Author Topic: What happens in the next 5 years in the launch market if F9R works?  (Read 73590 times)

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Yep...

IF they don't use BFR (or Mini BFR) for launching these.... , 50 F9 or 15ish FH launches a year may be reason to revisit the decision not to do the engineering for second stage reuse, though.

My hunch is that they'll revisit second stage re-use post BFR. Or, they'll make a purpose built SFR (but again, post BFR). Since the BFR won't be here until the end of that 5 year timeframe, minimum, I'd disagree with us seeing FH stage 2 reuse in that frame.

However, Elon may change his mind with changing circumstances.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Most posts here are too presumptive.

There is one launch service now. It uses F9. End of story until they add a new launcher. Likely FH is next addition.

Recovered stages will be used to build the business case for reuse. My bet it that he'll refly a stage in less than a month after recovery.

From McGregor. As a F9R development platform. By the way, with Grasshopper, he's already reflown a stage.

This may feed into New Mexico as well with a greater flight envelope/duration/change of CONOPs.

After a few stages come back, he'll fly one as an orbital mission loaded with secondary payloads as a test flight with recovery.

Eventually, the same stages will be recycled with more similar missions, and CONOPs for reusable will converge on a best, reproducable case. At this point the development and flight test program will begin to tail off, and pricing for secondary payload missions will be offered at very attractive levels.

FHR will overlap with F9R and follow orbital missions. As FHR becomes a service, "in between sized" primary payloads that push F9 but don't exceed (e.g. 3-5T) F9 capabilities (enhanced), will get a discount. Eventually this service will replace F9 entirely, leaving F9R, FHR, and FH.

How this in the long term given success (OP's) is that before 5 years there will be a massive fallout in launch service providers.

There will be few direct rivals, and mostly national/institutional "special" providers that don't compete.

As they are successfully reused initial resistance to booking them would fall for many customers, at least at some price discount.
Secondary payload has massive increase and a stable low price point. We'll discover if there actually is a long term market segment here, because it will be the easiest/most resilient.

Small (1-3T) primary payloads will be at the market floor price and become a predictable base with low volatility.

Big (4-10T) primary payloads will be market priced and be where all the competition and time dependancy is.

We may see special cases like sequenced launches, possibly synched with other providers as a new means to access volume launch service capabilities.

How would SpaceX price reused core launches?
By risk and competition.

Do reused cores compete with SpaceX keeping up factory production of F9R?
Reused stages are market expansion vehicles. New production feeds least risky high end and special services launches.

Does SpaceX offer to renegotiate launches already contracted?
No, they offer low cost / higher risk secondary and "generic" primary in volume offers to customers.

What happens to launch prices and demand?
Tricky.

All depends on theory of market expansion. And how the future rolls out.

There is no source of new payloads that makes this work right now.

If it doesn't happen, they eat up the market and then stand down til more market.

If gradual market growth, then less stand down time and launch services average lower.

If significant market growth, then they don't stand down, maybe expand.

If in any event they gain 30-51% market share, they control market pricing and dominate world wide.

Now about BFR. Musk's view of BFR is focused on Mars. He'll backfill this strategy with Mars components that adequately fit.

I think he'll start with a in-space propulsion platform that can land and launch on Mars. Then he develops that as a recoverable US for Earth launches. This is fit into BFR/FH/FR plans somehow.

Think of BFR as the eventual replacement for F9/F9R/FH/FHR. But its primary mission is to get that above mentioned vehicle to Mars, so that it can return. And in that secondary role, it creates an industry and technology base that supports Mars and solar system exploration/expansion/other.

Offline moralec

Amazing topic. My thoughts:

- Price for new Falcon 9's will follow reductions in pricing from competitors (presumably, responding to declining market shares). ++ for the use of a Oligopoly model here as proposed by Mr. Nicoli. In my opinion,  Space X will continue to price slightly lower than ULA (or other class-A competitors) in order to capture as much market as they can satisfy. We need to be careful not to wrongly assume this to be a competitive market: we have only a few companies competing, each one with a launch system with specific characteristics. This has to be treated either as an oligopoly or as oligopolistic competition. As a corollary of this, reductions of costs (due to less scrubs, more frequent flights and economies of scale) will not directly lead to reduction in launch prices in the short-run, only in better profit margin for Space X's .
-  In the next couple of years, I expect we will see some partial re-usability (re-use some of the Merlin engines, in new Falcon 9 rockets). This will not impact the pricing whatsoever. In the same time frame, we may see some "technology demonstration" of the used cores, either sold in the market of for Space X new lines of business.
-  In the long run, the price for reused cores will start to go up, maybe all the way to match the price of brand new cores (if they can prove that the risks associated is the same for new/used cores). As with the case above, most  reductions of costs due to re-usability will lead to a better profit margin for Space X.

Offline Roga

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 14
If F9R actually proves to be rapidly reusable what are the consequences 2015-2020?

SpaceX would accumulate a large and growing collection of ready to use cores. As they are successfully reused initial resistance to booking them would fall for many customers, at least at some price discount.
As a customer, the risk would be significantly reduced if/when they fly one to failure; until then it will be a game of roulette that requires a lot of inspection by SpaceX between each flight. The advantages of flying a proven core honestly probably outweigh the disadvantages - provided you can quantify cycle life.
How would SpaceX price reused core launches?
The edge of the envelope will likely always get a discount. The key will be to resist overpricing in my opinion. They could probably price at or above the market once the cores are proven; but the long-term smart thing to do would be to use the marginal capacity to expand the market. The payload markets do not respond to lower prices quickly because they have generally been caused by temporary supply gluts. If SpaceX can hold a segment down and charge a premium for first flights (or some part of their manifest) then they can essentially choose which customers NASA and DoD and conservative GEO providers will support by proxy.
Does SpaceX offer to renegotiate launches already contracted?
I see it like restructuring a sports star's contract for more years at less per year. They might agree to launch each satellite cheaper, but only if you agree to launch more satellites.
What happens to launch prices and demand?
Getting greedy and pricing everthing at what the market will bear will make some profit until other providers can catch up or undercut the price with subsidies. Reused cores used for launching humans or propellants or Bigelow habitats or even their own low-cost satellites will grow the market into more elastic regimes.
Do reused cores compete with SpaceX keeping up factory production of F9R?
The only thing competing with SpaceX production of F9R is SpaceX production of other things. I have no doubt they will use the capacity and then some.

Offline CuddlyRocket

I think it's important to remember that SpaceX's objectives are to advance the human utilisation of space rather than make money (though the two are obviously closely linked). While it seems likely that SpaceX won't unnecessarily lower prices for same-old, same-old launches, if someone comes to them with a plan to expand such utilisation, especially with a novel use, but which they can demonstrate won't close a business case unless launch costs are lower, then they might cut them a deal (subject to SpaceX still covering their costs, naturally).

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Since I only expect them to re-fly once this year (And maybe not even on a commercial basis) I think there won't be a major shift till 2017.
There will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.

My bet is 2017 at earliest. This assumes neccessity of some mods to F9R, making it v1.1.1. Reality will beat simulations any day, after all.

Actually, SpaceX's history shows they often, but not always, slip.  If you had claimed they were likely to slip, you'd be paying attention to SpaceX history.  But you didn't, you said emphatically that they definitely would slip.  So you are ignoring SpaceX history just as much as someone claiming there will definitely be no slip.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Of course they slip, but they are 20 minutes late to being a week early.

F9R came in when everyone expected F9   1.0 to fly unmodified for years (if not a decade) and nailed reentry on the first try.... And now everyone is bitching about a few months...

Who expected work on Raptor to have been started already, or DV2?

I'll take their pace, with delays, over clockwork stasis, any day.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
In fact, this can be best modelled as an Edgeworth-Bertand Price Oligopoly, where SpaceX is the "follower" who sets the price equal to the leader's price (minus a iota, meaning a very little discount) and the leader sets the price at his lowest possible price.
As long as SpaceX is the only reusable, it will work like this:

- ULA (or the other non reusable competitor) sets a price.
- SpaceX sets then its price equal to the ULA's price minus an arbitrarily low value.
- SpaceX meets all the share of the market it can service given its supply chain.
- the residual market goes to the competitor.
This is the point at which we see if Musk is merely a competent businessman who has worked out a way to corner the existing market or if he's prepared to take a serious gamble to grow the market substantially.

