Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Is Planning To Launch a Falcon 9 For the Third Time (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the rinse-and-repeat dept.

According to the senior director of government sales for SpaceX, Lars Hoffman, the company is planning to launch a Falcon 9 first-stage booster for the third time. At the Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium on Wednesday afternoon, Hoffman said: "We've launched Falcon 9 over 60 times. We've landed our first stage booster 30 times now. And relaunched 16 times. We're about to relaunch a booster for the third time. So we're turning this into routine access to space. High-reliability, higher-performance, lower-cost access to space; that opens it up to everybody." Ars Technica reports: The company has not officially confirmed its plans, but at present SpaceX intends to reuse a Falcon 9 rocket for the third time to launch a rideshare mission of dozens of small satellites for Spaceflight. This Spaceflight SSO-A mission currently has a launch date of November 19, according to a calendar maintained by Spaceflight Now. An earlier report in The Space Review previously indicated this mission may involve the third flight of a booster.

52 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fraud! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't really believe that. Since someone was going to say it anyway, I might as well get there first. Elon can smoke as many doobies on video as he wants, he's shown us a path to space that I had given up hope of seeing in my lifetime. So, I'm a fan.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  2. Good news by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm actually liking the fact that SpaceX is delivering a commoditized platform for LEO delivery, they're getting the basics down and delivering. Now if they could just get their landing vids to work at the right moment..

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Good news by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something about having an immensely powerful rocket ship shooting flames in the general direction of the antenna, while also causing sonic booms and sound loud enough to kill a person seems to disrupt the satellite link. Who knew :-)

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:Good news by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      By the way, I was at Vandenberg a few weeks ago, and the landing burn is loud, even though it's one engine rather than 9. And then these two sonic booms come and bang on your chest! And that was at least 5 miles away from the pad.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re:Good news by religionofpeas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Couldn't they just record the video, delay the broadcast for a few moments, and then send it as soon as platform stabilizes ?

    4. Re:Good news by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably. But you want to see it realtime, don't you?

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:Good news by religionofpeas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right now, the feed cuts out, and then we usually don't see the landing until a few days later. If they could instead show it in the same live broadcast with a short delay, that would be much better.

    6. Re:Good news by idji · · Score: 1

      They once had a helicopter at distance which gave a live feed of touchdown.

    7. Re:Good news by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Right now, the feed cuts out, and then we usually don't see the landing until a few days later. If they could instead show it in the same live broadcast with a short delay, that would be much better.

      Yeah, they generally show a picture of it having landed shortly afterwards which means communication is re-established pretty quick. Since there's not really anything interesting happening after that they could have a rolling buffer and switch to that, like here's a replay on a one minute delay. I'm guessing the delay now is because they have a simple signal split between the broadcast and recording systems with no easy playback. The recording is probably transferred back to HQ as a data file. Like this:

      Signal
      |
      Splitter -> Wanted: delay buffer -> Broadcast
      |
      Recorder -> File -> Data Transfer

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Good news by GoTeam · · Score: 1

      Seems like a drone would be a cheaper/easier way to get that video.

    9. Re:Good news by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Something about having an immensely powerful rocket ship shooting flames in the general direction of the antenna, while also causing sonic booms and sound loud enough to kill a person seems to disrupt the satellite link. Who knew :-)

      That seems like a problem that could be solved by moving the satellite uplink farther away from the landing platform. (If they don't want to string a wire from the drone ship to a separate antenna-raft, they could use a local RF link instead)

      Dunno if it's worth the effort of doing it just for a few extra seconds of live footage, but since Musk keeps proposing things like building underground tunnels and Gundam Mechas, I have to assume he's looking around for additional work to do :)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    10. Re:Good news by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Pedantically speaking, only those who are present at the landing site see it in real time.

      A short delay to establish a stable upload connection does not seem like a big deal to me. Chances are I would be oblivious to the delay unless there was a simultaneous live feed from inside the control room while the landing portion paused.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  3. Confusing headline by enriquevagu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Headline: "SpaceX Is Planning To Launch a Falcon 9 For the Third Time".
    Body: "We've launched Falcon 9 over 60 times."
    Me: ??

    The headline may be misunderstood as the third Falcon 9 flight ever. The news here is that a specific Falcon 9 booster is going to be reused for the second time, so it will be its third flight. Not to be confused with Falcon Heavy (Simultaneous boosters landing), which has been launched only once in a test flight.

    1. Re:Confusing headline by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Headline: "SpaceX Is Planning To Launch a Falcon 9 For the Third Time". Body: "We've launched Falcon 9 over 60 times." Me: ??

      The headline may be misunderstood as the third Falcon 9 flight ever. The news here is that a specific Falcon 9 booster is going to be reused for the second time, so it will be its third flight. Not to be confused with Falcon Heavy (Simultaneous boosters landing), which has been launched only once in a test flight.

      It's actually worse than that. TFA:
      1. the company is planning to launch a Falcon 9 first-stage booster for the third time.
      2. We're about to relaunch a booster for the third time.

      Where I come from, "redo" means "it's been done once and now we're doing it again, for a total of two "does". If you're relaunching for the third time, that's a total of four launches. If you're launching a booster for a third time, that means it's already been launched twice, so the third launch is the second relaunch.

      It appears from the first couple of paragraphs of TFA that this will be the third launch (or second relaunch) of the subject booster. I really wish people who call themselves writers and editors would actually learn to convey accurate information in the stories they touch.

    2. Re: Confusing headline by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You can have intelligent headlines or you can have Msmash.

    3. Re:Confusing headline by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      The headline may be misunderstood as the third Falcon 9 flight ever. The news here is that a specific Falcon 9 booster is going to be reused for the second time, so it will be its third flight. Not to be confused with Falcon Heavy [wikipedia.org] (Simultaneous boosters landing [youtube.com]), which has been launched only once in a test flight.

      Indeed. The news here is that they are reusing a booster for the second time for the first time, whereas they have reused boosters for the first time only many times before.

      I am awaiting the milestone when they reuse a booster for the third time. There's a first time for that, too.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:Confusing headline by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That's because it's the critical part of the equation. There's no real point in landing and reusing the booster once. Additional weight and failure points created by hardware and fuel needed for landing cycle are exceedingly costly. Break even cost is likely between two and three launches.

      So if they can get same booster to launch three times, they're almost certainly in net positive compared to single launch boosters. This is the real test for the platform.

      Let's hope they succeed, because if they manage to prove that technology is workable on this level, access to space will become meaningfully cheaper.

    5. Re:Confusing headline by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The headline makes perfect sense if you understand the underlying mechanics of what's happening. It doesn't to a casual observer with no deeper knowledge of the subject beyond the mainstream. Third launch of the same first stage is where they're all but guaranteed to get into net positive compared to having a more economical disposable first stage.

      Actual booster itself is proven for single launch purposes. It's just much less efficient for the purpose than single launch disposable ones.

    6. Re:Confusing headline by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I drove the same Honda Accord for the third time
      I've driven a Honda Accord over 60 times
       
      SpaceX is launching a Falcon 9 for the third time
      We've launched the Falcon 9 over 60 times
       
      Yes, the "the" in the last line is implied, but that is why they teach reading comprehension starting in.. what? 2nd grade? And you write essays to improve reading comprehension from at least 6th grade.
       
      I can't help you there.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Confusing headline by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Looks like you're replying to the wrong comment. My complaint was the article's equivalency of "launch for the third time" and "third relaunch". And the OP didn't say that the headline didn't make sense; he said it was confusing that the headline and the story appeared to contradict one another, which is absolutely true. Beyond that, I think the "casual observer with no deeper knowledge of the subject beyond the mainstream" would be aware, as the OP was, that SpaceX has had quite a few Falcon 9 launches; it's been all over the mainstream news for quite a while now. Congratulations, though, on your deeper understanding of the underlying mechanics, whatever that's supposed to mean.

    8. Re:Confusing headline by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 1

      "That's because it's the critical part of the equation. There's no real point in landing and reusing the booster once. Additional weight and failure points created by hardware and fuel needed for landing cycle are exceedingly costly. Break even cost is likely between two and three launches."

      Do you have any documentation to support this? I am sure that the additional weight and failure points created by hardware and fuel add cost. But how do you know that added cost is enough to require 3 launches to break even instead of two? I am not saying your wrong. But I am not convinced the statement is correct.

    9. Re:Confusing headline by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The math was done on enthusiast forums when the idea was first shown as a prototype years ago, providing a starting point in terms of size of the booster vs payload it will carry. I can't easily site such forums at a moment's notice due to relative obscurity of relevant information combined with time passed. It had to do with actual rocket scientists and people studying to become such going over payload vs size of the rocket, likely weight of additional systems needed to land and so on.

      You'll have to google it yourself, or take my word for it.

  4. Launch cadence by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    The real challenge for SpaceX is to launch often enough that they can realize the savings of being able to launch the same rocket 100 times and of potentially being able to have 24 hour turnaround time. They've improved slightly, but they're still only averaging about 2 launches a month.

    Not sure if the problem is a lack of customers or slowdowns in the process or what. Perhaps when they start launching their own starlink satellites they'll be able to fill in the schedule gaps better.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Launch cadence by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      How much stuff do we need in LEO anyhow? Satellites? In LEO?

      Unknown. For multiple competing worldwide internet services the answer will be "a lot" (as in thousands). What other uses people make come up with for satellites if launch services become cheap enough remains to be seen. Could start launch space hotels.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Launch cadence by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      We need more Iridium satellites so satellite telephones can get Facebook access. They de-orbit the old ones, so they aren't really adding to the junk up there.

    3. Re:Launch cadence by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The real challenge for SpaceX is to launch often enough that they can realize the savings of being able to launch the same rocket 100 times and of potentially being able to have 24 hour turnaround time. They've improved slightly, but they're still only averaging about 2 launches a month.

      Not really because 24 launches/year at 1 launch/rocket = production of 24 rockets. At 2 launches/rocket = 12, at 3 launches/rocket = 8, at 4 launches/rocket = 6... they don't have to increase their launch rate to save massive amounts of money. Even with three month refurb a booster with 10 launches (which is the goal AFAIK, 100 is just for BFR pie-in-the-sky dreams) has less than a three year lifespan, they don't need faster turnaround to expend them in a timely fashion. Of course if you're making money then higher volume equals more money, but it's not necessary.

      They probably do need to grow the market though, of 27 US launches so far this year the Falcon has had 17. Even if SpaceX steals some Soyuz launches to the ISS through the Commercial Crew program and a few more from Atlas/Delta there's not a lot of growth potential, unless China/Russia/ESA/Japan/India want to give up their own rocket programs. But no, nothing bad happens if those plans slide another year while they do their 4th-5th-6th launch of the same rocket. It's the only way SpaceX could avoid breaking their back on Starlink which is a massive investment, bigger than creating the BFR.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Launch cadence by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They probably do need to grow the market though, of 27 US launches so far this year the Falcon has had 17. Even if SpaceX steals some Soyuz launches to the ISS through the Commercial Crew program and a few more from Atlas/Delta there's not a lot of growth potential, unless China/Russia/ESA/Japan/India want to give up their own rocket programs.

      If launch costs fall by half, the number of launches will more than double. If launch costs fall to 10% (wasn't that a SpaceX goal?), launches will increase by far more than 10x, probably 100x. We've seen that with just about every technology. Entire new industries are enabled when costs get low enough.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Launch cadence by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If launch costs fall by half, the number of launches will more than double. If launch costs fall to 10% (wasn't that a SpaceX goal?), launches will increase by far more than 10x, probably 100x. We've seen that with just about every technology. Entire new industries are enabled when costs get low enough.

      Depends on the market and how large the launch costs are compared to the total cost of ownership. Like going from paper books to eBooks lowers distribution costs massively but doesn't necessarily lead to an explosion of books being written. SpaceX is quite disruptive in the launch business, but we're not going to build another ISS or JWST or GPS system because of it. Of course it's always hard to predict what new business will come but I haven't heard any major player say they're just waiting for lower launch costs to make major expansions, SpaceX is mainly pointing to Starlink and themselves as the future growth potential. And somewhere SpaceX must also make the money to invest in that and the BFR...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Launch cadence by lgw · · Score: 1

      but we're not going to build another ISS or JWST or GPS system because of it

      Why not? Well, America probably won't that's true. Satellite phones could become something reasonable, though. I can't guess what new sort of business would be enabled (if I were good at that sort of predictions, my investments would be doing way better), but there's always something.

      It's a fair point that lowering launch costs only helps where launch was the dominant cost, but I'm sure there are ways to make money with cheap sats somehow. Less expensive stuff becomes worth launching when launch costs fall. Get launch costs low enough, and asteroid mining will happen, which changes everything.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Launch cadence by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Once they get some experience with their own Starlink systems, I would expect them to start selling cheap satellite systems as well. It's a market that's begging for disruption.

    8. Re:Launch cadence by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      They'll also have all the launches for their Starlink internet service. With 4k satellites, that's going to take quite a few rockets

    9. Re:Launch cadence by pavon · · Score: 2

      SpaceX isn't planning on dropping their Falcon 9 launch prices any more (unless New Glenn pricing forces their hand), because they want to funnel that profit into BFR and Starlink.

      There may be some increase in market as a delayed response to the drop in launch costs that SpaceX has already delivered. Furthermore, I do expect Falcon Heavy to take much of Ariane's commercial launches.

      But things like >10x growth in market aren't likely to happen with the current generation of rockets.

    10. Re:Launch cadence by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      but we're not going to build another ISS or JWST or GPS system because of it.

      On the gripping hand, SpaceX having its own space station isn't as far-fetched as all that, and it would be useful for preparations for Lunar or Mars voyages.

      Along with a station in Lunar orbit, of course. And maybe at L4 and/or L5.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:Launch cadence by Megane · · Score: 1

      Have you really not followed the list of missions? They're about to launch the final ten of a completely new Iridium constellation next month. But we do need more Iridium-like satellites for better high-speed internet. Current satellite internet is crap because it's only using GEO sats, which are ten times as high.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    12. Re:Launch cadence by Megane · · Score: 1

      Reusing rockets isn't just about saving money, it's also about increasing launch rate. If it takes four months to build a rocket, your launch rate is limited by how many rockets you can build at once, no matter how many production lines you set up. And there's an extra cost to set up each new line, beyond the materials and labor cost for each rocket. If it takes 24 hours to refurb a rocket for reuse, you can launch a lot more often, even with only two or three production lines.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  5. Is it the third or fourth launch of this Falcon 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're about to relaunch a booster for the third time.

    That would make it the fourth launch of this booster.

  6. Close Encounters of the 3rd Time by turp182 · · Score: 1

    If they land it, the booster will need a movie of some sort, maybe something with aliens and people from the past.

    It doesn't phone home, it just goes home.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  7. Re:Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fra by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would not recommend that thunderf00t video, it's sloppy and full of assumptions and false comparisons at best.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Re: Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fr by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    IOW, it was done in the same fashion that wall Street analysts operate on Tesla/musk.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. I'm not bored yet by DCFusor · · Score: 2
    So, by Elon's statement, we're not quite there. I will always be thrilled, sorry man.
    How about we separate the man from the companies. Note plural. Tesla != SpaceX in any way other than sharing a bit of management.
    Goals, market, ownership - all as different as it gets. Don't let the propganda confuse you, unless you just want to be dumb.
    -

    As to Elon being a fraud, well if that's the case, we need more Elon-type frauds instead of the usual suspects. Not many would put their entire "FU money" winnings on the line to change the world, and fewer yet succeed as well as he has - even if it isn't as good as he said or as on time. Visionaries are just like that. Gheez - show me your accomplishments and what you put at stake to get there. He could have retired and had hot women feed him drinks and cater to his every whim on the beach of his own island, but we got this instead - and you complain?
    I'd expect someone that crazy to have the odd flaw. I have a few - but I deserve to get away with them less. How about you?

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  10. Re:All The Best for Elon Musk ! by DCFusor · · Score: 2

    It's called "talking your order book" - it's the most shorted stock out there (or was). Since it's all about how the herd values a stock, trying to influence the herd to make your own bet pay is standard operating procedure. They don't hand out awards on the street or in the financial media for telling the truth.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  11. Re:Is it the third or fourth launch of this Falcon by tsqr · · Score: 2

    We're about to relaunch a booster for the third time.

    That would make it the fourth launch of this booster.

    It would, but it's fairly obvious from TFA that it's the third launch (2nd relaunch), and that the writer and editor were unable to convey this simple fact without screwing it up. It would have been easy to clear this up just by showing a list of dates when the launcher was used. But no; that would be too straightforward and informative.

  12. Re:All The Best for Elon Musk ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember Jim Cramer getting caught on video talking about "making some motion" for his holdings on a slow day?

    Market not moving fast enough? Just use your circle of crony brokers to push those numbers where you want them - The Jim Cramer Way! You can actually see him do a kind of "haha yesbut-no-but- wink wink" as tries to avoid directly saying "I manipulate the price, illegally".

  13. Low cost to orbit is a first step by sjbe · · Score: 1

    They probably do need to grow the market though, of 27 US launches so far this year the Falcon has had 17. Even if SpaceX steals some Soyuz launches to the ISS through the Commercial Crew program and a few more from Atlas/Delta there's not a lot of growth potential, unless China/Russia/ESA/Japan/India want to give up their own rocket programs.

    To grow the market prices have to fall. There are potentially a lot of economically useful things we could launch into orbit that don't make economic sense at a $100 million price tag but do make sense at a $10 million price tag and even more of them at a $1 million price tag. Lowering cost to orbit is the first task required to grow the market because in many cases it overwhelms or at least increases other costs to the point that only mega corporations and nation states can afford to send anything into space currently. Imagine if they had a built a brand new 747 and could only use it once every time you wanted to fly from New York City to London. That's basically where the space industry has been for the last 50 years.

  14. So how many times before it goes kapow? by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    As nice as it is to be able to reuse the boosters, you have to wonder how many times can they be reused before the risk of failure rises to the point where you're almost guaranteed to have an explosion? I'm guessing folks willing to risk the reused rockets probably get a discount from it.

    1. Re:So how many times before it goes kapow? by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      For now because its an unknown. Within a few years you may be able charge more for subsequent launches as it's now a flight proven booster with a track record. Just like most people fly on "reused" aircraft

  15. Re:Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fra by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I would not recommend that thunderf00t video, it's sloppy and full of assumptions and false comparisons at best.

    So what you're saying is that it's a typical thunderf00t video.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fra by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    SpaceX is doing so poorly that they have to resort to selling flights on used rockets. Sad. /s

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  17. Proportions by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I am sure that rockets - which fly only every now and then - are the most environment-impacting form of transportation.
    Specially compared to cars, of which there are an extremely large quantity in circulation, which altogether total gazillions of kilometers of distance.

    Talk aboutt too early optimisation.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  18. Re:Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fra by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    Thunderfoot is all mouth no brains.

    Hyperloop an impossibility? Why then is it that the ground work for it is already being laid out? While the tunnel systems he is in the process of building right now, are not hyperloop, all the tech and research that is being generated by his tunnel projects can be applied to making it work.

    While it would be cool to travel across the US in a vacuum sled at 1500mph, and very unlikely we'll be doing it anytime in the next 10 years, I'll be more than thrilled if I can just go across town at 50mph, without stopping for lights, or getting caught in traffic, or even having to drive.

    Everything past that is gravy.

  19. Re:Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fra by aeeneas · · Score: 1

    The way they put it in some Russian news outlets was "Due to their poor education system Americans are losing the ability to make rocket engines so they have to resort to using them many times", LOL.

  20. Re:Tesla is going bankrupt next week! Elon's a fra by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    My favorite is the translated quote of Alain Charmeau, CEO of Ariane:

    Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times - we would build exactly one rocket per year. That makes no sense. I can not tell my teams: "Goodbye, see you next year!"

    --
    Bruce Perens.