Author Topic: SpaceX possible economic impact  (Read 33571 times)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #60 on: 04/16/2008 05:11 pm »
Quote
canoe76 - 16/4/2008  12:39 PM

I think it is guaranteed that the 3 engines used in the demonstratuion test were not F9 Qualified engines.  Going to those engines will be a small step compared to the learning curve associated with going from single engine to 9 engine testing.


Not having any insider or professional knowledge, I'm curious how you define "F9 Qualified," and how you "think it is guaranteed" those 3 engines don't meet that criterion. I don't actually believe you can "think" something is guaranteed. The word "guarantee" suggests certainty. If I had to guess, I'd guess the testing program on these engines will lead to the definition itself. Which leads to a related question: Would an engine that had been subjected to extensive testing then be mounted on a flight article? It doesn't seem reasonable to me, but I'm not a rocket scientist.

Offline canoe76

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #61 on: 04/16/2008 05:47 pm »
OK, strike "I think it is guaranteed" and insert "I think it is very likely"

I think these three engines are some version of F1-M1C engines that were assembled from parts intended to be used in F1-M1C dev/qual.

A qualified F9-M1C will have the starts, total duration, excurions that SpaceX decides satisfies there Qual requirement at F9 operating conditions.  Like you say, I'm sure that will all be changing as the program moves forward.

I would hope the engines that see extended stand test time will be held back as life leader samples so that they can always have an engine or two with demonstrated life that goes well beyond anything they may decide to disposition as flight worthy and fly in the future.



.

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #62 on: 04/17/2008 07:34 pm »
Keep in mind that the dollar is in a nosedive, even  though SpaceX's prices have increased faster than whatever they call inflation these days, their price has probably gone down as viewed by international corporations relative to European and Russian competition.

Fuel and material costs have been rising fast, but I doubt that's a big percentage of the cost of the rocket.  When we sell chips for space applications, they are tested extensively and documented, so the customer ends up getting $20 in parts and something like $2000 in QA and documentation.  That tends to drive up prices a lot, and it's almost all labor - not material.  The extensive testing regimen pushes lead-times out by months too.  So much for cheap-off-the-shelf.  But US labor costs are dropping relative to the international market, so that should work out in the favor of US aerospace and products.

Offline Frediiiie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #63 on: 04/19/2008 07:56 am »
Here a couple of quotes taken from the space show which bear very heavily on the question of SpaceX's possible economic impact.
The first goes back a few weeks;
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=901
It's Space Show 901 Aired on March 2nd, 2008 with Ken Davidian
from NASA EMSD (Exploration Systems Mission Directorate) Commercial Development Policy Lead.

Quote
LIVINGSTON  "How closely connected is the development of a commercial development program to the structure of the VSE as we know it today not what it may evolve into."

DAVIDIAN "Well it wasn't built in from the beginning but because this is all new, I mean, Obviously the vision was articulated by the President back in Jan of '04.
We've been working on this policy since late '06 and in fact this policy is coming after the fact that we already have programs that are implementing it, for example the most obvious one is the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract or COTS. That is a specific instance of this policy of how it can be implemented and it's basically because that program was in place - and also other programs like Centennial Challenges - which are encouraging individuals to do large scale, to produce large scale, or at least medium scale commercial  space capabilities  That we wanted to have a policy that incorporates those not only to legitimize those but to encourage new programs of that same sort.
So the Vision or the US Space Exploration Policy is still very flexible. It's still very wide open and these kind of activities can still be incorporated    
NASA has to obey the law that says that if there is a commercial capability that NASA can use and meets it needs then NASA has to buy it.instead of do it itself.
So we're trying to keep reminding NASA of that kind of thinking, That we want to buy commercial instead of use government provided capabilities whenever it's possible."

The second quote is
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=928
from Space Show 928  Aired on April 15th, 2008 with Frank Sietzen

Quote
SIETZEN "...and I asked at a conference this winter Doug Cook in the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and I said Doug I don't quite understand the logic of COTS D vs Orion and Ares.
"He said what do you mean
"I said you know COTS D would be the crew rotation component of COTS which has not been demonstrated yet. But lets say these commercial entreprneurial companies are successful in demonstrating both cargo return from station and crew return from station. I know it's a big leap but lets say it happens. Would you then develop Orion and Ares for low earth orbit access which is what you currently plan to do.
"He said No, of course not. He said we'd buy COTS vehicles if there was a COTS vehicle to buy.
"And I turned around and looked at the LM folks in the audience and they turned white as a ghost.
"And here's the reason why. The current models for the Orion and Ares talk about 4 flights to the ISS every year.
"Once you have the lunar program you're talking about 2 lunar missions per year. You're talking about 6 Orion Ares missions on an annual basis.
4 of them goes to the ISS.
"Since Orion is largely an expendable spacecraft that means you build a new capsule for every mission. You're the company building and selling the capsule. So you make your profit on as many of these as you can sell.
If the government takes four of them away - 2 thirds of your market away for COTS - all your profit is then generated from the lunar program.
2 flights a year.
"A successful commercial COTS - which we admit has not yet happened. May never happen - But a successful commercial COTS will change forever the way civil space is funded in America because if I am a new President and there is a successful COTS demonstration and it's carrying the American flag on gthe side of it, that's an Americian spaceship. Why do I need then to spend $50B to duplicate the same function in a government funded Orion and Ares space vehicle.
"If there is such as case to be made for that - and I'm not saying there isn't. It hasn't been made yet."
reminds me of the Chinese curse
"May you live in interesting times."


Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #65 on: 04/21/2008 12:02 pm »
Quote
Frediiiie - 19/4/2008  2:56 AM
Quote
"I said you know COTS D would be the crew rotation component of COTS which has not been demonstrated yet. But lets say these commercial entreprneurial companies are successful in demonstrating both cargo return from station and crew return from station. I know it's a big leap but lets say it happens. Would you then develop Orion and Ares for low earth orbit access which is what you currently plan to do.
"He said No, of course not. He said we'd buy COTS vehicles if there was a COTS vehicle to buy.
"And I turned around and looked at the LM folks in the audience and they turned white as a ghost.
"And here's the reason why. The current models for the Orion and Ares talk about 4 flights to the ISS every year.
"Once you have the lunar program you're talking about 2 lunar missions per year. You're talking about 6 Orion Ares missions on an annual basis.
4 of them goes to the ISS.
"Since Orion is largely an expendable spacecraft that means you build a new capsule for every mission. You're the company building and selling the capsule. So you make your profit on as many of these as you can sell.
If the government takes four of them away - 2 thirds of your market away for COTS - all your profit is then generated from the lunar program.
reminds me of the Chinese curse
"May you live in interesting times."

Do you prefer to stagnate forever?

Offline Frediiiie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #66 on: 04/22/2008 05:55 am »
Not at all.

Davidian said "NASA has to obey the law that says that if there is a commercial capability that NASA can use and meets it needs then NASA has to buy it.instead of do it itself."

Put it another way:
The model of how NASA contracts work in changing.
4 of 6 flights per year of Ares 1 will never happen.
Those 4 flights will go to SpaceX, LM, Boeing, Orbital, or whoever successfully bids for them.
Two thirds of Ares 1 is now officially dead.

I don't think this is a bad thing.
NASA already has access to 2 proven ELV's
plus 2 COTS companies in the pipeline, plus anybody else who wants to buy into the game.
There'll be a lot of work for the industry.

But lunar access and the VSE?
That depends on the next administration.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #67 on: 04/22/2008 11:01 am »
Quote
Frediiiie - 22/4/2008  1:55 AM

Put it another way:
The model of how NASA contracts work in changing.
4 of 6 flights per year of Ares 1 will never happen.
.


Incorrect.  "The model of how NASA contracts work in changing" has already been in existence .  There were never 6 flights of Ares 1.  Orion cargo was canceled long ago.   There have only been 2-3 Orion?Ares I flights per year.   This isn't a change in policy

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #68 on: 06/19/2008 03:42 am »
This seems like the closest thread for this observation.  This is an "economic impact".

There was a NASA news release http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jun/HQ_C08038_ELVIS.html on the ELVIS (way too cute acronym) support contract (emphasis mine):

NASA EXTENDS EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES SUPPORT CONTRACT

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded Analex Corporation of Fairfax, Va., an option for the Expendable Launch Vehicles Integrated Support, or ELVIS, contract.

This second option period award is a hybrid performance-based, cost-plus-award-fee, fixed-price-award-fee, and fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. It extends ELVIS through Sept. 30, 2011. The award has a potential value of approximately $90 million.

Analex Corporation currently is performing work under the contract's first option period, a three-year option that ends Sept. 30, 2008.  The potential contract period, if all options are exercised, is nine years, three months, with a total approximate value of $258 million.

The contract provides integrated support services in the areas of business and administration, safety and mission assurance, engineering, and technical, facility, and launch operations. Launch vehicles include the Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Taurus, and Falcon rockets. The contract specifically provides engineering services and analyses, communications, telemetry, special studies, and technical services for ground and flight expendable launch vehicle systems and payloads.

I wonder exactly what they are doing for these rocket families for $30M/year and what role they would play in Falcon or Taurus launches.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #69 on: 06/19/2008 04:45 am »
This seems like the closest thread for this observation.  This is an "economic impact".

There was a NASA news release http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jun/HQ_C08038_ELVIS.html on the ELVIS (way too cute acronym) support contract (emphasis mine):

NASA EXTENDS EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES SUPPORT CONTRACT

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded Analex Corporation of Fairfax, Va., an option for the Expendable Launch Vehicles Integrated Support, or ELVIS, contract.

This second option period award is a hybrid performance-based, cost-plus-award-fee, fixed-price-award-fee, and fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. It extends ELVIS through Sept. 30, 2011. The award has a potential value of approximately $90 million.

Analex Corporation currently is performing work under the contract's first option period, a three-year option that ends Sept. 30, 2008.  The potential contract period, if all options are exercised, is nine years, three months, with a total approximate value of $258 million.

The contract provides integrated support services in the areas of business and administration, safety and mission assurance, engineering, and technical, facility, and launch operations. Launch vehicles include the Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Taurus, and Falcon rockets. The contract specifically provides engineering services and analyses, communications, telemetry, special studies, and technical services for ground and flight expendable launch vehicle systems and payloads.

I wonder exactly what they are doing for these rocket families for $30M/year and what role they would play in Falcon or Taurus launches.


from:  http://www.analex.com/company.html

"Mission Systems Engineering, Operations and Acquisition Support for NASA Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) and NRO Missions at Kennedy Space Center and Vandenberg Air Force Base"

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #70 on: 06/19/2008 06:11 am »
Yes, but....
What specifically constitute "Operations Support" and "Acquisition support"?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX possible economic impact
« Reply #71 on: 06/19/2008 11:46 am »
Yes, but....
What specifically constitute "Operations Support" and "Acquisition support"?

They work side by side with the NASA civil servants in the NASA Launch Services Program. 
« Last Edit: 06/19/2008 11:46 am by Jim »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0