SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9 • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#11

Post by nickff » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:06 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #7

arikrak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and multiple subcontractors. And, full & rapid reusability was never in the Shuttle plans. They aimed for moderate reusability and then failed spectacularly at that. SpaceX is much more centralized and much more efficient. There are certainly comparisons to me made, an…

We should put less focus on reusability, and pay more attention to labor (inspection and repair time) per launch. If you compare SpaceX and NASA under this paradigm, or by looking at launch cost per unit of mass, SpaceX has long since surpassed all other launch providers.

The shuttle had a number of issues, including design issues due to DoD requirements, engine pressure issues due to internal NASA priorities, and budget trade-offs due to Congressional directives. The most important lesson to take away from the shuttle is that returning the most costly components to earth does not necessarily translate into cost savings.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#12

Post by marze » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

arikrak wrote: post #5

cloudwalking wrote: post #4

"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more." That's pretty amazing increase in performance for an existing platform. Also interesting to see that the Falcon Heavy boosters are literally just Falcon 9s strapped to the sides of a larger rocket. They will be producing just two separate rockets on the factory floor. This is how SpaceX will really squeeze out manufacturing efficiencies. Given the Falco…

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

Just because a problem has been solved poorly in the past doesn't mean it can't be solved correctly in the future.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#13

Post by BinaryIdiot » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

arikrak wrote: post #5

cloudwalking wrote: post #4

"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more." That's pretty amazing increase in performance for an existing platform. Also interesting to see that the Falcon Heavy boosters are literally just Falcon 9s strapped to the sides of a larger rocket. They will be producing just two separate rockets on the factory floor. This is how SpaceX will really squeeze out manufacturing efficiencies. Given the Falco…

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

> That was their original plans for the shuttle.

While I agree with your point I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare a for-profit company to a government agency with no requirements to create a profit. A company should always be moving in the direction of the highest profits while a government agency seems to always head in the direction of higher bureaucracy.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#14

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

The rocket is paid for with its primary mission. Elon has said that the fuel is a very small cost compared to the entire launch, so I would assume the cost to refly a "used" rocket is going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than the original flight.

I could see SpaceX segmenting their customers into two tiers: mission completion sensitive, and cost sensitive, with who gets which rockets straightforward.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#15

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #6

cloudwalking wrote: post #4

"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more." That's pretty amazing increase in performance for an existing platform. Also interesting to see that the Falcon Heavy boosters are literally just Falcon 9s strapped to the sides of a larger rocket. They will be producing just two separate rockets on the factory floor. This is how SpaceX will really squeeze out manufacturing efficiencies. Given the Falco…

I agree that the changes will be revolutionary, and drastically reduce launch costs; but SpaceX is only prepared to recover the first stage in the near term, and the second stage is still quite costly. In the long term, launch costs will go down as much as you say, but SpaceX is not quite there yet.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_d...

Yes, yes, definitely agree they're not there yet, but when you look at space technology from the 60's to now, and how quickly SpaceX has moved from inception to first successful stage landing, it's extremely impressive.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#16

Post by nicholasdrake » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #11

cryptoz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and multiple subcontractors. And, full & rapid reusability was never in the Shuttle plans. They aimed for moderate reusability and then failed spectacularly at that. SpaceX is much more centralized and much more efficient. There are certainly comparisons to me made, an…

We should put less focus on reusability, and pay more attention to labor (inspection and repair time) per launch. If you compare SpaceX and NASA under this paradigm, or by looking at launch cost per unit of mass, SpaceX has long since surpassed all other launch providers. The shuttle had a number of issues, including design issues due to DoD requirements, engine pressure issues due to internal NASA priorities, and bu…

'What percentage of a launch vehicle (rocket to space) do you think is the cost of labour? It's about 80-90%! It's labour!' Peter Diamandis, X-Prize

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#17

Post by nicholasdrake » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:26 PM UTC

liquidise wrote: post #2

As a programmer baffled by hardware, i find these performance enhancements on physical systems remarkable. Congrats to them for pushing the spaceflight envelope.

i'm similarly baffled... but this is what elon says 'I think it's worth noting that when somebody has a breakthrough innovation it is rarely one little thing. Very rarely is it one little thing. It's usually a whole bunch of things that collectively amount to a huge innovation. But the problem is because it's hard to convey a complicated thing to people the innovator or the innovator's PR department will say such and such is the reason why it's better. This little catch phrase. Like what was it with ebay, Pam wants to do Beanie Babies or something. I mean really, that's not the basis of ebay. Oh right, yeah pes dispenser. It's like something the PR department made up. So really innovation is a collection of complex things which are usually difficult to convey so there is some soundbite that's given. You know why's South-West Airlines the most popular Airline in the whole business. It's not just because they use 737s. I mean if it was that easy everybody could do it.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xohhz9Hn8p0

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#18

Post by ufmace » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #13

arikrak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

> That was their original plans for the shuttle. While I agree with your point I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare a for-profit company to a government agency with no requirements to create a profit. A company should always be moving in the direction of the highest profits while a government agency seems to always head in the direction of higher bureaucracy.

I think it's more accurate to say that companies exist to make money, so that's what they optimize. Government agencies exist to provide political capital to their supporters, so they optimize both the political capital created and the number of supporters it's created for.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#19

Post by FrojoS » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:47 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

martythemaniak wrote: post #8

Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets. A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used ro…

The rocket is paid for with its primary mission. Elon has said that the fuel is a very small cost compared to the entire launch, so I would assume the cost to refly a "used" rocket is going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than the original flight. I could see SpaceX segmenting their customers into two tiers: mission completion sensitive, and cost sensitive, with who gets which rockets straightforward.

Unfortunately, they can not reuse the second stage yet and they might never be able to with Falcon 9. I think Elon has already stated as much. The payload penalty due to the required heat shield, thrusters, fuel and legs for the second stage would be too much.

For arguments sake, lets assume that the second stage was 10% of the manufacturing cost and the first stage was 90%. You could argue, that the engines are what's most expensive and the first stage has nine times as many. Ignoring the cost for lunch, landing, refuelling etc. you could at best reduce the cost by 90%, a single order of magnitude. Unfortunately, the first stage might be worth much more. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost distribution is closer to 50-50. The second stage has all the avionics, a special vacuum version of the Merlin engine and might be more weight optimised due to the larger effect on maximum payload.

Lets hope the Mars rocket (BFR) will allow full, low cost reusability. I'm sure SpaceX is working very hard on that.

Re: SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9

#20

Post by nickhalfasleep » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

FrojoS wrote: post #19

toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rocket is paid for with its primary mission. Elon has said that the fuel is a very small cost compared to the entire launch, so I would assume the cost to refly a "used" rocket is going to be orders of magnitude cheaper than the original flight. I could see SpaceX segmenting their customers into two tiers: mission completion sensitive, and cost sensitive, with who gets which rockets straightforward.

Unfortunately, they can not reuse the second stage yet and they might never be able to with Falcon 9. I think Elon has already stated as much. The payload penalty due to the required heat shield, thrusters, fuel and legs for the second stage would be too much. For arguments sake, lets assume that the second stage was 10% of the manufacturing cost and the first stage was 90%. You could argue, that the engines are what…

I wonder if instead of letting the second stage burn up, they could dock them in space somewhere to serve as material and fluid storage. They might not work for long term cryogenic storage, but a ton of pure aluminum has to be worth something up there.