BEAM expansion and SpaceX launch tomorrow

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:05:34 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ...

On 5/27/2016 5:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
barge is looking like it's doing just fine at its job.
That barge won't look so good in a high sea state. Inevitably Space X
will sometimes have to make decisions when that happens; delay launch vs
sacrifice booster.

That said, you may color me damn impressed with their string of
successful recoveries.

Yeah, 3 in a row. Pretty impressive.

Henry Spencer use to say (paraphrasing here) that we didn't have truly
reusable vehicles yet because no one yet had actually tried. He was
right.

It's not like Musk is doing this single handedly. He hired engineers
from NASA and the very government contractors who had failed in the past
to produce meaningful progress on affordable reusable vehicles. The
"big leap" projects had all failed, in part, because it was thought that
some new bleeding edge technology would be needed because the mass
fractions required were so tight. This simply isn't true, especially
for a reusable first stage.

Instead, a vehicle based on existing tech is proving that reuse is
possible, by simply trading a bit of performance for reusability (fuel,
oxidizer, and some extra hardware like landing legs and grid fins).
Ditching the "performance uber alles" attitude of the missile designers
is one of the keys.

Instead of grasping for the ring of bleeding edge technology, doing what
you can with existing tech is proving to cost far less and is producing
results far faster than many engineers would have imagined (especially
after the expensive failure of X-33 and similar projects).

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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



besides whiich its more profitable to goverment contractors to build a entire new stack every time

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ...

On 5/27/2016 5:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
barge is looking like it's doing just fine at its job.
That barge won't look so good in a high sea state. Inevitably Space X
will sometimes have to make decisions when that happens; delay launch vs
sacrifice booster.

That said, you may color me damn impressed with their string of
successful recoveries.

Yeah, 3 in a row. Pretty impressive.

Henry Spencer use to say (paraphrasing here) that we didn't have truly
reusable vehicles yet because no one yet had actually tried. He was
right.

It's not like Musk is doing this single handedly. He hired engineers
from NASA and the very government contractors who had failed in the past
to produce meaningful progress on affordable reusable vehicles. The
"big leap" projects had all failed, in part, because it was thought that
some new bleeding edge technology would be needed because the mass
fractions required were so tight. This simply isn't true, especially
for a reusable first stage.

Instead, a vehicle based on existing tech is proving that reuse is
possible, by simply trading a bit of performance for reusability (fuel,
oxidizer, and some extra hardware like landing legs and grid fins).
Ditching the "performance uber alles" attitude of the missile designers
is one of the keys.

Instead of grasping for the ring of bleeding edge technology, doing what
you can with existing tech is proving to cost far less and is producing
results far faster than many engineers would have imagined (especially
after the expensive failure of X-33 and similar projects).

Jeff

I was just talking to my son about this last night. That getting rid of
"performance uber alles" and going with "low cost uber alles" we start to
see changes.

Now of course the big question will be, "who's the first paying customer on
a reflown booster?" I'll bet there's a few folks out there chomping at the
bit, assuming a deep discount (which I'd expect) for an unknown, but
probably higher risk.

It did dawn on me, at some point SpaceX is going to have to start to decide
how many boosters a year they want to build vs. how many they will refly.
My understanding is they've done a good job of optimizing a low cost of
building, but I'm assuming there's a sweet spot on number per year built vs.
cost.

What's also interesting to me is they've now flown 25 times in 6 years. And
are flying at a faster than ever rate.

Atlas V has flown 61 times since 2002.
Delta IV has flown 31 times since 2003.

So very quickly SpaceX will catch up on the number of Delta IV flights
(probably this year) and in a few more years, pass Atlas V.

ULA has got to be nervous.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 2:12:22 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ...

On 5/27/2016 5:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
barge is looking like it's doing just fine at its job.
That barge won't look so good in a high sea state. Inevitably Space X
will sometimes have to make decisions when that happens; delay launch vs
sacrifice booster.

That said, you may color me damn impressed with their string of
successful recoveries.

Yeah, 3 in a row. Pretty impressive.

Henry Spencer use to say (paraphrasing here) that we didn't have truly
reusable vehicles yet because no one yet had actually tried. He was
right.

It's not like Musk is doing this single handedly. He hired engineers
from NASA and the very government contractors who had failed in the past
to produce meaningful progress on affordable reusable vehicles. The
"big leap" projects had all failed, in part, because it was thought that
some new bleeding edge technology would be needed because the mass
fractions required were so tight. This simply isn't true, especially
for a reusable first stage.

Instead, a vehicle based on existing tech is proving that reuse is
possible, by simply trading a bit of performance for reusability (fuel,
oxidizer, and some extra hardware like landing legs and grid fins).
Ditching the "performance uber alles" attitude of the missile designers
is one of the keys.

Instead of grasping for the ring of bleeding edge technology, doing what
you can with existing tech is proving to cost far less and is producing
results far faster than many engineers would have imagined (especially
after the expensive failure of X-33 and similar projects).

Jeff

I was just talking to my son about this last night. That getting rid of
"performance uber alles" and going with "low cost uber alles" we start to
see changes.

Now of course the big question will be, "who's the first paying customer on
a reflown booster?" I'll bet there's a few folks out there chomping at the
bit, assuming a deep discount (which I'd expect) for an unknown, but
probably higher risk.

It did dawn on me, at some point SpaceX is going to have to start to decide
how many boosters a year they want to build vs. how many they will refly.
My understanding is they've done a good job of optimizing a low cost of
building, but I'm assuming there's a sweet spot on number per year built vs.
cost.

What's also interesting to me is they've now flown 25 times in 6 years. And
are flying at a faster than ever rate.

Atlas V has flown 61 times since 2002.
Delta IV has flown 31 times since 2003.

So very quickly SpaceX will catch up on the number of Delta IV flights
(probably this year) and in a few more years, pass Atlas V.

ULA has got to be nervous.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

look for ULA to design and roll out a similiar product, its only other alternative is to abandon the launch market, as space X makes it uncompetive

Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX launch appears to be going well. Another successful high
energy, three engine, hover slam landing for the first stage. The
payload is now coasting, waiting for the 2nd burn of the 2nd stage.

The repeated photo-bombing of the camera pointed at the pad/tower by
wasps was a hoot too

Watching the technical webcast, was that one of the steering vanes
which ignited around the time of the entry burn?

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...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.

I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test
version. I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a
much bigger inflatable module, would the problems they had with
inflation be bigger or easier?


Alain Fournier

bob haller wrote:


look for ULA to design and roll out a similiar product, its only other alternative is to abandon the launch market, as space X makes it uncompetive


I think ULA is currently cutting prices on at least some of their
boosters, but they're still relying on USAF and such to keep the cash
rolling in.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 6:12:22 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ...

On 5/27/2016 5:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
barge is looking like it's doing just fine at its job.
That barge won't look so good in a high sea state. Inevitably Space X
will sometimes have to make decisions when that happens; delay launch vs
sacrifice booster.

That said, you may color me damn impressed with their string of
successful recoveries.

Yeah, 3 in a row. Pretty impressive.

Henry Spencer use to say (paraphrasing here) that we didn't have truly
reusable vehicles yet because no one yet had actually tried. He was
right.

It's not like Musk is doing this single handedly. He hired engineers
from NASA and the very government contractors who had failed in the past
to produce meaningful progress on affordable reusable vehicles. The
"big leap" projects had all failed, in part, because it was thought that
some new bleeding edge technology would be needed because the mass
fractions required were so tight. This simply isn't true, especially
for a reusable first stage.

Instead, a vehicle based on existing tech is proving that reuse is
possible, by simply trading a bit of performance for reusability (fuel,
oxidizer, and some extra hardware like landing legs and grid fins).
Ditching the "performance uber alles" attitude of the missile designers
is one of the keys.

Instead of grasping for the ring of bleeding edge technology, doing what
you can with existing tech is proving to cost far less and is producing
results far faster than many engineers would have imagined (especially
after the expensive failure of X-33 and similar projects).

Jeff

I was just talking to my son about this last night. That getting rid of
"performance uber alles" and going with "low cost uber alles" we start to
see changes.

Now of course the big question will be, "who's the first paying customer on
a reflown booster?" I'll bet there's a few folks out there chomping at the
bit, assuming a deep discount (which I'd expect) for an unknown, but
probably higher risk.

It did dawn on me, at some point SpaceX is going to have to start to decide
how many boosters a year they want to build vs. how many they will refly.
My understanding is they've done a good job of optimizing a low cost of
building, but I'm assuming there's a sweet spot on number per year built vs.
cost.

