Quote from: meekGee on 07/29/2022 09:23 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 07:31 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:44 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 06:23 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:09 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/29/2022 04:43 pmIf I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.They also claim that the entire rocket is less than half the cost of a mission and that that the booster's cost is dominated by the cost of the engines. If so, that means that saving the booster versus saving just the engines might only save a couple of percent of the total cost of a mission, and that isn't worth the expense of development and the sacrifice to performance.The whole idea that rocket tanks are just cheap hardware is a strangely persistent one even among aerospace folks.Can anyone remind me how expensive the Shuttle external tank was? Same idea…If I recall correctly, well under 10% of the cost of a mission.About $52 million out of a $361 million 1993 mission cost (not counting civil servant travel time and space network usage) at 8 flights per year, in 1993 dollars. $107 million in today’s money.The funny part is that the same folks, when looking at F9 reuse, claimed that it's not going to save that much anyway since missions costs >> rocket costs.And there's pretty good evidence that that's true. F9 missions are far more costly than they were claimed to be in the beginning (in some cases more than 4x higher) and they've been steadily going up, even as reuse increases. Is that because reuse doesn't save much money or because SpaceX is trying to extract as much money as they can from their customers? No one outside of the company knows the answer to that, but the truth is probably a combination.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 07:31 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:44 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 06:23 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:09 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/29/2022 04:43 pmIf I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.They also claim that the entire rocket is less than half the cost of a mission and that that the booster's cost is dominated by the cost of the engines. If so, that means that saving the booster versus saving just the engines might only save a couple of percent of the total cost of a mission, and that isn't worth the expense of development and the sacrifice to performance.The whole idea that rocket tanks are just cheap hardware is a strangely persistent one even among aerospace folks.Can anyone remind me how expensive the Shuttle external tank was? Same idea…If I recall correctly, well under 10% of the cost of a mission.About $52 million out of a $361 million 1993 mission cost (not counting civil servant travel time and space network usage) at 8 flights per year, in 1993 dollars. $107 million in today’s money.The funny part is that the same folks, when looking at F9 reuse, claimed that it's not going to save that much anyway since missions costs >> rocket costs.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:44 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 06:23 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:09 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/29/2022 04:43 pmIf I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.They also claim that the entire rocket is less than half the cost of a mission and that that the booster's cost is dominated by the cost of the engines. If so, that means that saving the booster versus saving just the engines might only save a couple of percent of the total cost of a mission, and that isn't worth the expense of development and the sacrifice to performance.The whole idea that rocket tanks are just cheap hardware is a strangely persistent one even among aerospace folks.Can anyone remind me how expensive the Shuttle external tank was? Same idea…If I recall correctly, well under 10% of the cost of a mission.About $52 million out of a $361 million 1993 mission cost (not counting civil servant travel time and space network usage) at 8 flights per year, in 1993 dollars. $107 million in today’s money.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 06:23 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:09 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/29/2022 04:43 pmIf I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.They also claim that the entire rocket is less than half the cost of a mission and that that the booster's cost is dominated by the cost of the engines. If so, that means that saving the booster versus saving just the engines might only save a couple of percent of the total cost of a mission, and that isn't worth the expense of development and the sacrifice to performance.The whole idea that rocket tanks are just cheap hardware is a strangely persistent one even among aerospace folks.Can anyone remind me how expensive the Shuttle external tank was? Same idea…If I recall correctly, well under 10% of the cost of a mission.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 06:09 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/29/2022 04:43 pmIf I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.They also claim that the entire rocket is less than half the cost of a mission and that that the booster's cost is dominated by the cost of the engines. If so, that means that saving the booster versus saving just the engines might only save a couple of percent of the total cost of a mission, and that isn't worth the expense of development and the sacrifice to performance.The whole idea that rocket tanks are just cheap hardware is a strangely persistent one even among aerospace folks.Can anyone remind me how expensive the Shuttle external tank was? Same idea…
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/29/2022 04:43 pmIf I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.They also claim that the entire rocket is less than half the cost of a mission and that that the booster's cost is dominated by the cost of the engines. If so, that means that saving the booster versus saving just the engines might only save a couple of percent of the total cost of a mission, and that isn't worth the expense of development and the sacrifice to performance.
If I understand it correctly, they justify SMART instead of booster reuse because the architecture ULA to enable Vulcan to do all these missions means the first stage flies high and fast, which makes booster recovery too expensive.
It’s not that cheap. Not a bloody chance. Using Shuttle ET as a guide (and it cost $100 million), it costs at least $10-20 million for the Vulcan tanks.(And they’re already paying to recover the pod at sea in this comparison.)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 07:22 pmIt’s not that cheap. Not a bloody chance. Using Shuttle ET as a guide (and it cost $100 million), it costs at least $10-20 million for the Vulcan tanks.(And they’re already paying to recover the pod at sea in this comparison.)Shuttle external tank cost is not a useful proxy for Vulcan tank cost. Vulcan is not built in Michoud, not a hoop + stringer construction, nor made of Al-Li. It is also not manufactured on a cost-pus contract. Ironically Falcon 9 has more commonality (being made of the same alloy with the same construction technique) and clearly is not as expensive to manufacture as the SLWT per-unit or volume-for-volume. ULA also already have all the tooling for manufacture of formed orthogrid tanks on-site and paid for, as those large routers, presses, and friction stir welders have been used for Atlas and Delta construction for many years. Unlike with Falcon 9, they do not have to build up tank production capacity from scratch.One more reasonable question would be whether ULA have the production capacity to meet the proposed flight rate without tank re-use: it is well known that the Decatur plant was sized for an Atlas and delta flight rate that never materialised, but it is unclear if this capacity is still available, or if it would require tooling up vacant factory volume to meet desired core production rates.
Quote from: edzieba on 08/01/2022 02:14 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 07:22 pmIt’s not that cheap. Not a bloody chance. Using Shuttle ET as a guide (and it cost $100 million), it costs at least $10-20 million for the Vulcan tanks.(And they’re already paying to recover the pod at sea in this comparison.)Shuttle external tank cost is not a useful proxy for Vulcan tank cost. Vulcan is not built in Michoud, not a hoop + stringer construction, nor made of Al-Li. It is also not manufactured on a cost-pus contract. Ironically Falcon 9 has more commonality (being made of the same alloy with the same construction technique) and clearly is not as expensive to manufacture as the SLWT per-unit or volume-for-volume. ULA also already have all the tooling for manufacture of formed orthogrid tanks on-site and paid for, as those large routers, presses, and friction stir welders have been used for Atlas and Delta construction for many years. Unlike with Falcon 9, they do not have to build up tank production capacity from scratch.One more reasonable question would be whether ULA have the production capacity to meet the proposed flight rate without tank re-use: it is well known that the Decatur plant was sized for an Atlas and delta flight rate that never materialised, but it is unclear if this capacity is still available, or if it would require tooling up vacant factory volume to meet desired core production rates.This is actually a legitimate argument against reuse: when you reuse boosters, the booster production rate is much lower, so you cannot amortize the fixed production costs across as many boosters. SpaceX originally sized the Hawthorne booster production line for 30 boosters per year, but now they are only producing two or three a year. Clearly their expensive factory assets are underutilized. Even if they had brilliantly foreseen this and created a smaller factory, a factory that produces only two or three a year will have a much higher per-booster cost. Therefore, <sarcasm> SpaceX cannot provide boosters as cheaply as ULA and must be losing money </sarcasm>.
Quote from: edzieba on 08/01/2022 02:14 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/29/2022 07:22 pmIt’s not that cheap. Not a bloody chance. Using Shuttle ET as a guide (and it cost $100 million), it costs at least $10-20 million for the Vulcan tanks.(And they’re already paying to recover the pod at sea in this comparison.)Shuttle external tank cost is not a useful proxy for Vulcan tank cost. Vulcan is not built in Michoud, not a hoop + stringer construction, nor made of Al-Li. It is also not manufactured on a cost-pus contract. Ironically Falcon 9 has more commonality (being made of the same alloy with the same construction technique) and clearly is not as expensive to manufacture as the SLWT per-unit or volume-for-volume. ULA also already have all the tooling for manufacture of formed orthogrid tanks on-site and paid for, as those large routers, presses, and friction stir welders have been used for Atlas and Delta construction for many years. Unlike with Falcon 9, they do not have to build up tank production capacity from scratch.One more reasonable question would be whether ULA have the production capacity to meet the proposed flight rate without tank re-use: it is well known that the Decatur plant was sized for an Atlas and delta flight rate that never materialised, but it is unclear if this capacity is still available, or if it would require tooling up vacant factory volume to meet desired core production rates.This is actually a legitimate argument against reuse: when you reuse boosters, the booster production rate is much lower, so you cannot amortize the fixed production costs across as many boosters. SpaceX originally sized the Hawthorne booster production line for 30 boosters per year, but now they are only producing two or three a year. Clearly their expensive factory assets are underutilized. Even if they had brilliantly foreseen this and created a smaller factory, a factory that produces only two or three a year will have a much higher per-booster cost. Therefore, <sarcasm> SpaceX cannot provide boosters as cheaply as ULA and must be losing money </sarcasm>.
...F9 missions are far more costly than they were claimed to be in the beginning (in some cases more than 4x higher) and they've been steadily going up, even as reuse increases.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 10:11 pm...F9 missions are far more costly than they were claimed to be in the beginning (in some cases more than 4x higher) and they've been steadily going up, even as reuse increases.This is, of course, wrong.