My instinct is that the fully reusable BFR is at least 8 years away (it's the generation after the FH, which is not due to fly till NET Q315 )

And at the end of the day you're still left with a single launch supplier (who is also the LV mfg) from a single site which is non optimal because it's legally virtually impossible to move a US launch provider off shore.

An issue no American is likely to care about but which may prove more upsetting to the other 6.7Bn people on this planet.  :(
« Last Edit: 01/21/2015 11:00 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
I think it's important to remember that SpaceX's objectives are to advance the human utilisation of space rather than make money (though the two are obviously closely linked). While it seems likely that SpaceX won't unnecessarily lower prices for same-old, same-old launches, if someone comes to them with a plan to expand such utilisation, especially with a novel use, but which they can demonstrate won't close a business case unless launch costs are lower, then they might cut them a deal (subject to SpaceX still covering their costs, naturally).

Hear Hear.

The end goal is settlement of Mars, not just just milking the cash cow of LEO/GEO operations.  If they can cover their costs and also charge much less than current competitors, doing that increases not only the absolute amount of space utilisation that will occur, but also the diversity of those use cases.  That knowledge base will in turn help them achieve the end goal in the long run, so it makes sense for SpaceX to keep driving it to be as cheap as they reasonably can.  What some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
There will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.
Actually, SpaceX's history shows they often, but not always, slip. If you had claimed they were likely to slip, you'd be paying attention to SpaceX history.  But you didn't, you said emphatically that they definitely would slip.  So you are ignoring SpaceX history just as much as someone claiming there will definitely be no slip.
You ignored fact that I gave two reasons, not one.

This is academic discussion, as SpaceX did not announced any date of first launch with once-used stage. So technically they cannot slip yet. My response was in reaction to guy that thinks they will do it in 2015. Pretty bold, considering they did not recovered anything yet.  ::)

What some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".
You don't even need "charity". Making prices lower than market can bear may be done with intention of nurture and grow that market. You will make more money selling 1000 things for 10$ than 10 things for 500$, after all.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Elon Musk did talk about the chance that reflight will happen this year. That's not a fixed schedule but certainly more than "some time in the future".

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 290
  • Likes Given: 381

What some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".
You don't even need "charity". Making prices lower than market can bear may be done with intention of nurture and grow that market. You will make more money selling 1000 things for 10$ than 10 things for 500$, after all.

you need market elasticity for that. Otherwise you will end up essling 10 things for 10 instead of 10 things for 500.

That's why SpaceX might sell things for 10 in the future, but if the market price is 500, they will just sell it for 499.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2015 09:31 am by francesco nicoli »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
There will be no refly in 2015. Anyone claiming that ignores solid history of "SpaceX time" and schedules slipping right all time in ANY industry, not only space. R&D of technologies on very bleeding edge of what is known and done takes a lot of time.
Actually, SpaceX's history shows they often, but not always, slip. If you had claimed they were likely to slip, you'd be paying attention to SpaceX history.  But you didn't, you said emphatically that they definitely would slip.  So you are ignoring SpaceX history just as much as someone claiming there will definitely be no slip.
You ignored fact that I gave two reasons, not one.

This is academic discussion, as SpaceX did not announced any date of first launch with once-used stage. So technically they cannot slip yet. My response was in reaction to guy that thinks they will do it in 2015. Pretty bold, considering they did not recovered anything yet.  ::)

What some might call charity, others call "enlightened self interest".
You don't even need "charity". Making prices lower than market can bear may be done with intention of nurture and grow that market. You will make more money selling 1000 things for 10$ than 10 things for 500$, after all.
Just to make it more precise then, my prediction (and that's all it is) is:
- First recovered stage will get dismantled.
- Second recovered stage will become a GH
- Third recovered stage (depending on results) will get launched

There might be some room in museums for other recovered stages in the mean time, since if they launch fast enough, testing will be the limiting factor. Especially with NM still not open.

As far as what the first relaunch will carry, I have to ask, since CRS is "service, not a rocket", can that happen?  Does a flown rocket need to be certified as a new type of rocket? Will NASA want to show that it has a reusable (American) launch system supplying ISS?

If not, I can see a demo launch out of Vandenberg, so as not to burden the launch schedule.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2015 12:55 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Just to make it more precise then, my prediction (and that's all it is) is:
- First recovered stage will get dismantled.
Plausible.
Quote
- Second recovered stage will become a GH
Plausible.
Quote
- Third recovered stage (depending on results) will get launched
Possible.
Quote
There might be some room in museums for other recovered stages in the mean time, since if they launch fast enough, testing will be the limiting factor. Especially with NM still not open.
So when's the 3rd F9 due for launch this year?
Quote

As far as what the first relaunch will carry, I have to ask, since CRS is "service, not a rocket", can that happen?  Does a flown rocket need to be certified as a new type of rocket? Will NASA want to show that it has a reusable (American) launch system supplying ISS?
I will remind people that Jim said NASA would look at reusing a Dragon and only asked for the single use price as no other supplier could offer the same.

So reuse an F9 1st stage.

Tricky. I guess it'd depend on the certification. That fin package and it's controls make it seem quite a lot different to the LV NASA are OK with having drop a Dragon near their space station.  :(

Definitely want a discount.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2015 01:50 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891

So reuse an F9 1st stage.

Tricky. I guess it'd depend on the certification. That fin package and it's controls make it seem quite a lot different to the LV NASA are OK with having drop a Dragon near their space station.  :(


Beg your pardon? They are OK with that. Remember CRS flights have them already.

New would be reuse of the first stage. And if I understand Jim correctly, NASA has no say in this. That is - formally. I doubt that SpaceX would force it down their throat if they object. Quite possible though that NASA may select a mainly TTT payload for one flight.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392

So reuse an F9 1st stage.

Tricky. I guess it'd depend on the certification. That fin package and it's controls make it seem quite a lot different to the LV NASA are OK with having drop a Dragon near their space station.  :(


Beg your pardon? They are OK with that. Remember CRS flights have them already.

New would be reuse of the first stage. And if I understand Jim correctly, NASA has no say in this. That is - formally. I doubt that SpaceX would force it down their throat if they object. Quite possible though that NASA may select a mainly TTT payload for one flight.
Yes, that's what I'm driving at.  Of course SpaceX won't do it without NASA's agreement, but are there any guidelines that require F9' (new notation for "flown once") be considered as a new type of rocket?  After all it is the same engine, same tanks, same avionics....  And will undergo the same static hot fire, and still has the same level of redundancy...

I mean, I would not launch #3 before #2 made a number of flights in NM, and if possible it'd be nice to see a flown stage put back on the structural test stand, but that can be done even with #1.

And remember that we expect a lot more than 3 recovered stages this year.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
I reckon Chinese, Indian, European (hopefully), Russian and Japanese RLVs will be the subject of more intensive planning along with shorter development timescales. Maybe not all of the above, but two, minimum.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
I reckon Chinese, Indian, European (hopefully), Russian and Japanese RLVs will be the subject of more intensive planning along with shorter development timescales. Maybe not all of the above, but two, minimum.
What about Atlas Blue (NLV-->RNLV)?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Yep...

IF they don't use BFR (or Mini BFR) for launching these.... , 50 F9 or 15ish FH launches a year may be reason to revisit the decision not to do the engineering for second stage reuse, though.

A reusable second stage that returns the fairing and dispenser would make lots of sense when there are so many identical launches.  The fairing could open on one side as done on STS, or hinge back fully and then re-close.  Expendible fairings, dispensers, second stages launched week after week will be prohibitively expensive -- and the fuel to de-orbit all of this hardware (with the exception of the fairing as currently used) will need to be in the mass budget anyway.

Note: This same argument could be made for a reusable tanker second stage...

Edit: New thread started on this topic since it is a tangent to OP.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36617.msg1319685#msg1319685
« Last Edit: 01/21/2015 08:12 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626

What about Atlas Blue (NLV-->RNLV)?

I didn't state them because I thought that was closer to a likelihood than a random stab in the dark. ULA appears to be giving reusability consideration, especially now they're working with Blue who are currently crafting up an RLV of their own anyway.

My gut, unsubstantiated feel, is that US aerospace will react quicker than external equivalents.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1