Author Topic: Economics of Reusability  (Read 91825 times)

Offline dante2308

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #260 on: 11/16/2014 04:46 am »

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.

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.

All the math and comments so far indicate a $50 million a go long-term launch price target for BFR. Additionally, Elon has repeatedly responded to the economics question with an aspirational 'we should spend more than lipstick on Mars' and many comments about a public-private partnership to get everything started and possibly indefinitely. He has never indicated that the rocket could be justified on the bases of commercial services. I think the indications are quite strong that BFR is not a rocket geared towards LEO or GTO with any volume.


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.

Interesting. Perhaps we should indeed look at the maximum potential of the Falcon family without second stage reuse. We should look out for re-confirmation of the 7 million figure too. They may have purposefully not mentioned it again after last year.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #261 on: 11/16/2014 06:39 am »
All 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.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #262 on: 11/16/2014 08:34 am »
So, am I delusional, or is it possible SpaceX is actually attempting something along these lines?

I think you are delusional, but not wildly so. $500K is too little for cost of range, integration of stages, payload processing, cost of selling, customer relations, etc.

An alternative scenario might have SpaceX offering $7M per 5 tonne to LEO when bought in blocks of 20+ for the same satellite. This reduces cost of selling, customer relations and payload processing. It would allow SpaceX to split the market into segments, giving them great profit margins on existing markets (GEO, Dragon) while encouraging new markets.

It would also make it economic to do 2nd stage reusability. This has always had the problem that the payload was too low for GEO, and probably too low for Dragon to ISS, so there just were not the number of existing flights to give it a chance of paying back development costs.

A different alternative scenario is that the $7M refers to a mini-BFR F9/FH replacement, capable of about 7 tonnes to GTO fully reusable. It is highly likely that something like this is planned for 2020, but I think that it would be 5 years after introduction that its full cost reduction potential would be realised.

My take is that even if SpaceX achieved low launch costs they would only reduce their prices slowly. It is the promise of low launch costs (with a high probability of that occurring) that will grow the market. The lag is something like 5-10 years for satellites and 10-15 years for human spaceflight. So it is not sensible to reduce near term prices.

That leads to the classic deflationary problem, customers will put off buying today purchases that can be made cheaper in the future. I think that for current GEO satellite operators that will not apply, they have constellations that need to be maintained and extended, as long as launch cost reductions are small compared to loss of revenue from delaying then they will purchase launches when it is most convenient to them. This argues for a slow reduction in SpaceX prices (say $5M/year) with the introduction of 1st stage reusability.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #263 on: 11/16/2014 10:37 am »
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.
Good. And it's very pretty to boot.  :)
Quote

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:
There are several reasons for that.
Quote
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).
[EDIT I had to re read you post to realize what you're saying. This is the biggie in error terms.

Let's be clear what you're saying here.

A customer will pay SpaceX  the price for a launch including the full 1st stage cost knowing it will be reused and SpaceX will make further profit from it.

Now that is delusional.   :(

That is what you're saying, is it not?

As a customer I would expect that if you're expecting that stage to be reused 10 times I expect my bill for that stage to be 1/10 of its full cost. When you factor that into your model sadly, things change quite a bit. ]
Quote
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).
Now this is where it starts to sound very optimistic. Historically the learning curve for doubling the number of units products, was about 16% for every 2x increase. However this falls when production is highly automated and standardized, which AFAIK is how SpaceX run their mfg system, lots of commonality.

The design is also a "semi pressure stabilized" design, somewhat like Atlas (well AFAIK the closest actual equivalent is the UK Blue Streak IRBM). This is structurally simple and highly mass efficient. Cutting the cost of that in 1/2 is going to be tough.
Quote

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.
And again you expect the customers to sit still for this gouging without taking any discount on their pricing?
Quote
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.
Excuse me? If people are launching on this prospective F9SR then they are already breaking even. It is there for "economical" to them already. The fact SpaceX is not making a profit is not really their problem.
Quote

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.
And what's with this equivalent to fund the BFR? You're saying it takes c66 of the "aggressive" launches to fund a BFR, but you're profit margin for that price is zero? How does that work?
Quote

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).
You score points for breaking this out as a separate item, which I did not.  A very large part of getting your price down to the F9/10 level hinges around this assumption,[EDIT a long with getting the 1st stage reuse "for free"] . You hang a lot  on that single idea and you admit you have no idea how accurate that is.
Quote
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.
Frankly unfair. Fixed costs should be divided across all the launches that use the facilities in the proportion they use them. 

