SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell says Falcon 9 [block 5] first stages are returning in much better shape than anticipated. SpaceX has refurbishment time down to four weeks. The SpaceX goal is still a one-day turnaround next year.
In 2017, Shotwell said a Block 5 booster could relaunch a dozen or so times. The Block 3, by comparison, had an estimated life of two missions.
A Block 5 that is reusable for dozens of times with minimal refurbishment and fast turnaround could bring the profitable costs of launch down to $20-30 million per launch.
An analysis in 2017 on Reddit of Spacex costs with ten reuses suggests SpaceX could maintain profit margin with costs that are about 40-50% of a non-usable Spacex flight.
Shotwell: Falcon 9 first stages come back in much better shape than anticipated. Have refurbishment time down to four weeks; goal is still a one-day turnaround next year. #WSBW
— Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) September 11, 2018
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Look, if when it arrives there it becomes living quarters and raw materials, basically the whole vehicle is payload. That’s pretty cost effective, no? Will Mars not need life support systems? Computers? Pressure vessels large enough to live in? At least some of the BFRs will be left on Mars, deliberately, for local use. That’s my prediction. The BFR going both ways makes sense at an early stage in colonization. But if the colonization effort gets as big as Musk intends, eventually the different parts of the trip will call for separately optimized vehicles.
Look if when it arrives there it becomes living quarters and raw materials basically the whole vehicle is payload. That’s pretty cost effective no? Will Mars not need life support systems? Computers? Pressure vessels large enough to live in? At least some of the BFRs will be left on Mars deliberately for local use. That’s my prediction.The BFR going both ways makes sense at an early stage in colonization. But if the colonization effort gets as big as Musk intends eventually the different parts of the trip will call for separately optimized vehicles.
The problem is that what’s going to allow traffic to Mars to get to that level is cost as a barrier being eliminated. But cost as a barrier won’t be eliminated if your s/c are all disposable.
The problem is that what’s going to allow traffic to Mars to get to that level is cost as a barrier being eliminated. But cost as a barrier won’t be eliminated if your s/c are all disposable.
There will not be a non-rocket alternative to space for 50 years. Even Disney doesn’t forecast 50 years.
There will not be a non-rocket alternative to space for 50 years. Even Disney doesn’t forecast 50 years.
I have no reason to doubt they would rather offload building materials for structure more optimized for Mars habitation, and get back the materials optimized for inter-planetary transport for re-use. I expect they will make two trips per synod for crew carriers, and once for cargo. And yes, I expect they will last as long as air frames do, with repairs to the re-entry shielding gradually adding weight and digging into payload fraction in a minor way over time, but with life cycle count being very low. 50 years is laughable why? They won’t fly nearly as often as a B-52 does, and the materials do not age and require part replacement as does aluminum.
I have no reason to doubt they would rather offload building materials for structure more optimized for Mars habitation and get back the materials optimized for inter-planetary transport for re-use.I expect they will make two trips per synod for crew carriers and once for cargo. And yes I expect they will last as long as air frames do with repairs to the re-entry shielding gradually adding weight and digging into payload fraction in a minor way over time but with life cycle count being very low. 50 years is laughable why?They won’t fly nearly as often as a B-52 does and the materials do not age and require part replacement as does aluminum.
Because they’ll need the material and living quarters on Mars, and so the transport can be considered part of the cargo, which effectively boosts the payload fraction a lot higher. With a launch window every, what, 26 months, even if they get a quick turnaround on Mars they won’t be reusing those rockets many times, I expect. You think a BFR is going to last 50 years in service?
Because they’ll need the material and living quarters on Mars and so the transport can be considered part of the cargo which effectively boosts the payload fraction a lot higher.With a launch window every what 26 months even if they get a quick turnaround on Mars they won’t be reusing those rockets many times I expect. You think a BFR is going to last 50 years in service?
Why on Earth do you think they’d use non-reusable bulk transport?
Why on Earth do you think they’d use non-reusable bulk transport?
I think the BFR is idea for around Earth, and even getting colonization of other planets started, but if the traffic to Mars that Musk projects gets anywhere near happening, it will call for a dedicated Earth-Mars vehicle, probably meant for one-way flights most of the time. Mars will seriously need junkyards.
I think the BFR is idea for around Earth and even getting colonization of other planets started but if the traffic to Mars that Musk projects gets anywhere near happening it will call for a dedicated Earth-Mars vehicle probably meant for one-way flights most of the time.Mars will seriously need junkyards.
Fortunately, 80% rebuild rates, while they may kill you in the auto industry, look pretty good in rocketry. Musk’s problem with cars is that the existing car companies got to climb the learning curve as it was growing, at each point were competing with other companies in the same situation. While Tesla has to compete with companies that have already traversed a mountain of a learning curve, while they’re still negotiating the foothills. It’s an almost insurmountable burden. SpaceX, fortunately for Musk, reverses this situation. The existing companies were building, essentially, bespoke rockets, and Musk comes in and starts climbing that mass production learning curve that they hadn’t bothered with. And he’s gotten far enough up it that it’s his competitors who are at a disadvantage. As long as they don’t get fat and happy, and instead keep climbing that curve, they can maintain that advantage, because they’ll be so much cheaper than the competition that only government will be interested in an alternative. The real threat to SpaceX comes when they’ve caused traffic to space to become large enough to make non-rocket options potentially cost effective, and people start competing with non-rocket alternatives.
Fortunately 80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} rebuild rates while they may kill you in the auto industry look pretty good in rocketry.Musk’s problem with cars is that the existing car companies got to climb the learning curve as it was growing at each point were competing with other companies in the same situation. While Tesla has to compete with companies that have already traversed a mountain of a learning curve while they’re still negotiating the foothills. It’s an almost insurmountable burden.SpaceX fortunately for Musk reverses this situation. The existing companies were building essentially bespoke rockets and Musk comes in and starts climbing that mass production learning curve that they hadn’t bothered with. And he’s gotten far enough up it that it’s his competitors who are at a disadvantage.As long as they don’t get fat and happy and instead keep climbing that curve they can maintain that advantage because they’ll be so much cheaper than the competition that only government will be interested in an alternative. The real threat to SpaceX comes when they’ve caused traffic to space to become large enough to make non-rocket options potentially cost effective and people start competing with non-rocket alternatives.
Wellll. You know Elon. Delay are the norm. BFR will happen later than sooner.
Wellll. You know Elon. Delay are the norm. BFR will happen later than sooner.
The chest puffing from ULA over Vulcan propulsion module recovery being better than whole Falcon 9 stage recovery is getting hot there…
The chest puffing from ULA over Vulcan propulsion module recovery being better than whole Falcon 9 stage recovery is getting hot there…
$19.25M F9R launch cost (if they ever get fairing recovery right), down to $16.95M if they can get 20 flights a piece… which would mean that adding stage two recovery could cut their remaining costs nearly in half, which would definitely be worth looking into if they were really trying to sew up the rest of the current satellite launch market. Even FHR costs would drop by nearly a third. But they’re trying to create new markets: for humans in space, for Mars, for massive satellites and satellite constellations… and for that they don’t just need to amortize hardware costs over dozens of small flights, they need to amortize hardware and operations costs over hundreds of huge flights; they need BFR. I’ll be dumbfounded if they actually get it to work but I definitely can’t call it sad that they’re trying. Tweaking Falcon stage 2 can be plan B.
$19.25M F9R launch cost (if they ever get fairing recovery right) down to $16.95M if they can get 20 flights a piece… which would mean that adding stage two recovery could cut their remaining costs nearly in half which would definitely be worth looking into if they were really trying to sew up the rest of the current satellite launch market. Even FHR costs would drop by nearly a third.But they’re trying to create new markets: for humans in space for Mars for massive satellites and satellite constellations… and for that they don’t just need to amortize hardware costs over dozens of small flights they need to amortize hardware and operations costs over hundreds of huge flights; they need BFR. I’ll be dumbfounded if they actually get it to work but I definitely can’t call it sad that they’re trying. Tweaking Falcon stage 2 can be plan B.
Nice. And thanks to this, I still think F9 second date reuse makes sense. Sadly, I doubt it will happen. All efforts at SpaceX are now focused on the Big F…alcon Rocket.
Nice.And thanks to this I still think F9 second date reuse makes sense.Sadly I doubt it will happen. All efforts at SpaceX are now focused on the Big F…alcon Rocket.
And they will continue to be flown until their operational cost is higher than the alternatives, and most alternatives which could be less expensive will not exist until and unless geopolitical objections are removed–such as would stop an intercontinental gun or a space elevator.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? HASTOL looks pretty feasible to me in the near term, there just isn’t the traffic yet to make it economic.
50 years is laughable why? ” Because the technology is advancing too fast at this point. The BFR will be obsolete in a couple of decades.
And they will continue to be flown until their operational cost is higher than the alternatives and most alternatives which could be less expensive will not exist until and unless geopolitical objections are removed–such as would stop an intercontinental gun or a space elevator.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? HASTOL looks pretty feasible to me in the near term there just isn’t the traffic yet to make it economic.
50 years is laughable why? “”Because the technology is advancing too fast at this point. The BFR will be obsolete in a couple of decades.”””
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? ” Borderline zero chance of it.
The real threat to SpaceX is that they become so successful and spaceflight becomes so routine that they become a near monopoly (the SpaceX Steamroller). Then the US government could target them as anti-competitive and break the company up into spaceship/rocket manufacturing and space liner. This is what happened to Bill Boeing’s United Aircraft and Transportation Corp in the 1934. It got split into Boeing, United Technologies and United Airlines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation I could see SpaceX being forced into selling ships and rockets directly to ULA, NASA and the Air Force for them own and fly themselves. Couldn’t you see congress doing this at the behest of threatened interest?
