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

Falcon 9 Block 5 update



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 12th 18, 05:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/0...p-in-half.html
Some positive news.

Though I suspect launch PRICES won't drop much and rather profit margins
will increase for SpaceX.

But it does mean it'll be harder for ULA and others to compete unless they
can really cut costs.

  #2  
Old September 13th 18, 12:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

In article ,
says...

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/0...p-in-half.html
Some positive news.

Though I suspect launch PRICES won't drop much and rather profit margins
will increase for SpaceX.


True. But they're still by far the cheapest launch provider, so there
is no incentive to lower prices any further. When the competition
starts lowering their prices (which won't happen anytime soon), then
SpaceX will lower theirs.

Market driven pricing.

But it does mean it'll be harder for ULA and others to compete unless they
can really cut costs.


Yep. And so far ULA has only paid lip service to reuse (their so called
"smart reuse" is dumb since it only recovers the engines of the first
stage. By the time this is perfected, SpaceX might very well be flying
BFR/BFS which will be fully reusable.

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.
  #3  
Old September 13th 18, 01:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/0...p-in-half.html
Some positive news.

Though I suspect launch PRICES won't drop much and rather profit margins
will increase for SpaceX.


True. But they're still by far the cheapest launch provider, so there
is no incentive to lower prices any further. When the competition
starts lowering their prices (which won't happen anytime soon), then
SpaceX will lower theirs.

Right that's my piont the entire comment about "could launch for $20M" is
not going to happen, at least not away.

And of course by the time someone starts putting that pressure on them,
they'll have found other ways to cut their costs.

Market driven pricing.

But it does mean it'll be harder for ULA and others to compete unless
they
can really cut costs.


Yep. And so far ULA has only paid lip service to reuse (their so called
"smart reuse" is dumb since it only recovers the engines of the first
stage. By the time this is perfected, SpaceX might very well be flying
BFR/BFS which will be fully reusable.


Yeah, the ULA "solution" seems like what I'd expect from a traditional
vendor.

I mean they're right, physically the engines are the most expensive
components. And I'm not surprised their reaction is, "Let's work on the
most expensive HARDWARE" and not really look at it from an entire systems
POV like SpaceX and Blue Horizon has, which is the entire system.
Sure, you get the engines back... but you need an expensive aircraft for
every recovery. SpaceX only needs a drone ship for some of their
recoveries. I'd be curious to see which is cheaper to operate. The
helicopter only needs to be in flight for a couple of hours, but aircraft
hours are very expensive. The drone ships are probably very cheap to operate
on an hourly basis, but need to be in operation for more hours.

But then once you get back the engines vs. booster, you've got more stacking
operations. I can't see that being cheap. Touch labor gets expensive and it
SpaceX seems to be well aware of that (e.g. I bet the titanium fin-grates
are more expensive upfront, but if you don't have to touch them for 10
flights, you've reduced your touch costs and probably saved money.)

I think ULA is going to win this fight. At least with Vulcan.
Blue Horizon is still an unknown quantity.


Jeff


--
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/

  #4  
Old September 13th 18, 01:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update


"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...


In my reply below, replace Blue Horizon with Blue Origin.


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/0...p-in-half.html
Some positive news.

Though I suspect launch PRICES won't drop much and rather profit margins
will increase for SpaceX.


True. But they're still by far the cheapest launch provider, so there
is no incentive to lower prices any further. When the competition
starts lowering their prices (which won't happen anytime soon), then
SpaceX will lower theirs.

Right that's my piont the entire comment about "could launch for $20M" is
not going to happen, at least not away.

And of course by the time someone starts putting that pressure on them,
they'll have found other ways to cut their costs.

Market driven pricing.

But it does mean it'll be harder for ULA and others to compete unless
they
can really cut costs.


Yep. And so far ULA has only paid lip service to reuse (their so called
"smart reuse" is dumb since it only recovers the engines of the first
stage. By the time this is perfected, SpaceX might very well be flying
BFR/BFS which will be fully reusable.


Yeah, the ULA "solution" seems like what I'd expect from a traditional
vendor.

I mean they're right, physically the engines are the most expensive
components. And I'm not surprised their reaction is, "Let's work on the
most expensive HARDWARE" and not really look at it from an entire systems
POV like SpaceX and Blue Horizon has, which is the entire system.
Sure, you get the engines back... but you need an expensive aircraft for
every recovery. SpaceX only needs a drone ship for some of their
recoveries. I'd be curious to see which is cheaper to operate. The
helicopter only needs to be in flight for a couple of hours, but aircraft
hours are very expensive. The drone ships are probably very cheap to
operate on an hourly basis, but need to be in operation for more hours.

But then once you get back the engines vs. booster, you've got more
stacking operations. I can't see that being cheap. Touch labor gets
expensive and it SpaceX seems to be well aware of that (e.g. I bet the
titanium fin-grates are more expensive upfront, but if you don't have to
touch them for 10 flights, you've reduced your touch costs and probably
saved money.)

I think ULA is going to win this fight. At least with Vulcan.
Blue Horizon is still an unknown quantity.


Jeff



--
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/

  #5  
Old September 13th 18, 11:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

In article ,
says...
Yeah, the ULA "solution" seems like what I'd expect from a traditional
vendor.

I mean they're right, physically the engines are the most expensive
components. And I'm not surprised their reaction is, "Let's work on the
most expensive HARDWARE" and not really look at it from an entire systems
POV like SpaceX and Blue Horizon has, which is the entire system.
Sure, you get the engines back... but you need an expensive aircraft for
every recovery. SpaceX only needs a drone ship for some of their
recoveries. I'd be curious to see which is cheaper to operate. The
helicopter only needs to be in flight for a couple of hours, but aircraft
hours are very expensive. The drone ships are probably very cheap to operate
on an hourly basis, but need to be in operation for more hours.


Don't forget the expensive separation system to get the engines with all
their plumbing, electrical connections, structure, and etc. to cleanly
separate. That's going to be hard to develop, complex to operate, and
prone to "little" failures. All those connections had better separate
cleanly (especially the plumbing). Anything that's not a clean
separation means higher refurbishment costs at best and loss of the
engine(s) at worst.

But then once you get back the engines vs. booster, you've got more stacking
operations. I can't see that being cheap. Touch labor gets expensive and it
SpaceX seems to be well aware of that (e.g. I bet the titanium fin-grates
are more expensive upfront, but if you don't have to touch them for 10
flights, you've reduced your touch costs and probably saved money.)


Even military aircraft don't like to drop parts when flying. Drop tanks
for fuel are cheap in theory, but aren't so cheap when you have to do it
operationally. During WWII the British started making drop tanks out of
paper! These paper tanks were single use since the fuel would slowly
dissolve the glue used to make them. These were developed so that metal
could be conserved. Metal being a precious commodity during WWII in
Brattain.

I think ULA is going to win this fight. At least with Vulcan.
Blue Horizon is still an unknown quantity.


I think ULA might survive only because Vulcan would give the US
Government the two "proven" launch suppliers that it "needs". Blue
Origin is not entirely an unknown quantity, IMHO. Its New Shepard
suborbital launch vehicle has successfully flown several times proving
out the LH2/LOX BE-3 engine as well as their VTVL technology. Right now
they're working on BE-4 (which ULA wants to use on Vulcan) as well as
their New Glenn orbital launch vehicle (which will use the proven BE-3
engine in its upper stage).

Blue Origin is further ahead than ULA is with Vulcan, IMHO. ULA still
hasn't officially chosen between BE-4 and AR-1 for its first stage
engine. The former being liquid methane which will require cryogenic
fuel tanks and the latter being kerosene which won't. This, and other
differences between the engines, greatly impacts the first stage design
of Vulcan. Vulcan is much more "paper rocket" than New Glenn because of
this very large development uncertainty.

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.
  #7  
Old September 13th 18, 12:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-09-12 20:36, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

I think ULA is going to win this fight. At least with Vulcan.
Blue Horizon is still an unknown quantity.



I don't understand your logic on this.


Because I left out a word. I DON'T think...


ULA will get enough contracts because the military are open to lobby and
also likely want to keep multiple suppliers. But can they really ever be
cost competitive?


No. With my correction my logic should make more sense.

--
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/

  #8  
Old September 13th 18, 12:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
Yeah, the ULA "solution" seems like what I'd expect from a traditional
vendor.

I mean they're right, physically the engines are the most expensive
components. And I'm not surprised their reaction is, "Let's work on the
most expensive HARDWARE" and not really look at it from an entire systems
POV like SpaceX and Blue Horizon has, which is the entire system.
Sure, you get the engines back... but you need an expensive aircraft for
every recovery. SpaceX only needs a drone ship for some of their
recoveries. I'd be curious to see which is cheaper to operate. The
helicopter only needs to be in flight for a couple of hours, but aircraft
hours are very expensive. The drone ships are probably very cheap to
operate
on an hourly basis, but need to be in operation for more hours.


Don't forget the expensive separation system to get the engines with all
their plumbing, electrical connections, structure, and etc. to cleanly
separate. That's going to be hard to develop, complex to operate, and
prone to "little" failures. All those connections had better separate
cleanly (especially the plumbing). Anything that's not a clean
separation means higher refurbishment costs at best and loss of the
engine(s) at worst.


Yeah, I hadn't even thought about that. Again, a stage separation is far
simply. Sure you've got some electrical connections, but no plumbing.


But then once you get back the engines vs. booster, you've got more
stacking
operations. I can't see that being cheap. Touch labor gets expensive and
it
SpaceX seems to be well aware of that (e.g. I bet the titanium fin-grates
are more expensive upfront, but if you don't have to touch them for 10
flights, you've reduced your touch costs and probably saved money.)


Even military aircraft don't like to drop parts when flying. Drop tanks
for fuel are cheap in theory, but aren't so cheap when you have to do it
operationally. During WWII the British started making drop tanks out of
paper! These paper tanks were single use since the fuel would slowly
dissolve the glue used to make them. These were developed so that metal
could be conserved. Metal being a precious commodity during WWII in
Brattain.



Even ignoring the cost of the materials, as you say, it complicate things


I think ULA is going to win this fight. At least with Vulcan.
Blue Horizon is still an unknown quantity.


I think ULA might survive only because Vulcan would give the US
Government the two "proven" launch suppliers that it "needs". Blue
Origin is not entirely an unknown quantity, IMHO. Its New Shepard
suborbital launch vehicle has successfully flown several times proving
out the LH2/LOX BE-3 engine as well as their VTVL technology. Right now
they're working on BE-4 (which ULA wants to use on Vulcan) as well as
their New Glenn orbital launch vehicle (which will use the proven BE-3
engine in its upper stage).


As noted, I meant to say I DON'T think ULA is going to win this fight...

Blue Origin has done some great stuff, but until they start launching
payloads, I'll hold off on any bets.

That said, even if they become an engine manufacturer that might be enough.


Blue Origin is further ahead than ULA is with Vulcan, IMHO. ULA still
hasn't officially chosen between BE-4 and AR-1 for its first stage
engine. The former being liquid methane which will require cryogenic
fuel tanks and the latter being kerosene which won't. This, and other
differences between the engines, greatly impacts the first stage design
of Vulcan. Vulcan is much more "paper rocket" than New Glenn because of
this very large development uncertainty.

Jeff


Oh agreed.
That said, Vulcan WILL fly... if only because of inertia and the reason you
give about two boosters and all.
But I think Blue Origin, OR SOMETHING else, will eventually eclipse them.

--
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/

  #9  
Old September 13th 18, 01:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Falcon 9 Block 5 update

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018
19:41:35 -0400:

In article ,
says...

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/0...p-in-half.html
Some positive news.

Though I suspect launch PRICES won't drop much and rather profit margins
will increase for SpaceX.


True. But they're still by far the cheapest launch provider, so there
is no incentive to lower prices any further. When the competition
starts lowering their prices (which won't happen anytime soon), then
SpaceX will lower theirs.

Market driven pricing.

But it does mean it'll be harder for ULA and others to compete unless they
can really cut costs.


Yep. And so far ULA has only paid lip service to reuse (their so called
"smart reuse" is dumb since it only recovers the engines of the first
stage. By the time this is perfected, SpaceX might very well be flying
BFR/BFS which will be fully reusable.


ULA is copying the Russians. The Boeing capsule 'crashes' like the
Russian capsules and Vulcan engine recovery is just what the Russians
do.


--
"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
 




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
Sun Block G=EMC^2TreBert Misc 0 September 30th 15 11:22 PM
Expedition 26 / SpaceX Falcon 9 - COTS 1 Update John[_30_] Space Shuttle 0 December 9th 10 08:08 PM
Dragon/Falcon 9 Update [email protected] Policy 16 October 7th 09 04:42 PM
SpaceX "Monster" Update (mostly Falcon 9) Damon Hill[_4_] Policy 1 August 20th 07 06:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 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.