General > General Technical Chat
orbital maintence tools? a threat?
Dan123456:
--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 23, 2023, 06:27:11 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 23, 2023, 05:09:29 am ---
I think you miss my point on SpaceX’s boosters. The question is are they really the same booster that first launched? Or do they just replace every single part after each launch and slap the same number on it and just call it the same booster?
I do not know the answer to that. I would like to believe that they can reuse them with minor repairs, but due to Musks track record of massive overstating capabilities / straight up lying, I can not trust anything that his companies say. Especially in regards to marketing.
--- End quote ---
There is quite a bit of reason to believe they are reusable. For starters the externals aren't repainted and show the evidence of prior use. But sure, that could be a smoke screen for complete replacement of the internals. But doing a complete replacement of the internals in 21 days buggers my imagination and should give you a little pause. Most important, NASA and the military customers who are buying many of the launches are watching very closely and they seem to agree. And over time have changed their policy from requiring a new booster for their flights to accepting what are now called "flight proven" boosters. I also find the fact that they are able to price launches at 50-75% of what other vendors can provide evidence. Either they have found a way to manufacture these things far more cheaply than others, or they are re-using with relatively low refurbishment costs. None of this may meet your standard for re-usable. If you require that the only thing that happens upon a booster return is to stand it up, fuel it and light the fire, I doubt that it meets that standard. But if you can re-launch $50 million dollar booster with a few million dollars of inspection and repair I think it counts. It is also my guess that the inspection and repair costs have been dropping as they have learned and made adjustments based on the prior flights. That database is rapidly growing, and will soon be larger than for any other space vehicle.
Caution with respect to Musk's statements is wisdom. Assuming that everything his companies do is a lie is not. Tesla cars aren't as good as Musk claims. But they are generally serviceable vehicles with more on road mileage than all other vendors combined. The Tesla powerwall is expensive but works. Starlink works.
Find a way to hold Musk accountable for the falsehoods without throwing out the successes.
--- End quote ---
You make some good points and you are correct. I was being a bit hyperbolic in saying that they maybe they could replace every part after every flight.
My point is that Musk could be massively overstating the reusability. While it may not be every part after every launch, they could require major repairs each time (similar, although different, to the space shuttles boosters).
As they have only achieved the 21 day turn around once, it could have very well been a publicity stunt with large teams working multiple shifts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to repair and replace a significant proportions of the ship. If you have all the replacements parts sitting next to you, and teams of people working around the clock, you can replace a lot of parts in ~500 hours.
As for customers using flight proven boosters rather than new, that could be more due to the terms in the contract rather than their faith in the booster. If SpaceX has a clause offering insurance covering damages of their cargo, government agencies would pretty much be forced to take that option as financial legislation (at least here in Aus - so I would assume the US would be similar) says they must take the best value for money option. Even if it isn’t the “best” option.
Again, I am not saying SpaceX’s boosters aren’t reusable or that they are bad, just that I don’t know how reusable they actually are thanks to Musk’s proven track record of spouting complete BS.
wraper:
--- Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 23, 2023, 06:27:11 pm ---Most important, NASA and the military customers who are buying many of the launches are watching very closely and they seem to agree. And over time have changed their policy from requiring a new booster for their flights to accepting what are now called "flight proven" boosters.
--- End quote ---
Surprisingly B1073 and B1075 F9 boosters launched Starlink as their first payload rather than some government or commercial stuff. Brand new B1082 should soon launch Starlink too.
bw2341:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on December 24, 2023, 03:41:46 am ---Again, I am not saying SpaceX’s boosters aren’t reusable or that they are bad, just that I don’t know how reusable they actually are thanks to Musk’s proven track record of spouting complete BS.
--- End quote ---
There's no need to speculate on how SpaceX does it. Here's a detailed article from Aviation Week:
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-building-airline-type-flight-ops-launch
nonlinearschool:
Thanks BW2341 !!!
never thought this much. re-usability may be one of the few things Mush did that was good. and the battery tech contribution...
RJSV:
I've read through all so far, and thought about the technical points.
Nobody mentioned, the power of having good morale, on a big project; I was actually stunned to view the first 'launch booster return', thinking that "...things are really moving and exciting lately!...".
It's kind of a paradyme shift, freedom from the whole set of hassles when trying to refurbish safely. Plus, we still have the pre-existing way of doing things, using parachute sea landings and all the methods and designs.
Technology amatuers watching a landing get to be 'inspired', that electronic control systems can really perform, in big real-time projects.
So you get a confidence-inspiring visual, and...maybe some planners are checking what it would take, to include human passengers in some novel type of re-entry to runway function.
Like a cheap emergency evacuation system.
More options, and inspiring landings ...to the extent that they look like fake landings, (by playing video backwards).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version