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.

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

you are misquoting, a dedicated flight is $56 million.
  The 49.5 is for a missions where Spacex can add secondaries.

[Jim]

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.

There is no bullcrap except your bias.  It is internal costs. You view of the world is so skewed from what is real. 

[kevin-rf]

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.

Why?

The ICBM derived Atlas never achieve 95% and we flew people on it.
Was Titan at 95% when we flew people on it?

Until they get a fair number of flights under there belt, any failure that results in loss of payload will have a very negative impact on SpaceX. And I am not talking HSF.

[Robotbeat]

I believe SpaceX can have prices lower than ULA for LEO launches (and maybe eventually GEO launches, though they have a ways to go to prove themselves, there), more competitive with foreign launchers. They won't decrease prices DRAMATICALLY until they get REALLY good at reusing the first stage. And even then, I doubt it will happen unless they provide other services to make it worth their while.

They almost also have to be a spacecraft company if they want to be able to have ~$1000/kg be sustainable, otherwise they'd be losing money. Other services could include their Dragon spacecraft, and maybe some sort of propellant tanker service. Just a thought. But getting to the "elastic" part of the supply/demand curve will mean folks like SpaceX lose money unless they also supply other services.

[Diagoras]

Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

[Robotbeat]

Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

It basically says that launch providers lose money if they decrease their costs until they get the cost to about $1000/kg, at which point the market becomes elastic (i.e. more and more people will buy services as prices further decline) and they can increase their revenue by further decreasing their costs. But until you lower the cost to below that point, launch providers are just shooting themselves in the foot by lowering their costs. And even then, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense to do so unless they are also providing other services.

The paper where the graph resides is right here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/designing_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_future_space_markets.shtml
Which was also somewhat based on this NASA study:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/

It assumes that if launch prices get low enough, new markets will be created.

[HMXHMX]

Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

Versions of this graph have been around for thirty years or more.  My interpretation has always been that it demonstrates why existing providers have no incentive to lower their price per pound by developing reusable vehicles, because if they do – unless they go all the way to highly operable vehicles that have a very small cost per pound, and assuming the market grows as theory suggests – they will cannibalize their existing revenues.  Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

[cuddihy]

. . . .
Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

that and the cost of full RLV to orbit development shows every liklihood of being a significant fraction perhaps more than100% of all existing spaceflight industry market capitalization. Which is why an imaginative and pretty fearless entrepeneur like Musk nevertheless decided to start with ELV.

[HMXHMX]

. . . .
Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

that and the cost of full RLV to orbit development shows every liklihood of being a significant fraction perhaps more than100% of all existing spaceflight industry market capitalization. Which is why an imaginative and pretty fearless entrepeneur like Musk nevertheless decided to start with ELV.

I'd be willing to debate the cost-to-develop issue, but this is not the forum for that.  (Suffice to say that it is not a law of nature that a reusable need cost more than an expendable when flight testing is taken into account, but we have very little recent data to go on.  We'd have to go back to the rocket plane era and that wouldn't be a fair comparison, likely.)

I'd add to my previous post that "angel risk capital" could also obviously include government money.

[cuddihy]

I'd be willing to debate the cost-to-develop issue, but this is not the forum for that.  (Suffice to say that it is not a law of nature that a reusable need cost more than an expendable when flight testing is taken into account, but we have very little recent data to go on.  We'd have to go back to the rocket plane era and that wouldn't be a fair comparison, likely.)

I'd add to my previous post that "angel risk capital" could also obviously include government money.

well you'd certainly have more cred than me to argue the point. In the words of Edna Mode though, "and yet, here we are..."

[HMXHMX]

I'd be willing to debate the cost-to-develop issue, but this is not the forum for that.  (Suffice to say that it is not a law of nature that a reusable need cost more than an expendable when flight testing is taken into account, but we have very little recent data to go on.  We'd have to go back to the rocket plane era and that wouldn't be a fair comparison, likely.)

I'd add to my previous post that "angel risk capital" could also obviously include government money.

well you'd certainly have more cred than me to argue the point. In the words of Edna Mode though, "and yet, here we are..."

Ah, my favorite scene from a brilliant movie.

But to quote Mr. Incredible:  "I'm retired..."

At least, I think I am.

[mlorrey]

Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

Versions of this graph have been around for thirty years or more.  My interpretation has always been that it demonstrates why existing providers have no incentive to lower their price per pound by developing reusable vehicles, because if they do – unless they go all the way to highly operable vehicles that have a very small cost per pound, and assuming the market grows as theory suggests – they will cannibalize their existing revenues.  Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

It also explains why many launch companies diversify into spacecraft manufacture. You make all your profit on the spacecraft and offer the launch at cost or with a small profit, if you can get away with it. Some competitors might file anti-trust complaints over such pricing schemes.

[Diagoras]

Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

It basically says that launch providers lose money if they decrease their costs until they get the cost to about $1000/kg, at which point the market becomes elastic (i.e. more and more people will buy services as prices further decline) and they can increase their revenue by further decreasing their costs. But until you lower the cost to below that point, launch providers are just shooting themselves in the foot by lowering their costs. And even then, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense to do so unless they are also providing other services.

The paper where the graph resides is right here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/designing_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_future_space_markets.shtml
Which was also somewhat based on this NASA study:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/

It assumes that if launch prices get low enough, new markets will be created.

Thanks for the answer. You too, HMXHMX.

[Tnarg]

A single engine LV does make a lot of sence.  I guess it would look a lot like falcon9 with the same 2ed stage design (i.e. 1 merlin1 vacuum engine) I know it's more work than just swapping the 9 small engines for 1 large one but it does give them a good starting point to test the new engine.

Where is gose from there I dont know multi cores could work (3 cores, falcon9H style, or 5 cores) and would keep transport simple.  But I agree a 3 to 5 engine per core seems likey.

so close :-)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22395.0

[finwe]

If i went to Elon Musk and asked for 5 SHLV what would the price tag be. Let's assume a Merlin 2 engine based second stage engine.

[ChefPat]

If i went to Elon Musk and asked for 5 SHLV what would the price tag be. Let's assume a Merlin 2 engine based second stage engine.

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[kevin-rf]

If i went to Elon Musk and asked for 5 SHLV what would the price tag be. Let's assume a Merlin 2 engine based second stage engine.

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Well more can dance on the head of a Falcon 9 Heavy. So by that measure it is worth it

[Nathan]

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.

I think that SpaceX was somewhat justified in their assumption not to use FTS, despite the fact that it should have been discussed fully with  the range prior to making that decision.
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.
If SpaceX used Falcon 9 tech as a basis of a rocketplane designed to carry people - would they still be required to fly an FTS?

I think SpaceX were thinking they could usher in this world but didn't consider the fact that their rocket in it's present form is actually no different than all of the others launching from the range!

[MP99]

Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

[Jorge]

Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

Incremental testing, and lots of it. A true reusable rocketplane would have a short enough turnaround time that such testing would be feasible.