Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)  (Read 396597 times)

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1953
  • Likes Given: 1144
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #240 on: 03/16/2016 05:37 pm »
When figuring what profit a company makes on a product I am reminded of the joke I've heard a number of times from the accounting world.  In a job interview for an accounting position, if a person is asked what is two plus two, the correct answer is, "What would you like it to be?"

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #241 on: 03/16/2016 06:27 pm »
It's clear that ULA is having a hard time struggling with the changed market -- I find the comments regarding AJR pretty hilarious as well as the stuff concerning the RD-180, since well...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14224.0
RD-180 Co-Production Successfully Concluded (09/02/2008)

He does have a small point with the RD-181 for Antares; why isn't Orbital ATK not getting flak for that; whereas ULA is getting flak for RD-180?

But end of the day; the world's changed, because Musk and Bezos are willing to actually front their own money for engine/booster development, allowing a lot of seed work to be done; whereas ULA and AJR got lazy and wanted government contracts to fund almost everything; and were left holding an empty chair when the geopolitical situation changed with Crimea/Syria instead of being prepared (somewhat).
« Last Edit: 03/16/2016 06:28 pm by RyanC »

Offline intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 561
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #242 on: 03/16/2016 06:28 pm »
As I've said on here several times before; figuring the cost of manufacturing something when you do most of your manufacturing in house is not really possible. All the scales slide because a huge chunk of your costs are fixed per time while another huge chunk is fixed per unit. Setting the upper limit is difficult because you run into various bottlenecks that you have to overcome at various costs where building 16 units may cost more per unit than 15, but 20 brings it to a new low because you had to expand a capability somewhere. You could calculate it by material costs in which case it would probably be less than $1,000,000 per launch, or you could calculate it by dividing the total company expenses by the number of launches which would likely put it in the $100s of millions area.

A useful way to calculate would be the difference in cost to run the company when not building cores but maintaining the ability to do so and the cost of building cores, and I'm sure that number comes to less than $60 million per launch. That would mean that they are not losing money by launching, but they are also not necessarily (or likely) covering their overhead and expansion costs.

If they are good business people they probably know the number they need to sell in a year to break even and the number they need to sell to become efficient and achieve their goals. They also know how long they can go without meeting their minimum goal before they start struggling. These numbers are almost certainly in Gwynne's mind when she says how much they intend to launch this year and the year after.

All that being said, I'm sure that investors get to see at least some of this information before they make long term investments like the one Google made. If they weren't achievable, at least ambitiously, then they wouldn't be investing and SpaceX would have likely run out of money by now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 2379
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #244 on: 04/07/2016 08:48 pm »
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA.

Quote
Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.

Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Offline whitelancer64

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #245 on: 04/07/2016 09:18 pm »
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA.

Quote
Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.

Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline jg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #246 on: 04/07/2016 09:25 pm »
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA.

Quote
Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.

Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.

This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket.  Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived.

"Simple" programming change.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #247 on: 04/07/2016 09:43 pm »
As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.

This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket.  Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived.

"Simple" programming change.
I know, but that scenario where the rocket fails but the capsule survives is extraordinarily unlikely. Most rockets don't fail as slowly and gracefully as the Falcon 9 did.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #248 on: 04/07/2016 09:47 pm »
As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.

This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket.  Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived.

"Simple" programming change.
I know, but that scenario where the rocket fails but the capsule survives is extraordinarily unlikely. Most rockets don't fail as slowly and gracefully as the Falcon 9 did.
We had this debate before, you might want to review it.... Depending on the cost for the software mods (which at first glance ought to be low), it's a no brainer to make this change, because even if it's low probability, it's a cheap bet.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline whitelancer64

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #249 on: 04/07/2016 09:51 pm »
As unlikely as it is for the rocket to fail and the capsule to survive, but I suppose it's a nice option to have in your back pocket.

This case is exactly what happened last year with SpaceX's failure: the Dragon was healthy until it hit the water, despite the disintegration of the rocket.  Had the software been smart enough to pop the chutes, the payload would have survived.

"Simple" programming change.
I know, but that scenario where the rocket fails but the capsule survives is extraordinarily unlikely. Most rockets don't fail as slowly and gracefully as the Falcon 9 did.
We had this debate before, you might want to review it.... Depending on the cost for the software mods (which at first glance ought to be low), it's a no brainer to make this change, because even if it's low probability, it's a cheap bet.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, not at all. It's nice to have it just in case. It's like me keeping an umbrella in my car even though I live in Southern California and we don't see rain very often here :p
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline mulp

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • merrimack, nh
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #250 on: 04/08/2016 01:41 am »
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA.

Quote
Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.

Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
If no CRS rocket fails and thus tests this feature, will SpaceX need to cause a failure to validate for crew launch?

Offline 216pi

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #251 on: 04/08/2016 01:47 am »
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA.

Quote
Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.

Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
If no CRS rocket fails and thus tests this feature, will SpaceX need to cause a failure to validate for crew launch?
Crew Dragon is a different vehicle (Dragon 2) with a completely different escape system.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #252 on: 04/08/2016 11:39 am »
In CRS-8 pre-launch presser Hans said capability to salvage payload in case of any accident has been implemented i.e Dragon will deploy chutes and land softly on water. It is yet to be completely approved by FAA.

Quote
Marcia Dunn : So you are saying that you could for early in the flight you could salvage if necessary.

Hans: Its actually not that early I mean I would say its everything except last 20 ish seconds.
If no CRS rocket fails and thus tests this feature, will SpaceX need to cause a failure to validate for crew launch?
No, because this is an added feature that wasn't otherwise present in cargo ships to date. Presumably firing chutes is part of the escape process for crew.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline enzo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • USA
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 884
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #253 on: 04/15/2016 01:57 am »
Don't think I've ever seen an official number on how much of the F9 is manufactured in-house. Via reddit, reportedly CFO Bret Johnsen said the number is 70% in-house. One could assume this is by # of components, but could be cost, or simply an invented number. Still, mildly interesting.

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4eq8cq/im_meeting_the_cfo_spacex_bret_johnsen_tomorrow/d2352dr

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #254 on: 04/16/2016 06:33 pm »
I just read through this, and found myself nodding my head in agreement most of the time.  The "quarter-billion" per launch loss estimate was clearly hyperbole, but I don't think that anyone really believes SpaceX is making a profit on $60 million per launch.  Perhaps the speaker was thinking of what it might cost to launch Falcon Heavy versus the price that SpaceX has listed for a launch.

Interesting to hear that Blue blew up an engine in testing.  It sounded like it may have been a BE-3 power head a while back.

I also was interested in how the speaker thought that the first stage landing was amazing, but that the entire idea of recovery is "dumb" given the lost payload and the costs of refurbishment. 

 - Ed Kyle

Nobody believes SpaceX is making a $60 million profit on their launches, materials and working hours have costs. I've always thought that they make no profit on their ordinary launches, cost to produce and launch is $60million and selling price is 60$. I think the only launches they make anything on is government (NASA and soon DOD).
I'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch.

 - Ed Kyle

I personally have no idea how much money SpaceX is or is not making, but I will say that I hate it when people make an assertion that SpaceX is loosing money on every launch without offering even 1 shred of evidence. Nobody offers any proof of any kind to back up what they are saying, so I call total b.s. on any statement like that. If anyone wants to say things like that then let them back it up with verifiable numbers, like we always used to do on here. I don't care if one asserts they are making money or loosing money. Either way - I don't care. Just please do not spread such utter crap. Back it up or shut it down. But stop smearing the company. They are doing awesome things. When was the last pure NASA vehicle launch? Oh yea, I remember; Ares-1X. October 2009. Big PR flop. The last Shuttle flight was STS-135, last flown July 2011. Then NASA shut the system down. Since then the only thing NASA has produced other than a sinfully expensive and decade late boilerplate Orion is literally tons of paper and terabytes of power points and CGI's while SpaceX has been bending metal, building infrastructure, building and flying rockets and spacecraft and orbiting satellites in LEO, GEO and Sun Synchronous. So stop putting the company down. If it wasn't for the excitement generated by them none of you would be here on NSF because NASA isn't flying anything these days, and hasn't for years.
« Last Edit: 04/16/2016 06:40 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #255 on: 04/16/2016 07:20 pm »
I'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch.

 - Ed Kyle

I personally have no idea how much money SpaceX is or is not making, but I will say that I hate it when people make an assertion that SpaceX is loosing money on every launch without offering even 1 shred of evidence. Nobody offers any proof of any kind to back up what they are saying, so I call total b.s. on any statement like that. If anyone wants to say things like that then let them back it up with verifiable numbers, like we always used to do on here. I don't care if one asserts they are making money or loosing money. Either way - I don't care. Just please do not spread such utter crap. Back it up or shut it down. But stop smearing the company. They are doing awesome things. When was the last pure NASA vehicle launch? Oh yea, I remember; Ares-1X. October 2009. Big PR flop. The last Shuttle flight was STS-135, last flown July 2011. Then NASA shut the system down. Since then the only thing NASA has produced other than a sinfully expensive and decade late boilerplate Orion is literally tons of paper and terabytes of power points and CGI's while SpaceX has been bending metal, building infrastructure, building and flying rockets and spacecraft and orbiting satellites in LEO, GEO and Sun Synchronous. So stop putting the company down. If it wasn't for the excitement generated by them none of you would be here on NSF because NASA isn't flying anything these days, and hasn't for years.

