4 ms·

It is interesting that they are confident enough to launch it with a commercial payload instead of doing a test flight with a dummy second stage.

by the8472 10y ago

grondilu 10y ago
IIRC the client gets a significant discount for accepting an experimental launch.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > “We got a discount,” Halliwell said. “I can’t go into the specific pricing, but we did get a discount for being an early adopter of the technology.” > In response to a question whether the discount was closer to potential figures publicly disclosed by SpaceX’s Shotwell and SES chief executive Karim Sabbagh — who discussed possible reusability discounts of 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively — Halliwell said: “It certainly came out closer to Gwynne than to Karim.” > The figures, while stated as unofficial and somewhat arbitrary, illustrated the behind-the-scenes negotiation on the real price of a reused Falcon 9. > Halliwell did not confirm whether the ultimate price for the SES 10 launch fell between the 30 percent and 50 percent discount figures. > “We did receive a good discount on the baseline price,” he said. “It’s not as crazy or spectacular as you might think, and that makes sense. SpaceX has to supply an awful lot of equipment, and they have to do an awful lot of refurbishment. > “It is an interesting price, and it’s something which we believe will be meaningful going forward, and will be meaningful for the industry in the longer term,” he said. > SES says there was “no material change” to the insurance coverage or the company’s premium payment after cinching the agreement to launch SES 10 on a “flight-proven” rocket. https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-after-getting-good-discount-on-reused-rocket/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-a...
  - simonh 10y ago
    > SpaceX has to supply an awful lot of equipment, and they have to do an awful lot of refurbishment. Right, they've already stated that with the current rocket there's no economical way to recover the second stage, which aren't cheap, and so far nobody knows how many launches the cores will be good for. Also the infrastructure for supporting the recovery efforts, including the drone ships and their operations, can't be cheap. I expect the SpaceX re-use project will probably be in the red economically for years before it starts paying off it's setup costs.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      The second stage is about a quarter of the total cost of the rocket, so the best case, if reusing the first stage cost nothing, is a 75% cost savings. I don't think refurbishment is going to cost all that much. They fired their "max damage" core eight times without any refurbishment and it did alright. The upcoming Block 5 version of the rocket is supposed to incorporate lots of changes to help with reusability. Lessons from the Shuttle are commonly brought up, but may not apply very much. Aside from being very different craft (with the Shuttle running on much thinner margins), a huge difference is that SpaceX is able to rapidly and strongly iterate as they learn. The Shuttle that first launched in 1981 was not all that different from the one that last launched in 2011. The design was not entirely set in stone when it started flying, but it was pretty close. That's what happens when your vehicles cost multiple billions of dollars each. SpaceX is continuing to build new rockets and that makes it a lot easier to make changes to react to experiences with older designs. I doubt the ships are all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure the cost is more than what you or I could afford, but I don't think it's a particularly large fraction of the booster's multi-dozen-million-dollar cost. In any case, it will be great to see how it works out, rather than just talking about how it might work out!
      - simonh 10y ago
        Oh absolutely, it's a revolution in the making. In fact the limiting factor on their launch cadence in a few years might just be how quickly they can manufacture second stages. That would be a great problem to have.
jessriedel 10y ago
There was a lengthy discussion about this in the subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/61walr/why_are_f9_boosters_not_tested_to_full_capacity/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/61walr/why_are_f9_b... I didn't find many of the comments enlightening, but the general argument seems to be this: expert consensus (by both SpaceX and the insurance company) is that the risk of failure is simply not that much higher than a normal launch. So it doesn't make sense to waste a probably-safe trip to LEO; you might as well get paid. Even in the extreme limit where there was a 50-50 chance of failure, it's clear that there would be some payload that would be worth attaching (e.g., a standard satellite design with a low marginal construction cost, or even a high school satellite project).
walrus01 10y ago
They have done a number of static test stand firings of individual first stage engines, simulating up to six or eight launches of the same first stage... Undoubtedly the data gathered from the ground tests plays a big part in their confidence that this will work.
- Robotbeat 10y ago
  SpaceX has test-fired this stage at least 8 times in Texas already (more since this article was written). It is a recovered stage, on one of the most brutal reentry trajectories that they've done so far: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falcon-9-booster-mcgregor/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falc... So it's not just the engines that have been tested. Also, they had to put some sort of beanie cap on top to simulate flight loads.
manicdee 10y ago
The static fire yesterday was enough proof for SpaceX that everything is working as expected. After that the major undetected flaws will show up some time from launch through MECO :D SpaceX will no doubt discover new failure modes that nobody has thought of up till now (and thus were not looking for, and thus did not detect).
- foota 10y ago
  In a static fire the rocket is "tied down" to the ground. Do you know how the stress profile presented by this differs from a real launch?
  - manicdee 10y ago
    Vastly different, but the most likely point of failure is the moving parts, as tested in the static fire. Other parts that failed had been successfully used in flight so a "dummy launch" would have provided no certainty other than "everything worked this time."
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    The point of the static fire is to see if the engines work, and make sure that the rocket fueling sequence works. It does not stress the rocket with any aerodynamic forces.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Major undetected flaws could also manifest after MECO if something goes wrong during reentry or landing. It would be really interesting if that happens. I wonder how people would react. Here's hoping we don't have to find out.
  - ygra 10y ago
    Well, those are flaws that don't matter much, though, as the primary mission is getting the satellite to orbit. Sure, landing the booster a second time would be nice and awesome, but usually they tend to learn much more from failures than from successes.
greglindahl 10y ago
The customer enthusiastically volunteered for the mission.
- gozur88 10y ago
  They get bragging rights. It's also very much in their interest to support development of reusable launchers, since once the technology is proven they'll save on every launch going forward.
simonh 10y ago
The way they see it, it's already had a test flight. Another flight would just show there are unlikely to be failures on a second launch, but wouldn't say anything about a 3rd launch. So would you do a 3rd test launch to check that? When do you stop testing and just launch something worthwhile?
ivanb 10y ago
Just for laughs here is a scheme: get a non mission-critical satellite. Insure it. Attach it to Falcon. Explode it during SpaceX "launch". Collect insurance. > SES says there was “no material change” to the insurance coverage or the company’s premium payment after cinching the agreement to launch SES 10 on a “flight-proven” rocket. https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-after-getting-good-discount-on-reused-rocket/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-a...

It is interesting that they are confident enough to launch it with a commercial payload instead of doing a test flight with a dummy second stage.

by the8472 10y ago

It is interesting that they are confident enough to launch it with a commercial payload instead of doing a test flight with a dummy second stage.

grondilu 10y ago

IIRC the client gets a significant discount for accepting an experimental launch.

jessriedel 10y ago
> “We got a discount,” Halliwell said. “I can’t go into the specific pricing, but we did get a discount for being an early adopter of the technology.” > In response to a question whether the discount was closer to potential figures publicly disclosed by SpaceX’s Shotwell and SES chief executive Karim Sabbagh — who discussed possible reusability discounts of 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively — Halliwell said: “It certainly came out closer to Gwynne than to Karim.” > The figures, while stated as unofficial and somewhat arbitrary, illustrated the behind-the-scenes negotiation on the real price of a reused Falcon 9. > Halliwell did not confirm whether the ultimate price for the SES 10 launch fell between the 30 percent and 50 percent discount figures. > “We did receive a good discount on the baseline price,” he said. “It’s not as crazy or spectacular as you might think, and that makes sense. SpaceX has to supply an awful lot of equipment, and they have to do an awful lot of refurbishment. > “It is an interesting price, and it’s something which we believe will be meaningful going forward, and will be meaningful for the industry in the longer term,” he said. > SES says there was “no material change” to the insurance coverage or the company’s premium payment after cinching the agreement to launch SES 10 on a “flight-proven” rocket. https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-after-getting-good-discount-on-reused-rocket/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-a...
- simonh 10y ago
  > SpaceX has to supply an awful lot of equipment, and they have to do an awful lot of refurbishment. Right, they've already stated that with the current rocket there's no economical way to recover the second stage, which aren't cheap, and so far nobody knows how many launches the cores will be good for. Also the infrastructure for supporting the recovery efforts, including the drone ships and their operations, can't be cheap. I expect the SpaceX re-use project will probably be in the red economically for years before it starts paying off it's setup costs.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    The second stage is about a quarter of the total cost of the rocket, so the best case, if reusing the first stage cost nothing, is a 75% cost savings. I don't think refurbishment is going to cost all that much. They fired their "max damage" core eight times without any refurbishment and it did alright. The upcoming Block 5 version of the rocket is supposed to incorporate lots of changes to help with reusability. Lessons from the Shuttle are commonly brought up, but may not apply very much. Aside from being very different craft (with the Shuttle running on much thinner margins), a huge difference is that SpaceX is able to rapidly and strongly iterate as they learn. The Shuttle that first launched in 1981 was not all that different from the one that last launched in 2011. The design was not entirely set in stone when it started flying, but it was pretty close. That's what happens when your vehicles cost multiple billions of dollars each. SpaceX is continuing to build new rockets and that makes it a lot easier to make changes to react to experiences with older designs. I doubt the ships are all that expensive in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure the cost is more than what you or I could afford, but I don't think it's a particularly large fraction of the booster's multi-dozen-million-dollar cost. In any case, it will be great to see how it works out, rather than just talking about how it might work out!
    - simonh 10y ago
      Oh absolutely, it's a revolution in the making. In fact the limiting factor on their launch cadence in a few years might just be how quickly they can manufacture second stages. That would be a great problem to have.

jessriedel 10y ago

There was a lengthy discussion about this in the subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/61walr/why_are_f9_boosters_not_tested_to_full_capacity/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/61walr/why_are_f9_b... I didn't find many of the comments enlightening, but the general argument seems to be this: expert consensus (by both SpaceX and the insurance company) is that the risk of failure is simply not that much higher than a normal launch. So it doesn't make sense to waste a probably-safe trip to LEO; you might as well get paid. Even in the extreme limit where there was a 50-50 chance of failure, it's clear that there would be some payload that would be worth attaching (e.g., a standard satellite design with a low marginal construction cost, or even a high school satellite project).

walrus01 10y ago

They have done a number of static test stand firings of individual first stage engines, simulating up to six or eight launches of the same first stage... Undoubtedly the data gathered from the ground tests plays a big part in their confidence that this will work.

Robotbeat 10y ago
SpaceX has test-fired this stage at least 8 times in Texas already (more since this article was written). It is a recovered stage, on one of the most brutal reentry trajectories that they've done so far: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falcon-9-booster-mcgregor/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/spacex-returned-falc... So it's not just the engines that have been tested. Also, they had to put some sort of beanie cap on top to simulate flight loads.

manicdee 10y ago

The static fire yesterday was enough proof for SpaceX that everything is working as expected. After that the major undetected flaws will show up some time from launch through MECO :D SpaceX will no doubt discover new failure modes that nobody has thought of up till now (and thus were not looking for, and thus did not detect).

foota 10y ago
In a static fire the rocket is "tied down" to the ground. Do you know how the stress profile presented by this differs from a real launch?
- manicdee 10y ago
  Vastly different, but the most likely point of failure is the moving parts, as tested in the static fire. Other parts that failed had been successfully used in flight so a "dummy launch" would have provided no certainty other than "everything worked this time."
- greglindahl 10y ago
  The point of the static fire is to see if the engines work, and make sure that the rocket fueling sequence works. It does not stress the rocket with any aerodynamic forces.
mikeash 10y ago
Major undetected flaws could also manifest after MECO if something goes wrong during reentry or landing. It would be really interesting if that happens. I wonder how people would react. Here's hoping we don't have to find out.
- ygra 10y ago
  Well, those are flaws that don't matter much, though, as the primary mission is getting the satellite to orbit. Sure, landing the booster a second time would be nice and awesome, but usually they tend to learn much more from failures than from successes.

greglindahl 10y ago

The customer enthusiastically volunteered for the mission.

gozur88 10y ago
They get bragging rights. It's also very much in their interest to support development of reusable launchers, since once the technology is proven they'll save on every launch going forward.

simonh 10y ago

The way they see it, it's already had a test flight. Another flight would just show there are unlikely to be failures on a second launch, but wouldn't say anything about a 3rd launch. So would you do a 3rd test launch to check that? When do you stop testing and just launch something worthwhile?

ivanb 10y ago

Just for laughs here is a scheme: get a non mission-critical satellite. Insure it. Attach it to Falcon. Explode it during SpaceX "launch". Collect insurance. > SES says there was “no material change” to the insurance coverage or the company’s premium payment after cinching the agreement to launch SES 10 on a “flight-proven” rocket. https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-after-getting-good-discount-on-reused-rocket/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/13/ses-stands-by-spacex-a...