Actually I proved with multiple citations from many consecutive years that you were full of sh!t, and the fact you continue the lie that I am Luca is you continuing with your trolling stupidity. … Molestie at elementum eu facilisis sed. Interdum velit laoreet id donec ultrices tincidunt arcu non. Pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit lectus a. Risus in hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non. Suscipit adipiscing bibendum est ultricies integer quis auctor. Dictum varius duis at consectetur lorem donec. In iaculis nunc sed augue lacus viverra vitae. Sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet bibendum enim facilisis. Ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla pharetra diam. Sit amet volutpat consequat mauris nunc. Nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean. … Enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui. Penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes nascetur. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit turpis cursus in. Ut tellus elementum sagittis vitae. Purus non enim praesent elementum facilisis leo vel. Etiam erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Vitae auctor eu augue ut. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed. Urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur gravida. Quis imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien. Libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet. … Faucibus a pellentesque sit amet porttitor. Pretium fusce id velit ut. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus. Suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium. Non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut pharetra. Ut pharetra sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas. Nulla pellentesque dignissim enim sit amet ven
Careful. Luca pretending to be Tom Perkins will call all these rebuild rates ‘lies’. He already did so when I brought it up in another post. The Musk Fluffers are just as addled as the Peak Oiltards were.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? “”Borderline zero chance of it.”””
The real threat to SpaceX is that they become so successful and spaceflight becomes so routine that they become a near monopoly (the SpaceX Steamroller). Then the US government could target them as anti-competitive and break the company up into spaceship/rocket manufacturing and space liner.This is what happened to Bill Boeing’s United Aircraft and Transportation Corp in the 1934. It got split into Boeing United Technologies and United Airlines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_CorporationI could see SpaceX being forced into selling ships and rockets directly to ULA NASA and the Air Force for them own and fly themselves. Couldn’t you see congress doing this at the behest of threatened interest?
Actually I proved with multiple citations from many consecutive years that you were full of sh!t and the fact you continue the lie that I am Luca is you continuing with your trolling stupidity….Molestie at elementum eu facilisis sed. Interdum velit laoreet id donec ultrices tincidunt arcu non. Pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit lectus a. Risus in hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non. Suscipit adipiscing bibendum est ultricies integer quis auctor. Dictum varius duis at consectetur lorem donec. In iaculis nunc sed augue lacus viverra vitae. Sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet bibendum enim facilisis. Ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla pharetra diam. Sit amet volutpat consequat mauris nunc. Nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean….Enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui. Penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes nascetur. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit turpis cursus in. Ut tellus elementum sagittis vitae. Purus non enim praesent elementum facilisis leo vel. Etiam erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Vitae auctor eu augue ut. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed. Urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur gravida. Quis imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien. Libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet….Faucibus a pellentesque sit amet porttitor. Pretium fusce id velit ut. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus. Suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium. Non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut pharetra. Ut pharetra sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas. Nulla pellentesque dignissim enim sit
Careful. Luca pretending to be Tom Perkins will call all these rebuild rates ‘lies’. He already did so when I brought it up in another post.The Musk Fluffers are just as addled as the Peak Oiltards were.
I’m not really sure about the air breathing shuttle part of it, but rotating tether momentum exchange systems just make so much sense, it’s hard to imagine their not being implements within a half century, short of our retreating from space again.
I’m not really sure about the air breathing shuttle part of it but rotating tether momentum exchange systems just make so much sense it’s hard to imagine their not being implements within a half century short of our retreating from space again.
Both. The political ones are damn near insuperable. The abort modes for a HOTOL intended to be “caught” or to “catch” a tether are pretty fugly too, if you make it a good enough flyer for aborts to be relatively trivial, then you reduce payload a great deal. The attraction to momentum exchange lifters seem to depend on either a roughly equal exchange up and down–something not ensured in any way, especially for the many first decades, and on the other on the idea we are energy limited in lifting. We are not. We are limited by the cost of replacing the means of releasing the energy we have aplenty. A BFR sort of system obviates that problem entirely, even as a liquid fuel burner. The cost to LEO in energy in the form of MethaLox is below $2.25/lb.
I’m curious, could you clarify what you think are the problems here? Technical, economic, or “geo-political”?
Both. The political ones are damn near insuperable. The abort modes for a HOTOL intended to be caught”” or to “”””catch”””” a tether are pretty fugly too”” if you make it a good enough flyer for aborts to be relatively trivial then you reduce payload a great deal.The attraction to momentum exchange lifters seem to depend on either a roughly equal exchange up and down–something not ensured in any way especially for the many first decades and on the other on the idea we are energy limited in lifting. We are not.We are limited by the cost of replacing the means of releasing the energy we have aplenty. A BFR sort of system obviates that problem entirely”” even as a liquid fuel burner.The cost to LEO in energy in the form of MethaLox is below $2.25/lb.”””
