Updates SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 with Cassiope, POPACS (x6), CUSat 1&2, September 29, 2013

[Kyle]

Better image - pretty noticeable high difference from the Falcon 9 v1.0, going to guess this is in preparation for the WDR. Isn't that supposed to be sometime soon?

This will come in handy for anyone developing a VAFB pad for Falcon 9.

 

[Kyle]

WDR has been completed, hot fire is next. New date is NET September 14th (note that's right before the ORB-D launch on the 17th!) and it looks solid.

 

[Kyle]

Fairing was integrated to the launch vehicle, FRR for launch has been completed, hotfire scheduled for tomorrow. Baring no issues with the firing, it's likely they'll launch on Saturday. Big days for SpaceX!

---------- Post added 09-10-13 at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was 09-09-13 at 07:44 PM ----------

.. and just like that, a slip! Launch date now TBD, only a minor slip from September 14th. Range issue, haven't agreed to the hotfire date yet.

 

[RGClark]

Musk Says SpaceX Being “Extremely Paranoid” as It Readies for Falcon 9’s California Debut.

“Ultimately, I think we could see a drop in cost per launch of 25 percent or more, just from reuse of the boost stage,” he said.

By Irene Klotz | Sep. 6, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/la...remely-paranoid”-as-it-readies-for-falcon-9’s

I wonder if the 25% reduction is a misunderstanding of what he said. In another interview he said the first stage accounts for 3/4ths of the cost.

SpaceX Chief Says Reusable First Stage Will Slash Launch Costs
By Peter B. de Selding | May. 31, 2013

Musk said that a rocket’s first stage accounts for three-quarters of its total price tag, so a vehicle with a reusable first stage can be produced at far less cost — assuming the hardware is fully and rapidly reusable.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/la...-reusable-first-stage-will-slash-launch-costs

So if reusability can cut that by a factor of 1/00, that should be large reduction in the total cost. It would appear the total cost should be reduced to be 25% of the original cost, not simply reduced by 25%.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

I wonder if the 25% reduction is a misunderstanding of what he said. In another interview he said the first stage accounts for 3/4ths of the cost.

I know, it is a very nasty question but: Have you ever owned a car?

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Meanwhile....

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk
First of next gen Falcon 9 rockets rolls out to the launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base pic.twitter.com/hNl6zKodvr

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Speaking for myself; if I were in the business of purchasing launch agreements, I would be interested in seeing (not just reading about) extensive amounts of data regarding the reusable stages of the F9. There should be copious amounts of NDI data to process before the stage could be certified to be flight worthy again.

Initially those inspections will be costly. In the long run it may be very cost effective to re-use a rocket stage, but it has to be "proven" to be good for re-use.

Any reloaders here? How many times do you reuse the brass before you just recycle it?

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, even if you do careful inspections, tear and wear can't be avoided. Especially the turbomachinery is subject to this, but the tanks will also get microfractures over the pressurization cycles. As example, turbine shafts can become unbalanced and need to be carefully rebalanced. This applies to rocket engines even more than to turbofans, which operate at much less extreme conditions.

And thus I think that 25% cost-savings is actually a pretty optimistic rate. That the Falcon 9 is currently only unmanned makes things sure easier, since even a higher failure rate could be tolerated, if the reuse results in enough cost savings to compensate. But for manned flights, the costs of reuse would likely explode.

 

[RGClark]

I know, it is a very nasty question but: Have you ever owned a car?

Explain your argument.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 07:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 AM ----------

Also, even if you do careful inspections, tear and wear can't be avoided. Especially the turbomachinery is subject to this, but the tanks will also get microfractures over the pressurization cycles. As example, turbine shafts can become unbalanced and need to be carefully rebalanced. This applies to rocket engines even more than to turbofans, which operate at much less extreme conditions.
And thus I think that 25% cost-savings is actually a pretty optimistic rate. That the Falcon 9 is currently only unmanned makes things sure easier, since even a higher failure rate could be tolerated, if the reuse results in enough cost savings to compensate. But for manned flights, the costs of reuse would likely explode.

But it's Elon's own estimate that the cost can be reduced by a factor of 100 by reusability, i.e., 99% cost saving. You reduce the biggest portion of the cost by this huge factor, but the overall cost is only reduced by 25%? There's a logical disconnect there.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Explain your argument.

Bob Clark

You can reuse your car over multiple tank fillings right? You can drive a single car you have bought for decades. You can restart the engine easily, even around 8-10 times in a row before the battery fails.

But do you have to pay no further costs for reuse? Sure not, additionally to fuel and oil, you need constant repairs and inspections. The older the car gets, the more expensive the repairs and inspections will get.

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

But it's Elon's own estimate that the cost can be reduced by a factor of 100 by reusability, i.e., 99% cost saving. You reduce the biggest portion of the cost by this huge factor, but the overall cost is only reduced by 25%? There's a logical disconnect there.

Damn it, is that so hard to understand: Musk said this 99% saving sentence when the Dinosaurs had been still eating Neandertals! The Falcon 1 had been a submarine back then, the Falcon 5 just cancelled in favor of the Falcon 9 and the chance of getting tax payers wallet on the silver tablet.

To cite Musk: "Falcon One is going to be the lowest cost per flight to orbit of any production rocket." ( :rofl: )

Musk is a marketing guy, maybe you are already used to the concept, that marketing and reality are not convergent?

On the SpaceX page, black on white, you can only read that SpaceX long-term goal is to reduce the costs for human spaceflight by the factor of ten. What is likely possible - in some decades.

 

[Kyle]

Let's keep it on topic folks, this is for updates on Falcon 9's upcoming launch.

Hearing September 15th as a possible attempt.

 

[RGClark]

Let's keep it on topic folks, this is for updates on Falcon 9's upcoming launch.

Hearing September 15th as a possible attempt.

I don't know but this is a to be test of reusability.
I could start a whole new thread on the topic but it could turn out to be unneeded as a new discussion if it turns out to be a misunderstanding.

Bob Clark

 

[Donamy]

Does anyone know (my money is on DaveS) what was most reused SSME for shuttle and was the cost worth it. ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Does anyone know (my money is on DaveS) what was most reused SSME for shuttle and was the cost worth it. ?

Had the data somewhere at home, when DaveS isn't faster.

What I can't answer is, how much the turn-around of the engines did cost. The exact work-hours and inspections are not know for every engine. At least to me.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Found it also in the Internet at collectspace (sounds good, can't confirm if it is error free)... here in tabular form:

S/N | # Flights | Flights
SN-2005|5|STS-1, STS-2, STS-3, STS-4, STS-5
SN-2006|5|STS-1, STS-2, STS-3, STS-4, STS-5
SN-2007|5|STS-1, STS-2, STS-3, STS-4, STS-5
SN-2011|7|STS-9, STS-51J, STS-61B, STS-33, STS-31, STS-41, STS-50
SN-2012|22|STS-6, STS-7, STS-8, STS-41B, STS-41C, STS-51A, STS-51C, STS-51D, STS-51G, STS-51I, STS-35, STS-43, STS-45, STS-53 STS-60, STS-67, STS-74, STS-79, STS-83, STS-86, STS-90 STS-93
SN-2015|9|STS-6, STS-7, STS-8, STS-41B, STS-61C, STS-40, STS-44, STS-49, STS-52
SN-2017|14|STS-6, STS-7, STS-8, STS-51J, STS-61B, STS-27, STS-49, STS-53, STS-57, STS-61, STS-65, STS-66, STS-70, STS-75
SN-2018|12|STS-9, STS-41D, STS-51A, STS-51C, STS-51D, STS-51G, STS-51I, STS-61C, STS-54, STS-56, STS-58, STS-59
SN-2019|19|STS-9, STS-51J, STS-61B, STS-26, STS-28, STS-36, STS-38, STS-37, STS-48, STS-50, STS-54, STS-57, STS-61, STS-65 STS-70, STS-76, STS-83, STS-86, STS-93
SN-2020|6|STS-41C, STS-41G, STS-51B, STS-51F, STS-61A, STS-51L|6
SN-2021|6|STS-41D, STS-41G, STS-51B, STS-51F, STS-61A, STS-51L
SN-2022|8|STS-26, STS-29, STS-28, STS-32, STS-38, STS-40, STS-42, STS-47
SN-2023|5|STS-41G, STS-51B, STS-51F, STS-61A, STS-51L
SN-2024|7|STS-32, STS-35, STS-43, STS-45, STS-53, STS-56, STS-58
SN-2026|6|STS-39, STS-42, STS-47, STS-68, STS-74, STS-80
SN-2027|7|STS-30, STS-34, STS-36, STS-38, STS-40, STS-42, STS-46
SN-2028|11|STS-26, STS-29, STS-28, STS-32, STS-35, STS-43, STS-45, STS-59, STS-68, STS-71, STS-72
SN-2029|15|STS-27, STS-30, STS-34, STS-39, STS-44, STS-47, STS-55, STS-51, STS-62, STS-64, STS-63, STS-69, STS-75, STS-80, STS-84
SN-2030|10|STS-27, STS-30, STS-34, STS-36, STS-39, STS-44, STS-49, STS-52, STS-65, STS-66
SN-2031|17|STS-29, STS-33, STS-31, STS-41, STS-37, STS-48, STS-50, STS-55, STS-51, STS-62, STS-64, STS-67, STS-73, STS-79, STS-84, STS-87, STS-93
SN-2032|7|STS-46, STS-60, STS-71, STS-74, STS-80, STS-84, STS-90
SN-2033|9|STS-46, STS-54, STS-56, STS-61, STS-59, STS-68, STS-67, STS-79, STS-94
SN-2034|9|STS-52, STS-57, STS-51, STS-60, STS-66, STS-71, STS-75, STS-81, STS-94
SN-2035|3|STS-63, STS-69, STS-76
SN-2036|3|STS-70, STS-72, STS-78
SN-2037|5|STS-73, STS-77, STS-82, STS-94, STS-87
SN-2038|3|STS-73, STS-77, STS-82
SN-2039|4|STS-72, STS-78, STS-85, STS-87
SN-2040|4|STS-77, STS-82, STS-86, STS-91
SN-2041|5|STS-78, STS-81, STS-85, STS-90, STS-88
SN-2042|3|STS-81, STS-85, STS-91
SN-2043|7|STS-89, STS-95, STS-103, STS-101, STS-97, STS-100, STS-108
SN-2044|7|STS-89, STS-88, STS-99, STS-106, STS-98, STS-105, STS-111
SN-2045|8|STS-89, STS-95, STS-92, STS-102, STS-105, STS-110, STS-113, STS-121
SN-2047|6|STS-91, STS-96, STS-106, STS-98, STS-104, STS-109
SN-2048|4|STS-95, STS-92, STS-110, STS-112
SN-2049|7|STS-96, STS-103, STS-101, STS-97, STS-100, STS-108, STS-107
SN-2050|5|STS-88, STS-99, STS-108, STS-111, STS-113
SN-2051|4|STS-96, STS-104, STS-110, STS-112
SN-2052|5|STS-99, STS-106, STS-98, STS-105, STS-121
SN-2053|5|STS-103, STS-92, STS-102, STS-109, STS-107
SN-2054|6|STS-101, STS-97, STS-100, STS-111, STS-114, STS-121
SN-2055|1|STS-112
SN-2056|6|STS-102, STS-104, STS-109, STS-113, STS-107, STS-114
SN-2057|1|STS-114
SN-2107|5|STS-33, STS-31, STS-41, STS-37, STS-48
SN-2109|17|STS-41B, STS-41C, STS-41D, STS-51A, STS-51C, STS-51D, STS-51G, STS-51I, STS-61C, STS-55, STS-58, STS-62, STS-64, STS-63, STS-69, STS-76, STS-83

Record is engine SN-2012 with 22 flights. Most engines flew 5-6 times.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I hope I'm awake for the live streaming, of both the launch and the ocean "recovery".

There is a lot of "firsts" for this mission, hope they can manage to pull it off (in a nominal fashion of course).

 

[Kyle]

Hotfire has been delayed, was supposed to be today.

---------- Post added 09-12-13 at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was 09-11-13 at 09:52 PM ----------

Static fire about to occur, man this is a sexy lookin' launch vehicle!

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

Having some problems in the count. Via SFN.

Today's countdown has been halted two times in the final minutes before the Falcon 9 rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines were supposed to ignite. There is no word yet whether another attempt will be made today.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 PM ----------

Hotfire occurred and was successful!

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

I think someone here should do a comparison picture of the Falcon 9 versions, Ares I, the Zenit-2/3 series and our Italian friend's Neptune-1 series! It REALLY looks like a loooong white pencil! :rofl:

 

[Kyle]

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk
Full thrust achieved on 2 sec static fire. Some anomalies to be investigated, so launch date tbd.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk
Full thrust achieved on 2 sec static fire. Some anomalies to be investigated, so launch date tbd.

Well the Canadian Space Agency has already sent out media advisories for the launch today, so it seems the launch date may have yet to slip from Sunday. I guess it won't be set in stone until the Launch Readiness Review has been done and passed....

 

[Shifty]

Apparently there will be a second static fire on Saturday; still shooting for a Sunday launch:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32685.msg1096404#msg1096404