Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)  (Read 396652 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #260 on: 04/17/2016 08:23 pm »
Being one of those old-space persons. I don't think a characterization of who is for or against SpaceX can be made by their association of pre or post "new-space". My old-space days started in 1980 on the Atlas E/F, where an old ICBM which had been in storage since the mid-early 1960's was used. It was dusted off, checked out, payload attachment ring welded on, new avionics, set on the pad, payload stacked on top and launched. All for a total cost to the gov of ~$25M. So I have no problem understanding how SpaceX can do it for $60M.

That $25M would be more than doubled for today.

Offline S.Paulissen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Boston
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #261 on: 04/17/2016 08:52 pm »
Good point Jim.  Industry agnostic CPI suggests that $25m in 1980 is just above $70m today.

EDIT: OT: Wow, if I ever needed a lesson in 1980's stagflation I learned it today.  The difference in cost to 2016 dollars between $25m 1980 dollars or 1982 dollars is shocking.  1980 in 2016 = ~$72  1982 in 2016 = ~$62m.  That's ~16% decrease in buying power difference in only two years!!!
« Last Edit: 04/17/2016 08:57 pm by S.Paulissen »
"An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful experience all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field." -Niels Bohr
Poster previously known as Exclavion going by his real name now.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #262 on: 04/18/2016 12:30 pm »
With all due respect to oldAtlas_Eguy, the majority of the true "total mission cost" for that $25m mission back in 1980 was paid in the late 50's and 60's Cold War "Missile Gap" budgets that supported the design and mass production of those old Atlas ICBM's in the first place, along with all the basic science, engineering and operational lessons learned to go along with them.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Online launchwatcher

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Liked: 726
  • Likes Given: 988
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #263 on: 04/18/2016 02:32 pm »
With all due respect to oldAtlas_Eguy, the majority of the true "total mission cost" for that $25m mission back in 1980 was paid in the late 50's and 60's Cold War "Missile Gap" budgets that supported the design and mass production of those old Atlas ICBM's in the first place, along with all the basic science, engineering and operational lessons learned to go along with them.
I think his point wasn't about the total mission cost, but a look at the operational cost to take an existing rocket, dust it off, bolt on a payload, fuel it, and launch it...   which is very relevant to economic questions around reuse.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #264 on: 04/18/2016 05:25 pm »

I think his point wasn't about the total mission cost, but a look at the operational cost to take an existing rocket, dust it off, bolt on a payload, fuel it, and launch it...   which is very relevant to economic questions around reuse.

True, but the insinuation was that it takes $50M in today's dollars just to launch an already built Atlas. I'm not sure how relevant that comparison is, given that SpaceX currently changes only $60M to build a completely new LV and to launch it.

It does point to fundamental differences in the way SpaceX manages its costs, both for launch operations and LV buildout, as opposed to other companies, assuming the quoted prices are real.

Perhaps more useful information might include an estimate as to the current launch-only cost for other providers. I realize that is hard question to answer for ULA, but information for other providers should be easier to acquire.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #265 on: 04/18/2016 05:43 pm »
The problem with accounting is that there are too many numbers to choose from.

And, as in politics/law, one can look selectively at one assemblage of numbers to make a rhetorical arguments about.

My SWAG on actual accounting here - there are multiple activities that roll up (partially/fully) under the launch services business, with others that fall under other activities including speculative businesses being developed/conceived. A fraction of immediate FTE/consulting/mfr/vendor/other gets incorporated into each launch, along with a sliver of development/capital/other per each revenue stream, and as a "net profit" accumulation feeds into the corporate finances, along with the other activities/needs. This isn't quite the way SX's rivals do it, BTW.

Probably the way things work, more outsource (yes I know about vertical business) and automation contributions are present than in the rivals, and that the actual labor side as accounted for is much less than the rivals. Suggest that volumes of scale (and possibly estimates of reuse) are used against this to support forwardly priced launch contracts, where the "base" is significantly lower and the "additional services" are a considerable part of the variability (and profitable - not unlike rivals). Having seen multiple such operations, I have no trouble in believing they can reach these levels assuming that everything goes well.

Its an entirely different matter to consider the surrounding company, its liabilities and its futures, which tell you of how its a "going concern". Those however are examined by, among others AF/govt. I don't see any obvious signs of this being a problem, unlike quite a few "new space" and even some "old space" firms.

What shows up as arguments as to viability/sustainability/"genuineness" of launch services pricing here on this forum usually comes down to conflation and/or "apples to oranges" comparisons, which are ... meaningless.

Now, OA, SX, and ULA all have had "bad days". Those affect (bump lower) profitability in the short term, then you ride them out. If they happen frequently, or, if the business is run erratically, then the launch cost is unsupportable and operations get stretched out and finally stop - like SeaLaunch. If you see stable launch cadence, little churn in manifest/personnel, then its very likely that the launch service provider's healthy.

And that the launch service is appropriately priced.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2783
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #266 on: 04/18/2016 11:09 pm »
The new SpaceX launch licenses finally showed up on the FAA site...

LLS 14-087 (Rev 1) -- Flights of Falon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicles from Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in support of the NASA Commercial Resupply missions...

LLS 14-090 (Rev 2) -- Six flights with the Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle from Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) with each flight transporting one of the following payloads to geosynchronous orbit... SES-9... JCSAT-14.... ABS/Eutelsat-2.... AMOS-6... Thaicom-8... JCSAT-16...

Of note in both, Change Falcon 9 launch vehicle version from 1.1 to 1.2 (*cough*).

edit: correct second URL.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2016 11:57 pm by joek »

Offline Chris_Pi

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #267 on: 04/21/2016 04:51 am »
Someone will probably be along in a bit with better (and mission-specific) info, But until then:

I have a very fuzzy recollection of about 1/3 of the fuel load for RTLS and a bit more than half that for downrange landing. You might want to look through SES-9 threads for comparisons of that flight to more typical recoverable fuel loads.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #268 on: 04/21/2016 02:09 pm »
Someone will probably be along in a bit with better (and mission-specific) info, But until then:

I have a very fuzzy recollection of about 1/3 of the fuel load for RTLS and a bit more than half that for downrange landing. You might want to look through SES-9 threads for comparisons of that flight to more typical recoverable fuel loads.

no, it is in single digit percentages.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #269 on: 04/21/2016 04:07 pm »
Someone will probably be along in a bit with better (and mission-specific) info, But until then:

I have a very fuzzy recollection of about 1/3 of the fuel load for RTLS and a bit more than half that for downrange landing. You might want to look through SES-9 threads for comparisons of that flight to more typical recoverable fuel loads.
Thank you.

I guess what I should really be asking is whether there is any information on how much fuel the Falcon Heavy side boosters will have upon separation, and whether a low margin RTLS like CRS-9 is possibly a close approximation for those kinds of margins?
Yes, but only insofar as any reduction in fuel margin for landing allows a corresponding performance increase to orbit.  So getting lower-margin landings working effectively upgrades the performance of the whole fleet, F9 and FH.

Offline nadreck

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #270 on: 04/21/2016 06:29 pm »
Hello

I was wondering if there is any information on the fuel margins needed for RTLS and ASDS landings respectively (particularly as a percentage of the original fuel in the stage?) Specifically, I would like to know if there are any estimates as to the amount of fuel that will be left in the booster post-separation for the ASDS landing for JCSat-14, and for the RTLS landing for CRS-9.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1500227#msg1500227
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #271 on: 04/22/2016 05:50 pm »
Hello

I was wondering if there is any information on the fuel margins needed for RTLS and ASDS landings respectively (particularly as a percentage of the original fuel in the stage?) Specifically, I would like to know if there are any estimates as to the amount of fuel that will be left in the booster post-separation for the ASDS landing for JCSat-14, and for the RTLS landing for CRS-9.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

based on some calculations, that were posted on this forum, around 30 tons for barge landing and around 55 tons for RTLS.

Offline Chris_Pi

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #272 on: 04/22/2016 08:35 pm »
based on some calculations, that were posted on this forum, around 30 tons for barge landing and around 55 tons for RTLS.

That's where I must have gotten 30 stuck in my head from. Right-ish number, Very wrong units.  :-[

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #273 on: 04/30/2016 10:59 am »
I... don't know what to make of these numbers.

(hat tip to /r/spacex for noticing the update)

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #274 on: 04/30/2016 11:16 am »
I... don't know what to make of these numbers.


If this is true, and y'know, it has to be, the Falcon Nine can lift more payload to LEO in expendable mode than any other rocket in the world. To LEO, it's fractionally more capable than the Delta Four Heavy.

Well damn. Looks like Falcon Nine is a heavy lift vehicle.

Of course, once you get beyond LEO, the Delta Four becomes more capable again. Although when that raptor upper stage arrives, that might disappear too.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 11:18 am by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #275 on: 04/30/2016 11:26 am »
So, Delta IV Heavy is seriously non competitive against Falcon Heavy, while Atlas V is a bit non competitive.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #276 on: 04/30/2016 11:32 am »
So, Delta IV Heavy is seriously non competitive against Falcon Heavy, while Atlas V is a bit non competitive.

Well, not for extremely heavy GEO payloads, Delta IV wins out on that, as it does BEO on a purely performance stance - although it will lose much of that that niche to Falcon Heavy.  Atlas V does certainly lose some of its margins according to the new data.

Falcon 9 is irredeemably cheap by comparison to both, of course, which renders some of the payload performance figures mute.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #277 on: 04/30/2016 11:34 am »
@Dintry_V_home post a link in the Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry thread earlier.

My comment on the new performance figures in that thread.
Quote
Wow, the F9 have the same lift as the Delta IV Heavy with the RS-68A to LEO in the expandable mode. Does this mean that the Delta IV Heavy can be dispense with for polar missions out of VAFB? :o
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 11:41 am by Zed_Noir »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #278 on: 04/30/2016 12:55 pm »
Oh my. The first stage thrust has also gone up. Again... From 1530 klbf to 1710 klbf. M1D thrust 170 klbf -> 190 klbf.

What was it that someone said the other day, that the F9FT design was frozen for the time being?

Enter Falcon 9 Fuller Thrust?

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #279 on: 04/30/2016 01:12 pm »
F9: $978.54 per pound to LEO.
FH: $752.01 per pound to LEO.

Note 1: There is still that pesky caveat about $90M for up to 6.4mt to GTO -- so the per pound price for FH is questionable, though it should be less than F9.
Note 2: ...and that other pesky habit of sandbagging on this page...
« Last Edit: 04/30/2016 01:29 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags:
 

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