Stratolaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

[yg1968]

It's also important to keep in mind that SpaceX has long term commercial crew and cargo contracts locked in or soon-to-be-locked in with NASA and those will cover much of SpaceX's fixed costs, allowing them to price commercial launches based largely on marginal costs.

Arianespace has accused SpaceX of doing this for its commercial missions but I don't think that it is actually true. SpaceX is not allowed to charge the government more than it does for its commercial customers.

[pippin]

They've said 75% of the cost is in the first stage, implying a 75% cost savings.  They've talked about having a goal of $7-$10 million for a F9 launch.

That 75 % of the cost of the LV is in the first page implies nothing like a 75% cost saving through reuse.
Actually it implies absolutely nothing, if reuse is too expensive it could even cost more. Not saying it does, but you can't conclude anything from these 75%

[ChrisWilson68]

It's also important to keep in mind that SpaceX has long term commercial crew and cargo contracts locked in or soon-to-be-locked in with NASA and those will cover much of SpaceX's fixed costs, allowing them to price commercial launches based largely on marginal costs.

Arianespace has accused SpaceX of doing this for its commercial missions but I don't think that it is actually true. SpaceX is not allowed to charge the government more than it does for its commercial customers.

First of all, no, that's not true.  Nothing in the CRS or CCtCap contracts requires that.

Secondly, SpaceX does different missions for commercial crew and cargo versus satellite launches.  The NASA missions include the launch and Dragon capsule, plus a bunch of paperwork, meetings, etc. that aren't a part of commercial satellite launches.  The launches themselves are part of a package deal with NASA.  So even if the contracts with NASA prevented them from doing the same thing for less money for a commercial customer, it would be irrelevant because the job they do for commercial customers is so much different.

[ChrisWilson68]

They've said 75% of the cost is in the first stage, implying a 75% cost savings.  They've talked about having a goal of $7-$10 million for a F9 launch.

That 75 % of the cost of the LV is in the first page implies nothing like a 75% cost saving through reuse.
Actually it implies absolutely nothing, if reuse is too expensive it could even cost more. Not saying it does, but you can't conclude anything from these 75%

It's not me implying it, it's SpaceX.  In the context where they're throwing around that 75% figure it's in the context of cost savings from first-stage re-use, so the implication is clearly that they could eventually get somewhere close to that 75%.

[yg1968]

It's also important to keep in mind that SpaceX has long term commercial crew and cargo contracts locked in or soon-to-be-locked in with NASA and those will cover much of SpaceX's fixed costs, allowing them to price commercial launches based largely on marginal costs.

Arianespace has accused SpaceX of doing this for its commercial missions but I don't think that it is actually true. SpaceX is not allowed to charge the government more than it does for its commercial customers.

First of all, no, that's not true.  Nothing in the CRS or CCtCap contracts requires that.

It wouldn't be in the CRS contract itself. But Jim and other have mentionned it a number of times before: commercial companies have to charge the government the same price that they charge their commercial clients.

[ChrisWilson68]

It's also important to keep in mind that SpaceX has long term commercial crew and cargo contracts locked in or soon-to-be-locked in with NASA and those will cover much of SpaceX's fixed costs, allowing them to price commercial launches based largely on marginal costs.

Arianespace has accused SpaceX of doing this for its commercial missions but I don't think that it is actually true. SpaceX is not allowed to charge the government more than it does for its commercial customers.

First of all, no, that's not true.  Nothing in the CRS or CCtCap contracts requires that.

It wouldn't be in the CRS contract itself. But Jim and other have mentionned it a number of times before: commercial companies have to charge the government the same price that they charge their commercial clients.

Then it should be easy for you to find a link to Jim or someone else in a position to know claiming that about SpaceX contracts for commercial cargo or crew.

[Robotbeat]

Obviously CC/cargo costs more because Dragon. Moving on.

[llanitedave]

It's also important to keep in mind that SpaceX has long term commercial crew and cargo contracts locked in or soon-to-be-locked in with NASA and those will cover much of SpaceX's fixed costs, allowing them to price commercial launches based largely on marginal costs.

Arianespace has accused SpaceX of doing this for its commercial missions but I don't think that it is actually true. SpaceX is not allowed to charge the government more than it does for its commercial customers.

First of all, no, that's not true.  Nothing in the CRS or CCtCap contracts requires that.

It wouldn't be in the CRS contract itself. But Jim and other have mentionned it a number of times before: commercial companies have to charge the government the same price that they charge their commercial clients.