And I think people get confused regarding total mission cost vs launch cost.The published launch price for a Falcon 9 is $67M, which will take up to 505 mT to GTO. This would be for commercial users.The U.S. Government is not going to be paying more for the launch (maybe even less), and for NASA payloads the cost of the launch is pre-negotiated with the NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract. And as a note, government contracts people are VERY smart, and they understand how to negotiate contract pricing VERY well, so if SpaceX is advertising a price on their website, then the U.S. Government is not going to be paying more than that for the same service.So the cost of LAUNCH is very stable, and that $67M launch cost hasn't changed substantially in a long time.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/01/2022 03:48 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 10:11 pm...F9 missions are far more costly than they were claimed to be in the beginning (in some cases more than 4x higher) and they've been steadily going up, even as reuse increases.This is, of course, wrong.Really?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/01/2022 03:48 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 10:11 pm...F9 missions are far more costly than they were claimed to be in the beginning (in some cases more than 4x higher) and they've been steadily going up, even as reuse increases.This is, of course, wrong.Really?https://web.archive.org/web/20080815163222/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=18"SpaceX today announced its new launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class vehicle. With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide."QuoteAnd I think people get confused regarding total mission cost vs launch cost.The published launch price for a Falcon 9 is $67M, which will take up to 505 mT to GTO. This would be for commercial users.The U.S. Government is not going to be paying more for the launch (maybe even less), and for NASA payloads the cost of the launch is pre-negotiated with the NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract. And as a note, government contracts people are VERY smart, and they understand how to negotiate contract pricing VERY well, so if SpaceX is advertising a price on their website, then the U.S. Government is not going to be paying more than that for the same service.So the cost of LAUNCH is very stable, and that $67M launch cost hasn't changed substantially in a long time.Really?March 22, 2022:https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/spacex-raises-prices-for-launches-and-starlink-due-to-inflation.html"The starting prices for a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rocket will each increase by about 8%. A Falcon 9 launch will cost $67 million, up from $62 million, and a Falcon Heavy launch will now run $97 million, up from $90 million."
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/01/2022 06:21 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 08/01/2022 03:48 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/29/2022 10:11 pm...F9 missions are far more costly than they were claimed to be in the beginning (in some cases more than 4x higher) and they've been steadily going up, even as reuse increases.This is, of course, wrong.Really?https://web.archive.org/web/20080815163222/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=18"SpaceX today announced its new launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class vehicle. With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide."QuoteAnd I think people get confused regarding total mission cost vs launch cost.The published launch price for a Falcon 9 is $67M, which will take up to 505 mT to GTO. This would be for commercial users.The U.S. Government is not going to be paying more for the launch (maybe even less), and for NASA payloads the cost of the launch is pre-negotiated with the NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract. And as a note, government contracts people are VERY smart, and they understand how to negotiate contract pricing VERY well, so if SpaceX is advertising a price on their website, then the U.S. Government is not going to be paying more than that for the same service.So the cost of LAUNCH is very stable, and that $67M launch cost hasn't changed substantially in a long time.Really?March 22, 2022:https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/spacex-raises-prices-for-launches-and-starlink-due-to-inflation.html"The starting prices for a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rocket will each increase by about 8%. A Falcon 9 launch will cost $67 million, up from $62 million, and a Falcon Heavy launch will now run $97 million, up from $90 million."SMH.Price is not cost.Cost is reduced via reusability.Price can be anything SpaceX wants, subject to market constraints.Any increase in price reflects on the inaptitude of the competitors who to this day haven't been able to cause SpaceX to reduce pricing.It does NOT in any way indicate anything about their costs, as you're trying to claim.How is this still lost on you?The difference between SpaceX's price and cost, their margin, is how they're able to afford all the nice things. (And why investors think they are a real company)
Do you have their costs?Of course you don't, and if you did, it would be proprietary and you wouldn't be allowed to release it.
The funny part is that the same folks, when looking at F9 reuse, claimed that it's not going to save that much anyway since missions costs >> rocket costs.
SpaceX has increased the Merlin's thrust since the beginning thus increasing it's capability as well as having a fully reusable booster. I believe their sunk cost in the factory and tooling have long since paid for themselves, so they can enjoy a greater profit today as well as offering lower costs with used boosters, at least a few times, before using them for Starlink launches. I think they have well proven the reuse business case, because their reuse allows them to use the rockets to cheaply launch the Starlinks. Starlink, in turn will bring in $1 billion a month profit for every 1 million subscribers before deducting any costs with users equipment. This is how they are going to finance a Mars colony. Everyone seems to forget that. Reuse is everything for them, maybe not for others, but for them.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 01:55 pmThe thread is in the ULA section because it was started by George Sower’s spreadsheet looking at the reuse business case.Presumably there must be an updated spreadsheet, as ULA now says SMART will repay the effort in 3 flights. I doubt ULA would provide it, as it would be full of proprietary info.However, I wondered if anyone had fiddled with Sower's original spreadsheet, making the assumptions more or less consistent with what we know of ULA, and showing a profit after 3 re-uses?
The thread is in the ULA section because it was started by George Sower’s spreadsheet looking at the reuse business case.
Sorry about the 1 million Starlinks would equal $1 billion per YEAR not Month. Anyway, Starlink launches PROVE reuse business case, at least for SpaceX anyway. I would wonder if ULA got 20-30 launches a year contract for another LEO constellation, would they reconsider reuse instead of Smart reuse? Or would they develop Smart reuse sooner.
...Falcon 9 was designed with Starlink as its main customer...