SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/28/15071288/spacex-launch-recycled-falcon-9-rocket-landing-schedule
On Thursday, SpaceX is set to launch yet another satellite into orbit from the Florida coast — but this mission will be far from routine for the company. The Falcon 9 rocket that SpaceX is using for the launch has already flown before. Around the same time last year, it sent cargo to the International Space Station for NASA, and then came back to Earth to land upright on a floating drone ship at sea. This is the first time that SpaceX will attempt to reuse one of its rockets.
[...] In truth, only part of the Falcon 9 is being reused on this upcoming mission. After each launch, SpaceX tries to save just the first stage of its vehicles. That's the 14-story-tall main body of the Falcon 9 that contains the primary engines and most of the fuel.
[...] Not only is this Falcon 9 rocket launching for a second time, but it's landing again, too. The first stage will attempt another drone ship landing in the Atlantic Ocean after takeoff, meaning this particular vehicle could see even more flight time in the future. It's still unclear just how many times a single first stage of a Falcon 9 can be used again. In the past, Musk has boasted that parts of the Falcon 9 could be reused up to 100 times, but he expects 10 to 20 reuses out of a single vehicle.
[...] It's not known just how much launching a used rocket saves the company, but SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell estimated that customers could see a price reduction of about 30 percent for launches that use landed rockets. (In October, however, she told Space News that SpaceX is only offering 10 percent discounts for the time being.) That means the Falcon 9, which starts at a little more than $60 million, could eventually go for $40 million if it's a reused vehicle.
[...] SpaceX performed a successful static fire test of the Falcon 9 engines on Monday, and right now, takeoff of SES-10 is scheduled for 6PM ET [2200 UTC] on Thursday from Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida. There's a two-and-a-half-hour launch window, so the Falcon 9 can conceivably take off anytime until 8:30PM ET [0030 UTC]. So far there's a 70 percent chance that weather conditions will be favorable, according [to] Patrick Air Force Base.
The Verge story says it will be updated 20 minutes before the scheduled launch to provide a live-stream of the launch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @05:34PM (4 children)
Is there any reason I should not view that as wild speculation?
I don't know exactly what SpaceX is doing but what I do know is that it certainly doesn't begin and end with a better QA tool. Boeing, with all the resources in the world, tried and failed to do what SpaceX is going to be doing and were literally calling it impossible before later changing that to 'economically infeasible.' I would definitely be interested in learning much more about their structural systems, but I'm having trouble seeing better diagnostics playing more than a tertiary role here.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)
Boeing was calling reuse impossible because it is more profitable to throw away the rocket and sell a new one to the customer.
SpaceX seems to think it is profitable enough to sell inexpensive launches, and eventually on re-used rockets, and make money enough to finance some of its other ambitions and ongoing development.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:42PM
You're conflating their statements. They were stating it was literally impossible. 'Economically infeasible' was a take-the-crow-out-of-mouth rephrasing. Even the name of the Dragon rocket is a reference to this. It's named after Puff the Magic Dragon as a bit of a jab at the many people who were stating the whole idea impossible. Initially the proclamations against the project were even organized as ad hominem framing him as naive and inexperienced and so therefore unfit to be able to state anything (even if clearly it was scientifically and logically justified).
And it being more profitable to throw away rockets doesn't even make any sense. For rockets fuel, relative to the cost of the entire rocket, is free. You're talking a couple of hundred thousand dollars for rockets that cost tens of millions of dollars. The vast majority of the cost in any rocket is the rocket itself. Get reuse down and your margin skyrockets. On the other hand if you're stating that Boeing was intentionally keeping their costs high to justify a larger cut in their no-contest cost+ government contracts, then yes - I'd tend to agree with you. But I think that nuance would be lost on most people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)
Just dug up this [aviationweek.com] quote from Shotwell a couple of years back. Even back then the engines were designed and rated for 40 contiguous cycles. Like the article says that doesn't necessarily mean the entire first stage is, but in any case I think it's safe to say that while better QA technology plays some role - it's definitely not their 'secret sauce.'
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 29 2017, @07:20PM
I think it's safe to say that while better QA technology plays some role - it's definitely not their 'secret sauce.'
Fair enough. I'd phrase it as necessary but not sufficient.