Falcon Super Heavy

[Jim]

For capsule missions, yes, but the base price on F9 to LEO with the 5 meter fairing was $35 million.

That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.

[Dave G]

That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.

If so, then they will have failed thier mission objective.  SpaceX was founded on the premise of reducing launch costs.

I'm wondering if the recent price increases have to do with operating from the cape.  How much operational cost could be saved using a floating launch?  Since this is an HLV thread, I'm thinking of something like the old Sea Dragon design.

[Dave G]

Can you articulate what markets you foresee?

I do not necessarily disagree with your point (perhaps amended to RLVs as noted by Jim) however I am curious regarding the markets you foresee emerging.

I can guess, but I'd probably be wrong.  That's the nature of an emerging market.

If SpaceX succeeds in reducing the cost to orbit, then the market will change, and there will be new types of customers.  If SpaceX ends up costing as much as everyone else, then the market will stay the same.

[neilh]

You would need either mass produced payloads, or reusable payloads that fly often first.

SpaceX (and others) seem to be pursuing (or already have) contracts for the following mass-produced payloads:

* space station supplies
* the Iridium constellation
* the ORBCOMM constellation
* people

Eventually fuel for propellant depots might be joining this category as well.

[kraisee]

Falcon-9 is definitely lower price than any of the other US launchers in the same performance class.   I agree with Jim, that even the prices you see today will probably grow a bit more as they learn the additional requirements involved in Payload Operations, but I see Falcon-9 ultimately costing about half the price of an equivalent Atlas-V or Delta-IV.

That is certainly a worthwhile "evolutionary" improvement, but it should not be mistaken for being a "revolutionary" one.   Halving the current $8,000-10,000 per kg to LEO costs is very welcome, but it still means that only companies with very seriously deep pockets can even consider launching things to orbit.

The list of those companies who can now afford to do work in this sector, but who couldn't afford to before, may have grown just a little, but the overall "market" will not experience drastic changes at this adjusted price point.

There is a market assessment report out there (IIRC conducted by State Department?), which indicates that the price point where the market is expected to really grow, is when the cost of launch drops to around $600 per kg to LEO -- and Falcon-9 is not going to reach that range.

Ross.

[Dave G]

Falcon-9 is definitely lower price than any of the other US launchers in the same performance class.   I agree with Jim, that even the prices you see today will probably grow a bit more as they learn the additional requirements involved in Payload Operations, but I see Falcon-9 ultimately costing about half the price of an equivalent Atlas-V or Delta-IV.

That is certainly a worthwhile "evolutionary" improvement, but it should not be mistaken for being a "revolutionary" one.   Halving the current $8,000-10,000 per kg to LEO costs is very welcome, but it still means that only companies with very seriously deep pockets can even consider launching things to orbit.

Agreed.  Half price is nice, but not a game changer. 

SpaceX has a long-term goal of reducing the cost by an order of magnitude.  Their current costs assume no reusability.  If they can figure out how to reuse the F9 first stage, and maybe use some mass production techniques, that may get them another 2X.

In order to get an order of magnitude less on cost-per pound, they'll probably need Merlin2, cheaper operations costs (e.g. an automated floating ocean launch), a larger single core rocket, a good way to share multiple payloads on the same launch, and some larger commercial payloads.  I'm thinking of something like the Sea Dragon only not so huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

[kevin-rf]

Agreed.  Half price is nice, but not a game changer. 

Oh, but they are now cheaper than ISRO and Great Wall. That itself is a game changer.

In order to get an order of magnitude less on cost-per pound, they'll probably need Merlin2, cheaper operations costs (e.g. an automated floating ocean launch), a larger single core rocket, a good way to share multiple payloads on the same launch, and some larger commercial payloads.  I'm thinking of something like the Sea Dragon only not so huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

Why?

Will merlin-2 save the millions it will cost to develop?
Can they get leaner. Jim keeps telling us the need more people, not less.
Since when do ships cost less to maintain?
A single larger core should be cheaper than three common cores only if thats all they fly. Though it sounds like they need it  for the com GEO market. I will give you that.

[Jim]

Falcon-9 is definitely lower price than any of the other US launchers in the same performance class.   I agree with Jim, that even the prices you see today will probably grow a bit more as they learn the additional requirements involved in Payload Operations, but I see Falcon-9 ultimately costing about half the price of an equivalent Atlas-V or Delta-IV.

