mxaxai wrote:

moo wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.

Unfortunately it doesnt look like its going to be as substantial as Musk and SpaceX first thought - there are is a lot of talk coming out of SpaceX about just how much damage the rockets are taking on the landing, and Musk recently revised the re-use down to just two or three for each first stage. It looks like there is a lot more refurb to do with each stage they recover, and they arent proving to be as reusable as first thought. This might be something fixed in later iterations, but right now its not panning out as planned.

What kind of stresses would lead to that amount of refurb being neccessary? They are not performing reentry maneuvers like the space shuttle used to do. Airplanes flying at high speeds perform landings and take-offs every day without needing rebuilding of, say, the engines or the gear. The most stressfull stages would probably be
a) The takeoff itself and associated forces/vibrations
b) Aerodynamic forces while returning
c) Vibrations and shock during the final burn & touchdown

Are there any parts that undergo significant shape change due to e. g. fuel pressure or aero forces? Anything which uses ablating materials or is expected to lose material some other way? Those are certainly more difficult to design for multiple launches and would need to be checked after each one.

They are seeing a lot more damage and degradation to the engines and engine mounts due to heat and stress during the reentry, which means more refurbishment is necessary. Two of the recovered stages have so far been deemed unflyable, which was not expected.

Several of the ship-landed rockets were reported to be at, or very near to, the max "crush force" the landing legs could handle ...

Would be interesting to find out the difference between ship landed, and ground landed, and the various achieved orbits vs landing damage (it's all it how much energy you dissipate before going THUD)

They are going to have to find a way to reduce reentry thermal loading somehow. They have several options from reducing the payload weight limit for recoverable launches to reserve more fuel to burn to reduce reentry speed, to changing the reentry profile for more aerobraking against the rocket body during descent to coming up with an additional method of braking on reentry.

I still happen to believe that they need to find a way do do more deceleration via air resistance, but in a more gradual way, and fly with some sort of flight surface to return to the pad.

Reducing entry speeds.Small Supersonic drogue shoot? Probably not.I think they use them on Mars entries.
If they can get X3 uses ( with 100% reliability)it's gotta be worth it.
Also it may be that ( plus X3) some parts can be reused on new builds as they do not deteriorate as fast .But that's just a guess.
As a general point.If they can (and there is no reason to believe the opposite) get high reliability it's hard to see how anyone can compete with them in the long term.Others are (having)reducing their costs but they still can't match his prices.
They may be 'simple' engines and not the most efficient but a bit like a Ford it's 'good enough' and that's all that matters.

Update regarding the Dragon V2 program:

Later this year, as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, we will launch our Crew Dragon (Dragon Version 2) spacecraft to the International Space Station. This first demonstration mission will be in automatic mode, without people on board. A subsequent mission with crew is expected to fly in the second quarter of 2018. SpaceX is currently contracted to perform an average of four Dragon 2 missions to the ISS per year, three carrying cargo and one carrying crew. By also flying privately crewed missions, which NASA has encouraged, long-term costs to the government decline and more flight reliability history is gained, benefiting both government and private missions.

Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth. Lift-off will be from Kennedy Space Center’s historic Pad 39A near Cape Canaveral – the same launch pad used by the Apollo program for its lunar missions. This presents an opportunity for humans to return to deep space for the first time in 45 years and they will travel faster and further into the Solar System than any before them.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/s ... -next-year

KarelXWB wrote:

Update regarding the Dragon V2 program:

Later this year, as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, we will launch our Crew Dragon (Dragon Version 2) spacecraft to the International Space Station. This first demonstration mission will be in automatic mode, without people on board. A subsequent mission with crew is expected to fly in the second quarter of 2018. SpaceX is currently contracted to perform an average of four Dragon 2 missions to the ISS per year, three carrying cargo and one carrying crew. By also flying privately crewed missions, which NASA has encouraged, long-term costs to the government decline and more flight reliability history is gained, benefiting both government and private missions.

Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA, SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the moon and return to Earth. Lift-off will be from Kennedy Space Center’s historic Pad 39A near Cape Canaveral – the same launch pad used by the Apollo program for its lunar missions. This presents an opportunity for humans to return to deep space for the first time in 45 years and they will travel faster and further into the Solar System than any before them.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/s ... -next-year

Key thing here I think is "2018". Not far off and a lot of work to do in the meantime - Wow!. Just a hunch here but I think Trump has something to do with this. I think he'd like to see a US space spectacular in his first term.

zanl188 wrote:

Key thing here I think is "2018". Not far off and a lot of work to do in the meantime - Wow!. Just a hunch here but I think Trump has something to do with this. I think he'd like to see a US space spectacular in his first term.

The "a lot of work to do in the meantime" is an understatement to be sure . 2018 seems to be a very close deadline for an endeavour which involves two components which have yet to fly - the Dragon 2 and the Falcon Heavy. And I am willing to put money on not seeing a Falcon Heavy launch this year...

moo wrote:

And I am willing to put money on not seeing a Falcon Heavy launch this year...

Where are all these Falcon Heavy delays coming from?

KarelXWB wrote:

moo wrote:

And I am willing to put money on not seeing a Falcon Heavy launch this year...

Where are all these Falcon Heavy delays coming from?

Where are all the *Falcon* delays coming from? So far we have had three delayed this year (and no, Im not counting aborted launches, I'm talking about stuff like the Echostar23 launch, which was supposed to happen today and now won't happen until 12th March, and thats with the payload having been shipped to SpaceX in December)...

Musk wanted a good tempo for SpaceX launches this year, and so far they haven't kept it - and now Musk is saying they will fly a manned capsule around the moon in 2018, I simply just don't believe it.

And we have yet to see a first stage being reused, with that mission (SES 10) being pushed back and now not having a set date.

I note that the Mars/Dragon launch has also been put back two years (2020) to the next possible launch window.Highly expected.
They have however reiterated the 2017 test launch of the F heavy.I do think may happen.But we shall see.

BTW on this moon (and other earth orbit missions) does the dragon capsule 'soft land' each time using its engines?

Sorry super dumb question.The apollo capsule had a thwacking great engine on the back to return the 3 astronauts from moon to earth.The Dragon system does not have one.So how do they leave the moons gravity?
Are they going to try and get so close that they 'sling shot'.Cant see it myself.Must have missed something here!

parapente wrote:

Sorry super dumb question.The apollo capsule had a thwacking great engine on the back to return the 3 astronauts from moon to earth.The Dragon system does not have one.So how do they leave the moons gravity?
Are they going to try and get so close that they 'sling shot'.Cant see it myself.Must have missed something here!

That alone indicates that SpaceX intend a free return trajectory, and just loop around the moon in a similar fashion to Apollo 13 (which couldnt use its service module engine).

It will be a free return trajectory. Crew Dragon cannot land on the moon because the thrusters are not powerful enough.

Have a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comment ... lysis_for/

Thx.I had forgorren about Apollo 13.Well helluva trip for someone(s)!
I was very young at the moon landing and my children have never had that sort of excitement so hope it all goes to plan.

As a marketing sidethought.
We know about RB,s up and down plans,and indeed the same for 'Blue Shepherd '.Personally this sort of 'high altitude' ride leaves me somewhat cold.Sort of a 'Mmm big deal'.But orbiting our planet.Looking down or indeed looking around with a little time on ones hands.Now how fantastic would that be!
So (for me) if there was a opportunity to take say 4 people up for a few hours/orbits I think that would be far more commercially appealing than the 'up and down' routes the others are spending their time on.
As far as I know he has not offered this yet,but if he is prepared to do Moon shots' then orbits would be a piece of cake and I imagine far safer and cheaper (radiation and the sheer amount of time a moon shot takes).

