I am surprised...

....that there haven't been more comments about Falcon 1. Where are all the
people saying "It's not as easy as SpaceX make out..." etc?

"Alan Erskine" wrote in
:

...that there haven't been more comments about Falcon 1. Where are all
the people saying "It's not as easy as SpaceX make out..." etc?

Yeah, ain't it nice? All the whiners and doomsayers have crawled
back into their holes since they've got nothing to complain about.

Don't worry, next failure and they'll be back in force.

SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts
delivering major payloads, taking business away from the
existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the
market.

We'll see; Falcon 9 and especially Dragon are going to be
major hurdles. But they've broken barriers both real and
perceived by overcoming their own startup and flying hardware
through the last of the design flaws and sheer bad luck.
The field is littered with the bones of the many startups
who literally never got off the ground.

--Damon

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6...
SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts
delivering major payloads, taking business away from the
existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the
market.

I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much
increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of
current levels?

I mean, to _me_, there's not much difference between $150 million for a
Delta IV Medium and $50 million for a Falcon 9 as I can't afford either
(didn't even buy a lottery ticket for this week). ;-)

Has there ever been any analysis for this kind of 'quantum' reduction in
costs?

If the launch costs 1/3rd as much, will it increase the market size by three
times?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:58:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
36...
SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts
delivering major payloads, taking business away from the
existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the
market.

I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much
increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of
current levels?

Not a lot. The real elasticity doesn't kick in until it's at least an
order of magnitude less. That's one of the reasons that it's been hard
to break in to the business, or persuade the big contractors to spend
their own money to reduce launch costs. And it remains a big business
risk for SpaceX.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in
:

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6...
SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts
delivering major payloads, taking business away from the
existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the
market.

I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much
increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd
of current levels?

I mean, to _me_, there's not much difference between $150 million for a
Delta IV Medium and $50 million for a Falcon 9 as I can't afford either
(didn't even buy a lottery ticket for this week). ;-)

Has there ever been any analysis for this kind of 'quantum' reduction in
costs?

If the launch costs 1/3rd as much, will it increase the market size by
three times?

Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than
their actual launch costs. So even if the ride is 'free', the actual
costs are still high. I'm hoping that a significant lowering of the
launch cost will help to expand the 'envelope'.

A quantum jump seems unlikely, but a halving of launch cost should at
least help. I hope Dragon will help to privatize manned flight, pulling
it out of the government realm which contains many obstacles besides
simple dollar cost. We'll see.

--Damon, who bought a lottery ticket today

Damon Hill wrote:
Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than
their actual launch costs.

Is there a bit of chicken and egg going on there? Is there much
incentive to put an inexpensive payload on an expensive launcher?

rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote in
:

Damon Hill wrote:
Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than
their actual launch costs.

Is there a bit of chicken and egg going on there? Is there much
incentive to put an inexpensive payload on an expensive launcher?

Depends on who's paying for it, and what the expected payback is.
I think what we're mostly looking for are commercial payloads that
generate revenue once they're functioning in orbit.

Some things like orbital manufacturing don't appear to be taking
off any time soon. Telcom and earth resource/imaging seem to be
the main winners, private personal spaceflight seems to be restricted
to the ultra-wealthy for the forseeable.

Reusability of launch and flight hardware would help a lot, but
developing 100% reusability still hasn't happened. It seemed like
Kistler's K-1 had potential, but as far as I know that's a dead
project now. Even partial reusability of either launcher or spacecraft
hasn't been demonstrated to any degree I'm aware of.

--Damon

"Alan Erskine" writes:

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6...
SpaceX will become a major player when their Falcon 9 starts
delivering major payloads, taking business away from the
existing players. Or more hopefully, starts expanding the
market.

I don't know anything about economics, so I'll ask a question: How much
increase would there be in the launch market if costs were about 1/3rd of
current levels?

Probably none. I've read estimates that it would need a reduction to
1/10th to get really to new markets. But the markets are small enough
that a handful of contracts can make a real change, so all estimates are
off.

If the launch costs 1/3rd as much, will it increase the market size by three
times?

No, I don't think so. But there may be quite a few customers getting
excited enough to jump on with some more or less crazy ideas, so this is
hard to judge.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Damon Hill writes:

Good question that's hard to answer; payloads often cost more than
their actual launch costs. So even if the ride is 'free', the actual
costs are still high. I'm hoping that a significant lowering of the
launch cost will help to expand the 'envelope'.

On the other hand the "we have to save weight at all costs" mantra is
what makes payloads often cost so much. If you can get much more payload
for the same cost this may help you to build the payload much cheaper.
Seems not to be the usual mindset of those building payloads, though ;-)


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
No, I don't think so. But there may be quite a few customers getting
excited enough to jump on with some more or less crazy ideas, so
this is hard to judge.

It looks like a Tesla Roadster would fit in the fairing of a Falcon
9. 3.946m long, 1.851m wide, and only 1238 kg. Put a vanity plate on
it that says "MLNEUM" and add-in a mannequin with a likeness of Elon
Musk. Could probably get an American Football SuperBowl half-time
commercial out of it somehow.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...