It is currently way past 1/2 in between 2/3 and 3/4.

[beancounter]

Why do people keep saying that SpaceX costs will increase toward so called 'normal' launch prices? 

The facts speak for themselves in that they've just inked a launch contract using approximately current costs plus a bit for inflation.  In addition, increasing flight rates will assist them in continuing to streamline their production activities as they move from an R&D base to an operational base.  Even if they are taking on more people, that's required as to up their production levels. 

So can't see where the logic is for increasing costs (other than normal inflationary factors).

[Jim]

1.  Why do people keep saying that SpaceX costs will increase toward so called 'normal' launch prices? 

2.  The facts speak for themselves in that they've just inked a launch contract using approximately current costs plus a bit for inflation.  In addition, increasing flight rates will assist them in continuing to streamline their production activities as they move from an R&D base to an operational base.  Even if they are taking on more people, that's required as to up their production levels. 

So can't see where the logic is for increasing costs (other than normal inflationary factors).

1.  because it will.  They have yet to be in "routine" operations.

2.  Which is based on projected costs and not actual data.

It isn't production where the costs are, it is correcting all the issues between flights.  It is discovering a problem during production of a part and realizing all the previous made parts have the same problem.  It is discovering that parts were "qualified" on an  improperly setup test rig.
Also, when the newest wears of people don't want to work 60 work weeks, vacations, Dr appointments, personal business will increase.  Also, all the processes have to be documented so new people can do the same tasks.

[SpacexULA]

1.  because it will.  They have yet to be in "routine" operations.

2.  Which is based on projected costs and not actual data.

It isn't production where the costs are, it is correcting all the issues between flights.  It is discovering a problem during production of a part and realizing all the previous made parts have the same problem.  It is discovering that parts were "qualified" on an  improperly setup test rig.
Also, when the newest wears of people don't want to work 60 work weeks, vacations, Dr appointments, personal business will increase.  Also, all the processes have to be documented so new people can do the same tasks.

Why are these forces so much stronger in the Rocket field than in any other industry I have ever read about?

All startups suffer quality loss/cost creep when they go from tight core team to larger production team, but I have never seen an industry that could justify a 100%-400% increase in prices (which is what SpaceX would have to do to match ULA prices).

I really think the jump form $35 Million to the graduated:
LEO (s/c<80% capacity to the customer orbit)   $49.5M
LEO (s/c>80% capacity to the customer orbit)   $56M
price point had more to do with underestimation of the costs of production for Falcon 9 than any type of major cost creep.  The 49/56 number has been steady with inflation since it was announced 2 years ago (It started at 44-49, which is a 4.5% increase a year).

If they can keep their cost creep to 4.5% a year, that's not significantly more than inflation.

[pippin]

I'm not convinced that there is no savings potential in SpaceX' approach. They DID design for cost instead of performance and they've brought forward quite a few ideas in that respect. Not only technology wise but also on processes.

I believe for them a lot will now depend on getting launch rates up and keeping commonality between whatever models they are going to fly long term. This will also help them with all the nit grit stuff that has to be investigated, changed etc.

Of course others will learn from them as well over the long term but this will take time and significant investment. Take Ariane, for example. They've known for many, many years now that their current design is not an optimum one for the market they are in, they try to mitigate through dual launches but it's a hack.
But changing things and reacting to this isn't something they can do in a few years. In the short term they will still profit a lot from their track record and maybe even more from their customer service (which may offset much more than just a bit of the cost) but that will of course also be challenged.
Ok, SpaceX might not be the immediate threat because the payload of the F9 is insuffiecient but they might develop growth options, after all they seem to be picking up some pace.

And what I DO see is that for the first time in how many, 30?, years there IS now a serious contender from the US in the commercial launch market again.

[Jim]

All startups suffer quality loss/cost creep when they go from tight core team to larger production team, but I have never seen an industry that could justify a 100%-400% increase in prices (which is what SpaceX would have to do to match ULA prices).

ULA price are not what you think.  The NASA launch service mission costs include additional services  for payload processing, launch vehicle integration, and tracking, data and telemetry support.

Spacex also charges a gov't customer more due to the extra data it requests. (commercial customers buy insurance at 10-15% of the spacecraft cost)

[Dave G]

Will merlin-2 save the millions it will cost to develop?