« Last Edit: 11/16/2014 11:28 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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #264 on: 11/16/2014 11:48 am »
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.
You're badly informed. They are planning to build a full size SABRE engine for ground testing to start in 2016.  What they have not changed is their expectation to complete the programme in 10 years if they have full funding, much like SpaceX 36 months to develop a launch escape system starting from receipt of full funds.
Quote
2... Any sources beyond your own spreadsheet?
Would Elon Musks comments on the subject do for you? My spreadsheet merely demonstrates that with the assumptions inserted it take a very large number of flights to fund the BFR. It was his comments (on Twitter I believe) that explained it's not the engineering, it's the economics that stop upper stage reuse on the F9 and why it will not be pursued on the FH.
Quote
3... How do you state 'Right now' and then make claims about a decade hence.
Because in REL's case an outline design study has already been done. AFAIK nothing close exists for the MCT or anything above crewed Dragon.
Quote
4... Don't start a sentence with 'In fact' and then finish with pure conjecture.
Fair point. Would "It's probable" be more acceptable?
Quote
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,
I'd suggest you check with George Washington U. It's a price elasticity study. A standard marketing or MBA tool.
Quote
and yet there are many factors beyond cost that can change a market significantly (convenience, timeliness, reliability, competition, demand).
True. Many of which have been sadly lacking in this market.
Quote
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,
Well more strictly design patterns of design. Soyuz, Saturn 1, Saturn V, Ariane 5, Atlas V Long March, and Delta IV are all different and yet all the same TSTO ELV's.  :(
Quote
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. 
The fact it's done that way for every other transport system on the planet with no exceptions sort of suggests that as well.
Quote
There is a reason why test pilots are used to take airliners out for their first flights.
Not really sure where you're going with that comment but REL included a 400 flight test programme in there development budget and I fully expect any Skylon sold to a customer would have performed multiple test flights before hand over.

So no I don't think it will be a case of "3 flights and it's certified" like the Shuttle.  :(
It's the difference between certifying a type and a copy of a design.  :(
« Last Edit: 11/16/2014 11:54 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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #265 on: 11/16/2014 12:24 pm »
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.
Let me see, F1, F9 v1.0, F9 v1.1, FH, then BFR. I make that BFR the 5th generation of SpaceX vehicles.
Don't get me wrong. SpaceX have probably discovered a serious amount of science during their approach. Sadly it seems most of tells them the task is unaffordable at this scale.

What tales their engineers could tell, if they were allowed to, eh?
Quote
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.
Worse than fully reusable, definitely. Only Soyuz has the vast flight history to be more reliable than a semi RLV. All others lack that history.
Quote
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.
Partially reusable RLV is something of an oxymoron.
Quote
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.
Yay, FUD is starting. 1/2 by what measure? Mass? Cost? Of course, you just count number of stages. Useless.
Good to know that false modesty is not one of your sins.
Quote
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).
You mean ( :o ) someone could be better at doing it than SpaceX, supposedly the most efficient LV mfg company on the planet ?

Who did you have in mind?
Quote

Nor will it be possible for the next generation FH and only (unless more problems surface with this architecture) the BFR.
Baseless assertion.
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?
Quote
Baseless assertion.
Their plan seemed as safe as, say, using the highest performing engines on the planet for the first stage of Antares.

Another idea that does not look quite so "safe" as it did.  :(
Quote
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.
You're entitled to your opinion. And 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.
Quote
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.
Here's the thing. People have believed that that making an ELV reusable was mostly just a matter of planning for it in the design.

SpaceX's decision not to pursue reuse for the upper stage suggests that (at least) the scale of the problems have been greatly underestimated and probably discovered phenomena that make it much harder than naive analysis would suggest.

But they've had to go through 3 generations of flight hardware to discover this.  :(

REL acknowledged from day on that HTOL SSTO was going to be tough and decided to make it easy-by-design, rather than build something easy and then try to make it reusable. Between FH and the new BFR and engine that's looking at an easy $2.5Bn (BFR is at least 6x bigger than F9, which seems to have cost $200-300m, and the Raptor is likely to cost another $1B according to Musks Congressional testimony).

SpaceX made fairly fast progress to the TSTO ELV but it looks like they've hit an economic brick wall, and their solution won't lower the absolute cost of space launch.

That's what I care about.
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 Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #266 on: 11/16/2014 12:44 pm »
I am pretty well convinced pesonally that Slylon will fly and be successful, not that I have much to lose if it doesn't. So, assuming it does, how does that affect SpaceX? The answer is not much, particularly within the timeframe that Skylon may become operational. Skylon will be able to dominate the small to medium sat to LEO market. Not sure how well Skylon will do lofting large GEO sats, but maybe with SEP becoming the norm, they could launch a portion of them as well.

By that time Spacex will already have made huge profits delivering a major portion of commercial sats with partial reusability, be flying crew to ISS and possibly a Bigalow station, will be far along with developing BFR, win contracts to provide BEO services with FH, etc. Skylon can't really compete with any of those activities.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #267 on: 11/16/2014 01:46 pm »
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,
I'd suggest you check with George Washington U. It's a price elasticity study. A standard marketing or MBA tool.


Assuming you mean this study http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/NASA%20L.Vehicle%20Study%20V-5.pdf

I think we can assign that study to history now. It was made 9 years ago using data from 10-16 years ago, during the aftermath of the telecoms boom. It is not surprising that launch was found to be price inelastic. Teledesic, Celestri, Iridium and Orbcom either ran into financial or technical difficulties or both, no change in launch prices would have changed the fact that no-one was wanting to launch satellites.

"Some cost reductions would be possible with an increased flight rate. But it still remains difficult today to project any costs less than $2,200/kg. ($1,000/lb), given that insurance, overhead, range costs, etc. will sum to at least $1,000/lb, even before the vehicle leaves the launch pad."

Allowing for inflation that is about $3,100/kg. ($1,400/lb) in 2016 dollars. In comparison F9 prices are about $4,700/kg and FH LEO PRICE would come in at below what they consider to be the minimum conceivable COST.

They make no predictions about a price reduction to 10%. That may be the Commercial Space Transportation study of 1994. But I cannot find it in the document http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Commercial_Space_Transportation_Study_CSTS_ALL_1994.pdf

Again this study should be used for historical purposes only, 20 years is a long time.

Offline dante2308

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #268 on: 11/16/2014 02:53 pm »
All 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.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #269 on: 11/16/2014 03:29 pm »
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.

The 50 Million No. has been derived from the 500.000 per person and 100 person per flight. Sure it is an optimistic projection.

I agree that this will likely be the 3 versions of upper stage, wether or not you name them all MCT. Though I am quite sure that the tanker version will be different and simpler.

But that is not the point. The point is MCT for a Mars flight can only be reused after at least one launch window, over 2 years. That is where much of the cost will be. If the same or similar flies to LEO or GTO or L-points then it can be reused after a day, or few days or weeks, making it a lot more economical to use. And you need to fly at least 3 for those 50 Million, by far the most expensive of them the MCT to Mars.

To realize the total cost of a Mars flight a LEO launch will need to be at or below 10 Million $.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #270 on: 11/16/2014 05:54 pm »
The $50M is not a good estimate in a world of a $500k/person ticket to Mars. The $500k/person figure must include a lot more than just the cost of a single launch to LEO. It has to include the (probably several) refueling flights and 1/10th the cost of the MCT (since the MCT can only be reused once every 26 months if going to Mars, but much more frequently if at Earth) plus all the operations of sending spacecraft to and from Mars (and food, support personnel, etc).

If $500k/person was the actual cost of a ticket to Mars (and back, optionally), then a (single-stick, two stage) cargo version of BFR/MCT going just to LEO or GTO would be much, much cheaper per launch, at least potentially. $7 million would be a better estimate.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2014 06:21 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #271 on: 11/17/2014 03:36 pm »
What tales their engineers could tell, if they were allowed to, eh?
Cool insinuation is cool, eh?

Partially 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.

You mean ( :o ) someone could be better at doing it than SpaceX, supposedly the most efficient LV mfg company on the planet ?
I am SpaceX fan, not amazing people. Surprised?

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.
I will need source for "or derivatives" and I will agree this particular assertion is not baseless. AFAIK this is about F9.

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?
Yawn. More FUD.

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.
You are one trying to convince others that Skylon is best thing since sliced bread by spreading fear, uncertainity and doubt about their would-be competition. Stay classy.

Quote
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.
Here's the thing. (...)
As much as you want to pretend otherwise, F9R has LESS unknowns of any kind than Skylon. Your FUD about deferring second stage reuse to next generation LV and your denial about partially reusable LV does not change it in any way.

I don't see any point in further discussion.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #272 on: 11/17/2014 08:29 pm »
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.

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?

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.
Partially 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.

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.

Mader: 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.

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.

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 The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #273 on: 11/17/2014 08:52 pm »
Ranulf, ah.

"Retconning" implies that Elon has a tendency to change his statements from the positive to the negative. This isn't what he's been known to do. He does occasionally shift deadlines, but at least he has deadlines and does a damn good job at delivering to the point where we can consider his statements to be fairly reliable.


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.


As a British person, I find it extremely skeptical that our government will detail Skylon enough currency for the project to get moving before other RLV alternatives become available; true, they are fairly pro-space, but the nation has around zero experience in Space Launch which hasn't been done in conjunction with the ESA, using ESA launchers. Money does not crop out of the ether, not that I doubt Bond's enthusiasm nor his talents as an engineer.


It hasn't been proven second stage re-use for a "conventional" rocket under SHLV scale is actually economical. Remember, nearly all of the manufacturing cost is in the first stage.


Yes, it remains to be proven, but unless SpaceX has been lying to us about the design of the falcon nine rocket, it will be proven.


Comparing an F9 or F9H with a STS will result in your correlations being flawed; there's too many differences between the basic arrangements of the systems to draw a direct comparison of use. It doesn't aid your point. Remember, we're talking about direct reuse, not a lengthy refurbishment process.  There's also a significantly higher return of dry mass to dry mass expended ratio in an F9R recovery, than in an STS recovery.

SpaceX hasn't conceded anything of the kind. "Reading between the lines" commonly leads to false conjecture.

BFR has its engine components currently undergoing testing, whilst Skylon has a technology demonstrator article for only one component (albeit a critical component) under testing. The raptor is an evolutionary engine design, yes, but there's significantly less unknowns in its construction than in a S.A.B.R.E. .

I can't see any kind of scenario where what is essentially a ginormous F9 could be regarded as more mind bendingly problematic than a winged SSTO. Humanity already has a fine track record when it comes to flying rockets, great and small. We have zero track record for successful, none-paper winged SSTO's, let alone praising them for being economically accomplished.

I currently fail to see what your complaint is; currently, there isn't much of a bone to pick.

Why not just cheer them on cautiously in public and jubilantly in private like the majority of people watching the sector?


Edit: Nice arguments none-the less. :)
« Last Edit: 11/17/2014 08:56 pm by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #274 on: 11/17/2014 08:58 pm »
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.

Second stage reuse was in that initial animation where they first displayed vertical landing. It showed first stage, second stage, Dragon landings under thrust.


Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #275 on: 11/17/2014 09:04 pm »
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.

Second stage reuse was in that initial animation where they first displayed vertical landing. It showed first stage, second stage, Dragon landings under thrust.

Darn', forgot about that one  :o - thank you kindly.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #276 on: 11/17/2014 10:18 pm »
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.
True. One of REL's presentations show about 18 separate projects over at least the last 17 years to refine various aspects of the SABRE and Skylon concepts. On that basis the 19th will be the big ground engine running 2016.
Quote
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.
Fair point.   :( My spreadsheet models some of the reasons why. I think the key fact for all partial RLV's is that with enough reuses (the flight rate is irrelevant to this) the costs converge to the expendable stage + refurbishment cost. With a full RLV and enough reuses cost converges on the refurbishment cost  alone.

Naturally an RLV (single, dual, triple or whatever stage) with a really badly planned refurbishment flow could cost more than refurbishment cost + stage replacement for the partial RLV  but I think the flow would have to phenomenally badly planned or the expendable stage(s) ridiculously cheap for that full RLV to fail.
Quote
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.
It's an interesting question. Historically a decent GNC package was both heavy and expensive so while 1st stage recovery looked easy putting a whole control package on it was viewed as a gross extravagance. OTOH the US is smaller and has to carry one any way so upper stage --> better aerodynamics --> replace expendable fairing with openable payload bay --> Refurbishable TPS --> RLV

Naturally you've still got all the issues with CG/CM shift with engines in the back but it seemed at least as plausible as recovering the 1st stage. Of course if you were to put the engines on side wings, instead of at the back.....
Quote
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.
Yes. It's the perils of starting with something that's known to work and hopingyou can morph it into an  (economical) RLV  later. I think they have mapped the boundaries of this problem better than anyone, and done some quite serious science to understand bhat can be done, and at what cost.  :(
Quote
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.
There are a few potential uses of such a system but they hinge on either a)big changes in political support or b) Big changes in how people use space. The question is can they deliver that capacity at substantially  less than competitors.
Quote
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 :)
I think it's fair to say they'd prefer to have it sooner rather than later, but of course at the right cost. But the size they think they need to get to deliver this is just getting bigger and bigger.
Quote
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.

The economics was also my understanding also, hence why I wrote a spreadsheet.

The trouble is the including a portion of the development budget in the price gives use a reasonable number of (fairly expensive) launches. Funding the development budget for a profit margin needs a staggering number of launches to do so, as in total Shuttle flight history, or worse yet, total Soyuz flight history.  :(

However both apply only while the launch services provider is the sole operator of the LV.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2014 10:21 pm 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 Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #277 on: 11/18/2014 11:25 pm »
F9R 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?
R in F9R means reusable, not "partially reusable" or "fully reusable". And to be clear, by "almost exists" I mean "very close to actual recovery and later actual reuse". My point is that F9R is one or two decades closer to that than Skylon.

And thing that matters is thing that actually exists (or rather in this case is closer to existing), not thing that theoretically with each reuse has better convergence to some ideal amount like refurbishment cost, but is decades away. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and all of that.

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.
Okay, you can have that. Theoretically partially reusable launch vehicle may have other parts reused than first stage, yes.
But, frankly, I do not expect anyone trying to reuse first something that is less costly to produce and harder to recover (second stage). In practice I expect partial RLVs to almost always reuse stages in order. So 1st stage on 2-stage rocket or 1st and 2nd stage (in that order) for 3-stage rocket.

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.
You contradict yourself. First you claim it is better to recover second stage first, yet later you say that first stage is better to recover first (as you said it is least expensive and technically challenging).

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)
Another contradiction: you here cast doubt on that reuse of first stage is economical, yet above you were talking about second stage being "much better to make reusable economically". Someone would think that if economical first stage reuse is doubtful, economical second stage reuse would be even more so, being more expensive and more technically challenging.

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 logic does not make sense. There is no relation between:
- failure to create fully reusable F9 in particular
and
- failure of SpaceX to achieve general goal of full LV reusability.
Why? Because some other LV made by SpaceX could be made fully reusable.

I guess you just wanted to put "Musk" and "retcon" in one sentence. Stay classy.

and SpaceX has already conceded that it may in fact NOT be economical under current market conditions.
SpaceX conceded exactly nothing. Newsflash for you: they deferred SECOND stage reuse to next gen LV, not FIRST. Nice trick conflating these two, but it will not work.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Economics of Reusability
« Reply #278 on: 11/18/2014 11:52 pm »
<long argumentative post snipped for brevity>

TL:DR version.

You seem to have a problem with understanding when someone is enumerating different PoVs (between reusing 1st or upper stages) and when they are actually supporting them.

He's saying arguments can be made that upper stage reuse is the more sensible economic case.

It all depends on what your starting assumptions are.   :( In SpaceX's case the assumption seemed to be that a fully reusable F9 with Dragon was possible (remember that video?), both technically and economically but they no longer believe that is possible for F9 and the most they will go for is an "F9SR", as QuantumG put it.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2014 07:06 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.

Tags:
 

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