A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 31st 18, 01:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 30 Dec 2018
03:21:22 -0500:

On 2018-12-29 18:02, Jeff Findley wrote:

Soldiers in battle would depend on the new GPS III satellites.


A single satellite with additional features does not make those
additioanl features useful because you can't triangulate with those
extra features with only 1 satellite.

The satellite will become part of the standard GPS constellation
broadcasting the public signals like other GPS satellites and will be
included in the almanach and ephemeris broadcasts. Adding and removing
GPS satellites has been done many times before so this isn't a
"critical" thing.

Once this new satellite is accompanied by other Block 3, then there will
be times where there will be sufficient new GPS satellites visible to a
soldeier to enable whatever new military features have been added.

I really suspect the "critical" nature is more a question of needing to
test this new generation of satellites before you launc the rest of the
constellation.


You constantly "really suspect" all sorts of silly ****. If there is
an operational cut in date for the new capabilities, they need to get
enough satellites up to support it. This will make every launch until
that number is achieved 'critical'.


DOD is currently specifying new Falcon 9 hardware only. DOD has not
certified already flown Falcon 9 first stages for DOD use.


Consider the lawsuits resulting from DoD originally gifting the launch
contract to buddies at ULA. DoD would be hurting ULA if it allowed
SpaceX to sell affordable launch services on re-usable launchers since
that would put ULA out of business. So their write contract specs to
ensure the SPaceX costs are as high as the specs can make them. This
makes it easier for ULA to continue to win contracts with the same specs
(everything new, use only once etc)


Utter hogwash. Even in expendable mode Falcon 9 is preposterously
cheaper than the ULA Delta IV.


And with the new Secretary of Defence expected to be ex-Boeing VP, one
can expect the "swamp" to continue to steer contracts towards ULA
instead of more affordable/competitive services, and only give token
launches to SpaceX and Blue Origin (eventually) once in a while to give
the appearance of conpetition.


They will do that anyway in the interest of keeping multiple launch
providers. The next GPS III launch will be on Delta IV.

Do you have a cite which says exactly when they plan on stopping Falcon
9 first stage production? I certainly don't.


I'd have to go back through all the insults McCall sends me to sift
through it.


You do that. You won't find me claiming what you are currently
claiming, nor will you find anyone else claiming it. The problem is
at the receiver end, as is usual with you.


It is possible that when the initial BFR/BFS schedule was announced,
bridging launches between then and start of BFR/BFS commecial flighst
would have required far fewer Fakcon9s at which point pre-building them
and shuttong down production was more realistic. Or just Elon Musk doing
some marketing theatricals.

Also back then, they didn't have those military contract requiring new
launchers each time. So that changes the equation.


Not appreciably. That's not that many launches and everyone with
sense (which lets you out) always understood that there were going to
be some launches that would require expending the entire vehicle.


As you may recall, I was blasted for stating that re-usability of
Falcon9 had not been proven yet. And it was in that context where I
didn't believe that they could shut down Falcon9 production because once
they had enough they could just re-use them until BFR/BFS was launching
payloads.


Note the "once they had enough" in there?



From what has been reported, BFR/BFS is being built at a different
facility, so I would think Falcon production could most certainly
continue in parallel (at least as far as facilities are concerned).


One of the arguments that had been made was refocusing resources/budgets
towards BFR/BFS so produce enough Fancon9s to bridge the gap and then
move all budgets to BFR/BFS. I suspect this was reviewed when you
consider that Falcon9s provide the funding for BFR/BFS development.


It's more 'resources' than 'budgets'.



I believe this launch was to a much higher inclination than due east
from KSC (55 degrees inclination according to the article below).


From 28", is there a huge performance difference launching north east to
55° vs launching due east and then steering to circularize at 0°
latitude over equator? Both require basically 28° correction from a due
east launch.


Let me try it using small words. Given the mass of a GPS III SV, the
ability of a Falcon 9 in reusable mode to launch to the altitude and
inclination specified is marginal. This is why they launched in 'full
expendable' mode, which provides about the same capability as Delta IV
(the original planned launcher) at about a third of the cost.

Maybe, if BFR/BFS is as successful as planned. That's not a given. The
BFS "hopper" hasn't even flown once, let alone the full up BFR/BFS.


But ! But !


Idiot ! Idiot !


it wasn't so long ago that it was a given, that the tanks
had been fully tested and anyone not believing this (me) was blasted and
insulted to smitereens.


If you don't like being "blasted and insulted to smitereens[sic]" stop
being such a bloody idiot. That includes your insane claims about
what people have previously told you.


So now, people are starting to see that building
the largest ever rocket stage and spaceship capable of holding 100
people may p]ossibly be so delayed and changed that it may not happen on
schedule and project may get scaled back ?


People have always seen that. It's just that your head is so up and
locked that you are incapable of understanding what people tell you.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Ads
  #22  
Old December 31st 18, 01:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 30 Dec 2018
12:24:31 -0500:

On 2018-12-30 10:27, Jeff Findley wrote:

This is the very first of the Block III satellites. They include many
improvements to prevent jamming, improve accuracy, and etc. And, since
this is a DOD satellite, perhaps this block includes other "features"
that aren't openly discussed that are critical to war-fighters.


That satellite covers only a relatively small part of the planet at any
point in time. may or may not cover Iraq on a particular day if humans
on ground would need whatever new features this SV gives.

So a single GPS satellite can't be "critical" in giving new services
because troups can't rely on it being visible in the sky where and when
they need it.

What is critical is to validate the design ASAP so more satellites can
be launched, at which point, whatever additional features they offer
have better odds of being over troiups when they need those features.


Let me try it in small words. EVERY launch until you have a minimum
Block III configuration up is 'critical' because you have a time where
you plan to fan out end user equipment that uses the new capabilities.


Suspect all you want. DOD disagrees with you. I'll side with DOD on
this one.


This could simply be a PR designation because it is an important launch
needed to validate the new SV before they give green light to launch the
rest of constellation.


Or they could mean exactly what they say and you could be being an
idiot. I find that probability more likely.

This makes zero sense. Check when SpaceX won this contract. Also, ULA
didn't even bother bidding on this one (DOD made a *huge* stink about
that).


The way I had read the article you linked to, ULA didn't bid because it
got the contract without any open bidding process, and SpaceX sued. The
end result is that SpaceX got the contract.

I obviously read that wrong.

Also, check the date when SpaceX won this contract. How far along was
SpaceX with landings and reuse? Please put some facts into your
"reasoning".


Fair point.

If you had a quote from Shotwell with an actual date, that would hold
*far* more weight than a Tweet or offhand comment by Musk. Musk knows
where he wants to go, but hard schedules are clearly not his forte.


Then perhaps next time I am doubtfull of what Musk says in a tweet, get
McCall to stop insulting me to no end because he believes every word
Musk says in a tweet.


Stop being a ****ing idiot and I will stop calling you one. You get
no special immunity from being called a fool merely because you happen
to be one.

Production, however, will absolutely continue for some time to come
because BFR/BFS hasn't even started flying, let alone proven itself yet!


The argument had been made that reusability would allow SpaceX to
continue Falcon9 launches with a relatively small number of built
stages, hence ability to stop production before BFR/BFS is flying.


And that argument is true for a sensible definition of "relatively
small number".


At this point, SpaceX doesn't yet know how many flights a Block 5 can
make, and the introduction of DoD as a customer changes the equation if
they require new stages.


SpaceX has a pretty damned good idea of where the lower threshold is
for number of reuses before major refurbishment is required. The
'equation' doesn't particularly change, since it's always been an
assumption that some launches will require expending the vehicle.


And requiring that the DoD stages have no legs/fins goes one step above
requiring a new stage. A new stage with legs can land and be re-used by
other customers. So the cost per launch is lower. But requiring a new
stage be ditched puts that launch on equal footing with ULA and others.


You're obviously too thick to understand WHY a vehicle would be
expended on a launch. It's not arbitrary. And if you have to expend
the vehicle, why would you throw away perfectly good parts? Save
money and don't put them on in the first place.



The point is that all of the research and development teams are now
focusing on BFR/BFS.


With BFR/BFS much farther into the future that originally marketed, ...


Cite? I think it will slide, but I don't see SpaceX moving the
schedule "much farther" to the right.


... I suspect there is still R&D being done on the Falcon9.


As I've noted before, you seem to "suspect" many silly, counter
factional things.


For one thing,
they still haven't determined how many times a block 5 can refly, and I
am pretty sure they will still be making fine tuning adjustments to it
as they gain experience with more and more reflights.


Neither of those requires "R&D". You obviously don't know what that
phrase means (either).


If the Falcon9 remains in production for longer than Musk had originally
announced, ...


Since Musk didn't announce a date, this would be a neat trick.


it likely means the whole team remains fairly big.


For some definition of "fairly big" that doesn't include a lot of
engineering folks.


It also
means the tooling to make engines etc needs to remain attached to
Falcon9 production instead of being moved to the BFR/BFS production.


What common parts do you think there are between Falcon 9 and BFR/BFS?
Given the lack of common parts I doubt this is an issue.



That's precisely why we keep seeing substantive
changes to the design, because the engineers are actually putting a lot
of R&D effort into the design.


When Musk made the original announcement, he made it look like this was
a validated design ready to be built and would fly soon. Now we find
this was just fancy dream on a powerpoint presentation and that
engineers are only now starting to see if this is feasable.


Musk never made the claim you say he did and we certainly did NOT find
what you think you've found. THIS is why you get 'insulted'; you
persist in saying incredibly stupid and wrong-headed things.


What this tells me is that Falcon9 will remain the mainstay for SpaceX
for some time to come and it isn't clear to me that BFR/BFS will end up
being as big/performant as the original powerpoit presentation made it
out to be.


For some definition of 'some time', certainly. Why would anyone think
anything else? Certainly not from anything anyone has actually said
to you. As for what "isn't clear" to you, this is just the flip side
of you "suspecting" remarkably stupid and counterfactual things; you
also 'doubt' many obvious things because they're not happening next
Tuesday.



If I were an engineer, I'd use the same material in the first stage just
for the commonality. But who knows. Maybe they'll stick with
composites because the first stage really doesn't experience much
heating on reentry because it's staging at suborbital velocities.


A heavy steel second stage reminds one of the Space Shuttle which had to
lug the mass of its wings and SSMEs all the way to orbit.


Well, no, it doesn't.


I wouldn't be surprised if BFR/BFS ends up with a reusable heavy crewed
second stage, and a light, disposable 2nd stage for cargo/satellites.


I would be, but then experience shows us that I have a somewhat better
connection to reality than you do. I think the original plan back in
the dark ages may have looked something like what you describe, but
the 'cargo' version was dropped, leaving only the 'Starship' version
and a tanker version. The cargo version could certainly come back,
but I think it's not as likely as you think it is.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #23  
Old January 2nd 19, 06:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 1 Jan 2019
22:33:04 -0500:

On 2018-12-30 19:46, Fred J. McCall wrote:

SpaceX has a pretty damned good idea of where the lower threshold is
for number of reuses before major refurbishment is required.


They do?


Yes, they do.


What the maximum number of times a bloc, 5 has been re-used so
far ?


Three, I think. If you knew anything at all about engineering you'd
know how irrelevant that question is.


Any commercial customers lined for for the 9th launch of a Falcon 9 yet?


Oh, pull your head out of your ass! With around two dozen launches
per year and the dozen or so Block 5 first stages in existence, your
question amounts to asking if someone has manifested a flight at least
five years from now. No, they haven't, because nobody manifests
flights that far in advance. See what I mean about you saying
egregiously stupid ****?



The
'equation' doesn't particularly change, since it's always been an
assumption that some launches will require expending the vehicle.


Say for sake of discussion that SPaceX can launc Falcon9 10 times.

When you have a "performance requirememt won't allow landing"
requirememnt, you use a Falcon 9 that has done 9 launches, and it is
ditched on its 10th launch. This way, you don't lose any potential
flight on that rocket.


Well, you'd certainly LIKE to do it that way, but if you held to that
you wouldn't be able to launch any such missions until sometime after
2025 or so. Not reasonable. So you launch on the next rocket in the
queue that meets the timeline. These days that means you are almost
certainly using either a new booster or one with a single launch on
it.


This is quite different from DoD requiring that SpaceX uses a brand
spanking new Falcon9 that is ditched with less than 1 flight (since
re-use factors in the multiple lighting of engines for launch AND landing).


Not really, no (see above), and the number of launches requiring such
performance is small.


If SpaceX uses its remaining production capability for Falcon9 to build
stages for DoD that are never re-used, that doesn't leave many Falcon9s
in stock that can be used and re-used for affordable commercial launches.


Don't be silly. SpaceX can easily produce a dozen cores a year. Their
estimate is that if the put on a second shift and push a bit they can
produce around four dozen cores a year. They currently have ten Block
5 cores in inventory. At the current rate there won't be more than
3-4 such launches per year. So the inventory will grow by half a
dozen or more cores each year of production. USAF is planning a
launch on Falcon Heavy, which has the capacity for such launches in
reusable mode, which would eliminate that 3-4 expendable launches per
year.


If DoD allows the use of used Falcon9s, then SpaceX can do a number of
commercial launches on a stage and then finish that stage's life with
non re-usable DoD launch, and that makes a huge financial difference for
SpaceX which needs to build far fewer stages to get the same job done.


It's not just DoD that puts up heavy payloads, just by the way.
Commercial vendors do it, too.



You're obviously too thick to understand WHY a vehicle would be
expended on a launch.


In this particular case, because a lawsuit was involved for SpaceX to
get this launch, all bets are off on the real reasons for it.


Horse****. First, I'd like a cite for your claim that THIS LAUNCH was
awarded because of a lawsuit. Second, one can look at the mass of the
satellite and the required orbit and have a very good idea of the
'real reason' for it being an expendable launch. It's not magic.


As Mr
Findley pointed, contract was signed at a time SpaceX was trying but had
not yet demonstrated re-use.


Irrelevant. Once again, look at the mass of the payload and the
required altitude and inclination of the orbit.


Also, should it succeed (which it did), the
Dod would have had to setup procedures in the contract to ensure it can
"clean" the landed stage of any possible military secrets inside. So
requiring it be ditched in ocean would be much simpler and risk free.


More horse****. It's the FIRST STAGE. It neither knows nor cares
anything about the payload, so there is no scope for 'military
secrets' on the first stage. Do you even stop to think before you
type?


Remember also that if contract was signed prior to Block5 being in
production, it also means that the increased capacity/thrust it brought
would not have been required to launch that satellite, so using Block5
may have brough enough spare capacity to allow a landing. But since
contract stipulated no landing, SpaceX complied.


Please cite the contract language that stipulates no landing. Block 5
performance is less than 10% better (engine thrust is improved by
about 8%). Please cite the contract date. Right now you're just
flapping your arms and insisting you can fly.


IT could very well be a true performance limitation. But I am not 100%
sure of it


Yeah, math is hard.


Consider this: if Musk planned Falcon9 to be reusable 10 to 100 times,
but most of the launches are to be capacity limited and require
ditching, there wouldn't be much re-use done and that would change the
financials of that project a LOT.


Consider this. MOST launches are within the capacity of the vehicle
in reusable mode. Only a small number are not. In fact, the GPS
launch could PROBABLY have been done by Block 5 in reusable mode. USAF
wanted margin available in case something went wrong.


So I really suspect that commercial
launches to geosync will allow landing and re-use.


Some yes and some no. Payload mass matters. For example, ArabSat
6-A, which is manifested for the first quarter of next year, will go
to geostationary orbit on a Falcon Heavy because Falcon 9 just doesn't
have the grunt to get it up there.


Launching to half of
that should have allowed it even more (unless GPS satellite was very
very heavy).


You just really don't bother to even find out the facts before you
start flapping your arms, do you? The GPS birds are heavy (4400 kg)
and to high inclinations.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #24  
Old January 2nd 19, 01:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

In article ,
says...

On 2018-12-30 19:46, Fred J. McCall wrote:

SpaceX has a pretty damned good idea of where the lower threshold is
for number of reuses before major refurbishment is required.


They do? What the maximum number of times a bloc, 5 has been re-used so
far ?


Yes, they do. Three. Note that they're still doing inspections and
some parts replacement between flights. They're not to the "gas and
go" type of operation.

Any commercial customers lined for for the 9th launch of a Falcon 9 yet?


I seriously doubt that the launch contracts are worded that way.
Customers want the earliest launch possible, so why would anyone specify
that they want to wait until the 9th launch of a first stage?

The
'equation' doesn't particularly change, since it's always been an
assumption that some launches will require expending the vehicle.



Say for sake of discussion that SPaceX can launc Falcon9 10 times.

When you have a "performance requirememt won't allow landing"
requirememnt, you use a Falcon 9 that has done 9 launches, and it is
ditched on its 10th launch. This way, you don't lose any potential
flight on that rocket.


You do know that after 10 flights they plan on refurbishing the booster
for even more flights, right?

With Block 5, SpaceX to increase launch cadence and lower prices
written by Michael Baylor May 17, 2018
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...crease-launch-
cadence-lower-prices/

From above:

Block 5 first stages are designed to fly up to ten times with
little to no refurbishment. In fact, with a scheduled maintenance
every ten flights, it will be possible to launch a Block 5 first
stage up to 100 times.

I'd expect SpaceX to want to expend the booster with the most flights,
not one with 9. But the customer might still want a "new" booster on an
expendable launch, so you charge the customer more money (so you can
manufacture a replacement booster) and carry on.

The other option would be to use a Falcon Heavy and recover both
boosters and the core stage. But again, that's going to be up to the
customer as well. Currently Falcon Heavy has only flown once. So a
customer like DOD might prefer a "single stick" Falcon 9 since it has a
far longer track record.

This is quite different from DoD requiring that SpaceX uses a brand
spanking new Falcon9 that is ditched with less than 1 flight (since
re-use factors in the multiple lighting of engines for launch AND landing).


You're conflating two different issues here. Expendable vs. reusable is
a different issue than new booster or flight proven booster. The former
is based on the delta-V and payload mass required for the launch and the
latter on DOD certifications (i.e. paperwork because they've never flown
on anything reused except for the space shuttle).

The two really are separate requirements, so your argument makes zero
sense to me.

If SpaceX uses its remaining production capability for Falcon9 to build
stages for DoD that are never re-used, that doesn't leave many Falcon9s
in stock that can be used and re-used for affordable commercial launches.


This is hand-waving bull****. Let's look at the *numbers*.

SpaceX launched 21 times in 2018 and one of those was a Falcon Heavy.
Quite a few of those were on new boosters. SpaceX still has a quick
production tempo. This really isn't an issue.

Here's a table:

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores

SpaceX currently has 11 cores classified by observers as "Flightworthy
Cores". These are all Block 5. Note one of these is "salty" and might
not fly again.

The one that landed in the water might, or might not, be re-flown. My
guess is that the engines are toast and it might not make sense to
refurbish it. But, they can at least salvage parts off it (like the
titanium grid fins). At any rate, Musk tweeted they plan on adding a
redundant hydraulic pump for the grid fins to prevent a landing failure
due to the pump failing.

So, out of *all* of the Block 5 cores produced so far, only a single
core has been completely lost (B1054 on the GPS III mission). SpaceX
currently has 10 known good cores in its inventory, and they're still
producing more.

If DoD allows the use of used Falcon9s, then SpaceX can do a number of
commercial launches on a stage and then finish that stage's life with
non re-usable DoD launch, and that makes a huge financial difference for
SpaceX which needs to build far fewer stages to get the same job done.


Again, they'd have to do this on the "99th" flight of a core, not the
9th, so this argument makes no sense because DOD will have certified
flight proven Falcon 9 stages for DOD launches. They're in the process
of doing this, but it's clearly not as high of a priority compared to,
you know, actually launching DOD satellites on new boosters since SpaceX
is still building new boosters.

I really don't understand all of your hand-wringing here. It makes no
sense.

You're obviously too thick to understand WHY a vehicle would be
expended on a launch.


In this particular case, because a lawsuit was involved for SpaceX to
get this launch, all bets are off on the real reasons for it. As Mr
Findley pointed, contract was signed at a time SpaceX was trying but had
not yet demonstrated re-use. Also, should it succeed (which it did), the
Dod would have had to setup procedures in the contract to ensure it can
"clean" the landed stage of any possible military secrets inside. So
requiring it be ditched in ocean would be much simpler and risk free.


Expending the booster was due to the delta-V requirement and the
relatively high mass of the GPS III satellite. Again, this is
*completely* separate from the "new booster" requirement.

Remember also that if contract was signed prior to Block5 being in
production, it also means that the increased capacity/thrust it brought
would not have been required to launch that satellite, so using Block5
may have brough enough spare capacity to allow a landing. But since
contract stipulated no landing, SpaceX complied.


Remember also that if contract was signed prior to Block5 being in
production, it also means that the increased capacity/thrust it brought
would not have been required to launch that satellite, so using Block5
may have brough enough spare capacity to allow a landing. But since
contract stipulated no landing, SpaceX complied.

IT could very well be a true performance limitation. But I am not 100%
sure of it


Consider this: if Musk planned Falcon9 to be reusable 10 to 100 times,
but most of the launches are to be capacity limited and require
ditching, there wouldn't be much re-use done and that would change the
financials of that project a LOT. So I really suspect that commercial
launches to geosync will allow landing and re-use. Launching to half of
that should have allowed it even more (unless GPS satellite was very
very heavy).


The delta-V margin was *very* "tight" on this mission if SpaceX had
attempted recovery. Again, DOD didn't want to take any chances on
something deemed critical for war-fighters.

In the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see a GPS III (in a similar
orbit) launching on a Falcon Heavy with both boosters and the core
recovered. But we'll see.

IT could very well be a true performance limitation. But I am not 100%
sure of it


Yes, it was a "true performance limitation" because there would have
been very little margin for error. DOD didn't like that. So, no
recovery.

Consider this: if Musk planned Falcon9 to be reusable 10 to 100 times,
but most of the launches are to be capacity limited and require
ditching, there wouldn't be much re-use done and that would change the
financials of that project a LOT. So I really suspect that commercial
launches to geosync will allow landing and re-use. Launching to half of
that should have allowed it even more (unless GPS satellite was very
very heavy).


You "suspect" wrong. You can't do this "in your gut", you have to *do
the math*.

We've told you repeatedly that it's the *inclination*, orbital altitudes
(apogee and perigee), and the mass of the GPS III satellite *combined*
that caused Falcon 9 to have very little margin for recovery on this
mission. You keep ignoring the *inclination*. You CAN'T DO THAT!

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.
  #25  
Old January 3rd 19, 05:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 2 Jan 2019
20:16:34 -0500:

On 2019-01-02 07:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

They do? What the maximum number of times a bloc, 5 has been re-used so
far ?


Yes, they do. Three. Note that they're still doing inspections and
some parts replacement between flights.


So they have now officially downgraded their original plans of between
10 and 100 launches down to 3?


You asked the maximum number of times a Block 5 has been reused. That
answer is three. You asked one question and have now taken the answer
as the answer to a totally different question. This is intellectually
dishonest at best and unable to read English at worst.


If they have only 3 in their experience so far, but still plan for much
higher number, my statement still standsL they doN,t yet have the
enxperience to know how many launches a stage can really do.


Bull****. As I pointed out, you don't have to 'test to destruction'
to have a pretty good idea of where 'destruction' will (or won't)
occur. You don't know **** about engineering, do you?

snip misunderstood info


I seriously doubt that the launch contracts are worded that way.
Customers want the earliest launch possible, so why would anyone specify
that they want to wait until the 9th launch of a first stage?


There was a big discount for the first commercial reflight, and that
customer was willing to wait for it to save money.


Cite? I thought not.


And I assume that
until SpaceX has solid experience in reflights, those that push the
current limits of its experiece (now at 3) will come at a discount (and
insurance more expensive).


You 'assume' many stupidly counterfactual things while disregarding
actual statements from people who know, from Elon Musk on down.


You do know that after 10 flights they plan on refurbishing the booster
for even more flights, right?


I was using 10 as a total launch limit to show that you'd want DoD who
want a "no landing" launch to be given stages that are near end of life
instead of brand spanking new ones.


I doubt DoD (or other expendable customers) are willing to wait the
number of years they would have to wait to get something "near end of
life".


And since they have only reflown 3 times, I am not sure the number 10
for the major refurb has been decided.


It may be more than 10. I doubt it will be less. Of course, they may
get a big enough pool of Block 5 boosters built that none of them will
even come close to that.


Block 5 first stages are designed to fly up to ten times with
little to no refurbishment. In fact, with a scheduled maintenance
every ten flights, it will be possible to launch a Block 5 first
stage up to 100 times.


Musk aspirational goals.


Bull****. Musk goal as Chief Designer. Engineering takes direction
from him.


Not standards based on empirical evidence since
they haven't even reached 1 stage with 10 re-uses yet let alone 100.


We don't do 'empirical engineering'.


Not saying they won't achieve this, just saying there is no assurance
they will at this point.


You really don't know **** about how engineering works, do you?

I'd expect SpaceX to want to expend the booster with the most flights,
not one with 9. But the customer might still want a "new" booster on an
expendable launch, so you charge the customer more money (so you can
manufacture a replacement booster) and carry on.


A one off isn't a big deal. But if DoD becomes a major customer and
wants all its launches on brand new stages without landing capability,
then this changes plans, especially when they try to transition frm
Falcon9 to BFR and try to shift resources to producing BFR.


Preposterous opinion based on NOTHING.

customer as well. Currently Falcon Heavy has only flown once. So a
customer like DOD might prefer a "single stick" Falcon 9 since it has a
far longer track record.


Shotwell said the main reason Falcon Heavy wasn't cancelled was that she
had already lined up DoD as customer for it.


Yep. That want a 'second source' for the Delta IV Heavy mission
space. But then, other people want Falcon Heavy, too, so Shotwell is
exaggerating or you misunderstood what was said. See, for example,
the ArabSat launch scheduled for next year.

I really don't understand all of your hand-wringing here. It makes no
sense.


The argumenmt I am trying to make is the business model of falcon9 is
re-usability. If one customer pops up and requires non-re-usable
Falcon9s and becomes a major customer, then this changes the business
model because SpaceX is now needing to produce disposable Falcon9s are a
much higher ration than the original business model had antitcipated.


The point you're trying to make is poppycock. You need to go look up
the grand total of Delta IV launches by year. It's not very many in
the grand scheme of things and certainly not very many when compared
to the couple dozen commercial launches that Falcon 9 makes each year.


So this also changes any plans they had to reduce production so
resources can be assigned to ramping up production of BFR/BFS.


Not by much, if at all.


Remember that BFR/NFS will be a HUGE drain on cash, and if it was to
have been funded by re-using Falcon9s a lot instead of building new ones
all the time, and now, they have to keep on building them, this changes
things.


They wouldn't have to build very many per year to meet USAF 'demand'.

The delta-V margin was *very* "tight" on this mission if SpaceX had
attempted recovery. Again, DOD didn't want to take any chances on
something deemed critical for war-fighters.


Which begs the following question: If Falcon9 is underpowered, and has
no margin for a high percentage of launches, was there much of a point
is making it re-usable?


The question is stupid because the premises on which it is based are
bull****. Falcon 9 is 'underpowered' for a very small percentage of
launches and it was always planned that that small number of missions
would be performed by expendable Falcon 9.

In the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see a GPS III (in a similar
orbit) launching on a Falcon Heavy with both boosters and the core
recovered. But we'll see.


If Falcon Heavy becomes popular, does SpaceX "convert" 3 flown stages ?
Or does it build new centre core but converts existing Falcon9s into
side boosters? or build the 3 from scratch ?


Yes.


We've told you repeatedly that it's the *inclination*, orbital altitudes
(apogee and perigee), and the mass of the GPS III satellite *combined*
that caused Falcon 9 to have very little margin for recovery on this
mission. You keep ignoring the *inclination*. You CAN'T DO THAT!


And when I asked how much of a difference it was launching from 28°
towards 55°, versus launching due east at 28° and then correcting to get
to equatorial orbit, you gave no answer.


Go do the math, as you were told to do. Your question is irrelevant
because you're confusing 'geosynchronous' with 'geostationary'.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #26  
Old January 3rd 19, 01:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

In article ,
says...

On 2019-01-02 07:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

They do? What the maximum number of times a bloc, 5 has been re-used so
far ?


Yes, they do. Three. Note that they're still doing inspections and
some parts replacement between flights.


So they have now officially downgraded their original plans of between
10 and 100 launches down to 3?


No, they're validating their engineering analyses with, you know, actual
data from actual flights. Plus replacing a few parts here and there is
not at all the same as a complete tear-down and refurbishment, which is
what is planned after 10 flights.

If they have only 3 in their experience so far, but still plan for much
higher number, my statement still standsL they doN,t yet have the
enxperience to know how many launches a stage can really do.


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. They're not going to give away this sort of
information, especially when others are trying to copy them (e.g. the
Chinese and now India have both shown renderings that look very similar
to Falcon 9's first stage landing)

Saw a presentation by Mrs Shotwell on Youtube today. Basically, Musk
sets lofty goals and motivates employees to reach for the sky, but then
she and the engineers get to actually work out what goals can be
achieved and get the job done.


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.

Aspirational goals set by Musk aren't necessarily what gets implemented
in the end.


That's a sweeping generalization. But, we're talking specifics here.

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. If you're
going to "name drop" primary sources, please directly quote them.

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.

I seriously doubt that the launch contracts are worded that way.
Customers want the earliest launch possible, so why would anyone specify
that they want to wait until the 9th launch of a first stage?


There was a big discount for the first commercial reflight, and that
customer was willing to wait for it to save money. And I assume that
until SpaceX has solid experience in reflights, those that push the
current limits of its experiece (now at 3) will come at a discount (and
insurance more expensive).


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

You do know that after 10 flights they plan on refurbishing the booster
for even more flights, right?


I was using 10 as a total launch limit to show that you'd want DoD who
want a "no landing" launch to be given stages that are near end of life
instead of brand spanking new ones.


The design goal is 100 launches total (with refurbishment every 10
launches), so using 10 as a "total launch limit" makes no sense.

And since they have only reflown 3 times, I am not sure the number 10
for the major refurb has been decided.


And I'm not sure the number 100 has been decided. Reality will likely
be somewhere between 10 and 100 simply because BFR/BFS will likely
replace Falcon long before any booster reaches 100 flights.

Block 5 first stages are designed to fly up to ten times with
little to no refurbishment. In fact, with a scheduled maintenance
every ten flights, it will be possible to launch a Block 5 first
stage up to 100 times.


Musk aspirational goals. Not standards based on empirical evidence since
they haven't even reached 1 stage with 10 re-uses yet let alone 100.
Not saying they won't achieve this, just saying there is no assurance
they will at this point.


True, but Musk doesn't just pick his aspirational goals out of thin air.
He's done a good job so far of picking goals that are actually
achievable, IMHO. To me that means he's listening to his senior
engineers and basing his goals on what is actually physically
achievable. So my guess sis the max number of flights of a booster is
closer to 100 than it is to 10.

I'd expect SpaceX to want to expend the booster with the most

flights,
not one with 9. But the customer might still want a "new" booster on an
expendable launch, so you charge the customer more money (so you can
manufacture a replacement booster) and carry on.


A one off isn't a big deal. But if DoD becomes a major customer and
wants all its launches on brand new stages without landing capability,
then this changes plans, especially when they try to transition frm
Falcon9 to BFR and try to shift resources to producing BFR.


Fred gave you estimates of Falcon production capacity. Based on what
SpaceX can produce, they will have zero problem selling expendables to
DOD if DOD never certifies flights on flown Falcon boosters.

customer as well. Currently Falcon Heavy has only flown once. So a
customer like DOD might prefer a "single stick" Falcon 9 since it has a
far longer track record.


Shotwell said the main reason Falcon Heavy wasn't cancelled was that she
had already lined up DoD as customer for it.


True. And now that development is done, other customers have purchased
Falcon Heavy flights.

I really don't understand all of your hand-wringing here. It makes no
sense.


The argumenmt I am trying to make is the business model of falcon9 is
re-usability. If one customer pops up and requires non-re-usable
Falcon9s and becomes a major customer, then this changes the business
model because SpaceX is now needing to produce disposable Falcon9s are a
much higher ration than the original business model had antitcipated.


Bull****. Again, SpaceX has the production capacity to sell expendable
Falcon boosters if that is what the customer wants. SpaceX will charge
a premium for this and will therefore still make a profit on an
expendable launch. I really don't see how this "changes the business
model" since Falcon production isn't anywhere close to shutting down.

So this also changes any plans they had to reduce production so
resources can be assigned to ramping up production of BFR/BFS.


Again, I don't see how. Falcon is not BFR/BFS. They don't share
production facilities. The only thing this might impact would be how
many people SpaceX has to have in manufacturing. Perhaps they'll need
to hire a few more people to build BFR/BFS instead of shifting people
from Falcon. But again, if they're charging more money for expendable
Falcon launches, they can easily cover that cost.

