CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Lars_J]

From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.

I wouldn't use the NLS II numbers, they do not take into account the first stage reuse - Something SpaceX wants to do. Use their own numbers - and those seem to indicated that F9v1.1 has a LEO performance somewhere between Atlas V 412 and 422.

So DC should still be able to fly on a F9v1.1. CST-100 might be a problem, if it indeed required 2 SRBs.

[ChrisWilson68]

From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.

I wouldn't use the NLS II numbers, they do not take into account the first stage reuse - Something SpaceX wants to do. Use their own numbers - and those seem to indicated that F9v1.1 has a LEO performance somewhere between Atlas V 412 and 422.

So DC should still be able to fly on a F9v1.1. CST-100 might be a problem, if it indeed required 2 SRBs.

So this means DC should be able to use F9v1.1 with first-stage reuse and CST-100 might require an expendable F9v1.1 -- which is still likely much cheaper than Atlas V, in addition to not having Russian engines.

[clongton]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

[ChrisWilson68]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[clongton]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

[rcoppola]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

I understand what you mean but Boeing has already stated that they planned on studying the viability of launching on an F9. And if NASA decided they wanted / needed 2 vehicles, Dragon and (insert name here) for whatever reason, why wouldn't SpaceX sell their launcher if needed?

As well as charge for Pad 39A as that's where the F9 will launch with crews from.  After all, it's important to note that Boeing and SNC are building vehicles, not launchers. And while both are offering an integrated system, they will only own the vehicles but will have to buy the launchers and launch pad access from ULA. They may as well buy a cheaper launcher that will already have a functioning crew pad. Or not, I suppose you could spin this a few ways. And you can certainly argue the need of the Atlas V for crew launch redundancy.

But again, this only makes sense if NASA decides they want 2 vehicles. If they do not, then I agree, SpaceX would just assume take it all. And why not? To the victor go the spoils.

[RonM]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Well, if NASA pays for a DC or CST-100 mission, SpaceX might as well get some of the pie by launching it on a F9.

[Lars_J]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Most people seem to assume that the final down-select will (unfortunately) be to one provider. So if that is DC or CST-100, why would be bad for SpaceX to launch it? If you can't have the whole pie, at least get a piece if it.

Does that answer your question? It seems pretty obvious.

[JazzFan]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

If SpaceX loses out on CCiCAP, then any piece of the pie brings in revenue and continues to further Musk's exploration and company growth plans.

[A_M_Swallow]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two.  Dragon Transport Inc. started launching on Blue Origin rockets.  SpaceX LV therefore looked for some customers and found CST-100.

[ChrisWilson68]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Your question was why would SpaceX agree to launch DC or CST-100.  I (and several others) gave reasons it would be good for SpaceX to do so.  You gave a reason it would be bad for SpaceX to do so.  Your reason is valid, but that doesn't mean the reasons we gave that it would be good are not valid.

It's a trade-off.  There are some positives for SpaceX to launch DC and CST-100 and some negatives.

So, your question has most certainly been answered.

[clongton]

Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two. 

Can't split a privately held company.

[ChrisWilson68]

Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two. 

Can't split a privately held company.

Wrong.  Whether the company is private or not has nothing to do with whether it can be order split for violations of antitrust laws.  It's the courts that decide if there was a violation and if so what the remedy will be.  The courts can order just about anything they want.  They can order a company to sell off parts of its business to others if they want to.  The courts could even order the whole company be seized by the government if they wanted to.  That's extremely unlikely to happen, of course, but it's all at the discretion of the courts.

[llanitedave]

SpaceX is a very, very long way from any anti-trust laws.  The courts can't just "do what they want", they have to apply laws to claims and evidence that are litigated before them.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX is a very, very long way from any anti-trust laws.  The courts can't just "do what they want", they have to apply laws to claims and evidence that are litigated before them.

You didn't read the context of the "do what they want" quote.  The context was as a remedy if the court finds antitrust violations.

[woods170]

Court ordered split ups of SpaceX and other nonsense are very much off-topic. Stick to the spirit of the thread title please. Thank you.

[Lar]

Court ordered split ups of SpaceX and other nonsense are very much off-topic. Stick to the spirit of the thread title please. Thank you.

Yes.

On the topic of why SpaceX might want to launch other company vehicles... seems like several good reasons in different scenarios.

If Dragon is flying CC, and Dream Chaser also made it, there is good PR value. DC is cool.. I would think SpaceX would be less keen for CST-100 business though.

If Dragon isn't flying CC then it makes good business sense to fly either competitor.

[MP99]

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.

[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

I don't believe Bigelow will initiate one of his stations until he has two US crewed capsules available.

It would be best if these use separate launchers, but...

Cheers, Martin

[ChrisWilson68]

I don't believe Bigelow will initiate one of his stations until he has two US crewed capsules available.

That doesn't make sense.  Of course Bigelow would prefer to have two providers.  But if one provider exists and has a low enough price point, it would be foolish of Bigelow to refuse to engage in any operations that can generate revenue and instead just continue to bleed money just because they'd prefer two providers.

On the other hand, Bigelow might use it as an excuse for not launching a station.  So far, there's been no evidence Bigelow has any real customers with the kind of money they need with any real willingness to buy Bigelow's services, aside from a small-scale technology demo from NASA.

[rcoppola]

Ok, so as has been posted, SpaceX will unveil Dragon 2 on May 29th. What impact will the current crisis with Russia, especially considering the "trampoline" comment, have on the selection process?