The SpaceX Thread

[PsionEdge]

Megalodon[/url]":3l3soi9m]

smartalco[/url]":3l3soi9m]I, uh, don't want to be that pilot.

That's how they recovered spy satellite film back in the day.

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

 

[Xavin]

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

 

[PsionEdge]

Xavin[/url]":364jhf4f]

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

I don't really see the US giving up their "assured access to space" policy, so unless SpaceX introduces a different rocket design (including main engine/s) there will be another US player.

 

[Jonathon]

Xavin[/url]":2yuo9ahk]

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

SLS might stand a chance, if they can get Block II off the ground (pun definitely intended ). Nothing else comes even close to its heavy-lift capacity.

Vulcan's going to be a harder sell, though. Numbers are still vague on that (from what little bits of information I've read), but it looks like they're targeting the same ballpark in terms of capacity as F9/FH, but more expensive?

 

[Xavin]

I don't really see the US giving up their "assured access to space" policy, so unless SpaceX introduces a different rocket design (including main engine/s) there will be another US player.

I kind of expect that policy to change in the era a reusable rockets. I also expect there to be successful SpaceX competitors, just not ULA or NASA.

SLS might stand a chance, if they can get Block II off the ground (pun definitely intended ). Nothing else comes even close to its heavy-lift capacity.

Barring the obvious problem that nobody has a payload that needs that kind of lift capability, even with their trademark delays, SpaceX is still so much faster than NASA that they might beat them to that tonnage. While every new rocket has its own issues to work through, the FH should ramp up pretty quickly once they actually get it flying, and all their work on smaller rockets will make the development of the MCT far faster than NASA doing their traditional thing.

 

[Statistical]

Xavin[/url]":2ziua12o]

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

I don't really see the US giving up their "assured access to space" policy, so unless SpaceX introduces a different rocket design (including main engine/s) there will be another US player.

Exactly. What ULA should really be worried about is if Blue Origin gets a booster EELV certified. Suddenly the entire rationale for ULA to even exist goes away.

 

[Megalodon]

Xavin[/url]":357qtori]Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

I think the chance of SLS flying at least some of the stock of old Shuttle engines is significant. Not out of need for assured access but basically a jobs program. After that it'll be too difficult to get money for new engines etc. Even if you accept it as a jobs program it'll need so much money just to keep even a non-flying vehicle alive that I think it'll eventually be canceled.

Jonathon[/url]":357qtori]Vulcan's going to be a harder sell, though. Numbers are still vague on that (from what little bits of information I've read), but it looks like they're targeting the same ballpark in terms of capacity as F9/FH, but more expensive?

Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

Orbital ATK is looking at a new solid booster with the new BE-3 engine for the upper stage, which may be a better design for low launch rates. The US will get assured access either way but I'd now put ULA's 10-year survival probability below SpaceX's.

Statistical[/url]":357qtori]Exactly. What ULA should really be worried about is if Blue Origin gets a booster EELV certified. Suddenly the entire rationale for ULA to even exist goes away.

Really hard to judge Blue's intentions, but there's also Orbital ATK who have been getting funding for a new upper stage and they can do the first stage with solids.

Either way, I don't think anyone is within 10 years of SpaceX except Blue, and they're 5 years behind. They can land the stage but they have the whole rest of the rocket to build, and there's a huge learning curve SpaceX has had to deal with the get a decent launch cadence going on other people's payloads. SpaceX reuse technology was hard to take seriously has a realistic near term technology even for fans like me, too much of a black swan, but they've now demonstrated a repeatable recovery method and they're going to get new stages to pay with every month or two at least. Once they've got used stages to do testing with they can move very quickly to knock down the remaining bugs.

 

[Dan Homerick]

Megalodon[/url]":3736h07c]
Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

What makes direct injection to high orbits difficult? Is it a question of delta-v? Following a flight plan precisely? Circularizing the orbit? Ground station coverage? Something else?

 

[Bad Monkey!]

Megalodon[/url]"177zqyb]

Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

I think ULA will survive, but they have to get more desperate first. They're not there yet. They need to be SpaceX circa 2008 desperate, and that's not going to happen for as long as they think they can still squeeze some more gravy out of Atlas V.

 

[new2mac]

Blue Origin may never become a launch provider. SpaceX got their first and is undercutting the market. BO won't be able to use commercial customers to finance their R&D the same way SpaceX did since SpaceX is pulling the rug on launch costs. BO will need to go into debt billions of dollars before they even have a rocket they can offer to customers, and then there's no guarantee they'll even be remotely competitive. In 5 years SpaceX could/will have economies of scale nobody can touch.

