|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
In article , says...
On 4/24/2018 7:10 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: I'm glad they're working on upper stage recovery. My guess is that BFR/BFS will take a bit longer than Elon's aspirational schedule products. As such, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy will remain the workhorses of SpaceX for many years to come. Anything they can do to cut their costs increases the cash they can funnel into BFR/BFS development. I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be (crew-wise) underutilized. In a perfect world, a "white knight" would step forward and say, "Look we love what you have flying already. And we want to build our own (crewed) space program around it." That WK *could* be NASA, but thanks to politics (and SLS) its likely going to have have to be either business, academia or another country. Politics makes all things complicated. But if an ally (like Australia) came forward, esp. if they not only came with a checkbook but with a request for contract to have SpaceX build an Australian launch complex with them.... But let's see what Bridenstein can pull off. I'm putting little faith in significant changes at NASA over the next 3 to 7 years. And by significant, I mean at the very least canceling SLS. What might be possible is Bigelow Aerospace finally launching a commercial station. If they do that, they'll need crew and cargo flights to keep it running. SpaceX will surely have the lowest costs, partly due to reuse of Dragon 2 and partly because they're not Boeing. 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
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
On 4/24/2018 4:36 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-04-24 14:21, David Spain wrote: I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be (crew-wise) underutilized. Unless the space station life is extended beyond 2025, FH and Dragon2 may very well remain the workhorse for mnanned space in USA. Well you and I have somewhat different opinions of workhorses. Ferry flights to ISS are all well and good. But unless an expansion of ISS in in the works a flight rate of what, about 4 flights a year is more than sufficient? What about crewed LEO trips and/or Moon flybys for touristas? For that matter a crewed scientific flyby mission to Venus? Scouting missions to Martian moons even? And unless there is real funding for manned space programme beyond ISS, nobody will see much business case to invest in manned space programme from now on, unless you go for it on your own (aka: SpaceX with BFR to Mars). Funding by whom? We're just about at that point. Which is my point. Where the "international" thing may fall in place is if SpaceX gets serius about mars and other countries want "in" on the project, supplying modules for the Mars colony or any other "help" they can provide to SpaceX. That could happen. In fact, given the current trajectory of NASA, probably even likely. But unless a place like Australia could provide a huge cost and logistics benefit to have SpaceX launch/land there, SpaceX might not be so interested when you consider transportation logistics for modules built in USA. You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Australia would hire SpaceX as a *vendor* to supply materials and technology for the *Australian* space program. Huge benefit to not having to bootstrap it all by yourself. You hire the best experts in the world. If not SpaceX, then maybe Bezos' Blue Origin would oblige. Yes it's tech transfer, but with a *buyer* whose funds (remember it has to be a *profitable* proposal for SpaceX) could finance who knows what at SpaceX? In the case of a LEO assembly/refueling spot to later go to Mars, would launching from 12°S (northern Australia) offer significant performance advantage over 28°N (Canaveral)? Some. But setting Mars aside, for the inhabitants of Oz certainly! If it helps clarify what I'm saying let's say the deal is between Australia's equiv. of NASA and Blue Origin. Just to keep Mars confusion off the table.... Dave |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
On 4/24/2018 5:54 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:36:20 -0400: On 2018-04-24 14:21, David Spain wrote: I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be (crew-wise) underutilized. Unless the space station life is extended beyond 2025, FH and Dragon2 may very well remain the workhorse for mnanned space in USA. So Boeing is irrelevant in your mind? Not to my mind. Which makes for even more infrequent flights to ISS by SpaceX. Also doesn't require crewed F9H for any of these either. And unless there is real funding for manned space programme beyond ISS, nobody will see much business case to invest in manned space programme from now on, unless you go for it on your own (aka: SpaceX with BFR to Mars). The issue here is that Bigelow seems to have jumped in bed with ULA. If that extends to ferrying supplies and 'guests' to 'space hotels', they might not let SpaceX vehicles dock. Yes. That thought had crossed my mind as well. I hope not. Where the "international" thing may fall in place is if SpaceX gets serius about mars and other countries want "in" on the project, supplying modules for the Mars colony or any other "help" they can provide to SpaceX. Or just people who want to go to Mars. If there are enough, it would make sense to launch from almost anywhere. But unless a place like Australia could provide a huge cost and logistics benefit to have SpaceX launch/land there, SpaceX might not be so interested when you consider transportation logistics for modules built in USA. I addressed this elsewhere. A contract that would allow some assembly in Australia, some would be shipped out from US. Eventually Australia might be supplying some of their own parts. Remember, BFR Spaceship can do point to point travel on Earth and land anywhere there's a big enough piece of concrete. True once that happens. But I am purposely leaving BFR (and Mars) out of it. Trying to make a case for why someone might be interested in existing F9(H) or Blue Origin hardware. Getting back to F9 and Dragon V2 specifically. Propulsive landing and landing gear were removed from Dragon V2 at NASA's behest. But if there were another 3rd party customer that wanted that capability, it'd be a way to get a customer to invest in and help pay for the testing needed to make it a reality. [snipped] I think all the inspection and such will occur at the launch site. That makes locating the facility outside the US something of an ITAR issue. I wouldn't expect Australia to be a problem, but you never know... Me either, that's why I used them as an example. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...
On 2018-04-25 07:27, Jeff Findley wrote: This makes no sense to me. ISS is the reason Dragon 2 and Starliner were both built and will be flying within a year two with crew. Not extending ISS beyond 2025 spells uncertainty for both Dragon 2 and Starliner. I was refering to any new developments. Dragon and Starliner's development costs are being paid by NASA and the flights to ISS till 2025. After that, those vehicles remain "available" if needed, but there wouldn't be any justification to build anything new since restarting Dragon or Starliner production would cost much less than designing from new. Depends if they have a destination. A Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space station could be a possible destination. And who pays for it? Do you have long term supply of space tourists willing to pay $20m each? Not many, which is why as you develop the infrastructure, you drop the price. Dragon 2 will seat 7. I believe it only needs 1 trained pilot, but let's assume 2. That's still 5 paying seats. Falcon 9 prices are falling and the price you see quoted is the one to "make a profit" SpaceX's internal prices are probably far lower. So once you sell out the $20M seats, you start to sell $15M and then $10M. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX could go even lower and still make a profit. -- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Space X 2nd stage recovery
Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018
07:39:46 -0400: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:36:20 -0400: On 2018-04-24 14:21, David Spain wrote: I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be (crew-wise) underutilized. Unless the space station life is extended beyond 2025, FH and Dragon2 may very well remain the workhorse for mnanned space in USA. So Boeing is irrelevant in your mind? And unless there is real funding for manned space programme beyond ISS, nobody will see much business case to invest in manned space programme from now on, unless you go for it on your own (aka: SpaceX with BFR to Mars). The issue here is that Bigelow seems to have jumped in bed with ULA. If that extends to ferrying supplies and 'guests' to 'space hotels', they might not let SpaceX vehicles dock. Where the "international" thing may fall in place is if SpaceX gets serius about mars and other countries want "in" on the project, supplying modules for the Mars colony or any other "help" they can provide to SpaceX. Or just people who want to go to Mars. If there are enough, it would make sense to launch from almost anywhere. I personally doubt that would happen very soon unless the flight rate of BFR/BFS tops 100 per year (which I don't think will happen for a decade or two). Despite SpaceX's pretty renderings of off-shore launch/landing platforms, launch and landing sites still aren't cheap to build. I'd think you'd need significant local investment in order to make a non-US launch site profitable. True. It would take some large group of people wanting to 'get out from under', like the Pilgrims back in the past. Something that would create an ongoing demand for launches and a combined fund to support things. On the flip side of that is the limited launch window for getting to Mars. You only get a window every couple of years, so you need to launch all your ships in that window. I think Musk's current 'plan' is to send 1-2 ships the first window in 2022 and twice as many in the next window. But unless a place like Australia could provide a huge cost and logistics benefit to have SpaceX launch/land there, SpaceX might not be so interested when you consider transportation logistics for modules built in USA. Remember, BFR Spaceship can do point to point travel on Earth and land anywhere there's a big enough piece of concrete. Yeah, paper rockets can do anything. SMH. I still have huge doubts about the whole point to point thing. The A380 took five aircraft to fly over 2000 hours in its testing phase. For BFR/BFS the same sort of times would take well over 1000 flights. That's not happening in a short period of time. Given what it is, I don't find BFR Spaceship being able to do this peculiar or unreasonable at all. If BFR Spaceship is certified under spacecraft rules for manned flight, I don't see any reason why it would require any additional testing to operate 'point to point'. That and point to point only gets BFS to another part of the world. Unless the booster can self ferry too, you still have the huge first stage to transport by ship half way around the world. That's only going to make sense if that remote site can support several Big Falcon Boosters. One is just a single point of failure for your transportation system. If it's in the hangar being worked on, it's not flying and generating revenue. You're going to have to do that to get it from LA to the launch site anyway. They're building these things in LA because they're too big to move other than by ship. That means they're going down through Suez to get to East Coast launch sites, so they're making a very long ocean voyage anyway. Will we get there? Maybe, eventually. I'm a huge SpaceX "fan boy", but let's get real. BFR/BFS hasn't even been built yet! Hell, Falcon 9 Block 5 hasn't even flown, let alone proven its reuse abilities! True, but either BFR Spaceship will have point-to-point capabilities on Earth or it will be a complete and utter failure for its intended purpose. All these visions of super cheap spaceflight are where we want to be, but it's going to take a decade or two to get there, IMHO. Until then, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy will be the "workhorses" of SpaceX. Well, I think Elon Musk is being optimistic as usual with his 'schedule'. He's said himself that five years seems like a terribly long time to him, so he thinks anything ought to be able to be done in five years. I personally think he's got around five years LEFT, so perhaps he'll get a Mars flight off in 2024. Perhaps not. -- "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space first stage recovery. | Alain Fournier[_3_] | Policy | 94 | January 30th 16 05:20 AM |
Live coverage of Falcon 9 first stage recovery attempt? | David Spain[_4_] | Policy | 0 | December 2nd 14 07:02 PM |
First-stage recovery using minimal Delta-v budget: tethered rotor-wings | Brad Guth[_3_] | Policy | 61 | May 9th 14 12:22 PM |
Airdrop Test for Space Capsule Recovery Experiment Successfully Conducted(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | August 30th 04 04:33 AM |
NASA Moves Space Shuttle Columbia Recovery Office | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 14th 03 08:11 PM |