Author Topic: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV  (Read 29798 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« on: 03/08/2015 08:49 pm »
From this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36722.msg1343293#msg1343293

To avoid the confusion, over claims, and general misunderstanding of SX and its rival existing American launch services vending EELV's, perhaps this thread can narrowly contrast the differences between the two, with objective differences alone absent gratuitous value judgements or aspersions.

Partisans of companies please use other threads to express your admiration/etc - does not belong here.

What belongs here is: EELV did X, Falcon does Y, the trade results in Z, SX needs Z for its reusable business model/CONOPs, its rival does not regard Z because of N compromises.

Perhaps an analogous NGLV thread in the rival's area could do a similar reconciliation.

I'll start this off with an example:

Falcon's kerolox only propellants/engine loses EELV's hydrolox iSP advantages in order to gain the benefit of a lower cost infrastructure with less complexity to be made reliable for reflight as a reusable LV. If you need more performance in the F9R vehicle, then use a clustered FHR.

EELV vehicles (2 becoming 3) did/won't choose a singular propellant architecture/engine because the performance/reliability trades away from single use expendable put too much at risk for the mission, for the benefit of potential reuse to ever pay off.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #1 on: 03/08/2015 09:22 pm »
These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5log
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #2 on: 03/08/2015 09:29 pm »
As a follow-on to keep threads on topic:

SX might not need to have ULA EELV economics that ULA needs for its business.

One use of a F9R vehicle might be a 2-10 blind reuse, simply to increase flight rate. In this case, perhaps if SX designs/manufactures/tests for such use from the start, that's built in to the CONOPs as the expectation.

Because the EELV business is defined off the singular launch of a vehicle and its reliability in that single use, economics to discover if a LV is capable of reuse at the same reliability as the original launch may be even more costly than manufacturing a new one.

But this might mean that the top flight rate gated by the logistics cycle of getting new vehicles to the pad alone limits EELV flight rate.

If its customers do not need to exceed that rate, then there is no point for such capability, thus the business ULA is in is not the one SX is in.

If SX achieves a higher flight rate through blind reuse, the business justification for reuse may be proven irrespective of EELV goals. Because they would then be different businesses entirely.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #3 on: 03/08/2015 09:31 pm »
These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5log
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log

 - Ed Kyle
Thank you sir. I've read them and am attempting to form cogent statements for people to poke holes in.

It may take me some time to get this right. But I want a more critical discussion, as do I think you and others want as well.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #4 on: 03/08/2015 11:21 pm »
Can you define blind reuse?

Edit: Damn auto-correct...
« Last Edit: 03/08/2015 11:43 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #5 on: 03/08/2015 11:35 pm »


These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5log
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log

 - Ed Kyle

Excellent work.
I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.


Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #6 on: 03/09/2015 12:01 am »


These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5log
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log

 - Ed Kyle

Excellent work.
I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.

By inspection, that rises to 80 when FHR is included. (FHR is part of the OP.)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #7 on: 03/09/2015 12:15 am »
Can you define blind reuse?

Edit: Damn auto-correct...

In short: aircraft like operations reflight.

Longer - built-in evaluative instrumentation (and designed-in multiple flight capacity) for go/nogo assessment without tear down or exhaustive or destructive inspection/evaluation. Reflight in days/weeks with as little crew/GSE as can fit on a barge.

I'm trying to draw a distinction between costly/invasive inspection of a more exotic LV like EELVs are, to that of a purpose driven, less optimal but more resilient LV intended for reuse.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #8 on: 03/09/2015 01:13 am »


These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5log
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log

 - Ed Kyle

Excellent work.
I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.
Assuming just a LV configuration will /slightly/ bias the estimation of 37 flights pessimistically. For instance, AV401 often is flying older Delta II class payloads (or was in the past).
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 deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2136
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #9 on: 03/09/2015 02:51 am »
People are motivated by extrinsic factors such as pay and intrinsic factors such as pride in a job well done and doing good in the world. SpaceX's Mars plans give it a major competitive advantage in intrinsic motivation so it can probably attract better employees even if its extrinsic motivations such as pay, hours and working conditions aren't quite as good as ULA's. Also once hired employees are likely to work harder and smarter if they're intrinsically motivated.

Another reason to expect ULA's labor costs to be a bit higher is IIRC they're a union shop and on average unions raise wages by on the order of 10%. This may be caused simply by Boeing and Lockheed's age, but I suspect part of the explanation is SpaceX employees believe in the company goals and hence don't develop the adversarial attitude that would lead to unionization.

TL;DR: SpaceX probably has lower labor costs because of SpaceX's Mars colonization goal and ULA's unions. Cheaper labor allows them to charge less and still make a profit.