I'm assuming F9 will stay as is to keep engine-out reliability and the 12-foot diameter which is easy to transport.

For heavier payloads, 27 engines seems high.  A larger single core with five Merlin2 engines could still provide engine out reliability for less operational cost, provided there are enough customers to justify the development.

In April, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about the market for this.  ~30 mT LEO corresponds to ~18 mT GTO.  Combining 2 commercial GTO satellites (~7 mT each) on that type of launcher would dramatically reduce the cost per pound. 
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

If SpaceX scrapped the current F9H and built a single core ~30 mT LEO launcher instead, then they could add some strap-on boosters to get much higher, perhaps up to 100 mT.  In other words, a modular launcher that could scale from upper end commercial to true HLV class for beyond earth orbit.  In this case, NASA could share the cost of developing the Merlin2, as it would probably be cheaper than NASA paying someone else for the full development using a cost-plus contract.

Since when do ships cost less to maintain?

A floating ocean launch would be hundreds of miles away from anything, so safety issues may get easier.  For example, would they even need an explosive FTS?  From what I've heard, other rockets that launch from remote locations simply turn off the engines for flight termination.  Also, a floating ocean launch location can be chosen to optimize the intended orbit.  And you wouldn't have to build and maintain steel and concrete structures, water deluge, etc.  All that would be replaced with a flotation and ballast system.

I'm probably missing something here, but it seems like this could save a lot of operational cost.

A single larger core should be cheaper than three common cores only if thats all they fly. Though it sounds like they need it  for the com GEO market. I will give you that.

Let's say SpaceX keeps the current Falcon9 for lighter cargo and/or crew.  In addition to that, they build a larger modular unmanned launcher that can scale from 30 mT to 100 mT LEO, depending on how many strap-on boosters they use. 

For human planetary missions, the unmanned HLV would launch the spacecraft that goes beyond earth orbit.  The F9/Dragon would then launch the crew to rendezvous with that larger spacecraft.

For commercial, smaller configurations of the modular HLV rocket would be used to launch multiple GTO satellites at once, and perhaps a few new heavy commercial payloads (e.g. Bigelow).

[mlorrey]

For capsule missions, yes, but the base price on F9 to LEO with the 5 meter fairing was $35 million.

That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.

Jim is misquoting. The new price is $49.5 million at the page he cited, for basic launch to LEO.

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.

If there is indeed such significant cost creep do to everything else BESIDES the cost of building and launching the rocket, then SpaceX has failed because all the overhead bullcrap is really what needs to be eliminated, and was supposed to be eliminated by the space launch regs passed in recent years.

[ugordan]

Jim is misquoting. The new price is $49.5 million at the page he cited, for basic launch to LEO.

Which is the same page you would have been well-advised to look at before coming up with that $35 million figure.

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.

It has nothing to do with interfacing. Their pricing also assumes no reusability and never has. In fact, it would have been a really dumb move on their part to assume otherwise.

[rklaehn]

I think the whole discussion about prices is pointless unless somebody has some inside info about their actual costs.

Why the hell should spacex charge less than 50 million USD per launch when they can win huge, internationally competed contracts such as the iridium NEXT contract with their current prices?

Even for the manned spacecraft, as long as they are in the same ballpark as the soyuz per passenger they have no reason whatsoever to go lower.

Of course in the long term if mr. musk wants to realize his vision he will have to go lower, but in the short and medium term just being cheaper than the competition is good enough.

[simonth]

Why the hell should spacex charge less than 50 million USD per launch when they can win huge, internationally competed contracts such as the iridium NEXT contract with their current prices?

There is no reason. SpaceX will bid "at market" discounted for a risk factor because they yet have to prove reliability.

At 50 million per F9 they still make money, but their margins won't be high if their vehicle ends up to be less than 95% reliable and the benefits of their planed first stage reuse won't work as planned.

If they end up with a reliable vehicle, I fully expect that their launch prices will go up a lot quicker than competitors over the next few years as the discount for risk decreases.

[rklaehn]

If they end up less than 95% reliable they can forget about ever launching humans, and they would probably lose CRS as well. So it is safe to assume that they are targeting >99% reliability. We will see if they can make it, but I am optimistic.

[Jim]

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.

There is a biased opinion

A.  The FTS was all Spacex's fault.  They made a bad assumption and tried flying without an FTS.  Hence their work on an FTS got a late start.

B.  The cost increases go way back.