|
Blackjax
|
|
« Reply #450 on: 03/31/2012 12:59 AM » |
|
We know that launch can be much cheaper,
That is not true
Are we really going to do the thing where I point out SpaceXs' listed launch prices, then you point out that they aren't proven yet, then we argue over the extent to which that matters in the context of this discussion? I'm going to propose we skip that as much fun as it might be. I couldn't find out what Orbital expects to charge for a non-COTS Antares, but I expect that would fall under the same 'not yet proven' category anyway regardless of what price they ask. I could cite the Zenit and Proton options, but no doubt the non-US labor costs will be what you cite on that one and it is a worthwhile point. Have I missed any aspects of the argument or can we consider the compressed summary above as a single post transcript and agree to disagree on the SpaceX thing?
|
|
|
|
Blackjax
|
|
« Reply #451 on: 03/31/2012 01:16 AM » |
|
Have you taken into account the devaluation of the USD as it relates to their costs, especially as it concerns non-US sourced parts and commodities?
Do you really think that those parts constitute such a significant portion of their costs? I don't know one way or the other but I'd find it a little suprising. You'd think that the more expensive and critical items like foreign sourced motors would be bulk pre-purchased and stockpiled to some extent, providing some insulation from exchange fluctuations.
|
|
|
|
jongoff
|
|
« Reply #452 on: 03/31/2012 01:19 AM » |
|
I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.
Nope. SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going. It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed. The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market. Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years. It is his ultimate aim after all.
On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?
As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS. I do not recall anything about an instability. In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.
F9 was actually driven by an AF customer. The first public mention of F9 was an AF guy accidentally mentioning it on his personal blog. I stumbled on his blog while following the website links left by commenters on Selenian Boondocks, and linked to it. Poor guy was mortified that what he had linked-to had gone public like that, but that's how Falcon 9 came to light. The AF wanted to know if they could increase the performance a bit higher than the Falcon 5 could do, and asked if they could stick a few more engines on the core. Or at least that's my understanding of the origin of F9. ~Jon
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #453 on: 03/31/2012 03:23 AM » |
|
I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.
Nope. SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going. It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed. The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market. Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years. It is his ultimate aim after all.
On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?
As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS. I do not recall anything about an instability. In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.
F9 was actually driven by an AF customer. The first public mention of F9 was an AF guy accidentally mentioning it on his personal blog. I stumbled on his blog while following the website links left by commenters on Selenian Boondocks, and linked to it. Poor guy was mortified that what he had linked-to had gone public like that, but that's how Falcon 9 came to light. The AF wanted to know if they could increase the performance a bit higher than the Falcon 5 could do, and asked if they could stick a few more engines on the core.
Or at least that's my understanding of the origin of F9.
~Jon
Another great tidbit, Jon, but that more supports my first contention. F5 was not abandoned because it was "unstable" but because prospective government customers wanted more payload. It may have been the Air Force's idea that NASA latched onto. SpaceX sure has done a lot to persue the AF, despite the long lead and odds on getting an award from them. Purists among us wished SpaceX could have remained truly "commercial" but the switch to the F9 was the fork in the road. What could have been is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
cuddihy
|
|
« Reply #454 on: 03/31/2012 04:49 AM » |
|
If the "commercial" route was sustainable, they would be continuing F1. There's no reason to quit F1 if it had any possibility of making money.
1. There was plenty of real estate on the factory floor.
2. Still lots in common between F1 and F9.
3. It didn't interfere with F9 pads.
If it was self sustaining it would still be being built!
|
|
|
|
happyflower
|
|
« Reply #455 on: 03/31/2012 07:04 AM » |
|
Have you taken into account the devaluation of the USD as it relates to their costs, especially as it concerns non-US sourced parts and commodities?
Why are some of these rather critical parts outsourced out of the country?
|
|
|
|
beancounter
|
|
« Reply #456 on: 03/31/2012 08:25 AM » |
|
If the "commercial" route was sustainable, they would be continuing F1. There's no reason to quit F1 if it had any possibility of making money.
1. There was plenty of real estate on the factory floor.
2. Still lots in common between F1 and F9.
3. It didn't interfere with F9 pads.
If it was self sustaining it would still be being built!
Agreed. If there'd been a sufficient market then F1 would be flying. It did fly and was successful in that sense but, no market.
|
|
|
|
cambrianera
|
|
« Reply #457 on: 03/31/2012 01:06 PM » |
|
If the pursuit here is defining SpaceX commercial, I can't see anybody more comercial than them; they started with F1 to reduce costs, but avoiding the X35 path (F1 was a testbed but not a pure test article, it was a saleable item).
When new sales possibilities went out they pursued them (F5, F9, Dragon etc).
This happened with a lot of skin in the game!
If you can't call this commercial, what else?
|
|
|
|
mr. mark
|
|
« Reply #458 on: 03/31/2012 01:34 PM » |
|
My guess in the F1 debate is that SpaceX is severely limited by a small production workforce. They only have 1,500 total employees. They are stretched thin just fulfilling the COTS contract along with future Falcon Heavy and Dragon production. Much easier to match satellites up with F9 than produce even more rockets for Falcon 1.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #459 on: 03/31/2012 02:02 PM » |
|
Are we really going to do the thing where I point out SpaceXs' listed launch prices, then you point out that they aren't proven yet, then we argue over the extent to which that matters in the context of this discussion? I'm going to propose we skip that as much fun as it might be.
I couldn't find out what Orbital expects to charge for a non-COTS Antares, but I expect that would fall under the same 'not yet proven' category anyway regardless of what price they ask.
I could cite the Zenit and Proton options, but no doubt the non-US labor costs will be what you cite on that one and it is a worthwhile point.
Have I missed any aspects of the argument or can we consider the compressed summary above as a single post transcript and agree to disagree on the SpaceX thing?
It is not a disagreement when you are wrong Spacex prices to the gov't are not the listed prices. Nobody gets listed prices. It is like a car without accessories or even tires. Antares isn't on the market. Plus they are not in the same payload class as other vehicles Russians use conscripted soldiers for Proton and Zenit
|
|
|
|
Blackjax
|
|
« Reply #460 on: 03/31/2012 02:02 PM » |
|
Have I missed any aspects of the argument or can we consider the compressed summary above as a single post transcript and agree to disagree on the SpaceX thing?
It is not a disagreement when you are wrong
And that would be true so long as you can back your position with definitive evidence in support of it. Until then it is simply an opinion and hence two differing opinions constitute a disagreement. I'm happy to reevaluate my own positions in light of evidence or even when offered a persuasive argument based on logical reasoning. Could you offer one or the other? Spacex prices to the gov't are not the listed prices. Nobody gets listed prices. It is like a car without accessories or even tires. I'm not certain I am understanding your how your point relates, but if I follow you it seems you are implying that SpaceX might end up charging the government higher prices which would largely cancel out the price differences between their services and buying a ULA launch, thereby invalidating my point that launch could be done substantially cheaper than ULA is doing it. Do I have that right? If so, I'm really curious to hear more detail on how you think this price spike from SpaceX would play out in concrete terms, because I'm not seeing it yet.
|
|
|
|
MP99
|
|
« Reply #461 on: 03/31/2012 05:12 PM » |
|
I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.
Nope. SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going. It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed. The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market. Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years. It is his ultimate aim after all.
On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?
Doesn't prove sequence of events, but:- http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24728.msg720443#msg720443cheers, Martin
|
|
|
|
Blackjax
|
|
« Reply #462 on: 03/31/2012 05:55 PM » |
|
Doesn't prove sequence of events, but:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24728.msg720443#msg720443
cheers, Martin
Hmmm that was an interesting link on a number of levels unrelated to the F5 discussion. I noted this: Interested in electric propulsion. Has there been any indication that they have staffed up in this area or otherwise pushed forward with any action on that interest? It could line up with Elons comments about revealing a Mars strategy later this year. Alternately it could mean they might use it to stack more small payloads on the FH and then position them on orbit using SEP.
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #463 on: 03/31/2012 08:00 PM » |
|
And that would be true so long as you can back your position with definitive evidence in support of it. Government contract prices are proprietary and/or restricted by the FAR. You're not going to know what they are until you're behind the curtain. You can choose not to believe the people who know, but you decrease the value of participating in the NSF forum. Certain people on here don't blow smoke.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #464 on: 03/31/2012 08:18 PM » |
|
Until then it is simply an opinion
My point is not an opinion
|
|
|
|
