
SpaceX's New Spin on Falcon 9 - trose
http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-new-spin-falcon-9
======
martythemaniak
Currently they have to throw away the rockets used for GTO missions (around
half of them) and can only attempt landings on LEO missions such as the ISS
resupplies. Given their last few landing attempts, it's pretty likely that
they'll be able to land a rocket sometime this year, which means that starting
next year they might be able to reuse all of their F9 Rockets.

A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows
the risks), so SpaceX may end up with quite a large number of rockets, which
they'll have to fly to establish costs/risks/etc.

It looks like at least a some part of their satellite internet plan was meant
to take advantage of this large launch capacity. I'm also very curious to see
what the prices for a used rocket launch are. Rockets are obviously expensive,
but so are the operational costs in setting them up.

Anyway, these are probably the most exciting times in spaceflight since the
60s!

~~~
justin66
> A lot of customers may not want to fly on a used rocket though (no one knows
> the risks)

I am certain the insurers will be happy to take a crack at figuring out the
risk.

That matters a lot. Whether or not you "want to fly on a used rocket," if your
company can purchase a flight and insurance on a used rocket for a lot less
than it can purchase a flight and insurance on a new rocket, you might be
obligated to try it because of the decreased costs.

(I'm ignorant as to who actually buys the insurance for these flights, the
customer or SpaceX or what, but I'm sure the point still stands)

~~~
darkmighty
It's not a straightforward insurance matter since many many applications are
time critical. If a rocket blows up they may need many more years until a
replacement cargo can be manufactured, fitted into the launch schedule, etc.
The coverage for that ( _specially_ opportunity costs, which are hard to
measure anyway) might be too high, making the insurance premium larger than
the gain provided by reusability.

I'd believe most companies could prefer [more certain] safety -- which just
means SpaceX will have to work on increasing reused rocket numbers by whatever
means.

~~~
justin66
> It's not a straightforward insurance matter since many many applications are
> time critical.

If you can put a dollar figure on the potential time loss, it's still a pretty
straightforward matter.

If you're flying with a "we must get this in orbit ASAP or the world will
catch on fire" priority then, eventually, one will probably pay more for that.
(the government will contract out a series of flights so it will play out
differently for them)

It's going to take some flying for that to all shake out. As others have
pointed out, it's not obvious that the first flight will have the lowest risk.
It will be the most expensive in the beginning because its risk is the best
understood.

~~~
darkmighty
Being timely is pretty important in the satellite business, there are things
like communication licenses which expire.

It may not seem like it, but launch costs are still only a fraction of the
total system cost. Ground for example infrastructure is more expansive by a
large factor. Even the sat manufacturing costs overshadow launch costs for
most systems. That's why customers might prefer safety until reliability is
proven. Cutting corners on launch can jeopardize the whole system.

~~~
avmich
The fact that payloads are so expensive is partially caused by the launches
being so expensive, so reducing the launch price tag will cause reduction in
payload costs.

------
FD3SA
"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more. What it does
is it allows us to land the first stage for GTO missions on the drone ship."

I am constantly blown away by SpaceX. This is an absurd level of improvement
for an already mature, commercially successful rocket.

If even 1% of the world's companies in other sectors worked this well, I can
only imagine how much our quality of life would improve. Musk seems extremely
adept at applying the best of software development practices to hardware
design.

Some things that stand out:

-Extreme streamlining of the product range

-Complete control of the design, prototyping, testing and manufacturing cycles achieved by keeping the entire process in-house

\- Optimal product iteration roadmap, which balances maximum improvement per
iteration with minimum time-to-market

I think Musk should open an engineering management consulting firm, and hire a
few smart people to analyze SpaceX and transfer some of its engineering
management methodologies into a set of training modules. I'm usually of the
opinion that good management is just common sense, but the degree to which
SpaceX is outdoing its competitors suggests they've made a significant
breakthrough in their engineering/management processes.

~~~
thelambentonion
_Disclaimer: I work in the space industry for one of SpaceX 's competitors.
None of my work is in competition with SpaceX (totally different systems), but
it bears mentioning. I've also never worked for SpaceX, so a lot of what I'm
saying here is opinion and hearsay._

SpaceX does excellent work, and has an amazing track record for such a young
space company. That being said, it's important to highlight that the 'absurd
level of improvement' that we're seeing not just the product of good
engineering management practices. Much of it comes as a result of some pretty
extreme expectations placed on the employees working there.

I've lost track of the number of people who've told me that they'd love to
work at SpaceX, if only the culture wasn't so oppressively work-centric. These
comments have come from students looking for full time jobs having previously
interned within the aerospace industry as well as NASA civil servants and
contractors who have been putting stuff into space for decades.

The aerospace industry is practically built around overworking its engineers,
and, for almost everyone in it, working here was a conscious sacrifice to be
able to do some Very Cool Shit. SpaceX takes that concept and turns it up to
11, expecting people to eat, breathe, and live their jobs. The last thing I
would want is a firm dedicated to propagating these ideals.

~~~
remarkEon
_SpaceX takes that concept and turns it up to 11, expecting people to eat,
breathe, and live their jobs. The last thing I would want is a firm dedicated
to propagating these ideals._

On the other hand, if that's what you love it starts to not feel like work. In
my experience getting that the match right is super difficult but perhaps
that's what SpaceX is aiming for - not really looking for employees but
members.

------
cloudwalking
"It's about a 30% increase in performance, maybe a little more." That's pretty
amazing increase in performance for an existing platform.

Also interesting to see that the Falcon Heavy boosters are literally just
Falcon 9s strapped to the sides of a larger rocket. They will be producing
just two separate rockets on the factory floor. This is how SpaceX will really
squeeze out manufacturing efficiencies.

Given the Falcon 9 reusability, we're going to see launch costs drop by two
entire magnitudes. Instead of destroying an $60MM launch vehicle, each launch
just burns $200,000 in fuel. This will open up space in ways we have never
imagined.

~~~
arikrak
That was their original plans for the shuttle. Not saying they won't be able
to save money this time, but it's never that simple.

~~~
cryptoz
Part of the Shuttle's reusability problems stemmed from Congress (and other
decision-makers) forcing NASA to use facilities in ~40-50 different states and
multiple subcontractors. And, full & rapid reusability was never in the
Shuttle plans. They aimed for moderate reusability and then failed
spectacularly at that. SpaceX is much more centralized and much more
efficient.

There are certainly comparisons to me made, and lessons to be learned, but I
think that SpaceX has already met/surpassed all levels of success that NASA
achieved in reusability, the only caveat being that they haven't technically
done it in a production environment yet.

~~~
nickff
We should put less focus on reusability, and pay more attention to labor
(inspection and repair time) per launch. If you compare SpaceX and NASA under
this paradigm, or by looking at launch cost per unit of mass, SpaceX has long
since surpassed all other launch providers.

The shuttle had a number of issues, including design issues due to DoD
requirements, engine pressure issues due to internal NASA priorities, and
budget trade-offs due to Congressional directives. The most important lesson
to take away from the shuttle is that returning the most costly components to
earth does not necessarily translate into cost savings.

~~~
nicholasdrake
'What percentage of a launch vehicle (rocket to space) do you think is the
cost of labour? It's about 80-90%! It's labour!' Peter Diamandis, X-Prize

------
liquidise
As a programmer baffled by hardware, i find these performance enhancements on
physical systems remarkable. Congrats to them for pushing the spaceflight
envelope.

~~~
nicholasdrake
i'm similarly baffled... but this is what elon says 'I think it's worth noting
that when somebody has a breakthrough innovation it is rarely one little
thing. Very rarely is it one little thing. It's usually a whole bunch of
things that collectively amount to a huge innovation. But the problem is
because it's hard to convey a complicated thing to people the innovator or the
innovator's PR department will say such and such is the reason why it's
better. This little catch phrase. Like what was it with ebay, Pam wants to do
Beanie Babies or something. I mean really, that's not the basis of ebay. Oh
right, yeah pes dispenser. It's like something the PR department made up. So
really innovation is a collection of complex things which are usually
difficult to convey so there is some soundbite that's given. You know why's
South-West Airlines the most popular Airline in the whole business. It's not
just because they use 737s. I mean if it was that easy everybody could do it.'
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xohhz9Hn8p0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xohhz9Hn8p0)

------
jedc
"What it does is it allows us to land the first stage for GTO missions on the
drone ship."

Yikes! That's a pretty substantial upgrade.

~~~
antimagic
Yup, that line sent my eyebrows north at a rapid rate! I would never have
thought that it was possible to see such rapid advancement in the field of
rocketry - it'd been close to stagnant for pretty much all of my 40 years
until SpaceX showed up.

------
pqomdv
_U.S. House Armed Services Committee Hearings - Assuring Assured Access to
Space:_
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff_5jF_3QU&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ff_5jF_3QU&feature=youtu.be&t=42m1s)

This isn't the talk by Gwynne mentioned in the article, however it is a
government hearing that happened on the same day by the same person.

( Gotta love the title: AAA - Assuring Assured Access... )

------
eabraham
Considering that the cheaper "used" launch cost will lower the bar for getting
satellites to LEO, I wonder how long until we need to worry about Kessler
Syndrome[1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

~~~
pqomdv
I can't wait for junkyard micro-satellites equipped with an ion thruster. They
are launched in the hundreds at a time, each locates their specific target,
attaches and start a slow descend to burn in the atmosphere. This process is
done automatically over a time-frame of months, since ion thrusters work
slowly, which is great for automation.

~~~
Gravityloss
there are even more efficient and cheaper ways for deorbiting than ion
engines.

~~~
pqomdv
Can you elaborate?

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Just a long wire would work.

------
krschultz
SpaceX continues to be a PR machine. This news comes barely 24 hours after a
significant delay due to a helium tank problem -
[http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/17/spacex-puts-off-next-
fa...](http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/17/spacex-puts-off-next-
falcon-9-launch/).

I'm not saying SpaceX has a fundamental problem, I just find it interesting
how obvious PR planted articles are.

~~~
ChuckMcM
You realize that both of the stories, the delay and the discussion of the
engine came out of the _same luncheon_ right?

From the linked article : _" In a luncheon talk at the Satellite 2015 show in
Washington March 17"_

From the Spaceflight Now article : _" Speaking at a luncheon in Washington,
D.C., on Tuesday"_

So really it was just a update where all the information came out and
different reporters chose different things to report on.

~~~
krschultz
The information that came out in this article is not news. There has been
significant discussions about not only the improved performance of the
engines, but customers debating whether or not they wanted to be the first to
fly on those upgraded engines.

Meanwhile the helium leak problem & reshuffling of schedule is an actual bit
of news. We have known about the helium leaks before, but this is the first
time it got so bad they had to so dramatically change the launch schedule. If
it is a fundamental problem (which is sure seems to be), it might put this
years launch schedule in some jeopardy.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I don't know if I agree that either of these items is "news" in the "there was
no other way to find out about it" sense, but if you take the classical
definition of "news" is something reported by a "reporter" (or journalist)
then by reporting something it becomes "news" by definition.

I realize that is sort of semantic hand waving but when you assert something
it "not news" you are, in the framework of that definition, making a false-by-
definition statement asserted as truth. That irritates me unreasonably.

That said, in terms of impact to the schedule and expectedness the helium leak
is no unexpected. So it isn't really "news" by your definition either. The
whole point of doing these preflight tests is to ferret out these issues, and
by their nature a minimum weight helium tank is a tricky thing to both
manufacture and install. You need only search for the phrase "SpaceX Helium
Leak" on your favorite search engine and you will find this not an uncommon
issue which delays launches.

As SpaceX seems to be fairly familiar with the problem, and they have fixed
leaky tanks a number of times, it seems to me that it is close to, if it
hasn't already, entered into the operational readyness plan, where there might
be "Step 1. Find the helium leak we know is out there. Step 2. Apply the
appropiate fix prior to launch." So I don't really see how you could support
the claim that this is a threat to the launch schedule.

~~~
threeseed
Pretty sure you must be the only person in the world to think like this. News
is generally considered to be objective, factual etc. A journalist reporting
on an event but who was paid by a company or working off a PR media release is
generally not considered news. I am not saying that this is an example either
way just that your definition is pretty odd.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Ok, interesting digression. I'm trying to parse your argument, where you
claim:

    
    
       > A journalist reporting on an event but who was paid by
       > a company or working off a PR media release is 
       > generally not considered news.
    

So there are a lot of unhooked elements in this claim. Does it change if "a
company" is a traditional media company (say News Corp) or a blog like
Spaceflight Now? And is a "PR media release" the same thing as a "press
release" (that would be a bunch of stuff a company announces and puts on a
variety of distribution sources (like PR Newswire)? Does it change is the
human was present and listening to the talk, or if they weren't present and
not listening to talk given?

Let me put that in a different context, if Obama gives a speech, and releases
the speech to the media ahead of time, and a "news outlet" prints, or shows,
or somehow makes available a "story" which is consumed by a reader or a viewer
or a listener, was that not "news" that they heard? What would they call it?
When you listen to the program on the radio they call that segment a "news
update" what do _you_ call it?

Do reporters have agendas? Sure they are reporters. Does the same "news" sound
different coming from CNN and Fox and ABC ? Yes. And while we can all indict
the media for being dupes, I expect stories that unless stories are paid
placement (and neither example in this thread appears to have been a paid
placement) are considered to be "news stories" by most people. Perhaps biased
news based on the biases of the news organization but news none the less.

