I'll rest my case.Given the state of BE-4 and AR-1 engine developments, is a maiden launch in 2019 still feasible?I think that when BE-4 is proven before year end it is possible (~2year for Vulcan development). When BE-4 is chosen but it's testing phase last well into 2018, I think 2019 will be a very ambitious timeline.If AR-1 is chosen, I think 2019 is totally unrealistic, because AR-1 will still have to be qualified in 2018.When are the GEM-63's planned to be introduced on Atlas V? (Google_spaceflightinsider)Has OATK already performed ground tests of GEM-63 and the XL version? (not that I expect to be a problem).
With reusability, SpaceX can also charge less, and will do so to optimize for their goals - as they see fit.
They don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 10/08/2017 01:54 pmThey don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.With brand that is Musk and achievements to date, they can easly raise all the money they will ever need.
Yes, but they spend a lot of money on development and innovation, like Raptor, BFR/BFS. Once their rockets are being reused, they will begin to make more money, especially when they start putting up the Constellation. The GAO is and has been known to not be accurate. I don't trust any government agency for accuracy anymore.
Quote from: whatever11235 on 10/08/2017 02:08 pmQuote from: rayleighscatter on 10/08/2017 01:54 pmThey don't have all this fiscal flexibility you think they do. It's publicly known their liabilities exceed their (own) revenue projections (per GAO) and their payroll already exceeds half a billion a year. SpaceX needs cash as much as any other company.With brand that is Musk and achievements to date, they can easly raise all the money they will ever need.Not while maintaining control of the company. The value of the company has to grow in order to keep the value held by others below 50% and the SEC limits how many share holders they can have without going public. Now they have a couple of very good things in the works that add a lot of value to the company (Starlink, BFR, regular reuse of Falcon) so they will likely have room to run, but the challenge is that none of those is set in stone and could go wrong.
ULA tells us its goal for the base Vulcan Centaur is $99 million. My guess for Vulcan Centaur with 6 GEM63XL boosters is $152 million. New Glenn will expend a 270 tonne second stage (about 68% of the Vulcan first stage mass) and one BE-4 engine during each flight, and the 54 x 7 meter first stage and its seven staged-combustion BE-4 engines will have recovery/refurbishment costs. SpaceX is recovering first stages with simpler gas generator engines but is still apparently charging $62 million, for a less capable (about half the GTO payload) of Vulcan Centaur and New Glenn 2-Stage. Vulcan versus New Glenn seems like it might be close on costs to me. - Ed Kyle
Shotwell was talking about $5-7m per launch 4 years ago. We're at $62m for a reusable Falcon. Granted, it looks like the core can only be reused once, but that is not unexpected. Hence Block 5 is needed, which I suppose can be reused a few more times, but no doubt it will also increase complexity and production cost (as well as reduce economies of scale). What savings will be left is anyone's guess.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/08/2017 04:37 pmOnly 3 rockets have reflown, and the price point has nothing to do with internal cost.Only two first stages have reflown to date, B1021 and B1029. But this is a thread about Vulcan. - Ed Kyle
Only 3 rockets have reflown, and the price point has nothing to do with internal cost.
ULA has a serious problem here, and it won't go away by pointing out that the competition is just at the beginning of their reuse economics.
Just a reminder this ULA Vulcan thread not another SpaceX thread.
Vulcan, as currently being developed, is not even partially reusable.Why isn't ULA committing to even a partial reuse plan, from the get go, at a bare minimum?
Quote from: meekGee on 10/08/2017 08:45 pmVulcan, as currently being developed, is not even partially reusable.Why isn't ULA committing to even a partial reuse plan, from the get go, at a bare minimum?ULA is planning to introduce partial reuse, if I'm not mistaken. ULA's current plan for Vulcan is to introduce SMART reuse (engine module recovery with parachute captured by a helicopter) by 2024.image link