SpaceX News

[paperburn1]

Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, will visit the Pentagon on Wednesday for a private meeting with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, in a continuation of Carter’s outreach to the California-based tech community.

The visit will focus on “innovation,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook told reporters Monday. Pushed for more details on Musk’s visit, Cook said Carter wants to “hear directly” from Musk as part of his goal of bringing new ideas into the Pentagon.

“Obviously, Elon Musk is one of the most innovative minds in this country,” Cook said. “The secretary, as you know, has been reaching out to a number of members of the technology community to get their ideas, their feedback, find out what's going on in the world of innovation, so — to make sure that the United States — the Department of Defense remains on the cutting edge, but beyond that I know he's just looking forward to having a conversation on innovation.

It's unclear if Musk is visiting in some capacity as part of Carter’s new Defense Innovation Advisory Board, launched in March under the guidance of Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt.

McCain Skeptical of US Air Force Space Launch Cost Estimate
Musk has become a noted figure around the DC area since his SpaceX firm began fighting for the right to launch military assets into space. After a long slog, SpaceX was certified for military space launch last year.
The timing of Musk’s visit is also notable, as the Senate this week debates its version of the National Defense Authorization Act. A major question there is how the Senate will handle an Air Force request to procure more RD-180 engines, a Russian-produced element to the Atlas V launch vehicle — key to the United Launch Alliance, a competitor with SpaceX.
[url][/http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... 547404/url]

[Skipjack]

Elon Musk tweeted:
‏

@elonmusk
Fourth rocket arrives in the hangar. Aiming for first reflight in Sept/Oct.

Tweet also has a picture of fourth core arriving in the hangar.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740296489532948480

IIRC, SES has booked the first flight on a reused core. They have an upcoming flight in September, which would fit the timeline.

[paperburn1]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted Tuesday that the company was planning the first reflight of a recovered first stage in September or October.

That date is slightly later than what he mentioned at a conference last week, where he said that flight was planned to take place in two or three months. The company has not disclosed who would be the customer of that launch.

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/spacex-hopes-to-la ... sLNPn.dpuf

[paperburn1]

J
"" Formosat 5 for Taiwan’s National Space Organization (NSPO) and the Sherpa deployer from Spaceflight Industries carrying 87 small payloads and CubeSats for a variety of scientific and commercial customers. Delayed from May and June""

[Skipjack]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted Tuesday that the company was planning the first reflight of a recovered first stage in September or October.

That date is slightly later than what he mentioned at a conference last week, where he said that flight was planned to take place in two or three months. The company has not disclosed who would be the customer of that launch.

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/spacex-hopes-to-la ... sLNPn.dpuf

It is pretty certain that the customer will be SES. It could be that the delay has to do with scheduling and issues on the customer/payload side, rather than on the SpaceX side and this is why they changed the timeframe. Musk also said before "autumn" and "before the end of the year".

[ladajo]

I am surprised that the first recycle would be with a commercial cargo. That is ballsy.
I bet the insurance cost for that flight is going to be a little higher...

[ScottL]

I am surprised that the first recycle would be with a commercial cargo. That is ballsy.
I bet the insurance cost for that flight is going to be a little higher...

The payoff could be enormous. No risk, no reward.

[ladajo]

And if it goes 'Boom'? What does that cost in blood and treasure?

Losing a customer's package would seem to be a big deal. I would offer that there is much more to gain by not. And if it does fail (with no package), then you get to say, "we value our customers, and will try again, once we are satisfied, then we will press on with sponsored recycle launches and the associated savings". This seems better from a blood and treasure perspective, than "Sorry, who would like to go next?"

Meh, but if the customer is publically willing to accept the risk... I guess that means they are willing to accept the insurance premiums that go with it, both for present, and subsequent launch fails.

Only my two cents. They (SpaceX & Customer) can do as they wish.

[Skipjack]

I am surprised that the first recycle would be with a commercial cargo. That is ballsy.
I bet the insurance cost for that flight is going to be a little higher...

SES has always been very supportive of SpaceX. They seem to not be too afraid of losing a satellite if it has the potential to save them hundreds of millions in launch costs in the future. That is why it is widely believed that they will be the next customer.
The risk is not higher than it is with any SpaceX launch. SpaceX will run the stage through its paces like they do with any new stage. If there are problems, they will fix them before launch. Some people argue that reused stages will be safer because they have already survived a flight without problems and thus have been "tested" more than any other stage. The biggest unknowns are the effects of re-entry on structures, but they are going to be able to see a much more extreme version of that on S1 of Flight 24 since it returned from mach 10 instead of mach 5. That stage will undergo rigorous testing, some of it probably destructive. If something is fine on that stage, it is most likely perfect on S1 of Flight 23, which will be flying again in September.

[ladajo]

The risk is not higher than it is with any SpaceX launch. SpaceX will run the stage through its paces like they do with any new stage. If there are problems, they will fix them before launch. Some people argue that reused stages will be safer because they have already survived a flight without problems and thus have been "tested" more than any other stage. The biggest unknowns are the effects of re-entry on structures, but they are going to be able to see a much more extreme version of that on S1 of Flight 24 since it returned from mach 10 instead of mach 5. That stage will undergo rigorous testing, some of it probably destructive.

Skip, you countered your own argument here. The main point being that until a recycle flies/tests to failure, SpaceX doesn't really know how it was stressed over the full flight cycle. It is all supposition.

As I said, they can do as they please. If it were me, I think the better strategic business decision would be to fly a recycle with a dummy cargo, and then test it to find what was weakened. Or, keep recycling it with a dummy load until it fails, to see where the weak link is. It could be instructive to do this with two boosters, to see if they fail the same way.

If you could find a customer with a (relative terms) cheap expendable package, to help offset costs, then that could be an option. My inclination is not to boost a full up expensive live load until the multiple flight stress and failure mode dynamics are more understood.

[kunkmiester]

I've suggested two low risk filler loads they could be using for that and to pad the schedule if needed. They'd also be useful here, though there would be development to do.

[Skipjack]

Skip, you countered your own argument here.

Not exactly sure how I did that. They can test Flight 24 destructively and see all the effects of a much harsher re-entry and landing than Flight 23 (the one that will be reflown in Septemer) experienced. If Flight 24 was fine, then Flight 23 should be fine. There is only so much testing you can do. I mean the new stages have only been tested so much too before they fly.

[paperburn1]

I am having a feeling that they are putting a huge amount of faith in simulation.
the JSF is a huge example. 100 percent simulation before the first solo flight in the cockpit. That is going to change the face of the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS)
edit removed the old school term RAG

[ladajo]

Yes, I agree there is a limit to the testing needed. I do not agree that the risk is the same. They do not yet know what to look for, they only have ideas. Until something happens, the ideas will remain as such. It is essentially impossible to simulate full load aggregated flight conditions on the ground. You can do bits and pieces, but you can't do it all together at the same time. And which, in my opinion, is the least understood regime.

It looks like you countered yourself when talking about:

The biggest unknowns are the effects of re-entry on structures, but they are going to be able to see a much more extreme version of that on S1 of Flight 24 since it returned from mach 10 instead of mach 5. That stage will undergo rigorous testing, some of it probably destructive.

They can ground test or fly test it. Either way, instrument it up, and have at it. To me, flight testing until failure is going to tell them more regarding where the aggregated dynamic load weak design points are/is. They could ground test, I just don't think that will fully simulate actual flight loading, it will emulate portions, and that is not the same.

Meh. As I said, they will do as they wish. All we get to do is pontificate and ponder what their will is.

Kunk: I think this is a smarter move. Either fly with low risk payload to help with the testing costs, or fly with dummy loads and eat the cost fully. I just can't see risking a high end cargo until recycle flight is proven and risks understood. I am also of mind that the underwriters will be thinking the same way; High risk = High cost.

[ladajo]

I am having a feeling that they are putting a huge amount of faith in simulation.
the JSF is a huge example. 100 percent simulation before the first solo flight in the cockpit. That is going to change the face of the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS)
edit removed the old school term RAG

Everyone still says RAG. It is culturally embedded for the foreseeable future.

I agree on sim dependencies. It is misguided and rife. The OA crowd has driven the bus off the cliff, and folks are just now noticing they are in freefall.
But that is an entirely different discussion that I could rant on for days.