A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Sixth Falcon 9 landing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 14th 16, 01:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Sixth Falcon 9 landing


A Sixth Success! SpaceX Again Lands Rocket on a Ship at Sea
By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer. August 14, 2016 02:00am ET
http://www.space.com/33742-spacex-sa...t-landing.html

:-)

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.
  #2  
Old August 14th 16, 03:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Sixth Falcon 9 landing

On 8/14/2016 8:05 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

A Sixth Success! SpaceX Again Lands Rocket on a Ship at Sea


This is not only another success, but another data point on the path to
routine booster re-usability.

SpaceX calls these landings "Challenging" yet their recent string of
successful recoveries seems increasingly unlikely to be a statistical
fluke. It appears that SpaceX can bank on a future recovery success
rate that will be significantly better than 50%. That said, I'm willing
to stick my neck out enough to guess that, given the narrow margins
involved, they are unlikely to approach a 100% recovery success rate
anytime soon.

But how will recovery impact SpaceX future operations? After all,
waiting for good weather in the recovery area isn't compatible with
SpaceX's goal of a greatly increased launch tempo.

I will be interested to see how they deal with the certainty of future
recovery area uncooperative weather. Will they be willing to delay
launches, possibly for weeks, solely because recovery is temporarily
impossible?

When high winds or waves in the recovery area weather make recovery
unlikely, will they deliberately land boosters in the ocean rather than
suffer virtually certain damage to their recovery barge?


  #3  
Old August 14th 16, 05:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Sixth Falcon 9 landing

In article , says...

On 8/14/2016 8:05 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

A Sixth Success! SpaceX Again Lands Rocket on a Ship at Sea


This is not only another success, but another data point on the path to
routine booster re-usability.

SpaceX calls these landings "Challenging" yet their recent string of
successful recoveries seems increasingly unlikely to be a statistical
fluke. It appears that SpaceX can bank on a future recovery success
rate that will be significantly better than 50%. That said, I'm willing
to stick my neck out enough to guess that, given the narrow margins
involved, they are unlikely to approach a 100% recovery success rate
anytime soon.

But how will recovery impact SpaceX future operations? After all,
waiting for good weather in the recovery area isn't compatible with
SpaceX's goal of a greatly increased launch tempo.


You need good weather for launch, which includes relatively calm wind
speeds from the ground on up, so this is largely a non-issue. The
exception would be when the mission calls for a barge landing and ocean
conditions are rough, despite good weather for launch. How likely is
that? I'm not a weather expert, but my guess would be not likely.

I will be interested to see how they deal with the certainty of future
recovery area uncooperative weather. Will they be willing to delay
launches, possibly for weeks, solely because recovery is temporarily
impossible?


In the unlikely event that the weather is good for launch but bad for
landing, I'm guessing this is up to SpaceX and the customer to
negotiate. Even SpaceX doesn't expect to get all of their first stages
back, so losing a few to strange weather conditions (good for launch,
but bad for a barge landing) should not be an issue.

When high winds or waves in the recovery area weather make recovery
unlikely, will they deliberately land boosters in the ocean rather than
suffer virtually certain damage to their recovery barge?


Again, how likely are high winds in the recovery area, yet winds at the
launch site are calm enough to launch?

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.
  #5  
Old August 16th 16, 01:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Sixth Falcon 9 landing

On 8/14/2016 12:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
exception would be when the mission calls for a barge landing and ocean
conditions are rough, despite good weather for launch. How likely is
that?

So you are saying that the weather conditions 400 miles out in the
Atlantic will normally be the same as the coastal conditions at the
launch area? Really? If you don't know about the storms that wander
around in the Atlantic I suggest that you watch the Atlantic marine
weather reports for the next few days.

You're not a meteorologist are you?


I'm not a weather expert, but my guess would be not likely.


As another poster has already pointed out, it has already happened. In
fact, I believe that recovery area weather has been a factor in a failed
or abandoned recovery attempt at least twice so far.
  #6  
Old August 16th 16, 01:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Sixth Falcon 9 landing

In article , says...

On 8/14/2016 12:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
exception would be when the mission calls for a barge landing and ocean
conditions are rough, despite good weather for launch. How likely is
that?

So you are saying that the weather conditions 400 miles out in the
Atlantic will normally be the same as the coastal conditions at the
launch area? Really? If you don't know about the storms that wander
around in the Atlantic I suggest that you watch the Atlantic marine
weather reports for the next few days.

You're not a meteorologist are you?


I'm not a weather expert, but my guess would be not likely.


As another poster has already pointed out, it has already happened. In
fact, I believe that recovery area weather has been a factor in a failed
or abandoned recovery attempt at least twice so far.


True, but out of all of the recovery attempts so far, that's not a
horrible record.

But, if this does prove to be a huge issue, when Falcon Heavy proves
itself to be reliable, Falcon 9 payloads could be shifted to it. If a
Falcon Heavy were used for a Falcon 9 size payload, there would be
plenty of fuel reserve to fly back to Cape Canaveral for a landing of
both the boosters and the center lower stage. So in that case landing
weather would always be the same as launch weather.

The devil is in the details which method will be cheaper in the long run
for the largest of the current Falcon 9 payloads.

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.
  #7  
Old August 22nd 16, 12:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Sixth Falcon 9 landing

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 12:55:20 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...

On 8/14/2016 12:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
The
exception would be when the mission calls for a barge landing and ocean
conditions are rough, despite good weather for launch. How likely is
that?

So you are saying that the weather conditions 400 miles out in the
Atlantic will normally be the same as the coastal conditions at the
launch area? Really? If you don't know about the storms that wander
around in the Atlantic I suggest that you watch the Atlantic marine
weather reports for the next few days.

You're not a meteorologist are you?


I'm not a weather expert, but my guess would be not likely.


As another poster has already pointed out, it has already happened. In
fact, I believe that recovery area weather has been a factor in a failed
or abandoned recovery attempt at least twice so far.


True, but out of all of the recovery attempts so far, that's not a
horrible record.

But, if this does prove to be a huge issue, when Falcon Heavy proves
itself to be reliable, Falcon 9 payloads could be shifted to it. If a
Falcon Heavy were used for a Falcon 9 size payload, there would be
plenty of fuel reserve to fly back to Cape Canaveral for a landing of
both the boosters and the center lower stage. So in that case landing
weather would always be the same as launch weather.

The devil is in the details which method will be cheaper in the long run
for the largest of the current Falcon 9 payloads.

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.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...sk-s-low-costs

SpaceX has a backlog of 70 flights and is giving Boeing a run for its money..

Here's an interesting section from Julie's article;

"The alliance opted not to bid in part because entries were judged on price rather than track records. Another provision focused on cost disclosures. The criteria hadn’t been included in previous contracts and “put us at a competitive disadvantage,” Bruno said."

"Neither ULA and SpaceX make financial details public. Under Bruno, ULA has cut in half the time it takes to build and launch the Atlas V. Along with renegotiated supplier contracts, the changes reduced launch costs by about one-third from a $184 million baseline. Bruno aims to bring those costs below $100 million by 2019."

"That’s still way above the $61 million base price that SpaceX lists on its website for a launch. Musk is ramping up the pricing pressure even further by focusing on lowering operating costs, which AlixPartners estimates are already about 50 percent below those of its rivals."

Vulcan Rocket

"United Launch Alliance is preparing a new rocket, known as the Vulcan, to stay in the game. The first flight is planned by 2019."

"A version of the craft slated to debut by 2023 will offer a twist on the reusability concepts pioneered by Musk. Its upper stage, which maneuvers payloads to their final destination in space, will be able to remain in orbit for seven or eight days, far longer than the current hours-long voyages. It also would be fully reusable."

"“Eventually, it will change the way we go to space entirely,” Bruno said. He envisions space travelers journeying to a way station in low Earth orbit, where the craft will “swoop down and take you where you need to go.”"

* * *

Now, this idea of a fully reusable uppper stage, builds on Boeing's experience with the X-37B, and echoes my proposals in 1996 to NASA, the DOT, and the Clinton White House, for a fully reusable nuclear stage in orbit that operated much the same way.

At that time, I proposed the use of older SSME engines cycled out from Shuttle use, in combination with RL-10 engines, to make a TSTO-RLV that was fully reusable and landed at sea. There the first stage was refilled to a fraction of its launch propellant, and boosted back to the launch centre within minutes. Meanhile the second stage made it to orbit, released a payload, and returned.

I also proposed a nuclear bus on orbit that took hydrogen fuel brought up by the booster and took payloads anywhere you wanted in cislunar space!

https://goo.gl/rTOVMI

This programme would have cost $6 billion and resulted in radical reduction in launch costs. The orbiting nuclear thermal rocket would also allow a very low cost mission to the outer planets, including Pluto, which included capture and continued operation on those planets.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/going...y-william-mook

* * *
Here are the prices and capabilities advertised by SpaceX today;

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Here is what astronautix says about the Falcon 9, which was taken out of service at the end of 2014 after five years of operation;

LEO Payload: 10,450 kg (23,030 lb) to a 200 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
Payload: 4,540 kg (10,000 lb) to a GTO, 28 deg.

Status: Active. First Launch: 2010-06-04.
Last Launch: 2014-08-05.
Number: 11 .
Payload: 10,450 kg (23,030 lb).
Thrust: 5,560.00 kN (1,249,930 lbf).
Gross mass: 333,400 kg (735,000 lb).
Height: 55.00 m (180.00 ft).
Diameter: 3.60 m (11.80 ft).
Span: 3.60 m (11.80 ft).
Apogee: 200 km (120 mi).

Development Cost $: 378.000 million.
Launch Price $: 36.750 million in 2008 dollars in 2008 dollars.
Boost Propulsion: Lox/Kerosene.
Cruise Thrust: 66.600 kN (14,972 lbf).
Cruise Thrust: 6,800 kgf.
Cruise engine: Kestrel.
Initial Operational Capability: 2009.

Using LOX and LNG propellant costs $160 per ton. Kerosene is $700 per ton. The cost here is $55,000 in propellant at the lower price, and $300,000 at the higher price, to put up 10 metric tons. With 120 flights per ship and $36 million construction cost, the cost of capital is $300,000 as well.. A fair profit can be made at $1,000,000 to put up 10 metric tons into LEO.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com

In 2000-2001 time frame a launch occurred every 4 days at a cost of $100 million+ Had a reliable reusable rocket with the capacity to put objects up to 8 tonnes anywhere in cislunar space been available for $51 million - it is reasonable that one flight every two weeks could be sustained and generate a margin of $1,250 million per year!

The profits could be used to develop a global wireless hotspot, as has been discussed recently by Mark Zuckerberg

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101322049893211

WIth concrete steps taken by China to provide a secure wireless hotspot for the world;

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china...?trk=prof-post

Dominance in this market earns a revenue stream that if properly leveraged can back a currency, the same way the US uses OPEC oil purchased with US dollars to underpin the value of its currency. $1.77 trillion per year spent on telecom is on this scale.

The next off-world infrastructure is power satellites, as I mentioned 30 years ago as well!




 




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
Falcon 9 vertical landing [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 December 26th 15 09:01 AM
Falcon 9 Landing failure Greg \(Strider\) Moore Space Station 6 February 6th 15 07:18 PM
Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing [email protected] Policy 23 April 30th 14 01:27 AM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.