|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
India has successfully launched their GSLV III booster. This is a
rocket in roughly the same class as the Falcon 9, with a payload of 4 tonnes to GTO. The goal of this program is to save India money on heavy satellite launches and to perhaps enter the market space that Falcon 9 (and others) are in. I haven't seen any data on actual cost to launch, but it is all expendable and uses two big solid strap-ons, so I can't see it approaching the costs of a Falcon 9. Time will tell. -- "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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
Rob wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... India has successfully launched their GSLV III booster. This is a rocket in roughly the same class as the Falcon 9, with a payload of 4 tonnes to GTO. The goal of this program is to save India money on heavy satellite launches and to perhaps enter the market space that Falcon 9 (and others) are in. I haven't seen any data on actual cost to launch, but it is all expendable and uses two big solid strap-ons, so I can't see it approaching the costs of a Falcon 9. Time will tell. Same. India is in the same boat as every other launch company when it comes to reuse. But, labor costs are far lower in India than in most other countries launching payloads into orbit, so I'm betting they'll be able to get away with being all expendable longer than say the US or Europe (Russia is hard to tell). It is always hard to tell. The cost per launcher of course goes down when you make more of them, re-using launchers reduces the number being produced and increases the cost per launcher. Re-usable launchers could be more expensive to begin with. There are also costs for refurbishing the recovered launchers (it is not like they are simply hoisted back on the pad and re-filled) and there may be an increased risk of failure. Making the launcher recoverable also reduces its performance. So you drive your car until the gas tank is empty and then throw it away and buy a new one because that is 'cheaper'? That's essentially what you're asserting above. Only the very naive will think "this launcher costs 50 million so when we use it twice we go down to 25 million per launch and using it 10 times our launch costs go down to 5 million". Only the very silly will think designing to throw away everything will result in cheaper costs to space than reusing big chunks of the vehicle with minimal refurbishment will. Yes, you can build a 'reusable' vehicle that is more expensive than building new, but you really have to work at it in a very wrong-headed way to do that. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote: Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... India has successfully launched their GSLV III booster. This is a rocket in roughly the same class as the Falcon 9, with a payload of 4 tonnes to GTO. The goal of this program is to save India money on heavy satellite launches and to perhaps enter the market space that Falcon 9 (and others) are in. I haven't seen any data on actual cost to launch, but it is all expendable and uses two big solid strap-ons, so I can't see it approaching the costs of a Falcon 9. Time will tell. Same. India is in the same boat as every other launch company when it comes to reuse. But, labor costs are far lower in India than in most other countries launching payloads into orbit, so I'm betting they'll be able to get away with being all expendable longer than say the US or Europe (Russia is hard to tell). It is always hard to tell. The cost per launcher of course goes down when you make more of them, re-using launchers reduces the number being produced and increases the cost per launcher. Re-usable launchers could be more expensive to begin with. There are also costs for refurbishing the recovered launchers (it is not like they are simply hoisted back on the pad and re-filled) and there may be an increased risk of failure. Making the launcher recoverable also reduces its performance. So you drive your car until the gas tank is empty and then throw it away and buy a new one because that is 'cheaper'? That's essentially what you're asserting above. Not at all what I am saying. Read it more carefully. Only the very naive will think "this launcher costs 50 million so when we use it twice we go down to 25 million per launch and using it 10 times our launch costs go down to 5 million". Only the very silly will think designing to throw away everything will result in cheaper costs to space than reusing big chunks of the vehicle with minimal refurbishment will. Yes, you can build a 'reusable' vehicle that is more expensive than building new, but you really have to work at it in a very wrong-headed way to do that. Not at all what I am saying. Read it more carefully. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
Rob wrote:
Fred J McCall wrote: Rob wrote: Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... India has successfully launched their GSLV III booster. This is a rocket in roughly the same class as the Falcon 9, with a payload of 4 tonnes to GTO. The goal of this program is to save India money on heavy satellite launches and to perhaps enter the market space that Falcon 9 (and others) are in. I haven't seen any data on actual cost to launch, but it is all expendable and uses two big solid strap-ons, so I can't see it approaching the costs of a Falcon 9. Time will tell. Same. India is in the same boat as every other launch company when it comes to reuse. But, labor costs are far lower in India than in most other countries launching payloads into orbit, so I'm betting they'll be able to get away with being all expendable longer than say the US or Europe (Russia is hard to tell). It is always hard to tell. The cost per launcher of course goes down when you make more of them, re-using launchers reduces the number being produced and increases the cost per launcher. Re-usable launchers could be more expensive to begin with. There are also costs for refurbishing the recovered launchers (it is not like they are simply hoisted back on the pad and re-filled) and there may be an increased risk of failure. Making the launcher recoverable also reduces its performance. So you drive your car until the gas tank is empty and then throw it away and buy a new one because that is 'cheaper'? That's essentially what you're asserting above. Not at all what I am saying. Read it more carefully. Exactly what you're saying. Think it better and then write it more carefully. Only the very naive will think "this launcher costs 50 million so when we use it twice we go down to 25 million per launch and using it 10 times our launch costs go down to 5 million". Only the very silly will think designing to throw away everything will result in cheaper costs to space than reusing big chunks of the vehicle with minimal refurbishment will. Yes, you can build a 'reusable' vehicle that is more expensive than building new, but you really have to work at it in a very wrong-headed way to do that. Not at all what I am saying. Read it more carefully. Exactly what you're saying. Think it better and then write it more carefully. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... Same. India is in the same boat as every other launch company when it comes to reuse. But, labor costs are far lower in India than in most other countries launching payloads into orbit, so I'm betting they'll be able to get away with being all expendable longer than say the US or Europe (Russia is hard to tell). It is always hard to tell. The cost per launcher of course goes down when you make more of them, re-using launchers reduces the number being produced and increases the cost per launcher. Re-usable launchers could be more expensive to begin with. There are also costs for refurbishing the recovered launchers (it is not like they are simply hoisted back on the pad and re-filled) and there may be an increased risk of failure. Making the launcher recoverable also reduces its performance. Only the very naive will think "this launcher costs 50 million so when we use it twice we go down to 25 million per launch and using it 10 times our launch costs go down to 5 million". SpaceX has already reflown one first stage and it reportedly cost them less than half the cost of new (refurbishment cost versus the cost to manufacture a new one). But yes, much of what they do is the same regardless of whether the stage is new or used (like test firing it), so you don't ever get to recoup those costs by flying a reused stage. There can be a reduction in cost, but it is not obvious. Apparently they now have saved some money (2 launches for 1.5 times the cost). Still, they're saving money and they still have not "worked all the bugs out of the process". This year, they'll start flying Block 5 first stages which incorporate changes to make reuse easier and cheaper. They're learning and improving. When a refurbished launcher fails, and it turns out to be due to the re-use, they need quite some launches to recover that cost. Plus, you are ignoring the very real "infant mortality" problem. On an expendable, there is always the possibility that some manufacturing defect will creep into the vehicle causing it to fail. Since it's expendable, its first and only flight is both test flight and operational flight. Of course. But there is also the problem of failures due to using a refurbished launcher that may have damage or wear. From the very beginning Falcon stages have been test fired before flight (in Texas) to prove them out. So even on an "expendable" Falcon 9 first stage, its first flight is not the first time it's been fired. This is not specific for SpaceX, component and system tests are done by other companies as well. Also, note that even new copies of an existing passenger jet design are test flown at least once before putting paying passengers on board. Only the very naive would put paying passengers on the very first flight of a newly built aircraft. Yet some people don't even blink when a very expensive payload is put on top of a never before flown copy of a launch vehicle. I think there is still quite some difference between landing a passenger aircraft, loading new passengers and fuel and taking off again for the next flight, and re-using a Falcon launcher. In the early days of Space Shuttle there was also the myth (probably mainly among the public and press) that this space vehicle would operate like a plane: land, re-fuel and take-off. In practice it was (or turned out to be) quite different from that. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
