A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SpaceX pricing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 13th 18, 12:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,433
Default SpaceX pricing

SpaceX has revealed a bit more about pricing for Falcon Heavy. They've
also announced another barge for the east coast. When used with a
Falcon Heavy, this will allow two booster barge recovery and expendable
core stage flights. This will result in only a 10% performance "hit"
compared to fully expendable mode, but a huge cost savings.

These are the Falcon Heavy numbers I saw on Twitter last night:

Fully Expendable $150 million
Booster Recovery Only $95 million
Booster and Core Recovery $90 million

Also, Troy Bruno got a bit miffed on Twitter that Musk tweeted that
Fully Expendable was $250 million cheaper than the "nearest
competition". Troy tweeted back that Delta IV Heavy only costs about
$350 million. So, if we do the math, it's only a bit more than 2x as
expensive as Fully Expendable instead of Musk claiming it was a bit more
than 3x as expensive as Fully Expendable. I'm not sure how that really
helps ULA's message here, but I'm not paid the "big bucks" like Tory
Bruno is.

The fact is that Booster Recovery Only is getting close to 1/4 the cost
of Delta IV Heavy with only a 10% performance hit. I think that is
proof positive that reuse actually reduces costs to the customer.

Thanks,
Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Ads
  #2  
Old February 13th 18, 01:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niels Jørgen Kruse[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default SpaceX pricing

Jeff Findley wrote:

These are the Falcon Heavy numbers I saw on Twitter last night:

Fully Expendable $150 million
Booster Recovery Only $95 million
Booster and Core Recovery $90 million


Only $5 million reduction for core recovery! That suggests a rather low
expected success rate.

--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark
  #3  
Old February 13th 18, 01:50 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,422
Default SpaceX pricing

Jeff Findley wrote:

SpaceX has revealed a bit more about pricing for Falcon Heavy. They've
also announced another barge for the east coast. When used with a
Falcon Heavy, this will allow two booster barge recovery and expendable
core stage flights. This will result in only a 10% performance "hit"
compared to fully expendable mode, but a huge cost savings.

These are the Falcon Heavy numbers I saw on Twitter last night:

Fully Expendable $150 million
Booster Recovery Only $95 million
Booster and Core Recovery $90 million

Also, Troy Bruno got a bit miffed on Twitter that Musk tweeted that
Fully Expendable was $250 million cheaper than the "nearest
competition". Troy tweeted back that Delta IV Heavy only costs about
$350 million. So, if we do the math, it's only a bit more than 2x as
expensive as Fully Expendable instead of Musk claiming it was a bit more
than 3x as expensive as Fully Expendable. I'm not sure how that really
helps ULA's message here, but I'm not paid the "big bucks" like Tory
Bruno is.


How much Delta IV Heavy costs depends on which cost numbers you use.
ULA charges USAF around $450 million per launch, but part of that is
the fixed cost of 'maintaining launch readiness'. A commercial launch
costs around the $350 million number given, but gets a lot of the
'fixed costs' free based on USAF funding.

Since SpaceX includes the fixed costs in their commercial launch
price, the USAF cost per launch should be used and Musk's statement is
the most nearly correct.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #4  
Old February 13th 18, 06:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default SpaceX pricing

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Jeff Findley wrote:

SpaceX has revealed a bit more about pricing for Falcon Heavy. They've
also announced another barge for the east coast. When used with a
Falcon Heavy, this will allow two booster barge recovery and expendable
core stage flights. This will result in only a 10% performance "hit"
compared to fully expendable mode, but a huge cost savings.

These are the Falcon Heavy numbers I saw on Twitter last night:

Fully Expendable $150 million
Booster Recovery Only $95 million
Booster and Core Recovery $90 million

Also, Troy Bruno got a bit miffed on Twitter that Musk tweeted that
Fully Expendable was $250 million cheaper than the "nearest
competition". Troy tweeted back that Delta IV Heavy only costs about
$350 million. So, if we do the math, it's only a bit more than 2x as
expensive as Fully Expendable instead of Musk claiming it was a bit more
than 3x as expensive as Fully Expendable. I'm not sure how that really
helps ULA's message here, but I'm not paid the "big bucks" like Tory
Bruno is.


How much Delta IV Heavy costs depends on which cost numbers you use.
ULA charges USAF around $450 million per launch, but part of that is
the fixed cost of 'maintaining launch readiness'. A commercial launch
costs around the $350 million number given, but gets a lot of the
'fixed costs' free based on USAF funding.

Since SpaceX includes the fixed costs in their commercial launch
price, the USAF cost per launch should be used and Musk's statement is
the most nearly correct.


