EPTLast second scrubs are expensive, certainly, but not nearly as much as if whatever happened, happened in the air. Flight computers are finicky things, that's for sure - it wouldn't surprise me if this took a while to get to the bottom of.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 128
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last second scrubs are expensive, certainly, but not nearly as much as if whatever happened, happened in the air. Flight computers are finicky things, that's for sure - it wouldn't surprise me if this took a while to get to the bottom of. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Titan had a disaster that looked something like this in the past that they thought was just software. Plenty of genuine software issues that take a long time to get to the bottom of too, though. I've seen it both ways. Though my comment on the flight computer was more along the lines of, "it's not always easy to understand why the computer does as it does." The programming on it is always a pain to work with. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The chances of anything coming from Mars have taken a downward turn with the finding that the surface of the red planet contains a “toxic cocktail” of chemicals that can wipe out living organisms. Experiments with compounds found in the Martian soil show that they are turned into potent bactericides by the ultraviolet light that bathes the planet, effectively sterilising the upper layers of the dusty landscape. The discovery has wide-ranging implications for the hunt for alien life on the fourth rock from the sun and suggests that missions will have to dig deep underground to find past or present life if it lurks there. The most hospitable environment may lie two or three metres beneath the surface where the soil and any organisms are shielded from intense radiation. “At those depths, it’s possible Martian life may survive,” said Jennifer Wadsworth, a postgraduate astrobiologist at Edinburgh University. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
SpaceX’s reusable rocket technology has been hailed as the future of space travel, and even the Russians have admitted that the company seems to be on to something, but when it comes to return on investment, one of SpaceX’s founding team members says that launching the same first stages multiple times isn’t actually where the company sees the boost to its bottom line. Jim Cantrell is the CEO of Vector Space Systems. He’s worked for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab and was a founding member of both SpaceX and the Google Lunar X Prize-winning Moon Express. When it comes to the space industry, he’s the kind of guy who you should listen to, and in a recent response to a Quora question about exactly how much money SpaceX is saving by reusing its Falcon rocket, Cantrell revealed the real reason (he believes) the company has pursued reusable hardware so vigorously isn’t actually to save money, but to increase the number of launches the company is able to perform. “Reusability allows a marked increase in flight rates,” Cantrell explained. “Reverse engineered financial models of SpaceX show that to reach a good strong positive cash flow, they need more than the traditional 10–12 launches per year that sized rocket has demonstrated. Reusability should easily double the amount of flights possible from a mere production and logistics standpoint.” As far as the discounts being offered to clients whose devices and cargo is being launch on “flight-proven” rockets, “I am thinking that very few, if any, of the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stages are going to be re-used for more than 3 or so flights,” Cantrell said. “SpaceX will therefore not break even on the reusability portion of the equation.” Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11836 Posts
On July 13 2017 04:54 LegalLord wrote: Well... an ex-founder isn't exactly an official statement, but it's not particularly far either. Mostly just stating what literally every rocket professional not working for SpaceX has figured out a long time ago. The idea on where the gain is is a different nuance than normally hailed. He seems to be pointing at manufacturing capacity being the expensive part to create and not the manufacturing itself afterwards. Seems reasonable when the buildings, tools and machines are used for so few components before generation shifts happen. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 13 2017 15:04 Yurie wrote: The idea on where the gain is is a different nuance than normally hailed. He seems to be pointing at manufacturing capacity being the expensive part to create and not the manufacturing itself afterwards. Seems reasonable when the buildings, tools and machines are used for so few components before generation shifts happen. That's part of it but the comment that very few stages will fly more than 3 times is extremely contentious. That's certainly not what SpaceX is claiming. So basically he's saying SpaceX will fail on a technical level, but they'll get at least something out of it by taking pressure off of their manufacturing. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11836 Posts
On July 14 2017 06:17 LegalLord wrote: SpaceX claims 20 different pie-in-the-sky fantasies a day. What would be proof would be some newer financials or a steep drop in their rocket price. That would be what would impress me, not Gwynne or Elon saying their usual hoopla. What that article indirectly claimed is that SpaceX can keep current prices with more launches and no new facilities. That being the gain from re-usability. The infrastructure cost of a new plant and the cost of the people working there. Even at 3 re-launches that is a tidy sum. Hard to judge if the amount saved there is more than the higher specification costs though. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 14 2017 06:17 LegalLord wrote: SpaceX claims 20 different pie-in-the-sky fantasies a day. What would be proof would be some newer financials or a steep drop in their rocket price. Either way, people need to track the accuracy of these "predictions". What you have now, is people cherry-picking the predictions they agree with in the first place and then trying to justify why that particular expert should be trusted. In the end if Jim Cantrell is wrong about SpaceX reflying a booster three times or more, then his opinion can be safely ignored, regardless of his history with SpaceX. If SpaceX does fail to refly their boosters, say in the next 3 or 4 years, that's an indication that his opinion of worth considering. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The real test is and always has been economics. I am waiting for economic indicators of success, and those are a ways off. But I'll watch with interest. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 14 2017 06:25 Yurie wrote: What that article indirectly claimed is that SpaceX can keep current prices with more launches and no new facilities. That being the gain from re-usability. The infrastructure cost of a new plant and the cost of the people working there. Even at 3 re-launches that is a tidy sum. Hard to judge if the amount saved there is more than the higher specification costs though. It's never quite so simple one way or the other. I wrote a whole blog on it. I don't think they made it work out to a worthy investment, for reasons that are not immediately clear. But speculation that is available so far doesn't give proof one way or the other. Based on the available signs it is not clear that reusability was worth it. But even if it is worth it we will have to wait some time to see it. The reuse was going to happen eventually - that was never really a question. The question is if we will get some official indications of it being worth it that don't involve the commentary of people with low-tier reliability on telling the truth. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Also Spacex is seeking subsidies apparently. I'll bump the SLS thread on the budget and subsidies here. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 14 2017 09:07 LegalLord wrote: "Common sense" strawmen don't make things economical. Show me the money. Unless you're a potential customer or an investor SpaceX has little interest in convincing you. Sure, Elon might throw out the occasional tweet for PR purposes, but the real test is launching payloads. Even the whole reusability program is secondary to reliability, launch cadance and finishing Crewed Dragon. It's important for the long term future of spaceflight, if there's a path to reusing the second stage, but it won't determine whether SpaceX is a successful company either way. | ||
| ||
