SpaceX vs. Everyone - ULA, NG, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

[RDoc]

This sounds a lot more like a transfer stage than a second stage. If this really were a second stage, there would have to be a very powerful single stage to orbit system to get payloads into orbit where they could join this stage to be lifted into GSO, the Moon or wherever. That seems hugely wasteful since it would require getting the entire first stage mass up to orbital speed.

Awhile ago, Elon Musk proposed that NASA should focus on really new ideas such as a nuclear powered Mars shuttle system. The idea is the same, use chemical rockets to get stuff into Low Earth Orbit, join up with the permanently orbiting nuclear "taxi" and let it power the payload anywhere in the Solar System. Launches using nuclear engines from the Earth's surface have some really terrifying problems, but once in space, they're a lot more reasonable.

Chemical rockets for deep space, e.g. Mars, seem pretty wimpy to me.

 

[Grendal]

Boeing CEO jabs SpaceX, says Mars explorers will ride his rocket

 

[ecarfan]

Boeing CEO jabs SpaceX, says Mars explorers will ride his rocket

Hilarious article. Quote:
"
Boeing, of course, won't be sending anyone to Mars without collecting tens of billions of dollars in federal contracts for its Space Launch System rocket, for which it is NASA's prime contractor. AnArs analysis found that NASA will spend about $60 billion developing and flying the SLS rocket before there's even the possibility of landing four to six humans on Mars in the late 2030s, and that does not include the expense of spacecraft, deep-space habitats, and accommodations on the surface of Mars.
During his remarks last week, Elon Musk laid out an, at times, ambitious and fantastical plan to colonize Mars over the next 100 years. His Interplanetary Transport System would not transport a handful of astronauts to Mars, but 100 colonists at a time. The rocket powering it would be four times more powerful than the most robust version of the SLS rocket. And Musk said it would only cost about $10 billion to launch the first colonists to Mars sometime in the 2020s."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boeing has almost no chance of transporting the first humans to Mars, primarily because they are dependent on NASA funding which depends on Congress, but also because the Boeing rocket is not reusable so the cost per person will be truly astronomical.

Elon gets it. Boeing can also do the math and can see what is coming from SpaceX but publicly has to act like they are confident of success, if only to ensure that their funding stream doesn't dry up.

I predict that in less than 8 years Congress will cancel funding for the Boeing Mars rocket system because it will be obvious that it has no chance of being used.

 

[Grendal]

SpaceX recently won the last head to head contract versus ULA. That combined with recovery and reuse has caused this response:

United Launch Alliance cuts Atlas rocket price amid competition

“We’re seeing that price is even more important than it had been in the past,” Tory Bruno, chief executive of United Launch Alliance, or ULA, said during an interview at the U.S. Space Symposium in Colorado Springs.

“We’re dropping the cost of Atlas almost every day. Atlas is now down more than a third in its cost,” Bruno said.

As of December 2016, a baseline Atlas 5 rocket launch was selling for about $109 million, though satellite operators can make up at least half that cost by getting more favorable insurance rates and other factors, including an on-time launch, ULA has said.

In contrast, Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, lists the base price of a Falcon 9 rocket launch on its website at $62 million.

ULA’s cost reductions include trimming its payroll. The company last year said it planned to cut as many as 875 jobs, or about one-quarter of its workforce, before the end of 2017.

 

[ecarfan]

“We’re seeing that price is even more important than it had been in the past,” Tory Bruno, chief executive of United Launch Alliance, or ULA, said during an interview at the U.S. Space Symposium in Colorado Springs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is hilarious. Yes, customer pricing now is "more important" because now there is competition offering the same service for tens of millions of dollars less.

 

[Electroman]

Price has always been a priority, you scum bags !. You have been leeching US tax payers

 

[bxr140]

Yes, customer pricing now is "more important" because now there is competition offering the same service for tens of millions of dollars less.

And specifically: American competition. ULA was very happy launching half the rockets at twice the price when there were zero other American options.

 

[ohmman]

SpaceX recently won the last head to head contract versus ULA. That combined with recovery and reuse has caused this response:

United Launch Alliance cuts Atlas rocket price amid competition

When the Elon conspiracy theorists start going on and on about how Elon is fleecing US taxpayers out of millions of dollars, this is a very clear starting point for the counterargument.

 

[Bgarret]

When the Elon conspiracy theorists start going on and on about how Elon is fleecing US taxpayers out of millions of dollars, this is a very clear starting point for the counterargument.

You mean articles like this, from Huff Post of all places?
Would You Fly In A SpaceX Rocket? | The Huffington Post

Mr Alexander, native of Alabama, home of the ULA, seems to have an axe to grind vs Elon in general, and SpaceX in particular.

 

[Pricee2]

In the 52 years the U.S. has been in the space launch business there have been more than 160 failures.

Source: google search U.S. space launch failures.
Article by Wired.

 

[jkn]

You mean articles like this, from Huff Post of all places?
Would You Fly In A SpaceX Rocket? | The Huffington Post

Mr Alexander, native of Alabama, home of the ULA, seems to have an axe to grind vs Elon in general, and SpaceX in particular.

It is stupid to count crash landings of first stages as a failures. Others leave their trash to sea, without even trying to cleanup. But I have to mostly agree with Forbes: “it’s simply too soon to say if the company can be a safe and reliable provider of launch services in the way that traditional providers like Boeing and Lockheed Martin are… Thus for all its achievements, SpaceX is an unproven supplier with a risky business strategy.”

I would add that there are not many proven to be more reliable than SpaceX. Also crew would have probably survived from two latest SpaceX explosions. Yes ULA has executed more than 100 launches without explosions, but they had tested system when they started. I don't know how much they have developed it since. It is easier to be reliable if you don't change anything.

 

[bxr140]

I would add that there are not many proven to be more reliable than SpaceX.

I don't disagree with the general premise of your post, but this statement isn't really accurate.

Spacex has had 1 partial and 1 total failure (not counting Amos, which you kind of should, in context) over 32 launches and ~6 years.

It's main competitor Ariane 5 has had 2 partial and 2 total failures in 91 launches, not to mention all of those failures within the first 14 launches of the program. It's been flawless for 15 years. WAY better than spacex.

Atlas 5 has had one partial failure in 41 launches over 15 years. Way better than spacex.

Delta 4, a theoretical spacex competitor at least with future USG activity (because nobody else is stupid enough to pay that much) has had one partial failure in 34 launches over 15 years. Way better than spacex.

H2 A/B is a sort of competitor, with 1 failure in 39 launches over 15 years. Better than spacex.

Soyuz is a competitor-ish; the current variant has had 3 partial and 2 total failures in 62 launches. Marginally worse than spacex.

Long march is a competitor-ish with a 95.5% lifetime success rate...admittedly, I didn't filter out the smaller vehicles. Certainly they have some of the most memorable failures...

Sea launch is a would-be competitor with a pretty terrible track record but it doesn't exist. The overall Zenit success rate isn't any better, but they're really not a spacex competitor.

About the only competing rocket that's unquestionably less reliable than Falcon is Proton--9 failures and 1 partial in 98 launches over 15+ years, for the latest variant.

Don't get me wrong--I like spacex. I believe in spacex. I work with spacex. I've launched on Spacex. But...I also don't want hopes and dreams to get in the way of a fact...

 

[jkn]

I don't disagree with the general premise of your post, but this statement isn't really accurate.

Spacex has had 1 partial and 1 total failure (not counting Amos, which you kind of should, in context) over 32 launches and ~6 years.

It's main competitor Ariane 5 has had 2 partial and 2 total failures in 91 launches, not to mention all of those failures within the first 14 launches of the program. It's been flawless for 15 years. WAY better than spacex.

Atlas 5 has had one partial failure in 41 launches over 15 years. Way better than spacex.

Delta 4, a theoretical spacex competitor at least with future USG activity (because nobody else is stupid enough to pay that much) has had one partial failure in 34 launches over 15 years. Way better than spacex.

H2 A/B is a sort of competitor, with 1 failure in 39 launches over 15 years. Better than spacex.

