Full Video of Elon Musk Q&A Session Post Dragon V2 Reveal

[WindyCity]

It's interesting to compare the videos of the interiors of the Dragon V2 and the Orion. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33728.0. I was struck by how robust and sturdy the Orion hardware looked compared to the Dragon's. Is it possible that the hatch, the retractable instrument panel, the seats, etc. are conceptual mock-ups and not flight-capable designs?

[ChrisWilson68]

It's interesting to compare the videos of the interiors of the Dragon V2 and the Orion. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33728.0. I was struck by how robust and sturdy the Orion hardware looked compared to the Dragon's. Is it possible that the hatch, the retractable instrument panel, the seats, etc. are conceptual mock-ups and not flight-capable designs?

It's possible.  But keep in mind that the Orion controls you're seeing in this video are in a mock-up of the capsule, while the Dragon controls are in a unit that is intended to be flown to orbit.  I don't see any reason to believe the Orion controls are more likely to be what really flies than the Dragon controls.

The only reason people seem reluctant to believe the Dragon controls are real is that they don't fit people's preconceived notions of what a spacecraft panel should look like.

[llanitedave]

It's interesting to compare the videos of the interiors of the Dragon V2 and the Orion. See http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33728.0. I was struck by how robust and sturdy the Orion hardware looked compared to the Dragon's. Is it possible that the hatch, the retractable instrument panel, the seats, etc. are conceptual mock-ups and not flight-capable designs?

It's possible.  But keep in mind that the Orion controls you're seeing in this video are in a mock-up of the capsule, while the Dragon controls are in a unit that is intended to be flown to orbit.  I don't see any reason to believe the Orion controls are more likely to be what really flies than the Dragon controls.

The only reason people seem reluctant to believe the Dragon controls are real is that they don't fit people's preconceived notions of what a spacecraft panel should look like.

Lee Morin in that video refers to the Orion as a "medium-fidelity mockup".

[mikelepage]

Is there anything that Orion has over Dragon v2?

Average number of jobs per district.

Ok that was a flippant answer, but it happens to actually be serious too. (and I was answering for the Boeing CC entry which is what I figure mikelepage meant,, rather than for Orion, but it does apply to both) 

...

What's nifty though is that folks developed a pretty good list of other advantages (or believed/perceived advantages)... Here's what I gathered at least one person believes ... did I miss any?

...

But as someone else said, this probably isn't the place for this, I just wanted to capture what had been written in one place.

Thanks for the summary Lar.  I won't prolong this off-topic conversation much longer, but better radiation protection, longer duration ECLSS, EVA capability, more internal space and a service module with significant delta V capability were exactly what I was asking for (they're not insignificant factors). The pork aspect I assumed was implied

Yours is the first post I've heard that suggested Orion had a higher spec'd heat shield (on paper if not in reality) though.  It will be interesting to see how the reality bears it out. 

With regard to destinations, I've spoken about my thoughts in my "Settling the Incliptic" series of youtube videos, but basically my take is that getting to orbit cheaply really is the limiting factor currently and that 100s and then 1000s of flights per year will come relatively quickly after that as the assembly line ramps up and the %reusability of each rocket increases.  If people are now willing to spend $100k for a 3 month cruise around the Mediterranean, I can't imagine there not being a huge market inside of 12-15 years for $1 million/1 month trips to a properly spec'd space hotel if safety was relatively assured.  Bigelow is going to be richer than ever if he plays his cards right. 

I do think spin gee is going to factor quite strongly into that market though - and for reasons completely aside from the health aspects - us space nuts may not care, but I think for most people the novelty of going to the toilet and trying to bathe in microgravity will wear off pretty quickly.  I would bet the first really popular space hotels will be Bigelow type inflatables, but with a number of compact bedroom/ensuite modules attached to a rotating hub by cables that can be individually reeled in or deployed as necessary (and yes, you always counterbalance some modules going in by others going out, and you use any number of civil engineering techniques to damp out any resonances, be they systematic or - ahem - passenger induced).  You sleep, bathe and do your business, in private, at 1 x g.  You eat, work and play in microgravity.  Sounds like the best of all worlds to me.

The way I suspect the sub-orbital travel market will get tapped once flights get regular enough is not so much analogous to Concorde plane flight as it is to travel by cruise ship: Launch from California, spend a week in orbit, then put down in London.  Sub-orbital flight is nearly orbital, after all, and if you're going to pay that much you might as well spend a few days to enjoy the view.  The speed aspect may only be used by those like the military who can afford the premium.   Suffice to say, 1000s of flights/year in 15-20 years seems low-ball to me.   

[MP99]

If people are now willing to spend $100k for a 3 month cruise around the Mediterranean, I can't imagine there not being a huge market inside of 12-15 years for $1 million/1 month trips to a properly spec'd space hotel if safety was relatively assured.  Bigelow is going to be richer than ever if he plays his cards right.

The inherent costs of those Med cruises are relatively low.

I'd think most of the cost comes in the people providing service, and the volume / mass of consumables.

ISTM that replicating that level of service in space will be very expensive.

Cheers, Martin

[ohlongjohnson]

Thanks Heliodriver for great video.

2:50 Seat pricing. <$20m seat for low flight rates and down <$10m for high flight rates.

I'm guessing the <$10m assumes LV reusability.

Perhaps this has been covered before, but i stumbled over something Elon said in the video:
I don't have the exact quote, but didn't he say "20m assuming 4 flights per year" ?

A dragon mission to ISS for 7 crewmembers costs 140m. The falcon 9 (commercial) price is around 60m, that leaves 80m for dragon +integration +overhead. That leaves 40-60m per dragon per mission.

In my opinion there are two possible interpretations of the "assuming 4 flights per year"-part:

1) reuse-related: 4 flights of the same dragon vehicle (assumes production cost of ~200m per dragon)
2) production related: 4 vehicles produced per year (assumes production cost of ~50m per dragon)

The prices are simplifications... I just wanted to illustrate my train of thought...

Which one is it in your opinion?

[ChrisWilson68]

Thanks Heliodriver for great video.

2:50 Seat pricing. <$20m seat for low flight rates and down <$10m for high flight rates.

I'm guessing the <$10m assumes LV reusability.

Perhaps this has been covered before, but i stumbled over something Elon said in the video:
I don't have the exact quote, but didn't he say "20m assuming 4 flights per year" ?

A dragon mission to ISS for 7 crewmembers costs 140m. The falcon 9 (commercial) price is around 60m, that leaves 80m for dragon +integration +overhead. That leaves 40-60m per dragon per mission.

In my opinion there are two possible interpretations of the "assuming 4 flights per year"-part:

1) reuse-related: 4 flights of the same dragon vehicle (assumes production cost of ~200m per dragon)
2) production related: 4 vehicles produced per year (assumes production cost of ~50m per dragon)

The prices are simplifications... I just wanted to illustrate my train of thought...

Which one is it in your opinion?

The price SpaceX charges NASA might have more to do with how much they think they can get out of NASA than the marginal cost to produce additional vehicles.  And why not?  As long as they're charging less than the competition, it's good for both NASA and SpaceX.

[ohlongjohnson]

The price SpaceX charges NASA might have more to do with how much they think they can get out of NASA than the marginal cost to produce additional vehicles.  And why not?  As long as they're charging less than the competition, it's good for both NASA and SpaceX.

Of course there is profit in there, too! My question is: Do you think someone at SpaceX said:

1) "We can offer a price of 20m assuming no reuse of dragon, but the production line has to spit out 4 dragons per year for this price to work"
or
2) "We can offer a price of 20m assuming reusing dragon 4 times"

?

[ChrisWilson68]

The price SpaceX charges NASA might have more to do with how much they think they can get out of NASA than the marginal cost to produce additional vehicles.  And why not?  As long as they're charging less than the competition, it's good for both NASA and SpaceX.

Of course there is profit in there, too! My question is: Do you think someone at SpaceX said:

1) "We can offer a price of 20m assuming no reuse of dragon, but the production line has to spit out 4 dragons per year for this price to work"
or
2) "We can offer a price of 20m assuming reusing dragon 4 times"

?

Let me try to be more clear.

SpaceX is highly vertically integrated, and they are in a business with very low volume.  The vast majority of their costs are likely fixed.  That means their gross margins are very high.

So they don't think in terms of "We can offer a price" based on their incremental costs, because those are very low.  They can make a gross profit with or without reuse.  Even without any reuse, the prices they charge NASA will be far higher than their marginal costs.

[Prober]

Thanks Heliodriver for great video.

2:50 Seat pricing. <$20m seat for low flight rates and down <$10m for high flight rates.

I'm guessing the <$10m assumes LV reusability.

Perhaps this has been covered before, but i stumbled over something Elon said in the video:
I don't have the exact quote, but didn't he say "20m assuming 4 flights per year" ?

A dragon mission to ISS for 7 crewmembers costs 140m. The falcon 9 (commercial) price is around 60m, that leaves 80m for dragon +integration +overhead. That leaves 40-60m per dragon per mission.

In my opinion there are two possible interpretations of the "assuming 4 flights per year"-part:

1) reuse-related: 4 flights of the same dragon vehicle (assumes production cost of ~200m per dragon)
2) production related: 4 vehicles produced per year (assumes production cost of ~50m per dragon)

The prices are simplifications... I just wanted to illustrate my train of thought...

Which one is it in your opinion?

one media (don't recall article) has the pricing you list but only on the basis of NASA accepting 12 flights per year. Otherwise it would be more per seat.
google and maybe you will find it.

[Robotbeat]

Elon corrected himself and said the $20m per seat figure was for 2 flights per year.

[starsilk]

Elon corrected himself and said the $20m per seat figure was for 2 flights per year.

he didn't clarify how many seats used per flight though. that seems a very low price if NASA only uses four seats, presumably that means '$20m per seat with all seven occupied'... $140m/flight.

[lele]

Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?
What would NASA do with these additional seats?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?
What would NASA do with these additional seats?

Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?

[rpapo]

Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?
What would NASA do with these additional seats?

Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?

Are we forgetting our past?  Remember how things worked with the Shuttle.  I could easily imagine them sending up seven people at a time, 3-4 of them to stay on the ISS, and bringing back an equal number.  The return trip, of course, would use the Dragon that's been sitting up there as lifeboat for 4-6 months.

[InfraNut2]

Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?

No. NASA needed just 4 and 4+ is what it specified.

[MP99]

Since DC and CST also have up to 7 seats, was it a demand of NASA?
What would NASA do with these additional seats?

Bring all Astronauts home in one vehicle in case something happens on the ISS, maybe?

Are we forgetting our past?  Remember how things worked with the Shuttle.  I could easily imagine them sending up seven people at a time, 3-4 of them to stay on the ISS, and bringing back an equal number.  The return trip, of course, would use the Dragon that's been sitting up there as lifeboat for 4-6 months.

IIRC they relied on Shuttle ECLSS, EG for sleeping.

cheers, Martin

[rpapo]

IIRC they relied on Shuttle ECLSS, EG for sleeping.

Which reminds me...  IIRC, there are two docking adapters currently up there on the ISS, one of them on Harmony (the customary Shuttle docking location) and another attached to Unity (adjacent the Cupola).  Once we get into the mode where one Dragon (or DC, or CST-100) is attached as lifeboat for 4-6 months at a time, with shorter periods where there are two spacecraft docked at the same time, then they will need to use both of those docking adapters.  The question is: do we know if they intend to move PMA-3 to a new location, like perhaps the upper port of Harmony?  It seems to me that the current location on Unity is a less than optimal location because of physical obstructions to clean docking and undocking.

Though perhaps we are also straying off topic here...   

[InfraNut2]

The question is: do we know if they intend to move PMA-3 to a new location, like perhaps the upper port of Harmony?  It seems to me that the current location on Unity is a less than optimal location because of physical obstructions to clean docking and undocking.

Yes: harmony zenith, and unity nadir will be freed up to be a better backup berthing port.

This has long been the plan and it has been extensively described and discussed here before. For more info: Search and ye shall find...

edit: See for example this article from the news part of this site.

[Tony Whitehead]

Enjoyed this interview very much.  I live in Waco, not far from the McGregor test site and eagerly anticipate an aggressive Dragonfly program.  Thank you for all the good information, Elon really perked up to your questions.