Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Frozen_Heart]

You keep on bringing up unrealistic figures like "90% reduction". That implies that the first stage hardware represents well over 90% of the total launch cost, which completely ignores all the other costs involved. In reality, it might represent 60% of the total rocket, while the rocket hardware itself only represents maybe 30% of the total launch cost.

That would still be a roughly 15% reduction on launch cost if the first stage is reused. That in itself is impressive.

Me and Nibb aren't they only ones who have problems with the concept.

Surely if the concept can't work SpaceX wouldn't bother trying to re-use their rockets? They must see something in it.

[AngelLestat]

You keep on bringing up unrealistic figures like "90% reduction". That implies that the first stage hardware represents well over 90% of the total launch cost, which completely ignores all the other costs involved. In reality, it might represent 60% of the total rocket, while the rocket hardware itself only represents maybe 30% of the total launch cost.

I remember when you said it that the rocket represent only the 30% of the cost.. now it seems that is the 60%.. Few months more and you will said 80%.. Then when spacex achieve this you will said that this was always your opinion and that you disagree in other matter...

Also 90% for just recovery the first stage, I never said that. It can be 70% or 80%, but I mention many times and elon musk too, that huge saving cost are only possible if you recover all the stages in the same pad being ready to launch again in few days.

If you dont recover the upper stage you still have a bottleneck in your operations which slow down all.

Because each upperstage will still require extensive testing before each launch. So if you can not launch very often, then you can not drop much the prices because you can not deal with the demand.

Plus the testing cost and hardware cost from the upper stage.

Shall I remind you of this particular thread? Me and Nibb aren't they only ones who have problems with the concept.

That is not where the discussion start.. It was here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1239707&viewfull=1#post1239707

Also here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108756-SpaceX-Falcon-Heavy/page7?highlight=spacex

And it seems that the company (with all their scientist and enginners) who has the most chepeast prices in the market with only few years from start had the same opinion.

Edited April 19, 2015 by AngelLestat

[shynung]

And it seems that the company (with all their scientist and enginners) who has the most chepeast prices in the market with only few years from start had the same opinion.

90% cost reduction following full reusability? Quote me any aerospace engineer/scientist inside SpaceX (or better yet, the entire space launch industry) that agrees to this position.

@shynung one of the possibilities for the tip over, would be that either one leg broke due to the horizontal speed, or failed to deploy / lock itself in place correctly. when the booster immobilize itself, it looks like already slightly tilted in.

Ouch.

Surely if the concept can't work SpaceX wouldn't bother trying to re-use their rockets? They must see something in it.

I see something in it, too. It's just that I think AngelLestat is overestimating the cost savings a bit too much. 15%, 20%, maybe 30% if they stretch the flight-hours per rocket stage, but 90%?

Even then, SpaceX might not lower their prices at all after 1st stage reusability have been achieved. Sure, it goes against their low-price image, but it's not something they can't do.

Edited April 19, 2015 by shynung

[magnemoe]

90% cost reduction following full reusability? Quote me any aerospace engineer/scientist inside SpaceX (or better yet, the entire space launch industry) that agrees to this position.

I see something in it, too. It's just that I think AngelLestat is overestimating the cost savings a bit too much. 15%, 20%, maybe 30% if they stretch the flight-hours per rocket stage, but 90%?

Even then, SpaceX might not lower their prices at all after 1st stage reusability have been achieved. Sure, it goes against their low-price image, but it's not something they can't do.

One issue might be that SpaceX has an backlog on launches. Status for SpaceX is not that they have to reduce production if they manage to reuse first stage, they will probably have to ramp up production if they don't, now it the current factory does not have the capacity for this.

The low estimates clearly indicate that their factory will run 50% capacity if they manages reuseablity.

SpaceX probably also exclude fixed and sunken costs. Management and development costs are not included, more say they estimate this from their upcoming Texas launch site who would be cheaper to opperate from than KSC and don't include the construction cost and the fixed cost running the facility just the added cost of launches.

This is not cheating as that costs would be the same if using expendable or reuseable stages.

SpaceX budget/number of launches is probably well be below 20% bonus. price of rocket+ cost to launch might be 90% at least then you factor that you can use aging first stages for GEO missions and other where recovery don't work.

Edited April 19, 2015 by magnemoe

[shynung]

One issue might be that SpaceX has an backlog on launches. Status for SpaceX is not that they have to reduce production if they manage to reuse first stage, they will probably have to ramp up production if they don't, now it the current factory does not have the capacity for this.

The low estimates clearly indicate that their factory will run 50% capacity if they manages reuseablity.

SpaceX probably also exclude fixed and sunken costs. Management and development costs are not included, more say they estimate this from their upcoming Texas launch site who would be cheaper to opperate from than KSC and don't include the construction cost and the fixed cost running the facility just the added cost of launches.

This is not cheating as that costs would be the same if using expendable or reuseable stages.

SpaceX budget/number of launches is probably well be below 20% bonus. price of rocket+ cost to launch might be 90% at least then you factor that you can use aging first stages for GEO missions and other where recovery don't work.

Reused first stages still incur maintenance costs, even if simply to keep them as good as they were when retrieved. That, and some costs can never be completely nullified; administration, for example.

It's possible that, counting only hardware costs, and assuming a really-cheapskate 2nd stage, a near-90% cost reduction can be achieved. Though, the customer would probably not see a price drop of this magnitude, since fixed per-launch commodities are counted in the final price tag. So, more of a PR spin, I think.

[YNM]

WRT my question of chutes feasibility: I'm not proposing full recovery using chutes only w/o propulsive efforts. I meant more of drogue chutes, just to reduce the fuel required to bring spent stages to halt. I'm thinking that they could use just small chutes to reduce the firing period from a long, twisty burn down to just a few seconds (or even it can be just like the explosive landing rockets on Soyuz capsules). Or a larger one for the core stage of FH. I mean, if they claim that their capsules will land like a helicopter lands on a helipad, by engines and parachutes, why not their stages ?

Edited April 19, 2015 by YNM

[Wingman703]

WRT my question of chutes feasibility: I'm not proposing full recovery using chutes only w/o propulsive efforts. I meant more of drogue chutes, just to reduce the fuel required to bring spent stages to halt. I'm thinking that they could use just small chutes to reduce the firing period from a long, twisty burn down to just a few seconds (or even it can be just like the explosive landing rockets on Soyuz capsules). Or a larger one for the core stage of FH. I mean, if they claim that their capsules will land like a helicopter lands on a helipad, by engines and parachutes, why not their stages ?

Adding chutes of any size puts you at the mercy of wind, as well as adding weight(which results in less DV). Chutes also need to be inspected and repacked, engines just need more fuel(speaking very simply here). SpaceX's motto with these has been precision, precision, precision.

The Dragon V2 will not land with chutes if all goes well, its to be a fully propulsive landing. The chutes are only there if something goes wrong, as a failsafe.

[Nibb31]

I remember when you said it that the rocket represent only the 30% of the cost.. now it seems that is the 60%.. Few months more and you will said 80%.. Then when spacex achieve this you will said that this was always your opinion and that you disagree in other matter...

I've consistently said that the launch vehicle hardware is only a small part of the cost of running a launch business. And that the first stage is only a small part of the cost of the entire launch vehicle. You can twist it with your misunderstanding and bias as much as you want. The result is that saving money on the reusability does not save as much money as you think it does.

Stating the contrary, like you do, is like saying that the only cost of running a taxi cab company is to buy the cars, or that the only cost of a software company is the computers. It's ridiculous. The biggest cost of running a company in the high-tech world is the employees, not the material costs. Reusing stages saves a little money on manufacturing workforce and materials, but you still need to keep the production infrastructure, the tooling, the sourcing and the facility running. Some of those savings are replaced by the extra logistics related to recovery and maintenance of the boosters. The rest of the operation stays the same.

Also 90% for just recovery the first stage, I never said that. It can be 70% or 80%.

No, it can't. A 20% saving is highly optimistic.

[Frida Space]

Does anyone know of which material are the landing legs made of?

[Kryten]

Probably Al-Li alloy, like the rest of the rocket.

[magnemoe]

Reused first stages still incur maintenance costs, even if simply to keep them as good as they were when retrieved. That, and some costs can never be completely nullified; administration, for example.

It's possible that, counting only hardware costs, and assuming a really-cheapskate 2nd stage, a near-90% cost reduction can be achieved. Though, the customer would probably not see a price drop of this magnitude, since fixed per-launch commodities are counted in the final price tag. So, more of a PR spin, I think.

You will not save 90% on launch as the second stage alone is more than 10% of the cost, 1/10 of the engines, still need an decent tank, same avionic and control or better than an reusable first stage.

And yes on top comes the other launch costs.

You will save 90% on the first stage then this is routine and you do flyback to spaceport, that require that the checkout of the used stage is an standard procedure done 50 times before.

In this setting an falcon heavy with all cores reused should be cheaper than an disposable falcon 9, the boosters return to spaceport, the core land on an barge and have to be towed back,

However this leaves the problem with the weather at the core landing spot, should still work for GEO missions with an pretty flexible time to be operational.

[AngelLestat]

90% cost reduction following full reusability? Quote me any aerospace engineer/scientist inside SpaceX (or better yet, the entire space launch industry) that agrees to this position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program

"published cost of US$56.5 million per launch to low Earth orbit, "Falcon 9 rockets are already the cheapest in the industry. Reusable Falcon 9s could drop the price by an order of magnitude, "

"SpaceX has said that if they are successful in developing the reusable technology, launch prices of around US$5 to 7 million for a reusable Falcon 9 are possible"

Reused first stages still incur maintenance costs, even if simply to keep them as good as they were when retrieved. That, and some costs can never be completely nullified; administration, for example.

Ah I forget to count those penies, time to spent them in Ice cream, yumm.

Adding chutes of any size puts you at the mercy of wind, as well as adding weight(which results in less DV). Chutes also need to be inspected and repacked, engines just need more fuel(speaking very simply here). SpaceX's motto with these has been precision, precision, precision.

The Dragon V2 will not land with chutes if all goes well, its to be a fully propulsive landing. The chutes are only there if something goes wrong, as a failsafe.

What about short rotor blades as I said to remplace the fins? Parachutes can not be guided at least they are parasails, but their lateral velocity is hard to counter for lands.

I've consistently said that the launch vehicle hardware is only a small part of the cost of running a launch business. And that the first stage is only a small part of the cost of the entire launch vehicle. You can twist it with your misunderstanding and bias as much as you want. The result is that saving money on the reusability does not save as much money as you think it does.

Stating the contrary, like you do, is like saying that the only cost of running a taxi cab company is to buy the cars, or that the only cost of a software company is the computers. It's ridiculous. The biggest cost of running a company in the high-tech world is the employees, not the material costs. Reusing stages saves a little money on manufacturing workforce and materials, but you still need to keep the production infrastructure, the tooling, the sourcing and the facility running. Some of those savings are replaced by the extra logistics related to recovery and maintenance of the boosters. The rest of the operation stays the same.

Ah my bad, you said that recover the first stage will reduce the cost only by a 10% instead 30%. Against my bet that it will be 70% just for the first stage (in case they are at least 95% sure that they can recover without crash). Now in the last post you said 60% which is not very different than my 70%, LOL Welcome to the spacex side..

Your words:

"SpaceX is going to reuse the first stage of their rocket. Reusing one part of the rocket does not generate huge savings in the total launch cost, so this might optimistically translate into a 10% price reduction for customers, bringing the cost of a launch from $60 million to $55 million"

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1234903&viewfull=1#post1234903

Also not all companies are the same.. There are companies which has 10% cost in product/services and 90% in workers and others had 90% cost in product and 10% in workers. It all depends... Do not use anologies if they haven´t practical comparison.

[bigdad84]

Does anyone know of which material are the landing legs made of?

Straight from SpaceX's website:http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/03/26/landing-leg

"The Falcon 9 first stage carries landing legs which will deploy after stage separation and allow for the rocket’s soft return to Earth. The four legs are made of state-of-the-art carbon fiber with aluminum honeycomb. Placed symmetrically around the base of the rocket, they stow along the side of the vehicle during liftoff and later extend outward and down for landing."

