Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion  (Read 1384480 times)

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2560 on: 06/09/2010 04:51 am »
Fairly 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.

Good point. Besides, mocking your customers is typically bad for business.

The government's difficulties with money isn't really a secret to be exposed. I'd call it more of a worn out joke. I'm not sure how easily you could argue NASA is a standout in that regards.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2561 on: 06/09/2010 05:58 am »
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?

They lost one competition today.

If you're referring to IRIS, 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. Of course, I guess one could consider not being in the competition in the first place a form of losing...
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2562 on: 06/09/2010 07:14 am »
Is that really fair? I suppose if they were not delayed then maybe they would have had a shot at IRIS.

If they had a little bit more money they could have accelerated development and launch schedule no? They considerably underbid for this project.

Why leave money on the table? Just because you can? I think that Elon Musk found out that that gets old real fast.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Dragon propulsion module
« Reply #2563 on: 06/09/2010 09:21 am »
A little way up thread, someone asked about possible Dragon evolutions.

IMHO, the most likely evolution to at least be planned soon is a BEO version.  This will have heavier thermal and ionising radiation shielding, improved comms and, in place of a trunk, will have a service module with extra LSS consumables, a high-gain antenna and also 1 x Kestrel MPS and four Draco quads. 

In terms of BEO missions, I can see a short-duration twin-launch spacecraft evolving using a BEO-hardened DragonLab as the orbital module.  Sensors would be mounted in the DragonLab's trunk and its egress hatch would be replaced with an EVA airlock.  It would be enough for lunar orbiter and possibly Earth co-orbital asteroid fly-by missions.

Launch would be by F9H/Raptor or EELV-Heavy.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline upjin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2564 on: 06/09/2010 10:37 am »
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?

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.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2565 on: 06/09/2010 01:15 pm »
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?

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?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline upjin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2566 on: 06/09/2010 02:02 pm »
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?

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?

1. The size of the project doesn't mean it will be profitable for the company to bid on or win it. 

Remember, private companies exist to make profits, not to provide free services or operate at a loss for the government.  While this may seem intuitive for anybody knowledgeable about economics and business, this concept is arguably not clearly understood by many government contracting offices or specific contracting officers.

2. It's not clear.  Maybe Jim will/could shed more light on this.  However, depending on how close he is to the awarding of the contract, he may need or want to be very cryptic.

3. Hahahaha...  This is one of those "damned if you do and damned if you don't" type things.  The government needs certain services.  The more technical and problematic those services are to provide, the fewer companies and vendors can offer them.  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.


 




Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2567 on: 06/09/2010 04:01 pm »

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.

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.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2568 on: 06/09/2010 06:46 pm »
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.

SpaceX will be deliveriing cargo for some time prior to the first human ever going up in it.  What you do is just do a guided reentry for each cargo dragon, and do full EDL operations, and practice your recovery methods.  So before the first person ever gets in, you have an establish track record of the whole process, with lots of data on g-loads, telemetry, etc.  If there are any problems, they can work it out with unmanned capsules first.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Ballutes, Wings for Dragon?
« Reply #2569 on: 06/09/2010 06:51 pm »
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?



I'm sure if NASA is willing to pony up the money for several experimental flights to test variations on EDL techniques, or other hardware, that SpaceX would gladly accomodate them.  Otherwise they'll stick with their standard if it works and is safe.  Economics.

I'm a big fan of Mid-Air recovery.  Dragon could easily be outfitted with a parafoil instead of the ringslot parachutes for stable glide on a guidable path, and a CH-53E helecopter could come right up and capture it, and probalby plunk it right down at SpaceX's parking lot in Hawthorne (if they are doing a West Coast recovery) for handy reprocessing for reuse.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2570 on: 06/09/2010 07:36 pm »
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).

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.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2010 07:37 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline jhoblik

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2571 on: 06/09/2010 07:42 pm »
1000 employee is not just for launch rocket, but also for Dragon capsule
1/2.5 flight NASA resupply                            300mil/year
2/3 flight falcom9                                        150mil/year
--------------------------------------------------------
total                                                         450mil/year
I think even with actual manifest, that could be profitable.
I they will be able to reuse rocket, they could lower price and take over other launches.
The major goals are:
-reliability
-reusibility
-able to transfer to mass production(if reusibility will show as not viable)


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.

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.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2572 on: 06/09/2010 11:56 pm »
SpaceX has updated their manifest
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
but only to move the Falcon 9 inaugural flight into the "Past Missions" table.
Curiously, they list the launch date as 2009. 
How silly
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2573 on: 06/10/2010 12:35 am »
SpaceX has updated their manifest
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
but 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.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2574 on: 06/10/2010 12:36 am »
It's not silly, it's their policy.

Those two are not mutually exclusive.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2575 on: 06/10/2010 12:53 am »
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).

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.

If that is total money spent, that's an amazing amount of stuff built for only $350 Million.

-Vandenburg LLV launch facility, up to the point of flight ready.
-Kwajalein LLV launch facility, up to the point of flight ready.
-Slick 40 LLV launch facility, up to the point of flight ready
-2 production facilities in California, 1 in El Segundo, 1 in Hawthorne.
-1 former Beal Aerospace Testing facility refurbished, and utilized.
-2 known Falcon 1 Test Articles 5 flight articles
-3 known Falcon 9 Test Articles 1 flight article
-2 known Merlin 1A test articles, 2 known flight articles
-1 known Merlin 1B test article (uncompleted)
-11 known Merlin 1C test articles (might have overlapped), 30 flight articles
-1 known Merlin 1Vac test article, 2 flight articles
-1 known Kestrel test article, 5 flight articles
-Unknown numbers of Draco flight and test articles
-2 internally developed Avionics sets, 1 set of ISS comunication equipment, and who know what else internally developed.
-3 known Dragon test articles, 1 known flight article (COTS F1 dragon complete besides NASA testing).

All that +labor, +leases, +normal costs of business?  for $350 Million?  It boggles the mind.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2576 on: 06/10/2010 12:55 am »
And apparently NASA paid $278M of that, further increasing the value for money.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2577 on: 06/10/2010 04:48 am »
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.

When you're looking for conspiracy theories, it's wise to look in places where there aren't laws, regulations and case law against it.  There are plenty of gray area shady deals in the government, but it's hard to break procurement regulations and live to tell about it.  The GAO likes to sustain protests.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2578 on: 06/10/2010 04:55 am »
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.

Nope, just one for the launch vehicle, not launch provider.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion
« Reply #2579 on: 06/10/2010 06:12 am »
SpaceX has updated their manifest
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
but 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.

Don't be nasty.  I have been following SpaceX for seven years. Four years before they put that silly asterisk on the launch manifest. 

All other past launch dates are precise to the day of launch. 

Yes there are no fixed rules about listing manifests and they can do whatever they want.  But it is silly.  No one cares when the hardware arrives at the launch site, anyways.

I am just waiting for SpaceX to announce the new contracts, and hopefully a believable set of launch dates that include the announced changes to the COTS 2 flight date and all the subsequent stretch-outs.  It is not a criticism.  It is a desire to see how fast they really intend to conduct launches.   That would be information I could use, unlike the original launch date projections for the Falcon 5 and Falcon 9, which we couldn't use for planning because they were unrealistic.

PS Thanks Martijn.  We are in agreement.  It is a silly policy.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2010 06:14 am by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Tags:
 

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