SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
annodomini2 said:
I saw somewhere that someone was saying this is the last Dragon launch and they will move to Dragon 2 for subsequent launches can anyone confirm?
I thought it was the last use of a new dragon? subsequent launches will be reusing old dragons and now Dragon 2 manufacture can be stepped up.Yes, they'll reuse existing Dragon 1s from now on. Although the cost of refurbishing recovered ones is about the same as a new build I read somewhere.
This was the last of the original 12 NASA ISS resupply missions, but the contract was extended first to 15 and now to 20 flights.
The first test flight of Dragon 2 isn't expected until March 2018 and will be unmanned.
This latest launch was also the first "Block 4" Falcon 9 first stage, which has uprated engines. The block 4 is in an intermediary version to the (wait for it...) block 5, which will have several more upgrades after their experience with recovered rockets.
This was the last of the original 12 NASA ISS resupply missions, but the contract was extended first to 15 and now to 20 flights.
The first test flight of Dragon 2 isn't expected until March 2018 and will be unmanned.
This latest launch was also the first "Block 4" Falcon 9 first stage, which has uprated engines. The block 4 is in an intermediary version to the (wait for it...) block 5, which will have several more upgrades after their experience with recovered rockets.
Next week's Falcon 9 launch will be "only" their 40th. It's fair to say that SpaceX have certainly shaken up the market already. Before them, there was no real need to innovate and bring the cost of launches down. It was quite a cozy situation with demand outsripping launch capacity.
As Elon Musk said 5 years ago, a circa $200 million Ariane V launch just can't compete with a $60 Falcon 9 one, even if the cost is split between 2 satellites. Especially at Ariane's leisurely 6 launches a year schedule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK6gZ55VT50
The price for a comparable Atlas V launch has dropped from around $150 million to $110 million due to competition.
There's nothing wrong with the Ariane V & Atlas V and they've proven to be dependable systems. For some clients they're happy to pay extra for that reliability. However, competing on price opens the market for other, more adventurous clients that will actively opt for a pre-flown rocket to get into orbit at a lower price.
SpaceX currently have around 45% of the space launch business. It's predicted that next year they'll have 60%.
As Elon Musk said 5 years ago, a circa $200 million Ariane V launch just can't compete with a $60 Falcon 9 one, even if the cost is split between 2 satellites. Especially at Ariane's leisurely 6 launches a year schedule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK6gZ55VT50
The price for a comparable Atlas V launch has dropped from around $150 million to $110 million due to competition.
There's nothing wrong with the Ariane V & Atlas V and they've proven to be dependable systems. For some clients they're happy to pay extra for that reliability. However, competing on price opens the market for other, more adventurous clients that will actively opt for a pre-flown rocket to get into orbit at a lower price.
SpaceX currently have around 45% of the space launch business. It's predicted that next year they'll have 60%.
ninja-lewis said:
Sylvaforever said:
Okay. I read it as a total elimination from dragon.
I think they're eliminating it from the cargo version?When the CRS-7 rocket blew up it was already 2 minutes into the flight. The capsule was thrown clear, but its flight computer hadn't been programmed to deploy the parachutes in the event of a launch emergency. so it plunged like a rock into the Atlantic.
Quite an oversight really, which hopefully they've rectified since.
Quite an oversight really, which hopefully they've rectified since.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff