Contracts have been signed for multiple years now in the $60 +/- a few million ballpark.
Quote from: abaddon on 04/20/2016 02:56 pmContracts have been signed for multiple years now in the $60 +/- a few million ballpark.But then I see the cost of the 1st stage being quoted as $60m and wonder how they intend to make money?
1st stage (Falcon 9) doesnt cost $60M.
Quote from: Rebel44 on 04/21/2016 09:24 am1st stage (Falcon 9) doesnt cost $60M.I'm totally sure you're right, but I've seen it widely quoted, and it's also what Elon said again in the CRS-8 post launch (and landing!) news event. However, he did say "the rocket" so this could be taken to mean both stages, but only one came back.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/20/2016 09:55 pmQuote from: acsawdey on 04/20/2016 08:04 pmQuote from: Lar on 04/20/2016 07:49 pmI think barge (component) development tends to be cheaper than aircraft (component) development ... tolerances are lower.I'd be surprised if they can develop their midair capture tech for less than SpaceX spent on ASDS.NOTE: I think the spreadsheet is Dr. Sowers' not Tory Bruno's (some folk were saying Tory's spreadsheet)It isn't the price of the midair capture tech that would worry me, it's the hypersonic inflatable decelerator followed by the steerable parafoil, both of which have to work properly and then be thrown away. And that is for you to even get to the point of the midair capture.You don't have to throw either away, though they're both cheap enough to do so.But something like that makes more sense for upper stage recovery. Blue Origin and SpaceX have both proved that this idea of first stage VTVL recovery works. Just build a bigger first stage to compensate for the performance loss (a 3, 4, or 5 engine Vulcan? Built with Blue Origin tech? Optionally VTVL recoverable?), use the HIAD thing for upper stage recovery, and boom, ULA has a fully reusable VTVL rocket.If ULA decide to build a 3-4 engine VTVL booster and they follow F9R test program it will be about 10 launches before a booster is successfully recovered. All the development launches will be sold at cost of a 2 engine ELV as that all performance missions need. ULA will have to wear extra cost of extra engines and larger stage. If they are lucky each launch will just break even ie no profit, more likely they will lose money on each launch. With SMART they will still make a reduced profit on each development flight same as SpaceX did with F9. But most importantly a reasonable profit.I do think SMART has higher chance of succeeding with less attempts than F9R. Both HIAD and MAR have already been proven along with explosive separation of engines ( see earlier Atlas ver1-2??).Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 6030X using Tapatalk
Quote from: acsawdey on 04/20/2016 08:04 pmQuote from: Lar on 04/20/2016 07:49 pmI think barge (component) development tends to be cheaper than aircraft (component) development ... tolerances are lower.I'd be surprised if they can develop their midair capture tech for less than SpaceX spent on ASDS.NOTE: I think the spreadsheet is Dr. Sowers' not Tory Bruno's (some folk were saying Tory's spreadsheet)It isn't the price of the midair capture tech that would worry me, it's the hypersonic inflatable decelerator followed by the steerable parafoil, both of which have to work properly and then be thrown away. And that is for you to even get to the point of the midair capture.You don't have to throw either away, though they're both cheap enough to do so.But something like that makes more sense for upper stage recovery. Blue Origin and SpaceX have both proved that this idea of first stage VTVL recovery works. Just build a bigger first stage to compensate for the performance loss (a 3, 4, or 5 engine Vulcan? Built with Blue Origin tech? Optionally VTVL recoverable?), use the HIAD thing for upper stage recovery, and boom, ULA has a fully reusable VTVL rocket.
Quote from: Lar on 04/20/2016 07:49 pmI think barge (component) development tends to be cheaper than aircraft (component) development ... tolerances are lower.I'd be surprised if they can develop their midair capture tech for less than SpaceX spent on ASDS.NOTE: I think the spreadsheet is Dr. Sowers' not Tory Bruno's (some folk were saying Tory's spreadsheet)It isn't the price of the midair capture tech that would worry me, it's the hypersonic inflatable decelerator followed by the steerable parafoil, both of which have to work properly and then be thrown away. And that is for you to even get to the point of the midair capture.
I think barge (component) development tends to be cheaper than aircraft (component) development ... tolerances are lower.I'd be surprised if they can develop their midair capture tech for less than SpaceX spent on ASDS.NOTE: I think the spreadsheet is Dr. Sowers' not Tory Bruno's (some folk were saying Tory's spreadsheet)
Quote from: woods170 on 04/22/2016 11:05 amThat is strange. There was a rather honest post by .gif in this thread, but it's gone now. Either he removed it himself, or the mods did. I wonder why...I believe .gif is a ULA employee.
That is strange. There was a rather honest post by .gif in this thread, but it's gone now. Either he removed it himself, or the mods did. I wonder why...
Quote from: cscott on 04/22/2016 01:31 pmQuote from: woods170 on 04/22/2016 11:05 amThat is strange. There was a rather honest post by .gif in this thread, but it's gone now. Either he removed it himself, or the mods did. I wonder why...I believe .gif is a ULA employee.he was modded
I don't really understand the "trash talk" aspects of this. If one has a better idea, then crack on with implementation, and let the strength of the concept shine through once launching.
Quote from: gadgetmind on 04/23/2016 07:57 amI don't really understand the "trash talk" aspects of this. If one has a better idea, then crack on with implementation, and let the strength of the concept shine through once launching. That's engineering thinking. Clearly you're not a marketer. (I'm an engineer and it's the sort of thinking I prefer but...) FUD is a great marketing technique
FUD is a great marketing technique
That's engineering thinking. Clearly you're not a marketer. (I'm an engineer and it's the sort of thinking I prefer but...) FUD is a great marketing technique
I'm utterly convinced that reuse is critical, but TBH all the players need to be able to turn on a profit on launching alone while they perfect it.
I don't really understand the "trash talk" aspects of this. If one has a better idea, then crack on with implementation, and let the strength of the concept shine through once launching. I think we've seen plenty of ideas for launching/landing that looked great in powerpoints and spreadsheets but that didn't pan out in practice.
But I just can't see why you'd spout forth about your approach being better when 1) competitor has theirs working, 2) you're years off, 3) who knows which is best until you're flying/landing head to head.
The thing I found when modeling the Mass production and Reuse is that if the % cost of refurbishment/flight to the cost of a new vehicle is more than 30% then Mass production starts to have an edge for being cheaper at high flight rates >5. But if refurb costs are less than 30% of a new vehicle (gas and go) then reuse wins hands down even at as low a reuse rate of 2 flights per vehicle. The even point between Mass production and reuse was a reuse rate of 5, flight rate of >5 and a refurbishment % of 30%.So for SpaceX with a refurb % looking to be as low as 10% and flight rates pushing eventually 20 with possible reuse of 10 there is no way Mass production/expendable method will be able to match the prices. [Added] The difference is that reuse at these values is 46% of that of Mass production/expendable so even if you consider the performance loss for reuse of 30% in comparison of strict $/kg values, Mass production still costs more.
Quote from: gadgetmind on 04/23/2016 07:57 amI don't really understand the "trash talk" aspects of this. If one has a better idea, then crack on with implementation, and let the strength of the concept shine through once launching. I think we've seen plenty of ideas for launching/landing that looked great in powerpoints and spreadsheets but that didn't pan out in practice. ULA has insecurities about this, along with government primes, because of attempts to change the rules by one of the players - Musk - he "monkey wrenches" their survival because its in his way (Bezos coopts them, in comparison, just like he'd sell his own mother for the right price IMHO). All here are quite ruthless.The "trash talk" is simply done to gain advantage. Because there are dopes that like it. Just like presidential candidates.
Quote from: Lar on 04/23/2016 12:43 pmFUD is a great marketing techniqueULA is very bad at it though. It just comes across as sour grapes and reeks of desperation.