Falcon heavy launch.

[Aymi]

Arianespace and ULA/Lockheed planning recovery of stages for their next launchers (Ariane VI and Vulcan).

Sorry but this is not true. Ariane VI is pretty much complete right now and does not feature stage recovery.

Instead the philosophy is for the rocket to allow "customisation" and easily adapt the shape and power of the launcher for each payload.

That's for the initial launch version. Airbus is still working on Adeline, a recoverable engine/avionics package that will replace the engine module on the Ariane 6 in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage)

http://sen.com/news/airbus-is-testing-c ... cket-parts

I see

Edit: Damn, the thing even flies. Sh!t got serious, last time I visited them, no one talked about it even if SpaceX falcon's success was mentionned. All the excitement was toward Ariane VI as we know it and a space toursm shuttle

Unlrelated but they do have impressive VR tech for training. Some crazy mix between a track IR and a giant 3D cinema theater screen

[AKar]

Most modern launchers don't use all their fuel when launching payloads. There is always a reserve that doesn't get used.

Why would they do that in any significant amounts? A rocket is perhaps the most inefficient way to shoot up any excess weight from a standstill, against the gravity (that is, vertically). Equally so to use for landing vertically. There is actually a term in use called 'gravity drag' for precisely that issue, in itself relatively simple but great a-ha concept that is an excellent recap exercise on classical mechanics.

-Esa

You're applying aviation to space Esa, that's where the problem is.

Consider this - the average Low Earth Orbit satellite is around 3000kg. The Falcon 9 can (in expendable mode) can lift over 22,000kg to that orbit. The customer is going to pay for the whole Falcon 9 unless they get someone to ride with them and help split the cost. Even then, if you put 6 3000kg satellites to LEO on a Falcon 9, then it still has performace leftover. Even going to Geostationary Earth Orbit, the Falcon 9 has performance leftover. It can haul ~8000kg in ependable mode and ~5000kg in reusable mode. The average satellite going to GEO weighs ~4000kg, leaving plenty of excess performance. What SpaceX does with that remaining performance is bring the rocket back. By doing so, they can amortize the cost of that first stage over several flights instead of a single one and thus charge the customer less for the launch. Now, SpaceX is taking a risk on that first flight discount because if they don't get the stage back, it means they've lost money, but if they do, then everybody wins. As a result, the Falcon 9 launches which are in the reusable configuration cost ~$62 million each. Meanwhile, an Atlas V flight for the same payload averages ~$109 million, and that's a substantial discount because of the SpaceX competition. That's why you build a rocket that has reserve fuel capability.

BTW, according to multiple sources, the fuel for a Atlas V or Falcon 9 launch runs less than $500,000. It's by far the cheapest part of the launch.

No, I'm applying elementary physics, and the results make me wonder. My problem here is the hypothetical customer, who must be an idiot to use a 22 ton payload launch vehicle to fire up a 3 ton satellite, to use the quoted figures. This is because the sheer scale of the launch vehicle goes up almost exponentially along with the launch weight. This is why some expendable rocket families are designed 'scalable' in configuration. It is not the fuel per se, but the whole enchilada, and I'd think it would be stupid to launch a huge rocket just to carry its own fuel up and back.

If we were to fill up the remaining to-the-orbit launch capacity with multiple payload, I'd love to see the figures crunched for having just one more satellite on board against going expendable on the launch vehicle / boosters.

One generally does not fly a 40-pax, 150 nm route using an A330.

Don't get me wrong, I love the concept and the tech involved. I simply doubt the feasibility of it beyond a stunt. But if they manage to quote low enough to use an overkill launcher to bring up a smallish payload...well, why not. But there have been some attempts to make the space flight affordable, or even a commonplace; the biggest program that failed to reach that goal was no less than the STS, or the space shuttle.

I'd love this to work.

-Esa

[Aymi]

Well, in aviation we DO haul about twice the needeed fuel for safety/divert/hold reasons anyway

[AKar]

Well, in aviation we DO haul about twice the needeed fuel for safety/divert/hold reasons anyway

Well, first calculate the absolute minimum and then take some up as much as you dare under the eye of the company.

Anyone ever handled a MTOW-critical flight knows what excrement that tends to be. Luckily, one only dumps something to be within limits in regular aviation. Shooting up to the orbit is kind of momentum, not regulation, limited.

-Esa

[CAPFlyer]

Don't get me wrong, I love the concept and the tech involved. I simply doubt the feasibility of it beyond a stunt. But if they manage to quote low enough to use an overkill launcher to bring up a smallish payload...well, why not. But there have been some attempts to make the space flight affordable, or even a commonplace; the biggest program that failed to reach that goal was no less than the STS, or the space shuttle.

I'd love this to work.

-Esa

It's already working. SpaceX has a launch backlog for the next 3 years for certain, including 3 more Heavy launches. A stunt would have been recovering the first booster in 2015 and then abandoning the project. They've done the opposite - they've continued to innovate and with the coming Falcon 9 "Block 5", it will continue to improve. They've now landed 23 stages and re-launched and recovered 6 of those stages. They've also re-launched 2 additional stages which were successfully landed in the ocean after launch and allowed to sink as part of testing. This year, they have an additional 3 boosters scheduled to make their second flights as well. Plans haven't been announced for 2 of the final Block 4 boosters, and at least 1 other B4 will be launched as an expendable stage. As for performance - again, cost has much more to do with selection of the launcher than anything else. Space is expensive and when you can get a rocket for HALF the price of what the competitor is offering, even at "twice" the maximum payload performance, you're gonna take the bigger rocket.

In the end, I trust the market. If the capabilities that SpaceX has pioneered and proven aren't game changing and worth whatever minor extra cost it might be for performance, then they wouldn't be selling launches at the rate they are and literally taking business away from ULA from not only the government, but also private industry on a yearly basis.

BTW, this page has a pretty good layout showing the launches, their results, payload weights, and the upcoming schedule -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... r_landings

[CAPFlyer]

No, I'm applying elementary physics, and the results make me wonder. My problem here is the hypothetical customer, who must be an idiot to use a 22 ton payload launch vehicle to fire up a 3 ton satellite, to use the quoted figures.

Sorry, forgot to put my response to this - I'm talking about the economic/operational theory, not physics. You're coming from the point of how aviation/aeronautics work and what we do for airplanes which are reusable and flexible by their basic design versus how rockets are designed.

Also, when I was working in Ohio, I had several occasions where our airplanes, capable of flying 30,000+ lbs of cargo, flew less than 2000 for one reason - we could get it there the fastest. So in that case, it wasn't cost or "right sizing" the airplane that was the factor. It was who could get the cargo where it needed to be by the time it needed to be there. In Spaceflight, the biggest concerns are cost and performance. Can you put my payload in the right orbit for the least cost. If SpaceX is going to offer you a rocket that has an ultimate performance 3 times what you need but can offer it to you at 1/2 the cost of the next guy, you're probably going to choose SpaceX and then get a second person to share the launch with you (or more) so your cost goes down even more. SpaceX tells you that you have "x" weight available based on what you bought and you fill it as you wish - it's your rocket.

[pjc747]

In the end, I trust the market. If the capabilities that SpaceX has pioneered and proven aren't game changing and worth whatever minor extra cost it might be for performance, then they wouldn't be selling launches at the rate they are and literally taking business away from ULA from not only the government, but also private industry on a yearly basis.

i agree with this, but my main issue with the whole SpaceX hoopla is how much credit and drooling Elon Musk gets for himself when what they're doing is not really that big of an achievement. Yes the whole VTOL rocket thing is new and all, but people treat SpaceX as some godlike company that is singlehandedly doing something that neither NASA nor any private company could do. The only way they ever one-up NASA is when their entire space program is effectively cancelled without any replacement, for no good reason, and that funding is removed during the largest deficit spending in history.

[AKar]

By reviewing the list of manufactured boosters and their statuses, re-usability of the first stage does not seem to play that big part in the economics of the project. [Wikipedia] It was bitterly noted during the STS programme that it is very difficult to put the costs associated with recovery and refurbishment below of what is lost into the ocean (or Siberia) when using expendable launch vehicles.

I doubt there are much of data available in dollars about costs and how they distribute. Of course they can quote low launch prices per kg of payload, depending on the economics and the funding of the project, but if any crucial part of that would be due to reusable design of the rockets, I'd have my eyebrows high for a long time. Obviously, reusable design has potentially large benefits in R&D, as they of course promote themselves.

Also, when I was working in Ohio, I had several occasions where our airplanes, capable of flying 30,000+ lbs of cargo, flew less than 2000 for one reason - we could get it there the fastest.

Yes, of course. I am aware of a cargo flight taking a few boxes, that can be carried by hand, of especially important goods from I believe Liège, Belgium, all the way to a location in Africa - in an MD-11. Of course, these contracts are potential gold mines to the cargo airline, and equivalent to me to launching a 3-tonne payload in a booster capable of doing 30 tonnes. The cases of special circumstances or customers don't follow the sense of economics that well. An attempt of making daily business from such would certainly be eaten for lunch by market forces eventually, because there will always be someone who says that, hey, I can do that minus 20 %. Space launches are hardly a mass product as of today, and have more or less followed the pricing models of one-off services. Any business case getting more 'everyday' necessarily begins to shed its overhead, and pretty often that starts from cool but unnecessary stuff. If SpaceX was able to pull off a business model in which I, as a customer wanting to get my thing up into the orbit and caring the least of whether the boosters sink to the bottom or are recovered, would benefit in dollars if the launch stage was recovered successfully, then I would be seriously interested.

Edit:
This Adeline concept, btw, specifically targets what is my beef with SpaceX's design. "[...] and for a geostationary flight it would only require around 2,000 kg of fuel to return safely to the ground against an estimated 35,000 kg that Airbus has estimated are needed to return a SpaceX booster to the launch site. Fuel is only a minor cost in the value of the overall launch however to achieve a 21-40% reduction in cost of the launch the Falcon 9 payload is reduced from 8,300kg to 5,500kg pushing cost per kilogram back up by a third and negating much of the savings, the true cost advantage would be when carrying customer payloads significantly below the rockets lift potential where the otherwise unused lift capacity could be used for extra fuel to recycle the rocket." [Wikipedia]

-Esa

[CAPFlyer]

Reusability has had a large effect on price. Remember, the capability only started being a thing in the last 3 years on production units. As such, any launches prior to 2015 were priced differently.

Here's a good article showing the drop in cost associated with a resuable flight -

http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-f ... customers/
(Note that the data is from an independent insurance underwriter, not SpaceX)

That 21-40% cost reduction on an already reduced cost is nothing to sneeze at, performance penalties aside. Remember, there's only been 2 launches since reusability became a thing which were not reusable due to performance requirements. 3 additional launches saw the first stage expended, but the speculation is that they were expended less because of performance but more because they were unable to be modified to the F9 B5 configuration that will enter service in April. Yes, SpaceX may not be publically listing those discounts yet, but if you look at the reduction in their list price period since they started launching (from ~$75 million dropped $62 million late in 2016 after reusability became a "standard" option) so they're definitely seeing savings.

Sadly, STS cannot be used as a study in reusability. While it was nominally capable of reuse, it actually wasn't designed for EFFICIENT reuse. The tile system was always a point of contention with the design team. They wanted to use an ablative system that could simply be re-sprayed after each flight, but were basically overruled by those in charge. That single point was the largest point of labor and cost with post flight refurbishment. Additionally, the decision to use the RS-25 was widely panned (it was a "clean sheet" using overly advanced materials and was heavier than the proposals from Pratt & Aerojet, making it the most costly option simply because it could theoretically be used more times than the competition) as was the use of solid rocket boosters (NASA had wanted liquid boosters because of their lower per-launch cost). But that's what happens when politicians take over a project and then cut the funding, even after getting the Air Force involved. That was the other problem with STS - it was confined by the need to accommodate very specific military payloads. These requirements led to weight being added to the Orbiter which was not originally planned and thus penalized its payload capability.

[AKar]

I hope these figures will play out. My worries are reflected in that article as well. Time will tell. I don't like the term 'price per launch' used there though, as it easily misleads.

-Esa

[HighBypass]

...
I do wish though that someone like Musk would fund and put the same energy into deep sea exploration, we still know so little about it!!

Totally agree!

[pilottj]

Perhaps one of the underlying benefits to the SpaceX program is that is re-igniting public interest in space travel/exploration, not to mention proving once in for all that the Earth is in fact round planet. I greatly admire Elon's ambition. It takes a lot of courage to swing for the fences with the type of projects he is working on, ie The Boring Company, Hyperloop, SpaceX, Tesla...etc. I love the Roadster in space w Hitchhiker references. Make science and engineering fun...it will encourage young people to enjoy the sciences.

Cheers
TJ

[CAPFlyer]

Just FYI, Elon tweeted today that "list price" for a Falcon Heavy is $160mil (Delta IV Heavy is just under $400mil). He also said they will be updating the Falcon Heavy performance figures in the next week or two now that the test is complete. Apparently the performance of the first stage and boosters was better than they thought it would be, even though the Center Core ran out of fuel.

[CodyValkyrie]

I’m still skeptical. Elon has a habit of doing some extremely impractical things because it’s “cool,” (Hyperloop anyone?). I’d be curious what the real cost of savings is once we basically rebuild these boosters, after tearing them apart, to be used again. I’ve never been a fan of reusability when it comes to something like a space vacuum. Our Shuttle program was a pretty good example of that concept gone awry. It may be cool, but I just don’t see the practicality, nor do I see the cost benefits as entirely realistic.

[CAPFlyer]

1) The boosters aren't torn apart between flights. They're inspected, much the same as an airplane after flight, and then re-certified (by non-destructive testing) and an engine firing (much as a jet engine after an inspection), and then launched again. The last turn around between landing and assembly for relaunch was just over a month, it was weather delays and then scheduling conflicts after the government shutdown that made it longer.

2) The 2 side boosters for the Falcon Heavy were ready to fly less than 2 months after their first flight. That included the modifications with the new titanium grid fins, new landing legs, a new ablative coating on the Octoweb (bottom of the rocket), and new upper structure that replaced the interstage with the nosecone. The problem was the core stage and the software.

3) I wouldn't write off Hyperloop either. It's still undergoing testing. They just completed the main test track and there are at least 3 other companies working on either test tracks or beginning to build the first installations (Dubai). Same with the Boring Company. People though it was just a "thing", yet the tunnels are already being dug in 2 cities.

I think it's kinda ironic that here we are, people whom are enamored by airplanes and computers, both technologies which were dismissed as "whims" and "impractical", yet here we are.