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

[jerry33]

If the "make a one use rocket bigger so that it can carry a larger payload" hypothesis is correct, then it would stand to reason that the Spruce Goose would be the future of aviation, but I don't see anyone rushing to build another. So far all I've read indicates that a reusable rocket makes for lower cost in the long run. Larger payloads will come as the technology improves, and assuming Elon is correct and the costs of a launch can be reduced by something like 90%, it's almost always possible to split a large load into two or more sections and assemble it in space.

 

[JRod0802]

Each rocket that a company can chose from to launch a payload into orbit comes with a particular dollars-per-pound cost. Non-reusable rockets have a very high dollars-per-pound cost. Reusable rockets will have a much lower dollars-per-pound cost. Therefore it makes more sense to go with reusable. Any organization that needs to launch a payload will see this very clearly.

The only time Tory Bruno would be right is when the most powerful rocket in existence isn't powerful enough to launch your payload with reusability, but is powerful enough without. Then you could request a non-reusable flight at a cost that will probably end up being 10x more. But at that cost it would probably be a better business move to figure out a way to reduce the weight of your payload, even if that means multiple flights.

 

[Grendal]

Each rocket that a company can chose from to launch a payload into orbit comes with a particular dollars-per-pound cost. Non-reusable rockets have a very high dollars-per-pound cost. Reusable rockets will have a much lower dollars-per-pound cost. Therefore it makes more sense to go with reusable. Any organization that needs to launch a payload will see this very clearly.

The only time Tory Bruno would be right is when the most powerful rocket in existence isn't powerful enough to launch your payload with reusability, but is powerful enough without. Then you could request a non-reusable flight at a cost that will probably end up being 10x more. But at that cost it would probably be a better business move to figure out a way to reduce the weight of your payload, even if that means multiple flights.

Exactly. Let's say your payload is ten tons. You can use a ULA rocket and take it up in one flight at a cost of $500 million. Or you can take it up on four flights of the Falcon 9 reusable at a cost of $50 million each. So for $300 million, wouldn't you figure out a way to make it work in four flights over spending the extra money for just one flight?

I commented about this sort of thing in the article. Another person commented that satellites are incredibly expensive and no satellite company would ever risk their satellites on a reduced chance of success. I responded that satellites are incredibly expensive because they need to be, considering the current cost to orbit. Since it costs $300 million to even get something to orbit you're going to build incredibly robust and complex satellite over a much simpler system paying a couple million to orbit.

Spin it into the plane analogy that Elon likes to use. ULA is saying they'd rather build their 747 without landing gear so they can fit the extra weight of the landing gear onto the plane. Elon would rather build a reusable plane with landing gear and take the hit. Long term, Elon's way will win out.

This is all beside the point if the Falcon Heavy can reuse its three first stages since that rocket carries more payload than any other rocket.

 

[jerjozwik]

Exactly. Let's say your payload is ten tons. You can use a ULA rocket and take it up in one flight at a cost of $500 million. Or you can take it up on four flights of the Falcon 9 reusable at a cost of $50 million each. So for $300 million, wouldn't you figure out a way to make it work in four flights over spending the extra money for just one flight?

much like the 85D vs the P85D, if your going to spend 300 million, might as well spend 500....

 

[chickensevil]

much like the 85D vs the P85D, if your going to spend 300 million, might as well spend 500....

But you aren't gaining anything with your end product... The satellite in space... So no, that doesn't make any sense. Would be like paying an extra 20k to put more expensive fuel in the car... Not because it actually does anything for the car... No, no, just because you feel like it. Which there are people who drive cars that in no way need premium unleaded and will still pay the extra cash to pointlessly put that fuel in their car.

 

[jerjozwik]

But you aren't gaining anything with your end product... The satellite in space... So no, that doesn't make any sense. Would be like paying an extra 20k to put more expensive fuel in the car... Not because it actually does anything for the car... No, no, just because you feel like it. Which there are people who drive cars that in no way need premium unleaded and will still pay the extra cash to pointlessly put that fuel in their car.

/sarcasm.

 

[Krugerrand]

...and oops!

Special Report: In Pentagon deal with Russians, big profit for tiny Florida firm

 

[Grendal]

...and oops!

Special Report: In Pentagon deal with Russians, big profit for tiny Florida firm

Nothing we didn't already know or suspect. Hopefully this brings more attention to the BS contract with ULA and blows it out of the water and opens the doors for AF launches.

 

[aronth5]

Just goes to show you that competition makes everyone better. We had the same situation with a software competitor. When they won several sales we reacted with incredible determination and
have now won almost every head to head sale this year.

Boeing chief engineer says SpaceX ‘drives us to be better
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/boeing-chief-engineer-says-spacex-drives-us-better/

 

[aronth5]

"SpaceX may upset firm's monopoly in launching Air Force satellites"
I think we can change the articles headline to "will" upset

"Air Force officials are in the final stages of a years-long, detailed review of the rocket company's launches and operations. A decision on whether to certify SpaceX for the launches, they said, is expected next month.
"This is huge," said Marco Caceres, senior analyst and director of space studies at Teal Group. "It would break up a monopoly and has the potential to save the taxpayer an awful lot of money."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-satellites-20141126-story.html#page=1

 

[Grendal]

Details about the lawsuit:

Filing Suggests Jurisdictional Challenge in SpaceX Lawsuit against U.S. Air Force | SpaceNews.com

 

[Bgarret]

Nice summary article by Motley Fool on the existential threat to ULA posed by SpaceX.

Elon Musk Has a Laugh, but SpaceX's New Rocketship Is No Joke


does anyone have the sense that Elon has cloned himself? He's everywhere - lunching rockets in Florida, storming the statehouse in Texas - then vowing to build a working Hyperloop, popping up to Seattle to unveil a $10billion satellite project stretching from earth to Mars.....winging on over to London and jamming with the Stones?

Let's keep the Hyperloop airborne and announce a model X reveal! Go Elon.

 

[Grendal]

SpaceX wins! To an extent...

SpaceX and Air Force make peace, more rocket launches now up for grabs

The block buy will remain but new launches will be created that will allow SpaceX to compete. They have to drop the lawsuit however.

 

[Krugerrand]

That one admirable quality about Elon Musk, he's very reasonable. Is it fair that the last set of launches were exclusive? No. But it's water under the bridge, let's move forward, okay, and good.

 

[Grendal]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102455592

This one is nutty. The Air Force Secretary (read future ULA executive) is upset that 2019 is too soon to develop an engine to replace the RD-180.

"The question is, would (Delta 4) be cost effective. If it's not, then I fear that we would inadvertently be trading one monopoly situation for another," James said. "And I don't think that's the intent of anyone in Congress."

Were they really worried about the monopoly that ULA has had for years?! Nope. But they are afraid of SpaceX having a monopoly for a couple years. Utterly ridiculous. And isn't it nice that the Air Force is willing to pay $2 billion to develop the replacement engine for ULA.

 

[atang]

Elon will protest.

 

[chickensevil]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102455592

This one is nutty. The Air Force Secretary (read future ULA executive) is upset that 2019 is too soon to develop an engine to replace the RD-180.

"The question is, would (Delta 4) be cost effective. If it's not, then I fear that we would inadvertently be trading one monopoly situation for another," James said. "And I don't think that's the intent of anyone in Congress."

Were they really worried about the monopoly that ULA has had for years?! Nope. But they are afraid of SpaceX having a monopoly for a couple years. Utterly ridiculous. And isn't it nice that the Air Force is willing to pay $2 billion to develop the replacement engine for ULA.

Wow... This is such crap. Stupid politics at its finest (this is me hating on all politics not singling out one particular person/party).

If SpaceX has a "monopoly" its only because you got fat and happy overcharging for your rockets and not actually making a competitive product until your only business is Gov programs. It is time for you to adapt or die... And even with 2B in gov funding it sounds like you are choosing to die, and at that I say good riddance! At least SpaceX will be a significantly cheaper monopoly for the taxpayer!

 

[Cosmacelf]

Rank corruption, not nutty. This happens all the time, I fear, in military procurement. Actually in most government procurement. That's why certain people want smaller government, so we can eliminate this type of corruption.

 

[Grendal]

Gwynne will be at a meeting on Tuesday to take on ULA:

ULA to Retire Delta IV, Push for More RD-180s

Retiring the Delta IV? I suppose just the idea of the FH and the introduction of F9 will kill that program. There is a tidbit about the Air Force covering the costs of keeping it alive. It sounds like SpaceX is already crushing ULA since their costs are so incredibly low compared to ULA.

 

[Grendal]

More details on the future of ULA:

CNBC reporter tours rocket plant, talks ULA, SpaceX feud | AL.com

I like how the reporter wasn't pulling punches and forced CEO Tory Bruno to answer in a realistic manner. It looks like they are introducing a more competitive Delta rocket in April. He is also clear that they have nothing to back up the RD-180 and they will run short by 2019. They will be fighting for a reprieve on the congressional mandate which will allow more purchases of the engine until they can come up with an alternative.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102534076

Here is the reporter's article.