Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/13/2017 12:41 amThis year if SpaceX actually does 25SpaceX won't launch 25 times in 2017. Why in every year SpaceX amazing peoples insist on ridiculous numbers that never happen?
This year if SpaceX actually does 25
.....In principle 2 can be coped with by re-scheduling till later but that implies eithera)One of the later payloads can step into the open slot or b)SX operates some kind of "standby" arrangement that lets customers fly sooner if a gap opens up that aren't even formally listed yet (do LV companies even do this?)
IIRC someone (Ed Kyle?) said NASA was able to keep up a high flight rate in the 60's because they had a huge number of pads (7? 14?) they could use more or less simultaneously.
So what you're argument seems to suggest is that the booster business (if separable) is "commoditizing" (to the degree anything in aerospace could become "off the shelf") as an economic trend.And that the US/payload/"anything above booster separation" ... still retains its traditional nature, and that this "high ground" is where the competition moves to. Whoever moves fast in serving the need, controls where the market heads.Does this mean we can have new business models that can take advantage of this? Or is that a pipe dream?
Does this mean we can have new business models that can take advantage of this? Or is that a pipe dream?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/13/2017 05:31 pmDoes this mean we can have new business models that can take advantage of this? Or is that a pipe dream?>Were SpaceX to achieve the vision of reliable, rapid reuse as they have envisioned with the corresponding reduction in launch expense, it seems to me that it's (in theory) possible (from an economic perspective) to bring some payloads into the market that would drive an enormous number of launches such that SpaceX could launch as often as their facilities and turnaround cadence permits.
That'll happen just launching their internet constellations, unless they go the route of tasking a mini-ITS variant to deploy them by the hundreds.
What this means is that reusability impact on supply and demand equation for the market will make the prices fall in the market because of an over abundance of supply. SpaceX will have much more supply capability than demand, increases the likelyhood of the ULA goal of launch on demand. Where boosters are sitting in a warehouse waiting for use. The booster manufacturer manages the booster build rate based on his projection of the demand not the practically custom build on contract model that is currently in use. A shortened contract to fly periiod will also force more pressure on sat builders to follow suit. To having sat busses manufactured ahead of contracts existing where a contract adds the customer specific parts over a shorter period.
Now the effect that reusability could have in this. The major costs for a launch are the booster and those funds spent during the last few months for payload and LV processing at the site plus the payload analysis/flight profile. All SpaceX has to do is to self fund the manufacture of the Upper Stages which is less that $15M for the sell of reflights of boosters to customers such that 3 months occurs between contract and flight.What is going on is a complete change in the way LV construction is funded and purchased. For customers they wait until their sat is almost finished they select and purchase a ride and 3 months later fly. It could save them millions in the "cost of money". For those not familiar with what the term "cost of money" means it is associated with funds from loans or investment that sits idle without any revenue because of the long time between expenditure and revenue generating operation. The longer the period the higher the associated additional costs in interest or expectations of returns on investment (ROI) from the investor. The difference between even 18 months and 3 months is significant, as much as 10% of the cost of the purchased LV flight.
Take Atlas for an example. In 1966, the U.S. Air Force and NASA launched 47 Atlas missiles or space launch vehicles. 33 were orbital launches. These were performed from 12 launch pads - 5 pads at the Cape and 7 at VAFB. All of the Cape pads, and 2 of the West Coast pads, were dedicated to orbital launches. VAFB SLC 4E (previously Pt. Arguello LC 2-4) was the busiest, handling nine launches, mostly Gambit film return missions (pads tended to be assigned to specific programs back then).
Although quick turnarounds are impressive, what really matters is sustainable launch pace over the long run. A pad may be able to turn around quickly for one or two launches, but it will periodically have to be taken out of service for a few weeks for more substantial maintenance. Payload issues and bad weather (hurricane season looms) can affect schedules. Then there is the Falcon Heavy launch. LC 39A will screech to a dead stop for weeks while that campaign runs its course.
The thing I have in the back of my mind if the economics (easy part) and ancillary issues (big ask) could be reconciled would drive 300 Full-Size ITS Mars-class Payloads at minimum as well as additional ongoing demand.
If this is happening, SpaceX are managing the transition by keeping prices high for now.
Quote from: AC in NC on 05/13/2017 07:01 pmThe thing I have in the back of my mind if the economics (easy part) and ancillary issues (big ask) could be reconciled would drive 300 Full-Size ITS Mars-class Payloads at minimum as well as additional ongoing demand.There is nothing simple about the economics of space launch, let alone transitioning a business built on a fully expendable design to a semi reusable one.
On a different tack about reusability effect on costs. In-space industrilization: made-In-Space believes it has come up with a significant money making in-space industrialization business case for the manufacture of ZBLAM in zero G. With low cost access to space making even the profitable business case with current space access costs the business could become even more significant. See this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35889.40But the amounts and number of flights could be only a dozen a year.
But its largest impact is not on launch but on space station utilization where cost of supply and personnel transport could be reduced due to the demand for more traffic.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/15/2017 02:53 amOn a different tack about reusability effect on costs. In-space industrilization: made-In-Space believes it has come up with a significant money making in-space industrialization business case for the manufacture of ZBLAM in zero G. With low cost access to space making even the profitable business case with current space access costs the business could become even more significant. See this thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35889.40But the amounts and number of flights could be only a dozen a year.Perhaps, but these are a dozen launches that would not take place otherwise. IOW New Business.If we want to see $/lb to orbit go down this is the market that has to expand to a point where SX can see a revenue rise despite a price drop. Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy But its largest impact is not on launch but on space station utilization where cost of supply and personnel transport could be reduced due to the demand for more traffic.Won't that all be on NASA contracts, which are well above basic prices to LEO?
Initially Yes.Which says a lot about the the strength of the business case.
As their access to space costs drop so will their volume of manufacturing increase due to the lower cost of product having more terrestrial business case applications. This is not a linear expansion but a logarithmic one. such that costs drop in half volume increases by 4.