7 ms·
SpaceX seeks to accelerate Falcon 9 production and launch rates this year
- peter303 11y agoSpaceflightnow launch schule shows SpaceX and UAL tied at 14 launches each the rest of this year. Only Russian Soyuz+Proton has more.
- donkeyd 11y agoReuse will actually make a big difference then. I can't wait for the relaunch of the one that landed before.
- monitron 11y agoAlas they said they're not going to relaunch that one. They're only studying it to identify issues and improve reusability on future launches.
- mikepurvis 11y agoCan't help thinking the first re-flown one might be a self-funded test flight. Then again, maybe there are customers lined up to be the payload on there.
- blackguardx 11y agoI think they plan to use them to launch the new satellites they are coming out with until they are proven reliable.
- tdy721 11y agoThey do have a launch abort mission coming up. That seems like the prime candidate to me.
- _vn5r 11y ago"I think we’ll probably keep this one on the ground," he said, "just [because] it’s kind of unique, it’s the first one we’ve brought back." http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10642028/spacex-falcon-9-landing-elon-musk-wont-fly http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10642028/spacex-falcon-9-...
- ncallaway 11y agoAs other commenters have mentioned, Elon has stated that they plan to keep the first one ever returned on the ground. Reflights won't happen until they land another rocket [1]. They have done a static test fire of the F9 core, where they run through about the first several seconds of a launch while holding down the rocket with large clamps. In that static test fire, everything was mostly nominal though they did mention fluctuations in one of the nine engines. Elon has stated that the fluctuations may have been due to a small amount of debris that entered the engine during the landing procedure. I share your sentiment, though! I absolutely cannot wait until they fly their first mission with a re-used core! [1] They have a launch of SES-9 on Feb 24. It's been stated that they may attempt to recover this rocket, though it sounds like if recovery is attempted it will be a fairly low-likelihood of success attempt.
- donkeyd 11y agoThanks for the explanation, I guess I missed the statement from Elon.
- grondilu 11y agoKind of paradoxical that just after their first successful landing they ramp up rocket production. Isn't the point of re-usability not to have to build so many rockets?
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoMore rockets to re-use, I'm guessing.
- rplnt 11y agoI don't think their current rockets are reusable. Only once they figure it out they can build more expensive engines that could be reused. I might be wrong though.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- DennisP 11y agoCurrent rockets are supposed to be reusable, they've designed them that way from the beginning. They've already test-fired the one they brought back, and it looks like they can reuse with minimal refurbishing. http://www.universetoday.com/126837/spacex-test-fires-recovered-falcon-9-booster-major-step-reusable-rockets/ http://www.universetoday.com/126837/spacex-test-fires-recove...
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoThey are, and I expect if nothing else they want to continue to attempt more landings for study purposes. We won't see actual rapid re-use of rockets for few more years though.
- grecy 11y agoElon's best guess is 70% success rate on landings for 2016 - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/689299216607232000 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/689299216607232000
- 11y ago
- mc32 11y agoSomewhat tangential, but does Space-X have the will or ability to develop heavy lift rocket engines which at the moment only the Russians seem to be capable of producing? I think Boeing etc. have to procure their heavy lift rocket engines from Russia because they have no alternative supplier, at the moment.
- FrojoS 11y agohttp://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
- DuskStar 11y agoWell, the Falcon Heavy doesn't use heavy lift engines. It just uses 27 medium-sized engines, 9 per core.
- mikeash 11y agoRight, but as Falcon Heavy demonstrates, you don't need "heavy lift engines" to build a heavy lifter. Going bigger than Falcon Heavy with the Merlin engines is probably getting a bit excessive, but the Falcon Heavy will already be one of the largest capacity rockets out there.
- AliCollins 11y agoThere has certainly been information out there about SpaceX's Raptor rocket engine...but I am unaware of how far they are along the development process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)
- hLHEDuYtSh 11y agoThey are making an engine they call Raptor for their planned giant rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_%28rocket_engine%29 It is not a swappable substitute for the Russian ones, because it uses a different kind of fuel and probably for lots of more complicated reasons.
- kirykl 11y agoI wonder how long SpaceX will maintain ops in their Hawthorne facility before opening a new one. With the larger rockets, I would think shipping via highway would become a problem. Also I wonder how feasible it is to continue to produce rockets so far from launch sites
- rst 11y agoThey plan to be producing Falcon family rockets for a long time yet, and those are sized to permit highway shipping. They plan to produce larger rockets for the Mars project, but their current plan for those, per hints they've occasionally dribbled out at industry confabs, is to build a new factory near the launch site.
- dba7dba 11y agoAre most rockets manufactued near launch site? Think not. BTW Long Beach port is just 1 hr away from Hawthorne.
- Animats 11y agoIt's about time. Two years ago, Space-X was talking about how they were going to produce a hundred engines a year. They have a big order backlog for Falcon 9 launches, and they are way behind. Supposedly the bottleneck was pad time and range time at Canaveral, not production. Opening the Brownsville facility, under the total control of Space-X, was supposed to fix that. But that's two years behind schedule now. Not clear why they're having so much trouble with the soil at Brownsville. Sure, it's silt and alluvium, and bedrock is a long ways down, but Houston has similar geology upon which skyscrapers have been built.[1] The Falcon 9 doesn't need a massive launch complex. They currently use a solid roadbed with railroad tracks from the hangar, and a modest launch tower and flame deflector. [1] http://www.beg.utexas.edu/staffinfo/paine-pubs/RI259_paine.pdf http://www.beg.utexas.edu/staffinfo/paine-pubs/RI259_paine.p...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> It's about time. Come on folks. Musk's companies are innovating at a fantastic pace. One year at either company is like three to five years at any other firm. And we come arm chair it in HN that "It's about time." The future is being delivered pretty damn quickly (~50K Tesla's/year manufactured, Falcon 9 returning to the pad successfully) Our expectations might be slightly out of line with reality. EDIT: If you'd like to speed things up: https://www.teslamotors.com/careers https://www.teslamotors.com/careers http://www.spacex.com/careers/list http://www.spacex.com/careers/list Disclaimer: No affiliation with any Musk companies, except retail investor in TSLA.
- Animats 11y agoThis isn't about innovation, it's about production. It's been almost six years since the first Falcon 9 launch, and volume production hasn't started yet. The Minuteman-I missile was first test-fired on 1 February 1961. All 800 Minuteman-I missiles were delivered by June 1965.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- 11y ago