A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Continuing drop in prices?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 17th 18, 10:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Continuing drop in prices?

I've seen at least one report that if their predictions for Block 5
hold up when they tear down their first one, SpaceX is planning to
drop the cost of a Falcon 9 launch from the current $62 million to $50
million. I assume that's for customers who are willing to accept a
used rocket until they've got enough of those users so that building
the occasional new rocket for a user who insists on that isn't a big
deal.

If that report is true and SpaceX can achieve the kind of launch rates
they're talking about (60+ launches per year), they are going to own
the space launch business.


--
"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
  #2  
Old May 18th 18, 06:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Continuing drop in prices?

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 17 May 2018
17:58:21 -0400:

On 2018-05-17 17:23, Fred J. McCall wrote:

If that report is true and SpaceX can achieve the kind of launch rates
they're talking about (60+ launches per year), they are going to own
the space launch business.


Would it be correct to state that at this stage, the only people willing
to require/pay for a "new" stage would be government (NASA/military) and
this would essentially be a form of subsidy to SpaceX ?


Probably not and definitely not.


I could see some limits initially with customers wanting either new or
1st re-use, and a discount for using stages reused more than twice, but
eventually that dicount going away as confidence in multiple uses grows?


But even you don't agree with what you see, judging from your first
paragraph. Pick one: Only government or 'customers'.


In terms of market, I can see military insisting on paying more for
other supplier in order to maintain at least 2 launch providers. (and to
help its lobby buddies such as Boeing etc).


You can apparently see lots of things. That doesn't make them true.
Your first vision is likely. Your parenthetical remark is bull****.
Private companies lobby for their own interests and are frequently at
odds with the military (which is why they need to lobby).


It would not be safe to allow SpaceX to become a monopoly because their
tech has revolutionized and dropped proces to a point where nobody else
can compete.


How do you propose to prevent that?


I bet there will be lots of pressure on Boeing and others to develop
re-usable ASAP.


It won't matter. They're already working in that direction (see long
range plans for Vulcan, for example, where they want to go the Russian
route of dropping engines off the vehicle so they can be recovered and
reused), but it's not going to be able to compete on cost. ULA is
talking about making it cost competitive with current Falcon Heavy
costs, but those should drop if Falcon 9 drops as the Block 5 cores
start being used for Falcon Heavy. So even if they achieve their
desired price point (which I consider dubious), they're still going to
lose.


--
"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
  #3  
Old May 18th 18, 11:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Continuing drop in prices?

In article ,
says...

I've seen at least one report that if their predictions for Block 5
hold up when they tear down their first one, SpaceX is planning to
drop the cost of a Falcon 9 launch from the current $62 million to $50
million. I assume that's for customers who are willing to accept a
used rocket until they've got enough of those users so that building
the occasional new rocket for a user who insists on that isn't a big
deal.

If that report is true and SpaceX can achieve the kind of launch rates
they're talking about (60+ launches per year), they are going to own
the space launch business.


That's what I've read as well and it makes sense if they really can
reuse a first stage up to 10 times without refurbishment. I've also
read they're tearing this one apart to verify their design changes.
They went so far as to remove the landing legs from the stage instead of
folding them back up again (which is supposedly what Block 5 is designed
to support).

But, their cost for a launch has to be well below $50 million for them
to make this price drop. They need the cash to develop and deploy
Starlink as well as to develop BFR. No doubt that price also hinges on
their ability to recover and reuse fairing 2.0 halves. I saw a picture
of a recovery vessel that brought back what looks like an intact fairing
half from the last launch. No Mr. Steven on the east coast, so this one
was fished out of the water.

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.
  #5  
Old May 18th 18, 06:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Continuing drop in prices?

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 18 May 2018
06:24:22 -0400:

In article ,
says...

It would not be safe to allow SpaceX to become a monopoly because their
tech has revolutionized and dropped proces to a point where nobody else
can compete.


How do you propose to prevent that?


You don't. You let the market sort it out.


But Mayfly's point is that it would not be safe to let the market sort
it out if that would result in a near monopoly by SpaceX. So I want
to know what he proposes to do.


SpaceX has proven that
reuse is not only possible but economical so others will no doubt
follow. It just won't be the typical government contractors like ULA or
Orbital ATK who are so set in their ways they simply can't attempt
something so "out of the box". It's just not in their corporate DNA
anymore to truly innovate.


ULA's future is tied to Vulcan, which is originally expendable. In
the long run they want to make it 'partly reusable' by dropping the
engines and recovering them for reuse.


IMHO, Blue Origin has the most likely shot at recreating a similar level
of reuse with their New Glenn launch vehicle. Blue Origin also likely
doesn't give a damn about paying off their development costs given that
Jeff Bezos is the one giving them $1 billion a year in funding just by
selling a tiny bit of his Amazon stock each year.


Perhaps, but even Bezos can only sustain that sort of drain for so
long. There's an Elon Musk quote that applies. "If you want to make
a small fortune in the space launch business, start with a large
fortune."


--
"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
  #6  
Old May 18th 18, 10:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Continuing drop in prices?

On 5/17/2018 5:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: If that report is true and
SpaceX can achieve the kind of launch rates they're talking about (60+
launches per year), they are going to ow the space launch business.
Come to Crazy Elon's Rocket Emporium. Where the prices are INSANE!


Dave
  #7  
Old May 19th 18, 12:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Continuing drop in prices?

On May/18/2018 at 1:55 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 18 May 2018
06:24:22 -0400:


IMHO, Blue Origin has the most likely shot at recreating a similar level
of reuse with their New Glenn launch vehicle. Blue Origin also likely
doesn't give a damn about paying off their development costs given that
Jeff Bezos is the one giving them $1 billion a year in funding just by
selling a tiny bit of his Amazon stock each year.


Perhaps, but even Bezos can only sustain that sort of drain for so
long.


Bezos can sustain that sort of drain for as long as he lives. Even if
human lifespan is increased.


Alain Fournier
  #8  
Old May 19th 18, 07:25 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Continuing drop in prices?

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 19 May 2018
00:26:09 -0400:

On 2018-05-18 06:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

follow. It just won't be the typical government contractors like ULA or
Orbital ATK who are so set in their ways they simply can't attempt
something so "out of the box". It's just not in their corporate DNA
anymore to truly innovate.


I wouldn't write the big guys off yet.


Of course you wouldn't.


As long as customers were buying their expensive disposable rockets,
they were making lots of money. Why invest in new tech that would reduce
profits?


Because it lets you increase profits. That sort of short sighted
thinking cost them a big chunk of the airliner market.


Boeing Commecrcial had periods of stagnation where it didn't see a need
to respond to McD/Lockheed and later to Airbus, but periods where Boeing
responded with major new products (747 in response to DC-10 and L1011,
the 767 in response to A300, and the 777 in response to Airbus A330/340,
and later the 787 in response to the 330 stealing 767 customers.


Yes, but intermittent stupidity in one part of the business (which is
what that was) may be a good indicator of how the rest of the business
will think.


I think ULA dismissed SpaceX as a fad that wouldn't succeed. By the time
SpaceX proved it could do it (probably in 2017, so recent), the big guys
woke up to the fact that they are WAY late.


More like 2014.


Their advantage is they can continue to lobby their way with lucrative
military contracts for a number of years during which they develop a
competitor to SpaceX. One advantage of being late is that you know what
you have to beat. If SpaceX can r-use a rocket on average 3 times, then
Boeing doing it 4 times will beat SpaceX.


That's going to have to be a pretty large number of years. Their
future (Vulcan) will never be more than 'partially reusable'. And an
organization like ULA is going to need a much bigger advantage than
that to approach SpaceX prices because their internal costs are so
much higher.


(I know the spec s say 10, but we don't know what the average re=use
rate will be before at least a year or two).


Well, it will be hard to reuse one ten times in the next year or two
just because of constraints of launch rates.


Consider a Boeing rocket that has more fuel, which means for difficult
missions, it can still come back and land, whereas SpaceX has to ditch
the stage for such missions.


Consider magic pixie dust for fuel and unicorns for the first stage.


Or, Boeing could get out of commercial launches and leave the bsuiness
to SPaceX and Blue Origin, and just keep ultra secret military launches
where price is not an issue.


Except price for military launches IS an issue and SpaceX is already
certified for such launches.


The other variable to cosnider is lauinch availability. If SpaceX gets a
contract to launch 300 satellites in a year, it may not have any spare
capacity for otherc ontracts which wil have to go to someone else.
(exagerating rates here, but when one can launch starts to matter when a
launch is much delayed).


If there are signs that SpaceX will get any particular number of
launches (even your numbers) they will build to that capacity.

Your position seems to be that ULA can survive on crumbs and niche
contracts. That's just insane.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #9  
Old May 19th 18, 12:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Continuing drop in prices?

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 18 May 2018
06:24:22 -0400:

In article ,
says...

It would not be safe to allow SpaceX to become a monopoly because their
tech has revolutionized and dropped proces to a point where nobody else
can compete.


How do you propose to prevent that?


You don't. You let the market sort it out.


But Mayfly's point is that it would not be safe to let the market sort
it out if that would result in a near monopoly by SpaceX. So I want
to know what he proposes to do.


LOL yeah, not much you can do except toss the other US providers some US
Government launches as part of DOD's strategy of having at least two
certified launch providers.

SpaceX has proven that
reuse is not only possible but economical so others will no doubt
follow. It just won't be the typical government contractors like ULA or
Orbital ATK who are so set in their ways they simply can't attempt
something so "out of the box". It's just not in their corporate DNA
anymore to truly innovate.


ULA's future is tied to Vulcan, which is originally expendable. In
the long run they want to make it 'partly reusable' by dropping the
engines and recovering them for reuse.


Yeah, but partial reuse on a vehicle which still depends on solid strap-
ons isn't going to be able to compete with Falcon 9 Block 5 and Falcon
Heavy. ULA's a dead man walking. The only thing they might have that's
unique is ACES, which they should have finished developing by now
because it's just an incremental upgrade to their Centaur upper stage.
But, they didn't even fund that and have pushed its development off
until after Vulcan is flying.


IMHO, Blue Origin has the most likely shot at recreating a similar level
of reuse with their New Glenn launch vehicle. Blue Origin also likely
doesn't give a damn about paying off their development costs given that
Jeff Bezos is the one giving them $1 billion a year in funding just by
selling a tiny bit of his Amazon stock each year.


Perhaps, but even Bezos can only sustain that sort of drain for so
long. There's an Elon Musk quote that applies. "If you want to make
a small fortune in the space launch business, start with a large
fortune."


LOL, that's funny. Elon Musk's investment in SpaceX was a large
fortune, for him. Wealth is relative. Jeff Bezos is in an entirely
different league! His net worth is 130.7 billion USD!

Jeff Bezos can continue to fund Blue Origin at its current level for
many decades to come. Even assuming his net worth doesn't increase
(maybe cloud computing collapses completely), he could still continue to
give Blue Origin $1 billion each year for the next 30 years and that
amount would still be less than 1% of his net worth.

No, I think Bezos can afford to fund Blue Origin for quite some time.
The limiting factor here isn't money, but Jeff Bezos's patience. So
far, he's been quite patient.

Blue Origin hasn't performed a single orbital launch and their
suborbital business really hasn't "taken off" yet. Despite this, he's
continuing to fund them. Blue Origin is building the facilities needed
to construct New Glenn launch vehicles. It will likely take another 5
years before we'll be able to judge the success of New Glenn.

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.
  #10  
Old May 19th 18, 12:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Continuing drop in prices?

In article ,
says...

On 2018-05-18 06:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

follow. It just won't be the typical government contractors like ULA or
Orbital ATK who are so set in their ways they simply can't attempt
something so "out of the box". It's just not in their corporate DNA
anymore to truly innovate.



I wouldn't write the big guys off yet.

As long as customers were buying their expensive disposable rockets,
they were making lots of money. Why invest in new tech that would reduce
profits?


ULA isn't making lots of money anymore. They've had to cut their prices
and layoff people to reduce costs. And yes, they are investing in
Vulcan, but it won't be able to compete with Falcon 9 for commercial
launches. The best ULA can hope for now is to keep their 1/2 or so of
US Government launches. That means in the long run their part of that
business will be about 1/2 as big as they have been in the past (in the
past hey had a monopoly). Again, they simply won't be making the sort
of money they used to make.

snip

Their advantage is they can continue to lobby their way with lucrative
military contracts for a number of years during which they develop a
competitor to SpaceX. One advantage of being late is that you know what
you have to beat. If SpaceX can r-use a rocket on average 3 times, then
Boeing doing it 4 times will beat SpaceX.


That assumes that Orbital ATK won't be able to certify their new EELV
class launch vehicle for US Government launches and that it won't be
cheaper than Vulcan. I personally think that's a bad bet. Antares was
developed fairly recently and is doing fairly well. So they have more
recent experience in developing new launch vehicles. Plus Orbital ATK
will help keep tech in solids up to date (so the next round of ICBMs
won't run into trouble), so ULA loses their US Government advantage
there as well (i.e. their affinity for solid strap-ons).

(I know the spec s say 10, but we don't know what the average re=use
rate will be before at least a year or two).


No we don't, but let's cut their goals in half, just as a thought
experiment. SpaceX would then need to refurbish Falcon 9 Block 5 first
stages after every 5 flights and limit the lifetime of each stage to
"only" 50 flights. That really doesn't change the numbers very much.
Their costs increase a bit, but they are still making money because they
just don't lower their prices as much as they originally planned. Even
at current prices, SpaceX is cheaper than any other launch provider on
the planet.

Consider a Boeing rocket that has more fuel, which means for difficult
missions, it can still come back and land, whereas SpaceX has to ditch
the stage for such missions.


No Boeing "rocket" is going to "come back and land". WTF are you
talking about? Boeing is going to be making SLS, which is completely
expendable. If you're thinking about ULA, eventually they may be
snagging the engines under parachutes with a helicopter, but they're not
going to be landing any stages either. Their "smart" reuse just
recovers the engines. They have to build an entirely new set of first
stage tanks for each flight.

Or, Boeing could get out of commercial launches and leave the bsuiness
to SPaceX and Blue Origin, and just keep ultra secret military launches
where price is not an issue.


Again, Boeing has been out of the commercial launch business when that
part of the business went to ULA. And ULA hasn't been selling many
commercial launches recently because they can't compete on price.

The other variable to cosnider is lauinch availability. If SpaceX gets a
contract to launch 300 satellites in a year, it may not have any spare
capacity for otherc ontracts which wil have to go to someone else.
(exagerating rates here, but when one can launch starts to matter when a
launch is much delayed).


Bull****. With reuse, SpaceX can increase its launch cadence more than
any other launch provider on the planet. That's a key advantage of
reuse that many people overlook. They keep focusing only on costs and
ignore the fact that reuse enables a far greater launch cadence without
any increase to manufacturing capacity.

The SpaceX steamroller (launch cadence) is just starting to build up
speed. There's likely no stopping it now.

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.
 




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
Hagar Q & A - a continuing post Notroll2016 Misc 5 December 15th 16 02:39 PM
What have you discovered? and Continuing Inventing O ya G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 0 April 25th 09 12:32 PM
The continuing decline of science writing M History 4 July 3rd 08 07:02 PM
Venus at 00.33% phase continuing very bright Anthony Stokes Amateur Astronomy 4 June 6th 04 06:09 PM
evidence of NASA (or at least MSFC) continuing not to get it Chris Jones Space Shuttle 0 August 28th 03 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.