-forward calculation.

Say, you've got a three stage system to send 500 tonnes into LEO. You've got 18% structure fraction in the first stage, 12% structure fraction in the second stage and 8% structure fraction in the third stage. You've got LOX/RP1 in the first stage operating at 3.2 km/sec. You've got LOX/LH2 operating in the second stage at 4.2 km/sec. You've got LOX/LH2 operating in the third stage at 4.4 km/sec.

Your total delta vee is 9.2 km/sec less air drag and gravity losses. You do a simple calculus of variation based on the Isp and s of each stage to figure out that Stage 1 will impart 2.49 km/sec, Stage 2 will impart 3.28 km/sec and stage 3 will impart 3.43 km/sec. From this you can compute the propellant and structure for each stage;

TOW: 14,004.7 tonnes

Stage 1: 2,520.9 tonnes - Structure
7,582.7 tonnes - Propellant

Stage 2: 468.1 tonnes - Structure
2,112.3 tonnes - Propellant

Stage 3: 105.7 tonnes - Structure
715.1 tonnes - Propellant

Payload: 500.0 tonnes

TOTAL STRUCTU 3,094.7 tonnes
TOTAL PAYLOAD: 10,410.1 tonnes

The propellant costs around $2,000 per metric ton. So, that's $20.8 million per launch - around $41.60 per kg of payload.

The structure in Asia costs around $2,000,000 per metric ton and so this launcher would cost around $6.17 billion to build allocated as follows;

Stage 1: $5.04 billion 81.5%
Stage 2: $0.92 billion 14.7%
Stage 3: $0.21 billion 3.3%

Propellant: $0.02 billion (0.3%)
Operations: $0.01 billion (0.2%)

TOTAL: $6.2 billion 100%

$/kg: $12,400/kg

Which is what the cost of an expendable launch vehicle is these days.

Making stage 1 reusable 200x and stage 2 reusable 30x and stage 3 reusable 7x while doubling operating costs reduces costs to

Stage 1: $0.10 billion
Stage 2: $0.03 billion
Stage 3: $0.03 billion

Propellant: $0.02 billion
Operations: $0.02 billion

TOTAL: $0.20 billion

$/kg: $400/kg

Which should increase demand 31x - and since this vehicle lifts 31x the mass of a 16 tonne launcher - its the right size at this price.

Of course, the launcher should be part and parcel of a larger program, or campaign, to actually do something, otherwise it doesn't make sense. So, for example, you could put up solar power satellites, or lunar cities, or even cities on Mars. Factories on asteroids, and setting up a global wireless hotspot giving everyone everywhere broadband, is also an interesting campaign that pays huge dividends.

At $2 million per tonne - a 500 tonne satellite costs $1 billion. Launch costs are trivial at the rates of reusability above.

A solar power satellite that consists of a large thin film concentrator to focus light on to a thin disk solar pumped laser array that beams energy to receivers on Earth using holographic techniques at a rate of 10 giga-watts produces 87,760 million kWh of pollution free energy per year delivering it anywhere. At $0.055 per kWh this $1 billion station generates $4.8 billion PER YEAR! 1554 satellites produce ALL the energy humanity uses today at a cost of $7.5 trillion per year. The CAPEX is only $1.6 trillion for ALL the satellites. At a launch rate of 1 per day the satellite network takes 4.25 years to deploy. Another 17 years of launches deploys a total 7770 satellites at GEO producing power at 5x the rate we use energy today. 7770 satellites with one satellite located one every 34 kilometers on a geostationary orbit around the Earth. Average income over this period would rise in real terms from $10,000 per person per year to $50,000 per person per year. CO2 emissions would be eliminated.

Thus this infrastructure would support a 7.8% annualized rate of growth from the start of the program to the end 21.25 years later. The system would then be self sustaining. Profits for the satellite owners would be $37.5 trillion, and global world product would be $350 trillion.

This revenue, combined with the supply chains for the rockets and satellites, would over this period be used to build other useful infrastructure. Global satellite networks, cities on the moon and mars, and so forth.

Big, hot, cheap rockets make the difference.

"Robert Clark" wrote:
Surprisingly, Elon Musk says the first manned test flight of the Falcon 9
could occur as early as next year(!)
What's Ahead for Human Rated SpaceX Dragon in 2014 - Musk tells Universe
Today.
by KEN KREMER on DECEMBER 30, 2013
http://www.universetoday.com/107505/...niverse-today/
Bob Clark

Hey Clark, will that manned space flight produce
http://tinyurl.com/Yiddisher-Shooting-Stars
or have they reverted to Depends-Diapering?