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

[Brovane]

...Or maybe we are on the verge of repeating history a bit, where great promises of massive cost reduction, through re-usability and otherwise, don't pan out.  Where what is delivered in the end falls short of what was promised.

SpaceX has not significantly raised it's prices in something like 8 years, and their prices today to put up to 5.5mT to GTO are far below anyone else in the launch industry - and that is without using previously flown 1st stages. Considering the scale of things, I'd say we've already seen "massive" cost reductions, and what we're all waiting for is the next wave, which is reflow stages becoming routine.

SpaceX price to orbit GPS rose $13.8 million, nearly 17% to $96.5 million, in only one year.
http://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-its-second-gps-3-launch-contract-1/

As SpaceX prices increase, ULA is dropping prices.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/spacex-united-launch-alliance-rocket-price/

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, Haven't we already discussed the pricing difference between these GPS contracts before? 

The difference in pricing could just be the change from horizontal to vertical integration since GPS satellites can do HI and SpaceX submitted two bids for the first GPS launch it bid on. 

The USAF could have just selected HI and for the second GPS contract, they could have asked for VI. 

[mulp]

Assuming a failure in the next year is not necessarily a pessimistic view. Falcon 9 is currently a bit worse than one Loss Of Mission for every twenty flights. If you were in the business of buying a flight you would have to pencil that in as a schedule risk due to Spacex's high flight rate. Robotbeat did a good analysis of this in another thread.

False. One total loss and one partial loss in 40 launches.

You are counting a test of modified fuel loading procedure with a payload on the test article. SpaceX will not repeat that for years, if ever. Subsequent to that failure, they repeatedly tested the fuel loading procedure on a test stand.

Furthermore, the number of failures for stage 1 is zero, with one design fully compensated failure, in 40 launches. The cost reduction focus on the first stage has resulted in zero failures.

All failures are tied to stage 2, and seem to be related to a single design choice to marginally increase stage 2 performance: placing the helium COPV inside the LOX container. Also, a choice SpaceX will not repeat.

SpaceX has probably test fired recovered first stages more than most new first stages by other vendors, and then successfully launched with them. SpaceX has a 100% success rate reusing first stages.

Thus, given the cost reduction of SpaceX is primarily in the design, manufacture, and operations of stage 1, cost reduction has not reduced reliability.

Other than the COPV use and placement, what uncompensated failures has SpaceX had since it's first F1 success?

How much of a factor was use of and placement of the COPV in cost reduction?

Note, Deming argued that focus on continuous quality improvement in volume production is the key to lowest cost. Elon Musk in saying "first principles" is really saying "improve the quality of existing design and process". He credits NASA past and present for his "first principles" successes. Starting from existing reliable NASA designs and making them so much more reliable they could be used 100 more times than NASA used them is quality improvement. Improving manufacturing to increase volume with less inspection and rework is quality improvement.

Believing in Deming that this will reduce costs does not mean you are reducing reliability to cut costs, but the opposite.

A high flight rate means higher quality, higher reliability, not less. The high flight rate comes from focusing first on higher quality and reliability continously.

[DanielW]

Assuming a failure in the next year is not necessarily a pessimistic view. Falcon 9 is currently a bit worse than one Loss Of Mission for every twenty flights. If you were in the business of buying a flight you would have to pencil that in as a schedule risk due to Spacex's high flight rate. Robotbeat did a good analysis of this in another thread.

False. One total loss and one partial loss in 40 launches.

You are counting a test of modified fuel loading procedure with a payload on the test article. SpaceX will not repeat that for years, if ever. Subsequent to that failure, they repeatedly tested the fuel loading procedure on a test stand.

Furthermore, the number of failures for stage 1 is zero, with one design fully compensated failure, in 40 launches. The cost reduction focus on the first stage has resulted in zero failures.

All failures are tied to stage 2, and seem to be related to a single design choice to marginally increase stage 2 performance: placing the helium COPV inside the LOX container. Also, a choice SpaceX will not repeat.

