Although this is no longer sensational news, the third successful launch of a (partially) used Falcon 9 launcher, and the 18th successful landing of the first rocket stage of the launcher, show that Elon Musk's vision of multipurpose launchers is not only being realized, but is also becoming more and more routine.
SpaceX launched today at 01:53 am (Israel time), a Falcon 9 launcher carrying the communication satellite ECHOSTAR 105/SES-11 in its nose. The launch Done From the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, then the historic launch LC-39A, which was previously used by the Apollo moon launches and the space shuttles, and is currently leased by NASA to SpaceX.
This is the third launch of a used (partially, to be exact) Falcon 9 launcher. The first stage of the two-stage launcher, which is the main and most expensive part of the launcher, took off into space for the first time in February this year, when it launched the CRS-10 mission, an unmanned Dragon spacecraft that delivered supplies to the International Space Station. The first stage landed after the launch in February on the company's land pad at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport (near the Kennedy Space Center).
After its landing in February, the first stage was repaired and re-prepared for today's launch, which was a complete success. After the successful launch of the satellite, the first stage made another successful landing (the company's 18th), this time on a mobile offshore platform in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and not on a land pad like its last time. The reason for this lies in the nature of the orbit of the satellite ECHOSTAR 105/SES-11, which was launched toTransition orbit to geostationary orbit high (GTO). To do this, the Falcon 9 needed to accelerate the satellite to a much higher speed than if it had been launched into low-Earth orbit. In this type of launch, the launcher "works overtime", and does not have enough fuel left to perform rocket combustion that will return it to the company's land base in Florida, and instead it lands on a mobile rig in the ocean.
This The 15th successful launch in the number of SpaceX this year, more than any other private company or country in the world. in light of The fact that The total number of successful launches this year currently stands at 61, a significant market share of 24% (and the company has several more launches planned until the end of the year).
Today's launch may not be considered particularly noisy, given the fact that the company has already proven Earlier this year Its ability to reuse the first stage of the Falcon 9, but it is a very important step in the company's efforts to calm the concerns of its customers, companies and governments alike, many of which still prefer to rely on new launchers. For example, NASA, SpaceX's most important customer, is not ready to use used launchers yet.
How much money does SpaceX really save on its used launches?
Cost of a new Falcon 9 launcher estimated About 62 million dollars (a low amount in itself in the space launch market). According to the company, the main cost of the launcher comes from the construction of the first stage. Therefore, renewed use in the first stage should, according to the company, significantly reduce the launch price.
The company's challenge is in reducing the resources and efforts required to repair and prepare the Falcon's first stage for relaunch. after the The first launch of a used launcher In March of this year, Gwen Shotwell, SpaceX's president and chief operating officer (COO), Unveiled that the cost of repairing the used launcher was "significantly less than half" the cost required to build a new first stage.
However, the savings that the company makes from the renewed use is still not significantly reflected in the price that its customers are required to pay. The reason for this lies in the owner of the multi-use technology development, Shaylon Musk I measured her At least a billion dollars.
The company did not say if and what kind of discount it gave to the EchoStar and SES satellite communications companies, which jointly own the satellite launched today.
SpaceX has set itself a goal of launching 6 used first stages this year - and with the current third launch, it is halfway there. Another SES satellite is expected to be launched by the end of the year on a Falcon 9 rocket, but it is not clear whether it will be used or new. Two more used first stages will be used in the first test flight of SpaceX's future Falcon Heavy launcher, which is scheduled for the end of the year (but may be delayed until next year).
SpaceX still has a long way to go to make its multi-use vision a reality and pay off. Among other things, the company previously spoke of its desire to significantly shorten the duration of the preparation of the Falcon 9 for a renewed launch, to less than 24 hours. What is certain, however, is that today's launch is a small but important step on the way to realizing the vision.
See more on the subject on the science website:
- Elon Musk reveals the way he will pay for his giant Mars rover
- Elon Musk's space settlement vision
- SpaceX's futuristic space suit is revealed
- History in space: SpaceX first launched a Falcon 9 launcher with a used first stage
- SpaceX plans to launch two space tourists next year for a flight around the moon
Watch the landing moments on the marine rig:
14 תגובות
דניאל
The launch cost is how much a launch costs... in the case of disposable weapons, the main cost, which is the price of the missile itself, is divided over a large number of launches. If the effective weight drops by a third (how did you get to half?) and the launch price drops by 90%, then the idea is still very economical.
Since when do physics students understand economics?
Nissim, your calculation of a third of a percent is incorrect. You may mean the raw cost of the fuel as a percentage of the cost of the mission, but that is completely irrelevant. The cost of putting one kilogram of cargo into low altitude orbit is about $40,000 (as of today). So it is true that the launcher of the first stage does not reach this height, but for the sake of approximation, if it did, then each kilogram of fuel needed to return back costs 40 thousand dollars and it is completely irrelevant that the raw cost of fuel per kilogram is half a dollar. According to Elon Musk's estimates, SpaceX's rocket is capable of lifting a payload of half of what competitors' rockets lift in the wave of fuel it needs to save for the return of the launcher. This means that the cost is divided by only half of the cargo or 2 launches in one place. This is already a cost of tens of millions of additional dollars (at least), so the launcher cycle is not necessarily worthwhile. In addition there are NASA reports of reusing launchers and spacecraft. The SPACE SHUTTLE can be recycled cheaply, among other things because it lands like an airplane. But NASA examined the idea of the rocket cycle decades ago and came to the conclusion that it was not necessarily economically viable. In conclusion: I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX loses money on their launchers, but the very idea of recycling has the power to create hype, attract investors and advertise Elon Musk around the world. That's why I'm not sure if he's a genius or a crook and fraud. By the way: his other big projects are also bordering on cheating. Tesla - a company whose stock value in relation to the creation of cars is a crazy bubble, compared for example to General Motors. Hyper-loop, which is an evil project at all, which is clear to any physics student that is completely uneconomical. His BMR is also not economic, etc.
For every three "Alon Musks" you need one "Stalin" and one "Ruth Nenstheimer" - and the world would look different...
(It is true that one "Hitler" would have appeared on all of these... but let's face it...)
Miracles
I wish we had someone like Elon Musk here in Israel. Steph Naertneimer is new and young. , one who can see decades ahead and who can sweep crowds after him and I mean engineers with a sparkle in their eyes.
דניאל
To put things in proportion - the cost of fuel is a third of a percent of the cost of the missile.
דניאל
let me help you Elon Musk is a genius. He is also a nice and humble man who has a sincere goal to contribute to the world.
Two more like him and our world would look different.
I can't understand this stupid idea of a disposable launcher. After all, he has to pick up all the fuel that will be used for the return and this causes a waste of almost 2 times the fuel compared to the weight of the cargo for a normal launch. This means a loss of about 20 million dollars for each ton (if I did not make a mistake in the calculation). If you add the cost of collection, repair of the launcher (which is estimated at half the price of a new one), etc. then it is very likely that reusing a launcher is more expensive than a launcher. Just as recycling a bottle pollutes more than making a new bottle, but we still recycle. It is not clear to me whether Elan Musk is a genius or just a crook
to my people
Corrosion effects of moisture and salt as a result of proximity to the sea are also evident on buildings and facilities
which are not in the sea or even on the coastline. There is a good chance that this combination will not damage the parts
Returning from a track, but when a lot of money may go down the drain, it's worth focusing in advance on the inspection
Resistance to failure of this type before entering the launch routine of some of them are recycled including
Financial and other obligations arising from them.
to June,
You are right and thank you for the correction - these three launchers performed in their first mission a launch to a low-Earth orbit, which does not create too strong forces on the vehicle during the penetration into the atmosphere. The question of the landing location is not relevant in this case.
To 'someone' - the landing in the sea is on a large rig without contact with the sea water, and not like spaceships that drop into the water, so I don't think there is a problem with the salt water
to Elisef Kosman,
Only one launcher out of the three launchers used made a terrestrial landing on its first mission (and this is the last launcher). The first two launchers made a landing on a mobile rig in the CRS-8 and Iridium NEXT 1 missions, both for low orbit.
Your speculation has a basis. The first launcher that landed from the GTO mission (JCSAT-14 is not fit for flight (although static ignitions were successfully performed on it) because there was too much damage entering the atmosphere.
To my knowledge, there are no plans to reuse a third time for any launcher that has flown to date. According to Elon Musk, the last generation of the Falcon 9 that is planned to fly early next year (Block V), will have the ability to be reused 10 times before needing a major repair (and then they can fly again) and the ability to fly twice in less than 24 hours. And they will be the only launchers to fly more than twice.
To Cusman and Lorem
There is the unclear matter of the corrosiveness of seawater combined
High temperature at least of the rocket engine (and maybe also of the body)
which may damage parts of those returned from space.
It may be that refurbished stages are intentionally launched for a "watery" landing.
At best it will prove the durability of these tools for launches
Many return through their use in conditions that are more difficult than usual
– and in the worst case, this will be Spice X's way of taking out
These tools are for retirees.
to Lorem,
In the final version of the article, I removed the following paragraph, because I thought that it might already be too complicated and "boring" details:
"It is interesting to note that all three used first stages that SpaceX launched are those that performed (in their first mission) a rocket landing on a land pad, and not on a mobile rig in the middle of the sea. Launchers that the company landed in the sea are mostly those that launched to a higher orbit, and therefore they are Exposed During reentry into the atmosphere to higher forces that may cause damage to the vehicle."
It's just speculation, but maybe because all three used first stages were launched on their second flight to an orbit beyond high geostationary orbit, the company may be having the same problem preparing them for a third flight.
In any case, I agree with you that a third launch of that stage is a very important step that the company needs to take - and much more than that, because it wants to use that stage many, many times.
Now we have to wait for the third launch of the same first stage of the rocket.
I would expect it to happen already.