The debut of the Falcon Heavy is not expected to take place until the latter part of the year and is currently believed to be without a specific payload.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03 ... 40-return/

Lot's of updates in that article.

KarelXWB wrote:

The debut of the Falcon Heavy is not expected to take place until the latter part of the year and is currently believed to be without a specific payload.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03 ... 40-return/

Lot's of updates in that article.

So Falcon Heavy has slipped again, from Q2 to "latter part of the year"...

And they expect to do a trans-lunar injection with it next year?

moo wrote:

And they expect to do a trans-lunar injection with it next year?

With paying passengers!! That seems just crazy.

Any idea why they're not trying to land the first stage on the next launch? Too fast? Not enough fuel?

Francoflier wrote:

moo wrote:

And they expect to do a trans-lunar injection with it next year?

With paying passengers!! That seems just crazy.

Any idea why they're not trying to land the first stage on the next launch? Too fast? Not enough fuel?

It's going to a geostationary orbit, which takes more fuel + further down range so they can't land.

SpaceX lit up something pretty big last night in MacGregor. Probably a three minute burn. Rattled my windows and I am about 20 miles from the test site.

A nice update on the Dragon 2 life support systems:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/eclss-put- ... w-missions

aviationaware wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

moo wrote:

And they expect to do a trans-lunar injection with it next year?

With paying passengers!! That seems just crazy.

Any idea why they're not trying to land the first stage on the next launch? Too fast? Not enough fuel?

It's going to a geostationary orbit, which takes more fuel + further down range so they can't land.

Rather, its going to a specific Geostationary Transfer Orbit, the position of which (to service Brazil) requires too much from the first stage.

Not all GTO missions preclude a loss of the stage - SpaceX has tried a landing with 5 GTO missions so far, with 3 successes as a result, so they can indeed recover the first stage from particular GTO missions.

moo wrote:

Not all GTO missions preclude a loss of the stage - SpaceX has tried a landing with 5 GTO missions so far, with 3 successes as a result, so they can indeed recover the first stage from particular GTO missions.

Thanks for clarifying! I wonder if the upgrades they made to the launch complex at Cape Canaveral will really enable them to up finally the launch cadence.

moo wrote:

So Falcon Heavy has slipped again, from Q2 to "latter part of the year"...

And they expect to do a trans-lunar injection with it next year?

I don't get why everybody is getting so worked up about the lunar flyby. Musk said they have 2 years left to prepare for it.

That is to say, having followed SpaceX for over a decade now, I have long since gotten in the habit of taking any time estimate Musk gives and doubling it. Musk might have said 2018, but it registered in my brain as 2019.

KarelXWB wrote:

Where are all these Falcon Heavy delays coming from?

I think mainly due to the fact that basically everything else the company is doing is a higher priority. Hopefully with the Amos-6 failure investigation mostly wrapped up, which really sucked up a lot of their attention, things start to settle into a consistent pattern.

KarelXWB wrote:

It will be a free return trajectory. Crew Dragon cannot land on the moon because the thrusters are not powerful enough.

The SuperDraco thrusters actually have plenty of power, but not enough fuel. They were designed to outrun a failing Falcon 9 and can accelerate a full Dragon 2 at over 6 G. The Lunar Module Descent Propulsion System was only capable of 0.65 G (lunar gravity is only 0.165 G) and that only when the fuel was nearly depleted. The difference is the Lunar Module DPS had 4.5 times as much fuel and was over 25% more efficient due to not being as space constrained in its design.

moo wrote:

Two of the recovered stages have so far been deemed unflyable, which was not expected.

At least one of those they weren't even sure would be recovered. They knew they were pushing the thermal limits on the GTO missions. I think they had some hope of reusing them, but were not counting on it, and even recovering them only became an option with the latest upgrades to the Falcon.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I still happen to believe that they need to find a way do do more deceleration via air resistance, but in a more gradual way, and fly with some sort of flight surface to return to the pad.

