Aren't there antitrust issues in pricing below cost?
Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses.
Quote from: envy887 on 06/08/2017 03:17 pmBlue is probably going to have to do some iterating as they learn how to recover and refurbish New Glenn. We have little idea on any of these costs:1) how much the booster is going to cost initially2) how much the upper stage will cost3) how much it will cost to recover and refurbish the booster4) how many flights the booster can flyNeed answers or at least estimates for all of those to figure the recurring cost per flight.About #2 - In my opinion the big unknown about NG is the cost of the upper stage. It is HUGE. 7m in diameter. NG - as we currently know it - will be throwing away an upper stage the size of Apollo's S-IVB for every launch, even for small payloads. That is a lot of hardware.In comparison for FH, the upper stage (only disposable element) is relatively small and has a high production volume.
Blue is probably going to have to do some iterating as they learn how to recover and refurbish New Glenn. We have little idea on any of these costs:1) how much the booster is going to cost initially2) how much the upper stage will cost3) how much it will cost to recover and refurbish the booster4) how many flights the booster can flyNeed answers or at least estimates for all of those to figure the recurring cost per flight.
I notice a lot of talk about Bezos' deep pockets. Aren't there antitrust issues in pricing below cost?
From what you guys are saying, I gather that FH can beat NG for LEO capabilities, but NG, especially with 3rd stage, can beat FH for GTO or GSO, TLI and TMI.
That's our current estimate, but since little is really known about New Glenn details it might be better to say that Falcon Heavy expendable and New Glenn 3-stage (with first stage recovery) appear to have generally comparable performance.
Quote from: spacenut on 06/12/2017 04:42 pmFrom what you guys are saying, I gather that FH can beat NG for LEO capabilities, but NG, especially with 3rd stage, can beat FH for GTO or GSO, TLI and TMI. The thread that Ed linked has an ongoing discussion of this, but my summary for high-energy orbits would be:3-stage NG > FH expendable > FH w/ all ASDS > NG 2-stage = FH w/ ASDS & 2x RTLS > FH all RTLS.For LEO it's similar but FH expendable should beat 3-stage NG.
Quote from: dlapine on 06/12/2017 04:14 amHmmm, as much as I love a good discussion, isn't it premature to be comparing these two when BO hasn't put a payload into orbit yet on any of its own vehicles? In order to compare them, we have to think 10 years ahead, when both are (presumably) flying after having completed development (which may or may not have been excruciatingly difficult). Yes, Blue has a long way to go, but Falcon Heavy also has yet to fly. - Ed Kyle
Hmmm, as much as I love a good discussion, isn't it premature to be comparing these two when BO hasn't put a payload into orbit yet on any of its own vehicles?
I know its been a long time coming for FH, but are you currently of the opinion that FH won't be flying this year or next? If FH starts flying missions within the next 18 months, they would seem to have an insurmountable lead over New Glenn in heavy lift operations by the 2023 timeframe mentioned earlier by BO.Personally, I don't really expect SpaceX to still be flying FH in 10 years time, so we may not be able to see them side by side. F9 they may keep for a long time, but FH would seem to have short lifespan given their intended expansion to ITS and derivatives.
If Falcon Heavy only flies 10 years, SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. I don't think that SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. This rocket has to outlast Delta 4 Heavy by many years to make money. Delta 4 Heavy is going to be around until at least 2023, and maybe longer.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2017 02:15 pmIf Falcon Heavy only flies 10 years, SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. I don't think that SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. This rocket has to outlast Delta 4 Heavy by many years to make money. Delta 4 Heavy is going to be around until at least 2023, and maybe longer.I don't think Musk in any way subscribes to the sunk cost fallacy.
Quote from: dlapine on 06/13/2017 02:27 amI know its been a long time coming for FH, but are you currently of the opinion that FH won't be flying this year or next? If FH starts flying missions within the next 18 months, they would seem to have an insurmountable lead over New Glenn in heavy lift operations by the 2023 timeframe mentioned earlier by BO.Personally, I don't really expect SpaceX to still be flying FH in 10 years time, so we may not be able to see them side by side. F9 they may keep for a long time, but FH would seem to have short lifespan given their intended expansion to ITS and derivatives.Demo Heavy might make it to launch by year's end. It has to finishing testing at McGregor, wait for SLC 40, X-37B, etc., and only then begin what will likely be a long testing campaign at LC 39A before launching.I don't see Falcon Heavy having a "lead" over New Glenn because I don't see these two launch vehicles competing with one another. Heavy is being designed primarily to win EELV contracts. New Glenn is being designed to, as near as I can tell, fulfill Jeff Bezos dreams of, whatever he is dreaming - most likely beyond LEO. It is going to need a really big customer at some point to continue. There is only one really big customer.If Falcon Heavy only flies 10 years, SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. I don't think that SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. This rocket has to outlast Delta 4 Heavy by many years to make money. Delta 4 Heavy is going to be around until at least 2023, and maybe longer.I see ITS as a long-range, still hazy goal at this point. - Ed Kyle
Falcon 9 looks set to fly for well more than a decade. Why would the company develop Falcon Heavy to fly for less time?
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 06/13/2017 02:24 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2017 02:15 pmIf Falcon Heavy only flies 10 years, SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. I don't think that SpaceX is fiscally irresponsible. This rocket has to outlast Delta 4 Heavy by many years to make money. Delta 4 Heavy is going to be around until at least 2023, and maybe longer.I don't think Musk in any way subscribes to the sunk cost fallacy.Falcon 9 looks set to fly for well more than a decade. Why would the company develop Falcon Heavy to fly for less time? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/13/2017 02:52 pmFalcon 9 looks set to fly for well more than a decade. Why would the company develop Falcon Heavy to fly for less time?Falcon Heavy is being developed to fly for as long as nothing better is available. That time may be short. Raptor may be too good of an engine to not fly.
Making the yet to be seen full scale Raptor "too good" will take a lot of time and effort and - since it is staged combustion - heartbreak. It will have to prove better than Merlin 1D not just in performance, but in cost. Merlin 1D is pretty darn good on both counts.
I think FH was conceived at a time when F9 had far lower capability, and as a result FH's greater payload capacity would have been required to make reusability possible for a large percentage of payloads.With F9 Block V now being more powerful than the original FH concept, it seems a lot of the payload spectrum that would have been covered by FH has been absorbed by F9. As a result, FH almost looks like a legacy project with less and less of a Business Case. Especially after Musk's admission that it proved much harder to build than originally expected.