#11
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
... "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. Or more likely, re-scope the mission fly on multiple Falcon Heavy flights. Fly Falcon Heavy multiple times and you're still cheaper than SLS. -- 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/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
... "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. I know it's bad form to reply to oneself, but another thought came up: Again, Vulcan's plan for heavier payloads is "MOAH SRBs!" Again, added complexity and supporting multiple configurations. A more complex system. I really don't think ULA gets 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/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message ... "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. I know it's bad form to reply to oneself, but another thought came up: Again, Vulcan's plan for heavier payloads is "MOAH SRBs!" Again, added complexity and supporting multiple configurations. A more complex system. I really don't think ULA gets it. And they don't really have to. Vulcan will stick around and get flights almost regardless of costs simply because DoD doesn't like having all their eggs in a single basket. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-02-15 20:32, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote: Or more likely, re-scope the mission fly on multiple Falcon Heavy flights. Fly Falcon Heavy multiple times and you're still cheaper than SLS. NASA will run its token test flight on SLS around the moon and back. Then, when it runs out of SSMEs and asks Congress to fund contruction of more SSMEs, it will be told to use commercial launch services. (aka Falcon Heavy or whatever). Don't bet your lunch money on it. They've already spent billions to set up a production line and option seven or so engines from it. All that stuff is happening in someone's state. The argument will be made that no commercial launcher can boost what SLS Block 2 can... -- "We come into the world and take our chances. Fate is just the weight of circumstances. That's the way that Lady Luck dances. Roll the bones...." -- "Roll The Bones", Rush |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
On 2/15/2018 9:30 AM, David Spain wrote:
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). Here 'tis: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...eavy-launches/ See paragraph 5... Dave |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-02-16 07:29, Jeff Findley wrote: You've been told about 100 times RS-25E ("E" for expendable) is already funded. Please get that through your thick skull. https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/11/2...y-1-4-billion/ ## “The first phase of this contract covers the scope of work related to restarting the production lines for RS-25 plus the materials of future production efforts,” said Cheryl Warner, a NASA spokesperson. “The second phase, which will include a contract modification at a later date, is related to the labor required for the delivery of six new flight engines.” The future modification would enable the space agency to order six engines, enough for one SLS flight with two spares. A seventh engine is included in the deal for use in ground certification testing, Glenn Mahone, an Aerojet Rocketdyne spokesperson, told Spaceflight Now. ## Press release from Rocketdyne: http://www.rocket.com/article/nasa-a...e-space-launch Press Release from NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...y-s-journey-to So the current project funds the building of a prodcution facility/tooling and redesigning tne SSMEs to less expensive. Reducing welds is mentioned as one of the goals. It does not specify delivery of new SSMEs, this is in a separate contract for phase 2. It is a separate contract action, not a separate contract. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX pricing
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-02-17 04:53, Fred J. McCall wrote: It is a separate contract action, not a separate contract. SInce phase 2 pricing has nopt been negotiated, what you are saying is that Congress gave NASA carte blanche to buy 6 SSMEs from Rocketdyne before knowing the price? Have someone explain the difference between a contract and a contract action. I'm saying what I said. As long as there is money in the budget to support SLS NASA can use some of that money to exercise the option on the existing contract. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |