Discussion with Gwynne Shotwell, President and COO, SpaceX

[savuporo]

The disappointing part is that she talked about producing rockets more than the obstacles of actually getting them launched. According to the SpaceNews short article, she didnt really refute the "overcommitted manifest" claims.

[Joffan]

I didn't see a Youtube link so

[Sean Lynch]

I didn't see a Youtube link so

Thanks, clicking on the YT video in first post should do it too.
The billionupload download links provided above will expire in 30 days or so.
Here is the 360p version for those without YT access.
If you have YT access please use youtube to minimize NSF bandwidth.

[sdsds]

So the FH cores are in production now, and they are producing cores at a rate of two per month. So in 1.5 months all three FH cores will be out of the factory. Does that mean we can expect a "really loud test" at McGregor sometime in early August?

[garidan]

They have to produce cores for the other missions meanwhile ....

[sdsds]

We will all be totally stoked when they can launch F9 vehicles faster than they can build them (i.e. faster than two launches per month). Meanwhile, in the almost-month-long delay since the OG2 static fire, they've apparently needed to find warehouse space for another two cores....

[guckyfan]

They have to produce cores for the other missions meanwhile ....

I read the statement they are producing the Heavy cores as they are past production bottlenecks now and have no problem delivering cores for all  missions, with pad time the limiting factor.

[MP99]

They have to produce cores for the other missions meanwhile ....

I read the statement they are producing the Heavy cores as they are past production bottlenecks now and have no problem delivering cores for all  missions, with pad time the limiting factor.

Gwynne said they were moving to waiting on customers payloads "which, frankly, is a relief".

Also, said they'd need to get better at predicting when those customers will be ready.

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

My notes from the broadcast. Duplicates ground already reported:-

COTS F9 + Dragon:- £396m NASA + £450m+ Sx

Annual demand 14:00
Civil 2-2.5b / yr
CCrew + CCargo + science

NSS $3B / yr

Commercial $2B / yr
LEO lumpy. GTO 18-24 per year

Serve lots of markets. Vert integrated.  Rely on redundancy + simplicity, and think this has served us very well.

$4B backlog, 46 missions vast maj commercial

42 mission on manifest, $4.2b. Bit less than $100m per.
2011/12 (one year period), captured 100% of F9 class business. 30% of overall market.

1/month now. 2/month by end 2014. Launch cadence to be demonstrated in coming month.

Anticipate 50% market capture as build up Falcon family.

Domestic RD-180 dropped in 2008.

USAF cert.

F9R dev1.
Ablative on legs, not burning.

Q&A.
SAA only works when residual market outside govt.

3000 suppliers, 1100 extremely active - product received every week.
63 cents in dollar spent with suppliers.
Lower level of integration - wires, connectors, raw materials.

Atlas III-> launch site upgrade £250-300m. They are *much* less.

Getting to meat of cert process, now. Mountains of paperwork / TB of data. Are overwhelming them.
Working to cert complete by end year.
ULA changes LV configs over time.
SpaceX changes to improve reliability. AF has option of flying previous version, or upgraded.
Have already talked about delta certification.
Customers can request to fly on certified config.
Is a new process for AF. They are adding staff to keep up with the process.

American RD-180.
Would like to participate.
New RD-180 may be poor choice, Investing in liquid propulsion a great choice.
Would like to see investment on component / technology dev.
Elements / components of Raptor that would be of interest to broader propulsion community.

Transition from development to operations. Will always have a major element of development to keep evolving.
Moving to wait on customers, which frankly is a relief. Have to get better at predicting when customers will be ready.

Brownsville - final throws. Need lots of launch sites.

Building FH engines & tanks right now. Hope to launch in "first half or so" of 2015.

Eastern range - now allowed to fly on own telemetry. Shelton looking to fly fully autonomously.

International competitors. Chines launch 19-21 per year. One to keep close eye on. Fierce competitors.


cheers, Martin

[InfraNut2]

They have to produce cores for the other missions meanwhile ....

I read the statement they are producing the Heavy cores as they are past production bottlenecks now and have no problem delivering cores for all  missions, with pad time the limiting factor.

Gwynne said they were moving to waiting on customers payloads "which, frankly, is a relief".

Also, said they'd need to get better at predicting when those customers will be ready.

cheers, Martin

Yes, things are looking good.

They recently solved the final production problem that stopped them from producing more that 1 core per month that until then was the primary bottleneck.

They have also implemented measures to better protect umbilicals and other pad equipment from launch damages, after having more repairs than expected for a the last launches.

With these things out of the way, I assume it is now a more of a planned improvement process to get further gains in launch rate instead of a problem-elimination (aka "firefighting") process..

And there will presumably gradually less often be unexpected problems with the rockets and pads (like the recent helium leak) as time goes on.

They may actually start to be payload-limited in relatively few months. Maybe even before the end of the year as I optimistically predicted at the start of the year.

edits: some

[newpylong]

Finally got to watch this - awesome interview.

[Nomadd]

 Is there anything on the "Would like to participate" comment on the domestic RD-180 production.

[RocketGoBoom]

It seems like her comments indicate that SpaceX is aiming for about 50% market share in each of their addressable markets.

50% of the commercial launch market, although they won 100% of the Falcon 9 weight launches over a period of time. Maybe with Falcon Heavy they can even do more of the commercial market?

50% of the NASA launch market. NASA will always likely split the baby with Orbital Sciences.

50% of the USAF/DOD launch market. They will likely split the baby also with ULA.

And that all roughly adds up to about $2.5 billion to $3 billion in annual revenue potentially for SpaceX.

Is that about right?

[TrueBlueWitt]

Is there anything on the "Would like to participate" comment on the domestic RD-180 production.

the comment was not about domestic RD-180 production. It was about development of a new US hydrocarbon engine.

[RocketGoBoom]

Is there anything on the "Would like to participate" comment on the domestic RD-180 production.

the comment was not about domestic RD-180 production. It was about development of a new US hydrocarbon engine.

They would be crazy not to compete for that. It funds their rocket development team and makes SpaceX the goto company for rocket engines for the next 10-20 years.

[john smith 19]

Is there anything on the "Would like to participate" comment on the domestic RD-180 production.

the comment was not about domestic RD-180 production. It was about development of a new US hydrocarbon engine.

They would be crazy not to compete for that. It funds their rocket development team and makes SpaceX the goto company for rocket engines for the next 10-20 years.

Outside funding is nice but the question would be do Spacex want to be the goto company for rocket engines?

They have an engine. They have cash flow. They already know their engine team is good. If the US governments RFP for a new big engine fits in with Musks schedule to develop a new big engine then they may compete. If not I'd guess they have enough to be getting on with.

The question you have to answer is "How does doing this help Elon get to Mars better/faster/cheaper/safer?" If it doesn't why expect Spacex to do it?

And BTW let's not forget that US Senator who's keen to drop FAR25 cost reporting on a project that was originally bid as a Firm Fixed Price contract?

Let me suggest that the way US government policy and corporate management decisions over decades  mean that the government needs Spacex more than Spacex needs a government research contract. 

[savuporo]

Outside funding is nice but the question would be do Spacex want to be the goto company for rocket engines?

They have an engine. They have cash flow. They already know their engine team is good.

Your engine team can only stay good if they are doing something. If they are already busy doing something else and have a backlog of work for next few years, it absolutely makes no sense to compete. However, if the other alternative is sitting around twiddling thumbs or be laid off, it does make sense.

The question then is, what propulsion work does SpaceX have in it's backlog to keep the engine R&D team busy - and that means design and development, not manufacturing obviously.

[RocketGoBoom]

The question then is, what propulsion work does SpaceX have in it's backlog to keep the engine R&D team busy - and that means design and development, not manufacturing obviously.

Raptor and future versions of the Merlin seem like a lot of work.

I am just surprised that the US Congress is even offering to fund a new engine when there is an obvious example of private companies doing it already on their own dime.

[InfraNut2]

Is there anything on the "Would like to participate" comment on the domestic RD-180 production.

the comment was not about domestic RD-180 production. It was about development of a new US hydrocarbon engine.

They would be crazy not to compete for that. It funds their rocket development team and makes SpaceX the goto company for rocket engines for the next 10-20 years.

For SpaceX it would probably be a good move, but I doubt USAF would allow a launch company to compete. If they did, the other launch companies would be extremely reluctant to buy engines from a competitor and that then defeats the whole purpose. (Besides: If the engine is also used in an EELV class vehicle of their own USAF also lose the advantage of dissimilar redundancy).

I think for example ULA or Orbital would even more afraid to be (or be seen to be) at the mercy of Elon than Rogozin, even though their fear would probably be (mostly) unfounded. 

[Jim]

Let me suggest that the way US government policy and corporate management decisions over decades  mean that the government needs Spacex more than Spacex needs a government research contract. 

Not really.  The USG has been fine without SX and SX wouldn't be where their at without USG funds