What it basically boils down to is that some (most certainly not all) old-space folks are having a real hard time adjusting to the fact that a relatively new-and-young company, with no prior experience, is doing things that old-space companies never dared doing. What probably bugs those old-space folks the most is that this new-space company is doing all those exciting new things without really "needing" the old-space folks. And this new-space company also has the guts of throwing "the old-space way of doing things" out the window. That upsets even more old-space folks. The result is that some old-space folks here make it a habit of questioning everything this new-space company does, down to the level of calling them "wrong" or stating "it is not done this way".

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #256 on: 04/16/2016 07:48 pm »
As one of the , certainly not all, old space people I couldn't be more trilled with the progress of the new space folks.  It gets me back to the 1960's when we made commitments to accomplish a task and then figured out how to do it.  Now it seams many are content on just studying a problem and just generating paper.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #257 on: 04/16/2016 08:16 pm »
I'm saying I don't think people believe SpaceX is making a profit when it sells Falcon 9 for (roughly) $60 million per launch.

 - Ed Kyle

I personally have no idea how much money SpaceX is or is not making, but I will say that I hate it when people make an assertion that SpaceX is loosing money on every launch without offering even 1 shred of evidence.
I share this wholeheartedly.

To balance Ed Kyle's assertion against SX, I'll bring one against ULA. McCain (and others) have been after ULA for accounting irregularities on pricing/costing/process/categorization, like the fast and loose things that large American primes have done for years. So it may be also true that ULA's not making money on launches too, perhaps with too much "pass back" to the parents.

There are two ways you can play that game. I doubt that if a US senator can't get to the bottom of launch accounting, any of us here (including Ed Kyle) will be able to do any better!

Quote

What it basically boils down to is that some (most certainly not all) old-space folks are having a real hard time adjusting to the fact that a relatively new-and-young company, with no prior experience, is doing things that old-space companies never dared doing.

Part of it. Also, that they never got squat consideration to even try much simpler things. Trivial IR&D!

Quote
What probably bugs those old-space folks the most is that this new-space company is doing all those exciting new things without really "needing" the old-space folks. And this new-space company also has the guts of throwing "the old-space way of doing things" out the window. That upsets even more old-space folks. The result is that some old-space folks here make it a habit of questioning everything this new-space company does, down to the level of calling them "wrong" or stating "it is not done this way".

Shades of grey here. Better put is that they don't have any involvement with it, so they over reach/claim assuming that the situation is out of control, and that the Very Bad Thing(tm) is about to happen, because that's what it feels like.

Some of us brought up some of what SX is doing now, back in the Shuttle days. And were unpolitely forced out, because no one wanted a loss to their "six sigma" idea of operational perfection.

The other unspoken part of this is that BA/LMT are fond of claiming that "launch is a tiny portion" of the aerospace market. This is/was an intentional creation in order to force control of the industry to allow domination by primes irregardless of outcome. For their business needs, a narrow definition of launch meant they could compel the industry as they saw fit.

I have no idea what the actual "truth" is in this hallway of funhouse mirrors. But I've watched as the intentionally distorted mirrors have been made by these jerks, "for the good of all" ;) and I can tell you why the AF's estimation tools get thrown off isn't a minor reason at all.

From what I've seen, SX has a cheap kerolox LV platform. For me that's good enough to assume they might make good eventually on the costing/pricing they have said. That's "good enough".

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #258 on: 04/17/2016 06:29 pm »
Being one of those old-space persons. I don't think a characterization of who is for or against SpaceX can be made by their association of pre or post "new-space". My old-space days started in 1980 on the Atlas E/F, where an old ICBM which had been in storage since the mid-early 1960's was used. It was dusted off, checked out, payload attachment ring welded on, new avionics, set on the pad, payload stacked on top and launched. All for a total cost to the gov of ~$25M. So I have no problem understanding how SpaceX can do it for $60M.

Offline S.Paulissen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Boston
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 13)
« Reply #259 on: 04/17/2016 07:26 pm »
Being one of those old-space persons. I don't think a characterization of who is for or against SpaceX can be made by their association of pre or post "new-space". My old-space days started in 1980 on the Atlas E/F, where an old ICBM which had been in storage since the mid-early 1960's was used. It was dusted off, checked out, payload attachment ring welded on, new avionics, set on the pad, payload stacked on top and launched. All for a total cost to the gov of ~$25M. So I have no problem understanding how SpaceX can do it for $60M.

You've got my attention.  Is there any additional in-depth info around for this mission?
"An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful experience all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field." -Niels Bohr
Poster previously known as Exclavion going by his real name now.

Tags:
 

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