That's a lot harder than it sounds. Heating peaks well before aero forces do. There are always going to be missions that don't leave enough margin for recovery.

The Falcon Heavy might alter that though. The question there will be whether it's cheaper to refurbish 3 stages than it is to throw away one, in which case they might bump some payloads that could be launched by a Falcon 9 to the Falcon Heavy.

iamlucky13 wrote:

The Falcon Heavy might alter that though. The question there will be whether it's cheaper to refurbish 3 stages than it is to throw away one, in which case they might bump some payloads that could be launched by a Falcon 9 to the Falcon Heavy.

Especially since lighter payloads would take a much lighter toll on the Falcon Heavy stages, engines and would mean less traumatic re-entries and landing which would hopefully make them cheaper to refurbish.

The cost equations that SpaceX must go through would be quite interesting to see.

iamlucky13 wrote:

moo wrote:

So Falcon Heavy has slipped again, from Q2 to "latter part of the year"...

And they expect to do a trans-lunar injection with it next year?

I don't get why everybody is getting so worked up about the lunar flyby. Musk said they have 2 years left to prepare for it.

That is to say, having followed SpaceX for over a decade now, I have long since gotten in the habit of taking any time estimate Musk gives and doubling it. Musk might have said 2018, but it registered in my brain as 2019.

I'm not particularly worked up about the lunar flyby, its a great goal to have and if they achieve it I will applaud them.

However, its a goal that is currently dependent on a rocket that has yet to fly and a crew capsule that has yet to fly.

The Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly in 2015, and has been continually put back time and again - it has thus far lost three launch contracts it had, with the customers getting upset about the delays and going elsewhere. It has still yet to fly, and indeed we have yet to see any full-stack testing of a FH so there may be further delays down the road before we see one fly (its not as simple as putting three Falcon 9's together, it introduces new stresses, new acoustic problems, new vibration problems etc).

Musk wanted to put some PR out there the day after NASA was told to investigate doing the exact same mission profile - thats the *entirety* of Musks announcement. He currently has no hardware to do it with, he is simply winging it.

Musk is going to get bitten because he wanted a PR soundbite. I will put money on it.

Very interesting discussions. Regarding the visibility value of slinging a pair of homo sapiens by the moon again, it's also a pretty motivating goal to point the engineers at.

I didn't know Falcon Heavy had lost several launch contracts.

What SpaceX presently requires most of all is a string of successful payload deliveries to the point that it becomes routine and insurance premiums get adjusted accordingly.

iamlucky13 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

It will be a free return trajectory. Crew Dragon cannot land on the moon because the thrusters are not powerful enough.

The SuperDraco thrusters actually have plenty of power, but not enough fuel. They were designed to outrun a failing Falcon 9 and can accelerate a full Dragon 2 at over 6 G. The Lunar Module Descent Propulsion System was only capable of 0.65 G (lunar gravity is only 0.165 G) and that only when the fuel was nearly depleted. The difference is the Lunar Module DPS had 4.5 times as much fuel and was over 25% more efficient due to not being as space constrained in its design.

For an impressive illustration of this, see also:
Dragon V2 Pad Abort Test, May 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

And lastly, simple news.
Static fire of Falcon 9 just completed.Targeting
EchoStar XXIII launch from @NASA's Kennedy Space Center on Mar. 14, early morning EDT.
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/839981566054998017

moo wrote:

Musk wanted to put some PR out there the day after NASA was told to investigate doing the exact same mission profile - thats the *entirety* of Musks announcement. He currently has no hardware to do it with, he is simply winging it.

Musk is going to get bitten because he wanted a PR soundbite. I will put money on it.

You know that you are not supposed to question Musk's abilities. Just checking.

I am still curios about who these passengers are. Are they couple or someone try to get away from their spouses.

I think Facebook should invest a little and get the livestream going on this adventure. Just in case the sling shot doesn't go as planned.

moo wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

I don't get why everybody is getting so worked up about the lunar flyby. Musk said they have 2 years left to prepare for it.

I'm not particularly worked up about the lunar flyby, its a great goal to have and if they achieve it I will applaud them.

I know. It was a clumsy lead in on my part to the joke about Musk Time.

Musk is going to get bitten because he wanted a PR soundbite. I will put money on it.

I'd say losing the customers was the bite. I also can only assume the continuous schedule slides are reducing demand for the regular Falcon 9, and I expect SpaceX is paying penalties on at least some of these launches.

At some point, SpaceX needs to settle into a regular cadence. Their order book is large enough they can't really get away with operating like a startup doing R&D anymore. I also expect getting there will bring their prices up a little bit closer to their competitors (they're already well above their originally planned $27 million per launch). That said, while I frequently tire of over-exuberance about SpaceX, I'm really impressed with what they've accomplished so far - 28 successful launches without the benefit of decades of institutional knowledge and refinement like ULA has. They managed 8 launches last year, and not only have they done the first operational powered stage landing in history, but they stuck the last 4 attempts in a row.

SeJoWa wrote:

For an impressive illustration of this, see also:
Dragon V2 Pad Abort Test, May 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

It actually slightly underperformed in that test. They also still have the in-flight abort test to perform, which will be even more impressive.

Musk did say they 'were not from Hollywood' which I guess rules out self confessed space nut Tom Hanks.

My bet is on the google guys.

Next launch tonight! No return to sender.

10:34 p.m. Pacific Time the "old version" Falcon 9 will launch the EchoStar 23 satellite from 39A at KSC.

http://www.space.com/36023-spacex-echos ... esday.html

Tugg

Hoh well.

"Standing down due to high winds; working toward next available launch opportunity."

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/841523445636583425

SeJoWa wrote:

Hoh well.

"Standing down due to high winds; working toward next available launch opportunity."

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/841523445636583425

1:35 A.M EDT Thursday. Weather looks good for now.

casinterest wrote:

1:35 A.M EDT Thursday. Weather looks good for now.

I'll be watching!

Tugg

I'm really curious to see how Space X is going to pull off an Apollo 8 style mission in a year. I am assuming they are doing it for the 50th Anniversary.

I hope they pull it off.

Tugger wrote:

Next launch tonight! No return to sender.

10:34 p.m. Pacific Time the "old version" Falcon 9 will launch the EchoStar 23 satellite from 39A at KSC.

Same version, just no landing hardware included.

The payload is reported to be 5500kg. SpaceX claims 8200kg GTO capacity for the Falcon 9. It looks like recovery requires somewhere in the ballpark of a 1/3 reduction in payload for GTO mission.

Congrats with another successful launch, SpaceX! Does anyone know if this booster has flown previously?

JetBuddy wrote:

Congrats with another successful launch, SpaceX! Does anyone know if this booster has flown previously?

No it hasnt, the first previously flown booster to re-fly should do so on the next mission, assuming no more delays and schedule movements.

Watched the webcast post launch - they always find something interesting to say.

Smooth launch and satellite deployment, money in the kitty. Rinse, repeat.

SpaceX needs many more of these low drama, successful missions.

Very pretty and smooth. Positively boring!

Hope for many more of that type of launch.

Tugg

Question.
There is a plethora of companies developing systems for small satellite launches (plus some already in existence).
Spasex has the Falcon1.Over the last few years the performance of the Falcon engine has also improved enormously making it far more efficient.
Yet
Spacex have cancelled this programme way back stating lack of demand.
Why then are other companies perusing this so called market.If it existed I am sure Spacex could easily dominate it with their low cost platform.
Someone is wrong here -no?

parapente wrote:

Question.
There is a plethora of companies developing systems for small satellite launches (plus some already in existence).
Spasex has the Falcon1.Over the last few years the performance of the Falcon engine has also improved enormously making it far more efficient.
Yet
Spacex have cancelled this programme way back stating lack of demand.
Why then are other companies perusing this so called market.If it existed I am sure Spacex could easily dominate it with their low cost platform.
Someone is wrong here -no?