GSLV III Successful Launch
Rob wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... Same. India is in the same boat as every other launch company when it comes to reuse. But, labor costs are far lower in India than in most other countries launching payloads into orbit, so I'm betting they'll be able to get away with being all expendable longer than say the US or Europe (Russia is hard to tell). It is always hard to tell. The cost per launcher of course goes down when you make more of them, re-using launchers reduces the number being produced and increases the cost per launcher. Re-usable launchers could be more expensive to begin with. There are also costs for refurbishing the recovered launchers (it is not like they are simply hoisted back on the pad and re-filled) and there may be an increased risk of failure. Making the launcher recoverable also reduces its performance. Only the very naive will think "this launcher costs 50 million so when we use it twice we go down to 25 million per launch and using it 10 times our launch costs go down to 5 million". SpaceX has already reflown one first stage and it reportedly cost them less than half the cost of new (refurbishment cost versus the cost to manufacture a new one). But yes, much of what they do is the same regardless of whether the stage is new or used (like test firing it), so you don't ever get to recoup those costs by flying a reused stage. There can be a reduction in cost, but it is not obvious. Apparently they now have saved some money (2 launches for 1.5 times the cost). Well, actually it is pretty obvious, which is why almost everyone but NASA is headed in that direction. Still, they're saving money and they still have not "worked all the bugs out of the process". This year, they'll start flying Block 5 first stages which incorporate changes to make reuse easier and cheaper. They're learning and improving. When a refurbished launcher fails, and it turns out to be due to the re-use, they need quite some launches to recover that cost. That's what insurance is for, if you think you need it. Plus, you are ignoring the very real "infant mortality" problem. On an expendable, there is always the possibility that some manufacturing defect will creep into the vehicle causing it to fail. Since it's expendable, its first and only flight is both test flight and operational flight. Of course. But there is also the problem of failures due to using a refurbished launcher that may have damage or wear. This same risk exists for your car or an airliner and is about the same order of magnitude. It's probably lower for the reused rocket, since it gets a much more thorough going over than your car or the airplane. From the very beginning Falcon stages have been test fired before flight (in Texas) to prove them out. So even on an "expendable" Falcon 9 first stage, its first flight is not the first time it's been fired. This is not specific for SpaceX, component and system tests are done by other companies as well. Actually that kind of is specific for SpaceX. I'm not aware of any other company that test fires flight engines before flying them or does a full-up stacked fuel of the vehicle before the main event. Also, note that even new copies of an existing passenger jet design are test flown at least once before putting paying passengers on board. Only the very naive would put paying passengers on the very first flight of a newly built aircraft. Yet some people don't even blink when a very expensive payload is put on top of a never before flown copy of a launch vehicle. I think there is still quite some difference between landing a passenger aircraft, loading new passengers and fuel and taking off again for the next flight, and re-using a Falcon launcher. Why do you think this? In the early days of Space Shuttle there was also the myth (probably mainly among the public and press) that this space vehicle would operate like a plane: land, re-fuel and take-off. In practice it was (or turned out to be) quite different from that. In the early days of Space Shuttle it was a very different vehicle. They compromised that design when they took USAF money. As I said earlier, it is certainly possible to do reuse badly, but you have to work at it. NASA deliberately made a 'reusable' vehicle that was hideously expensive to fly. The thing of note with regard to the rest of your case against reusables is that they never lost a vehicle due to wear and tear from it having flown before. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Successful SpaceX launch | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Policy | 58 | May 20th 16 12:24 AM |
Successful Ariane 5 Launch | Stephen Horgan | Policy | 8 | January 9th 06 09:09 AM |
Successful Proton Launch | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | November 2nd 04 10:01 AM |
GSLV-F01 Launch Successful - Places EDUSAT in Orbit | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | September 21st 04 04:28 PM |
What is GSLV | Rajesh Khanna | History | 4 | December 13th 03 07:18 PM |