Author Topic: Business Case For New Glenn  (Read 54883 times)

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #20 on: 02/10/2018 06:14 pm »
SpaceX has to recover $500m of R&D cost some how. Blue don't need to recover a cent of R&D costs.

I don't understand your logic here. Its not like SpaceX is operating in the red. They are making a profit on their current technology and using the profit to improve. BO is still needing huge cash injections to stay afloat and has never even had a paid or orbital flight. I am not sure what you mean that they don't need to make a cent unless you just mean that Bezos is willing to burn cash for a very long time.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #21 on: 02/10/2018 06:28 pm »
Elon has to account to its investors, they will want to see a return on the $500m.

 Jeff wants to reduce cost of space access and is willing to throw money at it. Blue vehicles still need to be profitable once flying but Jeff may not be looking at recovering his R&D investment.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #22 on: 02/10/2018 06:31 pm »
SpaceX has to recover $500m of R&D cost some how. Blue don't need to recover a cent of R&D costs.

I don't understand your logic here. Its not like SpaceX is operating in the red.

Actually, they had some language on their website about being cash flow positive or whatever that has since been removed. Makes you wonder. They likely made money in 2017, but they could have easily lost money in 2016.

Elon has to account to its investors, they will want to see a return on the $500m.

Elon has to account to the majority of shareholders, which is just himself. IIRC, he has ~55% of shares and ~75% of voting shares.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2018 06:34 pm by ncb1397 »

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #23 on: 02/11/2018 04:59 am »
The second stage is only initially expendable. Future versions will be reusable. The recovery method for New Glenn is less complex therefore probably cheaper. The business case for NG appears to be strong enough that they have already sold flights to multiple commercial customers, indicating that despite its large size it is competitive with existing or emerging launch vehicles.
How cheaper, exactly? This is something I've been wondering ever since NG was unveiled.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #24 on: 02/11/2018 10:37 am »
Elon has to account to its investors, they will want to see a return on the $500m.

 Jeff wants to reduce cost of space access and is willing to throw money at it. Blue vehicles still need to be profitable once flying but Jeff may not be looking at recovering his R&D investment.

That $500 million was coughed up, for the most part, by SpaceX itself. Courtesy of its business of flying payloads to orbit on Falcon 9. So, it is in fact SpaceX itself that will want to recover its own investment.

And no, Blue vehicles don't need to be profitable once flying. With the money available from Jeff's personal wealth New Glenn only needs to break-even at worst. At best Blue can sustain losses for a long period of time.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2018 10:38 am by woods170 »

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #25 on: 02/11/2018 11:04 am »
One advantage New Glenn has is that it's being designed from scratch with first stage re-usability in mind. I don't think Musk planned that when he launched the first Falcon 9.

Likewise with hindsight SpaceX would have gone to methane and a larger diameter core. In effect, I think New Glenn is probably what Musk would build now if he wanted a 30-60 ton launcher.

For some customers a critical advantage of New Glenn is the larger payload fairing - 7m in diameter. I was thinking there could be a use for a 3MW solar tug. Packaging that into a Falcon Heavy might be a challenge - easier into a New Glenn. The only other package requiring diameter is a Mars heat shield.

So New Glenn is a new model and should have advantages. Against that, Falcon is an old model so is tried and tested, with amortised costs. SpaceX's strategy will be to milk Falcon 9 and H for profit, and not spend more money on development. That goes into BFR.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #26 on: 02/11/2018 03:36 pm »
The second stage is only initially expendable. Future versions will be reusable. The recovery method for New Glenn is less complex therefore probably cheaper. The business case for NG appears to be strong enough that they have already sold flights to multiple commercial customers, indicating that despite its large size it is competitive with existing or emerging launch vehicles.
When did Blue Origin ever say that their S2 would be reusable?

If Blue can make a successful reusable second stage I think that will be much more competitive in the commercial marketplace. A fully reusable New Glenn should be cheaper than Falcon Heavy or BFR, giving Blue the chance to capture a significant share of the market.
I doubt a fully reusable New Glenn would be cheaper than BFR. BFR is RTLS and can do large GTO payloads with full reuse. New Glenn doesn't have the performance for either of those. The launch cradle concept could help make BFR much cheaper than even a fully reusable New Glenn.
The launch cradle could end up being a disadvantage. It could cause significant damage to the pad on every landing, and if even 1/100 landings fail, that's a huge additional cost of rebuilding the pad many times to consider. I don't see how New Glenn couldn't do large GTO payloads when its reusable capability is already significantly higher than FH.
BFR in general depends on high reliability all around. Launch cradle isn't without some costs, but the point is to get BFR reliability up to airline levels, which includes landing. So long term not necessarily a problem.

