SpaceX Tuesday...

[Toaster]

Flooble said:

Doesn't even make the news now.

It is starting to feel a little like the start of Encounter at Tiber

Indeed why would it, the public got bored of the Moon landing quite quickly, I am sure the Musk Marketing department will send out more exciting news at some point about how we will all be living and working on Mars, but who really cares, or is that me being too cynical ?

[Beati Dogu]

An insight from Elon into the benefits of rocket reuse:

"Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for Falcon 9
Recovery & refurb is <10%,

So you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3"


Not the 10-15 flights that other manufacturers like ULA and Arianespace are quoting. Neither of which have plans to recover the whole booster on their new models, both due out in 2021. The most they'll do is try to recovery the engine section in a few years. No word on them attempting to recover fairings.

[Einion Yrth]

If Starship works out "in a few years" we'll have full and rapid reuse. Old space will be toast.

[RobDickinson]

Yep $2m per launch vs $1bn+ for sls

[Talksteer]

Flooble said:

Beati Dogu said:

Bezos sold off $3.1 billion of Amazon stock the other day to fund Blue Origin. So he's serious about it.

$3.1 billion? How much has SpaceX pulled in funding since inception, to get the point where it has flown 3 types of Rocket, two types of capsule and prototypes of a fourth?

Never mind- I did some googling and the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 cost $390 million in total.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Sec...

After that it's harder to say since once they were launching commercial payloads it becomes to an extent self-funding.

But Bezos needs to negotiate harder with his Blue Origin team, I think!

The $390 million needs to be put into context, that got SpaceX to the first launch of Falcon 9. That doesn't include all the capital spending to build the factory, launch pad and test sites.

This was very definitely a minimum viable product with about half the capability compared to what the rocket has. Since that first launch SpaceX has absorbed many billions in R&D and capital investment funding. They have off the top of my head spent over $1 billion developing re-usability, they have pulled in several billion of NASA seed funding for various projects.

As first newspace mover they had to defeat ULA, as second newspace mover Blue Origin has to match or beat SpaceX. What is more they are planning to jump directly into mass production and regular re-use.

Their first orbital rocket is going to be substantially more capable than Falcon Heavy, it is flying with methane fueled close cycle engines and it will be recoverable from day one.

SpaceX modified existing launch pads, Blue appears to be building one basically from scratch that can take whatever their New Armstrong turns out to be.

SpaceX moved into a facility in LA that was already build, Blue are setting up a brand new facility near to their pad. SpaceX's engine development facility was bought from a defunct newspace company, Blue has to build from scratch.

The idea that Blue was started before SpaceX is also a red herring, Blue didn't get its 1000's employee till 2016. Jeff wasn't really in a position to start funding it until 2012ish.

He does need to pull his finger out as Elon Musk is now 1/2 as rich as him.

[andy_s]

Is the 'competition' a good thing or a waste of resources that would have been better pooled?

[Dr Jekyll]

andy_s said:

Is the 'competition' a good thing or a waste of resources that would have been better pooled?

It's a good thing. Pooling resources just turns into an internal competition decided by office politics, see what happened when NASA took over the McDonnell Douglas DC-X proposal.

[Talksteer]

Beati Dogu said:

An insight from Elon into the benefits of rocket reuse:

"Payload reduction due to reusability of booster & fairing is <40% for Falcon 9
Recovery & refurb is <10%,

So you’re roughly even with 2 flights, definitely ahead with 3"


Not the 10-15 flights that other manufacturers like ULA and Arianespace are quoting. Neither of which have plans to recover the whole booster on their new models, both due out in 2021. The most they'll do is try to recovery the engine section in a few years. No word on them attempting to recover fairings.

That doesn't include the cost of development which is why everyone else came out with 10-15 flights.

1: SpaceX used paid for boosters heading towards the ocean to develop their technology.
2: They actually generated their own demand with Starlink

I doubt that re-usability will pay for itself till somewhere into Starlink deploy

[Beati Dogu]

Amusingly, it was Blue Origin who patented the landing of rockets at sea back in 2010

"outlining a system for launching a rocket from a coastal launch site and recovering the booster by landing it vertically, tail-first, on a platform at sea — using the booster engines to control the descent."

SpaceX successfully managed to get that overturned as prior art, i.e. others had thought of it before.

Exhibit A (which I believe was shown in court): From 1959:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSxDNnqRlo

[anonymous-user]

Beati Dogu said:

Amusingly, it was Blue Origin who patented the landing of rockets at sea back in 2010

"outlining a system for launching a rocket from a coastal launch site and recovering the booster by landing it vertically, tail-first, on a platform at sea — using the booster engines to control the descent."

SpaceX successfully managed to get that overturned as prior art, i.e. others had thought of it before.

Exhibit A (which I believe was shown in court): From 1959:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSxDNnqRlo

That, is brilliant.

[annodomini2]

You could probably argue the Moon landings as well, I don't see landing on a barge as particularly innovative over landing on land.

Aircraft carriers are over a hundred years old, hardly a radical leap to go from planes to rockets.

[Eric Mc]

Automatic, unpiloted landings to such precision were impossible until the advent of freely available GPS technology - so not really doable until the mid 1990s in reality.

[annodomini2]

Eric Mc said:

Automatic, unpiloted landings to such precision were impossible until the advent of freely available GPS technology - so not really doable until the mid 1990s in reality.

Could probably do it with radio beacons.

[98elise]

Beati Dogu said:

Amusingly, it was Blue Origin who patented the landing of rockets at sea back in 2010

"outlining a system for launching a rocket from a coastal launch site and recovering the booster by landing it vertically, tail-first, on a platform at sea — using the booster engines to control the descent."

SpaceX successfully managed to get that overturned as prior art, i.e. others had thought of it before.

Exhibit A (which I believe was shown in court): From 1959:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSxDNnqRlo

Not that I disbelieve you, but that seems a very simplistic thing to be able patent. It's just a simple concept rather than something new or innovative. It's a bit like me getting a patent for landing on Mars.

That said McLaren got a patent for the F1 3 seat design yet it's not a new concept and basically it's putting seats in a different position. Again a bit like someone getting a patent for 5/6/7/8 seats in a vehicle.

[frisbee]

annodomini2 said:

You could probably argue the Moon landings as well, I don't see landing on a barge as particularly innovative over landing on land.

Aircraft carriers are over a hundred years old, hardly a radical leap to go from planes to rockets.

Sea of Tranquility!

[Eric Mc]

annodomini2 said:

Could probably do it with radio beacons.

Not good enough in the 1960s and 70s.

GPS was the answer to accuracy - and even better when SpaceX could make of a system that was already in place and free to access.

[Beati Dogu]

The main man behind their landing activities is a British-born engineer, Lars Blackmore, who has been the Principal Rocket Landing Engineer at SpaceX since 2011.

He's now working on Starship. He's seen here recently, on the SpaceX Demo-2 launch livestream in May:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1266791...


More on how they did it:

https://qz.com/915702/the-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-y...

[Flooble]

Eric Mc said:

Not good enough in the 1960s and 70s.

GPS was the answer to accuracy - and even better when SpaceX could make of a system that was already in place and free to access.

Cat 3 autoland?

[Polite M135 driver]

What’s the plan for landing accurately on mars, without GPS then?

Establish a basic MGPS before you land?

[hidetheelephants]

Flooble said:

Eric Mc said:

Not good enough in the 1960s and 70s.

GPS was the answer to accuracy - and even better when SpaceX could make of a system that was already in place and free to access.

Cat 3 autoland?

Indeed, a great british world beater.