Author Topic: The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers  (Read 7614 times)

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.
He also failed to mention the billions upon billions of dollars ULA was given to build all of those capabilities and facilities in the form of ELC payments.  Is that “spin” too?
Yes, that's exactly what it is.   He's comparing the existing capabilities/cost of DIV Heavy (which cost billions), to a vehicle that does not yet have that capability.  And will cost billions to have that on both coasts.  He should have left out the word "now" in his comment.  FH is obviously available to fly other missions at lower costs, but not the ones he's comparing costs/savings to.  The position FH is in for those missions is the same as Atlas Heavy before ULA.  The government decided it was too expensive to have multiple vehicles fly a mission (just some specific ones) every other year (or 4 years with 2 LVs).

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
Eric failed to mention that FH is unable to fly the DIV Heavy missions that flew for the NRO.  And if I remember correctly, USSF-67 was bid and awarded at about 320 million.  I hate spin like this.
He also failed to mention the billions upon billions of dollars ULA was given to build all of those capabilities and facilities in the form of ELC payments.  Is that “spin” too?
Yes, that's exactly what it is.   He's comparing the existing capabilities/cost of DIV Heavy (which cost billions), to a vehicle that does not yet have that capability.  And will cost billions to have that on both coasts.  He should have left out the word "now" in his comment.  FH is obviously available to fly other missions at lower costs, but not the ones he's comparing costs/savings to.  The position FH is in for those missions is the same as Atlas Heavy before ULA.  The government decided it was too expensive to have multiple vehicles fly a mission (just some specific ones) every other year (or 4 years with 2 LVs).
I'm not sure it will cost "billions" to upgrade the FH launch infrastructure on the two pads added together. Based only on the SpaceX's front-loaded price increment it might be as much as $250 million per pad. This is an admittedly poor way to estimate the cost, though. Do you have a better way?

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers
« Reply #22 on: 02/25/2023 04:23 pm »
I have no clue what it would cost to add Heavy capability (Pad mods), facilities, and a VIF at SLC-4, but 1B seems a good starting point.  And based on its remoteness, getting it done in a couple years could be difficult.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4318
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers
« Reply #23 on: 02/25/2023 05:14 pm »
I have no clue what it would cost to add Heavy capability (Pad mods), facilities, and a VIF at SLC-4, but 1B seems a good starting point.  And based on its remoteness, getting it done in a couple years could be difficult.
OK, both of us are speculating based on very little information. That's OK with me, but I think it's better to declare the basis of your speculation, as you have now done. Thanks.

Is there a need for FH NSSL launches from Vandenberg at all? FH has so much extra lift capacity compared to DIV or to the NSSL requirements that it should be able to hit those orbits from Florida.

At KSC FH shares facilities and a pad at SLC-39A with F9 and uses a variant of the same strongback. Presumably they would do the same at VSFB SLC-4. F9 and FH are stacked horizontally. Vertical payload stacking is proposed to use a mobile structure that will trundle out to the pad to stack the payload after the rocket is raised to the vertical.

Boca Chica is remote. VSFB is not remote. It is well served by highway and apparently even has a railroad siding. SpaceX routinely launches F9 from VSFB already.

Online matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers
« Reply #24 on: 02/25/2023 06:25 pm »
Weren’t the last round of Delta IV heavies 440 million each?

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1183
  • Likes Given: 614
Re: The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers
« Reply #25 on: 02/25/2023 10:37 pm »
I have no clue what it would cost to add Heavy capability (Pad mods), facilities, and a VIF at SLC-4, but 1B seems a good starting point.  And based on its remoteness, getting it done in a couple years could be difficult.
OK, both of us are speculating based on very little information. That's OK with me, but I think it's better to declare the basis of your speculation, as you have now done. Thanks.

Is there a need for FH NSSL launches from Vandenberg at all? FH has so much extra lift capacity compared to DIV or to the NSSL requirements that it should be able to hit those orbits from Florida.

At KSC FH shares facilities and a pad at SLC-39A with F9 and uses a variant of the same strongback. Presumably they would do the same at VSFB SLC-4. F9 and FH are stacked horizontally. Vertical payload stacking is proposed to use a mobile structure that will trundle out to the pad to stack the payload after the rocket is raised to the vertical.

Boca Chica is remote. VSFB is not remote. It is well served by highway and apparently even has a railroad siding. SpaceX routinely launches F9 from VSFB already.

You both know more than I do on this issue, but if the price SpaceX is contracted at for the FH launches needing vertical integration, wouldn't the contract spell out when facilities need to be in place?  Wouldn't there be one of those "ATP" clauses where the payload & needed launch date are confirmed to the point SpaceX can proceed with the VI pad upgrades?   If SpaceX proceeded on it's own dime, and the government changed it mind on the payload needs, or just outright cancelled it, SpaceX would eat that loss. 

To my eyes, nobody knows enough inside information to determine if upgrades for VI are behind schedule or not.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 05:28 am by Stan-1967 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
The reason the biggest NSSL missions could be handled by DIV was that the contract requirements implicitly recognized that larger payload requirement would have excluded ULA.  This is not a complaint: USSF had a mission and they needed to do this.
And because if they payload is so big that exactly 1 LV can handle it the price they charge is unlikely to be what it would be if scaled back to a level where another LV could launch it.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: The money SpaceX has saved for taxpayers
« Reply #27 on: 02/27/2023 04:40 am »
Imagine how much more delta iv would be cost if now if falcon heavy never came along.  It'd probably be closing in on a billion dollars.
Unsubstantiated

Yeah, because we have no historical experience with how aerospace defense contractors behave sans competition...


"Unfalsifiable?" Sure. "Unsubstantiated?" Hardly.
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Tags:
 

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