(I also think this makes much less of a difference than people think... I mean, a landing failure could take out New Glenn's landing ship, too, and the cost for that may be about the same.)
BFR is much larger than New Glenn, and a landing ship is not the same as a launch pad, where an accident could halt operations for a year or more.

There is no way BFR will be up to "airline levels" of reliability, especially with the absence of a launch abort system. Airliners are more than three orders of magnitude more safe than even ULA rockets, let alone SpaceX ones. The people peddling this nonsense do not know what they are talking about.
Oh, it's an ambitious target, and will take literally decades to get there.

But the people "who know what they're talking about" said barge landing was impossible. Of course, SpaceX does that routinely and New Glenn baselines it.

As far as using ULA as the standard for maximum achievable reliability... I remember when folks scoffed at SpaceX achieving ULA's flight rate. Last year, SpaceX more than doubled it, and this was enabled in part by reuse. SpaceX and Blue Origin, by being able to fly much more often and by getting the vehicles back for inspection, will be able to crush ULA's reliability record.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2018 03:39 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #27 on: 02/11/2018 03:57 pm »
The second stage is only initially expendable. Future versions will be reusable. The recovery method for New Glenn is less complex therefore probably cheaper. The business case for NG appears to be strong enough that they have already sold flights to multiple commercial customers, indicating that despite its large size it is competitive with existing or emerging launch vehicles.
How cheaper, exactly? This is something I've been wondering ever since NG was unveiled.

The vehicle is baselined for 100 reuses. It has simpler recovery than Falcon Heavy, which requires landing three stages, with one on a barge. LNG is also a cheaper fuel that is easier for reuse and allows autogenous pressurization, which removes the need for helium bottles. There are fewer engines than Falcon Heavy which reduces complexity. The overall reduction of complexity will make it easier to implement operational reusability and a booster that is easier to inspect between uses.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #28 on: 02/11/2018 04:04 pm »
Elon has to account to the majority of shareholders, which is just himself. IIRC, he has ~55% of shares and ~75% of voting shares.
The minority shareholders MIGHT do some jawboning about no returns, and that MIGHT impact future investments. But
a) Steve Jurvetson gets it and he's been involved in securing financing for a while, so there might not be much jawboning
b) Future investments, if sheperded by the likes of Jurvetson, might not be impacted much
c) SpaceX might not need any future investments

So while SpaceX can't count on 1B a year from a sugar daddy, it may be in good shape. Which means Blue can't dawdle forever. The business case for NG will eventually evaporate

One advantage New Glenn has is that it's being designed from scratch with first stage re-usability in mind. I don't think Musk planned that when he launched the first Falcon 9. 

I disagree, the first F9s had provisions for parachutes. Granted, SpaceX pivoted, but it's not quite as cut and dry as not planned. SpaceX pivots a lot. They are not like incumbents in other markets that Amazon ousted because they were complacent. So the NG business case needs to take into account that SpaceX will nimbly react to whatever Blue does.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #29 on: 02/11/2018 05:24 pm »
Elon has to account to the majority of shareholders, which is just himself. IIRC, he has ~55% of shares and ~75% of voting shares.
The minority shareholders MIGHT do some jawboning about no returns, and that MIGHT impact future investments.
Most of the minority shareholders in SpaceX, other than Jurvetson and Google, are SpaceX employees. I don't think they would very upset about no returns, other than the awesome jobs they have.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #30 on: 02/11/2018 05:37 pm »
Atlas V has had near misses, it's not statistically valid to treat a rocket that has flown once (and successfully) as having an expected reliability of 100%. Falcon 9 just needs to exceed Atlas V's current success streak. But anyway, there will come a time when SpaceX and Blue Origin fly hundreds of times in a row without failure. So yeah, I think even by your standard, SpaceX and Blue Origin will crush ULA's reliability record. DOesnt have to be with Falcon 9, could very well be with BFR and New Glenn.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #31 on: 02/11/2018 05:37 pm »
SpaceX has to recover $500m of R&D cost some how. Blue don't need to recover a cent of R&D costs.
Jeff wants to reduce cost of space access and is willing to throw money at it. Blue vehicles still need to be profitable once flying but Jeff may not be looking at recovering his R&D investment.

Last I heard Bezos was not running a charity.  You could consider the equity provided by Bezos to Blue (or Musk to SpaceX) charity, but I suspect their balance sheets would show otherwise.

Offline DnA915

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • United States
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #32 on: 02/11/2018 05:41 pm »
Most of the minority shareholders in SpaceX, other than Jurvetson and Google, are SpaceX employees. I don't think they would very upset about no returns, other than the awesome jobs they have.

One also remember that Elon stated his entire goal of gaining wealth was to get to mars. He just got a deal from Tesla that would make him the richest man alive if he meets some very steep growth goals. Tesla is basically his ability to finance beyond any SpaceX revenue and I think gives him a very good way to maintain control of SpaceX despite needs for cash.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #33 on: 02/11/2018 05:46 pm »
Flight rate is not the same as reliability. Falcon 9 would need something like 250 more perfect launches in a row to match the reliability of Atlas V. And the only reason I bring up ULA is that they are currently the most reliable, and even then it's still far worse than airliners. Blue Origin hasn't flown their vehicle enough to know whether or not it will be reliable. Even rockets like Ariane V are slipping up big time lately.

Sorry, not getting that.  Please explain the basis for why "250 more perfect launches in a row" are required "to match the reliability of Atlas V".  That is more than Atlas V has ever launched (and will likely ever launch).

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #34 on: 02/11/2018 06:07 pm »
Falcon 9 has already failed several more times than Atlas V has.

Hmmm.... "several more times" seems to be a bit vague and a bit of a stretch.  At the risk of going down the debate "failure" vs. "partial failure" vs. "partial success" vs. whatever...

Seems we are into fractional definitions of "failure".  Again, where does the assertion-requirement that "250 more perfect launches in a row" come from?  On its face that is absurd given that there have been only ~75 Atlas V  launches.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2018 06:09 pm by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #35 on: 02/11/2018 06:31 pm »
Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:
Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:
1 in 75 = 3 in 225
225 - 49 = 176
176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.

So now we're down to 176 F9 successes vs. 250?  What changed?

Also interesting that you appear to interpret success-fail of Atlas V optimistically and F9 pessimistically.

Not to mention the simplistic statistical interpretation.  Do you seriously believe that is a correct interpretation?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #36 on: 02/11/2018 07:19 pm »
What has Atlas V versus F9 launch success rate to do with thread title. NB there are other threads where this has and can be debated.

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 506
  • Likes Given: 33568
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #37 on: 02/11/2018 08:16 pm »
NG will not be competing with BFR. NA will compete with BFR. However NG should wipe the floor with FH and F9 with large volume payloads that will fit inside NG's 7m dia. fairing which will not fit in FH's and F9's 5.2m dia. fairing. So the business case for NG is in launching large volume payloads which will not fit in any other launchers. However this will be a short window until BFR becomes available. NG's business case may well collapse when BFR enters service so BO will need to get NA dev. ASAP to stay competitive with SpaceX. Perhaps BO like SpaceX with their Falcon family will see NG merely as a stepping stone to NA and replace NG with NA after just a few years service.

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #38 on: 02/11/2018 10:56 pm »
Atlas V had one failure in 75 flight attempts:
Falcon 9 had 3 failures in 49 flight attempts:
1 in 75 = 3 in 225
225 - 49 = 176
176 missions that falcon 9 needs to pull off in a row perfectly to match Atlas V's current record.

So now we're down to 176 F9 successes vs. 250?  What changed?

Also interesting that you appear to interpret success-fail of Atlas V optimistically and F9 pessimistically.

Not to mention the simplistic statistical interpretation.  Do you seriously believe that is a correct interpretation?

Atlas V will not stop flying any time soon, and has at least 25 flights left before Vulcan takes over, so the 250 number makes perfect sense.

The most pessimistic interpretation of Atlas V yields 1 partial failure. I'm actually being generous to Falcon 9, as the first mission with its uncontrolled roll at the end of flight would have failed any non-boilerplate mission.

You’ve now just assumed that the next 25 Atlas flights go perfectly. ULA will be pleased to know that!

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Business Case For New Glenn
« Reply #39 on: 02/11/2018 11:13 pm »
NG will not be competing with BFR. NA will compete with BFR. However NG should wipe the floor with FH and F9 with large volume payloads that will fit inside NG's 7m dia. fairing which will not fit in FH's and F9's 5.2m dia. fairing. So the business case for NG is in launching large volume payloads which will not fit in any other launchers. However this will be a short window until BFR becomes available. NG's business case may well collapse when BFR enters service so BO will need to get NA dev. ASAP to stay competitive with SpaceX. Perhaps BO like SpaceX with their Falcon family will see NG merely as a stepping stone to NA and replace NG with NA after just a few years service.
It well be brave customer that builds payload specifically for NG 7m fairing especially if there isn't alternative LV with 7m fairing.


Tags:
 

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