Agreed because by Bruno's logic, if NASA had commercialized the shuttle and
only charged the marginal cost, it would have been fairly cheap.
Anything can be cheap when someone else is paying for it.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #5  
Old February 15th 18, 12:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,433
Default SpaceX pricing

In article ,
says...
Agreed because by Bruno's logic, if NASA had commercialized the shuttle and
only charged the marginal cost, it would have been fairly cheap.
Anything can be cheap when someone else is paying for it.


The space shuttle program did just that, sold commercial launches to
satellite companies for far less than the actual cost. Now that the
program is over we know the true cost ($1.45 billion per launch). NASA
never charged the true cost of a flight to its commercial customers.

Of course, the Challenger disaster put an end to that practice and
actually made it illegal for NASA to sell commercial launches anymore.
That was the start of opening up the commercial markets in the US.
Unfortunately the USAF decided it wanted control and the original EELV
was born, leaving us with ULA. In other words, the USAF "intervention"
for national security reasons prolonged the practice of the US
Government subsidizing the US launch industry, keeping the real costs
high and actually hurting the US launch industry in the long run.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #6  
Old February 15th 18, 03:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default SpaceX pricing

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
Agreed because by Bruno's logic, if NASA had commercialized the shuttle
and
only charged the marginal cost, it would have been fairly cheap.
Anything can be cheap when someone else is paying for it.


The space shuttle program did just that, sold commercial launches to
satellite companies for far less than the actual cost. Now that the
program is over we know the true cost ($1.45 billion per launch). NASA
never charged the true cost of a flight to its commercial customers.


On one hand you're correct. On the other, arguably, NASA never fully
commercialized the shuttle.
25 flights, and for of them "test flights" wasn't really enough for them to
get into the commercial business like they might have.
Yes, I know a fair number of the early flights were basically "strictly
commercial' but, I think had NASA gone full-blown "commercial" they might
have done things differently.

For example, they might have actually had more reason to work on things like
turn-around time. A shuttle flying 2x as often suddenly spreads the fixed
cost around a bit.
But, as we both know, that never happened.


Of course, the Challenger disaster put an end to that practice and
actually made it illegal for NASA to sell commercial launches anymore.
That was the start of opening up the commercial markets in the US.
Unfortunately the USAF decided it wanted control and the original EELV
was born, leaving us with ULA. In other words, the USAF "intervention"
for national security reasons prolonged the practice of the US
Government subsidizing the US launch industry, keeping the real costs
high and actually hurting the US launch industry in the long run.


I'll admit, I initially, naively thought the decision to not allow
commercial flights was a mistake. Now looking back, I think it was the right
move.
Of course as you say, the original EELV wasn't much of an improvement.

And heck for a while the Titan IV made the shuttle look good

One hope I have now is that Falcon Heavy flies enough to convince Congress
to put the nail in the coffin for SLS and redirect that money elsewhere.


Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #7  
Old February 15th 18, 03:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,459
Default SpaceX pricing

On 2/15/2018 9:12 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
One hope I have now is that Falcon Heavy flies enough to convince
Congress to put the nail in the coffin for SLS and redirect that money
elsewhere.


Won't happen due to FH. It just won't fly enough nor the "right" type of
missions to make Congress wake up and smell the coffee. Even though I
agree it should...

OTOH BFR/BFS, once it starts to fly, will definitely be the tombstone
for SLS. Musk says it will definitely end FH and likely F9 or stop
further production of F9's until they are all expended.

But Musk time doesn't jibe well with real time, so we'll see...
There are a ton of fixed costs (mainly time, some money, and big time
infrastructure) for BFR/BFS development that I think Elon is discounting
right now... But maybe he's much further along on the curve than I
believe he is? We'll see...

As per cost vis-a-vis ULA, I read an article on Ars Technica from Eric
Berger where there is a contract with ULA that will expire soon that
will cause fixed costs of D-IVH to rise well above that $350 million
figure. (Don't have time to look up the link now, Google it yourself).
ULA knows that it *has* to get its Vulcan rocket flying ASAP. It will be
interesting to see how well it can compete with F9 and F9H when reuse of
Vulcan AT BEST will require some reassembly (re-mating used methalox
BE-9(?) engines with core tanks EVERY SINGLE TIME), vs inspection and
resetting of landing legs and not even bothering with a paint job for
the F9.

Dave
  #8  
Old February 15th 18, 06:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default SpaceX pricing

"David Spain" wrote in message news

On 2/15/2018 9:12 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
One hope I have now is that Falcon Heavy flies enough to convince
Congress to put the nail in the coffin for SLS and redirect that money
elsewhere.


Won't happen due to FH. It just won't fly enough nor the "right" type of
missions to make Congress wake up and smell the coffee. Even though I agree
it should...


You're probably right.

OTOH BFR/BFS, once it starts to fly, will definitely be the tombstone for
SLS. Musk says it will definitely end FH and likely F9 or stop further
production of F9's until they are all expended.


Yeah.. "once". Like most SpaceX timelines, I don't really believe the
current one.


But Musk time doesn't jibe well with real time, so we'll see...
There are a ton of fixed costs (mainly time, some money, and big time
infrastructure) for BFR/BFS development that I think Elon is discounting
right now... But maybe he's much further along on the curve than I believe
he is? We'll see...


Nah, I'd add 2-3 years and most likely to his schedule ;'-)

As per cost vis-a-vis ULA, I read an article on Ars Technica from Eric
Berger where there is a contract with ULA that will expire soon that will
cause fixed costs of D-IVH to rise well above that $350 million figure.
(Don't have time to look up the link now, Google it yourself). ULA knows
that it *has* to get its Vulcan rocket flying ASAP. It will be interesting
to see how well it can compete with F9 and F9H when reuse of Vulcan AT BEST
will require some reassembly (re-mating used methalox BE-9(?) engines with
core tanks EVERY SINGLE TIME), vs inspection and resetting of landing legs
and not even bothering with a paint job for the F9.

Dave



I just can't see how Vulcan will compete. To me it seems like they
completely missed the point.

Sure, the engines are the most complex and expensive part and you need those
back.

But it's the whole damn system that needs to be cost effective. That's what
Musk is approaching.

It's like saying, "well the engines on a 737 are expensive, we'll keep those
and replace the hull every time.

I suspect Musk is a couple of years, at most, of landing a F9, bringing it
back to the launch pad, do a minimal check out, refueling and relaunching in
less than a week.

I just can't see Vulcan doing this.
1
Vulcan seems to me to take all the worst parts of the shuttle program and
redo them.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #9  
Old February 15th 18, 06:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default SpaceX pricing

"David Spain" wrote in message news

On 2/15/2018 9:12 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
One hope I have now is that Falcon Heavy flies enough to convince
Congress to put the nail in the coffin for SLS and redirect that money
elsewhere.


Won't happen due to FH. It just won't fly enough nor the "right" type of
missions to make Congress wake up and smell the coffee. Even though I agree
it should...

OTOH BFR/BFS, once it starts to fly, will definitely be the tombstone for
SLS. Musk says it will definitely end FH and likely F9 or stop further
production of F9's until they are all expended.

But Musk time doesn't jibe well with real time, so we'll see...
There are a ton of fixed costs (mainly time, some money, and big time
infrastructure) for BFR/BFS development that I think Elon is discounting
right now... But maybe he's much further along on the curve than I believe
he is? We'll see...

As per cost vis-a-vis ULA, I read an article on Ars Technica from Eric
Berger where there is a contract with ULA that will expire soon that will
cause fixed costs of D-IVH to rise well above that $350 million figure.
(Don't have time to look up the link now, Google it yourself). ULA knows
that it *has* to get its Vulcan rocket flying ASAP. It will be interesting
to see how well it can compete with F9 and F9H when reuse of Vulcan AT BEST
will require some reassembly (re-mating used methalox BE-9(?) engines with
core tanks EVERY SINGLE TIME), vs inspection and resetting of landing legs
and not even bothering with a paint job for the F9.

Dave


Oh and one more thing to consider. Falcon Heavy is flying NOW.
Vulcan at best won't fly until 2020.
If I was a customer I know which one I'd be looking at.

My guess, Vulcan will fly a few DOD flights and then fade into the
background.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #10  
Old February 15th 18, 07:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,422
Default SpaceX pricing

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:


One hope I have now is that Falcon Heavy flies enough to convince Congress
to put the nail in the coffin for SLS and redirect that money elsewhere.


I would agree, but I'm afraid Congress is not that smart. I think you
could probably use Falcon Heavy for any SLS Block 1 missions. If we
really need the capability of SLS Block 2 and BFR doesn't pan out
quickly enough, they could always build the Falcon Super Heavy with
four side boosters that Musk has talked about.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The mystery of Pricing and Estimating. Tim Skirvin Astronomy Misc 0 June 27th 06 01:24 PM
The mystery of Pricing and Estimating. Martin X. Moleski, SJ Astronomy Misc 0 June 27th 06 05:27 AM
The mystery of Pricing and Estimating. Brian Henderson Astronomy Misc 0 June 27th 06 04:22 AM
Astro equipment pricing? Keith Winter Amateur Astronomy 7 August 3rd 05 09:00 PM
Astro gear pricing Doink Amateur Astronomy 12 April 25th 05 01:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.