For the same job.  This is not going to be the same job.

[arachnitect]

It's also important to keep in mind that SpaceX has long term commercial crew and cargo contracts locked in or soon-to-be-locked in with NASA and those will cover much of SpaceX's fixed costs, allowing them to price commercial launches based largely on marginal costs.

Arianespace has accused SpaceX of doing this for its commercial missions but I don't think that it is actually true. SpaceX is not allowed to charge the government more than it does for its commercial customers.

First of all, no, that's not true.  Nothing in the CRS or CCtCap contracts requires that.

It wouldn't be in the CRS contract itself. But Jim and other have mentionned it a number of times before: commercial companies have to charge the government the same price that they charge their commercial clients.

Then it should be easy for you to find a link to Jim or someone else in a position to know claiming that about SpaceX contracts for commercial cargo or crew.

Feds get the best available price.

[ChrisWilson68]

Feds get the best available price.

You're quoting from a launch services contract that has nothing to do with commercial cargo or crew.  It's for satellite launches, not ISS resupply or crew contracts.

What we're talking about here is whether SpaceX can have its fixed costs covered by its ISS cargo and crew contracts with NASA, leaving it free to base its commercial satellite launch prices on its marginal costs.  Someone made the incorrect claim that there's some rule that would prevent this.  That is not true, and a launch services contract is irrelevant since SpaceX's cargo and crew launches to ISS are not covered by launch services contracts.

[Chris Bergin]

SNC, Stratolaunch expand on proposed Dream Chaser flights - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/snc-stratolaunch-dream-chaser-flights/

[parabolicarc]

SNC, Stratolaunch expand on proposed Dream Chaser flights - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/snc-stratolaunch-dream-chaser-flights/

Oh good. SNC's shuttle that may never fly is now teamed up with a launch system that might never get off the ground. There are lots of development issues with Stratolaunch right now.

[Chris Bergin]

SNC, Stratolaunch expand on proposed Dream Chaser flights - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/snc-stratolaunch-dream-chaser-flights/

Oh good. SNC's shuttle that may never fly is now teamed up with a launch system that might never get off the ground. There are lots of development issues with Stratolaunch right now.

Yep. It's one of those "less likely" than crewed commercial space, but more likely than these "we're going to Mars. Here's our Kickstarter campaign"....interesting to write about, but still a "study".

PS Sorry to all who saw some typos in this. I put on a older draft revision, but it's all good now.

[Zed_Noir]

SNC, Stratolaunch expand on proposed Dream Chaser flights - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/snc-stratolaunch-dream-chaser-flights/

Oh good. SNC's shuttle that may never fly is now teamed up with a launch system that might never get off the ground. There are lots of development issues with Stratolaunch right now.

Nothing that can not be solve with lotta of greenbacks. After all the whole Stratolaunch project is the result of one eccentric billionaire. 

[simonbp]

... who isn't exactly young and who has Hodgkin's lymphoma ...

Stratolaunch is Paul Allen's pet project, and if he looses interest or is incapacitated, they could loose funding real quick. It is in a similar situation to SpaceX in 2006 before the COTS award: no great profit potential and nearly all the funding coming from the founder.

However, it is going to be much harder for Stratolaunch to make that leap to being an actually profitable company. All of their potential business is either closely-held by ULA or being snapped up by SpaceX. And that's ignoring the fact that they have to finish building and certifying the aircraft before even being able to test the rocket, let alone carry a for-profit payload...

[Rocket Science]

Great article Chris G. on “Baby Orbiter Jr.” Nice read to come home to after a long day!

[yg1968]

SNC, Stratolaunch expand on proposed Dream Chaser flights - by Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/11/snc-stratolaunch-dream-chaser-flights/

Good article!

[pippin]

This so belongs here....

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=606.msg196765#msg196765

[Roy_H]

I have not read most of this thread, so if covered before please point out where. I read that the 75% size DC would have about 1/2 the mass. One main advantage of air launch is that the abort rockets and fuel are no longer required, just maneuvering and de-orbit capability. So how much mass is saved by no abort capability? 

[hop]

One main advantage of air launch is that the abort rockets and fuel are no longer required, just maneuvering and de-orbit capability.

Don't see why this would be true. The launch altitude from will be far below the point ground launched systems ditch their LAS.  You don't need zero speed/zero altitude capability, but that isn't the most challenging environment.

An all solid LV well have more stringent LAS requirements than Atlas.