Is anyone else getting the impression that the recent plethora of launches is being sped up as a result of Musk/Bezos competition?
Quote from: JamesH on 01/23/2016 09:20 amIs anyone else getting the impression that the recent plethora of launches is being sped up as a result of Musk/Bezos competition?No. Not at all. SpaceX own launch rate is behind their own optimistic schedules, even accounting for the CRS7 failure. They are simply catching up to their own schedule, going as fast as they can. Long term? Maybe. But short and medium term term? Heck no. Blue Origin is far too secretive to have that kind of effect on anyone.
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/23/2016 10:53 amQuote from: JamesH on 01/23/2016 09:20 amIs anyone else getting the impression that the recent plethora of launches is being sped up as a result of Musk/Bezos competition?No. Not at all. SpaceX own launch rate is behind their own optimistic schedules, even accounting for the CRS7 failure. They are simply catching up to their own schedule, going as fast as they can. Long term? Maybe. But short and medium term term? Heck no. Blue Origin is far too secretive to have that kind of effect on anyone.So complete coincidence that SpaceX release the DragonFly video the day before a BO flight? I defo. get the feeling there is some friendly billionaire competition going on here...!
Posted this in another thread about the recent Raptor contract but it really belongs here.Just looked at the SpaceNews article for the BO test flight yesterday and there is one tidbit of information and that is that the BE-4 prototype tests NLT EOY 2016. This is 1 year in advance of SpaceX so you are correct that SpaceX is likely to increase their spending to do their prototype test for Raptor NLT EOY 2017. Also this means that by 2019 there will be a possible 2 MethaLox 500Klbf class engines in production. Things are moving quickly and SpaceX needs to keep moving ahead rapidly or they may get left behind in the reusability race that has started.This also means that if ULA continues sufficient funding of Vulcan then they could fly the first MethaLox orbital 1st stage NLT EOY 2019. SpaceX would not be far behind with a 1st stage MethaLox vehicle NLT EOY 2021. Their development may see an acceleration.There is a competition starting but it is for a highly inexpensive reusable 1st stage and the competitors include SpaceX, BO, ULA and ESA. I am wondering if ULA may change its Vulcan design to allow for later propulsive land landing recovery, since Vulcan is still in design (paper) phase but with a BE-4 looking like existing with exact performance values and (form fit function) the design is likely to quickly transition to critical design and production. SpaceX's effort is a year behind and that will spur them to speed up.
I don't think so. Certainly there is a competition for visibility by putting out slick commercial videos of the achievements thus far. But many of these companies started out around the same time, in the early 00s coming right after the internet boom and the time it takes to develop technologies like this is hard to compress, even with a ton of money. So right about now, they're on the steep ascending part of the curve, when all that trial and error comes together.
For orbital launches the F9 can be considered as the first generation VTVL reusable first stage and the BE-4 and Raptor powered first stages to be the second generation VTVL reusable first stages. The difference being that the MethaLox vehicles are likely to have twice or more times the number of flight life than the F9. Plus the refurbishment costs may be lower for these vehicles as well such that on a comparison the per flight costs of these second generation 1st stages may represent a real reduction in costs of as much as $5M per flight. Making the cost of the 1st stage per flight as a percentage of the flight costs <10%. Now add a reusable US and the costs can drop another $10M per flight get the per flight prices below $20M. But it will not happen overnight. These second generation 1st stages will be showing up somewhere around 2020-2022 ULA's Vulcan notwithstanding which may fly as early as 2019. Unless ULA changes their minds about VTVL, Vulcan would be classed as a first generation reusable 1st stage even though it could have a large flight number for the engines the costs per flight will still be significant.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/23/2016 05:28 pmPosted this in another thread about the recent Raptor contract but it really belongs here.Just looked at the SpaceNews article for the BO test flight yesterday and there is one tidbit of information and that is that the BE-4 prototype tests NLT EOY 2016. This is 1 year in advance of SpaceX so you are correct that SpaceX is likely to increase their spending to do their prototype test for Raptor NLT EOY 2017. Also this means that by 2019 there will be a possible 2 MethaLox 500Klbf class engines in production. Things are moving quickly and SpaceX needs to keep moving ahead rapidly or they may get left behind in the reusability race that has started.This also means that if ULA continues sufficient funding of Vulcan then they could fly the first MethaLox orbital 1st stage NLT EOY 2019. SpaceX would not be far behind with a 1st stage MethaLox vehicle NLT EOY 2021. Their development may see an acceleration.There is a competition starting but it is for a highly inexpensive reusable 1st stage and the competitors include SpaceX, BO, ULA and ESA. I am wondering if ULA may change its Vulcan design to allow for later propulsive land landing recovery, since Vulcan is still in design (paper) phase but with a BE-4 looking like existing with exact performance values and (form fit function) the design is likely to quickly transition to critical design and production. SpaceX's effort is a year behind and that will spur them to speed up.Why does SpaceX have to speed up MethaLOX? If you are 1- 2 years behind - how does it matter?
Quote from: JamesH on 01/23/2016 12:11 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 01/23/2016 10:53 amQuote from: JamesH on 01/23/2016 09:20 amIs anyone else getting the impression that the recent plethora of launches is being sped up as a result of Musk/Bezos competition?No. Not at all. SpaceX own launch rate is behind their own optimistic schedules, even accounting for the CRS7 failure. They are simply catching up to their own schedule, going as fast as they can. Long term? Maybe. But short and medium term term? Heck no. Blue Origin is far too secretive to have that kind of effect on anyone.So complete coincidence that SpaceX release the DragonFly video the day before a BO flight? I defo. get the feeling there is some friendly billionaire competition going on here...!The biggest counterargument to this, IMO, is that until the plume appeared, nobody actually knew anything about the flight. The only way to have known beforehand is if somebody was watching the FAA releases very closely, and something tells me nobody at SpaceX is going to get paid to do that.Personally, I think even the idea of posting media reactively is ridiculous, but even more compelling is the fact that SpaceX likely didn't even know Blue was going to be doing anything when the Dv2 video was posted.
Competition is not helping Areojet.
But how will competition affect the bottom line of SpaceX and Blue Origin?Fine, we know that old space companies will certainly take a hit. But if SpaceX has been counting on certain profit margins to keep its cash flow running smoothly, then will Blue's entry as a competing bidder for launch contracts then cramp SpaceX's style?It's well known that Silicon Valley tech giants like Apple and Google have firm unofficial agreements with each other to not poach each others' employees. Will we see all-out cut-throat competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin, or will they abide by certain gentlemen's agreements to not cut each other down to size?
I believe the OP's intent was the very visible exchange between Musk and Bezo's, mostly over reusing VTVL rocket stages.
I don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers. SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms. ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/24/2016 05:54 pmI don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers. SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms. ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors. - Ed KylePerhaps it will always be in the nature of the media to overdramatize competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin, as the "personal rivalry" angle will attract more eyeballs.But if Bezos' goal really is "millions of people working in space" then surely he'll likewise be aiming for the similarly heavy class rockets that SpaceX and NASA are pursuing.It sounds like Blue Origin will be unveiling their version of Falcon-1 later this year. But just as SpaceX quickly transitioned from Falcon-1 to Falcon-9, likewise it may be possible that Blue will similarly move towards more meaningfully larger scales once they've achieved orbital flight - presumably because that's where the money is.If/when Blue creates their version of Falcon-9, then how will their engine's unique differences dictate the overall design of their rocket? It sound like BE-3U will be their Mvac, and they could use multiple BE-4's on the booster stage to achieve a payload capacity comparable to Falcon-9.Surely Blue won't leave all the heavier lifting to Vulcan? Isn't the idea that ULA will take care of cargo, while Blue will lift people to space?
Sea level optimized BE-3 has thrust of 490 kN, which is very close to the thrust of Merlin 1C.So BE-3U is not an engine for upper stage of Falcon 1 class vehicle. It's engine for upper stage for lifting at least 5 tonnes to LEO, soyuz/delta II class, and even single one can be used for upper stage of much bigger vehicle.
“We’re already more than three years into development of our first orbital vehicle. Though it will be the small vehicle in our orbital family, it’s still many times larger than New Shepard.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/24/2016 05:54 pmI don't see Blue Origin and SpaceX in competition.Blue is developing a suborbital joy-rider and a "small" (compared to Falcon 9 and the EELVs) orbital launch vehicle that seems to be also for joy-riding customers. SpaceX is striving for EELV-Medium and Heavy class orbital payloads, with bills paid by governments and big "commercial" comsat firms. ULA, ILS, Arianespace, and Orbital-ATK are SpaceX competitors. - Ed KyleActually, here's the quote from Bezos I was looking for:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/blue-origin-successful-reuse-test-new-shepard/Quote“We’re already more than three years into development of our first orbital vehicle. Though it will be the small vehicle in our orbital family, it’s still many times larger than New Shepard.So he's talking about their "Falcon 1", and it sounds like the rest of the family will be significantly larger than that.But from what hkultala said, Blue's "Falcon 1" will be a lot more capable than SpaceX's Falcon-1 was.So how does BE-3U likely compare against Mvac?
So would Bezos be able to bid for CRS contracts? Will Blue's first orbital rocket provide that capability?
Instead, the near monopoly on launch services held by Boeing and Lockheed, as they bought everyone up, held up prices.
So, when Elon entered the scene, the launch market was ULA with high prices, and Russian competition, hindered by ITAR and reluctance of the US government to fly Russian, and bad marketing by the Russians, and the occasional political snit.
The existence of the Russians, however, killed off any new small US launcher, since unit costs were important enough to NASA that they would fly on cheaper Russian launchers for small programs.
And then Orbital's Minuteman flight program killed Athena dead, leaving this country with no small domestic commercial launcher, which probably would be useful today.
Elon was the first US player with capital to understand the impact of lower launch costs on enlarging the market, a process that we are now seeing for the first time. And the impact of SpaceX in grabbing contracts is significant.
This is just the beginning. Price competition should have an amazing impact on the launch market over the next few years, barring a series of catastrophes.
Elon was the first US player with capital to understand the impact of lower launch costs on enlarging the market, a process that we are now seeing for the first time.
Quote from: Danderman on 01/26/2016 06:21 amElon was the first US player with capital to understand the impact of lower launch costs on enlarging the market, a process that we are now seeing for the first time. Except the market isn't enlarging, it's flat and forecast to contract in the next 10 years.
That's the hope for expansion of payloads due to lower launch costs.
So if Musk and Bezos aren't really using any previously unknown technology to pull off their trick, then why the heck couldn't all of this have been done before? Why were the monopolies/duopolies able to stay intact all this time? Why wasn't this Gutenberg-ian competition able to reach this sector before? Just merely because of high upfront capital costs?
Competition is certainly expediting the opening up of the market:https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-investors-are-following-musk-bezos-in-betting-on-the-stars/2016/01/28/42bd5066-b962-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html
Actually, that is a story about investment dollars, not launch markets.
Competition is shaking up the market, even while speeding it up:http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/31/will-spacex-put-russia-out-of-the-space-business.aspx
Quote from: sanman on 01/31/2016 04:22 pmCompetition is shaking up the market, even while speeding it up:http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/31/will-spacex-put-russia-out-of-the-space-business.aspxTake anything you see at fool with a giant grain of salt... and check what they're pumping lately... (they are on "the cable companies are in for it" a lot lately... I stopped caring what they were pumping but it's something )
Well, I think they have a point about how the longtime Russian leverage with space is now going to take a big dive as the private players price them out of the market.
