• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

SpaceX Falcon 9 Return to Flight: Iridium NEXT Mission 1 launch

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ErnieMcCracken

Member
Amazes me every time they pull this off. My daughter is watching with me and she doesn't yet appreciate how amazing this is (she's 6). She loves space though.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Ether_Snake said:
I'm still doubtful about the whole idea of re-using boosters. It seems unlikely that the things could be re-used nearly integrally more than once or twice at best.
Click to expand...

Well, that design idea comes with many drawbacks.

It's not really the "next step" in astronautical engineering but more a different approach.
 
D

DrEvil

not a medical professional
Ether_Snake said:
I'm still doubtful about the whole idea of re-using boosters. It seems unlikely that the things could be re-used nearly integrally more than once or twice at best.
Click to expand...


Hey once or twice is still saving approx $35 million per launch.
 
C

clav

Member
Best 1st stage landing footage by far.

What happens to the 2nd stage engines? Are they simply tossed away into orbit?
 
blu

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Watching it all from the 1st-stage POV was one of those moments that show how much computers expand our abilities as a species.
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
DrEvil said:
Hey once or twice is still saving approx $35 million per launch.
Click to expand...

But there are costs to make it possible to land it, and more costs to support its re-usability. I doubt that number is valid. Likely still a lower cost than building a new one, but the less you can re-use the booster the lower the ROI is. I'd think you'd need some serious research in new materials to limit wear to maximize re-usability. I still think more focus should be placed on finding new ways of putting things in space, but it looks like we're in a catch-up phase, to me what Space X is doing now is probably where we should have been in the 90s.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Ether_Snake said:
But there are costs to make it possible to land it, and more costs to support its re-usability. I doubt that number is valid. Likely still a lower cost than building a new one, but the less you can re-use the booster the lower the ROI is. I'd think you'd need some serious research in new materials to limit wear to maximize re-usability.
Click to expand...

Are you dismissing all of this based on nothing more than your own personal incredulity?
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Ether_Snake said:
But there are costs to make it possible to land it, and more costs to support its re-usability. I doubt that number is valid. Might still be a gain, but the less you can re-use the booster the lower the ROI is. I'd think you'd need some serious research in new materials to limit wear to maximize re-usability.
Click to expand...

The numbers are indeed pretty much bullshit.

Main reason why SpaceX wants resuable boosters is just that they are supposed to launch missions like crazy. They would run out of boosters pretty fast based on the projected amount of missions in the future - there is a lack of production capacities.
 
T

Talka

Member
PdotMichael said:
The numbers are indeed pretty much bullshit.

Main reason why SpaceX wants resuable boosters is just that they are supposed to launch missions like crazy. They would run out of boosters pretty fast based on the projected amount of missions in the future - there is a lack of production capacities.
Click to expand...

The thing that confuses me is that the launch vessel is often by far the cheapest part of launching a payload. A payload might cost billions of dollars to construct. Saving $30M on a used booster to get it into orbit just isn't that big a deal, especially if SpaceX proves to be less reliable than its competitors.

My numbers might be off, I don't remember the details. There was an Economist article about this last year.
 
E

ErnieMcCracken

Member
Talka said:
The thing that confuses me is that the launch vessel is often by far the cheapest part of launching a payload. A payload might cost billions of dollars to construct. Saving $30M on a used booster to get it into orbit just isn't that big a deal, especially if SpaceX proves to be less reliable than its competitors.

My numbers might be off, I don't remember the details. There was an Economist article about this last year.
Click to expand...

$30 million per launch adds up over time. If they're able to reuse them a couple of times it can bring down the per launch cost which is even more appealing. As long as it proves reliable why not do it?
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Talka said:
The thing that confuses me is that the launch vessel is often by far the cheapest part of launching a payload. A payload might cost billions of dollars to construct. Saving $30M on a used booster to get it into orbit just isn't that big a deal, especially if SpaceX proves to be less reliable than its competitors.

My numbers might be off, I don't remember the details. There was an Economist article about this last year.
Click to expand...

I don't think Space Launch System will be cheap :D
 
V

Vincent Alexander

Member
It always amazes me how much work has to be put into whatever calculations just to make sure when the rocket launches, it doesn't just flop to the side and rocket itself back into the ground. Like...how they keep that thing going up in such a steady line.
 
Larogue

Larogue

Member
Talka said:
The thing that confuses me is that the launch vessel is often by far the cheapest part of launching a payload. A payload might cost billions of dollars to construct. Saving $30M on a used booster to get it into orbit just isn't that big a deal, especially if SpaceX proves to be less reliable than its competitors.

My numbers might be off, I don't remember the details. There was an Economist article about this last year.
Click to expand...

Falcon 9 is pretty reliable with success rate of 27 out of 28. I think that is unmatched reliability.

edit: its 28 not only 20 if you count the full thrust one
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Second burn and shutdown of Stage 2 just happened. Satellite deployment will start in 7 minutes.

Tacitus_ said:
Ariane 5 has a record of 86/90 and two of the failures were only partial.
Click to expand...

To be fair, what SpaceX are doing is far in advance of what Ariane are using in terms of technologies. They and the likes of ULA are only now considering re-use (so evidently, its something Musk's competition see as a good thing) - As such SpaceX are years ahead of their rivals. When Falcon Heavy launches, they will have the most powerful rocket in use today until SLS launches.

All from a company that has only been launching rockets in 10 years. Ariane has been doing that since 1979.
 
T

Tacitus_

Member
Dan27 said:
To be fair, what SpaceX are doing is far in advance of what Ariane are using in terms of technologies. They and the likes of ULA are only now considering re-use (so evidently, its something Musk's competition see as a good thing) - As such SpaceX are years ahead of their rivals. When Falcon Heavy launches, they will have the most powerful rocket in use today until SLS launches.

All from a company that has only been launching rockets in 10 years. Ariane has been doing that since 1979.
Click to expand...

Of course, they are to be commended on tackling this issue. It is just a bit early to call their rockets unmatched in reliability.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Dan27 said:
Second burn and shutdown of Stage 2 just happened. Satellite deployment will start in 7 minutes.



To be fair, what SpaceX are doing is far in advance of what Ariane are using in terms of technologies. They and the likes of ULA are only now considering re-use (so evidently, its something Musk's competition see as a good thing) - As such SpaceX are years ahead of their rivals. When Falcon Heavy launches, they will have the most powerful rocket in use today until SLS launches.

All from a company that has only been launching rockets in 10 years. Ariane has been doing that since 1979.
Click to expand...

Ariane is running circles around the Falcon 9 in capacities.

What are you talking?
The actual Falcon 9 doesn't even provide the same payload as the very first Ariane.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Tacitus_ said:
Of course, they are to be commended on tackling this issue. It is just a bit early to call their rockets unmatched in reliability.
Click to expand...

Yep, true. I was trying to put perspective into how one company has different philosophies than another. And experience also counts.


PdotMichael said:
Ariane is running circles around the Falcon 9 in capacities.

What are you talking?
The actual Falcon 9 doesn't even provide the same payload as the very first Ariane.
Click to expand...

Really? Ariane 1 did 1400kg to LEO, 1850kg to GTO (source), The first Falcon 9 variant did 10,450kg to LEO, 4540kg to GTO (source). Are you feeling ok?
 
O

Oriel

Member
I wouldn't be comparing the F9 to the Ariane 5. A better comparison would be between the F9 and Ariane 1. Each successive Ariane rocket has been an iterative upgrade. The Ariane 1 had two launch failures out of a total of 11. As the Falcon family of launchers is continuously refined and upgraded you'll begin seeing a launch success rate of that presently enjoyed by the Ariane and Atlus families.
 
B

Blizzard

Banned
Larogue said:
Falcon 9 is pretty reliable with success rate of 27 out of 28. I think that is unmatched reliability.

edit: its 28 not only 20 if you count the full thrust one
Click to expand...
I think that should be 25 out of 28 (there was also a payload lost in low orbit and a payload destroyed in a test fire) if I'm reading the list correctly. It's still a decent success rate for satellites.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Oriel said:
I wouldn't be comparing the F9 to the Ariane 5. A better comparison would be between the F9 and Ariane 1. Each successive Ariane rocket has been an iterative upgrade. The Ariane 1 had two launch failures out of a total of 11. As the Falcon family of launchers is continuously refined and upgraded you'll begin seeing a launch success rate of that presently enjoyed by the Ariane and Atlus families.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I think that was the point I was trying to make. You put it better.
 
O

Oriel

Member
PdotMichael said:
The actual Falcon 9 doesn't even provide the same payload as the very first Ariane.
Click to expand...

Well, this is patently untrue. The Ariane 1 had a payload to LEO of 1,400 kg, the Falcon 9 FT to LEO of 22,800 kg. Even the Ariane 5 struggles to match this performance.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Dan27 said:
Really? Ariane 1 did 1400kg to LEO, 1850kg to GTO (source), The first Falcon 9 variant did 10,450kg to LEO, 4540kg to GTO (source). Are you feeling ok?
Click to expand...

Bang, I was talking about the Ariane 5 series. Comparing a 2017 launch vehicle with 70s vintage technolgy would be indeed too much.

And the Falcon FT when using its resuable booster is at 5300kg payload for GTO missions. That is the big trade-off when using resuable boosters, the payload trade-off is pretty big.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
PdotMichael said:
Bang, I was talking about the Ariane 5 series. Comparing a 2017 launch vehicle with 70s vintage technolgy would be indeed too much.

And the Falcon FT when using its resuable booster is at 5300kg payload for GTO missions. That is the big trade-off when using resuable boosters, the payload trade-off is pretty big.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is why Falcon Heavy will soon exist :) - Ariane are awesome, And '5 is an outstanding workhorse.

I'm a huge fan of Space in general - of SpaceX, Ariane, ULA, hell even Roscosmos ;) I want to see competition between them all drive us forward in terms of Space. It seems it all slowed down after the last Shuttle landed :/
 
O

Oriel

Member
PdotMichael said:
Bang, I was talking about the Ariane 5 series. Comparing a 2017 launch vehicle with 70s vintage technolgy would be indeed too much.

And the Falcon FT when using its resuable booster is at 5300kg payload for GTO missions. That is the big trade-off when using resuable boosters, the payload trade-off is pretty big.
Click to expand...

SpaceX have stated that if they need the extra performance for higher payload they can go fully disposable that matches . It's not an issue. That's the beauty of SpaceX's business plan, they provide OPTIONS to their customers that other launch providers don't offer.

And let's not forget the Falcon Heavy coming down the line.

Dan27 said:
Yep, this is why Falcon Heavy will soon exist :) - Ariane are awesome, And '5 is an outstanding workhorse.

I'm a huge fan of Space in general - of SpaceX, Ariane, ULA, hell even Roscosmos ;) I want to see competition between them all drive us forward in terms of Space. It seems it all slowed down after the last Shuttle landed :/
Click to expand...

I would actually argue, perhaps controversially, that the introduction of the Space Shuttle set back spaceflight by many decades. Expensive, technically challenging and dangerous, it wasn't what the US space program needed. Thankfully we seem to be getting back on track with new spacecrafts (Dragon V2, Starliners, Orion) that go back to the tried and trusted capsule design.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Oriel said:
I would actually argue, perhaps controversially, that the introduction of the Space Shuttle set back spaceflight by many decades. Expensive, technically challenging and dangerous, it wasn't what the US space program needed. Thankfully we seem to be getting back on track with new spacecrafts (Dragon V2, Starliners, Orion) that go back to the tried and trusted capsule design.
Click to expand...

The more I read about the Shuttle, the more I'm amazed at the balls of anyone who flew on it, to be honest. Especially with regards to Abort scenarios.

Just in case you (or anyone else) hasn't read it, Into The Black is an outstanding book documenting the story behind the creation of the Space Shuttle, the US Cold War reconnoissance program and the post-Apollo astronaut program culminating in the first Shuttle mission - the mission I think was the ballsiest space mission ever flown.

Well worth it!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpaceX will try to launch most powerful rocket ever Monday
2 3 4 5
217
12K
Tams replied
NASA - SpaceX Crew-1 Mission - Launch Sunday 7:27pm EST
Event 2
80
4K
ManaByte replied
SpaceX puts an additional 60 Starlink satellites into orbit
2
829
Stiflers Mom replied
[The Verge] SpaceX lands all three Falcon Heavy rocket boosters for the first time ever
1
460
CrankyJay™ replied
Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin made pioneering spaceflight 60 years ago
7
3K
ArtemisClydeFrog replied
Top Bottom