Quote from: dante2308 on 11/15/2014 08:33 pmThe only hint of commercial full reusability was the $7 million comment last year about future launch prices from Shotwell and at the 2013 annual provider conference.That's a big hint. And since neither F9R or FH will be able to achieve those prices, and the only other vehicle they have in the works is the BFR, it's a pretty strong indication that the BFR will be used for something other than just Mars runs.
The only hint of commercial full reusability was the $7 million comment last year about future launch prices from Shotwell and at the 2013 annual provider conference.
My first take on that number was that it obviously implied full reuse. But I thought it would be a fun exercise to see just what kind of crazy assumptions I would have to make to modify john smith's cost model to give you $7M launches on F9R without second stage reuse.
All the math and comments so far indicate a $50 million a go long-term launch price target for BFR.
So, am I delusional, or is it possible SpaceX is actually attempting something along these lines?
Much to my surprise, I was able to create a model that supports $7M launches on F9R in the near future without any totally outlandish assumptions. And as a side effect of making the changes required to support cheap RLV launches, cash flow from the ELV business improved to the point that it can fund a $2B BFR development program over the next 5 years.At first glance, this seems way too good to be true, so please check my math and assumptions. Spreadsheet attached as xls and also posted here:
Here are the assumptions and rationale behind them.2) A decent fraction of the launches sold by the "ELV business" will actual have enough margin to recover the first stage.At a minimum, SpaceX will get back all the CRS and CCT cores, plus maybe 10-20% of the rest. These will be fully paid for by their "ELV" launch, and can be handed off to the RLV business for a cost of $0 (I'm going to keep calling these ELV launches, even though some of the cores will be recovered, because that is how they will be priced).
3) At full production scale, F9R manufacturing costs will be 50% of that of the first F9v1.0 that rolled off the line.In the model, I assume that the $60M pricing was set to provide 20% gross margins given initial production costs for F9v1.0 (because that's what I would have done). Then I further assume that the combination of design changes to improve manufacturability and economies of scale have since reduced costs by 50% (this strikes me as very hard, but probably not impossible).
According to my model, that gives you ~$14M for a S1 and ~$6M for an S2. It also, somewhat shockingly, improves "ELV" gross margins to 100% and increases cash flow from each launch from $10M to $30M. At $30M, you can fund BFR development with 65 launches.
4) The F9 RLV business will operate at break-even pricing, justified economically solely as a means to create a new market which can be profitably served by the BFR.
This is how you bypass the BFR business case chicken and egg problem. The only real downside is the risk of cannibalizing the ELV market. But per point 1), I think that is highly unlikely in the short term.
5) It will be possible to reduce the costs of all the "services" associated with a launch by a factor of 20. This is probably where I'm speculating the most about a topic I understand the least, and I basically made up the baseline number out of thin air (feedback on what the real baseline number is appreciated).
I'm assuming you can get a large fraction of the savings simply by assigning the full fixed costs of the launch sites to the ELV business. The rest would come by forcing RLV customers to accept standardized payload interfaces, aggressive processing flows, etc (which will have the nice side effect of attracting startups while keeping the current customers buying ELVs). I suspect the WorldVu partnership is primarily about working out how to do this.
As a self declared pragmatist, you may wish to reconsider these claims.1... In 2011 REL promised a prototype flying by 2016. Then updated that to 2020, then 2021-2022. So in three years, dates have slipped by seven.
2... Any sources beyond your own spreadsheet?
3... How do you state 'Right now' and then make claims about a decade hence.
4... Don't start a sentence with 'In fact' and then finish with pure conjecture.
Economic models are built on data, when you have it, and conjecture when you don't and this thread has been filled with the latter. I have seen unsubstantiated claims here that you must cut costs by 90% in order to change a market,
and yet there are many factors beyond cost that can change a market significantly (convenience, timeliness, reliability, competition, demand).
Reliability has been the greatest driver to this point, and one aspect of re-use has already been demonstrated through the re-use of proven designs. Those designs have been almost entirely for expendables,
but there is absolutely no reason that reusability can't bring us both reliability and economy and even good arguments why reuse will bring us greater reliability, therefore greater value.
There is a reason why test pilots are used to take airliners out for their first flights.
I consider anyone thinking Skylon is more surefire thing than F9R as having their brain drowned in Skylon Kool-Aid.Just because they deferred second stage reuse to next gen LV, you are spreading FUD about partialy reusable version of F9. Sigh.
Sorry, but I cannot treat seriously claim like "partial reusables have worse reliability than both full expendable and full reusable". To zeroth order, reliability of partial RLV should be between those extremes.
Not true, as noted by AJW. They already slipped and they will be lucky if they actually enter in service (probably in 2030s, if ever). And then they will be competing not with current expendables, but with mature partially and fully reusable LVs fielded by SpaceX, Boeing and whoever else will survive Great Rocket Purge of 2020s.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/15/2014 06:46 pmSo far SpaceX have developed a relatively cheap ELV which can deliver a payload at the lower end of what comm sat makers want, to the point where only a 1/2 reusable F9 is going to be fielded.Yay, FUD is starting. 1/2 by what measure? Mass? Cost? Of course, you just count number of stages. Useless.
So far SpaceX have developed a relatively cheap ELV which can deliver a payload at the lower end of what comm sat makers want, to the point where only a 1/2 reusable F9 is going to be fielded.
Lie by omission (turning ELV into a partial RLV may be successful) and baseless generalisation (abandoning second stage reuse by SpaceX does not automatically means general case of turning ELV to full RLV is economically impossible).
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/15/2014 06:46 pmNor will it be possible for the next generation FH and only (unless more problems surface with this architecture) the BFR.Baseless assertion.
Nor will it be possible for the next generation FH and only (unless more problems surface with this architecture) the BFR.
Baseless assertion.
Paper rocket skyplane always shines, always works and is always cheap. As far as I am concerned, anything about Skylon - including calculations of how much kg for how much $ - currently is at the best very rough approximation, at the worst completely made up with numbers pulled out of nether regions.
Your sentence implies that F9R has more unknowns of worse kinds. Pretty funny, considering that F9R almost exists and Skylon is and will be for long time pure powerpoint tiger. One almost would think that powerpoint vehicles would have more unknowns of any kind.
Quote from: AJW on 11/15/2014 09:15 pmEconomic models are built on data, when you have it, and conjecture when you don't and this thread has been filled with the latter. I have seen unsubstantiated claims here that you must cut costs by 90% in order to change a market, I'd suggest you check with George Washington U. It's a price elasticity study. A standard marketing or MBA tool.
Quote from: dante2308 on 11/16/2014 04:46 amAll the math and comments so far indicate a $50 million a go long-term launch price target for BFR. If you refer to that 500.000$ price tag for a ticket to Mars which gives 50 Million $ for a flight then actually no. That one requires at least 3 launches of BFR because of LEO refuelling flights and much of the cost will be in the not frequently reusable MCT Mars vehicle. It indicates a launch price at or below 10 Million $. Maybe as low as 7 Million $.Of course that is not a near term goal and will no doubt require a high flight rate.
I don't know that it indicates that at all and I think the 50 million number has come up on it's own. I don't know if there is any reusable second stage that isn't MCT. There may be a refueling version, a cargo version, and a manned version, but I don't think we have any reason to believe there is a LEO/GTO comsat version.
What tales their engineers could tell, if they were allowed to, eh?
Partially reusable RLV is something of an oxymoron.
You mean ( ) someone could be better at doing it than SpaceX, supposedly the most efficient LV mfg company on the planet ?
No Musk has stated 2nd stage reuse will not be pursued for F9 or its derivatives, which I think most people agree is a fair description of FH.
SpaceX are promising BFR will be big enough to be fully reusable, but since we don't know why F9 wasn't, who can say if BFR is? And what other "unknown unknowns will pop out of the woodwork?
unless you've got at least $20m in your pocket to put on the table I doubt REL will waste their time trying to convince otherwise.
QuoteYour sentence implies that F9R has more unknowns of worse kinds. Pretty funny, considering that F9R almost exists and Skylon is and will be for long time pure powerpoint tiger. One almost would think that powerpoint vehicles would have more unknowns of any kind.Here's the thing. (...)
I consider anyone thinking Skylon is more surefire thing than F9R as having their brain drowned in Skylon Kool-Aid.F9R almost exists, Skylon is pure powerpoint spaceplane with uncertain future. Get over it, john smith 19.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/16/2014 12:24 pmPartially reusable RLV is something of an oxymoron.Nope. Let me enlighten you: partially reusable rocket recovers and reuses only first stage. Fully reusable rockets uses again both first and second stage. No oxymoron or any contradiction here.
Second Stage Reuse was always outlined for the BFR. If you can link me an example where Elon himself detailed that Second Stage Reuse was a component for the falcon nine LV, please post.
Quote from: The Amazing Catstronaut on 11/17/2014 08:52 pmSecond Stage Reuse was always outlined for the BFR. If you can link me an example where Elon himself detailed that Second Stage Reuse was a component for the falcon nine LV, please post.Second stage reuse was in that initial animation where they first displayed vertical landing. It showed first stage, second stage, Dragon landings under thrust.
Skylon has a lot of tech backing its "power-point" while BFR isn't even that far along yet so we can of course continue to "argue" the variables of a non-existant vehicle versus one in development and one in (partly) operation.
JS19, "Partially" reusable RLV has been an accepted phrase since before the STS flew It's accepted that it can't compete with a fully reusable RLV as 'fact' despite the lack of evidence of same.
While its EASIER to make a "first" or booster stage reusable (see the XS-1 project) there is enough work done to show that economically it might be much better to make the UPPER (orbital) stage reusable as long as it is done so in a way to allow rapid maintenance and turn around with cost as a goal. While this has not been done yet it is NOT what SpaceX has been aiming for either as they have decided for their own reasons to focus on the least expensive and technically challenging aspect of recovery and reusability being that of the first stage.
They plan on arriving when fully operatonal at a first stage that will propulsivly RTLS on certain missions, propulsivly recover down-range on others and/or be expended on certain occasions. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE ECONOMICAL under the circumstances (which can't be stated often enough it seems) and SpaceX has already conceded that it may in fact NOT be economical under current market conditions.
Its been rather obvious that BFR HAS to have operations and market other than Mars transport from the start. MCT needs BFR the reverse is not true.
It has been often infered that since Musk stated if he didn't make a reusable LV then he would consider himself (and by definition SpaceX) a "failure" that this much therefore mean that the F9 family MUST be fully reusable. This is obviously not true and further retcon-ing will show this has never been on Musks agenda I'm sure
The main point of the thread was (as I understood it) the exact economics of reusability which were predicted to reduce launch costs significantly. So far SpaceX has managed some reduction without resuability or recovery which bodes well for the basic idea but awaits actual operations to provide relevant data. It is not at all clear that reusability will in fact allow a magnitude reduction in launch costs that has been predicted in the past. There is little reason to suspect at this point in time that partial reusability will do so.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 11/15/2014 12:38 pmF9R almost exists, Skylon is pure powerpoint spaceplane with uncertain future.You realize of course, (its rather obvious from your statements you do NOT but I thought I'd give the benfit of the doubt here) that F9R will ALWAYS "almost" exist by definition? It will never be more than "partially" F9R as the "R" stands for reusable which it will only be "2/3rds" of price-wise?
F9R almost exists, Skylon is pure powerpoint spaceplane with uncertain future.
Your "definition" is self serving and false A "partially" reusable RLV in fact has PART of it that is recovered and is reusable after some refurbishing. This has nothing to do with WHAT "stage" or part of the vehicle is an RLV. None. It could be the fifth stage or the first or the 21st does not matter.
They plan on arriving when fully operatonal at a first stage that will propulsivly RTLS on certain missions, propulsivly recover down-range on others and/or be expended on certain occasions. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE ECONOMICAL under the circumstances (which can't be stated often enough it seems)
It has been often infered that since Musk stated if he didn't make a reusable LV then he would consider himself (and by definition SpaceX) a "failure" that this much therefore mean that the F9 family MUST be fully reusable.
and SpaceX has already conceded that it may in fact NOT be economical under current market conditions.
<long argumentative post snipped for brevity>