Commercial Space..."The Boeing Way" or "the SpaceX Way"

[gladiator1332]

As we learn more and more about CCDev-2, we can see two mentalities about commercial space developing. For this post, I am using SpaceX and Boeing as the example...but I do not want this to turn into a SpaceX vs Boeing thread...it is to examine how they go about selling their vehicles to the customer.

In one corner we have SpaceX developing Dragon and Falcon 9. They are developing it as one system, meaning, you buy Dragon, then you are launching on Falcon 9. In the other corner we have Boeing, who is developing a capsule and saying it is launch vehicle agnostic, and can be launched on anything.

What I am wondering, in the long term, which makes more business sense? One would think customers are going to prefer the Boeing business model, where they purchase the capsule and launch it on their own vehicle.

Just wondering what some of you think about this.

[pathfinder_01]

In one corner we have SpaceX developing Dragon and Falcon 9. They are developing it as one system, meaning, you buy Dragon, then you are launching on Falcon 9. In the other corner we have Boeing, who is developing a capsule and saying it is launch vehicle agnostic, and can be launched on anything.
 

Dragon was also built to be launcher agnostic. Dragon can be launched on EELV as well as Falcon.

Space X  also wants to launch people into space using it's own rocket.

Boeing also owns the Delta IV rocket(built and launched by ULA). Delta IV is too expensive for commercial crew but ULA is pushing it to launch Orion.

Atlas(owned by Lockheed martin built and launched by ULA) is the base lined commercial crew launcher at this point.

[mr. mark]

In the end whose to say anything. Spacex may decide that they want to go more toward a constellation of launch vehicles with Dragon. Look at the iphone. At first Apple went it alone with AT&T and now they are farming it out to Verizon as well. I would not be surprised if Boeing's CST-100's first launch is on a Falcon 9. They may want to prove out the concept of using the least expensive launch vehicle right off the bat.  Anything can happen and most likely everything will. Don't be surprised but, I know everyone will be.

[pathfinder_01]

In the end whose to say anything. Spacex may decide that they want to go more toward a constellation of launch vehicles with Dragon. Look at the iphone. At first Apple went it alone with AT&T and now they are farming it out to Verizon as well. I would not be surprised if Boeing's CST-100's first launch is on a Falcon 9. They may want to prove out the concept of using the least expensive launch vehicle right off the bat.  Anything can happen and most likely everything will. Don't be surprised but, I know everyone will be.

For an unmanned test launch maybe(and even then not much chance).

I can see it being moved to Falcon 9 but space X has stated it does not want to launch people until is has like about 12  launches(can't remember the number).

Atlas is sort of a no brainier in terms of crew launch. Easiest to man rate, has the most flights of the lot and cheaper than delta.

[Downix]

It's already veering off topic into rockets.  This is about spacecraft, and the approach.  Boeing is focusing on the crew capsule, while SpaceX is on the whole package.  There are merits to both of these approaches.  SpaceX, you get profits kept within a single company.  Boeing, you can focus on delivering your service without concern about the tools themselves.  Good arguments on both sides.

[pathfinder_01]

It's already veering off topic into rockets.  This is about spacecraft, and the approach.  Boeing is focusing on the crew capsule, while SpaceX is on the whole package.  There are merits to both of these approaches.  SpaceX, you get profits kept within a single company.  Boeing, you can focus on delivering your service without concern about the tools themselves.  Good arguments on both sides.

Boeing only needs to focus on the capsule since it has a rocket(Delta) and half ownership in ULA so even an Atlas launch generates some profit for Boeing.

Boeing probably would love for all launches to go on Delta, but Delta just isn't in a good place to launch people and launching on Atlas or anything else isn't a big issue.

Space X does not. It developed  Falcon 9 with an eye towards human rating but space x knows its profits will come from satellite launches not people.

 It developed Dragon to be as launcher agnostic as possible so that if needed they could put Dragon atop Atlas or Delta. No need for it to lock itself in.

A better example would be Orbital's space plane since it would not use Orbital's rockets.

[beancounter]

It's already veering off topic into rockets.  This is about spacecraft, and the approach.  Boeing is focusing on the crew capsule, while SpaceX is on the whole package.  There are merits to both of these approaches.  SpaceX, you get profits kept within a single company.  Boeing, you can focus on delivering your service without concern about the tools themselves.  Good arguments on both sides.

Boeing only needs to focus on the capsule since it has a rocket(Delta) and half ownership in ULA so even an Atlas launch generates some profit for Boeing.

Boeing probably would love for all launches to go on Delta, but Delta just isn't in a good place to launch people and launching on Atlas or anything else isn't a big issue.

Space X does not. It developed  Falcon 9 with an eye towards human rating but space x knows its profits will come from satellite launches not people.

 It developed Dragon to be as launcher agnostic as possible so that if needed they could put Dragon atop Atlas or Delta. No need for it to lock itself in.

A better example would be Orbital's space plane since it would not use Orbital's rockets.

Satellite launches?  Who says?  That may have been the plan originally however plans have a habit of changing and I'd be willing to bet that SpaceX is more than interested in obtaining a large slice of the crew market.  Bigelow has a plan in mind and it's huge by existing standards.  He's planning multiple space facilities in orbit requiring frequent launches.  That's got to be worth big bikkies if it goes to plan.  It'll put the ISS in the shade well and truly.
Also seems like they're being locked out of the DoD business if the recent press is anything to go by so.

[ChefPat]

Everything depends on what market(s) open up in LEO/BEO.
Bigelow has plans that go one step at a time all the way to Mars. That in itself is a market, but not a sustainable one.
Microgravity manufacturing is possible, but what could be made that would justify the cost. Same goes for SPS electricity, can it be done & made profitable.
SpaceX, Bigelow & Boeing definitely have a plan, but us mere mortals sure don't what it is or how it'll play out over the next 25 years or so. Personally, I'd like to live long enough to see the Mars Colony Pathfinder Mission in my lifetime.

[sdsds]

There's also the Virgin Galactic way:  make profit in a closely related industry (sub-orbital tourism) where there are known customers.  Leverage dominance in that industry to enter the orbital spaceflight market once there are really paying customers for that.

[Patchouli]

Space X does not. It developed  Falcon 9 with an eye towards human rating but space x knows its profits will come from satellite launches not people.

How profitable space tourism proves to be for Spacex might have a lot to do with how many reflights Dragon is good for.

If they can charge the same price as Space adventures for Soyuz flights they could make up to 100 million on each tourism flight assuming two pilots.

If each Dragon is good for five to ten flight the profit margins could be double of a typical satellite launch.
They'll likely undercut Space Adventures and charge 10 to 15 million per seat and have microsats as as secondary payload as on F9 flight 2.

I can see Boeing doing the exact same thing.

[Robert Thompson]

Bigelow has a plan in mind and it's huge by existing standards.  He's planning multiple space facilities in orbit requiring frequent launches.  That's got to be worth big bikkies if it goes to plan.  It'll put the ISS in the shade well and truly.
Also seems like they're being locked out of the DoD business if the recent press is anything to go by so.

Is this to mean there is some conflict between Bigelow Aerospace and DOD? If so, is there a reference?

[Jason1701]

Bigelow has a plan in mind and it's huge by existing standards.  He's planning multiple space facilities in orbit requiring frequent launches.  That's got to be worth big bikkies if it goes to plan.  It'll put the ISS in the shade well and truly.
Also seems like they're being locked out of the DoD business if the recent press is anything to go by so.

Is this to mean there is some conflict between Bigelow Aerospace and DOD? If so, is there a reference?

I believe "they" referred to SpaceX, not Bigelow. It's a fact that ULA/Orbital, not SpaceX, vehicles launch most DoD payloads, but there are many great reasons for that.

[simonbp]

I believe "they" referred to SpaceX, not Bigelow. It's a fact that ULA/Orbital, not SpaceX, vehicles launch most DoD payloads, but there are many great reasons for that.

You mean like the fact that SpaceX has only actually launched one paying payload (not counting COTS-1)?

[edkyle99]

What I am wondering, in the long term, which makes more business sense? One would think customers are going to prefer the Boeing business model, where they purchase the capsule and launch it on their own vehicle.

Just wondering what some of you think about this.

Some thoughts on this...

1.  Who is it that has "their own launch vehicle" that would buy a Boeing capsule?
2.  If you are buying an existing launch service to launch a spacecraft, won't you have to wait in line with others, who also own spacecraft (manned or unmanned, commercial or civil or military), for a launch? 
3.  Won't SpaceX, who "owns" launcher and spacecraft, get to set its own priorities?
4.  Isn't it likely that Boeing's capsule, if developed, would eventually be married to a single launch vehicle?
5.  I don't think this is just a Boeing/SpaceX comparison.  Hasn't USA, for example, proposed extending Shuttle in this competition?  Launch and spacecraft would be under "one roof" using that approach.

 - Ed Kyle

[Namechange User]

What I am wondering, in the long term, which makes more business sense? One would think customers are going to prefer the Boeing business model, where they purchase the capsule and launch it on their own vehicle.

Just wondering what some of you think about this.

Some thoughts on this...

1.  Who is it that has "their own launch vehicle" that would buy a Boeing capsule?
2.  If you are buying an existing launch service to launch a spacecraft, won't you have to wait in line with others, who also own spacecraft (manned or unmanned, commercial or civil or military), for a launch? 
3.  Won't SpaceX, who "owns" launcher and spacecraft, get to set its own priorities?
4.  Isn't it likely that Boeing's capsule, if developed, would eventually be married to a single launch vehicle?
5.  I don't think this is just a Boeing/SpaceX comparison.  Hasn't USA, for example, proposed extending Shuttle in this competition?  Launch and spacecraft would be under "one roof" using that approach.

 - Ed Kyle

1.  ESA, JAXA, the Indians
2.  Sure, hence number 1, which limits the "waiting"
3.  SpaceX will likely have customers and contracts too that won't always want to be "bumped".
4.  No.
5.  Bit different in a lot of respects. 

[moose103]

Commercial Space..."The Boeing Way" or "the SpaceX Way"

Your idea that there are different business models seems wrong.  Both companies made rockets.  Both companies are making capsules.  Both will sell either to whoever is buying.

[edkyle99]

Commercial Space..."The Boeing Way" or "the SpaceX Way"

Your idea that there are different business models seems wrong.  Both companies made rockets.  Both companies are making capsules.  Both will sell either to whoever is buying.

Boeing is no longer in the launch vehicle production business.  It spun off money-losing Delta IV, and soon-to-be-retired Delta II, to the ULA consortium.

 - Ed Kyle

[pathfinder_01]

Boeing is no longer in the launch vehicle production business.  It spun off money-losing Delta IV, and soon-to-be-retired Delta II, to the ULA consortium.

 - Ed Kyle

However they still own the delta rocket if I remeber correctly.

[Downix]

Boeing is no longer in the launch vehicle production business.  It spun off money-losing Delta IV, and soon-to-be-retired Delta II, to the ULA consortium.

 - Ed Kyle

However they still own the delta rocket if I remeber correctly.

If they're willing to pay for the R&D to get the Delta up to safety standards, don't see any issue.

[pathfinder_01]

Interesting article:


http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/13ulaccdev/

I thought the`eds was only for atlas?

[Jason1701]

Interesting article:


http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/13ulaccdev/

I thought the`eds was only for atlas?

Nope. From the Space Act Agreement:

development of top level EDS system architecture common to both Atlas and Delta; perform/refine a Fault Coverage Assessment for both the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles to define a preliminary set of crew safety related failure modes and support the definition of the EDS architecture

[Downix]

Interesting article:


http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/13ulaccdev/

I thought the`eds was only for atlas?

Nope. From the Space Act Agreement:

development of top level EDS system architecture common to both Atlas and Delta; perform/refine a Fault Coverage Assessment for both the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles to define a preliminary set of crew safety related failure modes and support the definition of the EDS architecture

That's what I understood as well, that the EDS was to be able to be used on both Atlas and Delta.  Still does not make Delta man-rated, but it does reduce the work needed.