Hiring more people is a thing companies do. That bit isn't "rocket
science".

Remember that BFR/NFS will be a HUGE drain on cash, and if it was to
have been funded by re-using Falcon9s a lot instead of building new ones
all the time, and now, they have to keep on building them, this changes
things.


They'll simply charge a premium for expendable Falcon launches and
adjust manufacturing shifts and hiring accordingly. This is why
companies have managers, to manage things like manufacturing.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

The delta-V margin was *very* "tight" on this mission if SpaceX had
attempted recovery. Again, DOD didn't want to take any chances on
something deemed critical for war-fighters.


Which begs the following question: If Falcon9 is underpowered, and has
no margin for a high percentage of launches, was there much of a point
is making it re-usable?


1. It's not underpowered.
2. It's got good margin for most flights (based on the number of actual
landings!).
3. GPS III was a heavy payload going to a high inclination medium orbit,
which is *unusual* compared to other launches. It was the exception,
not the norm.
4. Reuse is the next big step in lowering launch costs. Falcon is just
the first iteration. Everything learned doing Falcon will feed into the
development of BFR/BFS which is the second iteration of SpaceX reusable
launch vehicles. BFR/BFS is intended to be fully reusable.

BFR/BFS *is* the point. Musk has *always* wanted to send people to
Mars. You can't easily, economically, do that with Falcon.

In the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see a GPS III (in a similar
orbit) launching on a Falcon Heavy with both boosters and the core
recovered. But we'll see.


If Falcon Heavy becomes popular, does SpaceX "convert" 3 flown stages ?
Or does it build new centre core but converts existing Falcon9s into
side boosters? or build the 3 from scratch ?


Falcon 9 first stage is identical to the Falcon Heavy side boosters.
The difference is one has an interstage and the other has a nose cone
and the side attachment points. Block 5 is literally designed so that
"converting" a booster from one to the other is a matter of bolting on
(or removing) the bits that are needed (or not needed).

Falcon Heavy's core is specific to Falcon Heavy since it has to carry
more load than a Falcon 9 first stage. So the more popular Falcon Heavy
becomes, the more Falcon Heavy cores will be built (again, they've got
the manufacturing capacity to do this).

We've told you repeatedly that it's the *inclination*, orbital

altitudes
(apogee and perigee), and the mass of the GPS III satellite *combined*
that caused Falcon 9 to have very little margin for recovery on this
mission. You keep ignoring the *inclination*. You CAN'T DO THAT!


And when I asked how much of a difference it was launching from 28°
towards 55°, versus launching due east at 28° and then correcting to get
to equatorial orbit, you gave no answer.


Others have already done the math. Both Fred and I have told you the
results (executive summary style) and you still don't want to believe
either of us.

Perhaps if you do the math yourself you'll understand.

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.
  #27  
Old January 3rd 19, 10:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 631
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2019-01-02 07:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

They do? What the maximum number of times a bloc, 5 has been re-used so
far ?


Yes, they do. Three. Note that they're still doing inspections and
some parts replacement between flights.


So they have now officially downgraded their original plans of between
10 and 100 launches down to 3?


Wow... that's an amazing jump in logic. Now, they've simply only flown a
block 5 3 times because, they haven't had that many flights yet since
they've introduced a block 5.


If they have only 3 in their experience so far, but still plan for much
higher number, my statement still standsL they doN,t yet have the
enxperience to know how many launches a stage can really do.


No, JF, you don't have the experience to know, but they have a pretty good
idea. I'd say this isn't rocket science, but it is. Sort of. It's mostly
materials science and the stresses and loads are pretty well known by now.


Saw a presentation by Mrs Shotwell on Youtube today. Basically, Musk
sets lofty goals and motivates employees to reach for the sky, but then
she and the engineers get to actually work out what goals can be
achieved and get the job done.

Aspirational goals set by Musk aren't necessarily what gets implemented
in the end.


Correct. BUT, 10 is NOT a huge leap. In many ways it's a smaller leap from
3-10 than it is from 1-2.
3-10, you already know the rocket can fly and be re-used. You've proven it.
1-2, you've only proven it can fly, not be reused.


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.


Again, bear with me: It's the max so far simply because they haven't had
that many payloads since the Block 3 was introduced!


And since they have only reflown 3 times, I am not sure the number 10
for the major refurb has been decided.


It's been decided, but might be revisited. They might decide 7 is a better
number, or 20.
But my guess is they'll stick with 10 for now.

snip
A one off isn't a big deal. But if DoD becomes a major customer and
wants all its launches on brand new stages without landing capability,
then this changes plans, especially when they try to transition frm
Falcon9 to BFR and try to shift resources to producing BFR.


Let's assume DoD becomes a major customer... this means what.. 2-3 flights a
year?
That's EASILY handled by the current capacity. And... given the margins the
DoD is willing to pay, this is a problem SpaceX would LOVE to have. "Oh, you
want more single-use stages, ok, we need to expand our plant a bit, it'll
cost you this much. Sign here." Generally MORE business from a client
willing to pay premiums isn't a bad thing.

The argumenmt I am trying to make is the business model of falcon9 is
re-usability.


I think you have the cart before the horse here.
The business model is "cheaper rockets". They're obtaining this in multiple
methods. Re-usability is only one of those methods.
Note they were already cheaper than the competition before they started to
re-use their rockets.

If one customer pops up and requires non-re-usable
Falcon9s and becomes a major customer, then this changes the business
model because SpaceX is now needing to produce disposable Falcon9s are a
much higher ration than the original business model had antitcipated.


Ayup. A horrible problem to have when the customer is clearly willing to pay
a premium. And again, even if DoD moved ALL their launches to SpaceX, it
wouldn't make that large of an impact. I think Jeff said they currently
have the capacity to build 12 cores a year. Last year, they launched I
think 23 cores. So, even if they magically, per JF logic only use a core 3
times, they only need to build 8 cores a year. And if the DoD is willing to
pay a premium for the other 4 build cores, that's great.



So this also changes any plans they had to reduce production so
resources can be assigned to ramping up production of BFR/BFS.


Not really. At the current rate, they'll have more cores than they'll need
in a year or two.


Remember that BFR/NFS will be a HUGE drain on cash, and if it was to
have been funded by re-using Falcon9s a lot instead of building new ones
all the time, and now, they have to keep on building them, this changes
things.

The delta-V margin was *very* "tight" on this mission if SpaceX had
attempted recovery. Again, DOD didn't want to take any chances on
something deemed critical for war-fighters.


Which begs the following question: If Falcon9 is underpowered, and has
no margin for a high percentage of launches, was there much of a point
is making it re-usable?


That actually doesn't beg the question. First you have to prove that there's
no margin for a high percentage of flights.
There were 19 launches last year (18 F9, 1 FH).

Of those, 9 (F9, I'm not including the FH) were successful landings, 1
additional was attempted and failed.
So, less than 1/2 were not re-usable. Oh and one more was scheduled for a
landing, but due to weather and not wanting to delay the launch, they
scrapped it. (note this was a Block 4, not Block 5, so they weren't going to
refly it anyway).
Oh and another wasn't recovered because they were test other landing
options.

--
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/

  #28  
Old January 4th 19, 01:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
Default Falcon 9 Delivers Dragon Into Orbit, Flubs Landing

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Thu,
3 Jan 2019 16:50:13 -0500:

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

The argumenmt I am trying to make is the business model of falcon9 is
re-usability.


I think you have the cart before the horse here.
The business model is "cheaper rockets". They're obtaining this in multiple
methods. Re-usability is only one of those methods.
Note they were already cheaper than the competition before they started to
re-use their rockets.


Mayfly doesn't seem to understand that current Falcon 9 pricing at
around $64 million per launch allows a profit without re-use. Note
that DoD pays more than that because their cargos don't fit the
standard cargo interface (there's a Lockheed interface module that has
to be used) and because they have 'special requirements', not because
a booster might be lost.

If one customer pops up and requires non-re-usable
Falcon9s and becomes a major customer, then this changes the business
model because SpaceX is now needing to produce disposable Falcon9s are a
much higher ration than the original business model had antitcipated.


Ayup. A horrible problem to have when the customer is clearly willing to pay
a premium. And again, even if DoD moved ALL their launches to SpaceX, it
wouldn't make that large of an impact. I think Jeff said they currently
have the capacity to build 12 cores a year. Last year, they launched I
think 23 cores. So, even if they magically, per JF logic only use a core 3
times, they only need to build 8 cores a year. And if the DoD is willing to
pay a premium for the other 4 build cores, that's great.


Actually that was me that gave the numbers. They can produce 12 a
year without any great stress, 26 a year if they 'flex' the factory
and push as fast as they can go, and 48 a year if they work two
shifts. In any case, the three or so DoD launches a year that require
expending a booster aren't significant insofar as 'plans' go, since
they always have to assume they will lose some percentage of boosters
they try to land.

So this also changes any plans they had to reduce production so
resources can be assigned to ramping up production of BFR/BFS.


Not really. At the current rate, they'll have more cores than they'll need
in a year or two.


They've got 10 cores in hand right now. One of them has three flights
on it, two others have two flights on them, one that has one flight
and is scheduled for its second, and the rest have no flights (3
scheduled for a Falcon Heavy launch of ArabSat-6A, one schedule for
the first Crew Dragon test, and two that currently have no assigned
flight). They've lost 2 of the 12 Block 5 cores produced since they
started using them this year; one deliberately expended for the DoD
GPS-III launch and one that went in the water due to a pump failure on
one of the grid fins. That's a lot of flights left in those boosters
before SpaceX would run short. If you assume 10 flights per booster
before first major refurb, that leaves something like seven dozen
flights. That's THREE AND A HALF YEARS of currently unmanifested
flights at the current flight rate.

Which begs the following question: If Falcon9 is underpowered, and has
no margin for a high percentage of launches, was there much of a point
is making it re-usable?


That actually doesn't beg the question. First you have to prove that there's
no margin for a high percentage of flights.
There were 19 launches last year (18 F9, 1 FH).

Of those, 9 (F9, I'm not including the FH) were successful landings, 1
additional was attempted and failed.
So, less than 1/2 were not re-usable. Oh and one more was scheduled for a
landing, but due to weather and not wanting to delay the launch, they
scrapped it. (note this was a Block 4, not Block 5, so they weren't going to
refly it anyway).
Oh and another wasn't recovered because they were test other landing
options.


Mayfly is assuming that ONE launch that requires expending the booster
means that a majority of launches do based on absolutely nothing but a
devout ignoring of the actual facts.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #29  
Old January 12th 19, 11:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,844
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
  #30  
Old January 12th 19, 01:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,786
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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing David Spain Policy 14 October 15th 11 09:51 PM
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing Space Cadet[_1_] Policy 7 October 6th 11 09:00 PM
Dragon/Falcon 9 Update [email protected] Policy 16 October 7th 09 04:42 PM
No escape tower on Dragon / Falcon 9 [email protected] Policy 0 September 30th 08 03:43 PM
ESA flubs Titan Landing show Ken Amateur Astronomy 36 January 19th 05 09:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.