Soyuz is a competitor-ish; the current variant has had 3 partial and 2 total failures in 62 launches. Marginally worse than spacex.

Long march is a competitor-ish with a 95.5% lifetime success rate...admittedly, I didn't filter out the smaller vehicles. Certainly they have some of the most memorable failures...

Sea launch is a would-be competitor with a pretty terrible track record but it doesn't exist. The overall Zenit success rate isn't any better, but they're really not a spacex competitor.

About the only competing rocket that's unquestionably less reliable than Falcon is Proton--9 failures and 1 partial in 98 launches over 15+ years, for the latest variant.

Don't get me wrong--I like spacex. I believe in spacex. I work with spacex. I've launched on Spacex. But...I also don't want hopes and dreams to get in the way of a fact...

Interesting statistics!

I would count Amos as a failure, because satellite was lost. For similar reason Apollo 1 was failure. That makes Falcon roughly as reliable as Apollo program. Apollo had more difficult task and tech was new. SpaceX minimizes costs, Apollo certainly did not.

Arianne 5 had 2 failures in first 14 flights, Falcon 9 had 2 failures in first 29 missions. Arianne is years older, but have they developed it after first 15 flights?

SpaceX has a good start (better than Arianne 5), but they have not yet proven their reliability. I guess Elon agrees, because SpaceX share is not available for us to buy.

 

[adiggs]

Interesting statistics!

I would count Amos as a failure, because satellite was lost. For similar reason Apollo 1 was failure. That makes Falcon roughly as reliable as Apollo program. Apollo had more difficult task and tech was new. SpaceX minimizes costs, Apollo certainly did not.

Arianne 5 had 2 failures in first 14 flights, Falcon 9 had 2 failures in first 29 missions. Arianne is years older, but have they developed it after first 15 flights?

SpaceX has a good start (better than Arianne 5), but they have not yet proven their reliability. I guess Elon agrees, because SpaceX share is not available for us to buy.

Shares of SpaceX aren't available for us to buy because Elon has made it clear that SpaceX's mission isn't compatible with quarterly reporting requirements. The company may never go public, or it might go public when Mars is either under way, or at least on the horizon (and needs funding due to the expense). It won't be going public anytime soon, while the bulk of the activity is space around Earth.

 

[jkn]

Shares of SpaceX aren't available for us to buy because Elon has made it clear that SpaceX's mission isn't compatible with quarterly reporting requirements. The company may never go public, or it might go public when Mars is either under way, or at least on the horizon (and needs funding due to the expense). It won't be going public anytime soon, while the bulk of the activity is space around Earth.

Some disagree: SpaceX IPO in the works? |
"However, the rumour mill is working overtime and now suggesting that an Initial Public Offering (IPO) for SpaceX is imminent. The concept – and valuation – is helped hugely by the success on March 30th when a ‘pre-flown’ Falcon 9 rocket placed a SES satellite into its transfer orbit, and proving not only that rockets could be re-used but re-flown again and again."

If I remember correctly Elon has stated that they go public when they have reached stable twice per month launch rate.

 

[adiggs]

Some disagree: SpaceX IPO in the works? |
"However, the rumour mill is working overtime and now suggesting that an Initial Public Offering (IPO) for SpaceX is imminent. The concept – and valuation – is helped hugely by the success on March 30th when a ‘pre-flown’ Falcon 9 rocket placed a SES satellite into its transfer orbit, and proving not only that rockets could be re-used but re-flown again and again."

If I remember correctly Elon has stated that they go public when they have reached stable twice per month launch rate.

That article does a good job of articulating the value and reasons why a SpaceX IPO will be a big hit. I agree with all of that (and would likely find myself adding diversification to my portfolio by buying SpaceX soon after the IPO ).

However, I didn't see anything in the article suggesting there has been a change in Musk's thinking about IPO for SpaceX. This reminds me of the numerous articles we've seen written about Apple acquiring Tesla over the last few years - lots of reasons why that would be a good idea for Apple, and little consideration to whether that would be a good idea from Tesla's point of view.

