Author Topic: Falcon and Dragon reusability  (Read 24538 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11156
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #60 on: 02/03/2009 12:35 PM »
closer to 7

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #61 on: 02/03/2009 12:49 PM »
7 to GTO? The average comm sat is way below. 5? Arianespace has no problem finding two sats for a total of less than 10.

Analyst

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11156
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #62 on: 02/03/2009 01:59 PM »
7 to GTO? The average comm sat is way below. 5? Arianespace has no problem finding two sats for a total of less than 10.

Analyst

The average is more than 5.  The commercial Atlas, Proton and Zenit have the heavier spacecraft

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #63 on: 02/03/2009 03:28 PM »
The average is more than 5.  The commercial Atlas, Proton and Zenit have the heavier spacecraft

Just an aside from the previous conversation:

It's interesting to note that the bulk of the heavier GEO spacecraft launched are flown on vehicles with reliabilities only around 90%. Atlas V is more reliable so far, but doesn't get most of the global heavy commercial GEO business.  People talk about how launch costs don't matter, and only reliability does, but I think the launch statistics kind of belies that simplistic analysis...

anyhow, that didn't have anything to do with your discussion, but I figured it needs to be mentioned occasionally.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32419
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11156
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #64 on: 02/03/2009 03:53 PM »

It's interesting to note that the bulk of the heavier GEO spacecraft launched are flown on vehicles with reliabilities only around 90%. Atlas V is more reliable so far, but doesn't get most of the global heavy commercial GEO business.  People talk about how launch costs don't matter, and only reliability does, but I think the launch statistics kind of belies that simplistic analysis...


I would bet that the lower launch costs of Proton and Zenits even with the higher insurance costs are still cheaper than the Atlas with higher launch costs and lower insurance

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #65 on: 02/03/2009 03:55 PM »
People talk about how launch costs don't matter, and only reliability does, but I think the launch statistics kind of belies that simplistic analysis...

And since we're throwing reliability considerations out the window, the statement that SpaceX doesn't have vehicles in the required performance class kind of contradicts previous claims how F9H has no market.

With standard it's not a given (TM) considerations aside, F9H GTO payload capacity would, on paper, at least mirror Ariane V ECA capability. Whether competitively with Ariane or not is a whole different question. There is something to be said about 27 engines going off at once, but after some 5 regular F9 launches under their belt they'll begin to have a pretty good understanding of what kind of reliability record Merlin 1c has. If (and that's a big if) no engines actually fail in those flights, even in a benign manner, that makes prospects for F9H not too shabby.

At this point in time, with even F9 yet to happen, all bets are off, of course.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2009 03:56 PM by ugordan »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #66 on: 02/03/2009 03:57 PM »

It's interesting to note that the bulk of the heavier GEO spacecraft launched are flown on vehicles with reliabilities only around 90%. Atlas V is more reliable so far, but doesn't get most of the global heavy commercial GEO business.  People talk about how launch costs don't matter, and only reliability does, but I think the launch statistics kind of belies that simplistic analysis...


I would bet that the lower launch costs of Proton and Zenits even with the higher insurance costs are still cheaper than the Atlas with higher launch costs and lower insurance

Indeed.  Further, the price that ILS and SeaLaunch can charge will float down by nearly half from current market prices.  We know this to be true because they used to be much lower.  It is supply and demand driving  the price.  If there is a cheaper competitor with equivalent reliability in the market in a few more years you will see prices fall as they always have before.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon and Dragon reusability
« Reply #67 on: 02/03/2009 08:10 PM »
But keep in mind that the oil boom in Russia has significantly improved the Russian economy, its not the same Russia we recall from a decade ago, when nuclear scientists were available to the highest bidder and Mig's could be bought for 100k US. Moscow is now the most expensive city to live in in the world, and professional salaries are far improved. Thus, Russian labor costs are climbing significantly of late, and their prices for launch services are also climbing.

Oil's not at $130 a barrel any more.  From what I hear, the Russians are hurting again.

They're tightening budgets to be sure, but they will never again be like they were in the 1990's when anything could be had for a pack of smokes.
Russia continues to have Europe over the barrel literally on the gas pipeline front, as the recent weeks events show. They have enough surplus on hand from the past year that they're now building an Enterprise level aircraft carrier, which is a pretty big ticket item.

Theyre certainly not making as much profit as they were last year, but their other industries are being, or have been, reasonably recovered in many areas. Dont expect to see 20 million dollar Soyuz tickets again.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Tags: