Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 20 (Attempt 2) (Read 265118 times)

Jim · « **Reply #660 on:** 03/22/2007 11:54 pm »

Quote

Danderman - 22/3/2007 8:43 PM

Is the USAF IDIQ contract publicly available information?

It was. The website has been changed with the recent USAF reorg

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #661 on:** 03/23/2007 12:01 am »

Some hi res images, currently being e-mailed to media right now (one at a time :laugh: )

And welcome back Dr. Elias!

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #662 on:** 03/23/2007 12:03 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #663 on:** 03/23/2007 01:05 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #664 on:** 03/23/2007 01:06 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #665 on:** 03/23/2007 01:07 am »

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #666 on:** 03/23/2007 01:08 am »

Lee Jay · « **Reply #667 on:** 03/23/2007 01:46 am »

Did any trees lose their lives during this launch? Geeze there isn't much room!

Lee Jay

Jason Davies · « **Reply #668 on:** 03/23/2007 01:54 am »

Quote

Lee Jay - 22/3/2007 9:46 PM

Did any trees lose their lives during this launch? Geeze there isn't much room!

Lee Jay

"Damn you SpaceX"

faramund · « **Reply #669 on:** 03/23/2007 02:27 am »

Ok, earlier, I gave the following link http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/SMEX_AO_Prop_Conf_4-16-03rev2.pdf

and said NASA pays $29 million for a Pegasus launch, and that led to two attacks on SpaceX

The first was that Musk said Pegasus cost $35 million. The $29 I gave was the lowest of the figures on that page. The price for Pegasus changes depending on where its launched from and what year it will be launched. The highest for Pegasus is $34 for an 08 launch, which doesn't seem far off Musk's $35m, and as payments are spread out over time, the cost of deferred interest would easily make $35m total.

The second is some claim that Orbital will do a Pegaus equivalent for the USAF for $16m. It would be nice to have some information about the `Raptor' besides a posting in this forum - the web seems very scanty on this, but if Orbital can halve its current prices to the current NASA, that would be very good. Of course, if Orbital did, I think there's a pretty strong justification that that's an almost direct response to the emergence of SpaceX.

As I've posted, SpaceX is a disruptive agent, OSC is just the first to feel it. If in the next few years even if they only get Falcon 9 to the pad (and with Musk's pockets, surely it will), expect to see Delta 2's price dropping as well.

MKremer · « **Reply #670 on:** 03/23/2007 03:40 am »

Thanx, Chris, and the source of the photos.

MKremer · « **Reply #671 on:** 03/23/2007 03:49 am »

I think if SpaceX's next lauch is a success (a 'complete' success in that the booster and 2nd stage put the payload into the required orbit), there's going to be some marketing/pricing scrambling and PR propaganda against what SpaceX is able to do.

I really think Falcon9 is going to be the real test of whether SpaceX can do what they've claimed - if it works well they'll be a big shakeup in the launch market; if they are still having probems look for lots and lots of competing PR against what they're attempting to do.

Jim · « **Reply #672 on:** 03/23/2007 10:21 am »

Quote

faramund - 22/3/2007 11:27 PM

Ok, earlier, I gave the following link http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/SMEX_AO_Prop_Conf_4-16-03rev2.pdf

and said NASA pays $29 million for a Pegasus launch, and that led to two attacks on SpaceX

The first was that Musk said Pegasus cost $35 million. The $29 I gave was the lowest of the figures on that page. The price for Pegasus changes depending on where its launched from and what year it will be launched. The highest for Pegasus is $34 for an 08 launch, which doesn't seem far off Musk's $35m, and as payments are spread out over time, the cost of deferred interest would easily make $35m total.

The second is some claim that Orbital will do a Pegaus equivalent for the USAF for $16m. It would be nice to have some information about the `Raptor' besides a posting in this forum - the web seems very scanty on this, but if Orbital can halve its current prices to the current NASA, that would be very good. Of course, if Orbital did, I think there's a pretty strong justification that that's an almost direct response to the emergence of SpaceX.

As I've posted, SpaceX is a disruptive agent, OSC is just the first to feel it. If in the next few years even if they only get Falcon 9 to the pad (and with Musk's pockets, surely it will), expect to see Delta 2's price dropping as well.

1. The amount in the AO is the cost a spacecraft pays for a NASA launch service on a Pegasus and not the all the money goes to OSC. The amount quoted covers range, payload processing facility, NASA subcontractor, optional services, OSC, etc costs
2. There is no interest on launch service payments
3. Spacex prices to NASA are not as low as those quoted by spacex. Elon has always said he would charge NASA for "Mission Assurance" costs
4. Elon only quote the cost of his rockets for "simple" spacecraft. The problem is there are very few "simple" spacecraft. He really doesn't include integration costs past bolting on a "brick"

rkoenn · « **Reply #673 on:** 03/23/2007 11:03 am »

While I respect SpaceX's accomplishment for being the most "private" company to accomplish this feat, they, in my opinion, still have a ways to go, I don't think I would call it 90% success. Granted they did get 300 KM up they did not reach orbit. In fact they did not come very close as the second stage burn was only half complete. A trajectory problem caused by fuel flows could be difficult to correct and I am wondering if they will be able to pinpoint the cause. It could have been the stage sep causing motor problems. That would mean changes to the sep hardware design. It is great he did get a good first stage performance and is on the way, but until he actually reaches the desired orbit the job is not done, 90% (or whatever) simply does not qualify as a success, you have to reach orbit to do the mission.

faramund · « **Reply #674 on:** 03/23/2007 11:05 am »

Quote

Jim - 23/3/2007 10:21 PM

1. The amount in the AO is the cost a spacecraft pays for a NASA launch service on a Pegasus and not the all the money goes to OSC. The amount quoted covers range, payload processing facility, NASA subcontractor, optional services, OSC, etc costs
2. There is no interest on launch service payments
3. Spacex prices to NASA are not as low as those quoted by spacex. Elon has always said he would charge NASA for "Mission Assurance" costs
4. Elon only quote the cost of his rockets for "simple" spacecraft. The problem is there are very few "simple" spacecraft. He really doesn't include integration costs past bolting on a "brick"

1) Ok, I get this, but if Pegasus wants (to take the lower figure) $29M, what is their equivalent to spaceX's $7 million. Is it the $16M? And hence this is then an almost doubling of price. This seems historical, but somehow systomatic of the flaws in launch procedures. Some earlier posts are along the lines of.. oh we could launch for $14m instead of $16m but that wouldn't pay for the extra hatches to access the payload or whatever. But this is entirely different, its doubling the price.
2) You misunderstand the idea of deferred interest. If an organisation asks for $4m in 04, then $5 in 05, then $10 in 06 (say when the launch actually occurs). Deferred interest is the money that could have been earned on the $4m in 04, and the $5 in 05 if the organisation only had to be paid in the launch year. Its not money that goes to the launch company, its just extra profit for the satellite launcher.
3) Ok, but if the base cost of Falcon I is $7M, what are they going to charge NASA? Even if they double it to $14M, they are still significantly undercutting orbital.
4) Isn't this just a variation of (3).

faramund · « **Reply #675 on:** 03/23/2007 11:31 am »

Quote

rkoenn - 23/3/2007 11:03 PM

While I respect SpaceX's accomplishment for being the most "private" company to accomplish this feat, they, in my opinion, still have a ways to go, I don't think I would call it 90% success. Granted they did get 300 KM up they did not reach orbit. In fact they did not come very close as the second stage burn was only half complete. A trajectory problem caused by fuel flows could be difficult to correct and I am wondering if they will be able to pinpoint the cause. It could have been the stage sep causing motor problems. That would mean changes to the sep hardware design. It is great he did get a good first stage performance and is on the way, but until he actually reaches the desired orbit the job is not done, 90% (or whatever) simply does not qualify as a success, you have to reach orbit to do the mission.

This is what I find strange: the whole 90%, what has spaceX done?
They have:
established a design crew
built an `almost functional rocket'
managed to establish launch procedures
launched a rocket
had successful operation of their first stage
managed to ignite their second stages
reached, what, 300km.

This then leads into a critique of the current launch industry. Even if they could never solve the second stage problem. If it was possible to buy a functioning second stage from another company (VEGA/Soyuz/Pegasus).. wouldn't they have a very good system in any case. Of course, there would be problems with compatibility, and with just sheer commercial protection that would mean that other companies would never want to collaborate with spaceX. But what's left, is, comparatively, very, very small. For a long time, there's been a general, oh.. what SpaceX is trying to do, is (in a slightly indiginant tone that anyone should try to do cheaply what the large companies have stagnated while doing for the last few decades) very, very hard, but they are (unlike so many alt.space companies) advancing.

Jim · « **Reply #676 on:** 03/23/2007 11:41 am »

1. Spacex's 7million isn't going to hold up very long. It is going to increase just like OSC's. Still got to pay people no matter the flight rate. Spacex's numbers are based on producing rockets. There is a big difference in integrating and flying rockets. Spacex's mentality is "we want to fly rockets" when it is really " we are going to launch spacecraft" Their planner's guide and some other documentation reflect this.
2. There is no deferred interest. The cost is the same.
3. since doesn't include the "real' services a spacecraft requires

JesseD · « **Reply #677 on:** 03/23/2007 11:48 am »

Posted September 8, 2006 on SpaceX.com:

Quote

Pricing

I should probably say something about pricing, since some people think that it is only a matter of time before we raise prices significantly. They are missing the point. The very purpose of SpaceX is to lower the cost and increase the reliability of spaceflight by a factor of ten or more (relative to current US pricing) and everyone at our company is hell bent on making that happen. Humanity needs to become a true spacefaring civilization, where spaceflight is affordable by normal citizens and extending life to another planet is realistic, and the fundamental barriers to making that happen are cost and reliability.

----Elon----

kevin-rf · « **Reply #678 on:** 03/23/2007 11:48 am »

I know everyones feelings about quoting from spacedaily but they have an interesting update :

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/SpaceX_Confirms_Stage_Bump_On_Demoflight_2_999.html

SpaceX seems to be communicating with them...

1. SpaceX is admitting the stages bumped, but pointing to the fact that the nozzle didn't shatter is proof of the robustness of the design.
2. They failed to recover the first stage. They are blaming a combo of a non working GPS (I thought they had two on this sucker) and range rules that require the recovery ship be outside of the fall zone.
3. Full speed ahead to the next launch.

Jim · « **Reply #679 on:** 03/23/2007 11:48 am »

Quote

faramund - 23/3/2007 8:31 AM
. Even if they could never solve the second stage problem. If it was possible to buy a functioning second stage from another company ,

No. The second stage is the "core" of the launch vehicle. It provides most of the velocity increment. It contains the avionics (the brain) of the vehicle. The fairing is on top of the second stage and transmits the aero loads thru the 2nd stage and also must cleanly separate from the second stage. The payload is attached to the 2nd stage and interfaces with the rest of the vehicle and the ground systems via the second stage.