SpaceX has probably test fired recovered first stages more than most new first stages by other vendors, and then successfully launched with them. SpaceX has a 100% success rate reusing first stages.

Thus, given the cost reduction of SpaceX is primarily in the design, manufacture, and operations of stage 1, cost reduction has not reduced reliability.

Other than the COPV use and placement, what uncompensated failures has SpaceX had since it's first F1 success?

How much of a factor was use of and placement of the COPV in cost reduction?

Note, Deming argued that focus on continuous quality improvement in volume production is the key to lowest cost. Elon Musk in saying "first principles" is really saying "improve the quality of existing design and process". He credits NASA past and present for his "first principles" successes. Starting from existing reliable NASA designs and making them so much more reliable they could be used 100 more times than NASA used them is quality improvement. Improving manufacturing to increase volume with less inspection and rework is quality improvement.

Believing in Deming that this will reduce costs does not mean you are reducing reliability to cut costs, but the opposite.

A high flight rate means higher quality, higher reliability, not less. The high flight rate comes from focusing first on higher quality and reliability continously.

I agree with your post with the exception of the initial "False" assertion. I was not arguing that spaceX would continue experience failures at their historical rate. I was arguing that even if their failure rate were industry leading, they would still pose a schedule liability due to flight rate. Let's try some hypothetical math.

Providers A and B each have a 99% success rate. Both need to stand down for 3 months after a failure. Acme corp needs to launch in one year.

Provider A can launch 10 per year and has 10 in the queue. Chance of on-time delivery = 0.99^10 = 90%
Provider B can launch 100 per year and has 100 in the queue. Chance of on-time delivery = 0.99^100 = 37%

The context of my post was people being incensed that mission planners would expect a failure in the next year. Ignoring the fact that they only do so because SpaceX has a potentially really high flight rate.

If buying rides to space is your job you need to at least be aware of what the schedule risks are and factor that into your decision. Plainly it is not the only consideration because SpaceX is still booking missions.

P.S. I do agree that a high flight rate will lead to dramatic improvement in reliability, which will overtake other considerations. But we don't have that data to work with yet.

[jak Kennedy]

Unless I missed this post before. Is this the most detailed breakdown of SpaceX prices and costs. Although I am not sure yet where this was originally posted. Even breaks out the profit.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-targets-24-hour-turnaround-no-refurbishment-reuse-and-relaunch-a-dozen-times.html#more-136265

Edit

OOps, seem to be made up numbers so ignore.

[meberbs]

Unless I missed this post before. Is this the most detailed breakdown of SpaceX prices and costs. Although I am not sure yet where this was originally posted. Even breaks out the profit.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-targets-24-hour-turnaround-no-refurbishment-reuse-and-relaunch-a-dozen-times.html#more-136265

It was originally posted by a random user on reddit. (The article links the source as well). This user had no inside information and was completely making things up in multiple places. Some of his assumptions he acknowledges don't line up with numbers that Musk has provided. A modified version of the table was posted in the replies by another random user, which seems to be the version the article used. Everything about that breakdown should be taking with a grain of salt.

[Rebel44]

Unless I missed this post before. Is this the most detailed breakdown of SpaceX prices and costs. Although I am not sure yet where this was originally posted. Even breaks out the profit.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/08/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-targets-24-hour-turnaround-no-refurbishment-reuse-and-relaunch-a-dozen-times.html#more-136265

That article is just a mix of info + speculations from other articles + reddit. It also contain several obvious errors.

[CuddlyRocket]

Unsupported claim. 
1960's vs 2010's modes of transportation.  I don't see any major changes, so they must of stagnated too

Yes, they all stagnated.

Though it's increasingly accepted that both trucks and (especially) cars are on the cusp of major disruption. The thing about disruption though is that it's rarely the incumbents who surf the wave.

[meekGee]

Other than the COPV use and placement, what uncompensated failures has SpaceX had since it's first F1 success?

The better question is, "what unidentified failure modes has SpaceX not yet experienced?" in its 41 Falcon 9 launch campaigns (only 21 by the current variant).  Space Shuttle flew, what, 112 times before the STS-107 failure mode occurred? 

The same question can be asked of any current launch vehicle.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed - extensive wing damage from falling debris occurred numerous times before STS-107 - it's a really bad (and painful) analogy.

Your question can be applied universally, to any launch vehicle, at any time.

Of course hidden daemons may still lurk, but the more you fly, and especially with a reusable rocket, the more confidence you gain.

[Mader Levap]

6- Stage storage/rework/inspection floor space becomes a significant problem.  If the time for turn around of a 1st stage from launch to launch again is a minimum of 2 months...

SpaceX says 24 hours...

Even if you treat seriously this kind of fantasy number (anyone can say this kind of thing, talk is cheap), there are still things making it non-argument:
- This number is final goal, something to strive for. Not any time soon.
- Many people interpreted it as time between launches on same pad, not time between launches of same stage.

False. One total loss and one partial loss in 40 launches.

False. Everyone counts AMOS in and for a good reason.

SpaceX will not repeat that for years, if ever.

"Fixed"? So what? Almost every other launch failure of any LV also gets its reason fixed.

[ChrisWilson68]

6- Stage storage/rework/inspection floor space becomes a significant problem.  If the time for turn around of a 1st stage from launch to launch again is a minimum of 2 months...

SpaceX says 24 hours...

Even if you treat seriously this kind of fantasy number (anyone can say this kind of thing, talk is cheap), there are still things making it non-argument:
- This number is final goal, something to strive for. Not any time soon.
- Many people interpreted it as time between launches on same pad, not time between launches of same stage.

That is contradicted in Shotwell's interview.  She said that Block 5 is designed for 24-hour turnaround.  She even said that Musk wanted 12 hours, the engineers studied it and pushed back and said 12 hours wasn't doable, but 24 was.  So that's why it's 24 hours.

[AncientU]

Other than the COPV use and placement, what uncompensated failures has SpaceX had since it's first F1 success?

The better question is, "what unidentified failure modes has SpaceX not yet experienced?" in its 41 Falcon 9 launch campaigns (only 21 by the current variant).  Space Shuttle flew, what, 112 times before the STS-107 failure mode occurred? 

The same question can be asked of any current launch vehicle.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed - extensive wing damage from falling debris occurred numerous times before STS-107 - it's a really bad (and painful) analogy.

Your question can be applied universally, to any launch vehicle, at any time.

Of course hidden daemons may still lurk, but the more you fly, and especially with a reusable rocket, the more confidence you gain.

With Russia's globally known falling quality control, an Atlas V failure due to an RD-180 fault, or a Soyuz crewed flight failure is equally or more likely.  SLS will have flown once before BEO crewed flight.  Which vehicle(s) should we 'trust' to not fail? 

Hint: None of them...

[woods170]

SpaceX says 24 hours...

Even if you treat seriously this kind of fantasy number (anyone can say this kind of thing, talk is cheap), there are still things making it non-argument:
- This number is final goal, something to strive for. Not any time soon.
- Many people interpreted it as time between launches on same pad, not time between launches of same stage.

Several issues with your latest post:

- "Anyone" in this case happens to be the COO of SpaceX. You would be well advised NOT to refer to her statements as "fantasy" given that she has extensive experience in both management and "hands-on" work in the aerospace industry.

- "Not any time soon" is actually first half of next year (which in the rocket business is soon).

- "Many people interpreted it as..." is your way of talking around the issue. 24 Hour turnaround clearly refers to the same stage. Only you see that differently.

[rpapo]

24 Hour turnaround clearly refers to the same stage.

I take that as 24 hours after landing (or being removed from the ASDS), the first stage is ready to be trucked to a HIF for mating to a new second stage and payload.  At this point, it is definitely not 24 hours before launching again.

I used to think that mating the second stage and payload to the rocket was taking too long as well, but now we see the payload being mated to the stack overnight on a regular basis.

[envy887]

Everyone counts AMOS in and for a good reason.

Amos-6 was a mission failure but not a launch failure. Whether it's considered depends if one's looking at mission reliability or launch reliability.

In the context of schedule assurance, it's certainly relevant as it destroyed a pad and caused a stand-down.

[vapour_nudge]

Everyone counts AMOS in and for a good reason.

Amos-6 was a mission failure but not a launch failure. Whether it's considered depends if one's looking at mission reliability or launch reliability.

In the context of schedule assurance, it's certainly relevant as it destroyed a pad and caused a stand-down.

If it were on any other launch vehicle, especially a ULA vehicle I'm sure most on this site would count it. I suspect the Israelis would count it. It's just pedantic because the rocket was in service, it wasn't a test launch and the presence of an expensive satellite on top attests to that. Go SpaceX, just don't go blowing their trumpet for them until they have a couple more years of continuous launch success under their belts. Likewise I don't like hearing people go on about Atlas' launch success. Just concentrate on one launch at a time

[JamesH65]

24 Hour turnaround clearly refers to the same stage.

I take that as 24 hours after landing (or being removed from the ASDS), the first stage is ready to be trucked to a HIF for mating to a new second stage and payload.  At this point, it is definitely not 24 hours before launching again.

I used to think that mating the second stage and payload to the rocket was taking too long as well, but now we see the payload being mated to the stack overnight on a regular basis.

I've always regard that 24hr desire as a cost reduction rather than time reduction. The less time you take refurbing it, the cheaper it is to do. That would be the driver from my limited perspective - not that you actually want to refly in 24hr, just you want the refurb to be really cheap.

[Ludus]

I've always regard that 24hr desire as a cost reduction rather than time reduction. The less time you take refurbing it, the cheaper it is to do. That would be the driver from my limited perspective - not that you actually want to refly in 24hr, just you want the refurb to be really cheap.

I know I've read explanations from SpaceX to this effect. 24 hrs is a measure of labor efficiency/cost not a declaration of intent to actually turn around cores in that period. What's the minimum period required for the current crew to theoretically complete the job?

[AncientU]

I've always regard that 24hr desire as a cost reduction rather than time reduction. The less time you take refurbing it, the cheaper it is to do. That would be the driver from my limited perspective - not that you actually want to refly in 24hr, just you want the refurb to be really cheap.

I know I've read explanations from SpaceX to this effect. 24 hrs is a measure of labor efficiency/cost not a declaration of intent to actually turn around cores in that period. What's the minimum period required for the current crew to theoretically complete the job?

No Block 5 cores yet. 
Think they are down to a couple months on earlier cores, but the 24 hr number is for Block 5s -- next year.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I agree on the measure of 24 hr turnaround is a evaluation of the labor needed to re-fly a booster.

But even if the total flight rate for F9/FH reaches 200/yr that is still only an average of ~1 flight per week per each of the 4 pads. In order to need to be able to do 1 flight per day the flight rate would need to reach above 1000/yr. I cannot imagine enough payloads or missions in the next 10 years for that rate to occur. In 20 years maybe but also in 20 years those big BEO missions that would take up so much of the launches would be taken over by the ITSy. Which if the ITSy is flying at the rate of 200/yr it is the equivalent of 5-10 F9 flights. By that time the flight rate of F9/FH would be on the downward trend and not up.

So I believe that the F9/FH because of it's displacement by bigger and cheaper launchers will never get much above 200/yr.
See graph below:

[Lars-J]

So I believe that the F9/FH because of it's displacement by bigger and cheaper launchers will never get much above 200/yr.
See graph below:

Who's graph is that? It is interesting wishful thinking, but that is all. For example, I don't think you'll EVER see more FH flights in a year than F9. It ain't happening. Another larger vehicle could overtake F9, but I don't see FH doing that due to the sheer complexity of the setup. But we'll see how smooth the FH introduction is, I could be wrong...