SpaceX’s roadmap for innovating the global launch market

[Chris Bergin]

Allowing Marshall Murphy to stretch his fingers, this time with a SpaceX article, via Ms. Shotwell's recent event.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/06/spacexs-roadmap-innovating-global-market/

And the video to that:


(Not sure why the other thread was locked. Probably went way off topic, will look into that tomorrow).

[sanman]

One vibe I get from Gwynne Shotwell's talks is that she has a much more feet-on-the-ground and business-related focus, in contrast to Musk who mostly talks about the loftier "uplifting humanity" stuff. Sure, she does make token mention of her CEO's goals, in deference to his guiding influence on the company, but mainly she seems to focus on the more conventional operational and market-related topics. I wonder how much input she has on the strategic direction of SpaceX.

[beancounter]

One vibe I get from Gwynne Shotwell's talks is that she has a much more feet-on-the-ground and business-related focus, in contrast to Musk who mostly talks about the loftier "uplifting humanity" stuff. Sure, she does make token mention of her CEO's goals, in deference to his guiding influence on the company, but mainly she seems to focus on the more conventional operational and market-related topics. I wonder how much input she has on the strategic direction of SpaceX.

That's understandable.  She is the COO after all so her focus should be the bread and butter operating stuff and making sure the company meets it's customer needs and expectations.
CEO sets the mission, leadership style, etc.

[sublimemarsupial]

I thought that SpaceX only submitted F9v1.1 for certification with the USAF, but the article seems to state that the air force would have the option to fly F9v1.0 if they so choose. Have they also submitted v1.0 for certification?

From the original interview with Gwynne, the only quote I can find related to this is "The Air Force will have the option of flying the previous version, or flying the upgraded version". The context seems to indicate that she is referring to the "previous version" as the certified frozen configuration (of v1.1) and the "upgraded version" as the latest configuration of the rocket including all of the upgrades for reliability they have implemented since the last certified version, rather than to v1.0 and v1.1 respectively.

[IslandPlaya]

No. V1.1 is certified only

[Lar]

I thought that SpaceX only submitted F9v1.1 for certification with the USAF, but the article seems to state that the air force would have the option to fly F9v1.0 if they so choose. Have they also submitted v1.0 for certification?

From the original interview with Gwynne, the only quote I can find related to this is "The Air Force will have the option of flying the previous version, or flying the upgraded version". The context seems to indicate that she is referring to the "previous version" as the certified frozen configuration (of v1.1) and the "upgraded version" as the latest configuration of the rocket including all of the upgrades for reliability they have implemented since the last certified version, rather than to v1.0 and v1.1 respectively.

I think she was referring to stream upgrades to v1.1.  (v1.1.1 vs v1.1.0) ... apparently they think they have their process control and bill of materials management to the point that they can sucessfully build multiple branches of the revision tree at the same time. 

I think the world of SpaceX but that is really hard. I'm dubious that you can economically flip back and forth between revisions. It's not code where you just pick a branch to extract to your build target. It's physical.

So maybe they are going to warehouse a copy or three of the current version before they apply upgrades? But that too is dangerous and hard. Why build stuff with known issues? Most serial production moves forward from one version to the next and never looks back.

[king1999]

One vibe I get from Gwynne Shotwell's talks is that she has a much more feet-on-the-ground and business-related focus, in contrast to Musk who mostly talks about the loftier "uplifting humanity" stuff. Sure, she does make token mention of her CEO's goals, in deference to his guiding influence on the company, but mainly she seems to focus on the more conventional operational and market-related topics. I wonder how much input she has on the strategic direction of SpaceX.

She is the Yin while Elon is the Yang of a great team. SpaceX needs both to grow and succeed.

[Roy_H]

...
So maybe they are going to warehouse a copy or three of the current version before they apply upgrades? But that too is dangerous and hard. Why build stuff with known issues? Most serial production moves forward from one version to the next and never looks back.

They will not warehouse previous versions. She is talking about small incremental changes in the future, not major upgrades like V1.1 vs V1.0. NASA required that SpaceX retain the capability (tools, processes) to build another V1.0 until V1.1 was proven successful. Small changes only means that the older part can still be manufactured/purchased.

[douglas100]

I agree. Apart fom anything else the ground support equipment at the pads is not compatible with the old version.

[Chris Bergin]

That was my bad as editor. I saw the line and tagged it for changing, but became distracted (going on 4am at the time) and didn't return to it. Now changed.

Bad editor.

I'll be pulling myself into the office this morning, I can tell you!

[clongton]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia. Did anyone ask her about that?

[docmordrid]

China has already said they can't compete at those price points, not to mention if reuse works, and the way Proton is going Angara had better work - and fast.

[inventodoc]

Although some of these threads can get heated at NSF, they are generally civil and get heated about passion on the topic at hand. I was at another unnamed spaceflight website which had an article on this topic and was blown away by the posted comment thread. It was a war between pro/anti SpaceX partisans and was personal and nasty. Wow. Thanks NSF moderators. 

There are lots of good people trying to get us to space. SpaceX is one group, and there are others out there too.

That said, Shotwell seems pretty reasonable here about their current challenges. I didn't appreciate how much the launch site queue is affecting their ability to process launches, so now the need for multiple launch sites is starting to make sense.

[guckyfan]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia. Did anyone ask her about that?

I don't know about China, but do you really think Russia has reasons to subsidize launches to compete with SpaceX? They have plenty of domestic launches.

[Prober]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia.

already  discounted;  Ariane is what she is talking about.

can't wait to get the popcorn out when SpaceX pushes the WTO on subsidized launches.  (mark this one down) I called it first

[JBF]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia.

already  discounted;  Ariane is what she is talking about.

can't wait to get the popcorn out when SpaceX pushes the WTO on subsidized launches.  (mark this one down) I called it first

They would have to start paying market rates on their launch site rentals first. 

[docmordrid]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia.

already  discounted;  Ariane is what she is talking about.

can't wait to get the popcorn out when SpaceX pushes the WTO on subsidized launches.  (mark this one down) I called it first

They would have to start paying market rates on their launch site rentals first.

If commercial launches are from Boca Chica, what rental?

[guckyfan]

They would have to start paying market rates on their launch site rentals first.

If commercial launches are from Boca Chica, what rental?

At the pads they presently use they tore down most of the structure and built their own. How much is the rental worth?

[rpapo]

Define "market rate".   Last I heard, it was the price that results from a negotiation between a buyer and a seller.  When there aren't many buyers, or the seller really wants to sell, price goes down, whatever the intrinsic worth of the item being sold.

[Comga]

Define "market rate".   Last I heard, it was the price that results from a negotiation between a buyer and a seller.  When there aren't many buyers, or the seller really wants to sell, price goes down, whatever the intrinsic worth of the item being sold.

Hasn't Jim said repeatedly that SpaceX covers all of the marginal costs of the range?
That is available to all (US) customers and is as good a definition of "Market rate" as any.
At what other launch site are rocket companies charged per launch?
Arianespace at French Guyana?
Proton at Baikanur?

[yg1968]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia.

already  discounted;  Ariane is what she is talking about.

can't wait to get the popcorn out when SpaceX pushes the WTO on subsidized launches.  (mark this one down) I called it first

Only countries can file file a complaint to the WTO. Furthermore, there is a lot of exceptions in the WTO agreements. 

[MP99]

Aiming at capturing 50% or more of the world launch market for payloads in the Falcon range is a lofty goal. But it won't be long before SpaceX is hard up against foreign government subsidized launches, as in China and Russia. Did anyone ask her about that?

I thought she'd said the accessible market, but have not been able to find it again.

Near the beginning, I think - when she's breaking down the market by $ amounts.

Cheers, Martin

[Oli]

In 2011 and 2012, SpaceX captured 100 percent of the market for Falcon 9-class launches and 30 percent of the worldwide launch market

That makes no sense...

[QuantumG]

In 2011 and 2012, SpaceX captured 100 percent of the market for Falcon 9-class launches and 30 percent of the worldwide launch market

That makes no sense...

The first claim seems either over-fit or easy to refute.

[Vultur]

She probably means launches contracted in 2011 and 2012, not actually launched then. Even so, though, that seems extreme.

[Burninate]

I read it as "Falcon 9 was the only US launch vehicle that saw orders for nongovernmental payloads of 13 tons LEO / 4.8 tons GTO or less in 2011/2012, and it comprised 30% of world orders for payloads in that category".

[Prober]

She probably means launches contracted in 2011 and 2012, not actually launched then. Even so, though, that seems extreme.

it's called spin 

[mikelepage]

One vibe I get from Gwynne Shotwell's talks is that she has a much more feet-on-the-ground and business-related focus, in contrast to Musk who mostly talks about the loftier "uplifting humanity" stuff. Sure, she does make token mention of her CEO's goals, in deference to his guiding influence on the company, but mainly she seems to focus on the more conventional operational and market-related topics. I wonder how much input she has on the strategic direction of SpaceX.

She's the Tim Cook to Elon Musk's Jobs.