|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-06-19 11:45, Fred J. McCall wrote: Non sequitur. Go back and read what I said. Your assumptions are based on sending the barge to a failed landing and refurbiushing it after the explosion being minimal costs. I note that when called on a non sequitur response, your 'answer' is to start snipping out context. Cost of sending the barge is DIESEL FUEL. That's pretty much down in the noise. Have you LOOKED at one of these barges? Just what do you think there is for an explosion to damage? There are two cargo containers with 'support equipment'. That's it. My statement is that only accountants know this now. They have experience in how much it costs to run the barge and support ship, and they have had a few crashes to know what sort of damage is involved and how many man hours/equipment this costs. A lot of these numbers are public or easily inferred. Elon Musk in an interveiw a while back even admitted that they don't yet have all the numbers and enough data points to know whether refurbishing will be good business. The expectation is that they won't have to 'refurbish' anything. Just inspect and refly. Note that yesterday, he tweeted that he now expects 70% of landings to be succesful. But IF those statistics were broken down to 95% of ISS/LEO meissions being succesful and only 30% of GTO missions being successful, you can see that this would affect whether they bother trying to recover GTO missions to begin with. Why? I am not stating that they should or shouldn't bother. What I am saying is that they need to have statistics on how each type of mission affects recovery chances and run the numbers to see if this is a paying proposition in the long term. (and to get those numbers, they have to try as many landings as possible which is what they are doing now.) Hopefully it does turn out that the costs are low enough and success rate is high enough that they try to recover all of them. But they don't have enough numbers yet, and since the software is still evolving, the cutover between reliable landing and unreliable landing is also moving to include more "reliable" landings. Well, doh! Falcon 9 isn't a 'paper bird'. It's flying hardware. The landing part is still very much R&D. And the refurbishing of the stage 1 is also R&D. Non sequitur. But you cut all the context. The idea is that you don't need to 'refurbish' the stages. You do a quick inspection and then refly them. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No escape tower on Dragon / Falcon 9 | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | October 1st 08 04:36 AM |
No escape tower on Dragon / Falcon 9 | Dr J R Stockton[_14_] | Policy | 0 | September 30th 08 08:23 PM |