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8744
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #10 on: 03/09/2015 07:29 am »
I would think that one big difference between the Falcon 9 family and the EELVs is the variable use of solids.  For example, Atlas has between zero and five solid strap-ons available.  SpaceX avoided the use of solids in favor of a one-rocket-fits-all approach (at least until the Heavy is in service).  Off the top of my head, this represents a big gamble that will only pay off if routine re-use of the first stage (without a lot of expensive servicing), becomes reality.  Yes, Atlas is more expensive NOW, but if ULA is pushed, could the price come down? 

Again, this is just off the top of my head, but I think these choices regarding the solids is a good look inside the thinking at both providers.  Of course, the decisions for Atlas and Delta were made before SpaceX was even a gleam in Musk's eye.  The next generation follow-on from ULA will be interesting.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #11 on: 03/09/2015 11:06 am »
I would think that one big difference between the Falcon 9 family and the EELVs is the variable use of solids.  For example, Atlas has between zero and five solid strap-ons available.  SpaceX avoided the use of solids in favor of a one-rocket-fits-all approach (at least until the Heavy is in service).  Off the top of my head, this represents a big gamble that will only pay off if routine re-use of the first stage (without a lot of expensive servicing), becomes reality.  Yes, Atlas is more expensive NOW, but if ULA is pushed, could the price come down? 

Again, this is just off the top of my head, but I think these choices regarding the solids is a good look inside the thinking at both providers.  Of course, the decisions for Atlas and Delta were made before SpaceX was even a gleam in Musk's eye.  The next generation follow-on from ULA will be interesting.

Good point.  In Tory Bruno's talks, he repeatedly emphasizes using every last pound carried to get the payload to its intended orbit.  Solids are the key to dialing in this result.  SpaceX's truck comes in two sizes*... your payload is delivered in the one that can reach your intended orbit, frequently with room/delta-v to spare -- some of which is used for return and landing.
* coming soon

Note: A corollary to this approach is ultralight weighting of payloads.  Each extra increment of mass added to the ULA payload increases price (assuming additional solid needed).  Extra mass doesn't necessarily increase price in the SpaceX two-trucks model, unless your payload crosses the threshold to the big truck.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2015 11:11 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #12 on: 03/09/2015 03:54 pm »
I would think that one big difference between the Falcon 9 family and the EELVs is the variable use of solids.  For example, Atlas has between zero and five solid strap-ons available.  SpaceX avoided the use of solids in favor of a one-rocket-fits-all approach (at least until the Heavy is in service).  Off the top of my head, this represents a big gamble that will only pay off if routine re-use of the first stage (without a lot of expensive servicing), becomes reality.  Yes, Atlas is more expensive NOW, but if ULA is pushed, could the price come down? 

That's not the only way it will pay off. Mass production of a single core and a single fairing is actually what helps the LOWER costs. Even without re-usability their costs are below ULA, so I'd say it is already paying off.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #13 on: 03/09/2015 06:04 pm »


These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html#atlas5log
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/delta4.html#delta4log

 - Ed Kyle

Excellent work.
I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.
Assuming just a LV configuration will /slightly/ bias the estimation of 37 flights pessimistically. For instance, AV401 often is flying older Delta II class payloads (or was in the past).

Please also note the flight schedule - the time between missions, as capability was stepped up. SX has done proportionately more volume of early missions, with less increase in scope. This year the scope increases.

So unlike EELV (each considered as a separate, "competing" launcher, and not as a whole), Falcon 9 matches a volume of launch capability over a performance capability profile - that comes later.

Per thread rules - SX goes for volume step up, its rival went for capability step up. SX wants volume because it means reusability has a benefit in reducing existing capability launch cost. Its rival had no such advantage, instead capability increase meant meeting/certifying original goals for follow-on missions of greater importance.

E.g. to get the "job" done. ULA's job was/is mission assurance. SX's job is number of missions. Different.

Will SX's job be mission assurance? Dunno.

Offline dlapine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • University of Illinois
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #14 on: 03/09/2015 06:05 pm »
People are motivated by extrinsic factors such as pay and intrinsic factors such as pride in a job well done and doing good in the world. SpaceX's Mars plans give it a major competitive advantage in intrinsic motivation so it can probably attract better employees even if its extrinsic motivations such as pay, hours and working conditions aren't quite as good as ULA's. Also once hired employees are likely to work harder and smarter if they're intrinsically motivated.

Another reason to expect ULA's labor costs to be a bit higher is IIRC they're a union shop and on average unions raise wages by on the order of 10%. This may be caused simply by Boeing and Lockheed's age, but I suspect part of the explanation is SpaceX employees believe in the company goals and hence don't develop the adversarial attitude that would lead to unionization.

TL;DR: SpaceX probably has lower labor costs because of SpaceX's Mars colonization goal and ULA's unions. Cheaper labor allows them to charge less and still make a profit.

I'm not sure that a discussion of company employment/business methods is appropriate to this thread; it would seem to be limited to vehicle design, characteristics or performance.

