Space X to build reusable launch vehicle

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Yeah unfortunately congress shifted money from commercial crew to the SLS billion dollar earmark :(
It was meant to get 850 million for several launch systems and spacecraft(peanuts compared to the SLS) and they only got 500 million. Plus NASA in their "wisdom" decided to change the method of aquirement from an SAA to something more traditional. Of course that increases cost on the side of the commercial providers and so things will once again go down the drain.
Senator Dana Rohrbacher and Andrew Gasser (from tea in space) are among the few politicians that care and understand the issues. Interestingly they are two republicans/ teaparty people. I do kinda like Gasser. He really wants to distance himself from the religious conservative anti science nutbags and he is really trying to get support for the cause and rally all ends of the political spectrum. I like an respect that.
http://www.teapartyinspace.org/?q=conte ... et-america

KitemanSA
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

DeltaV wrote:[phpBB doesn't like this url, you have to copy/paste]
Replace all the spaces with %20 and it will work fine.

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

Skipjack wrote:Yeah unfortunately congress shifted money from commercial crew to the SLS billion dollar earmark :(
It was meant to get 850 million for several launch systems and spacecraft(peanuts compared to the SLS) and they only got 500 million.
That's not how it went. The Authorization Act, which all parties agreed on, said $500M. It also said $2.65B for SLS and $1.4B for MPCV.

The President disrespected this compromise with his budget request, which is where the high number for CCDev came from. He knew perfectly well Congress would never agree to that budget request. Basically you're whining that the President promised you a pony, knowing he couldn't actually give you one, after he had agreed with Congress that you couldn't have one, and Congress said no.

Now the Senate has come out and upheld the original compromise regarding CCDev, while appropriating only $1.8B for SLS and $1.2B for MPCV. In other words, CCDev is untouched and SLS has been slashed. (This is probably partly because SLS is late starting, partly because it turned out to be slightly less expensive than they thought, and partly general austerity.)

Now, I don't know if the commercial companies actually need that extra money. Certainly they want it; who wouldn't? In the absence of data, I'd be cautiously in favour of giving them more money (they're our gap closer, after all, but we don't want to turn this into something other than what it's supposed to be, and excessive government involvement might not be uniformly good). But I object to your misrepresentation of the extant facts.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

WHY THE US CAN BEAT CHINA: THE FACTS ABOUT SPACEX COSTS

May 4, 2011


Whenever someone proposes to do something that has never been done before, there will always be skeptics.

So when I started SpaceX, it was not surprising when people said we wouldn’t succeed. But now that we’ve successfully proven Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon, there’s been a steady stream of misinformation and doubt expressed about SpaceX’s actual launch costs and prices.

As noted last month by a Chinese government official, SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they don’t believe they can beat them. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates.

I recognize that our prices shatter the historical cost models of government-led developments, but these prices are not arbitrary, premised on capturing a dominant share of the market, or “teaser” rates meant to lure in an eager market only to be increased later. These prices are based on known costs and a demonstrated track record, and they exemplify the potential of America's commercial space industry.

Here are the facts:

The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www.spacex.com). We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated, we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time, as is the case with every other technology.

The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115m in today’s dollars, and we have a firm, fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch, the Dragon spacecraft, all operations, maintenance and overhead, and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.)

The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million, which includes all the development costs for the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon. Included in this $800 million are the costs of building launch sites at Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral and Kwajalein, as well as the corporate manufacturing facility that can support up to 12 Falcon 9 and Dragon missions per year. This total also includes the cost of five flights of Falcon 1, two flights of Falcon 9, and one up and back flight of Dragon.

The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million. The Falcon 9 is an EELV class vehicle that generates roughly one million pounds of thrust (four times the maximum thrust of a Boeing 747) and carries more payload to orbit than a Delta IV Medium.

The Dragon spacecraft was developed from a blank sheet to the first demonstration flight in just over four years for about $300 million. Last year, SpaceX became the first private company, in partnership with NASA, to successfully orbit and recover a spacecraft. The spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket that carried it were designed, manufactured and launched by American workers for an American company. The Falcon 9/Dragon system, with the addition of a launch escape system, seats and upgraded life support, can carry seven astronauts to orbit, more than double the capacity of the Russian Soyuz, but at less than a third of the price per seat.

SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007, despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues.

These are the objective facts, confirmed by external auditors. Moreover, SpaceX intends to make far more dramatic reductions in price in the long term when full launch vehicle reusability is achieved. We will not be satisfied with our progress until we have achieved this long sought goal of the space industry.

For the first time in more than three decades, America last year began taking back international market-share in commercial satellite launch. This remarkable turn-around was sparked by a small investment NASA made in SpaceX in 2006 as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. A unique public-private partnership, COTS has proven that under the right conditions, a properly incentivized contractor — even an all-American one — can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis, significantly beating historical industry-standard costs.

China has the fastest growing economy in the world. But the American free enterprise system, which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete, is what will ensure that the United States remains the world’s greatest superpower of innovation.

--Elon--

http://www.spacex.com/usa.php
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Re: Space X to build reusable launch vehicle

Post by stefanbanev »

Skipjack wrote:Elon Musk speaking at National Press Club Luncheon - Sept. 29, 2011
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index ... emid=32777
You definitely want to watch the video!
This is sooo cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF81yjV ... r_embedded
It's a total waste of money in both cases: if the project is failed as well as if it is succeeded. Small satellites may be sufficient for communication and existing delivery systems are adequate. Human space, planetary flights are the most inefficient way to gain the technological expertise. It had made sense for political reasons during cold war and now is an atavism; besides the rocket is just an overengineered expensive stone hammer.

Skipjack
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

That's not how it went. The Authorization Act, which all parties agreed on, said $500M. It also said $2.65B for SLS and $1.4B for MPCV.

The President disrespected this compromise with his budget request, which is where the high number for CCDev came from. He knew perfectly well Congress would never agree to that budget request. Basically you're whining that the President promised you a pony, knowing he couldn't actually give you one, after he had agreed with Congress that you couldn't have one, and Congress said no.
Actually it is what NASA requested. IMHO That makes all the difference.
The compromise was BS.
Now the Senate has come out and upheld the original compromise regarding CCDev, while appropriating only $1.8B for SLS and $1.2B for MPCV. In other words, CCDev is untouched and SLS has been slashed. (This is probably partly because SLS is late starting, partly because it turned out to be slightly less expensive than they thought, and partly general austerity.)
No, the SLS is a giant billions USD earmark that nobody needs or wants.
It was written into a bill last minute by Nelson and Shelby and was not the result of some compromise.
They wanted it so the pork would keep flowing to their states. It is very obvious to anyone concerned with the matter. Or do they have a degree in rocket design or something? Because NASA certainly did not want it, nor did they come forth with a design (because they dont want it).
Fact is that the original plan of the administration was good, IMHO it was excellent even. That plan did not contain the SLS. Then certain senators added it to the bill to get pork to their states and compromises, last minute to avoid objections.
Now, I don't know if the commercial companies actually need that extra money. Certainly they want it; who wouldn't? In the absence of data, I'd be cautiously in favour of giving them more money (they're our gap closer, after all, but we don't want to turn this into something other than what it's supposed to be, and excessive government involvement might not be uniformly good). But I object to your misrepresentation of the extant facts.
Sorry, but this is BS again. If you want to have not just one, but several options to choose from (and you will want that in case one is grounded again because of some failure), then you need more funding.
The way NASA has changed the procurement is absolutely a bad idea also.
Again, I am not the only one thinking that way.

Skipjack
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

It's a total waste of money in both cases: if the project is failed as well as if it is succeeded. Small satellites may be sufficient for communication and existing delivery systems are adequate. Human space, planetary flights are the most inefficient way to gain the technological expertise. It had made sense for political reasons during cold war and now is an atavism; besides the rocket is just an overengineered expensive stone hammer
You dont make any sense...

Skipjack
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »


stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

Skipjack wrote:
It's a total waste of money in both cases: if the project is failed as well as if it is succeeded. Small satellites may be sufficient for communication and existing delivery systems are adequate. Human space, planetary flights are the most inefficient way to gain the technological expertise. It had made sense for political reasons during cold war and now is an atavism; besides the rocket is just an overengineered expensive stone hammer
You dont make any sense...
It's not a surprise, your admission was not necessary; anyway it is not a place to discuss your abilities; sure, you are welcome to make the counterpoint or ask for clarifications...

Skipjack
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Ok, Stefan, then let me ask for clarifications:
It's a total waste of money in both cases: if the project is failed as well as if it is succeeded.
Why is it a waste of money if the project succeeds?
Also the sentence is in really bad English. I had to reread it several times to understand what you meant there.
Small satellites may be sufficient for communication and existing delivery systems are adequate.
They are not, because they are to expensive.
Human space, planetary flights are the most inefficient way to gain the technological expertise.
Who talked about that?
It had made sense for political reasons during cold war and now is an atavism; besides the rocket is just an overengineered expensive stone hammer.

Why is that? There are many reasons for persuing human space travel. Colonization is the biggest one.
Obviously there is also the adventure market. That does not necessarily have a reason, but it is a business.

Finally, part of what makes us humans humans is our curiosity and the urge to go and check something out in person. The urge to experience something with our own senses.
It makes a huge difference to actually stand on top of the Eiffel Tower or to look at it on a TV- screen.
Of course there are some people that want us humans to turn into house pigs. Stay at home all the time, consume, watch TV, believe everything Fox news says and generally dont do anything other than drive directly to work and then back home again. Never walk anywhere, etc.
Housepigs.
The powerful would love us to be like that. That is why they make traveling so hard and why they scare us with all sorts of bs.
I for my part would love to go check out space for myself. Why? Because I want to experience it for myself. Because I am curious, because I am a human, not a pig!
I still have the same curiosity that those of our ancestors had that dared to go towards the fire and actually check it out and make bring some of it home...
So sad people dont get that anymore. Degeneration maybe?

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

You have to love the folks that decry the development of space and the technology required to get (and stay) there, especially since so few of them realize where the money from those developments are spent [every penny of it is spent here on the planet, at this point] and all of them are more than happy to make use of the spin-offs and advances that development enables with so few of them acknowledging just where those advances originated. ** sigh **

Skipjack, your post (above) says what mine originally was going to, only better. ;)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Skipjack wrote:You can believe whatever you want, but there are many people that I know that think differently, people like Gary C. Hudson, e.g.
You know, people that actually know what they are talking about and you have not said anything that convinces me otherwise.
Well, you're making me wonder where I first heard that the inability to look downward was what killed Roton and DC-X. I thought I had first heard it from Gary. In any case, you must realize the huge difference between the inherent stability of Roton which is lifted from above, and the inherent instability of hovering or returning a rocket when powered from below. Any gust that pushes on Roton leaves it stable. Any gust that pushes on DC-X creates the threat of catastrophic failure. It doesn't take much to push such a platform enough off balance to have it come crashing down and being full of fuel, that would make a real mess. You don't have that problem with a glide reentry nor parachuting into the sea.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Space X to build reusable launch vehicle

Post by GIThruster »

stefanbanev wrote:Human space, planetary flights are the most inefficient way to gain the technological expertise.
That's right! If men were meant to fly they'd have wings!

Trouble is, "efficiency" isn't always the guiding measure and of course, unmanned spaceflight doesn't generate any gain in technological expertise in manned spaceflight.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Skipjack
Posts: 6896
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Well, you're making me wonder where I first heard that the inability to look downward was what killed Roton and DC-X. I thought I had first heard it from Gary. In any case, you must realize the huge difference between the inherent stability of Roton which is lifted from above, and the inherent instability of hovering or returning a rocket when powered from below. Any gust that pushes on Roton leaves it stable. Any gust that pushes on DC-X creates the threat of catastrophic failure. It doesn't take much to push such a platform enough off balance to have it come crashing down and being full of fuel, that would make a real mess. You don't have that problem with a glide reentry nor parachuting into the sea.
Meanwhile there are several others that are doing it very successfully with much smaller vehicles too.
Armadillo, Masten and Blue Origin.
I would say that they all would go for wings if they felt that the issues were insurmountable.
So far none of them have.

About the sensors and looking down: I could imagine a simple short arm swinging out a camera/sensors from the side of the vehicle (a side that is facing away from the heat of reentry obviously). That way sensors and camera could face down and see what I happening below. It should be close enough, unless you demand a precision higher than a few meters, which I want to see a winged vehicle do.

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

>Why is it a waste of money if the project succeeds?

Because the source of money is my taxes. I would not mind (it would be just not my business) if they take money from different sources not from budget.

>Also the sentence is in really bad English.

Well, it is what I have, I've never praised it, in fact I "learn" it when I was 35 in addition to x3 others I know. People have no difficulty to understand me once they need something from me... otherwise I would be forced to learn it better.

>They are not, because they are to expensive.

It is true, but the judge should be the free market: venture money -> R&D -> market. If there is a seemingly more efficient way to deliver the cargo to orbit and yet it is still below the radar of venture capitalist, it means advantage/risk ratio is too low; now they take the risk for my expenses paying from budget for space "commercialization". It's a joke...

>Quote: Human space, planetary flights are the
>most inefficient way to gain the technological expertise.

>Who talked about that?

I do, since the only sensible excuse to have a "space exploration" is the supporting and advancing the technological expertise. It makes no sense to look for life in space apparently it is out-here, what the point to waste billions just to prove self-evident. Again, I would not mind if it is financed by private money.

>Why is that? There are many reasons for persuing human space travel. Colonization is the biggest one.

I would glad to agree with you but today's technology is not up to make such enterprise economically viable. The situation may change dramatically once LENR is getting to be a real deal; with such tool, the space industry (in big sense) will indeed lead to a new golden age, in fact it may be the transition human civilization has never witnessed before.
Last edited by stefanbanev on Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply