
SpaceX set to re-fly a Block 5 rocket for the first time tonight - Tomte
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/tonight-spacex-to-reuse-its-first-block-5-variant-of-the-falcon-9/
======
ashraymalhotra
> It is worth recalling that SpaceX only flew a "used" booster for the first
> time in March 2017.

It's amazing this happened just a little over a year ago.

~~~
InTheArena
It was a epoch defining change. It does feel like a ton of time ago, and
everyone in the industry (most notably ULA, Arianespace and the Chinese) are
trying to figure out what they do now that the SpaceX steamroller is in full
force.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _It was a epoch defining change_

Not yet. Costs haven't fallen. The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back
commercial launches with the same booster in a short period of time with zero
or little retrofitting.

~~~
Lanzaa
> Costs haven't fallen.

I disagree. I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX
than building new boosters. It is also speculated that at least the first few
customers of reused boosters were given a discount.

If you are saying customer cost has not fallen, you may be correct. I would
counter with the fact that SpaceX is already a low cost provider, lowering
their price more may not increase their overall profits.

> The epoch-defining change would be back-to-back commercial launches with the
> same booster in a short period of time with zero or little retrofitting.

The booster SpaceX plans to reuse today is a "block 5" booster. This is
basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or little
retrofitting reuse.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I highly doubt reusing a booster has been more expensive to SpaceX than
> building new boosters_

Well, they are. Which is natural, because the program is still R&D more than
mass production.

> _This is basically the design that SpaceX hopes will enable that zero or
> little retrofitting reuse_

When that rapid re-use is demonstrated, it will mark the epoch. We could
retcon to the original re-use, or even booster recovery. But that's premature.

(I'm still super excited about everything SpaceX does.)

------
vertline2
This blows my mind and I have naive questions. How can the materials withstand
such forces? Is a piece inside replaced (he said without taking it apart)? Is
ablation a factor at all?

~~~
thebluehawk
It's important to note that the first stage (which is about 70% of the rocket)
is the part that is being reused. The top of the rocket (the second stage, the
fairings, and the payload) are not reused (At least not yet. They are working
on recovering fairings and there are rumors of second stage reuse).

When the stages separate, the first stage is going about 1.5 - 2.5 km/s. Then
the second stage takes the payload the rest of the way to orbital speeds of 7+
km/s, and the first stage returns to earth.

So the first stage is going fast (several thousand miles per hour) but not as
fast as things that re-enter from orbit. It still does need heat shielding,
but not as much as the space shuttle or a capsule.

------
thekingofh
Have they realized their cost savings yet? Or are the teardowns and smaller
redesigns still keeping the launch price up? Basically, are we in the future
yet?

~~~
gliptic
The refurbishing costs of even their first reused booster was less than half
the price of a new booster [1], so something above 50%*70% = 35% saving
assuming that the booster is 70% of the cost of the launch. The new block 5
version rocket is supposed to reduce that refurbishing cost by a lot.

However, they have development costs of something like a billion dollars to
pay back, and no reason to lower the price drastically at this point, so new
launches on reused rockets are going for ~50 million instead of 62 million.

[1] [https://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-
saving...](https://spacenews.com/spacex-gaining-substantial-cost-savings-from-
reused-falcon-9/)

~~~
thekingofh
From that link. Holy cow: "“Looking forward for reusability, we don’t believe
it really, really counts unless you can turn it around rapidly, or almost as
rapidly, as you turn around an aircraft,”.

I had no idea they were aiming for this level. That is just mind boggling how
drastic a change it's going to be.

~~~
wahern
Musk's Mars plan depends on reducing the marginal costs of launching so much
that SpaceX could with minimal expenditure chuck dozens of rockets at Mars
every year loaded with supplies and crew.

This is important to keep in mind when wondering why a corporation would
continue pushing its costs down after obtaining an effective monopoly. As long
as Mars is the goal SpaceX won't turn into a ULA or Ariane. But if for some
reason SpaceX ceases to pursue Mars then it would likely recapitulate the same
business decisions of every other spacefaring corporation.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
On the other hand, one might argue that SpaceX has already permanently changed
the space game. If SpaceX fails to keep moving society forward, it would do
little more than create a major vacuum that could be filled by companies such
as Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, or other new players.

I think this in particular is really the hugest benefit of privatizing space.
When we had the government in charge of space, it living or dying was really
subject to nothing more than the whims of a gaggle of politicians. As space
has become a prominent part of the private industry with ever increasing
competition, you remove that aspect of a single point of failure. I think the
odds of us entering into another era of stagnation come regression are rapidly
approaching 0, and that's incredibly exciting!

------
mozumder
OK I get that booster reuse cuts down costs, but the fact is the 2nd stage is
still not reused, which limits the economic benefits needed to open new
markets. We get a 50% reduction in costs, instead of the 95% reduction in
costs.

You can get a 50% reduction in costs just by going to India for launch..

Is SpaceX going for 2nd stage reuse at all? That's going to be a lot harder
than booster stage reuse, since you're returning to land at orbital velocity.

And then there's the whole issue of increasing reliability of the 1st stage
for reuse hundreds (or thousands) of times needed for new business models...

~~~
InTheArena
The first stage represents about 75% of the cost of the vehicle, not 50%. This
represents the actual cost of the metal on the launchpad, but not the services
around the rocket, including launch control costs, etc.

You can't take a rocket to India and you can't manufacturer that rocket in
India (Skilset, US based corporation, ITAR) so you can't achieve your savings
that way.

Even Russia - which is using a very old tried and true rocket design - can't
match prices at this point. In addition, the budget cuts in Russia have
resulted in a massive reduction in reliability, which has blown up their
insurance cost recently.

In terms of second stage re-usability, they are looking at that for FalconX,
and it's designed in at the start for BFR. Landing something from a second
stage is as difficult comparatively vis-a-vis landing the first stage, as
landing the first stage was compared to the suborbital hops that Blue Origin
is doing.

The latest SpaceX idea (judging by Elon's tweets) appear to be some sort of
Ballute based approach.

The first stage re-use should be good for 10 flights without a overhaul, with
a complete tear-down on flight 10.

~~~
golem14
"You can't take a rocket to India and you can't manufacturer that rocket in
India (Skilset, US based corporation, ITAR) so you can't achieve your savings
that way."

Out of curiosity -- can they _fly_ a rocket to India (maybe have a booster
return to India instead of a drone ship ? Too far/out of the way ?

That may not help much since stage 2 would still have to be shipped around,
which is probably not cost effective, and there might be other regulations
that make it infeasible to launch anywhere but in the USA.

~~~
evgen
As soon as it lands you have violated ITAR, so no.

