Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)  (Read 606757 times)

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1080 on: 06/12/2014 06:54 pm »
The only feasible payloads that fit this category in foreseeable future is people. Question is, is there enough people with that kind of money, and the answer is likely no.

And propellant.

Nobody is buying propellant on orbit, and nobody with any money has any plans to do so. The only "purchases" of propellant that are happening is NASA paying Roscosmos to truck up more hydrazine on Progess to keep ISS afloat. Not a big market.

Just to be very clear, a market is not a market unless you have identified actual people with actual money willing to spend that money for your service or product at a given price point magnitude. You might send a shipment of ice cream and refrigerators to south pole, but penguins are notoriously unreliable market for that kind of product.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2014 07:00 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1081 on: 06/12/2014 07:28 pm »

Yeah, I can't see anything at all that could make change occur in the spaceflight industry or in technology that would increase demand over what it's been the past fifty years.   :o  ;)

(In this, I'm channeling the sort of thinking of Jim, and of Thomas Watson, president of IBM, who in 1943 said: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.")

Just for the record, I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifty years, just as all innovating tech industries do when human ingenuity is set free and people actually compete (I know, a novel concept) to provide goods and services that people want in market where people exchange what they have for what they want.


15 years is the timeframe under discussion, not 50. 

And your analogy is not applicable, spaceflight does not equate to consumer goods

Additionally, for every Watson prediction, there are 100's of predictions of "game changing" processes/devices that never come to be.  There are some many of them that few stand out to be quotable like the Watson one.

Jim, if you like 15 years rather than 50, I'll match your 15! I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifteen years.   :)

And of course the analogy is applicable:  it was a story that illustrates that situations in technology development and use change greatly, and often in ways that are unforeseen by insiders.

The quote by Watson was also to point out that, quite often, those who think of the future in the terms of past ways of doing things, and in the former ways of the organization of industries that produce goods and services, are often wrong.  Things change.  Dynamism reigns; stasism is pushed aside by the forces of life and human action.

We don't know what the future holds, but supporting arguments about the future and that it won't be much different because one is thinking by analogy to the recent past is not very convincing to most careful readers.

Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1082 on: 06/12/2014 07:39 pm »
2.  Now it's about markets.  Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).
2.  Those don't require that many launches
2.  Where is that info from?
orbcomm, globalstar, iridium?

In regards to comm constellations, the whole point is that the landscape completely changes since then.

Demand for global bandwidth is high and will only get higher for the foreseeable future, so will require more satellites for more even coverage.  Google is now just giving it a test shot, which is evidence that there's interest, but this constellation, by itself, is just a trial shot.

I'll go one further.  It's not 100 flights a year in the relatively near term, but 100s.
And the money for it is insane, not when you're talking $5M per launch.

If the whole argument here is "there will be no market because there hasn't been", then it's an empty argument.  If you have both increased demand AND lower costs, volume will increase.

But hey - it's fine.  Just like a couple of years ago (with respect to capabilities, it was then), we'll do the same thing - wait a couple of years and see...

For some pure conjecture.

Everyone is focused on Bigelow, or Planetary Resources but Google is the wild card, IMO. We know EM is bullish while the industry and old guard are not. We know Elon and Larry Page are pals, and both interact with SV and VC. Do they know something about future market demand things, that we don't? We know Google is interested in space and disruptive tech, broadband, and the developing world. Google has the brains and money, and SpaceX has the brains and rockets.
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Israel
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1083 on: 06/12/2014 07:48 pm »


...You might send a shipment of ice cream and refrigerators to south pole, but penguins are notoriously unreliable market for that kind of product.

Why, have you made a market research, or a product trial of friges in a penguin population? Care to share the data?

I might have understood if you argued monetary deficiency in penguins, but alas... you choose not to hold your own arguments to the standards you seem to demand of others. What's up with that?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1084 on: 06/12/2014 07:54 pm »

We don't know what the future holds, but supporting arguments about the future and that it won't be much different because one is thinking by analogy to the recent past is not very convincing to most careful readers.


