A general misconception on profit margins:http://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500margin.pdfGenrally profit margins run <10%.For the space industry and cost+ defense contracts they run >20%.SpaceX probably is somewhere in the 20-30% range depending on launch rate. Fixed price but variable costs. Mu estimate was at the floor of 25%. But just because everyone else in the space industry is doing high profit margins dosen't mean SpaceX is currently doing the same.If SpaceX profit margin for a CASSIOPE mission is 25% or $14M and their revenue is ~$15M (CASSIOPE and secondaries) then their loss for the flight is $25M. Their cost to do a test flight as part of the development costs of v1.1. Cheap by comparison.Edit: its <10% not the previos >10%
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/15/2013 11:10 pmA general misconception on profit margins:http://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500margin.pdfGenrally profit margins run <10%.For the space industry and cost+ defense contracts they run >20%.SpaceX probably is somewhere in the 20-30% range depending on launch rate. Fixed price but variable costs. Mu estimate was at the floor of 25%. But just because everyone else in the space industry is doing high profit margins dosen't mean SpaceX is currently doing the same.If SpaceX profit margin for a CASSIOPE mission is 25% or $14M and their revenue is ~$15M (CASSIOPE and secondaries) then their loss for the flight is $25M. Their cost to do a test flight as part of the development costs of v1.1. Cheap by comparison.Edit: its <10% not the previos >10%Please provide a reference for your >20% profit margin statement. Your link shows a number of 7.7% for aerospace and defense. How did you arrive at 20-30% for SpaceX?
While we twiddle out thumbs for two more weeks, here's a somewhat informative article on weather considerations for launch at VAFB. And while Capt Weiss says a launch has never been cancelled due to weather during her tenure there, the FAA waiver for this particular launch states that there's only a 40% probability of weather meeting the FAA safety criteria at any given time in September. (The waiver did not say whether that probability changes in later months in case of slips.)http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123363212
QuoteWhile we twiddle out thumbs for two more weeks, here's a somewhat informative article on weather considerations for launch at VAFB. And while Capt Weiss says a launch has never been cancelled due to weather during her tenure there, the FAA waiver for this particular launch states that there's only a 40% probability of weather meeting the FAA safety criteria at any given time in September. (The waiver did not say whether that probability changes in later months in case of slips.)http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123363212Kabloona: Did you get it reversed? Wasn't there a significant chance of weather that would cause them to violate the baseline safety requirement, so that they got from the FAA an allowance to exceed one component of the Ec calculation, provided the total remained within the baseline constraints? I thought it was that inversions could reflect the energy of an explosion increasing the potential for damage on the ground close to the pad, but that other dangers were lower than allowed, and the FAA allowed them to go with a compliant total.
Is it really a range delay due to AF, or is he looking for a scapegoat to try to blame the AF for the falcon running behind schedule? Meaning , no Minuteman test and it would still be end of September?
This waiver discussion sure seems like it's a bit overstated. Is it all just because it's a new launch vehicle? I can't imagine that the weather changes so dramatically from August 28 to early September (original v1.1. launch date) that the DIV Heavy had no issues or even discussion about this, but it's a potential showstopper for v1.1? Does the v1.1 overfly the Delta pad, for instance? I can't see toxicity being that different between the two vehicles (hydrazine or other nasty stuff - LH2 and RP1 don't count for toxicity).
Bringing over from updates thread:Quote from: kevin-rf on 09/16/2013 11:45 amIs it really a range delay due to AF, or is he looking for a scapegoat to try to blame the AF for the falcon running behind schedule? Meaning , no Minuteman test and it would still be end of September?First of all, conspiracy speculation like that is of little use here.But let me take it on anyway: Now that it's known publicly that Air Force ICBM testing is holding things up, I think I'm free to say that over on L2 it was already known several days in advance that such tests were on the VAFB timetable and that SpaceX would not launch till the end of the month if they missed the Sept 15th launch date.L2: killer of conspiracies
During previous launch campaigns, Elon had suggested, or maybe observers had inferred, that outside factors were to blame for launch delays when in fact it was both SpaceX and their customer who were responsible. Events like these stick in people's minds, so when the next delay comes along it causes them to wonder.It is very interesting to see how quickly people rush to SpaceX's defense, when a similar attack on a "heritage" launch provider would virtually invite piling on and rampant speculation. That's my observation.
... when a similar attack on a "heritage" launch provider would virtually invite piling on and rampant speculation. That's my observation.
I'm having difficulty finding an instance of Elon having suggested such in the past. Can you cite any examples?