A company doesn't have to cover the entire market - Airbus and Boeing don't cover the entire aviation market top end to bottom end.

SpaceX is actually largely funded by NASA with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Service contracts, which it couldnt fulfill with the Falcon 1, and they also couldn't achieve the goal of reuse with the Falcon 1, so it was dropped after it proved the Merlin engine (not sure what you were talking about with regard a "Falcon engine", their engines are Kestrel, Merlin and Raptor) and they immediately moved on to the Falcon 9, with which they can fulfill their NASA contracts...

SpaceX want growth - they have larger rockets in the pipeline, and that is the market they want to corner. With larger rockets they can still launch smaller payloads (see the India launch earlier this month), they simply have more options.

So no, nothing is wrong, they just want to be the Mercedes of the launch vehicle market, not the Toyota.

Thank you good reply.Sorry getting engine names wrong.I was simply thinking that it could be an addition stream of revenue.But as you say best to be good at one thing rather than a jack of all.They have plenty on their plate getting the 'heavy' launched.
Never seen a rocket launch.Would love to watch a Falcon Heavy go up,would a sight I am sure.

parapente wrote:

Question.
There is a plethora of companies developing systems for small satellite launches (plus some already in existence).
Spasex has the Falcon1.Over the last few years the performance of the Falcon engine has also improved enormously making it far more efficient.
Yet
Spacex have cancelled this programme way back stating lack of demand.
Why then are other companies perusing this so called market.If it existed I am sure Spacex could easily dominate it with their low cost platform.
Someone is wrong here -no?

Yes like Moo said it all depends on the market you can/want to cover. Micorsats to smallsats is a different market. I will add that I think the smart way to deliver this class/market would be by railgun launch! No booster recovery needed, no need to lift fuel along with the payload, just the "second stage" (deployment stage?) and payload. Someday.....

And I could see Spacex doing that someday (such a system would be very useful in places like Mars... a long time from now).

Oh and I must admit I have not seen SpaceX written as "Spasex"... (Space Sex? Spa Sex? ) but I don't think I'll see the same again from now on. Funny!

Tugg

iamlucky13 wrote:

At least one of those they weren't even sure would be recovered. They knew they were pushing the thermal limits on the GTO missions. I think they had some hope of reusing them, but were not counting on it, and even recovering them only became an option with the latest upgrades to the Falcon.

One of the ones they lost, it ran out of fuel literally feet above the drone ship ... gravity took hold, and it landed too heavy for the legs to support it (there's a picture somewhere of the wreckage with the rocket nozzles curled up like flower petals).

The one that actually landed (much to their surprise) was down to its last seconds of fuel, and landed heavy enough that it maxed out the compressible parts of the strut assemblies .... e.g., it was a hair thin piece away from repeating the above kaboom.

That's the one you saw come back in leaning at a considerable angle, after it was secured down on deck.

SpaceX successfully recovered the latest Dragon capsule.


CRS-10 Dragon by SpaceX, on Flickr

KarelXWB wrote:

SpaceX successfully recovered the latest Dragon capsule.


CRS-10 Dragon by SpaceX, on Flickr

I do think that the Dragon cargo capsule is a bit of an unsung hero in this, because its actually providing a wealth of info with each trip - its fully pressurised, and the return trip is kept within human-rated limits, so its basically a test of a crewed capsule each time it flies and lands. No one else is doing this, and its invaluable information for SpaceX's crewed capsule ambitions!

I hadn't thought of that, though "no one else is doing this" obviously applies to the US.

The Dragon looks well worn. Nice.

SeJoWa wrote:

I hadn't thought of that, though "no one else is doing this" obviously applies to the US.

The Dragon looks well worn. Nice.

Can you name another country that's landing uncrewed cargo capsules?

I was thinking that having actual, breathing bioware inside during reentry and touchdown wasn't a disqualifying condition!