As claimed.
Where has it actually been shown?
Likewise, can a reusable F9 launch more than 17 t? No.
Can a disposable F9 launch more than 17 t? Yes.
I showed you the source with one of the Chief SpaceX engineers presenting that information.
But its fairly obvious that a FH returning to down range will have more capacity than returning to launch site.
Your comparing the best of a F9 D to a less ideal FH R.
What exactly are you trying to show?
When using an oversized rocket.
Define what this means. Because its not oversized for reuse.
An AtlasV is sized at a F9 R and costs a lot more even than a disposable.
You have additional issues that for every rocket you reuse, you dont need to build an additonal booster.
This means lower fixed cost, which adds to the picture.
Your ignoring that SpaceX can launch 60+ rockets a year because of reuse while keeping fixed cost low.
So removing reusability would mean you need to increase the price for disposable launches as you increase your fixed cost. Or massively decrease your launch rate.
Its a business model, not just a rocket.
No I'm not.
I am pointing out there are comparable issues regardless of which you use.
Removing hydrogen doesn't magically fix it so you no longer need to consider the issue of embrittlement.
Going down your path seems to be if there was an alternative which behaved just like hydrogen, but isn't hydrogen, then it woudln't have to deal with "those issues" even though the issues it had to deal with would be virtually identical.
Hydrogen means you cant use certain materials that could be used for other fuels. Its not a cold problem, its a Hydrogen problem.
Almost all launches that are held during countdown for hydrolox rockets are due to Hydrogen leaks.
You even get issues like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-41-D"While evacuating the shuttle, the crew was doused with water from the pad deluge system, which was activated due to a hydrogen fire on the launch pad caused by the free hydrogen (fuel) that had collected around the engine nozzles following the shutdown and engine anomaly.[8] Because the fire was invisible to humans, had the astronauts used the normal emergency escape procedure across the service arm to the slidewire escape baskets, they would have run into the fire"I am not even sure why your arguing against this, its a well recorded issue that has caused loads of issues on the STS.
And a similar argument could be made the other way.
Ultimately it will depend on the specifics of each rocket.
I just said hydrogen is not the all and be all of rocket engines. Its just a thing, im not even making a specific arguement here.
Your original claim was:
This is like explaining how a car and horse are fundamentally the same because they accelerate you through the landscape, can be steered and can drop you off at your house.
All stages you just described have craft that can be reused for that stage. Starship is just putting all those stages together in 2 (Booster and SS) components.
Which in turn came from a direct reference to spaceX abandoning second stage reusability for the F9.
And this was from discussing starship, where it would be the second stage that is accelerating to orbital speed and then slowing back down to return to Earth.
So it certainly seems like I was talking about a stage which goes to orbit and then comes back to Earth. Not a stage which goes to orbit, then discards a large portion of it, for some of it to come back to orbit.
You have very badly misunderstood what I was saying here.
So im going to leave this and only circle back if you really want to.
The issue is for people that want to use it, or need to pay more for that unused capacity.
Again, how much cheaper would an F9 be if it was appropriately sized?
According to all other rockets given as examples, it would cost more.
Its not just the fact that reusability is cheaper for the targeted payloads.
Its that the entire business model allows it to be cheaper.
Lets expand this
F9 booster and upper stage use the same tooling to make.
They are the same size, use the same engines and fuel. And share a lot of other components.
SpaceX can keep a small team to just make F9 2nd stages and engines that never return. There is fixed cost and variable cost attached to this.
Now, if they can produce 10 upper stages and 1 boosters a year, then they have a cost of X
To produce a 2nd booster would mean they need to expand their factories, tooling and team. But your booster is about 3times bigger with 9 times more engines.
Lets look at what a reusable factory needs to produce a year vs a disposable for 10 launches a year
Reusable
1 Booster stage + 9 engines
10 Upper stage + 10 engine
Total of 19 engines and 11 boosters + upperstages
Disposable
10 Booster stages + 90 engines
10 Upper stages + 10 engines
Total 100 engines and 20 boostes + upperstages
You have now more than doubled or trippled the factory (boosters are bigger than upper stages) that produces boosters + upperstages and made your engine factory 5 times bigger.
At the very least, your launching for 3 times the price as previous, which is what we see if we look at other rockets.
Yes, we now have a 16t to orbit craft and not a 28t to orbit, but most customers want 16t or less tonnage.
So now you have the same amount of launches
can launch 30% more mass that no one is asking for
for 3 - 5 times the price
To make a 16ton Disposable rocket is not half as big or complex, its maybe 3/4 as big and complex.
AtlasV is about 58m in height vs F9's 71m but they weight very close to the same.
They can afford a extra disposable here and there as they are still producing boosters. Especially disposing of well used rockets which have paid for themselves over multiple times. But moving to a disposable rocket business model dramatically increases the cost of your launches.
You have to see this in context. And the context is why ULA and the others have taken so long to adjust to the new market.
It really comes down to one thing more than actual cost/kg for the makers of these rockets
CadenceReusability depends on a high flight rate. This model falls apart if you only fly a few times a year, as your fixed cost stays the same, even if you only fly one rocket a year. For disposable rockets, low flight rates dont matter as much. For high flight rate, you want re-usable rockets.
Based on what?
We have already covered that the F9 is ridiculously oversized for the majority of the payloads it carries.
I also wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX is trying to force people to reusable to boost their image.
Clients can use all those other cheaper disposable rockets, oh wait, they dont exist.