|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
....that there haven't been more comments about Falcon 1. Where are all the
people saying "It's not as easy as SpaceX make out..." etc? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in
: ...that there haven't been more comments about Falcon 1. Where are all the people saying "It's not as easy as SpaceX make out..." etc? Yeah, ain't it nice? All the whiners and doomsayers have crawled back into their holes since they've got nothing to complain about. Don't worry, next failure and they'll be back in force. SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts delivering major payloads, taking business away from the existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the market. We'll see; Falcon 9 and especially Dragon are going to be major hurdles. But they've broken barriers both real and perceived by overcoming their own startup and flying hardware through the last of the design flaws and sheer bad luck. The field is littered with the bones of the many startups who literally never got off the ground. --Damon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6... SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts delivering major payloads, taking business away from the existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the market. I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of current levels? I mean, to _me_, there's not much difference between $150 million for a Delta IV Medium and $50 million for a Falcon 9 as I can't afford either (didn't even buy a lottery ticket for this week). ;-) Has there ever been any analysis for this kind of 'quantum' reduction in costs? If the launch costs 1/3rd as much, will it increase the market size by three times? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:58:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Damon Hill" wrote in message 36... SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts delivering major payloads, taking business away from the existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the market. I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of current levels? Not a lot. The real elasticity doesn't kick in until it's at least an order of magnitude less. That's one of the reasons that it's been hard to break in to the business, or persuade the big contractors to spend their own money to reduce launch costs. And it remains a big business risk for SpaceX. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in
: "Damon Hill" wrote in message 6... SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts delivering major payloads, taking business away from the existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the market. I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of current levels? I mean, to _me_, there's not much difference between $150 million for a Delta IV Medium and $50 million for a Falcon 9 as I can't afford either (didn't even buy a lottery ticket for this week). ;-) Has there ever been any analysis for this kind of 'quantum' reduction in costs? If the launch costs 1/3rd as much, will it increase the market size by three times? Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than their actual launch costs. So even if the ride is 'free', the actual costs are still high. I'm hoping that a significant lowering of the launch cost will help to expand the 'envelope'. A quantum jump seems unlikely, but a halving of launch cost should at least help. I hope Dragon will help to privatize manned flight, pulling it out of the government realm which contains many obstacles besides simple dollar cost. We'll see. --Damon, who bought a lottery ticket today |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
Damon Hill wrote:
Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than their actual launch costs. Is there a bit of chicken and egg going on there? Is there much incentive to put an inexpensive payload on an expensive launcher? rick jones -- denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth... where do you want to be today? these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
Rick Jones wrote in
: Damon Hill wrote: Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than their actual launch costs. Is there a bit of chicken and egg going on there? Is there much incentive to put an inexpensive payload on an expensive launcher? Depends on who's paying for it, and what the expected payback is. I think what we're mostly looking for are commercial payloads that generate revenue once they're functioning in orbit. Some things like orbital manufacturing don't appear to be taking off any time soon. Telcom and earth resource/imaging seem to be the main winners, private personal spaceflight seems to be restricted to the ultra-wealthy for the forseeable. Reusability of launch and flight hardware would help a lot, but developing 100% reusability still hasn't happened. It seemed like Kistler's K-1 had potential, but as far as I know that's a dead project now. Even partial reusability of either launcher or spacecraft hasn't been demonstrated to any degree I'm aware of. --Damon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
"Alan Erskine" writes:
"Damon Hill" wrote in message 6... SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts delivering major payloads, taking business away from the existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the market. I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of current levels? Probably none. I've read estimates that it would need a reduction to 1/10th to get really to new markets. But the markets are small enough that a handful of contracts can make a real change, so all estimates are off. If the launch costs 1/3rd as much, will it increase the market size by three times? No, I don't think so. But there may be quite a few customers getting excited enough to jump on with some more or less crazy ideas, so this is hard to judge. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
Damon Hill writes:
Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than their actual launch costs. So even if the ride is 'free', the actual costs are still high. I'm hoping that a significant lowering of the launch cost will help to expand the 'envelope'. On the other hand the "we have to save weight at all costs" mantra is what makes payloads often cost so much. If you can get much more payload for the same cost this may help you to build the payload much cheaper. Seems not to be the usual mindset of those building payloads, though ;-) Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I am surprised...
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
No, I don't think so. But there may be quite a few customers getting excited enough to jump on with some more or less crazy ideas, so this is hard to judge. It looks like a Tesla Roadster would fit in the fairing of a Falcon 9. 3.946m long, 1.851m wide, and only 1238 kg. Put a vanity plate on it that says "MLNEUM" and add-in a mannequin with a likeness of Elon Musk. Could probably get an American Football SuperBowl half-time commercial out of it somehow. rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
complication among surprised promoter | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 19th 07 08:02 AM |
Surprised by Clouds | W. Watson | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | January 10th 07 02:22 PM |
I'm a little surprised NSPs aren't offering signup deals | Honest John | Misc | 72 | February 11th 06 08:26 PM |
Record breaking rocket flight. I am surprised | [email protected] | Policy | 11 | December 15th 05 12:40 AM |
Surprised | Terry A. Haimann | Amateur Astronomy | 34 | February 18th 04 05:56 AM |