I’m curious could you clarify what you think are the problems here? Technical economic or geo-political””?”””
I must admit I was unaware that HASTOL has reentry problems if it doesn’t have the opportunity to unload its cargo onto the tether. This wasn’t mentioned in any of the literature I read on it.
I must admit I was unaware that HASTOL has reentry problems if it doesn’t have the opportunity to unload its cargo onto the tether. This wasn’t mentioned in any of the literature I read on it.
Nah. That won’t happen at all. For years the United States had one effective monopoly for government launches (ULA), which was actually encouraged by the government, and any competent corporate lawyer can point to that as a set legal precedent in defending SpaceX against any charges of anticompetition. Not only that, SpaceX won’t be a monopoly– Jeff Who will see to that. As long as both SpaceX and Blue Origin are offering competitive launch services, there is no case for antitrust / antimonopoly action against either company.
Nah. That won’t happen at all. For years the United States had one effective monopoly for government launches (ULA) which was actually encouraged by the government and any competent corporate lawyer can point to that as a set legal precedent in defending SpaceX against any charges of anticompetition. Not only that SpaceX won’t be a monopoly– Jeff Who will see to that.As long as both SpaceX and Blue Origin are offering competitive launch services there is no case for antitrust / antimonopoly action against either company.
Nah. That won’t happen at all. For years the United States had one effective monopoly for government launches (ULA), which was actually encouraged by the government, and any competent corporate lawyer can point to that as a set legal precedent in defending SpaceX against any charges of anticompetition. Not only that, SpaceX won’t be a monopoly– Jeff Who will see to that. As long as both SpaceX and Blue Origin are offering competitive launch services, there is no case for antitrust / antimonopoly action against either company.
Nah. That won’t happen at all. For years the United States had one effective monopoly for government launches (ULA) which was actually encouraged by the government and any competent corporate lawyer can point to that as a set legal precedent in defending SpaceX against any charges of anticompetition. Not only that SpaceX won’t be a monopoly– Jeff Who will see to that.As long as both SpaceX and Blue Origin are offering competitive launch services there is no case for antitrust / antimonopoly action against either company.
I must admit I was unaware that HASTOL has reentry problems if it doesn’t have the opportunity to unload its cargo onto the tether. This wasn’t mentioned in any of the literature I read on it.
I must admit I was unaware that HASTOL has reentry problems if it doesn’t have the opportunity to unload its cargo onto the tether. This wasn’t mentioned in any of the literature I read on it.
Both. The political ones are damn near insuperable. The abort modes for a HOTOL intended to be “caught” or to “catch” a tether are pretty fugly too, if you make it a good enough flyer for aborts to be relatively trivial, then you reduce payload a great deal. The attraction to momentum exchange lifters seem to depend on either a roughly equal exchange up and down–something not ensured in any way, especially for the many first decades, and on the other on the idea we are energy limited in lifting. We are not. We are limited by the cost of replacing the means of releasing the energy we have aplenty. A BFR sort of system obviates that problem entirely, even as a liquid fuel burner. The cost to LEO in energy in the form of MethaLox is below $2.25/lb.
Both. The political ones are damn near insuperable. The abort modes for a HOTOL intended to be caught”” or to “”””catch”””” a tether are pretty fugly too”” if you make it a good enough flyer for aborts to be relatively trivial then you reduce payload a great deal.The attraction to momentum exchange lifters seem to depend on either a roughly equal exchange up and down–something not ensured in any way especially for the many first decades and on the other on the idea we are energy limited in lifting. We are not.We are limited by the cost of replacing the means of releasing the energy we have aplenty. A BFR sort of system obviates that problem entirely”” even as a liquid fuel burner.The cost to LEO in energy in the form of MethaLox is below $2.25/lb.”””
I’m curious, could you clarify what you think are the problems here? Technical, economic, or “geo-political”?
I’m curious could you clarify what you think are the problems here? Technical economic or geo-political””?”””
Nah. That won’t happen at all. For years the United States had one effective monopoly for government launches (ULA), which was actually encouraged by the government, and any competent corporate lawyer can point to that as a set legal precedent in defending SpaceX against any charges of anticompetition. Not only that, SpaceX won’t be a monopoly– Jeff Who will see to that.
As long as both SpaceX and Blue Origin are offering competitive launch services, there is no case for antitrust / antimonopoly action against either company.
I must admit I was unaware that HASTOL has reentry problems if it doesn’t have the opportunity to unload its cargo onto the tether. This wasn’t mentioned in any of the literature I read on it.
Both. The political ones are damn near insuperable. The abort modes for a HOTOL intended to be “caught” or to “catch” a tether are pretty fugly too, if you make it a good enough flyer for aborts to be relatively trivial, then you reduce payload a great deal.
The attraction to momentum exchange lifters seem to depend on either a roughly equal exchange up and down–something not ensured in any way, especially for the many first decades, and on the other on the idea we are energy limited in lifting. We are not.
We are limited by the cost of replacing the means of releasing the energy we have aplenty. A BFR sort of system obviates that problem entirely, even as a liquid fuel burner.
The cost to LEO in energy in the form of MethaLox is below $2.25/lb.
I’m curious, could you clarify what you think are the problems here? Technical, economic, or “geo-political”?
I’m not really sure about the air breathing shuttle part of it, but rotating tether momentum exchange systems just make so much sense, it’s hard to imagine their not being implements within a half century, short of our retreating from space again.
I’m not really sure about the air breathing shuttle part of it but rotating tether momentum exchange systems just make so much sense it’s hard to imagine their not being implements within a half century short of our retreating from space again.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? ” Borderline zero chance of it.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? “”Borderline zero chance of it.”””
The real threat to SpaceX is that they become so successful and spaceflight becomes so routine that they become a near monopoly (the SpaceX Steamroller). Then the US government could target them as anti-competitive and break the company up into spaceship/rocket manufacturing and space liner. This is what happened to Bill Boeing’s United Aircraft and Transportation Corp in the 1934. It got split into Boeing, United Technologies and United Airlines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation I could see SpaceX being forced into selling ships and rockets directly to ULA, NASA and the Air Force for them own and fly themselves. Couldn’t you see congress doing this at the behest of threatened interest?
The real threat to SpaceX is that they become so successful and spaceflight becomes so routine that they become a near monopoly (the SpaceX Steamroller). Then the US government could target them as anti-competitive and break the company up into spaceship/rocket manufacturing and space liner.This is what happened to Bill Boeing’s United Aircraft and Transportation Corp in the 1934. It got split into Boeing United Technologies and United Airlines.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_CorporationI could see SpaceX being forced into selling ships and rockets directly to ULA NASA and the Air Force for them own and fly themselves. Couldn’t you see congress doing this at the behest of threatened interest?
Actually I proved with multiple citations from many consecutive years that you were full of sh!t, and the fact you continue the lie that I am Luca is you continuing with your trolling stupidity. … Molestie at elementum eu facilisis sed. Interdum velit laoreet id donec ultrices tincidunt arcu non. Pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit lectus a. Risus in hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non. Suscipit adipiscing bibendum est ultricies integer quis auctor. Dictum varius duis at consectetur lorem donec. In iaculis nunc sed augue lacus viverra vitae. Sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet bibendum enim facilisis. Ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla pharetra diam. Sit amet volutpat consequat mauris nunc. Nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean. … Enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui. Penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes nascetur. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit turpis cursus in. Ut tellus elementum sagittis vitae. Purus non enim praesent elementum facilisis leo vel. Etiam erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Vitae auctor eu augue ut. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed. Urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur gravida. Quis imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien. Libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet. … Faucibus a pellentesque sit amet porttitor. Pretium fusce id velit ut. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus. Suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium. Non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut pharetra. Ut pharetra sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas. Nulla pellentesque dignissim enim sit amet ven
Actually I proved with multiple citations from many consecutive years that you were full of sh!t and the fact you continue the lie that I am Luca is you continuing with your trolling stupidity….Molestie at elementum eu facilisis sed. Interdum velit laoreet id donec ultrices tincidunt arcu non. Pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit lectus a. Risus in hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non. Suscipit adipiscing bibendum est ultricies integer quis auctor. Dictum varius duis at consectetur lorem donec. In iaculis nunc sed augue lacus viverra vitae. Sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet bibendum enim facilisis. Ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla pharetra diam. Sit amet volutpat consequat mauris nunc. Nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean….Enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui. Penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes nascetur. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit turpis cursus in. Ut tellus elementum sagittis vitae. Purus non enim praesent elementum facilisis leo vel. Etiam erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Vitae auctor eu augue ut. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed. Urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur gravida. Quis imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien. Libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet….Faucibus a pellentesque sit amet porttitor. Pretium fusce id velit ut. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus. Suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium. Non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut pharetra. Ut pharetra sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas. Nulla pellentesque dignissim enim sit
Careful. Luca pretending to be Tom Perkins will call all these rebuild rates ‘lies’. He already did so when I brought it up in another post. The Musk Fluffers are just as addled as the Peak Oiltards were.
Careful. Luca pretending to be Tom Perkins will call all these rebuild rates ‘lies’. He already did so when I brought it up in another post.The Musk Fluffers are just as addled as the Peak Oiltards were.
And they will continue to be flown until their operational cost is higher than the alternatives, and most alternatives which could be less expensive will not exist until and unless geopolitical objections are removed–such as would stop an intercontinental gun or a space elevator.
And they will continue to be flown until their operational cost is higher than the alternatives and most alternatives which could be less expensive will not exist until and unless geopolitical objections are removed–such as would stop an intercontinental gun or a space elevator.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? HASTOL looks pretty feasible to me in the near term, there just isn’t the traffic yet to make it economic.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? HASTOL looks pretty feasible to me in the near term there just isn’t the traffic yet to make it economic.
50 years is laughable why? ” Because the technology is advancing too fast at this point. The BFR will be obsolete in a couple of decades.
50 years is laughable why? “”Because the technology is advancing too fast at this point. The BFR will be obsolete in a couple of decades.”””
Look, if when it arrives there it becomes living quarters and raw materials, basically the whole vehicle is payload. That’s pretty cost effective, no? Will Mars not need life support systems? Computers? Pressure vessels large enough to live in? At least some of the BFRs will be left on Mars, deliberately, for local use. That’s my prediction. The BFR going both ways makes sense at an early stage in colonization. But if the colonization effort gets as big as Musk intends, eventually the different parts of the trip will call for separately optimized vehicles.
Look if when it arrives there it becomes living quarters and raw materials basically the whole vehicle is payload. That’s pretty cost effective no? Will Mars not need life support systems? Computers? Pressure vessels large enough to live in? At least some of the BFRs will be left on Mars deliberately for local use. That’s my prediction.The BFR going both ways makes sense at an early stage in colonization. But if the colonization effort gets as big as Musk intends eventually the different parts of the trip will call for separately optimized vehicles.
The problem is that what’s going to allow traffic to Mars to get to that level is cost as a barrier being eliminated. But cost as a barrier won’t be eliminated if your s/c are all disposable.
The problem is that what’s going to allow traffic to Mars to get to that level is cost as a barrier being eliminated. But cost as a barrier won’t be eliminated if your s/c are all disposable.
There will not be a non-rocket alternative to space for 50 years. Even Disney doesn’t forecast 50 years.
There will not be a non-rocket alternative to space for 50 years. Even Disney doesn’t forecast 50 years.
I have no reason to doubt they would rather offload building materials for structure more optimized for Mars habitation, and get back the materials optimized for inter-planetary transport for re-use. I expect they will make two trips per synod for crew carriers, and once for cargo. And yes, I expect they will last as long as air frames do, with repairs to the re-entry shielding gradually adding weight and digging into payload fraction in a minor way over time, but with life cycle count being very low. 50 years is laughable why? They won’t fly nearly as often as a B-52 does, and the materials do not age and require part replacement as does aluminum.
I have no reason to doubt they would rather offload building materials for structure more optimized for Mars habitation and get back the materials optimized for inter-planetary transport for re-use.I expect they will make two trips per synod for crew carriers and once for cargo. And yes I expect they will last as long as air frames do with repairs to the re-entry shielding gradually adding weight and digging into payload fraction in a minor way over time but with life cycle count being very low. 50 years is laughable why?They won’t fly nearly as often as a B-52 does and the materials do not age and require part replacement as does aluminum.
Because they’ll need the material and living quarters on Mars, and so the transport can be considered part of the cargo, which effectively boosts the payload fraction a lot higher. With a launch window every, what, 26 months, even if they get a quick turnaround on Mars they won’t be reusing those rockets many times, I expect. You think a BFR is going to last 50 years in service?
Because they’ll need the material and living quarters on Mars and so the transport can be considered part of the cargo which effectively boosts the payload fraction a lot higher.With a launch window every what 26 months even if they get a quick turnaround on Mars they won’t be reusing those rockets many times I expect. You think a BFR is going to last 50 years in service?
Why on Earth do you think they’d use non-reusable bulk transport?
Why on Earth do you think they’d use non-reusable bulk transport?
I think the BFR is idea for around Earth, and even getting colonization of other planets started, but if the traffic to Mars that Musk projects gets anywhere near happening, it will call for a dedicated Earth-Mars vehicle, probably meant for one-way flights most of the time. Mars will seriously need junkyards.
I think the BFR is idea for around Earth and even getting colonization of other planets started but if the traffic to Mars that Musk projects gets anywhere near happening it will call for a dedicated Earth-Mars vehicle probably meant for one-way flights most of the time.Mars will seriously need junkyards.
Fortunately, 80% rebuild rates, while they may kill you in the auto industry, look pretty good in rocketry. Musk’s problem with cars is that the existing car companies got to climb the learning curve as it was growing, at each point were competing with other companies in the same situation. While Tesla has to compete with companies that have already traversed a mountain of a learning curve, while they’re still negotiating the foothills. It’s an almost insurmountable burden. SpaceX, fortunately for Musk, reverses this situation. The existing companies were building, essentially, bespoke rockets, and Musk comes in and starts climbing that mass production learning curve that they hadn’t bothered with. And he’s gotten far enough up it that it’s his competitors who are at a disadvantage. As long as they don’t get fat and happy, and instead keep climbing that curve, they can maintain that advantage, because they’ll be so much cheaper than the competition that only government will be interested in an alternative. The real threat to SpaceX comes when they’ve caused traffic to space to become large enough to make non-rocket options potentially cost effective, and people start competing with non-rocket alternatives.
Fortunately 80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} rebuild rates while they may kill you in the auto industry look pretty good in rocketry.Musk’s problem with cars is that the existing car companies got to climb the learning curve as it was growing at each point were competing with other companies in the same situation. While Tesla has to compete with companies that have already traversed a mountain of a learning curve while they’re still negotiating the foothills. It’s an almost insurmountable burden.SpaceX fortunately for Musk reverses this situation. The existing companies were building essentially bespoke rockets and Musk comes in and starts climbing that mass production learning curve that they hadn’t bothered with. And he’s gotten far enough up it that it’s his competitors who are at a disadvantage.As long as they don’t get fat and happy and instead keep climbing that curve they can maintain that advantage because they’ll be so much cheaper than the competition that only government will be interested in an alternative. The real threat to SpaceX comes when they’ve caused traffic to space to become large enough to make non-rocket options potentially cost effective and people start competing with non-rocket alternatives.
I’m not really sure about the air breathing shuttle part of it, but rotating tether momentum exchange systems just make so much sense, it’s hard to imagine their not being implements within a half century, short of our retreating from space again.
” You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? ”
Borderline zero chance of it.
The real threat to SpaceX is that they become so successful and spaceflight becomes so routine that they become a near monopoly (the SpaceX Steamroller). Then the US government could target them as anti-competitive and break the company up into spaceship/rocket manufacturing and space liner.
This is what happened to Bill Boeing’s United Aircraft and Transportation Corp in the 1934. It got split into Boeing, United Technologies and United Airlines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation
I could see SpaceX being forced into selling ships and rockets directly to ULA, NASA and the Air Force for them own and fly themselves. Couldn’t you see congress doing this at the behest of threatened interest?
Wellll. You know Elon. Delay are the norm. BFR will happen later than sooner.
Wellll. You know Elon. Delay are the norm. BFR will happen later than sooner.
Actually I proved with multiple citations from many consecutive years that you were full of sh!t, and the fact you continue the lie that I am Luca is you continuing with your trolling stupidity.
…
Molestie at elementum eu facilisis sed. Interdum velit laoreet id donec ultrices tincidunt arcu non. Pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit lectus a. Risus in hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non. Suscipit adipiscing bibendum est ultricies integer quis auctor. Dictum varius duis at consectetur lorem donec. In iaculis nunc sed augue lacus viverra vitae. Sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet bibendum enim facilisis. Ornare arcu odio ut sem nulla pharetra diam. Sit amet volutpat consequat mauris nunc. Nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean.
…
Enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui. Penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes nascetur. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit turpis cursus in. Ut tellus elementum sagittis vitae. Purus non enim praesent elementum facilisis leo vel. Etiam erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Vitae auctor eu augue ut. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed. Urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur gravida. Quis imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien. Libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet.
…
Faucibus a pellentesque sit amet porttitor. Pretium fusce id velit ut. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus. Suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium. Non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut pharetra. Ut pharetra sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas. Nulla pellentesque dignissim enim sit amet venenatis urna cursus.
Careful. Luca pretending to be Tom Perkins will call all these rebuild rates ‘lies’. He already did so when I brought it up in another post.
The Musk Fluffers are just as addled as the Peak Oiltards were.
And they will continue to be flown until their operational cost is higher than the alternatives, and most alternatives which could be less expensive will not exist until and unless geopolitical objections are removed–such as would stop an intercontinental gun or a space elevator.
You don’t think air breathing hyper sonic shuttles to rotating tethers will be a thing within 50 years? HASTOL looks pretty feasible to me in the near term, there just isn’t the traffic yet to make it economic.
” 50 years is laughable why? ”
Because the technology is advancing too fast at this point. The BFR will be obsolete in a couple of decades.
Look, if when it arrives there it becomes living quarters and raw materials, basically the whole vehicle is payload. That’s pretty cost effective, no? Will Mars not need life support systems? Computers? Pressure vessels large enough to live in?
At least some of the BFRs will be left on Mars, deliberately, for local use. That’s my prediction.
The BFR going both ways makes sense at an early stage in colonization. But if the colonization effort gets as big as Musk intends, eventually the different parts of the trip will call for separately optimized vehicles.
The problem is that what’s going to allow traffic to Mars to get to that level is cost as a barrier being eliminated. But cost as a barrier won’t be eliminated if your s/c are all disposable.
There will not be a non-rocket alternative to space for 50 years. Even Disney doesn’t forecast 50 years.
I have no reason to doubt they would rather offload building materials for structure more optimized for Mars habitation, and get back the materials optimized for inter-planetary transport for re-use.
I expect they will make two trips per synod for crew carriers, and once for cargo. And yes, I expect they will last as long as air frames do, with repairs to the re-entry shielding gradually adding weight and digging into payload fraction in a minor way over time, but with life cycle count being very low. 50 years is laughable why?
They won’t fly nearly as often as a B-52 does, and the materials do not age and require part replacement as does aluminum.
Because they’ll need the material and living quarters on Mars, and so the transport can be considered part of the cargo, which effectively boosts the payload fraction a lot higher.
With a launch window every, what, 26 months, even if they get a quick turnaround on Mars they won’t be reusing those rockets many times, I expect. You think a BFR is going to last 50 years in service?
Why on Earth do you think they’d use non-reusable bulk transport?
The chest puffing from ULA over Vulcan propulsion module recovery being better than whole Falcon 9 stage recovery is getting hot there…
The chest puffing from ULA over Vulcan propulsion module recovery being better than whole Falcon 9 stage recovery is getting hot there…
I think the BFR is idea for around Earth, and even getting colonization of other planets started, but if the traffic to Mars that Musk projects gets anywhere near happening, it will call for a dedicated Earth-Mars vehicle, probably meant for one-way flights most of the time.
Mars will seriously need junkyards.
$19.25M F9R launch cost (if they ever get fairing recovery right), down to $16.95M if they can get 20 flights a piece… which would mean that adding stage two recovery could cut their remaining costs nearly in half, which would definitely be worth looking into if they were really trying to sew up the rest of the current satellite launch market. Even FHR costs would drop by nearly a third. But they’re trying to create new markets: for humans in space, for Mars, for massive satellites and satellite constellations… and for that they don’t just need to amortize hardware costs over dozens of small flights, they need to amortize hardware and operations costs over hundreds of huge flights; they need BFR. I’ll be dumbfounded if they actually get it to work but I definitely can’t call it sad that they’re trying. Tweaking Falcon stage 2 can be plan B.
$19.25M F9R launch cost (if they ever get fairing recovery right) down to $16.95M if they can get 20 flights a piece… which would mean that adding stage two recovery could cut their remaining costs nearly in half which would definitely be worth looking into if they were really trying to sew up the rest of the current satellite launch market. Even FHR costs would drop by nearly a third.But they’re trying to create new markets: for humans in space for Mars for massive satellites and satellite constellations… and for that they don’t just need to amortize hardware costs over dozens of small flights they need to amortize hardware and operations costs over hundreds of huge flights; they need BFR. I’ll be dumbfounded if they actually get it to work but I definitely can’t call it sad that they’re trying. Tweaking Falcon stage 2 can be plan B.
Fortunately, 80% rebuild rates, while they may kill you in the auto industry, look pretty good in rocketry.
Musk’s problem with cars is that the existing car companies got to climb the learning curve as it was growing, at each point were competing with other companies in the same situation. While Tesla has to compete with companies that have already traversed a mountain of a learning curve, while they’re still negotiating the foothills. It’s an almost insurmountable burden.
SpaceX, fortunately for Musk, reverses this situation. The existing companies were building, essentially, bespoke rockets, and Musk comes in and starts climbing that mass production learning curve that they hadn’t bothered with. And he’s gotten far enough up it that it’s his competitors who are at a disadvantage.
As long as they don’t get fat and happy, and instead keep climbing that curve, they can maintain that advantage, because they’ll be so much cheaper than the competition that only government will be interested in an alternative.
The real threat to SpaceX comes when they’ve caused traffic to space to become large enough to make non-rocket options potentially cost effective, and people start competing with non-rocket alternatives.
Nice. And thanks to this, I still think F9 second date reuse makes sense. Sadly, I doubt it will happen. All efforts at SpaceX are now focused on the Big F…alcon Rocket.
Nice.And thanks to this I still think F9 second date reuse makes sense.Sadly I doubt it will happen. All efforts at SpaceX are now focused on the Big F…alcon Rocket.
Wellll. You know Elon. Delay are the norm. BFR will happen later than sooner.
The chest puffing from ULA over Vulcan propulsion module recovery being better than whole Falcon 9 stage recovery is getting hot there…
$19.25M F9R launch cost (if they ever get fairing recovery right), down to $16.95M if they can get 20 flights a piece… which would mean that adding stage two recovery could cut their remaining costs nearly in half, which would definitely be worth looking into if they were really trying to sew up the rest of the current satellite launch market. Even FHR costs would drop by nearly a third.
But they’re trying to create new markets: for humans in space, for Mars, for massive satellites and satellite constellations… and for that they don’t just need to amortize hardware costs over dozens of small flights, they need to amortize hardware and operations costs over hundreds of huge flights; they need BFR. I’ll be dumbfounded if they actually get it to work but I definitely can’t call it sad that they’re trying. Tweaking Falcon stage 2 can be plan B.
Nice.
And thanks to this, I still think F9 second date reuse makes sense.
Sadly, I doubt it will happen. All efforts at SpaceX are now focused on the Big F…alcon Rocket.