Space X 2nd stage recovery

David Spain wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:51:25
-0400:

On 4/24/2018 4:36 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-04-24 14:21, David Spain wrote:

I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be
(crew-wise) underutilized.


Unless the space station life is extended beyond 2025, FH and Dragon2
may very well remain the workhorse for mnanned space in USA.


Well you and I have somewhat different opinions of workhorses. Ferry
flights to ISS are all well and good. But unless an expansion of ISS in
in the works a flight rate of what, about 4 flights a year is more than
sufficient?


Barring commercialization of ISS (which may or may not happen) and/or
some orbital 'hotels', neither Dragon V2 nor CST-100 have a real
future. They are both LEO systems and if there are no LEO
destinations they're toast.


What about crewed LEO trips and/or Moon flybys for touristas? For that
matter a crewed scientific flyby mission to Venus? Scouting missions to
Martian moons even?


Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.

And unless there is real funding for manned space programme beyond ISS,
nobody will see much business case to invest in manned space programme
from now on, unless you go for it on your own (aka: SpaceX with BFR to
Mars).

Funding by whom? We're just about at that point. Which is my point.


Well, Blue Origin essentially has a billion dollar a year funding line
until, well, forever. SpaceX, on the other hand, needs to 'turn a
profit'.



Where the "international" thing may fall in place is if SpaceX gets
serius about mars and other countries want "in" on the project,
supplying modules for the Mars colony or any other "help" they can
provide to SpaceX.


That could happen. In fact, given the current trajectory of NASA,
probably even likely.


Just what do we mean by "the international thing"?



But unless a place like Australia could provide a huge cost and
logistics benefit to have SpaceX launch/land there, SpaceX might not be
so interested when you consider transportation logistics for modules
built in USA.


You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Australia would
hire SpaceX as a *vendor* to supply materials and technology for the
*Australian* space program. Huge benefit to not having to bootstrap it
all by yourself. You hire the best experts in the world. If not SpaceX,
then maybe Bezos' Blue Origin would oblige. Yes it's tech transfer, but
with a *buyer* whose funds (remember it has to be a *profitable*
proposal for SpaceX) could finance who knows what at SpaceX?


I don't see SpaceX going that route. They plan on making their money
on launch services. Why would they sell technology to allow a
competitor to set up?



In the case of a LEO assembly/refueling spot to later go to Mars, would
launching from 12°S (northern Australia) offer significant performance
advantage over 28°N (Canaveral)?


Some. But setting Mars aside, for the inhabitants of Oz certainly! If it
helps clarify what I'm saying let's say the deal is between Australia's
equiv. of NASA and Blue Origin. Just to keep Mars confusion off the
table....


Blue Origin is willing to do things like sell engines, etc. I don't
see SpaceX doing that. Different business models.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw