SpaceX Getting Ready To Mass Produce Falcon 9 Rockets | Threwns
30 Falcon 9s is at least 10 Falcon Heavy (1 Falcon 9 + 2 stage 1 boosters).
30 Falcon 9s is at least 10 Falcon Heavy (1 Falcon 9 + 2 stage 1 boosters).
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I saw that too, but it seems a bit odd to me considering that they're hopefully going to also have a bunch of recovered 1st stages. It may take a few years, but eventually I expect that rather than insisting on new stages, that customers will want stages that have been proven by previous flights. It should be like aircraft where there's a couple of test flights before they enter service.
More details on their launch cadence:
SpaceX says reusable stage could cut prices 30 percent, plans November Falcon Heavy debut - SpaceNews.com
"SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell on March 9 said the company expected to conduct 16 more launches this year, including an inaugural Falcon Heavy rocket in November, and would accelerate its launch rhythm in 2017."
SpaceX says reusable stage could cut prices 30 percent, plans November Falcon Heavy debut - SpaceNews.com
"SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell on March 9 said the company expected to conduct 16 more launches this year, including an inaugural Falcon Heavy rocket in November, and would accelerate its launch rhythm in 2017."
I know this is a stupid comment, but can't resist (I'm sure someone has already pointed this out...).
She has a GREAT last name to be COO for SpaceX. :biggrin:
She has a GREAT last name to be COO for SpaceX. :biggrin:
A good article going over the changing launch landscape:
The Space Review: The shifting commercial launch landscape
The Space Review: The shifting commercial launch landscape
Why they are attempting to land on the ship, though not directly at sea !!!!!
I don't understand
Rockets don't swim well.
I think that is show to advertise the company, not much needed to land in sea
Of course it must reduce it's velocity to exactly zero as it lands, otherwise it crashes regardless of it it's landing on a platform at sea, on land or on the ocean surface. However, if it lands on the ocean surface then what happens? It sinks to the bottom of the ocean. That is a big problem, isn't it?
Actually the Rocket will float because of the light materials used and the fuel is all used up so there is a huge air pocket in the rocket. The real reason why they can't land in the sea is because the ocean swells will tear it apart. Also saltwater corrodes the materials so that means they would have to refurbish the rocket which would be expensive.
Your point is well taken. I got carried away replying to the nonsense above.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Agree that landing on land would make for faster and cheaper turnaround, but I'm not so sure SpaceX is trying to get all launches to return on land--at least not all the Cape Canaveral launches. For missions requiring higher launch orbit (meaning you have to get the payload/second stage to a higher orbit, for example for a geostationary satellite), more fuel is required, more altitude is required, and more speed is required. This means that you can't reverse the first stage and return to Cape Canaveral. It's too far downrange, too fast, too high, and would require too much fuel.
So for these types of launches, I think sea-based landings are expected and planned for the future. Although they could just do higher orbit launches from Vandenburg, I suppose.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
One completely juvenile reason to land on a ship is because no matter the outcome, it's totally boss.
No, that doesn't work. The thing about orbit is velocity, not altitude, as you already noted. If you can launch toward the east, you can take advantage of the earth's rotation to add to the velocity. Cape Canaveral works because you can launch toward the east. But Vandenberg can only launch south (or east which makes no sense at all), which works for very high inclination orbits.
I wonder if landing at sea would also give spaceX more options for commercial flight. Less constrained by geography and availability of landing sites (and politics?).
You need to fly when? No problem, we'll move our landing ship to an appropriate position and get your cargo where you need it, when you need it...
Early on it may also mitigate infrastructure damage from any problem landings.
You need to fly when? No problem, we'll move our landing ship to an appropriate position and get your cargo where you need it, when you need it...
Early on it may also mitigate infrastructure damage from any problem landings.
Pretty sure on the successful pad landing they explained this ...most efficient place to land is near the refurb factory, which generally means on land near CA. However, CA environmental rules make this near to impossible so... can take off from TX and land on a pad in FL, can take off anywhere and land on drone ship on any body of water. Th drone ship can then transport the salvaged rocket back to port of LA, relatively low cost compared to land transport from FL or maybe TX/NM.