 

[Megalodon]

Dan Homerick[/url]":nhs2kxmh]What makes direct injection to high orbits difficult? Is it a question of delta-v? Following a flight plan precisely? Circularizing the orbit? Ground station coverage? Something else?

You do an elliptical transfer orbit which involves long coast phases, and there's boil off and for kerosene, gelling. Centaur is extraordinarily good at this, SpaceX doesn't currently have the capability to do it.

Bad Monkey![/url]":nhs2kxmh]I think ULA will survive, but they have to get more desperate first. They're not there yet. They need to be SpaceX circa 2008 desperate, and that's not going to happen for as long as they think they can still squeeze some more gravy out of Atlas V.

I think they already are, but the difference is with SpaceX, Musk had a controlling interest, but with ULA Boeing and LM are co-owners and their permission is needed to even fund new developments out of profits, let alone investing more money above that.

 

[new2mac]

Bad Monkey![/url]":q91w0x0o]

Megalodon[/url]":q91w0x0o]

Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

I think ULA will survive, but they have to get more desperate first. They're not there yet. They need to be SpaceX circa 2008 desperate, and that's not going to happen for as long as they think they can still squeeze some more gravy out of Atlas V.

They won't. SpaceX nailed their landing. Now they're focused on cadence. Cadence means economies of scale, therefore launch pricing that nobody will be able to match. The whole rational for multiple providers won't hold water once you a company launching dozens of rockets at a $20M a pop vs $300M a pop. With reusability SpaceX can drop the hammer on any launch provider at any time in terms of cost.

 

[UserJoe]

Megalodon[/url]":3nl3u06b]Sounds like Dragon is successfully installed on ISS.

tie[/url]":3nl3u06b]So NASA is obviously funded sufficiently well to do the same thing. The issue isn't funding, it is NASA's wasteful and dysfunctional development programs. (It's popular to blame Congress, but NASA deserves a huge amount of the blame, too.)

Blame balance is shifting more and more to congress IMO. Commercial Resupply which is the bulk of SpaceX's past NASA business is a wild success, and the only problem with Commercial Crew is that it's under funded.

Look, the chanting is a bit over the top but they are justifiably proud, and and the pride isn't hermetically sealed inside SpaceX. SpaceX happened in the US, probably could only have happened in the US.

Maybe some asked them where their rocket engines are made.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

Megalodon[/url]":172uga7q]
Really hard to judge Blue's intentions, but there's also Orbital ATK who have been getting funding for a new upper stage and they can do the first stage with solids.

I don't think Bezos is interested in .gov contracts. He wants to do private manned spaceflight. He'll sell BE-3 and BE-4 to ULA and whoever else in order to finance a man-rated Blue Origin launcher that will fly a dozen or so space tourists at a shot to Blue Origin or Bigelow branded space hotels. I'm not sure Orbital will be able to get the performance for large .gov payloads out of a solid first stage, but they might shoot for the rapid-response contract, which solids are ideally suited for.

 

[UserJoe]

Megalodon[/url]":2fize1ma]
Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

ULA does have a 100% launch success rate for 100 launches since they were formed. That level of reliability is worth something.

 

[Megalodon]

Bad Monkey![/url]":1rgq3hwq]I'm not sure Orbital will be able to get the performance for large .gov payloads out of a solid first stage, but they might shoot for the rapid-response contract, which solids are ideally suited for.

It would take two solid stages but I think they could do it, especially with BE-3 being much higher thrust than RL-10. Similar to the Ariane 6 PPH concept.

UserJoe[/url]":1rgq3hwq]

Megalodon[/url]":1rgq3hwq]But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

ULA does have a 100% launch success rate for 100 launches since they were formed. That level of reliability is worth something.

Agreed it's worth something, I'm just not sure it's worth enough to keep the company going. If they were still the only US company the govt could write them a rescue check (the "capability" funding) but nowadays SpaceX and probably Orbital ATK would contest that, and the parent companies aren't going to fund it out of pocket.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

new2mac[/url]":2tkbxcae]

Bad Monkey![/url]":2tkbxcae]

Megalodon[/url]":2tkbxcae]

Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

I think ULA will survive, but they have to get more desperate first. They're not there yet. They need to be SpaceX circa 2008 desperate, and that's not going to happen for as long as they think they can still squeeze some more gravy out of Atlas V.

They won't. SpaceX nailed their landing. Now they're focused on cadence. Cadence means economies of scale, therefore launch pricing that nobody will be able to match. The whole rational for multiple providers won't hold water once you a company launching dozens of rockets at a $20M a pop vs $300M a pop. With reusability SpaceX can drop the hammer on any launch provider at any time in terms of cost.

You don't understand what "assured access" means. Having a dozen rockets on the ground ready to go doesn't mean a thing if the whole fleet is grounded. You also seem to think Elon Musk's goal is to put everyone else out of business, which I can assure you it's not.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

PsionEdge[/url]":1e5025rl]

Xavin[/url]":1e5025rl]

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

I don't really see the US giving up their "assured access to space" policy, so unless SpaceX introduces a different rocket design (including main engine/s) there will be another US player.

Like Raptor engines in BFR.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

UserJoe[/url]":3caizrw6]

Megalodon[/url]":3caizrw6]
Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

ULA does have a 100% launch success rate for 100 launches since they were formed. That level of reliability is worth something.

They came really, really close to a failure in the most recent Atlas launch.

 

[Statistical]

UserJoe[/url]":26rs9gfl]

Megalodon[/url]":26rs9gfl]
Yes. Not to belittle that though as ULA is extremely sophisticated and can do stuff SpaceX can't do (like direct injection to high orbits). But with SpaceX stealing some of their lunches I think ULA may drop below survival levels.

ULA does have a 100% launch success rate for 100 launches since they were formed. That level of reliability is worth something.

They came really, really close to a failure in the most recent Atlas launch.

Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. ULA does have reliability going for it. That may make it wortwhile for the most expensive one of a kind national security payloads. Still that is a very niche system and hard to build a business around.

 

[PsionEdge]

Tom the Melaniephile[/url]":3nzs5eoj]

PsionEdge[/url]":3nzs5eoj]

Xavin[/url]":3nzs5eoj]

And how ULA plans to recover Vulcan engines since they aren't doing full first stage reuse.

Theoretically. Unless SpaceX has a string of setbacks, I don't think any of the planned ULA or NASA rockets will ever actually fly, the cost differential is just going to be too big to ignore.

I don't really see the US giving up their "assured access to space" policy, so unless SpaceX introduces a different rocket design (including main engine/s) there will be another US player.

Like Raptor engines in BFR.

When is that coming out again? Any launches reserved?

 

[new2mac]

new2mac[/url]":1x2588mb]

You don't understand what "assured access" means. Having a dozen rockets on the ground ready to go doesn't mean a thing if the whole fleet is grounded. You also seem to think Elon Musk's goal is to put everyone else out of business, which I can assure you it's not.

He may not mean to do so, but he will. The market will decide where to put their launches and as long as they're the cheapest around they'll push the others out in time.

 

[Barmaglot]

In order to do that, SpaceX would need to drastically reduce their own delays, something that they've failed to do so far. Instead, Intelsat and Eutelsat have recently signed deals with the Russians for 5 launches each, as a backup option in case of SpaceX and Arianespace delays - i.e., if Musk gets his act together - great, but if he doesn't - Proton it is.

 

[Megalodon]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/719776669465088000

Looks like the returning stage has arrived at Port Canaveral.

 

[Skoop]

Xavin[/url]":66oduz0d]It's still on its way, apparently they are avoiding some weather. It was originally supposed to get back Sunday.

What did you search for to get that map?

 

[Statistical]

Xavin[/url]":tgvtu0x4]It's still on its way, apparently they are avoiding some weather. It was originally supposed to get back Sunday.

What did you search for to get that map?

Pretty cool shot of Dragon and Cygnus docked side by side (first time they have both been at the ISS simultaneously)

 

[Xavin]

I think ULA will survive, but they have to get more desperate first. They're not there yet. They need to be SpaceX circa 2008 desperate, and that's not going to happen for as long as they think they can still squeeze some more gravy out of Atlas V.

You're making the assumption that they can change. There have been plenty of tech companies that were too rigid to deal with market changes that were a lot less radical than SpaceX slashing costs by 5x-10x. ULA is basically the poster child for cost plus contractor bureaucracy and that permeates their entire culture. It's not even like the brand has a reason to live on now. Some of the engineers and mid-level people might be willing and able to make the change needed, but a guarantee the upper management is not.

What did you search for to get that map?

It was on /r/spacex.

 

[Zich]

Better image of 1st stage.

http://johnkrausphotos.com/crs-8-first- ... l-12-2016/

 

[Skoop]

Speaking of reusable, today is the 35th anniversary of the first launch of a Space Shuttle.

Columbia, April 12, 1981.

 

[Staubo]

The Port Canaveral Webcam right now has a live feed of the CRS-8 first stage being unloaded. It looks like there is some sort of restraint/clamp/support system in place on the bottom of the booster now that they have it off the barge. Could be for raising and re-latching the legs into launch configuration?

 

[alterSchwede]

They posted some landing photos on their flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex

 

[Zich]

Badass

CRS-8 first stage landing by SpaceX Photos, on Flickr

 

[SuperDave]

Zich[/url]":5aj1qo4s]Badass

CRS-8 first stage landing by SpaceX Photos, on Flickr

This is beginning to feel like the sense of optimistic anticipation surrounding the space program in the 1960's when it started becoming clear that we really_were capable of sending people to the Moon, and it was actually going to happen. I believe I'll get to see the commercialization of space during my lifetime, and that's a good feeling.

 

[.劉煒]

Statistical[/url]":inz9z1q3]

So, it sounds like for some time, like a year or two, they will not allow astronauts into the BEAM at all. I assume that they will pressurize it and then keep the hatch sealed in case something happens during the test phase.

They will allow astronauts to enter but only briefly to record the condition of the module. Even after inflation the hatch will remain sealed at all times during those infrequent inspections. NASA doesn't yet consider inflatable modules to be TRL 9. One of the purposes of the BEAM experiment is to prove that the module can function as expected so that a future module could be certified for full time habitation.

Station astronauts will periodically enter the BEAM to check whether its thick yet flexible walls, which include layers of Kevlar, adequately block the twin hazards of space travel: radiation and micrometeoroids traveling faster than bullets.

“The plan is to have the hatch closed most of the time, with the crew going in and out a few times a year to collect data,” Garver said. The module will stay attached to the station for two years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

That's confusing. You'd think that Genesis I and II would have collected that basic data.

 

[tie]

Are there any plans to make the second stage recoverable? (Once the first stage can be reused, is throwing away the second stage now the largest single launch cost?)

 

[Decoherent]

Not any more. They'd initially considered it, but since the damn thing is moving at orbital velocities, the equipment necessary to slow and land it would just add too much of a performance penalty. Adding mass to upper stages just extra bad for your performance.

 

[.劉煒]

Back to barge reusability.. I wonder how bad the saltwater corrosion is going to be?

 

[Xavin]

That's confusing. You'd think that Genesis I and II would have collected that basic data.

They probably did, but I imagine NASA wants its own data before it sticks on on the station for real.

Are there any plans to make the second stage recoverable? (Once the first stage can be reused, is throwing away the second stage now the largest single launch cost?)

Very long term, but right now with the F9 there just isn't the delta v left to land. Recovering both first stages and then the middle first stage (second stage?) of the FH are the next priority, which means multiple landing pads and a barge at the same time. I expect eventually they will refuel the second stages in orbit and fly them back.

 

[MilleniX]

The best terminology I've seen for the middle booster core is 'stage 1.5'. It doesn't get its own stage number because activating it isn't a separation and ignition event of its own. Thus, it doesn't carry the substantial risks that are historically associated with staging.

 

[Dan Homerick]

I was thinking about landing the first stages from a Falcon Heavy, and one of Musk's recent comments about reentry heating. He stressed that the amount of heat went up with the cube of velocity, and something along the lines of "it really wants to melt" (This was during the post-launch NASA Q&A, I can go find the clip / exact quote if desired).

According to SpaceX's Falcon Heavy page, it will be using the same second stage as the Falcon 9 -- same thrust, and same burn time. Since the payload will be far heavier, presumably the first stage will need to be going much faster at separation. If they can't get more "free" aerodynamic braking without running into thermal issues, they'll need a longer burn prior to reentry to bleed off that extra speed.

And unless they build more drone ships the two booster cores will be returning to landing site for the Heavy. That will mean an even longer burn to kill their horizontal velocity, and they will need a higher return velocity to make up for having traveled further prior to separation (assuming a higher avg velocity on the outbound leg).

From all of that, it sounds like they may need to commit a significantly larger fraction of propellent to landing with the Heavy than they would with the 9.

Cross feed could help with recovering the booster cores, but will make the center core even more difficult to recover. It'll be interesting to see what they do with the Heavy, and whether they try to do any recovery on the first few flights. I also have to wonder whether they're starting construction on any more drone ships, now that the concept has been proven out.