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

SpaceX pricing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 16th 18, 02:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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  
Old February 16th 18, 02:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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  
Old February 16th 18, 04:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old February 16th 18, 04:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old February 16th 18, 06:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default 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
  #16  
Old February 16th 18, 01:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX pricing

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

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


Actually, Titan IV total program costs $17.6B divided by 39 flights
gives us $450 million. Using that same method gives the shuttle a per
flight cost of $1.45 billion. So while many people pointed at Titan IV
as being more expensive than the space shuttle, it wasn't really true.

Cite:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/.../99titaniv.pdf

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.


Not likely, yet. I'm sure there is enough inertia to keep it going
until first flight, which is now 3 years away. The next flight will be
crewed (with a new *untested* upper stage) and is 6 years away.

Back to economics... The unfortunate thing is that ULA is *still*
receiving a $1 billion a year subsidy each year for "launch readiness".
Thankfully, it will phase out in 2019 and 2020 which will finally level
the playing field. That's the remaining legacy of the US Government
being in charge of the launch vehicle business and it's still not gone.
Ugh.

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.
  #17  
Old February 16th 18, 01:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX pricing

In article ,
says...
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.


That's why I'm really hoping that New Glenn is successful. If Blue
Origin can finally start flying orbital missions with New Glenn, they
can move on to New Armstrong development.

There is already speculation as to who would buy ULA if the parent
companies decided to call it quits. Their LOX/LH2 upper stage
technology is by far the best in the US industry and would make a nice
starting point for a LEO LOX/LH2 fuel depot. Blue Origin may not want
them because they already have a LOX/LH2 engine, but the devil is in the
details. For DOD missions with long coasting periods for the upper
stage, they'll need low boil off tanks, which they've not yet
demonstrated in flight.

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.
  #19  
Old February 17th 18, 10:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old February 17th 18, 04:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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

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 10:48 PM.


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.