Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)  (Read 842767 times)

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #440 on: 03/30/2012 04:16 am »
Kistler had arguably a better design

The Kistler design was full of unobtainium.  It was a bunch of usual suspect, former NASA and contractor managers.  That was the only reason it survived as long as it did.

Sorry, clarification, how much in your opinion has been NASA funds?  "Bulk?"
SpaceX also has a flight manifest that extends for a number of years and includes around 50% non-NASA so how does that translate to an 'anchor' customer. 
Would I be correct in assuming that you believe that without the NASA contracts, SpaceX would not have attracted those other launches?  Cost had nothing to do with it? 
Just a few questions.

I for one believe precisely that.  Without NASA, SpaceX is either nothing or, actually, MORE viable.  Until being rerouted by COTS, SpaceX would have gone the Falcon 1-Falcon 5-Falcon 9 route and really could have revolutionized space launch.  NASA's siren call led SpaceX into space capsule development.  I firmly believe that the rhetoric would be far less and the results far greater, but everyone believes their estimate of an alternate reality is the accurate one.

I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #441 on: 03/30/2012 04:30 am »
If there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.

Have you been listening to the hearings?  Congress can't stand commercial.  Better said, Congress's donors can't stand commercial.
Exactly, the donors can't stand commercial. Her stated opinions don't  seem to have anything to do with protecting her voters, NASA's long term success or even Texas. 
What should Congress care about:
  Is commercial running behind more than most prior underfunded major rocket developments?
  Is commercial more or less cost effective than other options?
  Can commercial do crew launch sooner than other options?
  Can commercial meet NASA's most pressing requirements, supplying and crewing ISS?
  Does NASA have other fundable options that could replace the commercial programs more quickly and cost effectively?

There are 3 viable, but unproven, crew options in the commercial channel. Each provides different and diverse capability and combined provide the safest most reliable framework to provide crew capability to the ISS in the shortest time possible.
Russia is in the cat bird seat until we have alternatives. If we don't have options by 2016-2017, they will certainly double the cost of our next contract. They'd be fools not to. Let America fund their development requirements, instead of funding our own options.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #442 on: 03/30/2012 05:38 am »
There are 3 viable, but unproven, crew options in the commercial channel. Each provides different and diverse capability and combined provide the safest most reliable framework to provide crew capability to the ISS in the shortest time possible.

Just curious, which of the four did you not include in that figure?

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #443 on: 03/30/2012 08:27 am »

I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.

Nope.  SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going.  It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed.  The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market.  Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years.  It is his ultimate aim after all.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6594
  • Liked: 4728
  • Likes Given: 5750
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #444 on: 03/30/2012 03:05 pm »

I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.

Nope.  SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going.  It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed.  The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market.  Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years.  It is his ultimate aim after all.

On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?

As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS.  I do not recall anything about an instability.  In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #445 on: 03/30/2012 03:14 pm »

I think there is probably an early market for tourists to a LEO Bigelow station in addition to the market for sovereign clients and commercial human tended research,

Really? Bigelow doesn't think so anymore.

If there is any evidence which conclusively supports that specific assertion, I have not seen it.  If you have some please provide.  Bigelow has cut back, but there are multiple reasonably likely explanations for this of which your assertion is only one of the possibilities.  The primary explanation given by Bigelow is the lack of available transport options for customers and supplies to his station(s).  Given that it is literally impossible for him to do business without this component, it is not unreasonable to think this could be a primary driver for him choosing to hibernate for the time being.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #446 on: 03/30/2012 03:20 pm »

The next major project I'd like to see some billionaire announce is the development of a cycler for cislunar space that more or less permanently runs back and forth between the earth and moon

Why?  Why set up a transportation system for destination that has no business case.

Your evidence to support this assertion is...?

And LEO market isn't going to be low cost as you think?

Markets costs moving towards ULA's vs Spacex's

Your evidence to support this assertion is...?

Note, I am not saying you are wrong.  Most of what gets posted in these forums about things like this are based on peoples opinions and instinct.  If you have something more concrete to go on I am listening.  I'd rather have my own opinions based on evidence when it is available.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #447 on: 03/30/2012 03:26 pm »
ULA via its partnership with XCOR is showing flickers of recognition that reducing costs might be the key to the future. 


Huh?  ULA has always recognized reducing costs (combined launch teams, combined factory, fairing version reduction initiatives, etc). 

OK, you likely know more about it than I do, so perhaps they have.  However, this prompts me to wonder why their prices seem to continue to rise so sharply giving the appearance that their efforts are failing.  Are they price gouging, not very good at reducing costs despite trying, is their unique position with regard to the government forcing structural inefficiency on them, something else?

We know that launch can be much cheaper, so why isn't it for ULA if they care about it?

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6362
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4235
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #448 on: 03/30/2012 11:26 pm »
Have you taken into account the devaluation of the USD as it relates to their costs, especially as it concerns non-US sourced parts and commodities? 
DM

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38147
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22618
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #449 on: 03/31/2012 12:18 am »

We know that launch can be much cheaper,

That is not true

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #450 on: 03/31/2012 12:59 am »

We know that launch can be much cheaper,

That is not true

Are we really going to do the thing where I point out SpaceXs' listed launch prices, then you point out that they aren't proven yet, then we argue over the extent to which that matters in the context of this discussion?  I'm going to propose we skip that as much fun as it might be.

I couldn't find out what Orbital expects to charge for a non-COTS Antares, but I expect that would fall under the same 'not yet proven' category anyway regardless of what price they ask. 

I could cite the Zenit and Proton options, but no doubt the non-US labor costs will be what you cite on that one and it is a worthwhile point.

Have I missed any aspects of the argument or can we consider the compressed summary above as a single post transcript and agree to disagree on the SpaceX thing?


Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #451 on: 03/31/2012 01:16 am »
Have you taken into account the devaluation of the USD as it relates to their costs, especially as it concerns non-US sourced parts and commodities? 

Do you really think that those parts constitute such a significant portion of their costs?  I don't know one way or the other but I'd find it a little suprising.  You'd think that the more expensive and critical items like foreign sourced motors would be bulk pre-purchased and stockpiled to some extent, providing some insulation from exchange fluctuations.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6920
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4214
  • Likes Given: 1948
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #452 on: 03/31/2012 01:19 am »

I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.

Nope.  SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going.  It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed.  The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market.  Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years.  It is his ultimate aim after all.

On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?

As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS.  I do not recall anything about an instability.  In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.

F9 was actually driven by an AF customer. The first public mention of F9 was an AF guy accidentally mentioning it on his personal blog. I stumbled on his blog while following the website links left by commenters on Selenian Boondocks, and linked to it. Poor guy was mortified that what he had linked-to had gone public like that, but that's how Falcon 9 came to light. The AF wanted to know if they could increase the performance a bit higher than the Falcon 5 could do, and asked if they could stick a few more engines on the core.

Or at least that's my understanding of the origin of F9.

~Jon

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6594
  • Liked: 4728
  • Likes Given: 5750
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #453 on: 03/31/2012 03:23 am »

I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.
Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.

Nope.  SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going.  It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed.  The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market.  Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years.  It is his ultimate aim after all.

On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?

As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS.  I do not recall anything about an instability.  In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.

F9 was actually driven by an AF customer. The first public mention of F9 was an AF guy accidentally mentioning it on his personal blog. I stumbled on his blog while following the website links left by commenters on Selenian Boondocks, and linked to it. Poor guy was mortified that what he had linked-to had gone public like that, but that's how Falcon 9 came to light. The AF wanted to know if they could increase the performance a bit higher than the Falcon 5 could do, and asked if they could stick a few more engines on the core.

Or at least that's my understanding of the origin of F9.

~Jon
Another great tidbit, Jon, but that more supports my first contention. F5 was not abandoned because it was "unstable" but because prospective government customers wanted more payload.  It may have been the Air Force's idea that NASA latched onto.

SpaceX sure has done a lot to persue the AF, despite the long lead and odds on getting an award from them.  Purists among us wished SpaceX could have remained truly "commercial" but the switch to the F9 was the fork in the road. What could have been is irrelevant.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #454 on: 03/31/2012 04:49 am »
If the "commercial" route was sustainable, they would be continuing F1. There's no reason to quit F1 if it had any possibility of making money.
1. There was plenty of real estate on the factory floor.
2. Still lots in common between F1 and F9.
3. It didn't interfere with F9 pads.

If it was self sustaining it would still be being built!

Offline happyflower

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Earth
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #455 on: 03/31/2012 07:04 am »
Have you taken into account the devaluation of the USD as it relates to their costs, especially as it concerns non-US sourced parts and commodities? 

Why are some of these rather critical parts outsourced out of the country?

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #456 on: 03/31/2012 08:25 am »
If the "commercial" route was sustainable, they would be continuing F1. There's no reason to quit F1 if it had any possibility of making money.
1. There was plenty of real estate on the factory floor.
2. Still lots in common between F1 and F9.
3. It didn't interfere with F9 pads.

If it was self sustaining it would still be being built!

Agreed.  If there'd been a sufficient market then F1 would be flying.  It did fly and was successful in that sense but, no market.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #457 on: 03/31/2012 01:06 pm »
If the pursuit here is defining SpaceX commercial, I can't see anybody more comercial than them; they started with F1 to reduce costs, but avoiding the X35 path (F1 was a testbed but not a pure test article, it was a saleable item).
When new sales possibilities went out they pursued them (F5, F9, Dragon etc).
This happened with a lot of skin in the game!
If you can't call this commercial, what else?
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #458 on: 03/31/2012 01:34 pm »
My guess in the F1 debate is that SpaceX is severely limited by a small production workforce. They only have 1,500 total employees. They are stretched thin just fulfilling the COTS contract along with future Falcon Heavy and Dragon production. Much easier to match satellites up with F9 than produce even more rockets for Falcon 1.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38147
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22618
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #459 on: 03/31/2012 02:02 pm »

Are we really going to do the thing where I point out SpaceXs' listed launch prices, then you point out that they aren't proven yet, then we argue over the extent to which that matters in the context of this discussion?  I'm going to propose we skip that as much fun as it might be.

I couldn't find out what Orbital expects to charge for a non-COTS Antares, but I expect that would fall under the same 'not yet proven' category anyway regardless of what price they ask. 

I could cite the Zenit and Proton options, but no doubt the non-US labor costs will be what you cite on that one and it is a worthwhile point.

Have I missed any aspects of the argument or can we consider the compressed summary above as a single post transcript and agree to disagree on the SpaceX thing?


It is not a disagreement when you are wrong
Spacex prices to the gov't are not the listed prices.  Nobody gets listed prices.  It is like a car without accessories or even tires.

Antares isn't on the market.  Plus they are not in the same payload class as other vehicles

Russians use conscripted soldiers for Proton and Zenit
« Last Edit: 03/31/2012 02:04 pm by Jim »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1