That being said, attributing a difference in price due to the cost of labor would need to include the number of employees/sub-contractors paid by each side to be of much use. The varying costs of labor (for whatever reasons) could easily be subsumed simply by a difference in the total amount of persons employed, or by the amount/types of work that they are asked to accomplish.

SpaceX employs on the order of 4k employees (G. Shotwell).

ULA employs 3400 (per their website).

It's up to Space Ghost, but I don't think that this is the thread for a personnel discussion.

Offline MTom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • EU / Hungary
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 993
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #15 on: 03/09/2015 08:13 pm »
The reliability in launching in time is also a notable difference. See the Scrub thread about this.
SpX is coming up but is still behind ULA.

(Sure: Cost/Time/Quality triangle - you can choose two from it - but still an important thing).
« Last Edit: 03/09/2015 08:18 pm by MTom »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #16 on: 03/09/2015 09:38 pm »
I'm not sure that a discussion of company employment/business methods is appropriate to this thread; it would seem to be limited to vehicle design, characteristics or performance.

That being said, attributing a difference in price due to the cost of labor would need to include the number of employees/sub-contractors paid by each side to be of much use. The varying costs of labor (for whatever reasons) could easily be subsumed simply by a difference in the total amount of persons employed, or by the amount/types of work that they are asked to accomplish.

SpaceX employs on the order of 4k employees (G. Shotwell).

ULA employs 3400 (per their website).

It's up to Space Ghost, but I don't think that this is the thread for a personnel discussion.
True. That said the NAFCOM model does seem to have cost factors influenced by head count of both prime and sub contractors.

I'll also note that is (roughly) 1700 staff per Atlas and 1700 for Delta. That sounds quite low but we don't know the aggregate head could of all their sub contractors (likewise SX).

I suspect a big item of keeping costs down is how much of fo F9 is built in house. I think the comment was roughly "1$ in house is equal to $3-5 spent on sub contractors" for SX.

A personal discussion is usually a sign of a thread OT but in the context of differences between SX and ULA a personnel  or HR policies that does have some bearing.

That's not the only way it will pay off. Mass production of a single core and a single fairing is actually what helps the LOWER costs. Even without re-usability their costs are below ULA, so I'd say it is already paying off.
Unfortunately it seems that the FH stages have started to diverge quite substantially from the stock F9 booster stage. It's likely to be much more similar than the various D IV and D IV H options were but these seem to be converging on a similar design for the Delta IV booster and Delta IV H booster and strap on stages.

In short: aircraft like operations reflight.

Longer - built-in evaluative instrumentation (and designed-in multiple flight capacity) for go/nogo assessment without tear down or exhaustive or destructive inspection/evaluation. Reflight in days/weeks with as little crew/GSE as can fit on a barge.

I'm trying to draw a distinction between costly/invasive inspection of a more exotic LV like EELVs are, to that of a purpose driven, less optimal but more resilient LV intended for reuse.
Some things are simpler than others.  For example putting the engines through X number of full launch cyles and measuring the actual level of coking in the engines, then say doubling it to say how the coking scales.

The trouble starts if the coking is worse than anticipated.  :(

Likewise AFAIK the Merlins all have EMU's. That means they can store data as easily as process it for post flight analysis (which you'd design in if you expected to build them for reuse).

Adding addition sensors for stress monitoring the structure is where the costs start to rise, both in mass and weight.  cost.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2015 08:49 am by john smith 19 »
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 LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #17 on: 03/09/2015 10:06 pm »
These might help in the comparisons, as I've tried to document what the existing EELVs have actually done in terms of orbits and payload masses (when available).

Excellent work.
I estimated that of 80 launches, F9R (recoverable booster i.e 3.5mt to GTO) could do 37 of them. Where there was no payload weight I used LV configuration eg AV401 to decide if F9R could do it.
With the three known improvements to F9R, (higher thrust, densified propellants, upper tank stretch) is seems very likely the F9R will be able to do 4.5t to GTO.  If so, how does it affect how many of these missions it could do?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #18 on: 03/10/2015 12:18 am »

I'll also note that is (roughly) 1700 staff per Atlas and 1700 for Delta.

They are not separated.  Most people work on both systems.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: How does SpaceX Falcon 9R/HR compete with EELV
« Reply #19 on: 03/10/2015 08:55 am »

I'll also note that is (roughly) 1700 staff per Atlas and 1700 for Delta.

They are not separated.  Most people work on both systems.
TBH that notion that people worked only on Delta or Atlas would basically make a mockery of any "consolidation" cost savings

On the surface that would make ULA more productive (per person) than SX as build two ELV's while SX builds one basic design, although we'll have to say how far FH diverges into separate stages.

OTOH ULA have a reputation for much more buying than making of parts, so main site head count would not be the whole story.
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.

Tags:
 

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