Yes and you are guilty of performing the same thing by quoting the Watson.  Just because it happened to him, doesn't meet it will happen now.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2014 07:55 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1085 on: 06/12/2014 07:59 pm »

Jim, if you like 15 years rather than 50, I'll match your 15! I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifteen years. 

It won't for two reasons.   Inertia, as Coastal Ron points out.  It will take at least generation of current comsats, and that is more than 15 years.  And second, the "supporters" are greatly over estimating Spacex's impact.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1086 on: 06/12/2014 08:29 pm »
2.  Now it's about markets.  Large constellations of low-cost satellites (telecom, imaging).
2.  Those don't require that many launches
2.  Where is that info from?
orbcomm, globalstar, iridium?

In regards to comm constellations, the whole point is that the landscape completely changes since then.

Demand for global bandwidth is high and will only get higher for the foreseeable future, so will require more satellites for more even coverage.  Google is now just giving it a test shot, which is evidence that there's interest, but this constellation, by itself, is just a trial shot.

I'll go one further.  It's not 100 flights a year in the relatively near term, but 100s.
And the money for it is insane, not when you're talking $5M per launch.

If the whole argument here is "there will be no market because there hasn't been", then it's an empty argument.  If you have both increased demand AND lower costs, volume will increase.

But hey - it's fine.  Just like a couple of years ago (with respect to capabilities, it was then), we'll do the same thing - wait a couple of years and see...

For some pure conjecture.

Everyone is focused on Bigelow, or Planetary Resources but Google is the wild card, IMO. We know EM is bullish while the industry and old guard are not. We know Elon and Larry Page are pals, and both interact with SV and VC. Do they know something about future market demand things, that we don't? We know Google is interested in space and disruptive tech, broadband, and the developing world. Google has the brains and money, and SpaceX has the brains and rockets.
yup.  Google, VCs like Juvertson or that want to be like Juvertson...

I actually am not that confident about Bigelow, BTW.  Not a brilliant business plan, and tech he bought cheaply.  We'll see.

As for time spans, if you want to count "a generation", you need to start 10 years ago, when SpaceX was founded.

Once F9R flies, people will realize that businessmen who start moving only when the opportunity is proven were too slow.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1087 on: 06/12/2014 11:44 pm »

Jim, if you like 15 years rather than 50, I'll match your 15! I think the industry will change a great deal in the next fifteen years. 

It won't for two reasons.   Inertia, as Coastal Ron points out.  It will take at least generation of current comsats, and that is more than 15 years.  And second, the "supporters" are greatly over estimating Spacex's impact.

I suspect you mean "It will take at least generation for current commsat suppliers..."  Commsats don't make themselves, at least not yet.  ???

I would tend to agree with you on that point.  I doubt that the current set of commsat suppliers will perceive the changes, just as you don't, sufficiently rapidly, and then modify their business practices with the changing technologies and novel entrepreneurial ways of putting those technologies together in order to change their existing way of doing business enough to remain strong competitors over the longer term.  It is the internal inertia (your term), inside these companies, which is like a biological parasite:  it is one factor that will help set the stage to severely impact the ability of the host (the corporate entity) to respond effectively to environmental changes. 

This is not new.  A couple of examples from the past century:  the major intercity transportation sector industry (the railroads) failed to understand and respond effectively to the competitive threat of aviation in the 1950s; IBM failed to effectively compete against the threat of CMOS semiconductors and dramatically smaller CPUs overwhelming the IBM-legacy water-cooled mainframe computer dominance in the 1980s/90s.  It is very hard for insiders to fully grok and profitably respond to the new realities.  Inertia inside the legacy firms is an important part of that, and it oftentimes takes a generation or more for management and employees in legacy firms to fully see, and then respond to the new ecoculture that they find themselves swimming in; if the company survives to leave them swimming at all.

So, yes, "It will take at least generation of current comsats, and that is more than 15 years" for full change to set in.

However, in your argument, you are leaving out how new entrants, and new competitors, might change the spaceflight and satellite competitive landscape.  Google, Skybox, and the plethora of new small sat manufacturers are just now beginning to show that.  Customers are emerging to take advantage of new possibilities and new offerings.  There will be much more of that for you to observe before 15 years elapse.

All of these dynamic and evolving changes will work together to increase the launch rate as others on this thread have argued, for SpaceX Falcon9/FH and for any other launch service providers who can change with the times, from the lethargic days when innovation was largely dependent on government programs, initiative and funding.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1088 on: 06/13/2014 12:05 am »
Another example is the 4 major US automakers, who completely misread the small car and quality markets in the 1960-1970's. When they finally responded with Pinto. Vega and Gremlin it was too little too late. Now there are 2, Chrysler now foreign owned and AMC gone, and GM is still struggling.

New markets and players emerge, good ones, but paleo-corporations tend to respond slowly and poorly due to corporate (mindset) and worker (training)  based inertias, not a lack of technology.
DM

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1089 on: 06/13/2014 12:30 am »
Google, Skybox,


They are using existing contractors. 

Also, large constellations don't equal to 100's of launches.  See Orbcomm, Iridium, Globalstar, etc.  FH is more of a reason for less launches.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2014 12:36 am by Jim »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1090 on: 06/13/2014 01:18 am »
The precedent is that paradigms change. That paleo-corporations are poor at responding to said changes is not mutually exclusive.
DM

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1091 on: 06/13/2014 01:24 am »


Disruptive innovation does not require new technologies, only that new business models use technology in new ways.  Lower cost disposable launchers is certainly a disruptive innovation from the standard model of the launch industry, and if SpaceX can perfect reusability of at least the 1st stage that would be even more disruptive innovation.

The big key here is whether lowering costs significantly will create new business models for space-based services.  I have no doubt they will, but as I've already stated I think the pace of adoption will be slow for existing service providers, so only the entry of new service providers like Google could change the pace.

However compared to other industries where disruptive innovation has occurred, I think change for the launch industry will still be relatively slow in comparison - but any change based on disruptive innovation is going to be good for all space-related activities, including government-funded activities.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2014 01:30 am by Andy USA »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1029
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 255
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1092 on: 06/13/2014 01:30 am »
As I'm sure you all know, this thread is not a Jim Q&A. Added to his inability to use one post when making a response and his apparent insistence that he is the one man devils advocate of all spaceX conversations, I've deleted back this thread.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1093 on: 06/13/2014 01:58 am »

Disruptive innovation does not require new technologies, only that new business models use technology in new ways.  Lower cost disposable launchers is certainly a disruptive innovation from the standard model of the launch industry, and if SpaceX can perfect reusability of at least the 1st stage that would be even more disruptive innovation.

The big key here is whether lowering costs significantly will create new business models for space-based services.  I have no doubt they will, but as I've already stated I think the pace of adoption will be slow for existing service providers, so only the entry of new service providers like Google could change the pace.

However compared to other industries where disruptive innovation has occurred, I think change for the launch industry will still be relatively slow in comparison - but any change based on disruptive innovation is going to be good for all space-related activities, including government-funded activities.

That's a fair assessment.  We have no way to predict the speed change will occur.

What I can be sure of, however, is that the starting point is not today.  Elon has been providing information to VCs considering various plans for several years now, and his credibility, even since F9 and Dragon flew, is high.

This is not like the car market where the big three were feeling that there's a barrier to entry so large that they can feel confident just sitting on their thumbs.  New cars had to eat away at the existing market (which they did, but it took time, as you say)

Here, there is no existing market, not as far as someone who want to fly people around the moon, or have a global high-bandwidth internet access play, or real-time earth observation, is concerned.

And think about - how long did it take everyone to become reliant on online maps and GPS?   5 years?
Definitely not 50.

People are already taking non-stop wireless internet access for granted.  (You only need to think back 20 years to where you had to dial up when you wanted to be connected).   

Fedex was founded in 1971.  How long before business world became dependent on it?  I know that by 1980 it was prevalent.