Quote from: sanman on 01/31/2016 07:15 pmWell, I think they have a point about how the longtime Russian leverage with space is now going to take a big dive as the private players price them out of the market.At the present ruble exchange rate they can go way down.
I don't think ILS will drop their share, though, so that would limit any lessening the price of Proton, which is the only Russian launch vehicle on the market right now that is launched by Russians.
I immediately think of Henry Ford, recognizing that if he paid his workers a decent enough wage, that they too could become customers who could afford to buy his mass-produced assembly line vehicles.
Quote from: sanman on 01/26/2016 10:42 pmI immediately think of Henry Ford, recognizing that if he paid his workers a decent enough wage, that they too could become customers who could afford to buy his mass-produced assembly line vehicles.At the risk of going a bit off-topic, I don't think that old story is true. Ford did raise his wages, but it doesn't make sense that he'd do it in the hope that his own workers would spend some small fraction of their extra pay buying his product.If memory serves, the real reason was to reduce training costs due to rapid turnover. Higher wages kept workers around longer, which increased their productivity enough to be worth the higher wages.I'd guess that the cost of finding and training workers is a big part of what's keeping their payscale up in the space industry today. Elon Musk probably doesn't expect his engineers to buy F9s.
Ford believed he was buying higher quality work from all his employees. “If the floor sweeper’s heart is in his job he can save us five dollars a day by picking up small tools instead of sweeping them out.” “The owner, the employees, and the buying public are all one and the same, and unless an industry can so manage itself as to keep wages high and prices low it destroys itself, for otherwise it limits the number of its customers. One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers.” It might have been just another of Ford’s wild ideas, except that it proved successful. In 1914, the company sold 308,000 of its Model Ts—more than all other carmakers combined. By 1915, sales had climbed to 501,000. By 1920, Ford was selling a million cars a year.“We increased the buying power of our own people, and they increased the buying power of other people, and so on and on,” Ford wrote. “It is this thought of enlarging buying power by paying high wages and selling at low prices that is behind the prosperity of this country.”Ford told Garrett, “When business thought only of profit for the owners ‘instead of providing goods for all,’ then it frequently broke down.”
<snip>The alternative is to pick winners and reduce the number of parallel paths eliminating the duplication, and providing adequate cash to speed up the 'winning', early selected option. There are many cases where a slower speed results in a cheaper end result. Only those with deep pockets have entered the 'competition'..do they have all the ideas?
Quote from: muomega0 on 02/01/2016 05:31 pm<snip>The alternative is to pick winners and reduce the number of parallel paths eliminating the duplication, and providing adequate cash to speed up the 'winning', early selected option. There are many cases where a slower speed results in a cheaper end result. Only those with deep pockets have entered the 'competition'..do they have all the ideas?So long as you correctly pick the winners.Command economies are a vast trove of evidence that we (humanity) are not good at doing this.
Quote from: muomega0 on 02/01/2016 05:31 pm<snip>The alternative is to pick winners and reduce the number of parallel paths eliminating the duplication, and providing adequate cash to speed up the 'winning', early selected option. There are many cases where a slower speed results in a cheaper end result. Only those with deep pockets have entered the 'competition'..do they have all the ideas?There are many more cases where a slower speed results in a more expensive result.The space industry is a study in such cost increases.I'd suggest casting a wide net for entrants and ideas, kinda like being done in CRS plus Crew for ISS, and let ideas and results 'pick the winners.' One day, USG can be out of the loop as is now the case in the satellite market.
At the risk of going a bit off-topic, I don't think that old story is true. Ford did raise his wages, but it doesn't make sense that he'd do it in the hope that his own workers would spend some small fraction of their extra pay buying his product.If memory serves, the real reason was to reduce training costs due to rapid turnover. Higher wages kept workers around longer, which increased their productivity enough to be worth the higher wages.I'd guess that the cost of finding and training workers is a big part of what's keeping their payscale up in the space industry today. Elon Musk probably doesn't expect his engineers to buy F9s.
