Sign in to follow this  

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon

Recommended Posts

IsItPluggedIn    1,663

ULA needs a subsidy every year to keep their production people & facilities open regardless of the number of NRO launches.

 

Hey Doc, 

 

I was just looking this up, just trying to clarify what I have been reading. So ULA gets $1b a year from the government to run their company?

(annual Air Force payments to ULA to cover infrastructure and other costs, such as engine and technology development, that are not tied to specific missions)

 

I was writing this when i read this article, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-says-it-could-launch-military-rockets-for-less-than-ula/

 

It explains a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malenfant    26

Yes.

$1B per year regardless = extortion

~$400M per flight = hosejob

No bid back room $$$ deal = WTF?!

Or that's one way you might look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,659

More than one way to look at it, that's the way it IS.

Worse, that $400m does not include another $60m for "launch services" - things like payload processing and integration etc.

Total bill ULA: $460m

SpaceX charges <$60m for a Falcon 9 launch and $30m for launch services.

Total bill: $90M

We be gettin' royally hosed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

 

Falcon 9 v1.1: 5 launches in 223 days

Delta IV: 2 launches in 223 days

Atlas V: 1 launch in 223 days

Falcon 9 v1.1 wins hands down.

DocM, let's take average payload at 2mt per flight: 10mt overall for 223 days  :woot:  i don't see any reason why Shuttle program was ruined: there had a lot of ways to make it automatic ferry, Russia could provide engines for LRBs onto Shuttle. now, ISS has been suffered because of severe lack of supplies. meanwhile, a bunch of idiots in USA gonna pound Russia w/ ridiculous sanctions. i think, if USA will not tame its domestic morons, Russia will have to re-format its strategy about SEE (Space Exploration & Exploitation). it's ill-fate to deal w/ morons :)   funny -bunny, but USA sanctions look like North Korea against South Korea:

 

 

North Korea has stopped South Koreans from crossing the border to work at the jointly run Kaesong industrial zone, for the first time since 2009.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22011207

morons are the same everywhere :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,185

no, Mr. Musk, Shuttle has been good enough for nasa -- your torpedoes are good enough for obumer :D

 

Seriously, why don't you go troll elsewhere?  I'm getting really sick of you crapping all over SpaceX and trying to shove your digital tongue up Boeing/Lockheed's thruster port.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

FFT, relax :) i have my point, you have your own. Have no arguments? Just ignore me & move on ;) actually, no one can explain what is superior in f9. by the way, f9 has no capacity to inject in GTO something useful w/ reusable stage. heavy version??? :) perhaps - perhaps, but this ?perhaps? belongs to moody/muddy future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,185

It's FFM, learn to type.

 

And Doc's explained the advantages several times. It's not our fault you don't understand his explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

 

It's FFM, learn to type.

sorry, FFM, just a typo.

 

 

And Doc's explained the advantages several times. It's not our fault you don't understand his explanations.

DocM, just expressed old mantra about reusability :) however, scheme isn't proven so far: they must recover stage at least 2 times to see real figures. + as i said, even w/ theoretical numbers, they pass by the rest of payloads. In short, to keep self in market forces them to rely upon expendable versions. Thereby Musk claims get ruined from the very start.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+FloatingFatMan    13,185

Claims are not ruined until proven false. One cannot do -that-, until the launches take place and either succeed or fail.

 

So far, SpaceX's record speaks for itself. Success after success, and at a phenomenal rate when compared to the over-bloated and corrupt Boeing and Lockheed behemoths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IsItPluggedIn    1,663

FFT, relax :) i have my point, you have your own. Have no arguments? Just ignore me & move on ;) actually, no one can explain what is superior in f9. by the way, f9 has no capacity to inject in GTO something useful w/ reusable stage. heavy version??? :) perhaps - perhaps, but this ?perhaps? belongs to moody/muddy future. 

What,

 

Falcon 9 deploys to GTO, SES-8 and Thaicom both were GTO.

 

It is superior because of cost and being a USA rocket. The only rocket that competes on Cost is the Indian Rockets.

 

As for the Shuttle it was not good enough for NASA that is why it was discontinued. It was only used because the only other option was to go with the Russians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

 

Falcon 9 deploys to GTO, SES-8 and Thaicom both were GTO.

IsItPluggedIn,

there were ordinary expendable launchers for not the heaviest payload.

 

 

It is superior because of cost and being a USA rocket. The only rocket that competes on Cost is the Indian Rockets.

nasa has paid.. whew.. $140m per flight :)  S :woot:  cheap :D

 

 

Both officials assert SpaceX is billing NASA an estimated $120-140 million per launch, a range likely derived from a contract spec that calls for 12 such cargo runs by the end of 2015.

 

http://aviationweek.com/blog/elon-musk-europe-cant-handle-our-nasa-contract

 

 

As for the Shuttle it was not good enough for NASA that is why it was discontinued. It was only used because the only other option was to go with the Russians.

Shuttle cost steadily had gone down: overall cost per flight was estimated about $450m :)  And Shuttle had a plenty room to get better. As i said, Russia may have provided engines for LRBs or entirely designed LRBs, Energia-like boosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,659

do-not-feed-the-trolls-text-smiley-emoti

Gentlemen,

I appologise for not following my own advice and feeding the troll with my long post. It opened the door to this latest bout of uninformed lunacy. That shall now be corrected and I suggest others do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ks8877    5

ULA launch services are expensive for the same reasons as SLS (you know why).

Sanctions against Russians will create shortage of launch services.
Prices in this situation will grow for launch services and satelite companies will pay more, and will increase price for satelite services that will cost for everybody.
ULA will not gain much - they already too expensive for private satelite companies and government budget problem will not allow them to have much more.

 

Future of Atlas V is in question because of Russian RD-180, Antares rocket for the same reason - Russian and Ukrainian hardware.

SpaceX will be the big winner in every service, including need to replace Soyuz by Dragon.

 

Indian rockets probably will be in demand as well (if they could provide).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,659

The RD-180 could be produced in the US, RD AMROSS joint venturex partner Aerojet Rocketdyne has a livense to do so, but they only have ~2 years worth of engines stockpiled and it's estimated to take 4-5 years to start the line.

I'd rather they switch to the Aerojet AJ-1E6 that's under development for the SLS Advanced Booster upgrade (subs liquid boosters for the SLS Block 1 solids). It would be more powerful and more flexible than RD-180.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

 

The RD-180 could be produced in the US, RD AMROSS joint venturex partner Aerojet Rocketdyne has a livense to do so, but they only have ~2 years worth of engines stockpiled and it's estimated to take 4-5 years to start the line.

DocM, cough-cough :) Atlas 5 gets price risen even w/o blockade from Russia, Time has been passed by, but significant improvements of the Atlas 5 & Delta 4 have left on paper. Second moment: to ruin Ru's economics means war versus Russia. i don't know a country on Earth so good at war like Russia has been ;) 3rd moment: Climate changing is the most driver to collapse the worldwide economics. In short, DocM, your optimism doesn't belong to this World. hmmmmmmm.. by the way, China has more sophisticated manufacturing (and even R&D) than USA does, but they haven't provided analogs of RD-180, furthermore, USA has been relied upon chinese electronics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

 

I'd rather they switch to the Aerojet AJ-1E6 that's under development for the SLS Advanced Booster upgrade (subs liquid boosters for the SLS Block 1 solids). It would be more powerful and more flexible than RD-180

so long-lasting song :) Just a little remark: ?more powerful? doesn't mean ?more stable?. afaik, sls is decades away from something real & practical characteristics shall be not so attractive (if will be at all) like it looks on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ks8877    5

USA got licenses and blueprints of PD-180, but they cannot reproduce that engine because apparently lack of advanced metallurgy process here - the metall cannot hold in that super hot oxigen rich environment inside of PD-180 engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malenfant    26

ULA has ~2 yrs worth of engines. Nowhere near the time needed to produce new engines, assuming they could. And assuming they could -at what price? Certainly not less than the Russians. American engines, Aerojet or others - similar situation.

My view is in a few short years SpaceX is going to eat ULAs lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,659

ULA has ~2 yrs worth of engines. Nowhere near the time needed to produce new engines, assuming they could. And assuming they could -at what price? Certainly not less than the Russians. American engines, Aerojet or others - similar situation.

My view is in a few short years SpaceX is going to eat ULAs lunch.

The current consensus guesstimate is that it could take 4-5 years and >$1 billion to start US production of the RD-180. This against a 2 to 2.5 year stockpile of engines, and Congress is already talking of embargoing it.

The State Department is also tightening the screws, and SpaceX has filed a powerfully written lawsuit challenging ULA's block buy of 36 Atlas V's. They have a very good case.

As to RD-180 replacements,

The Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-1E6, which they are already working on as part of a liquid SLS booster upgrade, is an upgrade of their AJ-26. This could be done for about $550 million, about half the cost of tooling up for RD-180.

Then there is Dynetics who has a real fire breathing monster in the works. They plan to resurrect the Saturn V's F1 engine, also for a liquid SLS booster upgrade, only using modern tooling, materials and techniques. The F1C would have nearly 2 million lbf of thrust. They have already reproduced and test fired components of the F1C turbomachinery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ks8877    5

SpaceX also has problems - cannot speed up production of some parts for Merlin engine - looks like that bottleneck they do not want to solve by addition investments, but probably counting on reusage of first stage and their engines in near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geertd    12

can t wait to see this

 

 

Elon Musk ?@elonmusk ?15 min.
Sounds like this might be a good time to unveil the new Dragon Mk 2 spaceship that @SpaceX has been working on w @NASA. No trampoline needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geertd    12

well we have to wait a little longer

 

Elon Musk ?@elonmusk 6 min.

Cover drops on May 29. Actual flight design hardware of crew Dragon, not a mockup.

 

 

sorry wrong threath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SarK0Y    36

 

The current consensus guesstimate is that it could take 4-5 years and >$1 billion to start US production of the RD-180. This against a 2 to 2.5 year stockpile of engines, and Congress is already talking of embargoing it.

DocM, do you really believe such figures??? :) you have gotten so many high-tech from CCCP/Russia. he-he-he, you'll be very excited to figure out how USA has been deeply dependent upon Russia ;)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.