Happy landings seem to be in order

Looks like they got the first stage landing on the barge this time.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

In article , says...

Looks like they got the first stage landing on the barge this time.

rick jones

You beat me to it. Congrats to SpaceX!

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.

In article m,
says...

Just now, during today's post launch conference, Elon says he plans to
have the re-used stage I launch in May or June.

They will do 10 test fires first, and if they pan out, plans to use that
Stage 1 for a May/June launch. Hopes to be a paying customer as opposed
to test flight but need to get willing customer for it.

This is actually the important bit in terms of "proving" reusability to
the nay-sayers that think it's "hard to recover an entire stage intact
and reuse it without tearing it completely apart".

But, even if they do successfully refly a first stage, the nay-sayers
will just move the goal posts again. It will be interesting to hear
what their criticisms will be. Likely along the lines of "sure you can
reuse it, once, but you need to reuse it many more times than that to
make it economical".

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.

In article . com,
says...

Update:

During post launch opress conference, Elon says he hopes to have half of
stage 1 land on land. Yesterday, another SpaceX employee has stated 1/3.

Half is better than zero, which is what all of the competition does.

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.

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article m,
says...
They will do 10 test fires first, and if they pan out, plans to
use that Stage 1 for a May/June launch. Hopes to be a paying
customer as opposed to test flight but need to get willing
customer for it.

This is actually the important bit in terms of "proving" reusability to
the nay-sayers that think it's "hard to recover an entire stage intact
and reuse it without tearing it completely apart".

Well, it wasn't Falcon, but we've seen the same booster get used three
times now in the case of BlueOrigin yes? I seem to recall they have
reported they didn't need to do much with it between launches.

But, even if they do successfully refly a first stage, the
nay-sayers will just move the goal posts again. It will be
interesting to hear what their criticisms will be. Likely along the
lines of "sure you can reuse it, once, but you need to reuse it many
more times than that to make it economical".

Well, that depends on how one defines economical. I forget if it was
you or someone else who said that the Falcon 9 costs $60 million to
build and $200,000 to fuel. Ignoring the vexing question of how much
of that $60 million is the first versus the second stage by waving my
hands and asserting with no proof that the first stage is $40 million,
then for fuel to be half the cost of launching over a first stage's
lifetime means you need 200 launches. The cost of those 200 launches
$20.4 million each if I've done my math right. Plus a wee percentage
for profit of course The numbers will of course be different if I'm
off for the cost of the second stage. None of that is looking at cost
per pound, just cost per launch. If the second stage costs only $10
million a pop then fuel and first stage are 50/50 at 250 launches of
the stage and the launch cost is $10.4 million a pop.

To get the order of magnitude reduction in launch costs compared to
the $60 million for a Falcon 9, one needs the average launch to be $6
million. That requires second stage reuse unless that stage is really
cheap, and then the number of launches would have to be 11 per full
stack.

rick
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

In article , says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article m,
says...
They will do 10 test fires first, and if they pan out, plans to
use that Stage 1 for a May/June launch. Hopes to be a paying
customer as opposed to test flight but need to get willing
customer for it.

This is actually the important bit in terms of "proving" reusability to
the nay-sayers that think it's "hard to recover an entire stage intact
and reuse it without tearing it completely apart".

Well, it wasn't Falcon, but we've seen the same booster get used three
times now in the case of BlueOrigin yes? I seem to recall they have
reported they didn't need to do much with it between launches.

True, but apples and oranges. Delta-V for a suborbital hop is trivial
compared to the delta-V required to achieve orbit. That and the fuel
for Blue Origin is LH2, which won't coke in cooling passages and the
like, which some people think might be a risk for the Merlin engine
(LOX/kerosene).

But, even if they do successfully refly a first stage, the
nay-sayers will just move the goal posts again. It will be
interesting to hear what their criticisms will be. Likely along the
lines of "sure you can reuse it, once, but you need to reuse it many
more times than that to make it economical".

Well, that depends on how one defines economical. I forget if it was
you or someone else who said that the Falcon 9 costs $60 million to
build and $200,000 to fuel.

The article I linked to reported those numbers.

Ignoring the vexing question of how much
of that $60 million is the first versus the second stage by waving my
hands and asserting with no proof that the first stage is $40 million,
then for fuel to be half the cost of launching over a first stage's
lifetime means you need 200 launches. The cost of those 200 launches
$20.4 million each if I've done my math right. Plus a wee percentage
for profit of course The numbers will of course be different if I'm
off for the cost of the second stage. None of that is looking at cost
per pound, just cost per launch. If the second stage costs only $10
million a pop then fuel and first stage are 50/50 at 250 launches of
the stage and the launch cost is $10.4 million a pop.

Sounds about right. But remember this is still an early try at reuse.
Falcon Heavy will theoretically be able to reuse both boosters and the
core (first) stage, expending only the upper stage (one out of 28
engines expended). That will change the cost equation quite a bit more.

Also, SpaceX is working on LOX/methane engines (higher performance and
methane can be made out of local CO2 and H2 brought from earth) in order
to build a fully reusable TSTO. Musk wants to go to Mars. Falcon 9 is
still just a baby step along that path.

To get the order of magnitude reduction in launch costs compared to
the $60 million for a Falcon 9, one needs the average launch to be $6
million. That requires second stage reuse unless that stage is really
cheap, and then the number of launches would have to be 11 per full
stack.

He's already cheaper than the competition even when the hardware is
fully expended. Any recovered stages, for Falcon 9, are just profit to
plow back into R&D. That research and development is going into "next
generation" engines and launch vehicle(s) he intends to use to go to
Mars.

Meanwhile, NASA is working on the fully expendable SLS which won't fly
for several more years. That's the real competition for SpaceX's next
generation fully reusable launch vehicle. Care to bet which will be
cheaper?

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.

On Apr/8/2016 8:33 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :

He's already cheaper than the competition even when the hardware is
fully expended. Any recovered stages, for Falcon 9, are just profit to
plow back into R&D. That research and development is going into "next
generation" engines and launch vehicle(s) he intends to use to go to
Mars.

Meanwhile, NASA is working on the fully expendable SLS which won't fly
for several more years. That's the real competition for SpaceX's next
generation fully reusable launch vehicle. Care to bet which will be
cheaper?

Clearly SLS will be cheaper. If you want to got to orbit on a SpaceX
rocket it will cost you probably in the millions of dollars. If you want
to go to orbit on SLS, you need to send in your resume and you will
actually be paid for the ride. SLS is way cheaper :-)


Alain Fournier

In message
Rick Jones wrote:

Well, that depends on how one defines economical. I forget if it was
you or someone else who said that the Falcon 9 costs $60 million to
build and $200,000 to fuel. Ignoring the vexing question of how much
of that $60 million is the first versus the second stage by waving my
hands and asserting with no proof that the first stage is $40 million,

Based on public statements and some handwaving assupmtions such as...

Falcon 9 launch 60 million

Falcon Heavy launch 90 million

SpaceX at least breaks even

First stage is two thirds of the hardware cost

There's a constant profit/overheads element per launch

You can reach the conclusion that a first stage costs around 16 million
and a second stage 8 million and there's about 36 million overhead per
launch (F9 = 16 + 8 + 36 = 60 and F9H 3 * 16 + 8 + 36 ~ 90).

The real area for savings isn't so much reusing the first stages as
upping the launch rate to cut the overhead.

Anthony

Congratulations to SpaceX for the historic first "at sea" landing.

They have an aggressive launch schedule ahead. In the post CRS-8 launch
press conference with NASA, Elon said the next "on-land" attempt will be
on the third launch after this one.

By the end of the year the F9 launch rate (if achieved) will be impressive.

Dave

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

Well, it wasn't Falcon, but we've seen the same booster get used
three times now in the case of BlueOrigin yes? I seem to recall
they have reported they didn't need to do much with it between
launches.

True, but apples and oranges. Delta-V for a suborbital hop is
trivial compared to the delta-V required to achieve orbit. That and
the fuel for Blue Origin is LH2, which won't coke in cooling
passages and the like, which some people think might be a risk for
the Merlin engine (LOX/kerosene).

The first stage of a Falcon 9 doesn't itself reach orbital velocity
right? How much faster than Blue Origin is it going at cut-off?

I'd not thought about the coking - I guess the AGW crowd has me
fixated more on CO2

Ignoring the vexing question of how much of that $60 million is
the first versus the second stage by waving my hands and asserting
with no proof that the first stage is $40 million, then for fuel
to be half the cost of launching over a first stage's lifetime
means you need 200 launches. The cost of those 200 launches $20.4
million each if I've done my math right. Plus a wee percentage
for profit of course The numbers will of course be different if
I'm off for the cost of the second stage. None of that is looking
at cost per pound, just cost per launch. If the second stage
costs only $10 million a pop then fuel and first stage are 50/50
at 250 launches of the stage and the launch cost is $10.4 million
a pop.

Sounds about right. But remember this is still an early try at
reuse. Falcon Heavy will theoretically be able to reuse both
boosters and the core (first) stage, expending only the upper stage
(one out of 28 engines expended). That will change the cost
equation quite a bit more.

Well, at least in so far as the upper stage is that much less of a
fraction of the total, but in terms of reaching 50/50 on fuel compared
to the "first" stage the numbers would stay the same. (Assuming the
core and two boosters each cost about what an existing Falcon 9 first
stage does.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...in_two_months/
had an interesting tidbit in it:

SpaceX landed its first rocket on land in November, but that will
never fly again. Instead it will be erected outside SpaceX
headquarters, once clearance is given by local regulators.

However, initial tests on that rocket showed that the hardware was
very resilient, Musk said. Some parts look like they could be
reused indefinitely and even the more delicate machinery looks
like it could survive 100 launches before needing to be
replaced. However, Musk thought 20 flights would be a safe margin
for his rockets.

So that would be 20 flights between major overhauls (I wanted to use
the airliner term but couldn't recall it... drat ) Then of course
the math gets complicated by the need to factor the cost of the
overhauls and all that... But the 20 number was interesting
regardless.

He's already cheaper than the competition even when the hardware is
fully expended. Any recovered stages, for Falcon 9, are just profit
to plow back into R&D. That research and development is going into
"next generation" engines and launch vehicle(s) he intends to use to
go to Mars.

Well, some of it profit to plow back into R&D. And some of it to go
towards lowering the price charged for a launch. From that same El
Reg article:

Satellite telco SES has said it wants to use the second-hand
rocket but expects a 50 per cent discount. However, SpaceX
president Gwynne Shotwell has said that 30 per cent was more
likely.

Meanwhile, NASA is working on the fully expendable SLS which won't
fly for several more years. That's the real competition for
SpaceX's next generation fully reusable launch vehicle. Care to bet
which will be cheaper?

Not really

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...