Was Falcon 9 1.1 overbuilt to support launch rates higher than needed?

[Space Ghost 1962]

From another thread:

I think the big takeaway is new launch systems are and have been built to support launch rates that are higher than needed by the payloads.

We do not need to look far, the 1990's collapse, Saturn, Shuttle, Delta III, EELV...

Saturn was built to support a program that would have been so expensive the nation would never have funded it. All through the program it was cut and refocused to smaller and smaller goals.

Shuttle was built to support a launch rate that could not be achieve and cheaper (Ariane) alternatives ate it's payloads.

Delta III was to meet a demand that evaporated.

EELV was based on commercial projections that did not happen, leading to two very costly systems.

I think people like building new rockets, and like to assume the need for a new launcher is the problem and the payloads will materialize.

One can argue that new space companies are still doing that.
(but that should be debated in that new space companies numerous threads. The busiest and most cool-aid filled part of NSF )

This is a Kool Aid free thread, with nothing but single, specific sentence posts. Examples:

"Yes, Falcon 9 1.0 was a solid Delta II replacement and they should have stopped there."

"No, Falcon 9 1.1 got them to the "sweet spot" of Ariane 5 secondary payloads to GSO and the ability to develop a reusable first stage."

"Yes, and so was Falcon 9 1.0 and 1 - a kerolox upper stage isn't competitive except in Russia."

"No, CONOPS for 1.1 allow it to match scale up / scale down of flight rate."

add:
At least two posters can cleave to the point. The usual pointless snarkies, KoolAid, and king mixers - noise to the signal. Surprisingly on topic posts. And a few cogent observations from actual professionals, who can also cleave to the point if they care to.

But Kevin still rocks as to understanding importance of LV success. Cheers.

[Lars_J]

I'm still not understanding what this thread is about.

[kch]

I'm still not understanding what this thread is about.

It's about keeping things short and to the point ... like this:

"No."

 

[Kabloona]

On the other hand, Frank Culbertson has said that Antares was designed to be profitable at a relatively low launch rate if business is slow. So there's a case that controverts the blanket statement that "new launch systems are overbuilt to support higher launch rates than needed." Orbital has asumed that (commercial) Antares launches could be few and far between and has tried to structure the program accordingly.

[dglow]

In what way does one overbuild a launch system to support a higher launch rate?

[mheney]

If F9 was overbuilt for payloads, it was to allow for the extra mass and structure needed for reusability.

[Norm38]

Is this thread asking if designing for reusability is the overbuild?  If so...

1)  No.  Reuse provides the cost reduction necessary to expand the market and increase flight rate.  Thus, if sucessful, F9R won't face the same market environment as EELV.

2)  No.  Even expendable, v1.1 is needed, given that Dragon was volume limited on v1.0.  More performance was needed.

3)  No.  v1.1 enables the FH payload numbers, which will enable things like the Bigelow BA330.  Again, expanding the market.

[CuddlyRocket]

The OP seems to be under the impression that a launcher needs to be built more robustly if it is to have a higher launch rate. That might be true for a reusable launcher, but not for an expendable one (as all expendable launchers launch precisely once!).

Presumably a more robustly built reusable launcher will last for more flights than a flimsily built one without breaking or wearing out etc. I suppose it would be possible to design in more robustness than needed for the expected number of flights; but empirical evidence on how many flights can be expected per launcher and what level of robustness is then needed is limited.

I doubt SpaceX is deliberately designing the F9 to be more robust than needed; but they might have inadvertently done so.

[intrepidpursuit]

Is this thread asking if designing for reusability is the overbuild?

I think the OP suggests that the manufacturing and infrastructure are built to support more frequent launches than what actually ends up happening. Such as the 4 planned pads for Saturn V and 40 cores per year planned for Falcon.

Personally I'd always rather make more money with more launches as long as the realistic numbers are still profitable. Antares may be betting on not having many launches, but with a limited supply of engines, a single tiny pad and only marginally competitive pricing, that is a self fulfilling prophecy.

[justineet]

Nope SpaceX are logically building their infrastructure on the basis a reliable launch vehicle at significantly lower cost to customers would result in capturing large portion of the commercial and gov market.

[Robotbeat]

v1.1 was needed to get the higher revenue launches.

They had the strategy of using reusable v1.1 or dual-launch for smaller payloads. A pretty good strategy, if you're dead-set on pursuing reuse. A reusable launch vehicle has to be larger than the equivalent expendable one, other things being equal.

[sugmullun]

I don't think that SpaceX designs and builds rockets to meet market demand.  I think rather they are building the most capable transportation system that they can; trusting and tweaking it to meet a need to be sustainable in the current market. I think that if they are successful then the market will change to take advantage of what they've built, causing tried and true, but aging, paradigms about space transport and space enterprises begin to end.

[faramund]

I'm not so sure about that. They started with Falcon 1, and it seemed like it was intended to serve as both a test and a production vehicle (think of the Orbcom satellites). But then they decided that GTO/Dragon was where they thought it was best to concentrate, and so they cancelled Falcon 1. They also seemed to do Falcon 9 v1.1, in part, to enlarge the market they could address.

Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with this, in fact the reverse. I think its good for any business to consider their potential market demand (consider.. which doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to address every possible request)

[rockettrey]

Let's think about the BIG picture here.  Elon wants to go to Mars.  Elon WILL go to Mars!  Everything SpaceX (and maybe his other ventures) is doing is to further that goal.  Each new rocket is just another step to that end, and as such has capabilities that will be used on the next generation vehicle.  OCCUPY MARS!!!!!

[sugmullun]

I'm not so sure about that. They started with Falcon 1, and it seemed like it was intended to serve as both a test and a production vehicle (think of the Orbcom satellites). But then they decided that GTO/Dragon was where they thought it was best to concentrate, and so they cancelled Falcon 1. They also seemed to do Falcon 9 v1.1, in part, to enlarge the market they could address.

Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with this, in fact the reverse. I think its good for any business to consider their potential market demand (consider.. which doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to address every possible request)

Yes, but Falcon 1 was all that they were capable of building at the time. With a government contract shortly after the successful launch they were able to "upgrade" and did. There may still have been some market for F1 (or F1 v1.1) flights, assuming really good pricing but they could then afford to go for more capability with the resources that they had.
  I didn't mean to imply that the market is irrelevant to them. I just see a lot of posting all over the site where markets and waiting payloads are the overriding driver in in the specs of what SpaceX flies, to which I disagree.

[Lar]

I didn't mean to imply that the market is irrelevant to them. I just see a lot of posting all over the site where markets and waiting payloads are the overriding driver in in the specs of what SpaceX flies, to which I disagree.

In my view as a die hard Kool Aid drinker this is what differentiates SpaceX from some other companies. Some companies (as corporations, I'm not talking about individual idealistic employees) are in it for the money. That's what their shareholders want. Good quarters.Over and over.

For SpaceX, markets, payloads and the like are a way to make money. Money is not the end goal. It is the fuel for the end goal which is to change reality by making us a multiplanet species. That's what the main shareholder wants. The other shareholders (VCs and employees) are counting on enough money being made to make it worth their while, but have to realise money isn't the goal. The process of changing reality that way, if it works, will just HAPPEN to throw off lots of money as a side product...

I could be wrong, Elon could be scamming everyone. But that's not the way to bet.

See, for example, http://www.quora.com/Elon-Musk/Is-Elon-Musk-the-next-Steve-Jobs and http://www.quora.com/Elon-Musk/Is-Elon-Musk-more-revolutionary-and-remarkable-than-Steve-Jobs-and-Bill-Gates and http://www.quora.com/Psychology/Why-do-so-many-people-think-they-are-smarter-than-Elon-Musk

But this is a bit off topic and we generally don't spend time analyzing Musk. I post it to show why I and some other folk agree with Sugmullun here... SpaceX isn't in it for the money alone. Money is fuel.

[mme]

I'm not so sure about that. They started with Falcon 1, and it seemed like it was intended to serve as both a test and a production vehicle (think of the Orbcom satellites). But then they decided that GTO/Dragon was where they thought it was best to concentrate, and so they cancelled Falcon 1. They also seemed to do Falcon 9 v1.1, in part, to enlarge the market they could address.
...

Yes, but Falcon 1 was all that they were capable of building at the time. With a government contract shortly after the successful launch they were able to "upgrade" and did. There may still have been some market for F1 (or F1 v1.1) flights, assuming really good pricing but they could then afford to go for more capability with the resources that they had.
  I didn't mean to imply that the market is irrelevant to them. I just see a lot of posting all over the site where markets and waiting payloads are the overriding driver in in the specs of what SpaceX flies, to which I disagree.

Let's think about the BIG picture here.  Elon wants to go to Mars.  Elon WILL go to Mars!  Everything SpaceX (and maybe his other ventures) is doing is to further that goal.  Each new rocket is just another step to that end, and as such has capabilities that will be used on the next generation vehicle.  OCCUPY MARS!!!!!

Exactly. Elon Musk is using the market to push toward his goal of a multi-planitary species. I think a lot of people think that story is "marketing spin," but I believe him. There are easier ways to get richer than start a commercial launch service. SpaceX wants to be profitable, but profit is not it's primary goal, it supports it's goals. Unless Falcon 1 would be wildly profitable and therefore fund and accelerate MCT, it would be a distraction to developing the technologies required to get humans to Mars.

[faramund]

FWIW, I agree with almost everything in the above post, and its including quotes, well, except maybe the last sentence. Why Falcon 1 was cancelled, and what that means is one of the inconconclusive things I sometimes wonder about.

[Lar]

FWIW, I agree with almost everything in the above post, and its including quotes, well, except maybe the last sentence. Why Falcon 1 was cancelled, and what that means is one of the inconconclusive things I sometimes wonder about.

Why Falcon 1 was cancelled is off topic for this thread. I'll try to edit in where it could go, if I can find it. So far no luck...

Edit: Thanks Randy! This is one place 
     http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33686.0;all

I still think there are others though...

[deltaV]

If reusability works SpaceX will find itself with far more Falcon manufacturing capacity than it needs, at least for the next decade or so. In an expendable world SpaceX will likely still have a little excess capacity but that's a lot better than a shortage.