What's also interesting to me is they've now flown 25 times in 6 years. And
are flying at a faster than ever rate.

Atlas V has flown 61 times since 2002.
Delta IV has flown 31 times since 2003.

So very quickly SpaceX will catch up on the number of Delta IV flights
(probably this year) and in a few more years, pass Atlas V.

ULA has got to be nervous.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

SpaceX would be foolish to establish a deep discount regime for used boosters too early. They're better off having others build new vehicles that they then retain for later resuse at their leisure.

They're better off reflying their own boosters on their own programs, to perfect procedures and carry those launches on their books at the price they want to charge.

Making the argument off-the-shelf boosters are sold at a premium because

1) they're available immediately without wait and
2) they're flight proven hardware - garnering lower insurance costs.

Actually working with insurers makes sense, or self-insuring with their own insurance division - would help here. Using used boosters to refly lost payloads quickly, and carrying the cost on the books at 'market rates' for those boosters - would give such an insurer huge advantages going forward.

Once these establish market prices for launch, regardless of cost, let the other side argue them down to near launch cost for new boosters.

Any way to share in the huge discount? Sure, it makes sense for SpaceX to participate in the revenue streams they're generating for their clients.

So, SpaceX could offer to anyone who buys multiple launches, to buy a booster and partner with them. They then offer multiple launches on a long term flight programme. The programme pays out of pocket costs for used boosters and SpaceX gets ownership position in the long term programme based on their contribution of capital built on the value of the launch established in the market for such launches.

So, say you want to put up 100 satellites to do solar power network, or global telecom network, or establish automated mining operations on Earth crossing asteroids. Your programme entails paying $61 million per launch and $139 million per satellite for hardware and insurance. That's $200 million per system, or $20 billion for the entire programme. $6.1 billion for the launch. $13.9 billion for the satellite hardware. Say you hope to gain $1..2 trillion per year in telecom revenue, or power sales, or precious metal sales, when the network is up and running.

Now, instead of paying $6.1 billion for the launch portion of the programme, you agree to pay $61 million for the first rocket, and $0.6 million recurring cost per launch for all subsequent rockets, totalling another $60 million - $120 million prepaid - and give SpaceX $5.9 billion interest in the project going forward. This establishes value in the project and credibility. Another $120 million is spent for the first satellite - and you've created an enterprise that arguably is worth $20 billion for $240 million invested.

SpaceX gives away $5.9 billion in launch value and gains 29.5% of the $1.2 trillion in revenue - $354 billion per year - giving great stability to his firm.

Rail tycoons in the 1800s did this when they developed rail systems out west. That's how they ended up owning most of the lumber in the USA for example.

In the same way SpaceX develops long term income from its launch capacity, at no real cost to itself, which can support its development of other capacities going forward.

This includes, the acquisition of competitors, and revamping them for greater efficiency, and the development of the Moon and Mars and the Asteroid belt, using these capacities along with the revenues from telecom, power satellites, and earth crossing asteroid mining - possible to build today.

Lasermotive may be an acquisition target for SpaceX at some point- which beams power to powerwall systems using a variant of Solar city systems as a laser receiver - to power Tesla motors vehicles and Tesla powered homes.

Ehang 184 is also interesting adjunct. An electric single passenger fly on demand drone. Extending the one passenger drone's range beyond 23 minutes with beamed laser energy is relatively straightforward.

Filling in with laser propelled suborbital ballistic vehicles - gives mastery in terrestrial transport area as well. Using photonic thrusters to give deep space capacity to payloads placed on orbit with chemical rockets, whose payloads are enhanced by third stage laser propelled vehicle.

In article ,
says...
I was just talking to my son about this last night. That getting rid of
"performance uber alles" and going with "low cost uber alles" we start to
see changes.

Now of course the big question will be, "who's the first paying customer on
a reflown booster?" I'll bet there's a few folks out there chomping at the
bit, assuming a deep discount (which I'd expect) for an unknown, but
probably higher risk.

They've already got a customer who will fly first on a reflown first
stage. Off the top of my head, I can't remember who. SES perhaps?

At any rate, who would fly on an untested passenger airliner? Seems
crazy to not want a proven first stage.

It did dawn on me, at some point SpaceX is going to have to start to decide
how many boosters a year they want to build vs. how many they will refly.
My understanding is they've done a good job of optimizing a low cost of
building, but I'm assuming there's a sweet spot on number per year built vs.
cost.

Well, they will have Falcon Heavy starting to fly soon. That's 3X as
many first stages required for one flight.

What's also interesting to me is they've now flown 25 times in 6 years. And
are flying at a faster than ever rate.

Yep. Their cadence is starting to increase. Still have a significant
backlog to work off though.

Atlas V has flown 61 times since 2002.
Delta IV has flown 31 times since 2003.

So very quickly SpaceX will catch up on the number of Delta IV flights
(probably this year) and in a few more years, pass Atlas V.

ULA has got to be nervous.

ULA is fighting for its life right now. They've never had competition
for government launches, and their share of commercial launches has
fallen over the years since they can't compete on price with the
Russians, Chinese, and etc. I'm not sure they'll be able to survive on
1/2 of the US Government launches (assuming SpaceX gets the other half).

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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article om,
says...

On 2016-05-28 09:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

Instead of grasping for the ring of bleeding edge technology, doing what
you can with existing tech is proving to cost far less and is producing
results far faster than many engineers would have imagined (especially
after the expensive failure of X-33 and similar projects).


But isn't it NASA's role to advance the bleeding edge so that
eventually, what used to be bleeding edge becomes "off the shelf"
commercial stuff ? The problem with advancing bleeding edge is that you
have to be ready to accept high rate of failures.

But the goal of X-33 was to actually fly something. It didn't fly.
Afterwards, NASA declared that we just don't have the tech for reusable
launch vehicles. SLS will be all expendable.

A sane technology demonstrator would have one new piece of tech on it.
X-33 was packed with new tech. It was destined to fail from the very
beginning.

The politicial funding for NASA appears to be hungry to cut funding
after first failure. Imagine if SpaceX cut funding for re-entry
attempts after first failure.

I doubt that. SLS hasn't even flown once and it's not been cut. Actual
successful flights of the thing seem aren't as important as the pork
spending.

Aviation is interesting because commercial airplanes have moved from 4
"commodity" engines to using 2 "bleeding edge" engines such as when the
777 was launched.

This greatly reduces maintenance costs for airlines.

Yes, because engines became more reliable, you didn't need as many
extras on a trans-oceanic flight. And those two "bleeding edge" engines
are evolutions of every other high bypass turbofan that came before.
So, "bleeding edge" is a tad bit of an exaggeration. They are, in fact,
quite mature technology wise and are based on decades of experience with
prior engines.

Once Musk has mastered mass production of "small" rocket engines, will
we see a move towards fewer, more powerful engines ?

LOX/methane Raptor is in the plan.

BTW, dor yesterday's launch, I noticed the exhaust was not so clean and
was red. When I run my camping stove on kerosene, it produces a blue
flame and very little if any smoke. I know that my portable camping
stove is just a little bit smaller than those engines, but shouldn't
they be burning the kerosene very cleanly and producing blue flames ?

Look at the exhaust of the Saturns and Atlas. All orange flame too.

When you get to a point where you chill the kerosene down to fit a
little bit more in the tank, shouldn't drive for performance have first
gotten to have a perfect combustion to produce blue flames ?

Nope. You don't want to burn oxidizer rich in a rocket engine. It will
literally burn your engine. In fact, you often want a bit of extra fuel
to flow down the insides of the exhaust nozzle to help keep it cool.
That unburned kerosene then burns in the atmosphere, giving a large
bright distinctive exhaust.

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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article , says...

On May/25/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeff Findley wrote :
Tomorrow should be an exciting day. BEAM is set to be expanded in the
a.m. (EST) and SpaceX is scheduled to launch another comsat (and attempt
another high energy barge landing) in the p.m.

Jeff

The excitement was stretched over a few days but it was great.

I wonder though about BEAM. I'm not sure, it was only a small test
version. I don't know what would happen if you scale up. If you build a
much bigger inflatable module, would the problems they had with
inflation be bigger or easier?

Those weren't really problems so much as learning what to expect. NASA
was very cautious and only allowed a few seconds of air into BEAM at a
time. Besides, what's a few days of inflation time for a module
expected to be tested for a couple of years?

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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus