SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 3:51 PM UTC

stetrain wrote: post #18

mozumder wrote: post #3

OK I get that booster reuse cuts down costs, but the fact is the 2nd stage is still not reused, which limits the economic benefits needed to open new markets. We get a 50% reduction in costs, instead of the 95% reduction in costs. You can get a 50% reduction in costs just by going to India for launch.. Is SpaceX going for 2nd stage reuse at all? That's going to be a lot harder than booster stage reuse, since you're r…

Basically the answer to all of those is SpaceX's next gen BFR rocket. It is scaled up significantly which makes second stage reuse practical. The challenge with a rocket the size of the Falcon 9 is that added significant fixed mass to the second stage (heat shielding, parachutes, etc.) will significantly Affect payload mass / performance. By going to a much larger class of rocket, those concessions for re-use become…

Post by lorenzhs » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #15

InTheArena wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full force.

Indeed. Could be that having a legacy rocket programme is if anything a hindrance in this new world of reusability - Ariane in particular seems to be in danger of becoming mainly an employment scheme that builds rockets on the side. For fairness I guess I should say SLS isn't looking too clever at this point either.

Post by gliptic » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

thekingofh wrote: post #22

Have they realized their cost savings yet? Or are the teardowns and smaller redesigns still keeping the launch price up? Basically, are we in the future yet?

Post by thekingofh » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

gliptic wrote: post #25

thekingofh wrote: post #22

Have they realized their cost savings yet? Or are the teardowns and smaller redesigns still keeping the launch price up? Basically, are we in the future yet?

The refurbishing costs of even their first reused booster was less than half the price of a new booster [1], so something above 50%*70% = 35% saving assuming that the booster is 70% of the cost of the launch. The new block 5 version rocket is supposed to reduce that refurbishing cost by a lot. However, they have development costs of something like a billion dollars to pay back, and no reason to lower the price drasti…

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

lorenzhs wrote: post #23

growlist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Could be that having a legacy rocket programme is if anything a hindrance in this new world of reusability - Ariane in particular seems to be in danger of becoming mainly an employment scheme that builds rockets on the side. For fairness I guess I should say SLS isn't looking too clever at this point either.

You're missing the point of Ariane. Its purpose is providing independent access to space for ESA member nations at a reasonable price, and as insurance against a launch monopoly (it upper-bounds what others can charge ESA). Ariane 5 is also extremely reliable, which is very important for some launches (NASA's James Webb telescope is going to launch on Ariane 5, for example). Ariane's goal is not to win the most comme…