-
#120 by rockets4life97 on 31 Aug, 2016 12:55
-
Any word on the payload? Has it completed tests? For those hoping for an October launch, it should be shipping out to the Cape in the next couple of weeks.
-
#121 by Toastmastern on 31 Aug, 2016 13:26
-
Any word on the payload? Has it completed tests? For those hoping for an October launch, it should be shipping out to the Cape in the next couple of weeks.
Isn't it at the cape already? -
#122 by mvpel on 31 Aug, 2016 14:04
-
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense...
It'll be interesting to see how the pricing structures shift around when that's no longer the expectation. The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane, needless to say. -
#123 by guckyfan on 31 Aug, 2016 14:14
-
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
No, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy. -
#124 by Jet Black on 31 Aug, 2016 14:53
-
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
No, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.
true, but that's because people don't expect 747s to fall apart after the first flight. Once it is expected that a rocket will last more than one launch, people may start to expect even the first flight to be cheaper because they will see it far more as a service (delivery to orbit) rather than a thing (a rocket which delivers something to orbit) that they are paying for. -
#125 by Brovane on 31 Aug, 2016 15:10
-
No need to amortize. First customer paid for the stage capital expense...QuoteIf we assume the boosters cost $25M each to manufacture, then the recovery/refurb cost is of order 10%... cost of one booster or so for each ten in the barn -- the situation which could exist at the end of 2016 (20 weeks from now).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40373.msg1569114#msg1569114
Therefore, only 8-9 are officially free.
Assuming that the practice continues of having the first customer paying for all the capital expenses of the first flight. If SpaceX reaches the point that they can assume a minimum of say 5 flights for each booster(Just throwing some numbers out their) then they could say charge the 1st customer $13M for capital costs and the next 4-customers pay $3M each and your costs are amortized out over 5 launches and everyone gets a lower price from re-use even the 1st customer that uses the launch services of the booster. If they reach the point of assuming 10 flights for each booster, then the amortization of the initial capital costs change. It isn't like a Airline tries to make back all of it's capital costs on buying a new aircraft on the 1st flight of that aircraft. -
#126 by JamesH65 on 31 Aug, 2016 15:14
-
The first flight of a 787 doesn't pay for the entire plane
No, but a launch of Falcon 9 at 63 m $ does. Any reflight is just gravy.
true, but that's because people don't expect 747s to fall apart after the first flight. Once it is expected that a rocket will last more than one launch, people may start to expect even the first flight to be cheaper because they will see it far more as a service (delivery to orbit) rather than a thing (a rocket which delivers something to orbit) that they are paying for.
Some companies may want to fly only on new boosters. (NASA currently?). That's doesn't happen with planes, which will throw the figures awry for launchers. -
#127 by bstrong on 31 Aug, 2016 15:26
-
IMO most importantly the value of flight 5 is not lower than flight 2. Cores will not launch if their safe operation is not ensured. So prices will not vary. Prices for first launches will be higher only as long as there are customers who insist on new cores and are willing to pay a higher price. Good for business when NASA for astronauts and DOD want new cores. It will give a constant supply of basically free cores for commercial flights.
Also, charging different prices based on number of flights would make scheduling a lot harder. If they sold a launch on a two-flight booster, they'd have to make sure that one with the right number of flights on it was available at the time of that launch. I think that would be pretty much impossible given how much the manifest gets reshuffled. -
#128 by intrepidpursuit on 31 Aug, 2016 15:38
-
I've always understood the $40 million number as the new cost for a recovery possible flight on a Falcon 9. The first flight likely pays for the stage but with very little margin and then profits are made on flights where they can reuse a stage. If a customer insists on only new cores then that is a special requirement that will have a cost attached to it, just like the option to late load the Dragon and special handling and paperwork on NASA and DOD flights.
I realize that shotwell did not expressly say that, but the phrasing doesn't rule it out either. I think we will just see that number on the website for the lower than maximum payload flights come down based on now having the option to reuse stages.
Existing contracts may have to be modified to allow for a reused stage or they may not. Obviously it seems like the SES contract had to be modified but they may have added verbiage to later contracts already. Whenever you would like to modify a contract for your own gain you will have to give something as well even if the other party doesn't lose anything. -
#129 by zubenelgenubi on 31 Aug, 2016 15:43
-
How about "...for less than $500 million..."QuoteLuxembourg-based SES says it is going to be the first commercial satellite operator to launch a spacecraft on a "second-hand" rocket.
Nope, that would be SBS-3 on STS-5 (everyone seems to forget the Shuttle!
)
I wonder if Hughes got a 30% discount from that rate for SBS-3 being the first payload on a re-flown orbiter.