So once F9R and DV2 fly (2 years on the outside?) you can count 5-10 years before you can't imagine a world without the services enabled by them.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1094 on: 06/13/2014 06:50 am »
AvWeek has 2 new intetesting  articles that for now are behind their paywall. This usually clears so watch them.

AJR vs SpaceX  for new engine work

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/aerojet-rocketdyne-spacex-square-new-engine-work

SuperDraco key to reusable Dragon V2

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/superdraco-key-reusable-dragon-v2
DM

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1095 on: 06/13/2014 07:46 am »
As I'm sure you all know, this thread is not a Jim Q&A. Added to his inability to use one post when making a response and his apparent insistence that he is the one man devils advocate of all spaceX conversations, I've deleted back this thread.

I guess we'll have enough material for clam chowder anyway ;)

I think you can reasonably assume exponential growth in a market is possible whenever the gap between the aspirations of a large group of people and financial reality of that aspiration becomes meaningfully smaller.

Offline MP99

Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1096 on: 06/13/2014 09:25 am »
Okay here's a different question that was alluded to in Gwynne Shotwell's June 4th talk:

How difficult would it be for SpaceX to get to a stage where they have rockets going up on a schedule and all the payload providers are effectively in a queue, such that if any delay is payload associated, SpaceX can just bump them to the next flight and have the next payload in line take the slot?  (ie have a backup payload for every flight).  I assume the process of programming the Falcon 9v1.1 computers to go to a particular orbit and adding the appropriate amount of fuel is relatively quick process.

Obviously payload integration would be an issue, but how long does that take, relative to the 2-3 day delays that seem to have happened a couple of times now for purely payload related reasons? Also, is this more of a launch site issue? and will we see launch rates increase exponentially for each site brought online?

It might make sense for a delayed payload to get bumped to allow the following payload to go at its scheduled time.

That would suggest an arrangement something like "your primary slot is here, and if you're late your backup slot is here". Don't see this applying for weather or issues something at the fault of SpaceX.

Since Jim points out that the upper stage is configured for the payload, it would make sense that the u/s built for that payload would need to be used, IE integrated to whatever first stage is to be used for the next launch in rotation.

Range would have been configuring for this launch for this date anyway, so shouldn't be an issue with that.

But then, how often are payloads really that late, anyway? OTOH, I know Gwynne mentioned it in a recent interview, so it must be some sort of issue.

cheers, Martin

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1097 on: 06/13/2014 02:37 pm »
As I'm sure you all know, this thread is not a Jim Q&A. Added to his inability to use one post when making a response and his apparent insistence that he is the one man devils advocate of all spaceX conversations, I've deleted back this thread.

I don't understand what you're trying to say... Jim ALWAYS uses "one" post to make "one" response...  ;)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Hyperion

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1098 on: 06/17/2014 10:04 pm »
I apologize but didn't find answer here.

On wiki and somewhere else there is:

At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard, and if NASA orders at least four DragonRider flights per year.

Is it price of new launcher and new Dragon V2 for every flight for NASA? Or does Musk expected reusability of some of parts of system?

Thanx for answer.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10)
« Reply #1099 on: 06/17/2014 11:32 pm »
I apologize but didn't find answer here.

On wiki and somewhere else there is:

At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard, and if NASA orders at least four DragonRider flights per year.

Is it price of new launcher and new Dragon V2 for every flight for NASA? Or does Musk expected reusability of some of parts of system?

Thanx for answer.

In Musk's answers in the Q&A at the Dragon V2 unveiling he mentions that the 20 million figure is for a low flight
rate.  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29

Quote: "The quote that we've provided NASA would allow the cost per astronaut to be potentially less than $20M, and that assumes a low flight rate. In a high flight rate it could potentially get to the single digit millions."

I don't think there is any way to go from approximately 20 million to single digit millions through volume of production gains.  Basically, I don't see how this is possible without reusability being integral.  I'm not sure whether the 20 mil. per  price also includes reusability.  I don't think there's been any explicit statements on that issue.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0