Here is Elon's previous email to employees I'm thinking of:
Elon's email to SpaceX employees regarding taking the company public (excerpted from Ashlee Vance's biography) • r/spacex


The particular issue I see hasn't yet been addressed in this article, or elsewhere that I've seen. Elon views being public as a sometimes necessary evil that was forced on Tesla and Solar City. That necessary evil is a distraction. For SpaceX and it's very long term mission, being public will distract from the mission, not enhance it.

The only way I see things changing are for circumstances to change in such a way that being public is less of an evil than not going public. Two ideas that come to mind: 1) SpaceX needs financing that it can't get as a private company. 2) Employee attraction and retention becomes a problem as a private company.

For (1), it looks to me like SpaceX is quickly becoming a cash generating engine. They've got fantastically big investments to come, and they have cash coming in to match up with those investments. I think this is either a non-issue now, or that SpaceX will be able to get privately placed investment adequate to the need, and thereby avoid going public for this reason.

For (2), employee retention, that's an issue that I can see arising. I personally find myself persuaded by the arguments Elon makes in his email to employees, but I'm not a SpaceX employee and I can imagine SpaceX losing out, and losing, employees to other companies that ARE public. Ultimately I don't actually see this as an issue - only that I can imagine it becomes enough of an issue that Elon decides that going public is the best way to eliminate this as an issue for SpaceX accomplishing the mission.


Thanks for the pointer to that article - good reading.

 

[bxr140]

I would count Amos as a failure, because satellite was lost. For similar reason Apollo 1 was failure. That makes Falcon roughly as reliable as Apollo program.

At the risk of talking semantics around subjective interpretation of statistical data: I wouldn’t say that. The Saturn rocket program (which among other things launched the Apollo missions) had one partial failure and one ground failure in 32 launches. Falcon 9 had that AND one total launch failure. The deeper impact of Apollo 1 notwithstanding, when you’re working these kinds of comparisons, total>>partial.

Arianne is years older, but have they developed it after first 15 flights?

Yes, of course. All Launch Vehicle manufactures constantly upgrade their vehicles—they’d be obsolete if they didn’t. The current Ariane 5 has over 50% more payload to GTO capacity than the original version from the 90s.

 

[Electroman]

50% over from the 90s? from the 90s?

Really? and that is your yard stick for progress?

 

[bxr140]

50% over from the 90s? from the 90s?

Really? and that is your yard stick for progress?

WTF? Why so hostile?

 

[jkn]

At the risk of talking semantics around subjective interpretation of statistical data: I wouldn’t say that. The Saturn rocket program (which among other things launched the Apollo missions) had one partial failure and one ground failure in 32 launches. Falcon 9 had that AND one total launch failure. The deeper impact of Apollo 1 notwithstanding, when you’re working these kinds of comparisons, total>>partial.

Saturn was not involved in Apollo 1 fire. Apollo 13 problem was in service module.

Statistics with small sample size should not be taken too seriously. For example:
Probability of failure for rocket X in single mission is 2/34 = 0.05882 (1=certainly, 0=certainly not).

For one mission probability of success 0.94118.
For 2 missions probability of two success is 0.88582, 1 success and 1 failure 0.11072, both failures 0.00346.
For 3 missions probability of
3 success 0.83372, 2 success 0.15631, 1 success 0.00977, 0 success 0.00020

for 34 missions probability for
34 success is 0.12730,
33 success is 0.27050,
32 success is 0.27896,
31 success is 0.18597,
...

Rocket Z has twice as large failure risk 4/34 = 0.1176. With probability 0.14148 it will have only 2 failures in 34 missions.

Rocket Y has failure risk only 1/34 = 0.0294. It can still fail twice in 34 missions with probability 0.18669.

F 9 has failed twice in 34 missions. From that we cannot get accurate number for its reliability. I repeat: SpaceX has a good start, but reliability is not yet proven.

For more examples: When probability of failure in a single mission is p, probability of k success in n missions is simply:
fact(n)/(fact(k)*fact(n-k))*p^(n-k)*(1-p)^k