ULA needs commercial business to close Vulcan rocket business case>The Vulcan rocket must fly at least 10 times per year to keep factory and launch crews operating at the efficiencies needed to reach ULA’s price goal of $100 million per mission....>

Dr. Sowers: I love the explanation of the spreadsheet (thanks for sharing the sheet and your exposition) but I was unclear as to the k values (k is "the fraction of the total cost of the expendable launch service represented by the production cost of the hardware to be reused." which is C(B)/ C(B) + C(~B) )You stated for the SpaceX scenario 1 case that you are using .4 for k ("based on internet chatter" ) and that ULA is <.3 but in the ULA scenario 2 case you state k at .18Could you clarify that? Are you saying that if ULA did a flyback booster you'd have a .3 or less but with the SMART proposal it's .18 or Also if I understand k, it's the fraction of the total cost of the vehicle that is recovered because that part of the vehicle is reused... internet chatter on NSF seems to use .7 as the fraction of an F9 cost based on Elon saying the first stage is 70% of the cost.Thanks for shedding light!

Also if I understand k, it's the fraction of the total cost of the vehicle that is recovered because that part of the vehicle is reused... internet chatter on NSF seems to use .7 as the fraction of an F9 cost based on Elon saying the first stage is 70% of the cost.

This image was posted previously.

Do I correctly assume that scenario 1 is based on ULA's estimate of recovering the entire Vulcan booster stage?

Thank you very much for posting this information. I’m just posting for discussion not asking for a reply.I agree that item P (which I believe for Spacex is a 30% reduction in mass to orbit penalty for reuse) is appropriate to consider if what is being transported something like propellant, in other words if Spacex is being paid $x for each kg to orbit. However this calculation is not currently applicable to Spacex from a business perspective in my opinion because that is not how they are paid.For Spacex they already designed their launch system to launch payloads with enough propellant for reuse. So whether or not they expend their launch system they still launch the same payload and still generate the same revenue.So from a spacex business perspective, given the launcher they have in service, the financial hit that spacex takes for reuse is not 30% of the revenue but only the additional propellant, in other words filling the tank full instead of mostly full. In other words I think $/kg is not the correct measure for the business case here.In conclusion I think from a spacex business perspective the P value should be 1.02 not 1.42. (I think I have the units right, this is meant to represent the performance loss due to reuse?)

I also agree with Lar that K should likely be closer to .7 not .4, I think the cost of the 1st stage is closer to 70% of the launch costs, not 40% of the launch costs.

Quote from: Lar on 04/23/2015 10:18 PMDr. Sowers: I love the explanation of the spreadsheet (thanks for sharing the sheet and your exposition) but I was unclear as to the k values (k is "the fraction of the total cost of the expendable launch service represented by the production cost of the hardware to be reused." which is C(B)/ C(B) + C(~B) )You stated for the SpaceX scenario 1 case that you are using .4 for k ("based on internet chatter" :) ) and that ULA is <.3 but in the ULA scenario 2 case you state k at .18Could you clarify that? Are you saying that if ULA did a flyback booster you'd have a .3 or less but with the SMART proposal it's .18 or ???Also if I understand k, it's the fraction of the total cost of the vehicle that is recovered because that part of the vehicle is reused... internet chatter on NSF seems to use .7 as the fraction of an F9 cost based on Elon saying the first stage is 70% of the cost.Thanks for shedding light!The booster is <0.3 of our total cost. The engines, which we are recovering via SMART reuse are 0.18 of the total cost. I don't think 0.7 can possibly be relative to the total cost including fixed cost and overhead. It might be relative to the total production cost. If you use that with some reasonable assumption about other non-hardware costs, 0.4 is appropriate. I have a detailed understanding of our cost structure. I know how much is pads and factory and engineering and management and all those things other than pure hardware. Even though I don't have any insight into details of SpX, I know they have more as many pads as we do, a factory like we do, a test site we don't have, more employees, etc. All that has to be accounted for in the cost.

Dr. Sowers: I love the explanation of the spreadsheet (thanks for sharing the sheet and your exposition) but I was unclear as to the k values (k is "the fraction of the total cost of the expendable launch service represented by the production cost of the hardware to be reused." which is C(B)/ C(B) + C(~B) )You stated for the SpaceX scenario 1 case that you are using .4 for k ("based on internet chatter" :) ) and that ULA is <.3 but in the ULA scenario 2 case you state k at .18Could you clarify that? Are you saying that if ULA did a flyback booster you'd have a .3 or less but with the SMART proposal it's .18 or ???Also if I understand k, it's the fraction of the total cost of the vehicle that is recovered because that part of the vehicle is reused... internet chatter on NSF seems to use .7 as the fraction of an F9 cost based on Elon saying the first stage is 70% of the cost.Thanks for shedding light!