Who will compete with SpaceX? The last two and next two years.

[envy887]

Cross-posting from the "When will F9/F9H be retired?" thread.

It appears the GAO weighted in on what the launch cost of the current launch vehicles.

For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42617.msg1714372#msg1714372

From the table GAO says the only direct competitor for the F9 is the Proton M. Next group is a very large list at 2X-3X the $/kg of F9 and Proton which includes the Atlas V. Which also begs the question of why haven't Atlas V booked more commercial flights? They are a direct price competitor of most of the alternatives in this grouping.

This table makes a good source for comparing the LV's

Modified for clarity

Not realy since it only compares payload to LEO.
Wouldn't rockets with higher energy upper stages be pushed down by this criteria?

It's a good source for comparing prices. LEO/GTO ratio varies a bit for different LVs, but performance is generally better known than price. It would be straightforward to update this with $/kg to GTO.

[edkyle99]

Cross-posting from the "When will F9/F9H be retired?" thread.

It appears the GAO weighted in on what the launch cost of the current launch vehicles.

For your amusement. The GAO have an estimate of the launch cost of the current launch vehicles on page 35 of the linked report. The F9 launch cost per kilogram is impressive even before you add booster reuse to the mix. THe F9 will be in service far longer than anyone expected because it is so cheap IMO.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686613.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42617.msg1714372#msg1714372

From the table GAO says the only direct competitor for the F9 is the Proton M. Next group is a very large list at 2X-3X the $/kg of F9 and Proton which includes the Atlas V. Which also begs the question of why haven't Atlas V booked more commercial flights? They are a direct price competitor of most of the alternatives in this grouping.

This table makes a good source for comparing the LV's

Modified for clarity

Not realy since it only compares payload to LEO.
Wouldn't rockets with higher energy upper stages be pushed down by this criteria?

Falcon 9's heaviest GTO payload to date was 6,761 kg.  That was an expendable launch, so the $61.2 million doesn't apply.  The real cost might have been, what, $80-$100 million?  (But who really knows?)  The highest number is $14,790/kg to GTO.

Atlas 5's heaviest known GTO payload to date was 6,740 kg by a 551 model, listed by GAO as $179 million.  That's $26,560/kg to GTO. 

Perhaps the LEO comparison and the cataloged-but-never-delivered comparison skews the numbers, but the real world comparison still appears to favor Falcon 9 on the cost side.  And it should.  Falcon 9 uses two stages with common propellants and similar engines - all built in house.  Atlas 5 uses RP, LH2, and solid fuels and many parts bought from outside contractors.

 - Ed Kyle

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

To GTO
The rough comparison for an Alas V (551) and an F9 EXPD to GTO is $22,000/kg for the AV and $10,000/kg for the F9.

Ariane V ~$15,000/kg.
Proton M ~$11,000/kg.

So closer but still not peers.

Added:
For commercial the prices for GTO are the same as for LEO but for Government (at least for US launchers) add $20-30M. This almost fixed cost regardless of booster makes the competition closer 1.7X but still a clear difference.
US Government to GTO launches:
AV ~$25,500/kg and F9 ~$15,200/kg.

[added:]
NOTE: for a DOD VI payload handling GTO flight add an additional up to $20M to the F9 price giving the value of $18,500/kg or a factor between the F9 and AV of 1.4X. Even with all of this hampering and additional government/DOD requirements F9 is still significantly cheaper than an AV in the $/kg comparison to GTO.

[Rik ISS-fan]

One thing SpaceX can't do at this moment is vertical payload integration. For the current payload integration proces a payload has to transition at least twice from vertical to horizontal (before mating with F9/FH), and from horizontal to vertical (Launcher errection at the pad).
For example the TDRS-M and sister satellites wouldn't allow this payload integration proces. And in case of chemical propulsion the propallent tank mounts need to be designed for the transitions while the tank is loaded.
Proton also uses horizontal payload integration and errection at the pad by default. But, if I'm not mistaken they have or used to have a structure that enables vertical payload integration. (It could also only be protection and possibly inspection).
All other heavy launchers AV; DIV; A5; H2 use vertical payload integration. Vertical is less risky than horizontal for the payload.

I think the higher risk for a schedual slip / mission failure and the horizontal payload integration are reasons why some payloads prefer a more expensive launch option.

[oiorionsbelt]

Will the X37B be vertically integrated? If not why transport the fairing like this?

[Jim]

Will the X37B be vertically integrated? If not why transport the fairing like this?

All Spacex payloads are vertically encapsulated and transported vertical to the launch vehicle hangar.  But once they get there, the fairing with payload is then rotated to horizontal and mated to the launch vehicle.  That is the part that is the issue.

[Coastal Ron]

One thing SpaceX can't do at this moment is vertical payload integration.

Right, and I'm not sure I've heard a timeline for when they will add it, though I would guess it would be after Commercial Crew gets going so that they don't cause any delays. So until then ULA and other launch providers have an advantage of SpaceX for those payloads that require vertical payload integration.

I think the higher risk for a schedual slip / mission failure and the horizontal payload integration are reasons why some payloads prefer a more expensive launch option.

Sure, regardless whether it's real or perceived, that is likely to be a factor.

And just in general payload customers are not going to want a SpaceX that dominates too much of the launch market, since it's not a good idea to be too beholden to any one supplier - regardless how benign they might appear to be.

To me the primary goal is not to lower the number of overall expendable launch providers, but to increase the number of reusable launch providers. There is a difference between the two goals, but so far I'm not seeing the reaction to reusable rocket stages that I was hoping to see - which was that expendable launch providers would become serious about changing over to reusable rockets. Let's hope they don't wait too long...

[Roy_H]

To me the primary goal is not to lower the number of overall expendable launch providers, but to increase the number of reusable launch providers. There is a difference between the two goals, but so far I'm not seeing the reaction to reusable rocket stages that I was hoping to see - which was that expendable launch providers would become serious about changing over to reusable rockets. Let's hope they don't wait too long...

Building reusable rockets is not as simple as adding legs. SpaceX has designed their rockets to be reusable from the beginning. Other manufacturers will have to bring out new models designed for reuse-ability, they cannot just modify existing designs. Blue Origin is designing for reuse-ability and ULA's Vulcan will be at least partially re-useable and maybe fully later. I am sure Airiane Space is working hard on it, but it is too early for other companies to announce new projects with long lead times. You can bet that now they are all working on reuse-ability.

[guckyfan]

Both Ariane 6 and Vulcan are designs unsuited to reuse. Except those half hearted engine recovery ideas. Also the second stage would need to be redesigned from scratch to enable first stage reuse. Unless those concepts are abandoned only the next generation after them can be reusable.

[Roy_H]

I didn't mean to suggest that Airiane 6 would be reusable, only that they have stated that they will be competitive and to me the only way they can is to develop their own reusable craft. I was't aware that Vulcan was so far into the design cycle that full booster re-usability would not be possible. Remember Falcon 9 flew many flights as expendable before adding pusher, fins and legs.

[guckyfan]

The obstacle is the ratio between the delta-v provided by first and second stage. They continue with Centaur and I think the planned Aces stage will not provide significantly more delta-v. So the first stage will have to provide a lot more than is compatible with reuse.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The obstacle is the ratio between the delta-v provided by first and second stage. They continue with Centaur and I think the planned Aces stage will not provide significantly more delta-v. So the first stage will have to provide a lot more than is compatible with reuse.

The Centaur has only 20mt of prop but the ACES stage would have 60-70mt. So it could support re-usability of booster or at least the recovery of engine module.

[Lar]

To me the obstacle is not the first/second deltaV split (that can be overcome), it is the engine size on the first stage. Absent REALLY deep throttling, a 2 or 3 engine launcher can't decrease thrust far enough to land without some kind of auxiliary engine of lower thrust. Which adds mass that isn't used for the primary mission. And adding such an engine is a major vehicle redesign.

ULA and Ariane have too few engines on the first stage... IMHO.  This is a bit off topic so I'll leave it at that.

[hkultala]

To me the obstacle is not the first/second deltaV split (that can be overcome), it is the engine size on the first stage. Absent REALLY deep throttling, a 2 or 3 engine launcher can't decrease thrust far enough to land without some kind of auxiliary engine of lower thrust. Which adds mass that isn't used for the primary mission. And adding such an engine is a major vehicle redesign.

ULA and Ariane have too few engines on the first stage... IMHO.  This is a bit off topic so I'll leave it at that.

SpaceX has demonstrated landing with 3/9 engines, and they have quite high T/W ratio on F9.

So there should not be any problem with landing with 1/3 engines on a stage with a more common T/W ratio with similar throttling capacity.

Though Merlin's pintle injector allows deeper throttling than many other engines.

Is the injector type of BE-4 known?

[envy887]

To me the obstacle is not the first/second deltaV split (that can be overcome), it is the engine size on the first stage. Absent REALLY deep throttling, a 2 or 3 engine launcher can't decrease thrust far enough to land without some kind of auxiliary engine of lower thrust. Which adds mass that isn't used for the primary mission. And adding such an engine is a major vehicle redesign.

ULA and Ariane have too few engines on the first stage... IMHO.  This is a bit off topic so I'll leave it at that.

SpaceX has demonstrated landing with 3/9 engines, and they have quite high T/W ratio on F9.

So there should not be any problem with landing with 1/3 engines on a stage with a more common T/W ratio with similar throttling capacity.

Though Merlin's pintle injector allows deeper throttling than many other engines.

Is the injector type of BE-4 known?

Falcon 9 always lands on a single engine which throttles down to 40%, and even then it cannot hover.

I highly doubt anyone is going to land a 3 engine orbital boost stage on 1 main engine anytime soon.

[Ictogan]

To me the obstacle is not the first/second deltaV split (that can be overcome), it is the engine size on the first stage. Absent REALLY deep throttling, a 2 or 3 engine launcher can't decrease thrust far enough to land without some kind of auxiliary engine of lower thrust. Which adds mass that isn't used for the primary mission. And adding such an engine is a major vehicle redesign.

ULA and Ariane have too few engines on the first stage... IMHO.  This is a bit off topic so I'll leave it at that.

SpaceX has demonstrated landing with 3/9 engines, and they have quite high T/W ratio on F9.

So there should not be any problem with landing with 1/3 engines on a stage with a more common T/W ratio with similar throttling capacity.

Though Merlin's pintle injector allows deeper throttling than many other engines.

Is the injector type of BE-4 known?

Falcon 9 always lands on a single engine which throttles down to 40%, and even then it cannot hover.

I highly doubt anyone is going to land a 3 engine orbital boost stage on 1 main engine anytime soon.

Falcon 9 has landed on 3 engines multiple times, the last time being BulgariaSat-1.

[Coastal Ron]

To me the primary goal is not to lower the number of overall expendable launch providers, but to increase the number of reusable launch providers. There is a difference between the two goals, but so far I'm not seeing the reaction to reusable rocket stages that I was hoping to see - which was that expendable launch providers would become serious about changing over to reusable rockets. Let's hope they don't wait too long...

Building reusable rockets is not as simple as adding legs. SpaceX has designed their rockets to be reusable from the beginning. Other manufacturers will have to bring out new models designed for reuse-ability, they cannot just modify existing designs.

THAT is the reaction I've been hoping to see - the commitment to building new launch systems that can be reusable. And not just partially reusable like Vulcan or Ariane 6 (which I don't believe will ever be implemented), but fully reusability of at least the 1st stage like Falcon 9.

Blue Origin is designing for reuse-ability and ULA's Vulcan will be at least partially re-useable and maybe fully later.

No doubt you've heard of "leading the target"? Not shooting where a moving target it now, but where it will be when your shot hits it. So it must be for launch vehicle builders in that they need to be designing for where the market is going in the future, and it's very easy to see today that fully reusable 1st stages (i.e. Falcon 9 & New Glenn) are a minimum, and that partially reusable 1st stages (i.e. Vulcan et al) will likely be a waste of time and money.

I am sure Airiane Space is working hard on it, but it is too early for other companies to announce new projects with long lead times. You can bet that now they are all working on reuse-ability.

Maybe it's too early to see new reusable designs in the public, but it's not too early for companies to announce that they are pursuing full 1st stage reusability. What I think might happen is that when the next major player announces they will be making the shift to full reusability, then it will be a race to determine who will be LAST to implement fully reusable stages.

[tvg98]

To me the obstacle is not the first/second deltaV split (that can be overcome), it is the engine size on the first stage. Absent REALLY deep throttling, a 2 or 3 engine launcher can't decrease thrust far enough to land without some kind of auxiliary engine of lower thrust. Which adds mass that isn't used for the primary mission. And adding such an engine is a major vehicle redesign.

ULA and Ariane have too few engines on the first stage... IMHO.  This is a bit off topic so I'll leave it at that.

SpaceX has demonstrated landing with 3/9 engines, and they have quite high T/W ratio on F9.

So there should not be any problem with landing with 1/3 engines on a stage with a more common T/W ratio with similar throttling capacity.

Though Merlin's pintle injector allows deeper throttling than many other engines.

Is the injector type of BE-4 known?

Falcon 9 always lands on a single engine which throttles down to 40%, and even then it cannot hover.

I highly doubt anyone is going to land a 3 engine orbital boost stage on 1 main engine anytime soon.

Falcon 9 has landed on 3 engines multiple times, the last time being BulgariaSat-1.

Don't they usually do that out of necessity though? Also, the higher deceleration would put more stress on the booster, so I imagine one would expect a shorter life-time for these boosters no?

[wrvn]

Falcon 9 has landed on 3 engines multiple times, the last time being BulgariaSat-1.

Don't they use 3 engines to slow down then switch to 1 engine few seconds before touchdown?

Like this for example:
 

[speedevil]

To me the obstacle is not the first/second deltaV split (that can be overcome), it is the engine size on the first stage. Absent REALLY deep throttling, a 2 or 3 engine launcher can't decrease thrust far enough to land without some kind of auxiliary engine of lower thrust. Which adds mass that isn't used for the primary mission. And adding such an engine is a major vehicle redesign.

'Can't' seems somewhat strong.
The hoverslam would be considerably more slammy, with consequential requirements for much better characterised startup/shutdown curves, and similar issues around gimbals and valves.

The entry and landing burns being a handful of seconds long would mean grid-fins would need to be the dominant positioning method, as the stage can't move more than several meters laterally during them.

But - not in the next two years, and quite a lot of pancakes.
Betting the farm on this working would be very, very ballsy.