It makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.
Estimated target price for paper rocket that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 06/09/2014 10:03 amEstimated target price for paper rocket that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.Leaving aside the fact that its schedule has been slipping, and slipping (as everything SpaceX-related seems to), just why do you think it will be "obsolete upon arrival"?
Mader Levap is referring to the Ariane 6 as "obsolete at arrival", not FH. Put the pitchfork on the ground and step away slowly.
Quote from: fatjohn1408 on 06/09/2014 09:30 amIt makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.Estimated target price for paper rocket that may very well be already obsolete at arrival is meaningless.
Stay objective please, if I post facts that prices are moving up.
Responding that SpaceX will somehow with magic pixie dust make other launchers obsolete is not really objective.
If they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 06/09/2014 12:32 pmIf they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.If they succeed with rapid and complete reusability. Shuttle was reusable, but it wasn't cheap. And not only because they threw away SRBs and ET.
I did not read this info anywhere on the forum...New prices 61,2M for F9, 85M for 6.4t on the FH.Up from 56,5M and 77M respectively.Prices for the entire FH performance are no longer quoted.It makes the FH only 12 percent cheaper than the target for the Ariane 6.http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Quote from: J-V on 06/09/2014 12:36 pmQuote from: Mader Levap on 06/09/2014 12:32 pmIf they succeed with reusablity, any new expendable rocket will automatically be obsolete. It is as simple as that.If they succeed with rapid and complete reusability. Shuttle was reusable, but it wasn't cheap. And not only because they threw away SRBs and ET.Even after more than 30 years of flying, Shuttle was still an experimental vehicle that was never official declared to be fully operational. It was more "rebuildable" than it was "reusable". After every flight there were a significant number of one-of-a-kind tiles that needed to be manufactured and replaced. Each of the 3 RS-25's underwent a complete tear-down and rebuild. The expense of that kind of "reusable" is enormous and extremely labor intensive and time consuming. OTOH, landing an aircraft, refueling it and taking off again is "reusable". That's what SpaceX is aiming for.
Thanks for writing my thoughts! Reusability has to be done right for it to be beneficial. If the cost of materials, facilities, work hours etc. to refurbish a rocket is higher than the cost of making a new one, it won't help.
Explanation: old expendables will hang on for a while thanks to their launch history and proven reliability. Brand new expendable LV? No chance of surviving, no point in creating. Ariane 6 IMVHO should be at least partially reusable. Of course, feasibility of that, with solids and all, is completely different question...
Truth be told,I'm rather suprised it's taken SpaceX this long to up their prices. They've managed to keep the costs low for about a decade, but it had to happen sooner or later.
2) has anyone considered the US inflation rate (about 3.3%) + the devaluation of the dollar since the original prices were set?
I doubt SpaceX is pricing used 1st stages into the equation yet. Their quote prices are purely for an expendable rocket.If they start landing first stages in full HD on Youtube, then I expect they will figure out a pricing model and discuss that privately with a few customers to see if anyone wants to be the first test payload at a HUGE discount.Once they have flown one or two payloads successfully with a used 1st stage, THEN we will likely see an official price listed on their website. At that point they will have a more complete accounting of their costs to do all of this.
Eventually, Musk hopes to outfit the Falcon rockets with landing legs and offer a discount launch service on used rockets.“Ultimately, I think we could see a drop in cost per launch of 25 percent or more, just from reuse of the boost stage,” he said.
Quote from: docmordrid on 06/09/2014 11:24 am2) has anyone considered the US inflation rate (about 3.3%) + the devaluation of the dollar since the original prices were set?Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.
In the discussion, it is important not to confuse price with cost and they can adjust independently of each other. I would not be surprised if the quoted prices are just guidelines and individual launch costs can vary significantly, especially when factoring in potential reusability of the first stage.I am also confident that Mr. Musk will make sure his pricing structure is consistently cheaper than the competition.
Quote from: savuporo on 06/09/2014 07:47 pmWhenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?
Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.
IIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices. No favourites apparently.
Quote from: beancounter on 06/10/2014 04:20 amIIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices. No favourites apparently.She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.What does that mean?
Quote from: dror on 06/10/2014 05:09 amQuote from: beancounter on 06/10/2014 04:20 amIIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices. No favourites apparently.She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.What does that mean?For one thing, it means that they have counted for about 200 mil$ so far this year. Most likely, revenues. And for another thing, they were hoping for as I recall, 10 launches or $1 B this year.
Quote from: aero on 06/10/2014 05:39 amQuote from: dror on 06/10/2014 05:09 amQuote from: beancounter on 06/10/2014 04:20 amIIRC Gwynne in her recent interview stated that SpaceX spread their costs evenly across all their launches and this enables them to quote standard prices. No favourites apparently.She also said that every launch is counted for about 100 mil$.What does that mean?For one thing, it means that they have counted for about 200 mil$ so far this year. Most likely, revenues. And for another thing, they were hoping for as I recall, 10 launches or $1 B this year.But the price of a single launch is about 56 mil, so where does the diffrence come from?
In the discussion, it is important not to confuse price with cost and they can adjust independently of each other.
New prices 61,2M for F9, 85M for 6.4t on the FH.Up from 56,5M and 77M respectively.
at least some of the financial types on the board are going to be asking if SpaceX is pricing under what the market will bear!
France is unhappy, and the French don't mince words.
Quote from: savuporo on 06/09/2014 07:47 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 06/09/2014 11:24 am2) has anyone considered the US inflation rate (about 3.3%) + the devaluation of the dollar since the original prices were set?Whenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?
Quote from: Vultur on 06/10/2014 01:58 amQuote from: savuporo on 06/09/2014 07:47 pmWhenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?Of course, but i have not heard any of the "cheap access to space" preachers ever mention an inflation-adjusted magic $1045.34/lb barrier
Isn't the magical price point based on the potential tourism market?
The target customers for such a market are the mega-rich...
Quote from: savuporo on 06/10/2014 04:34 amQuote from: Vultur on 06/10/2014 01:58 amQuote from: savuporo on 06/09/2014 07:47 pmWhenever i hear about these "magic $1000/lb to LEO barriers" etc i keep thinking that this will never happen because inflation will keep outpacing most of the progress being made.Isn't it really the real (inflation-adjusted) cost that matters, though?Of course, but i have not heard any of the "cheap access to space" preachers ever mention an inflation-adjusted magic $1045.34/lb barrier The point is that we've been talking about the $1,000 per pound barrier since the early 1970s! In today's dollars, that's $6,000 per pound -- F9 at 13.15Mt for $61.5M is $2,126 per pound and FH at 53 Mt for $128M (now uncertain?) will be $1,184 per pound. Shuttle at $25,000 and EELVs at $10,000 per pound are(were) still north of the barrier in inflation-adjusted dollars.Bottom line is the $1000/lb to LEO barrier has been shattered. Maybe why SpaceX is stirring the pot so vigorously.And this is without reusable rockets, which could reduce cost by 10x per Shotwell's $5-7M per launch goal.
Bottom line is the $1000/lb to LEO barrier has been shattered. Maybe why SpaceX is stirring the pot so vigorously.
Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 06/10/2014 07:07 amat least some of the financial types on the board are going to be asking if SpaceX is pricing under what the market will bear!Uhh, you know that at this moment Elon Musk answers only to Elon Musk, riiiight?
I said 'asking' not 'insisting'; there's nothing to stop Elon listening to them! (In any event, majority shareholders don't have carte blanche; when acting as a director they still have to take account of the interests of minorities or risk facing a shareholder oppression lawsuit.)
Bottom line is the $1000/lb to LEO barrier has been shattered.
Quote from: AncientU on 06/10/2014 01:45 pmBottom line is the $1000/lb to LEO barrier has been shattered. Maybe why SpaceX is stirring the pot so vigorously.Yes, 70'ies $1000/lb has been shattered, yet the is no great wave of emigration to O'Neill colonies and constellations of solar power satellites circling the earth. IMHO because launch costs are only a relatively small part of the puzzle.
2) The LV market is one of those where reliability is at least as important as cost. ELV reliability stats are slow to build, easy to damage and prone to peoples perception that a vehicle is "too cheap" to be reliable. Russia builds their ELVs to a Safety Factor of 2.0, ULA to 1.25. Costa a bit in payload, saves a lot in (expensive) structural analyst hours to prove that no flight load will exceed the wafer thin margins you built your vehicle on. 3) Historically LV suppliers haven't cared if they could return payloads to Earth. Had they been able to the cost of those payloads could have been substantially reduced as a faulty satellite could be returned for repair. No triplicated hardware, no hugely elaborate redundancy management to control it.
Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 06/11/2014 10:39 amI said 'asking' not 'insisting'; there's nothing to stop Elon listening to them! (In any event, majority shareholders don't have carte blanche; when acting as a director they still have to take account of the interests of minorities or risk facing a shareholder oppression lawsuit.)Maybe I'm missing something here, but it is my understanding that SpaceX is privately held. In other words, it does not have stockholders, nor a board acting as their proxy.
Now I am aware that there are a handful of private investors who have provided a certain amount of capital in support of the company, but those investors seem to be happy to let Elon Musk run the show.
AFAIK, it is not at all like the arrangement at Tesla. As long as Elon manages to avoid going into the red (and thereby requiring more outside investment or loans), he should be able to remain in control.
2. Designing a vehicle to 2.0 vs 1.25 takes the same amount of analyst time. The model is the model and the loads are the loads.
3. Not so, payload would have to be over built to handle return loads.
1. Not in the coupled loads analysis you have to run for every payload so you don't shake the payload apart or start a resonance in the payload that shakes the LV apart. Since you've commented extensively on "missioni assurance" and the unexpected costs Spacex will incur when when they launch USAF payloads I'd have thought my meaning was obvious.2. That would depend on how the fairing was designed to protect a returning payload during re-entry, wouldn't it?A fairing designed to go both ways would likely be a very different beast to the kind we currently use. Of course for an LV mfg to have done that there would have to have been a market which incentivized them to do so, and that never happened.
1. 1.25 vs 2.0 doesn't change that. The analysis has to be done either way. Yes, they would be different models, but the work is the same.
2. See shuttle. Landing adds new loads.
Was a vehicle whose payload take off vertically and landed horizontally ever likely to not have new loads?
Quote from: Jim on 06/12/2014 01:30 pm1. 1.25 vs 2.0 doesn't change that. The analysis has to be done either way. Yes, they would be different models, but the work is the same.Difference is when you run that analysis and the loads are 25% or more higher than maximum you're in a re-design and re-analysis cycle. With the Russian approach you'd have to be 100% out before a new re-design and analysis cycle is needed.
Difference is when you run that analysis and the loads are 25% or more higher than maximum you're in a re-design and re-analysis cycle. With the Russian approach you'd have to be 100% out before a new re-design and analysis cycle is needed.
No, because LV loads margin does not translate to spacecraft loads margin. What margins the launch vehicle is designed to has little bearing on the spacecraft loads. The spacecraft is designed to the environment specified by the LV. Load analysis are redone because the spacecraft is seeing exceedances, not the launch vehicle.
You guys are drifting a bit IMHO.
But it can be because (at some point in the trajectory) the payload will damage the LV and on an EELV that limit is a lot lower than on a Russian or a Spacex LV.
No, because of 1.25 and the design constraints. Payloads never get that close to damaging the LV. Never seen that happen since 2000 and I can ask if it has ever happened since the 80's. What the LV gets out of coupled loads deals with control stability and not loads.
...However this is indeed off topic for this thread so more on topic would be if you see this as the beginning of Spacex accepting they cannot sustain their relatively low prices or simply a long overdue inflation correction?
Don't you think supply and demand have something to do with price? They have 50 launches on the manifest and can't launch them fast enough. Demand is greater than supply.
Then the price would be higher. But really, the reason they have a big manifest and can't launch them fast enough is partially because they can't launch them as fast as they said they could (yet!!). So it's not exactly a good thing right now.
That could be because I (and others) already affirmed that it's simply inflation (combined with a more capable vehicle).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 06/14/2014 10:07 pmThen the price would be higher. But really, the reason they have a big manifest and can't launch them fast enough is partially because they can't launch them as fast as they said they could (yet!!). So it's not exactly a good thing right now.True. Their goal is to launch twice a month but part of the issue is can they do that sustainably for every month?Time will tell on that one.