|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
I wonder how Elon Musk slipped this one under the radar. According to
this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/70/1 Elon Musk says the follow on to Falcon I will be a vehicle called Falcon 5, which will essentially use 5 clustered Merlin engines (Falcon I uses 1) in a Saturn-V like configuration, with an additional Merlin on the upper stage. Musk claims this configuration will cost approximately $12 mil to launch. That compared to the Falcon 1 at $6 mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5, which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Tom Merkle |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
In article , Tom Merkle wrote:
I wonder how Elon Musk slipped this one under the radar. According to this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/70/1 Elon Musk says the follow on to Falcon I will be a vehicle called Falcon 5, which will essentially use 5 clustered Merlin engines (Falcon I uses 1) in a Saturn-V like configuration, with an additional Merlin on the upper stage. Musk claims this configuration will cost approximately $12 mil to launch. That compared to the Falcon 1 at $6 mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5, which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Simplest explanation - launch costs (x per launch) and flight costs (y per engine) FI - $6m - $x+$y FV - $12m - $x+$6y 12 - 6 = x - x + 6y - y 6 = 5y so an engine costs $1.2m & therefore launch costs are $4.8m (where "engine" = "hardware associated with an engine, inc. a share of the rest of the rocket, assumed proportional" and "launch costs" = upfront costs per launch, relatively constant regardless of what it is) This is blatantly not the case, but it explains how it might work. Nothing insane, just maths :-) (There'll be economies of scale in the tankage and structure on the first stage, I suspect, and possibly production efficiencies on a much greater engine-production run.) -- -Andrew Gray |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
Tom Merkle wrote:
I wonder how Elon Musk slipped this one under the radar. According to this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/70/1 Elon Musk says the follow on to Falcon I will be a vehicle called Falcon 5, which will essentially use 5 clustered Merlin engines (Falcon I uses 1) in a Saturn-V like configuration, with an additional Merlin on the upper stage. Musk claims this configuration will cost approximately $12 mil to launch. That compared to the Falcon 1 at $6 mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5, which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? That matches well with my low cost vehicle modeling. Their numbers are higher than mine, but they're further down the development road and also using inherently more expensive technologies. Once you are building low cost rockets, bigger low cost rockets aren't that much more expensive to build or set up or fire off... -george william herbert |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
Andrew Gray wrote:
Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Simplest explanation - launch costs (x per launch) and flight costs (y per engine) FI - $6m - $x+$y FV - $12m - $x+$6y Except that there is a second stage and second stage motor on the FI, and additionally stage costs exclusive of motor costs really should be treated independently from motor count... So it's really more like: FI @ $6M = $x (overhead) + $y (big motor) + $z (small motor) + $a (first stage) + $b (second stage) + $p1 (profit) FV @ $12M = $x (overhead) + 5*$y (big motor) + $c (first stage) + $a (second stage, equal to first stage on FI) + $p2 (profit) Overhead should really be broken down into things like the rocket assembly and pad costs, launch costs, the guidance system, the shroud... But this is just rough guesswork. One thing which I don't have a clue about is what profit level per launch, and what accounting system, Elon Musk is using. It's hard to assign per launch costs to a lot of things like keeping the development staff around and working on stuff. We know roughly what his staffing levels are, but not what his cost breakdowns are. -george william herbert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5,
which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Simplest explanation - launch costs (x per launch) and flight costs (y per engine) FI - $6m - $x+$y FV - $12m - $x+$6y 12 - 6 = x - x + 6y - y 6 = 5y so an engine costs $1.2m & therefore launch costs are $4.8m (where "engine" = "hardware associated with an engine, inc. a share of the rest of the rocket, assumed proportional" and "launch costs" = upfront costs per launch, relatively constant regardless of what it is) This is blatantly not the case, but it explains how it might work. Nothing insane, just maths :-) Ok. This assumes that the majority of systems used on the booster stage will be interchangeable with the upper stage. Musk also claims that the upper stage would be another Falcon I, meaning that he's costing the upperstage for the Falcon V alone at the same cost as a complete 5-engine booster stage. Possible, but again, unlikely. If you further assume that this is reusable as Musk claims, it's going to change your recovery systems--its a much bigger, heavier stage to recover. I'm not saying it's mathmatically impossible for this to be accurate, I'm saying it doesn't appear to be likely. (There'll be economies of scale in the tankage and structure on the first stage, I suspect, and possibly production efficiencies on a much greater engine-production run.) I'll buy that for a cheaper per-pound-to-orbit cost than Falcon I. I find it difficult to believe such a large cost jump can be made in one step, though, unless SpaceX has taken extraordinary care and testing to ensure that the guidance, navigation, and fuel management for Falcon I are already forward-compatible enough to make development costs on the Falcon V booster very very low. That would take an extreme amount of either forsight or engineering luck. Either way, I'll stand by until the first Falcon clears the tower. Tom Merkle |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
On 9 Dec 2003 17:08:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I wonder how Elon Musk slipped this one under the radar. According to this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/70/1 Elon Musk says the follow on to Falcon I will be a vehicle called Falcon 5, which will essentially use 5 clustered Merlin engines (Falcon I uses 1) in a Saturn-V like configuration, with an additional Merlin on the upper stage. Musk claims this configuration will cost approximately $12 mil to launch. That compared to the Falcon 1 at $6 mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5, which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Obviously, engines are not a major cost component. Obviously not. So why does Falcon I have such a comparatively high $/lb cost then? if the Falcon I is $6 mil per and Falcon V is $12 mil per, that says to me the lower stage and staging technology is only another $6 mil, which also says to me that actual individual engine system cost must be much less than 1/5 the cost of the rest of the vehicle, unless Musk plans to gush red until well into the Falcon V operational phase. (maybe he really does have enough money to launch the Falcon I as a test platform for Falcon V, at way below actual cost until he can finally start to break even with Falcon V. If so, he must have the biggest balls around in financing.) Tom Merkle |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
"Tom Merkle" wrote in message om... I wonder how Elon Musk slipped this one under the radar. According to this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/70/1 Elon Musk says the follow on to Falcon I will be a vehicle called Falcon 5, which will essentially use 5 clustered Merlin engines (Falcon I uses 1) in a Saturn-V like configuration, with an additional Merlin on the upper stage. Musk claims this configuration will cost approximately $12 mil to launch. That compared to the Falcon 1 at $6 mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5, which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Tom Merkle Fixed costs are the expensive part. The next best example is the Delta Heavy - 3 rockets but less then twice the cost. A Delta or Atlas using five engines as a fist stage and one as a second stage would probably cost less then 3 times as much as a base rocket. You see much the same effect as you add solids to existing rockets. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Six times the fun for twice the price. . .
"Andrew Gray" wrote in message . .. In article , Tom Merkle wrote: I wonder how Elon Musk slipped this one under the radar. According to this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/70/1 Elon Musk says the follow on to Falcon I will be a vehicle called Falcon 5, which will essentially use 5 clustered Merlin engines (Falcon I uses 1) in a Saturn-V like configuration, with an additional Merlin on the upper stage. Musk claims this configuration will cost approximately $12 mil to launch. That compared to the Falcon 1 at $6 mil. By my reckoning, that means Musk anticipates launching Falcon 5, which has 6 Merlins on it, and presumably some other complex design differences too, for only twice the price of Falcon I. Does anybody see any way this makes any kind of sense? Simplest explanation - launch costs (x per launch) and flight costs (y per engine) FI - $6m - $x+$y FV - $12m - $x+$6y 12 - 6 = x - x + 6y - y 6 = 5y so an engine costs $1.2m & therefore launch costs are $4.8m (where "engine" = "hardware associated with an engine, inc. a share of the rest of the rocket, assumed proportional" and "launch costs" = upfront costs per launch, relatively constant regardless of what it is) This is blatantly not the case, but it explains how it might work. Nothing insane, just maths :-) Couple of quotes from spaceX.com monthly updates: --------------------------------------- We received preliminary approval for our flight termination system design and have placed parts orders with key vendors. This is one of the most expensive sub-systems on the vehicle, since we have to use a lot of pre-qualified hardware (qualifying new hardware can take up to three years). This and the avionics system stay almost constant independent of launch vehicle size, so it is really impossible to optimize a small launch vehicle on cost per unit mass to orbit ----------------------------------------- Most of our propulsion efforts in May were focused on the Merlin turbo-pump testing at our facility near McGregor, Texas. This is the most expensive and mechanically challenging component on the rocket and typically where launch vehicle developments have experienced the most difficulty. ----------------------------------------- Environmental work continues at our Vandenberg launchpad (3-West for those that know the base) and will hopefully be done in the next few months with the help of the 30th Space Wing. The paperwork associated with this process is surprisingly large and time consuming, particularly given that Falcon is much smaller than vehicles that have been based off this pad before and is completely non-toxic. It'd be very interesting to see approximate cost breakdown by different components of this particular launch vehicle, including operations costs of one launch. -kert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years) | [email protected] | Technology | 5 | December 30th 03 08:44 PM |
NY Times Accuracy? | stmx3 | Space Shuttle | 5 | September 20th 03 03:27 PM |
NY Times Accuracy? | stmx3 | Policy | 4 | September 20th 03 08:43 AM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |
Dittemore said if shuttle crippled nothing could be done - LA Times erroneously reports | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 5th 03 11:39 AM |