I quote from the thesis "The Space Shuttle: An Attempt at Low-cost, Routine Access to Space" by Jeffery Wonch. https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/34958/90Sep_Wonch.pdf;sequence=1
From page 47:QuoteThe price for a (USA) civil or foreign launch prior to 1988 was $38 million plus fees for capital facilities and insurance.
(This was the (in)famous STS subsidy.) -
#130 by Space Ghost 1962 on 31 Aug, 2016 18:02
-
Both the over enthusiasm (SX fans) and under enthusiasm (Jim and various) are distractions.
Reuse of boosters right now is about one and only one business item right now.
Head of manifest. Next to fly.
Because you're an unexpected schedule "catch up" (or "go ahead").
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
This means that your manifest clears faster, and you can afford a more congested manifest then before w/o cancellation worries.
Screw the economics at the moment - they're too unclear. Even flight frequency is "too soon".
But opportunistic "quick turn" launch ... is the next thing to happen. For this, you need "US surplus" as a strategic resource to match the reuse booster resource.
Gradual phaseover here. Next will be flight frequency. Then an economic easing. Then the "hockey stick" effect starts to worry global launch providers.
Then economic reuse. -
#131 by AncientU on 31 Aug, 2016 18:49
-
Both the over enthusiasm (SX fans) and under enthusiasm (Jim and various) are distractions.
Reuse of boosters right now is about one and only one business item right now.
Head of manifest. Next to fly.
Because you're an unexpected schedule "catch up" (or "go ahead").
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
This means that your manifest clears faster, and you can afford a more congested manifest then before w/o cancellation worries.
Screw the economics at the moment - they're too unclear. Even flight frequency is "too soon".
But opportunistic "quick turn" launch ... is the next thing to happen. For this, you need "US surplus" as a strategic resource to match the reuse booster resource.
Gradual phaseover here. Next will be flight frequency. Then an economic easing. Then the "hockey stick" effect starts to worry global launch providers.
Then economic reuse.
Your point about an upper stage surplus is a good one... seems that building extra vacuum Merlins shouldn't be limiting at one per stage, but getting the core, avionics, and fairing together (and fit somewhere in the production queue) could be a challenge. Fairing production rate was previously called out as limiting.
If these bottlenecks can be cleared, then manifest delays by any vendor (Proton's current 'pause' as an example) could lead to jumping ship -- a phenomenon currently kept in check by the long lead time of any alternative launch provider.
I disagree with your last point, though. If global launch providers wait until the series of events you describe are realized, it will be too late. Same for satellite operators. Cannot be caught flat footed in a market that is changing at an accelerating pace. (I think you said the same thing a couple weeks ago.) -
#132 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2016 18:58
-
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month).
a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)
d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)
f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.
Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months -
#133 by JasonAW3 on 31 Aug, 2016 19:15
-
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month).
a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
b. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
c. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)
d. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
e. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)
f. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.
Atlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months
So, in other words, while they had already planned on using a Falcon 9, it just hadn't been determined whether it would be a new or relaunched Falcon 9?
Integration shouldn't be much of a problem, as all systems should be the same, although updated software and firmware might need to be loaded. Or would I be mistaken on this? -
#134 by Hankelow8 on 31 Aug, 2016 19:36
-
My guess launch costs will be a substantial reduction on future re-use launches, although we will never know that.
50/60 % would not surprise me.
I think they will be treating the first launch as a "loss leader", its basically nothing more than a promotion marketing strategy to promote future sales. -
#135 by rsdavis9 on 31 Aug, 2016 19:52
-
I think almost as great as a reduction in cost comes from launch frequencies.
All the people employed.
Ground support equipment.
If you streamline operations and do more launches with less people you get a much smaller cost per launch.
This is where the shuttle really failed.
Now having said that does anybody have real figures of what all the costs besides the manufacture of the rocket is. 20% 40%?
Obviously the percent changes based on launch frequency.
Hard to nail down. -
#136 by Space Ghost 1962 on 01 Sep, 2016 00:22
-
[NB will explain Jims rebuttal for those who don't understand what he's saying, then give my counter argument.]
Because instead of waiting for two years for an Atlas ride (or other/worse), less than 3 months for an opportunistic ride to orbit. Which, if the bet on reuse is successful, drops to a month in less than 2 years.
Not really feasible (3 month much more than 1 month).
a. The spacecraft has to be already built and sitting around (not in storage)
Spacecraft aren't "timed to launch" in terms of manufacturing and qualification. It's more like separate works of art that are commissioned, consume an organization, and are pushed out, then there's a lull before the next,
Some, like the GPS constellations, have ground standbys/secondarys that are ready to go. Rare.
Counter argument to Jim - some like SES want to horn in on Boeing's territory, so they can actually do more than one concurrently.Quoteb. There has to be a spacecraft crew has to be available.
SC have a retinue, like a hollywood star, that accompany them as they are processed into a payload, tested, encapsulated ... delays, things don't work, ... eventually they make it to the pad, launch, and they recycle (with time off).
Often you have additional people on said team or related from the SC manufacturer, so that if someone quits they don't take the business with them. So you can "do more" because you do have flex, but you can't overcommit and ever let down your customer. This is a problem if you have demand for the same thing supplied by same people/person at the same time.
Counterargument - the customer base for a early on orbit activation will cut you considerable slack because you are allowing them to earn millions quicker by not sitting on the ground. They will also "team" with SC operator to allow another customer to "share"/overlap a part of the team, because there will be more total "eyes" on their SC so they'll get better quality for the same service.Quotec. Spacecraft EGSE, MGSE and FGSE have to be available. (some spacecraft manufacturers have only one set of critical hardware)
EGSE, MGSE, FGSE = Electronic/Mechanical/Fueled Ground Systems Equipment
They have only one set of hardware because there's no need for more. This was true also of other rarified services that seldom had demand. Some of this equipment has copies in manufacturing facilities, especially handing/checkout/test equipment, because when you assemble/qualify a bus you need to work it in the same manner (although you'd have to outfit customer specific portions to them as well).
Counterargument: Are you nuts? So they outfit an existing handling fixture from the assembly floor, borrow a bring-up bench used for the proto bus, and add on the transponder checkout rig, while the assembly support team back fills with bringing up replacements for both in the time window to the next bird, all getting a bonus for overtime because they got ahead on the calendar year with an additional mission under their belt.
I'd want that bonus.
[The rest is a bit much IMHO. Think its obvious so will forgo being long winded.]
And no, fueled operations are limited to a very limited (thankfully) part of the processing just prior to mate/launch, and apart from operations congestion around a step in processing. That's going too far.Quoted. Not going to happen for a first flight of a new spacecraft. That will take at around 12 months for analytical integration.
Most sats are based on a few busses that have already flown and had the same integration. You're straining at gnats. And no, don't think that a NASA planetary mission or AF DMSP derivative is going to want to ride a reused booster any time soon
Quotee. There are other non launch vehicle items that have to be performed and scheduled (tracking station reservations, FCC applications, etc)
For GSO launches, you could "swap" slots (if the same operator) and sign up for a later flight for a discount for one not urgent to fly.Quotef. 1 month is not going to happen because the spacecraft would have to be already at the launch site.
You can deliver two when you deliver one.QuoteAtlas did Cygnus in less than 12 months
BFD they switched a booster between customers. ULA can do a fast launch too. What they can't do is build a LV in the time a booster can be reused, and a US built.
And, before another specious claim gets started:
g. risk of SC damage because concurrent operations with multiple SC on site overtax resources
No, we can (and do) handle concurrent payload operations, where some can become stalled/sidelined, where the issues can be worked while others proceed to launch. Even SC from the same vendor/operator Jim ...
Yes there are some paperwork/regulator issues. Just like before airlines swapped slots. I could get into the minutiae if you like ...
And we haven't even talked much about the case where the sucessive SC / launch ops are non conflicting.
Oh, and what would be the SX issue to handle this? Need more payload processing facilities. Gee, where would they get more space for that ... -
#137 by psionedge on 01 Sep, 2016 03:58
-
Counter argument to Jim - some like SES want to horn in on Boeing's territory, so they can actually do more than one concurrently.
What is this Boeing territory you are saying SES wants in on? Are you saying they want to manufacture satellites? Right now SES buys satellites from more than on manufacturer at the same time. -
#138 by Ronsmytheiii on 03 Sep, 2016 07:35
-
Obviously with what happened to LC-40 and SpaceX's announcement, seems this will be the first Falcon 9 launch off LC-39A as well as the first reflight (unless they switch flights around)
SpaceX to shift Florida launches to new pad after explosion
https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-shift-florida-launches-pad-explosion-003208139--finance.html?ref=gsQuoteWith its launch pad likely facing major repairs, SpaceX said it would use a second Florida site, called 39A, which is located a few miles north at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and was used for space shuttle missions.
The pad is on schedule to be operational in November, SpaceX said. The company had planned to use the pad for the first time later this year for a test flight of its new Falcon Heavy rocket. -
#139 by Steven Pietrobon on 17 Oct, 2016 06:04
-
From the AMOS-6 thread. SES-10 could fly as early as December.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41252.msg1598513#msg1598513
"We are going to re-fly the first returned core December or January. We have test fired one of the returned cores 8 times and it looks good. That is promising for testing re-flight."
)