Which I find highly questionable. For a lot of those launchers, that center core is going to be a good 60km downrange by the time the second stage lights. It's likely that recovery will not always or even usually be an option for it.
Space X Made History- 1st landing of an Orbital 1st stage.
- Thread starter Christopher Miles
- Start date
Three separate droneships?
for now, according to the press releases
An article looking at the second part of the equation for SpaceX. Now they've shown the ability to land in order to re-use there's the economics of re-usability.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/24/...ket-refurbishment-repair-design-cost-falcon-9
It says that the cost per Falcon 9 is about $60mil so I guess even if they only 2 launches out of re-used components that would see a big drop in the cost per launch. Even it was $10mil in refurb each time for 3 uses would break the cost down to $30mil per launch for a total of $90mil as opposed to $180mil so you've halved the costs.
Though I'm sure the aim would be to drive costs lower but it's going to come down to costs, materials and designs which all impact re-usability with the later two being very important because of the conditions experienced during flight.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/24/...ket-refurbishment-repair-design-cost-falcon-9
It says that the cost per Falcon 9 is about $60mil so I guess even if they only 2 launches out of re-used components that would see a big drop in the cost per launch. Even it was $10mil in refurb each time for 3 uses would break the cost down to $30mil per launch for a total of $90mil as opposed to $180mil so you've halved the costs.
Though I'm sure the aim would be to drive costs lower but it's going to come down to costs, materials and designs which all impact re-usability with the later two being very important because of the conditions experienced during flight.
^ I don't see refurbishment costing that much, to be honest. Checking the structure of the propellant tanks and landing systems might require replacing a few components, but they're mainly paying for the labor and man hours; the more delicate welding work and electronic components are probably reusable already.
The real question is the engines. If they had to replace all nine Merlins in every single flight, I could see refurbishment costing 10 or 15 million. But I think those engines are designed to handle a certain number of restarts before they would actually need to be replaced, and so if you only replace them every third launch, you should be looking at (on average) $5 million per launch over three launches.
The real question is the engines. If they had to replace all nine Merlins in every single flight, I could see refurbishment costing 10 or 15 million. But I think those engines are designed to handle a certain number of restarts before they would actually need to be replaced, and so if you only replace them every third launch, you should be looking at (on average) $5 million per launch over three launches.
A reusable first stage is a milestone. Of course, with the space shuttle we first gained reuse the component that actually went into orbit.
The idea has been to lower costs through reusability, eventually through airline style operations. We haven't reached the last part yet, as reusability has entailed refurbishment of the vehicle.
The idea has been to lower costs through reusability, eventually through airline style operations. We haven't reached the last part yet, as reusability has entailed refurbishment of the vehicle.
I would still be concerned about Space - X safety record seeing as how Space X has had a few crashes compared to Blue Origin that has not had any.
Space X might be able to say it launched the first reusable orbital rocket engine but because of its crashes the general public should be wary of continued crashes when humans are launched into space aboard the the Falcon-X
You have to remember that there is a large group of people that want to see all aspects of space exploration fail so they can politically use such failures to further a degenerate cause on Earth. By degenerate cause I mean a cause that does not promote advancement in science or exploration of space.
I would feel safer traveling aboard Blue Origin than Space - X.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...reusable-rocket-makes-historic-round-trip.ece
Space X might be able to say it launched the first reusable orbital rocket engine but because of its crashes the general public should be wary of continued crashes when humans are launched into space aboard the the Falcon-X
You have to remember that there is a large group of people that want to see all aspects of space exploration fail so they can politically use such failures to further a degenerate cause on Earth. By degenerate cause I mean a cause that does not promote advancement in science or exploration of space.
I would feel safer traveling aboard Blue Origin than Space - X.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...reusable-rocket-makes-historic-round-trip.ece
You mean conservatives
Yeah we have a conservative govt. here and they seem very anti science
Just restating a stastical fact.
Is the Space X capsule going to be able to be landed like the 1st orbital section?
The crashes by Blue Origin took place nearly six years ago. I was thinking more recently.
Space-X wants to put astronaughts into space by 2017. Blue Origin has had longer time to develop their systems to ensure safety unlike Space-X of seemingly just rushing into the next phase which involves human cargo.
Besides Blue Origin is American based and wins every time in my book. I applaud Space-X but I am an American have to stick with the home team on this one.
Yes, SpaceX is american. Based out of California and builds every thing in house. They don't farm out much work at all to other companies.
I like how Dryson moved that goal post though. "Oh, they didn't have any failures recently".
And that failure was barely 4 years ago, not "nearly 6". The article is from Sept. 2011.
Statistically, since Blue Origin has flown they're rocket so very little, they have a much worse track record with the New Shepard (1 failure out of 3 known launches). Compared to the Falcon 9's (1 failure in 21 launches).
I like how Dryson moved that goal post though. "Oh, they didn't have any failures recently".
And that failure was barely 4 years ago, not "nearly 6". The article is from Sept. 2011.
Statistically, since Blue Origin has flown they're rocket so very little, they have a much worse track record with the New Shepard (1 failure out of 3 known launches). Compared to the Falcon 9's (1 failure in 21 launches).
The Moon Hoax Believers (MHBs) again.
Maybe its time to tie a few of them equilaterally around a Falcon stage, and let them find out the hard way.
BO tried to land the stage from their New Shepard launch in April 2015, but it crashed.
One design concept-which was used for the Space Shuttle-is an expendable fuel tank. The solid rocket boosters were, in effect, the first stage; these would drop away. The orbiter would continue up with the expendable fuel tank, which was jettisoned just before reaching orbit.