Quote from: clongton on 06/09/2010 01:33 amQuote from: tigerade on 06/08/2010 11:17 pmQuote from: savuporo on 06/08/2010 10:15 pmFairly blunt. I wonder how well that will be received by our favourite SA.SA? Space Agency? Are you referring to NASA? Why would it not be well received?Because it's downright sinful the way NASA wastes our money and SpaceX proved it. They will not be happy that someone has irrefutably exposed their lack of fiduciary responsibility.I don't know if the Ares I Tower statement was directed at NASA. I think it was more for those in Congress who are still pulling for POR. Bolden is basically the representative for NASA right now, and even he admits that Ares I was a costly mistake. Therefore, I wouldn't expect any backlash towards SpaceX from NASA HQ.
Quote from: tigerade on 06/08/2010 11:17 pmQuote from: savuporo on 06/08/2010 10:15 pmFairly blunt. I wonder how well that will be received by our favourite SA.SA? Space Agency? Are you referring to NASA? Why would it not be well received?Because it's downright sinful the way NASA wastes our money and SpaceX proved it. They will not be happy that someone has irrefutably exposed their lack of fiduciary responsibility.
Quote from: savuporo on 06/08/2010 10:15 pmFairly blunt. I wonder how well that will be received by our favourite SA.SA? Space Agency? Are you referring to NASA? Why would it not be well received?
Fairly blunt. I wonder how well that will be received by our favourite SA.
Quote from: neilh on 06/08/2010 11:48 pmSo, anybody want to start a virtual betting pool on how many new SpaceX customers are going to be announced in the next two weeks?They lost one competition today.
So, anybody want to start a virtual betting pool on how many new SpaceX customers are going to be announced in the next two weeks?
Quote from: Jim on 06/09/2010 01:18 amQuote from: neilh on 06/08/2010 11:48 pmSo, anybody want to start a virtual betting pool on how many new SpaceX customers are going to be announced in the next two weeks?They lost one competition today.But, the IRIS project is relatively small. It may not have been worth SpaceX going for it or winning it, in light of their other projects and contracts that they have.Companies that go after government contracts very much know that it is not always worth their while to win or go after certain contracts. Just because a contract is out there, doesn't mean a company should go after it or it will be profitable for them if they did win it.NASA, should also be spreading around awarding the various contracts to help keep important vendors "viable". Other government contract offices do this, though usually not openly.
Quote from: upjin on 06/09/2010 10:37 amQuote from: Jim on 06/09/2010 01:18 amQuote from: neilh on 06/08/2010 11:48 pmSo, anybody want to start a virtual betting pool on how many new SpaceX customers are going to be announced in the next two weeks?They lost one competition today.But, the IRIS project is relatively small. It may not have been worth SpaceX going for it or winning it, in light of their other projects and contracts that they have.Companies that go after government contracts very much know that it is not always worth their while to win or go after certain contracts. Just because a contract is out there, doesn't mean a company should go after it or it will be profitable for them if they did win it.NASA, should also be spreading around awarding the various contracts to help keep important vendors "viable". Other government contract offices do this, though usually not openly.1. It is the size of project the falcon 1e was designed for. If it is to small, they shouldn't offer the falcon 1e.2. Did they bid on it, based on jim's cryptic statement, sounds like they did.3. Why the hell should they be "spreading" around contracts, they should be getting the best possible deal for the tax payer, not corporate welfare. Isn't what you imply against the law?
The amazing cost reductions is the real story, and the rest is just spin. Heck, Elon could make it from plywood and run his engines on coal powder mixed with MgO3 for all I care. OK, I'm exaggerating here a bit, all this tech is very fascinating, but the idea is, it's not worth the spin.
Irvin, an established chute company, is providing the chutes for Dragon. I'm thinking there's not going to be a need for a lot of testing. Plus, since these are not done in-house, SpaceX PR is not exactly in position to crow about it.
What further customization/variant options are conceivable for Dragon?There's already Dragon-for-Cargo and Dragon-Crewed, and there's DragonLab. But what else is possible?And how come they couldn't put a heat shield on the dummy capsule used in this maiden launch, to do a heat shield test? Or would that have been too ambitious?Is there a possibility of Dragon being used to test experimental re-entry systems, like the ballute thing, or that IRVE one that NASA sent up on a sounding rocket?Or what about winged/lifting body variant for Dragon? Would it be possible to have a DragonWing? (DragonFly?) Or would that be inherently incompatible with Falcon9?
There are all kinds of questions --like how much of that $350 Million for development included salaries for the members of the production team? Presuming they are not firing all their engineers just because they finished the development, the answer is likely "close to zero." NASA would have had to include these costs as development costs, by the way.It is possible to consider only non-recurring costs as "development" and the rest as "production", including the salaries of those who actually did the development. In that case the "development" cost would drastically underestimate the actual cost of development + production sustainment (i.e. what Jim is referring to as sustainment costs).
Quote from: zaitcev on 06/08/2010 11:24 pmThe amazing cost reductions is the real story, and the rest is just spin. Heck, Elon could make it from plywood and run his engines on coal powder mixed with MgO3 for all I care. OK, I'm exaggerating here a bit, all this tech is very fascinating, but the idea is, it's not worth the spin.The "amazing cost reductions" is the spin, actually.The only thing SpaceX currently has provided is amazing price reductions. Cost reductions are something internal that we have no idea if they are actually happening.Only SpaceX knows what the actual recurring cost per rocket is.There are all kinds of questions --like how much of that $350 Million for development included salaries for the members of the production team? Presuming they are not firing all their engineers just because they finished the development, the answer is likely "close to zero." NASA would have had to include these costs as development costs, by the way.It is possible to consider only non-recurring costs as "development" and the rest as "production", including the salaries of those who actually did the development. In that case the "development" cost would drastically underestimate the actual cost of development + production sustainment (i.e. what Jim is referring to as sustainment costs).The likely cost for 1000 SpaceX employee salaries (mix of engineer, senior engineer, production engineers and technicians), payroll taxes, and benefits is at least $150 Million, so NASA doing the same work would have reported the development cost as at least $500 Million for the same amount of money spent.At their current production rate of 2 F9s for 2010, they would have to report a F9 recurring labor cost of ~$75 Million per flight, which does not include transport, materials, outsourcing.I have estimated their max production rate through FY2011 at about 4/year. That would produce a recurring labor cost of at least ~$37.5 Million per flight. At a $45 Million launch price (ie revenue per launch), that leaves less than $8 Million per rocket for everything but labor. I don't buy that low a recurring "everything else" cost though, they are leaving money on the table until production can ramp up. (I would bet "everything else" is north of $10 million/rocket)So when again does the amazing cost reduction come in?By my admittedly SWAG estimate they would have to boost production above 10 rockets a year (that's 100 new Merlins a year) with no more than doubling their workforce and no expansion in their facilities in order to break even on F9.Is that possible? I don't know, but at that point you can definitively say they have "reduced costs" significantly.
SpaceX has updated their manifest http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.phpbut only to move the Falcon 9 inaugural flight into the "Past Missions" table.Curiously, they list the launch date as 2009. How silly
It's not silly, it's their policy.
Quote from: cuddihy on 06/09/2010 04:01 pmThere are all kinds of questions --like how much of that $350 Million for development included salaries for the members of the production team? Presuming they are not firing all their engineers just because they finished the development, the answer is likely "close to zero." NASA would have had to include these costs as development costs, by the way.It is possible to consider only non-recurring costs as "development" and the rest as "production", including the salaries of those who actually did the development. In that case the "development" cost would drastically underestimate the actual cost of development + production sustainment (i.e. what Jim is referring to as sustainment costs).Actually, what I gather from the teleconferences is that the $350-$400M is not just F9 development, but total expenditures on development+production for both the F1 and F9's so far (not just the ones launched already, but also the completed COTS 1 F9 and the COTS2 F9 with completed first stage engines). Dragon, facilities, and pad are another $100-$150M.
It is so very NOT smart to allow companies offering vital services AND have a proven track record to go out of business OR to allow them to be financially hurt. Of course nobody in a government contracting office can openly state the very obvious. So things are done a "certain way", but not called or described as they actually are. Cryptic, I know, but that is how it is.
please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that a launch provider first needs 3 consecutive successful launches before they're even considered for launching NASA science missions.
Quote from: Comga on 06/09/2010 11:56 pmSpaceX has updated their manifest http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.phpbut only to move the Falcon 9 inaugural flight into the "Past Missions" table.Curiously, they list the launch date as 2009. How silly How long have you been following SpaceX? They list date the vehicle arrives at launch site as "launch date". There are not set in stone rules on how to list these things. It's not silly, it's their policy.