Your thoughts on Elon musk?

  • 1438 Replies
  • 93999 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #180 on: July 09, 2022, 12:20:46 PM »
SpaceX is a company for making wasteful rockets to appease their dictator.
Actually, SpaceX rockets are currently the most efficient and cost effective rockets in the industry.
Citation needed. And I don't mean some crappy preaching site taking the word of Musk as fact.
How about:
https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/


Also in regards to the reusable rockets vs non-reusable ones.
Especially as the figures I was able to obtain previously indicate that non-reusable rockets have a cheaper cost per kg to orbit.
Citation please.   SpaceX has already used more than one F9 booster more than 10 times.  How is it possible that a disposable booster can be more efficient than that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Reuse_and_recovery_records
« Last Edit: July 09, 2022, 12:24:31 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #181 on: July 09, 2022, 04:18:23 PM »
Citation please.   SpaceX has already used more than one F9 booster more than 10 times.  How is it possible that a disposable booster can be more efficient than that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Reuse_and_recovery_records
Because in order to reuse a booster in the manner space-X does you need to have fuel to use for recovery.
If instead you have it as disposable, you can use all the fuel to get the payload into orbit, allowing a larger payload.
You also need to outfit the booster with components for recovery that it otherwise wouldn't need, such as landing legs, further cutting down the weight you can launch into orbit.

In addition, depending on where the booster lands, there can also be costs associated with recovery.
And while you may think you could save that by having it land back at the launch site, that may require more fuel meaning it could be cheaper to recover.

And there are always the costs of refurbishment to get the booster ready to launch again.

And remember, it is only the first stage that is reusable.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #182 on: July 09, 2022, 09:23:31 PM »
Because in order to reuse a booster in the manner space-X does you need to have fuel to use for recovery.
If instead you have it as disposable, you can use all the fuel to get the payload into orbit, allowing a larger payload.
Are you suggesting that fuel costs more than the booster? ???  Also, why would you think that every launch will be the maximum rated payload of the rocket?

You also need to outfit the booster with components for recovery that it otherwise wouldn't need, such as landing legs, further cutting down the weight you can launch into orbit.
Yes, but they get reused with the booster.

In addition, depending on where the booster lands, there can also be costs associated with recovery.
And while you may think you could save that by having it land back at the launch site, that may require more fuel meaning it could be cheaper to recover.
Some of the lighter payloads do allow the F9 booster to return to the launch site.

And there are always the costs of refurbishment to get the booster ready to launch again.
Since when does it cost more to refurbish than to build from scratch?

And remember, it is only the first stage that is reusable.
Yes, the biggest and most expensive stage.  Don't forget that they are also recovering and refurbishing the several million dollar payload fairings.

Let's put it this way, SpaceX is charging about $67 million for a refurbished F9 mission and around $90 million for a new expendable F9 mission.  Who else in the medium lift segment comes close to that?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2022, 09:26:09 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #183 on: July 10, 2022, 02:58:25 AM »
Are you suggesting that fuel costs more than the booster? ???  Also, why would you think that every launch will be the maximum rated payload of the rocket?
No, I'm suggesting keeping fuel in reserve reduces the maximum payload which in turn means you could need more rockets for the same payload, increasing the cost.

If you have a significantly smaller payload, there is the question of if a smaller rocket would be better, or adding more fuel to the payload.

Yes, but they get reused with the booster.
But they add weight, reducing the maximum weight of the payload.

Since when does it cost more to refurbish than to build from scratch?
Look at the cost to repair lots of electronics.
While it is surprising, it can cost more to refurbish due to needing to examine each part to determine what needs to be fixed, take it apart and then replace it.
But the big issue with this is you need to refurbish and launch multiple rockets (or refurbish multiple times) vs just launching 1.

Let's put it this way, SpaceX is charging about $67 million for a refurbished F9 mission and around $90 million for a new expendable F9 mission.  Who else in the medium lift segment comes close to that?
Do you have a source for those numbers, showing the actual costs of spaceX, not publicity claims, especially noting that some claim spaceX charges significantly more to the government so they can have lower prices for private launches.

Even using those numbers, the payload for an expendable rocket to LEO is 22.8 tonne. That gives a cost of $3.9 million per tonne. The payload for a reusable rocket is 16.25 tonne, which gives a cost of $4.1 million per tonne. For GTO it is 10.8 and 12.2.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #184 on: July 10, 2022, 11:45:56 AM »
Are you suggesting that fuel costs more than the booster? ???  Also, why would you think that every launch will be the maximum rated payload of the rocket?
No, I'm suggesting keeping fuel in reserve reduces the maximum payload which in turn means you could need more rockets for the same payload, increasing the cost.
All rocket manufacturers design their rockets with a specific payload range in mind.  Depending on the customer's requirements, SpaceX offers their F9 boosters to operate in expendable, ocean recovery or land recovery modes and are priced accordingly.  They don't seem to have much trouble attracting customers and filling their needs.

If you have a significantly smaller payload, there is the question of if a smaller rocket would be better, or adding more fuel to the payload.
Does the term "rideshare" mean anything to you?

Since when does it cost more to refurbish than to build from scratch?
Look at the cost to repair lots of electronics.
While it is surprising, it can cost more to refurbish due to needing to examine each part to determine what needs to be fixed, take it apart and then replace it.
Sure, assuming that the electronics go bad after each flight.  SpaceX has been refurbishing their F9 for a number of years now and have been able to increase the reliability of the boosters to the point where the current turnaround record is 21 days.

But the big issue with this is you need to refurbish and launch multiple rockets (or refurbish multiple times) vs just launching 1.
I can't help but to wonder whose assembly line is stamping out medium lift rockets like popcorn.

Let's put it this way, SpaceX is charging about $67 million for a refurbished F9 mission and around $90 million for a new expendable F9 mission.  Who else in the medium lift segment comes close to that?
Do you have a source for those numbers, showing the actual costs of spaceX, not publicity claims, especially noting that some claim spaceX charges significantly more to the government so they can have lower prices for private launches.
I'm sure that the actual numbers vary quite a lot depending on the customer and payload, but those are the general numbers often quoted by the media.

Even using those numbers, the payload for an expendable rocket to LEO is 22.8 tonne. That gives a cost of $3.9 million per tonne. The payload for a reusable rocket is 16.25 tonne, which gives a cost of $4.1 million per tonne. For GTO it is 10.8 and 12.2.
The numbers generally tossed around by the media for F9 is around $2500/kg to LEO and even less for Falcon Heavy.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/

If you want exact numbers, then maybe you should contact SpaceX yourself.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #185 on: July 10, 2022, 02:33:07 PM »
All rocket manufacturers design their rockets with a specific payload range in mind.  Depending on the customer's requirements, SpaceX offers their F9 boosters to operate in expendable, ocean recovery or land recovery modes and are priced accordingly.  They don't seem to have much trouble attracting customers and filling their needs.
Which in no way addresses the points I made.

People do all sorts of crazy things. Look at how many people have thrown money at a century old idea called the vactrain.
Or how many people throw loads of money at solar roadways.

Does the term "rideshare" mean anything to you?
Yes, does it mean anything to you? Because rideshare would try to get the maximum payload weight.

Sure, assuming that the electronics go bad after each flight.
Electronics were just an example.
The question is what goes bad and needs to be replaced or repaired, how much it costs to determine what those parts are, and how much it costs to then replace them.
With some things, building a new one can be cheaper.

I can't help but to wonder whose assembly line is stamping out medium lift rockets like popcorn.
Well that is what Musk wanted to do at one point.

I'm sure that the actual numbers vary quite a lot depending on the customer and payload, but those are the general numbers often quoted by the media.
And that is the issue. They are numbers which are tossed around, without real justification.
We know Musk is someone who is willing to blatantly lie to people to make his companies look good and make himself money.

We also know he is happy to have companies like Tesla run at a loss to increase image.
So the big question is are these numbers real, or are they significantly undervaluing the cost of the rocket/refurbishment to make their rockets appear significantly cheaper than competitors.

Especially given the apparently much larger cost for government flights.

We can also see the price jump dramatically for things like the crew dragon, where it is allegedly charged at something like $67 million per seat, so crew-1 would be $268 million.

The numbers generally tossed around by the media for F9 is around $2500/kg to LEO and even less for Falcon Heavy.
Which again are numbers tossed around by the media, rather than justified numbers.

If you want exact numbers, then maybe you should contact SpaceX yourself.
And as that would just come from Musk or SpaceX through whatever media BS they have, I wouldn't trust those either.
I would trust SpaceX having an audit of how much things actually cost by an independent third party.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #186 on: July 10, 2022, 06:18:25 PM »
Sure, assuming that the electronics go bad after each flight.
Electronics were just an example.
The question is what goes bad and needs to be replaced or repaired, how much it costs to determine what those parts are, and how much it costs to then replace them.
With some things, building a new one can be cheaper.
In this case, the F9 block 5 booster is not one of them.

I can't help but to wonder whose assembly line is stamping out medium lift rockets like popcorn.
Well that is what Musk wanted to do at one point.
No, he wanted reusability so that he wouldn't need to stamp out boosters like popcorn.  As I recall, he was looking at trying to get to the booster to last 100 launches with major refurbs every 10th flight and only inspections and minor refurbs for the rest of the flights.

I'm sure that the actual numbers vary quite a lot depending on the customer and payload, but those are the general numbers often quoted by the media.
And that is the issue. They are numbers which are tossed around, without real justification.
We know Musk is someone who is willing to blatantly lie to people to make his companies look good and make himself money.
How many SpaceX customers do you know of who are pissed off at Musk for lying to them?

We also know he is happy to have companies like Tesla run at a loss to increase image.
So the big question is are these numbers real, or are they significantly undervaluing the cost of the rocket/refurbishment to make their rockets appear significantly cheaper than competitors.
I suppose that's between Musk and his investors.

Especially given the apparently much larger cost for government flights.

We can also see the price jump dramatically for things like the crew dragon, where it is allegedly charged at something like $67 million per seat, so crew-1 would be $268 million.
Which is still significantly cheaper than what Boeing is getting paid for a comparable mission.

If you want exact numbers, then maybe you should contact SpaceX yourself.
And as that would just come from Musk or SpaceX through whatever media BS they have, I wouldn't trust those either.
I would trust SpaceX having an audit of how much things actually cost by an independent third party.
Then why don't you ask a SpaceX customer what they paid for their launch?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #187 on: July 11, 2022, 01:01:12 AM »
How many SpaceX customers do you know of who are pissed off at Musk for lying to them?
How many Apple customers do you know of who are pissed off at Apple for lying to them?

I suppose that's between Musk and his investors.
But the point is we can't trust the numbers provided.

Then why don't you ask a SpaceX customer what they paid for their launch?
Already explained.
That would just tell me how much they were charged, not how much it actually costs.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #188 on: July 11, 2022, 02:59:23 AM »
There is no longer a question if reusability is cost effective.
EVERY rocket company in the medium to heavy lift range is developing reusable rockets. This goes from ULA, Boeings subsidary to European Space Agency. If Only SpaceX where chaing this dream, then you may have had a point. But the fact that everyone is trying to achieve reusability should show its pretty obvious that it saves money.

I mean, In what world does 30t of landing fuel cost more than an entire rocket + engines where each engine costs millions.

As for launching more mass. The F9 has a LEO payload capacity of about 16t. This is abouth what the Space Shuttle could do. Most payloads weigh a lot less, more in the 4-5t range. These sats are also pretty large, because they have things like solar panels and antenna that are bulky and not very dense. So being able to launch 21t instead of 16t is not really an advantage, something that they can still do.

As for Dragon crew costing more. Its a whole additional vehicle which is far more complex than the rocket below it which is a cause for the additional cost.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #189 on: July 11, 2022, 03:22:49 AM »
There is no longer a question if reusability is cost effective.
EVERY rocket company in the medium to heavy lift range is developing reusable rockets.
Look at all the companies that decide to look into the vactrain after Musk hyped it up.
Lots of companies looking into it doesn't mean it is a good idea or cost effective.

Once it is actually cheaper per kg to launch a reusable rocket and reuse it, with that being the actual cost to do so rather than what people are charged,

I mean, In what world does 30t of landing fuel cost more than an entire rocket + engines where each engine costs millions.
It isn't 30 t of landing fuel. It is a reduction in the capacity of the rocket, requiring multiple launches for the same payload mass.

As for launching more mass. The F9 has a LEO payload capacity of about 16t. This is about what the Space Shuttle could do.
That would be the payload to the ISS.
The payload to LEO for the shuttle was 27.5 tonne.

Most payloads weigh a lot less, more in the 4-5t range.
And multiple of these can be launched as the one payload.

These sats are also pretty large, because they have things like solar panels and antenna that are bulky and not very dense.
Which are typically stowed away to make them fairly dense.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #190 on: July 11, 2022, 03:44:10 AM »
Even using those numbers, the payload for an expendable rocket to LEO is 22.8 tonne. That gives a cost of $3.9 million per tonne. The payload for a reusable rocket is 16.25 tonne, which gives a cost of $4.1 million per tonne. For GTO it is 10.8 and 12.2.
The mass per ton is actually not the best way to look at things. If you want a Sat weighing 5t in SSO, the mass per kg is pretty useless. You are paying for the whole rocket. So the question is, what rocket can do that for the least amount of money. Ride share is only useful if the other payloads are going to the same orbit, which is very rare.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #191 on: July 11, 2022, 04:07:12 AM »
Once it is actually cheaper per kg to launch a reusable rocket and reuse it, with that being the actual cost to do so rather than what people are charged,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_in_spaceflight
Falcon9 is the most used rocket on earth right now. It has more NASA and commercial payloads (not starlink) in 2022 already than ALL other US launchers combined. If it was not cheaper and safer, then how do you explain this outcome?

It isn't 30 t of landing fuel. It is a reduction in the capacity of the rocket, requiring multiple launches for the same payload mass.
But your not launching "mass", your launching Satellites. Very few sats weight over 5tons, never mind 16. There are only about 10 things that have ever launched into LEO weighing more than 16t. So this additional capacity is not needed. For heavier things, they can launch expendable or use FH.

That would be the payload to the ISS.
The payload to LEO for the shuttle was 27.5 tonne.
Heaviest payload the STS ever did was 22.7t (Chandra telescope) and they had to remove seats and some other equipment to make that happen. It only took 5 people, opposed to 6-7. Launch cost for STS was in the range of $1.4B.

And multiple of these can be launched as the one payload.
Very few satellites want to share orbits. Each sat usually has a mission, and each mission has mission requirements, such as altitude, inclination ext. Starlink is special, because they are groups of sats that want to be in the same inclination and orbit. Cubesats dont care as long as they get into orbit. Its a bit like choosing to take a cheaper bus, but it does not go to the city you want to go to.

Which are typically stowed away to make them fairly dense.
A lot less dense than you think. The Airforce is paying SpaceX money to build bigger fairings because the fairing size is a bigger limitation that its launch mass.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2022, 04:09:19 AM by MaNaeSWolf »
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #192 on: July 11, 2022, 04:46:25 AM »
If it was not cheaper and safer, then how do you explain this outcome?
Already addressed.

But your not launching "mass", your launching Satellites. Very few sats weight over 5tons, never mind 16. There are only about 10 things that have ever launched into LEO weighing more than 16t. So this additional capacity is not needed.
Which means you can use a smaller and cheaper rocket, or multiple satellites can be launched in one.

If this capacity is not needed, why do they have the Falcon 9 heavy? Why are they working on Starship that they want to entirely replace the Falcon?

Heaviest payload the STS ever did was 22.7t (Chandra telescope) and they had to remove seats and some other equipment to make that happen. It only took 5 people, opposed to 6-7. Launch cost for STS was in the range of $1.4B.
Quite a large cost for a mostly reusable rocket.

Very few satellites want to share orbits.
You are aware they don't need to remain fixed in the orbits they are in?

A lot less dense than you think. The Airforce is paying SpaceX money to build bigger fairings because the fairing size is a bigger limitation that its launch mass.
For a telescope, with a lot of empty space inside. Quite different to solar panels.
And I think that is meant to be launched on the Falcon 9 heavy.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #193 on: July 11, 2022, 05:27:36 AM »
Already addressed.
.
I dont think you did. Maybe I missed it? Why do you think most commercial and governments are using the Falcon9 and not another rocket?


Which means you can use a smaller and cheaper rocket, or multiple satellites can be launched in one.
There are very few rockets with payloads above 4 tons. And those that do exist are very expensive or specialised. Again, just look at what's actually being launched, and what they are flying on. There simply is not a smaller and cheaper rocket for a more than 4 ton launcher than Falcon 9.

And you really really cant just put different sats on the same rocket. Those sats need to be going to the same inclination and orbital altitude. You cant just get on any bus and expect to go home.

If this capacity is not needed, why do they have the Falcon 9 heavy? Why are they working on Starship that they want to entirely replace the Falcon?
Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9. These orbits are also for GEO or inter planetary missions, where it takes far more energy just to launch a 1 ton payload.
Starships full reusability is trying to get total vehicle cost below that of the Falcon 9. So 100t to orbit for less than F9. Then a 4 ton payload will still have a fixed cost.

Quite a large cost for a mostly reusable rocket.
Indeed. And because STS failed at reducing cost, everyone though it could not be done. But It was simply that the engineering did not work out.


You are aware they don't need to remain fixed in the orbits they are in?
Changing inclinations is very energy intense, and so is raising orbits. To do so, you need to add a lot of fuel and complexity to your satellite. By the time you have done this, you may as well have bought a launch for yourself.

For a telescope, with a lot of empty space inside. Quite different to solar panels.
And I think that is meant to be launched on the Falcon 9 heavy.
F9 heavy is massively crippled by its small fairing.
But your underestimating the issue.
Sats are not dense because everything that needs to fold or unfold is a potential failure point. They also have massive thermal issues. For every watt of energy they recieve from the sun, they need to dump somewhere. Being dense means they overheat quickly.

And the bigger issue. They need to be stacked on top of each other for ridesharing. These cubesats are usually launched from a tube, which houses a bunch of sats inside a structure. (This structure is also heavy and large)
If you put multiple sats in a rocket, they need to stack on top of each other, which means the bottom one has to take additional loads for the sats on top. Then these sats need to ensure they can properly disconnect, which has caused many payloads to fail before. This can all be done, but its usually designed from the start with one customer wanting 2 sats and not too difficult requirements.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #194 on: July 11, 2022, 03:38:23 PM »
I dont think you did. Maybe I missed it? Why do you think most commercial and governments are using the Falcon9 and not another rocket?
Because it is cheap for them, and is getting a mostly reliable track record.
What alternatives are there? Not many.
But specifically against the point you were making is that it is the cost to them, not the cost to actually make/refurbish the rocket.

Not to mention a lot of the launches are done for starlink.
You want to appeal to 2022 in spaceflight, well of the 29 launches of the Falcon in 2022, 17 of them were for starlink.
If you take out all those starlink launches, the falcon doesn't look any where near as impressive, and is beaten by Long March.

There are very few rockets with payloads above 4 tons.
And if most payloads are less than 5 tonnes, and they want their own dedicated launch, why aren't there more rockets for them?

And you really really cant just put different sats on the same rocket.
As long as they are on a similar enough orbit, its fine.
It isn't like every satellite wants its own orbit all to itself.

And considering you want to cling to the bus analogy, it is also possible for multiple people to get on the one bus, and then get off at different points along the route.
Likewise, with a rocket, it is possible to have multiple payloads released at different points to put them into different orbits.

Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9.
Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon 9 heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.

Starships full reusability is trying to get total vehicle cost below that of the Falcon 9.
And if they can manage that, why can't they manage it with a smaller vehicle?

Quite a large cost for a mostly reusable rocket.
Indeed. And because STS failed at reducing cost, everyone though it could not be done. But It was simply that the engineering did not work out.

Changing inclinations is very energy intense, and so is raising orbits.
If only they had a rocket with plenty of payload to spare to do it for them...

To do so, you need to add a lot of fuel and complexity to your satellite.
If you already have fuel on the satellite, chances are it doesn't need to add complexity, just fuel.

F9 heavy is massively crippled by its small fairing.
Yes, but is the F9?

For a simple approximation of a cylinder, the volume of the Falcon fairing is ~183 m^3.
For the expendable payload of 22.8 tonne to LEO, that works out to be a density of 124.7 kg/m^3.
That is already a very low density.

But your underestimating the issue.
Sats are not dense because everything that needs to fold or unfold is a potential failure point. They also have massive thermal issues. For every watt of energy they recieve from the sun, they need to dump somewhere. Being dense means they overheat quickly.
The components which need to fold and unfold are generally going to be too large and too fragile to have open during the launch.
Density doesn't make them overheat. Just how do you think that works?
Do you think being dense will mean they will take in more heat from the sun, or be able to dump less?

If you take something like the ISS, and fill one of the compartments with lead, do you think that will magically make it heat up?

And the bigger issue. They need to be stacked on top of each other for ridesharing.
No they don't.
They can be attached to a central adapter.
This adapter will be what supports the satellites. No load needs to be transferred through other satellites.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #195 on: July 11, 2022, 05:02:25 PM »
How many SpaceX customers do you know of who are pissed off at Musk for lying to them?
How many Apple customers do you know of who are pissed off at Apple for lying to them?
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?

I suppose that's between Musk and his investors.
But the point is we can't trust the numbers provided.
If you aren't a potential SpaceX customer, then why should you care what the numbers are?

Then why don't you ask a SpaceX customer what they paid for their launch?
Already explained.
That would just tell me how much they were charged, not how much it actually costs.
Again, why do you care?  If SpaceX is losing money, then that's between SpaceX and their investors.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #196 on: July 12, 2022, 12:52:33 AM »
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?
No, I'm comparing fanboys and other opinionated people.
They are quite happy to throw money away.

If you aren't a potential SpaceX customer, then why should you care what the numbers are?
Again, why do you care?  If SpaceX is losing money, then that's between SpaceX and their investors.
Because someone claimed that SpaceX rockets are currently the most efficient and cost effective rockets in the industry.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #197 on: July 12, 2022, 05:07:57 AM »
Because it is cheap for them, and is getting a mostly reliable track record.
What alternatives are there? Not many.
But specifically against the point you were making is that it is the cost to them, not the cost to actually make/refurbish the rocket.

Not to mention a lot of the launches are done for starlink.
You want to appeal to 2022 in spaceflight, well of the 29 launches of the Falcon in 2022, 17 of them were for starlink.
Currently (and practically), for above 5tons to orbit, you have
Falcon9 - 16 to 28t
Delta IV - 28t
Proton-M - 23t (now only for Russia)
Soyuz - 8t (now only for Russia)
Ariane 5 - 21t
Atlas V - 17t
There are the options. Soyuz was very well used, but was still out priced by F9. Proton-M actually came close the cost of a F9 at a per kg cost, but was still lost to the F9 as it as it had a better safety record.
The other rockets are all a lot more expensive.
Long March and Angara are not on this list, because no matter how much money you have, you cant buy a launch on one. 

If you take out all those starlink launches, the falcon doesn't look any where near as impressive, and is beaten by Long March.
If I remove CCP payloads from the Long March, it does not look very impressive at ZERO launches. If you want to remove internal payloads for F9, then you need to do that for the Long March too.

[/size]
And if most payloads are less than 5 tonnes, and they want their own dedicated launch, why aren't there more rockets for them?
3 points.
1 - Because mass is not the only thing that matters, energy is. Change your orbit inclination by 45 degrees, and suddenly you need 25% more energy to get to the chosen orbit. Same with raising orbits. As I mentioned time and again, orbit is not a single location. you need a lot more energy to be at a 750x750km orbit vs a 200x200km orbit. So your 5 ton launcher is practically only a 3ton launcher for most customers.
2 - Because a 16t launcher can launch everything a 5t launcher can, but not the other way round. This means there are shared costs between many flights of a big rocket, where a 5ton launcher only flying 3 times a year still needs to pay a 100 people a salary for standing around most of the time.
3 - They are coming, but starting at the small sat market. But the market is not ready for too many of them.
[/quote]

As long as they are on a similar enough orbit, its fine.
It isn't like every satellite wants its own orbit all to itself.

And considering you want to cling to the bus analogy, it is also possible for multiple people to get on the one bus, and then get off at different points along the route.
Likewise, with a rocket, it is possible to have multiple payloads released at different points to put them into different orbits.
As I have said, many sats do share a ride. But not as many. Most want their own specialised orbital characteristics. A second/ third stage is not a bus that can drive to a fuel stop, fill up, change directions and go somewhere else. Its not star trek. There is a massive cost in changing direction.

Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon 9 heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.
And SpaceX still choses to use a reusable F9 Heavy. Do you want to know why? Because its cheaper for them to refurbish 3 rocket stages than to build 1 new one.

And if they can manage that, why can't they manage it with a smaller vehicle?
Its harder with a smaller vehicle. And they want to do it with a bigger vehicle. Something about Mars.
Its harder with a smaller vehicle not just because your mass fraction becomes tougher to manage with additional parts needed for re-use. But also because a large rocket allows orbital depots, which opens up a host of other possibilities.

If you already have fuel on the satellite, chances are it doesn't need to add complexity, just fuel.
The only reason why your doing this is cause you are flying multiple payloads. So now you need to not only build a bigger sat with more fuel, you also need to accommodate the other sat that will sit on top of yours during launch at 3G. And have to accept that you could launch years later, because the other sat developers are late. Where are they saving time or money?

Yes, but is the F9?

For a simple approximation of a cylinder, the volume of the Falcon fairing is ~183 m^3.
For the expendable payload of 22.8 tonne to LEO, that works out to be a density of 124.7 kg/m^3.
That is already a very low density.
They are not launching foam blocks, they are launching Satelites.
this ->

is what a 3.8ton satellite looks like inside a 4m wide fairing.

No they don't.
They can be attached to a central adapter.
This adapter will be what supports the satellites. No load needs to be transferred through other satellites.
Only small sats can fit inside a central adaptor. Small is sub 200-300kg. Not even in the same ball park
« Last Edit: July 12, 2022, 05:12:57 AM by MaNaeSWolf »
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #198 on: July 12, 2022, 02:56:09 PM »
If I remove CCP payloads from the Long March, it does not look very impressive at ZERO launches. If you want to remove internal payloads for F9, then you need to do that for the Long March too.
Then we can also remove all US launches for F9.

3 points.
1 - Because mass is not the only thing that matters, energy is. Change your orbit inclination by 45 degrees, and suddenly you need 25% more energy to get to the chosen orbit. Same with raising orbits. As I mentioned time and again, orbit is not a single location. you need a lot more energy to be at a 750x750km orbit vs a 200x200km orbit. So your 5 ton launcher is practically only a 3ton launcher for most customers.
2 - Because a 16t launcher can launch everything a 5t launcher can, but not the other way round. This means there are shared costs between many flights of a big rocket, where a 5ton launcher only flying 3 times a year still needs to pay a 100 people a salary for standing around most of the time.
3 - They are coming, but starting at the small sat market. But the market is not ready for too many of them.
Point 1 just shoots yourself in the foot.
For point 2, why would they need to just stand around most of the time? Are you suggesting it would be impossible for someone to work on 2 different rockets?
3 - But you had just said that practically nothing needs more, so if the market is ready for F9, why isn't it ready for them?

As I have said, many sats do share a ride. But not as many. Most want their own specialised orbital characteristics. A second/ third stage is not a bus that can drive to a fuel stop, fill up, change directions and go somewhere else. Its not star trek. There is a massive cost in changing direction.
But when you have so much overhead, it can have plenty of spare fuel to change orbits.

And SpaceX still choses to use a reusable F9 Heavy. Do you want to know why?
To look good, like Musk likes trying with so much crap.

Its harder with a smaller vehicle. And they want to do it with a bigger vehicle. Something about Mars.
Its harder with a smaller vehicle not just because your mass fraction becomes tougher to manage with additional parts needed for re-use. But also because a large rocket allows orbital depots, which opens up a host of other possibilities.
Or was it because they have already given up on the smaller rocket?
Initially they wanted a fully reusable Falcon 9. They wanted a reusable second stage.

The only reason why your doing this is cause you are flying multiple payloads.
Or if you want to be able to have orbital manoeuvring capability, which can be either for small corrections, pointing in other directions, or for extending the life of the mission. For example, JWT is limited by how much fuel it has.

So now you need to not only build a bigger sat with more fuel, you also need to accommodate the other sat that will sit on top of yours during launch at 3G. And have to accept that you could launch years later, because the other sat developers are late. Where are they saving time or money?
That entirely depends on how the launch is setup. You will not necessarily need the other satellite to sit on top.
To solve the time issue, you just need a contract with a definitive launch date, so if they are late they loose the money, and then make sure you meet the date.

They are not launching foam blocks, they are launching Satelites.
this ->
is what a 3.8ton satellite looks like inside a 4m wide fairing.
An image without any reference to show mass or the like is not helpful for anything.

Only small sats can fit inside a central adaptor. Small is sub 200-300kg. Not even in the same ball park
They don't need to fit inside, they can attach to it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #199 on: July 12, 2022, 03:47:53 PM »
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?
No, I'm comparing fanboys and other opinionated people.
They are quite happy to throw money away.
Then it's a good thing that neither are the in target market for the satellite launch industry.

Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9.
Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode is 5.5 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode, is 26.7 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.
FTFY because you seem to have trouble comparing apples to apples.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2022, 04:01:19 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #200 on: July 12, 2022, 03:52:06 PM »
Are you seriously trying to compare iPhones to rockets?
No, I'm comparing fanboys and other opinionated people.
They are quite happy to throw money away.
Then it's a good thing that neither are the in target market for the satellite launch industry.
Considering we have seen just how much money governments and other large bodies are willing to throw away on technology that "looks good" without any real benefit and which is almost certain to fail; just how sure are you about that?


Because the falcon heavy is MUCH more powerful than a disposable F9.
Is it really?
The Falcon 9 payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode is 8.3 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in reusable mode, is 8 tonne.
The Falcon heavy payload to GTO, when used in expendable mode, is 26.7 tonne.

This shows just what it takes to make it reusable.
You use 3 stage 1 engines, instead of just 1.
FTFY because you seem to have trouble comparing apples to apples.
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point. Great job. I bet you feel so proud.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #201 on: July 12, 2022, 04:12:29 PM »
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point.
No, you're the one missing the point.  Just like every other space launch provider, SpaceX provides a variety of manned and unmanned launch capabilities that they are able to offer their customers and price those options accordingly.  If they can undercut their competitors and/or pad their profit margin by using flight tested, previously flown boosters, then what's the problem?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #202 on: July 12, 2022, 10:33:45 PM »
Then we can also remove all US launches for F9.
No, because Long March does not launch ANY commercial payloads, even within China. Long March is closer in comparison to the SLS. No amount of money can get a commercial payload on the rocket. Its out of the equation of any discussion because the price per ticket is simply not even for discussion.


Point 1 just shoots yourself in the foot.
For point 2, why would they need to just stand around most of the time? Are you suggesting it would be impossible for someone to work on 2 different rockets?
3 - But you had just said that practically nothing needs more, so if the market is ready for F9, why isn't it ready for them?
Point one says that you need a decent sized launcher to be competitive in the Market. WITH reusability, F9 is pretty large.
2 - When you only launch a few times a year, and your job on a rocket is over within 2 weeks, what do you do? In one month you can finish all your work for the year. To give an example. There are whole crews that work on the loading of cryogenic or volatile fuels. This is a specialist job, not some random team of people your pulling off an assembly line. But this job is only need during the week or 2 before launch, and then a bit afterwards. What does this guy do for the rest of the year?
3 - Small sat market (under 1ton) is growing. But the cost to develop rockets is really high. We are talking hundreds of millions, so you cant just quickly make a new rocket. It takes time.

But when you have so much overhead, it can have plenty of spare fuel to change orbits.
This would make sense if reusability was not a lot cheaper. The internal cost to launch a refurbished F9 is about $28m. Less than half the cost of launching one new rocket. SpaceX will chose to launch 2 reused before they dispose of a single rocket.
They also reduce their fixed cost this way. Building rockets is expensive because it takes people to do so. But you also need a bigger factory if you have a higher production rate. So they are keeping a small team to build rockets at a consistent pace. The similarities between their 1st and 2nd stage make this even more important for their business case.

To look good, like Musk likes trying with so much crap.
Except Musk does not book rocket flights, Gwynne Shotwell does. Also, they are not gov funded, they can run out of money. If reuse cost more, they would be broke by now.
In total they have 160 launches on the books. If they made no profit on any of them, no investor would fund them and they would not have cash to develop Starship.

Or was it because they have already given up on the smaller rocket?
Initially they wanted a fully reusable Falcon 9. They wanted a reusable second stage.
As you mention, reusability eats into your payload capacity. F9 only has 16tons to spare after reuse. Reusing the 2nd stage eats into more margin, meaning that their 16ton launcher now becomes a 4ton launcher. And when you consider that 4tons is only a reference orbit, it then competes with the small sat market, which is not good. So in this case, reusability would have not been worth it.
If you make the rocket a LOT bigger, then you can still put a decent payload into orbit, and reuse the 2nd stage. Blue Origin is working on this right now as well. And so is Starship.

Or if you want to be able to have orbital manoeuvring capability, which can be either for small corrections, pointing in other directions, or for extending the life of the mission. For example, JWT is limited by how much fuel it has.
Orbital manoeuvring takes a lot less fuel than inclination or altitude changes. This is really just for desaturating gyros, small single m/s changes in velocity ext. The fuel on these sats lasts them 20 - 30 years. For a inclination change, you will use multiple tons of fuel in hours.

That entirely depends on how the launch is setup. You will not necessarily need the other satellite to sit on top.
To solve the time issue, you just need a contract with a definitive launch date, so if they are late they loose the money, and then make sure you meet the date.
Usually when there is ride share, its the same customer who wants 2 sats, who can design them together. Or they are smaller sats that can sit side by side. But sats are VERY often late, by years. Usually because they are such specialised and cutting edge technology, they run into unforeseen issues in development.

An image without any reference to show mass or the like is not helpful for anything.

https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2020/06/29/third-gps-iii-satellite-encapsulated-in-falcon-9-payload-fairing-ahead-of-launch/
Different launch of the same type of sat. 3.8ton GPS 3 sats. There where a few launched on different rockets. The previous image was on the Delta V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_III#Launch_history

They don't need to fit inside, they can attach to it.
Sure, for little sats, not what we are talking about.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #203 on: July 13, 2022, 01:07:22 AM »
You didn't fix it, you just entirely ignored the point.
No, you're the one missing the point.
Considering it was my comment, I think I would know what the point is, especially given the context.
The point is that in the quest of reusability, instead of launching a single Falcon 9, with a single stage 1 booster, they instead need to use a Falcon 9 heavy, with 3 stage 1 boosters.
It is a demonstration of just how much reusability can cost.

If they can undercut their competitors and/or pad their profit margin by using flight tested, previously flown boosters, then what's the problem?
The question is if they are actually padding their profit margin using reusable boosters.

No, because Long March does not launch ANY commercial payloads, even within China. Long March is closer in comparison to the SLS. No amount of money can get a commercial payload on the rocket. Its out of the equation of any discussion because the price per ticket is simply not even for discussion.
By what definition of "commercial"?
They certainly seem to be launching things comparable to commercial things launched in the US.
For example, a bunch of satellites for GalaxySpace.

The only reason it is out of so many equations is because the US doesn't want to allow China to launch satellites. So much so that it blocks any US company from contracting any Chinese entity (including any Chinese company) to launch a satellite.
This also means it blocks satellite components being used by overseas companies to make a satellite which is then launched by the Chinese company.

Just think of how many launches it could have if the US allowed it.

Point one says that you need a decent sized launcher to be competitive in the Market. WITH reusability, F9 is pretty large.
And goes directly against your prior claims that you don't need such a large capacity.

2 - When you only launch a few times a year, and your job on a rocket is over within 2 weeks, what do you do?
Why would you need to have your job only be for that rocket?
Are you saying these people are too stupid to look after 2 or 3 different types of rockets?
If so, I wouldn't trust them looking after 1.

To give an example. There are whole crews that work on the loading of cryogenic or volatile fuels. This is a specialist job, not some random team of people your pulling off an assembly line. But this job is only need during the week or 2 before launch, and then a bit afterwards. What does this guy do for the rest of the year?
The exact same thing, with other rockets.

This would make sense if reusability was not a lot cheaper. The internal cost to launch a refurbished F9 is about $28m.
Prove it.

Except Musk does not book rocket flights, Gwynne Shotwell does.
Musk also didn't really invest much into hyperscam. Instead other companies, or rich people from those companies, were quite happy to throw money away at it.

Also, they are not gov funded, they can run out of money. If reuse cost more, they would be broke by now.
Sure, they aren't government funded, they just get billions of dollars from government contracts.

And as already established, the cost per kg of reusable rockets is more to the customers.

As you mention, reusability eats into your payload capacity. F9 only has 16tons to spare after reuse. Reusing the 2nd stage eats into more margin, meaning that their 16ton launcher now becomes a 4ton launcher. And when you consider that 4tons is only a reference orbit, it then competes with the small sat market, which is not good. So in this case, reusability would have not been worth it.
If you make the rocket a LOT bigger, then you can still put a decent payload into orbit, and reuse the 2nd stage. Blue Origin is working on this right now as well. And so is Starship.
Which still shows that it isn't simple a case of they didn't want it. Musk at least implied that he wanted Falcon to be fully reusuable.

And while starship may allow it to be fully reusable, with all the costs of refurbishment, will it end up being more expensive?

For a inclination change, you will use multiple tons of fuel in hours.
Or you can do it more efficiently over a longer period of time, including by using more complex manoeuvres.

https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2020/06/29/third-gps-iii-satellite-encapsulated-in-falcon-9-payload-fairing-ahead-of-launch/
Different launch of the same type of sat.
So why couldn't you get the article for the previous image?
And this one doesn't show it inside the fairing, just near it.
It appears that it will have quite a lot of empty space.

Sure, for little sats, not what we are talking about.
We are talking about rideshare in general, not just for loads where it wouldn't be practical.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #204 on: July 13, 2022, 02:18:15 AM »
The point is that in the quest of reusability, instead of launching a single Falcon 9, with a single stage 1 booster, they instead need to use a Falcon 9 heavy, with 3 stage 1 boosters.
It is a demonstration of just how much reusability can cost.
It does demonstrate how much reusability can cost. Its clearly cheaper to reuse 3 booster and destroy one.

By what definition of "commercial"?
They certainly seem to be launching things comparable to commercial things launched in the US.
For example, a bunch of satellites for GalaxySpace.

The only reason it is out of so many equations is because the US doesn't want to allow China to launch satellites. So much so that it blocks any US company from contracting any Chinese entity (including any Chinese company) to launch a satellite.
This also means it blocks satellite components being used by overseas companies to make a satellite which is then launched by the Chinese company.

Just think of how many launches it could have if the US allowed it.
Most Chinese launchers, and sat industries are either state owned, or subsidized. And by subsidized, I mean, they give them direct cash injections to produce a product. I have nothing wrong with this, but they are all funded from the same source. SpaceX gets customers from other countries or companies with no ties to SpaceX, or even USA. I consider this the difference.

And goes directly against your prior claims that you don't need such a large capacity.
Capacity vs Price. An expensive 27t launcher with 1 customer a year is worse than a cheap 16t launcher with 20 customers a year. There is a range where most paying customers are going to maximise the market share. You want to be in that range.

Why would you need to have your job only be for that rocket?
Are you saying these people are too stupid to look after 2 or 3 different types of rockets?
If so, I wouldn't trust them looking after 1.
. . . . .
The exact same thing, with other rockets.

I think you underestimate what I mean by specialised. These crew are trained to specifically work with dangerous liquids, at dangerous temperatures using very specific equipment for a very specific rocket, with trade secrets in a certain location in the country. This team is trained to fuel one specific vehicle, made by one specific company, which wants to ensure their talent does not get poached OR moves their trade secrets to another company. They are not fuelling cars, if they make mistakes they could blow up billion dollar equipment. If you think they can just hop over to dump some -170'C Hydrogen in a rocket after a 2 week course, then you have a very incorrect view of how the industry works.

Prove it.
You want me to steel their internal accounting books? Because I know a quote from a SpaceX representative wont be enough for you.

Musk also didn't really invest much into hyperscam. Instead other companies, or rich people from those companies, were quite happy to throw money away at it.
And? Do you think NASA, The Airforce, multiple countries and commercial communications companies are looking at the cool videos of a Falcon 9 landing and saying "screw it, we know it costs more, but I want to launch on the one that is reusable?" We have actual quotes around the industry saying they are cheaper than alternatives.

Sure, they aren't government funded, they just get billions of dollars from government contracts.

And as already established, the cost per kg of reusable rockets is more to the customers.
So does every other company that supplies goods and services to the US government. They still need to turn a profit on those contracts or go bankrupt.

And no, the cost to the customer is not more, because SpaceX has provided the launch option for disposable rockets, and customers are not choosing those. Maybe try to understand why customers are choosing reusable over disposable.

Which still shows that it isn't simple a case of they didn't want it. Musk at least implied that he wanted Falcon to be fully reusuable.

And while starship may allow it to be fully reusable, with all the costs of refurbishment, will it end up being more expensive?
I think they did want it, they never achieved it as Falcon 9 is too small for full reusability.

And I dont know for certain if SS will be cheaper. We will have to wait and see.
It depends on a few things, one of them is reliability of the rocket itself. If they need to do extensive refurb or not, this is what failed the STS. And how many flights they can get a year. If they can only fly once a year, it will cost a lot. If they can refurb and fly within weeks or days, then they will be fine. You need to share fixed costs (Such as those guys needing to fuel your rocket)
But overall, I have confidence that it will eventually be cheaper to fly a SS for less than $60m. Tending towards $20m a flight.
There will also be different types of flights with different associated costs.
If they are only flying fuel to a depot, that cheap.
Flying people (eventually) will cost a lot more.

Or you can do it more efficiently over a longer period of time, including by using more complex manoeuvres.
The physics does not change, you need to eject mass out the back end at a certain speed. You can get higher ISP motors, but cost seem to increase quickly here. You also are limited by fuels available. The most efficient fuels are Hydrogen, but hydrogen boils off if you dont use it quick enough, which means your throwing good fuel overboard. Electric propulsion is great for small sats, but there is still no large electric propulsion engine, and they take a lot energy which has associated costs. There are mono-propellants, which are used a lot for sats, but they are less efficient and dangerous to work with, so are usually used when you dont need a lot of it.

So why couldn't you get the article for the previous image?
And this one doesn't show it inside the fairing, just near it.
It appears that it will have quite a lot of empty space.
Cant find the previous source. Not sure what browser I used to find it.
Here are more pictures of the exact same sat being loaded in the exact same fairing.

From the bottom - https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/ula/ula-delta-iv-with-gps-iii-sv02-launch-delayed/


From the top - https://insidegnss.com/second-gps-iii-space-vehicle-magellan-launch-set-for-aug-22/

They are not launching "STUFF" into space, they are launching sats into space. Sats that cost hundreds of millions of $$. There is zero chance they are going to try and fill that fairing to the brim like a jar of marbles.

We are talking about rideshare in general, not just for loads where it wouldn't be practical.
We are talking about re-usability. These sats are so small, you can place them along nearly any payload, they hardly matter except for the small sat launchers.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #205 on: July 13, 2022, 05:11:06 AM »
Just a general point to add to this whole discussion, don't forget the value in pushing and advancing technology and knowledge.

Of course lots of current rocket parts are not well suited to reuse because until now there has been no need.

Everyone in this thread is right, and the real winner will be more advanced and better rockets in the future. Regardless if reusable will become vastly superior or a dead end, we will know more and have improved all launch systems by trying it.

Even Spin Launch isn't completely worthless. Can't know our limits unless we test them.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #206 on: July 13, 2022, 05:30:13 AM »
Just a general point to add to this whole discussion, don't forget the value in pushing and advancing technology and knowledge.

Of course lots of current rocket parts are not well suited to reuse because until now there has been no need.

Everyone in this thread is right, and the real winner will be more advanced and better rockets in the future. Regardless if reusable will become vastly superior or a dead end, we will know more and have improved all launch systems by trying it.

Even Spin Launch isn't completely worthless. Can't know our limits unless we test them.
Well . . . re-usability is key to advancing rocket technology. There will always be disposable rockets to some degree. For ex, sending a rocket to Jupiter, is not coming back. But re-usability is not really being questioned as being viable by anyone in the industry.

Not going to re-usability is more of the same, launch cost will never get lower than the cost of building whole rockets, which puts a hard cap on the space industry. Its like saying to the first car buyers that you think cars will do great, regardless if you need to build a whole new car after every trip. No, they wont.

I have my doubts about spin launch, they have big hurdles to climb.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #207 on: July 13, 2022, 05:31:59 AM »
It does demonstrate how much reusability can cost. Its clearly cheaper to reuse 3 booster and destroy one.
No, it isn't. Especially as the Falcon Heavy reusable costs more than a Falcon 9 disposable.

Most Chinese launchers, and sat industries are either state owned, or subsidized.
You could say the same about most Chinese companies.
But the simple fact is, they can't get customers from the US (and even loads of other places), because the US wont let them.

Capacity vs Price. An expensive 27t launcher
The claim was that most are under 5 tonne.

I think you underestimate what I mean by specialised.
No, I think you just think they are morons.
It would be quite stupid for an external company to have people trained to only work with 1 rocket. That would only make sense for the company that makes it rocket to do, if that was the only rocket it made.

You want me to steel their internal accounting books? Because I know a quote from a SpaceX representative wont be enough for you.
Sure, or find some other way to have the information released which doesn't go through their media department or the like.

And? Do you think NASA, The Airforce, multiple countries and commercial communications companies
Again, considering how much companies are willing to waste, I wouldn't be surprised.

And no, the cost to the customer is not more
Per kg, they are more.
Using Falcon heavy, they are more rather than a disposable F9, they are more.

I think they did want it, they never achieved it as Falcon 9 is too small for full reusability.

And I dont know for certain if SS will be cheaper. We will have to wait and see.
We will have to wait and see if they can make it work at all, and then if they can make it work in any significant commercial capacity.

But overall, I have confidence that it will eventually be cheaper to fly a SS for less than $60m. Tending towards $20m a flight.
And considering all the other crap Musk has promised and failed to deliver, I highly doubt it.

The physics does not change
Well one significant change is to boost your orbit to make a correction and then lower it, which takes significantly longer, but can take less fuel.

The most efficient fuels are Hydrogen
Only if you want chemical fuel. Ion thrusters are pretty efficient.

they take a lot energy which has associated costs.
Note: energy not power.
The power requirements are based on how large you want the ion thruster to be, which in turn translates to how quickly you want it to move.

There is zero chance they are going to try and fill that fairing to the brim like a jar of marbles.
Sure, because the only 2 possible options are to either leave all the free space unused, or fill it like a jar of marbles.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #208 on: July 13, 2022, 07:02:01 AM »
No, it isn't. Especially as the Falcon Heavy reusable costs more than a Falcon 9 disposable.
Your using very basic things to determine what is best here?
Show me a specific launch and we can discuss it. But its not just what goes into LEO that tells you what a rocket can do at a price.  GEO orbits require a LOT more energy, then its 8 ton disposable for a F9 and 20t+ for a reusable FH. Then there are loads of other factors that I keep mentioning, such as inclination and other specifications that no one is likely privy to. Some launches want the second stage to coast the sat through a certain location to do orbital changes, which requires a lot more work from the 1st stages.



You could say the same about most Chinese companies.
But the simple fact is, they can't get customers from the US (and even loads of other places), because the US wont let them.
I believe they can launch on US launchers, I dont know of a law that will stop them. There is ITAR, which means they cant get access to US tech though, and I dont think thats fair.

No, I think you just think they are morons.
It would be quite stupid for an external company to have people trained to only work with 1 rocket. That would only make sense for the company that makes it rocket to do, if that was the only rocket it made.
Most companies only HAVE one rocket! ULA has 2, but one of them barely launches 1 a year. The other one does okay'ish.
Ariane space has 3 rockets in theory, one is a 1ton launcher, which only uses Italian crew. One is made by Russia, which is now impossible to launch and the other real European rocket launches from South America, meaning it has a very expensive crew. Blue Origin is soon to have 1 toy, and one real rocket, each using completely different fuels. Rocket lab has one rocket. EACH rocket here is completely different to the other. You will have to completely retrain someone if you moved them to another company. So yeah, if you dont launch often, crew just hang around costing you money.

Again, considering how much companies are willing to waste, I wouldn't be surprised.

Right, so you say ALL these companies are spending more on launch costs with zero benefit to them, just to look at a rocket land on a barge in the middle of the ocean.

Per kg, they are more.
Using Falcon heavy, they are more rather than a disposable F9, they are more.
The customer does not pay per kg, they pay launch services which is based on the cost of the entire rocket cost.
If you want to launch a single kg on a Falcon 9 in disposable mode, how much are you spending?
The per/kg gives an indication of price to reference orbits, thats all.


And considering all the other crap Musk has promised and failed to deliver, I highly doubt it.
Im not defending the guy, but seriously? Entire countries space programs where put in jepordy because the Falcon 9 completely outclassed them. And your like, "pfffft, anyone could do that."

Well one significant change is to boost your orbit to make a correction and then lower it, which takes significantly longer, but can take less fuel.
There are all kinds of things you can do to use gravity assist. But these take long. CAPSTONE is taking about 4 months to take a trip that could be done in 4 days, all because it had a lot less energy to work with.

Only if you want chemical fuel. Ion thrusters are pretty efficient.
T's&C's apply. They are very efficient, but VERY low thrust and need a LOT of power. This is why, until now, only very small sats have been using them. It will take multiple years to get a 4ton sat to GEO orbit with Ion thrusters alone at the moment.

Note: energy not power.
The power requirements are based on how large you want the ion thruster to be, which in turn translates to how quickly you want it to move.
Power is heavy and complex though. And while bigger ion thrusters are currently being worked on, they have not been available to sat builders. Artemis gateway is busy developing a large Hall effect thruster for the PPE module. So from about 2024/5 ish, we may see sats using this technology for larger sats.

Sure, because the only 2 possible options are to either leave all the free space unused, or fill it like a jar of marbles.
Yes, literally. You cant fill the gaps with other payloads without jeopardizing that sat. To completely fill the fairing, will require designing a sat to fill the fairing . . . for some reason. Go speak to payload integration officers about why they will sure as heck not just pop another sat in there.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Your thoughts on Elon musk?
« Reply #209 on: July 13, 2022, 11:02:41 AM »
And considering all the other crap Musk has promised and failed to deliver, I highly doubt it.

Well known that he is a marketer/snake oil extreme individual. And is probably going to get spanked big-time in the Twitter debacle, but Tesla did just post a 3.7 billion dollar earned income last quarter. Building a car company is no easy feat.

So there's one thing he promised and wildly over-delivered.

Granted, Space is a different beast. But still. Tesla has probably shoved the entire industry to go bigger into EV's. For better or worse. And Space X has probably been a motivator/influencer on getting other companies into the industry. Increasing tech advancements, competition, pricing, etc.