Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)  (Read 842985 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38151
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22631
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #480 on: 04/01/2012 04:48 pm »
Costs are increasing

Are you telling us this is your (obviously expert) opinion or are you saying this is something you know to be a fact because you have inside information?

Obvious things.  Touch and analysis labor are higher than predicted.   The vehicle design is not static and things keep happening.  Nozzle delams, thermal coatings, COLA analysis, etc.  What it is for this mission will be something different for the next and the one after it, etc.  A design or production issue found on one vehicle ripples through the fleet.  Increasing flight rates doesn't change this.

Thank you.

Do you feel these are issues they can eventually get a handle on as they mature or will the remain ongoing problems indefinitely (if so, why?)?

One thing gets fixed and another pops up.  Worker has a bad day and messes up a few holes or forgets a final torque.  A power bump or unusual weather conditions affect the curing of some composites.   A supplier no longer makes a component, piece or particular alloy or goes out of business or gets taken over.  A worker leaves or retires and his skill wasn't fully captured in documentation.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2012 04:54 pm by Jim »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #481 on: 04/01/2012 06:41 pm »
Worker has a bad day and messes up a few holes or forgets a final torque.
Increased use of robots/machines can help with this.  Processes get built to check for these in subsequent versions (after the "oops" comes to light).  Less of these as time goes on for a given design once locked.

unusual weather conditions affect the curing of some composites.
This isn't done in controlled environments? 

A supplier no longer makes a component, piece or particular alloy or goes out of business or gets taken over.
That's less of a concern in vertically integrated businesses.  Not that I think they necessarily must buy mines or stockpile ore...     Then again, with inflation coming...

A worker leaves or retires and his skill wasn't fully captured in documentation.
Less likely to be a significant concern when 'in-house' and 'mass-produced' are the targeted MO. 
« Last Edit: 04/01/2012 06:44 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38151
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22631
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #482 on: 04/01/2012 07:08 pm »
Wrong on all accounts

Production rate is too low for robots.

The given design is not locked.  It is ever evolving. The oops still happens no matter how mature processes are.

No, vertically integrated still has supplier issues

Bigger concern when inhouse, there are more skills that have to be retained.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #483 on: 04/01/2012 07:20 pm »
Production rate is too low for robots.
Is the planned production rate too low for robots?  Also, it's a matter of degree of automation.  There are already lot's of robots involved. 

The given design is not locked.  It is ever evolving. The oops still happens no matter how mature processes are.
I assume you are right for now, but I would assume this becomes less of a factor as designs mature.  It's why people would rather buy a 1987 Fiero instead of a 1984 Fiero.  Bugs generally get worked out through time. 

No, vertically integrated still has supplier issues
The more vertically integrated, the less supplier issues. 

Bigger concern when inhouse, there are more skills that have to be retained.
Really?  If inhouse, you have more control in implementing systems that minimize this (like teaming people up, documenting, etc.). 
« Last Edit: 04/01/2012 07:21 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38151
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22631
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #484 on: 04/01/2012 07:25 pm »
Spacex is not immune from the same problems that others have, nor are they anymore robust. They will see the same amount

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #485 on: 04/01/2012 07:31 pm »
Spacex is not immune from the same problems that others have, nor are they anymore robust. They will see the same amount
In this context, would you consider yourself more philosophically in agreement out-sourcing as a general strategy?  Or an in-house strategy? 
« Last Edit: 04/01/2012 07:34 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #486 on: 04/01/2012 07:38 pm »
Production rate is too low for robots.

Wouldn't that depend to some extent on why they would be bringing the robots in?  Robots are frequently used to achieve high production rates, but sometimes they are used instead to ensure precision, consistency of results, and lower error rates.  They may see the expense as justified based on the latter objectives without needing high production rates as a driver.  That being said, a lot depends on whether the kinds of needs they have are really amenable to robotic automation, not everything is.

The given design is not locked.  It is ever evolving.

Would you say that this is due to a lack of design discipline specifically in the SpaceX decision making loop or is simply something endemic to the industry or their situation?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38151
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22631
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #487 on: 04/01/2012 08:11 pm »
Spacex is not immune from the same problems that others have, nor are they anymore robust. They will see the same amount
In this context, would you consider yourself more philosophically in agreement out-sourcing as a general strategy?  Or an in-house strategy? 

Vertical or horizontal, same number of parts.  Doesnt change reliability.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25588
  • Likes Given: 12245
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #488 on: 04/01/2012 08:20 pm »
Spacex is not immune from the same problems that others have, nor are they anymore robust. They will see the same amount
No, but they do have the advantage of more modern manufacturing techniques than many providers (though there are upgrades being done, obviously) since they've more recently bought their production equipment and perhaps a higher production rate (on the engines, certainly).
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38151
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22631
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #489 on: 04/01/2012 08:22 pm »
No, but they do have the advantage of more modern manufacturing techniques than many providers.

Than who?  Everyone does FSW.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2012 08:23 pm by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25588
  • Likes Given: 12245
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #490 on: 04/01/2012 08:26 pm »
No, but they do have the advantage of more modern manufacturing techniques than many providers.

Than who?  Everyone does FSW.
I was thinking more about the engines. You're right about FSW, of course. RL-10 is ripe for modernization, though (hence why ULA is pursuing it). SpaceX's slight advantage in this area will not last for that long.
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 mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #491 on: 04/01/2012 08:33 pm »
RL-10 is ripe for modernization, though (hence why ULA is pursuing it).

Is it? I thought the problem was PWR's cost structure, not anything to do with RL-10 itself. I recall reading that if produced in higher volumes it could cost "as little as a helicopter engine", which I imagine to be a lot less than the average rocket engine today.

Quote
SpaceX's slight advantage in this area will not last for that long.

Advantage? I thought RL-10 was still ahead of Merlin Vacuum.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25588
  • Likes Given: 12245
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #492 on: 04/01/2012 08:36 pm »
I was referring to method of production, not technical performance. Besides, not everything can be boiled down to a single number like Isp. After all, Merlin Vacuum has a lot higher thrust.
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 krytek

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #493 on: 04/01/2012 09:26 pm »
Also there's the recent BBC interview in which Elon claimed
SpaceX has made "significant technological breakthroughs" towards lower cost and higher reliability, which he refused to specify.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #494 on: 04/02/2012 04:51 am »
Also there's the recent BBC interview in which Elon claimed
SpaceX has made "significant technological breakthroughs" towards lower cost and higher reliability, which he refused to specify.


Yes I remember hearing about things such as reduced labour numbers, parts, and so on bearing directly on costs.  Also the ability of engineering staff directly accessing production to sort through design and manufacturing issues.  You can't do that sort of thing as readily if you outsource.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25588
  • Likes Given: 12245
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #495 on: 04/02/2012 05:54 am »
Also there's the recent BBC interview in which Elon claimed
SpaceX has made "significant technological breakthroughs" towards lower cost and higher reliability, which he refused to specify.


Yes I remember hearing about things such as reduced labour numbers, parts, and so on bearing directly on costs.  Also the ability of engineering staff directly accessing production to sort through design and manufacturing issues.  You can't do that sort of thing as readily if you outsource.
In my experience working with a smallish business, we tend to outsource if we're capital-poor and take stuff in-house if we're capital-rich. Unless you have very, VERY excellent people you're outsourcing to (which is very expensive), outsourcing tends to lower quality and increase headaches and increase latency and complicate problem-solving. Often, your outsourcing partner will substitute lower-end parts as a cost-saving measure (they pocket the savings, obviously) without telling you ahead of time, and by the time you figure out, you're faced with the choice of missing a deadline or just accepting the lower-performing (or lower-end or less-compatible) part. You also have no control when your outsourcing partner switches employees, too, and lose know-how that isn't captured in documentation or training, so the problem is certainly not limited to in-sourcing.

When you have a lot of constraints and need to hit high integration quality and low cost, bringing stuff in-house can be a good way to find a global optimum. But you can only do that if you're well-capitalized.
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 simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #496 on: 04/02/2012 06:37 am »
But you can only do that if you're well-capitalized.

Which SpaceX is. And arguable much more so than joint-venture ULA, which has to answer for all costs back up to Boeing and LM and ultimately their shareholders...

Offline Luc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #497 on: 04/02/2012 02:59 pm »
I do not dispute that SpaceX costs have likely exceeded expectations.  I simply pointed out that costs do not directly drive pricing.

As has been pointed out, Elon has some strategic decision making to do when it comes to pricing.  I do believe he intends to reduce prices in the long term.  In the shorter term, higher margins may fund ways to dramatically cut costs and prices later on.  This is obviously fluid and likely influences individual contract negotiations.

I feel safe asserting that SpaceX costs are a fraction of other U.S. Providers and they will never rise to those levels, though they will likely become a larger fraction before beginning to decline.

I think SpaceX low price guarrantee has some credibility in the marketplace and that commercial customers will begin to look at SpaceX when they require a launch.  Government will come under increasing pressure to consider them as well, at least until the next problem.

SpaceX has very little market power at this point, so it would be irresponsible to attempt to drive prices down too much this early.  As they gain credibility through execution, they can bring costs and prices down, thus growing the market.

Also, too large a price move too early can severely damage SpaceX credibility - and credibility is the scarce resource (limiter) for Spacex at this point.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38151
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22631
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #498 on: 04/02/2012 03:35 pm »

I feel safe asserting that SpaceX costs are a fraction of other U.S. Providers


Big reach on that assertion when 99% is still a fraction.

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #499 on: 04/02/2012 03:45 pm »
C'mon Jim he obviously meant "notably smaller fraction". 11/10 (110%) is also a fraction but he didn't mean that either.

I'm only being peevish because I'm very interested in what you have to say about his content, rather than the obvious cheap shot at his somewhat sloppy presentation.

Tags:
 

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