[StrandedonEarth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program

"published cost of US$56.5 million per launch to low Earth orbit, "Falcon 9 rockets are already the cheapest in the industry. Reusable Falcon 9s could drop the price by an order of magnitude, "

"SpaceX has said that if they are successful in developing the reusable technology, launch prices of around US$5 to 7 million for a reusable Falcon 9 are possible"

That was almost certainly before SpaceX decided to abandon reusing the F9's second stage, to focus on Raptor/MCT. Link

[shynung]

Ah I forget to count those penies, time to spent them in Ice cream, yumm.

Someone's gotta WD-40 them, at least. Or add more struts.

[Nibb31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program

"published cost of US$56.5 million per launch to low Earth orbit, "Falcon 9 rockets are already the cheapest in the industry. Reusable Falcon 9s could drop the price by an order of magnitude, "

"SpaceX has said that if they are successful in developing the reusable technology, launch prices of around US$5 to 7 million for a reusable Falcon 9 are possible"

Although I have the greatest respect for SpaceX's accomplishments, quotes like this one or Musk's gibberish tweets about Mars colonies are only PR. There is no substance behind them, and nobody seriously expects launch prices to go down to $7 million or for Musk to retire on Mars.

Ah my bad, you said that recover the first stage will reduce the cost only by a 10% instead 30%. Against my bet that it will be 70% just for the first stage (in case they are at least 95% sure that they can recover without crash). Now in the last post you said 60% which is not very different than my 70%, LOL Welcome to the spacex side..

Read what I said. Percentage of the first stage in the rocket. Percentage of the rocket in the total launch cost. A percentage of a percentage. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Also not all companies are the same.. There are companies which has 10% cost in product/services and 90% in workers and others had 90% cost in product and 10% in workers. It all depends... Do not use anologies if they haven´t practical comparison.

It wasn't an analogy. You keep on claiming that the rocket is the only cost of launch operations, which is wrong. SpaceX employs 3500 people, mostly high-salary engineers and technicians. It owns and maintains 3 launch sites, a test range, several regional offices, and a manufacturing facility, as well as the administrative, logistics and sourcing channels to keep them running. The cost of those is way more than ice-cream pocket change.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Nibb31

[J.Random]

Huh. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/space/2015/04/15/spacex-ground-attempt-reusable-landing-sea/25827625/

"Just purely the boat moving, even in a low sea state, it's hard to imagine that vehicle is going to stay vertical," Shotwell said. "That vehicle is big and tall, compared to the itty-bity-greater-than-a-football-field-size ship."

--Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and COO

[tater]

To know the actual savings we'd need to know their total labor costs for checking, restocking, and launching a recovered Falcon 9 booster. At that point, assuming their baseline notion is right, they'd launch 9 LEO flights, then 1 GEO/whatever expending the booster. They'd save the mechanical costs on 9/10 launches due to reuse, but the labor costs would be identical, or higher. I've seen people saying Merlins cost ~1M$, but that still leaves ~40 M unaccounted for, so the labor is in there, along with the airframe. So you get savings on the cheap (relatively) Merlins, plus airframe. I don;t see it as anywhere endear 90% savings. If they can get the labor low enough on restock, presumably they'd have the same savings for new rockets.

[Rakaydos]

The bit about falcon being designed for flyback leading to greatet margins for the ascent customer explains the "better structual margins tjan most rockets" numbers yhrown around earlier. So SpaceX isnt being unnecessary redundant while cutting costs, theyre just aiming for a different, more difficult goalpost.

[AngelLestat]

That was almost certainly before SpaceX decided to abandon reusing the F9's second stage, to focus on Raptor/MCT. Link

At least quote the thing you want me to read. That is a huge reddit discussion, and is not a trusted source.

Is true that they forgotted for the moment about reusing the second stage and that right now are more focus in the Mars program.

But you can not take nothing definitive.. Its goal still is full recovery, so if they found the way they will do it.

Although I have the greatest respect for SpaceX's accomplishments, quotes like this one or Musk's gibberish tweets about Mars colonies are only PR. There is no substance behind them, and nobody seriously expects launch prices to go down to $7 million or for Musk to retire on Mars.

"nobody" believe them either about its possible success as a launch company at the begining, but here they are.. with the lower prices in the world.

Maybe they are where they are because they know something that others do not.

Read what I said. Percentage of the first stage in the rocket. Percentage of the rocket in the total launch cost. A percentage of a percentage. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Ok, I missread you. So your opinion stand in only a 10% of lower cost if they accomplish return the first stage save in all launchs?

I guess that 10% can be accomplish in 2016 already (for the contracts made that year) even if they are not sure how to return all first stages safety yet.

It wasn't an analogy. You keep on claiming that the rocket is the only cost of launch operations, which is wrong. SpaceX employs 3500 people, mostly high-salary engineers and technicians. It owns and maintains 3 launch sites, a test range, several regional offices, and a manufacturing facility, as well as the administrative, logistics and sourcing channels to keep them running. The cost of those is way more than ice-cream pocket change.

3500 employess, they are not all enginners, you have turners, people on sales, software, secretaries, average workers and some engineers.

An enginner lv 3 salary is close 100000 anual, so lets calculate an average of 70000 for each employe, that give us 245 millions anual, now remember that half of these employes work in development for the mars program or working in all the new technology that they need. But all that money comes from investments, not from the profits of the falcon9, some of the profits from falcon9 can be focus in some development of the same falcon, but thats it.

Those employess did 24 first stage core and similar amount of second stages in one year, ahh.. but I forget that those employess are in fact included in the rocket cost.. so they dont need to be included..

But well the company can sale right now 24 flight by year, at 53 millions we have 1300 millions anual. But in fact the funds that spacex receive (which count the half of their launch) is 1 billion by year aproximmaly.

So we are talking of a rought number of 30% of its employess working in the administration cost of the falcon family? That is less than 10% of the total launch cost.

But that cost is not fixed.. because if you recover all stages, then you dont need to keep doing rockets, so you have a lot of employess which can work in assembly and maintainence, which you can rise the amount of launchs without increase your employess (working in that area).

Also the employess which makes all the calculations about fuel leves and design for each payload, they will start to make all calculations more fast, because they already had experience with many different size and weight payloads.

Each time you increase the launch rate all becomes more automated which reduce a lot the cost. So the employess cost is not fixed either. It all depends on your launch rate. And if you recovery the stages, that launch rate increase a lot.

[Pipcard]

At least quote the thing you want me to read. That is a huge reddit discussion, and is not a trusted source.

Direct link

Actually, we could make the 2nd stage of Falcon reusable and still have significant payload on Falcon Heavy, but I think our engineering resources are better spent moving on to the Mars system.

MCT will have meaningfully higher specific impulse engines: 380 vs 345 vac Isp. For those unfamiliar, in the rocket world, that is a super gigantic difference for stages of roughly equivalent mass ratio (mass full to mass empty).

They are Elon Musk's own words.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Pipcard

[shynung]

So we are talking of a rought number of 30% of its employess working in the administration cost of the falcon family? That is less than 10% of the total launch cost..

You forgot the factory they own, their test range, 3 launch sites, and their regional offices. On top of management and services (security, cleaning, and parking spots) for those buildings, there's also the property ownership tax.

[Kryten]

At least quote the thing you want me to read. That is a huge reddit discussion, and is not a trusted source.

Unlike wikipedia?

[Albert VDS]

Although I have the greatest respect for SpaceX's accomplishments, quotes like this one or Musk's gibberish tweets about Mars colonies are only PR. There is no substance behind them, and nobody seriously expects launch prices to go down to $7 million or for Musk to retire on Mars.

In this article you can read that the whole retire on Mars thing isn't true:

“No, that’s wrong. That’s not why I want to get to Mars. That quote is from an article in the Guardian. They pushed me for a sound bite, asking if I wanted to retire on Mars. I eventually said yes. When I retireâ€â€hopefully before I go senileâ€â€and eventually die, then Mars is as good a place to die as any.â€Â

The reason Spacex exists is:

“Humans need to be a multiplanet species,â€Â

You could(again) respond to that with "It's only PR", but I find it highly unlikely. Specially if you look at the other companies hes part of: Solar City and Tesla.

[bigdad84]

Just a tad bit off topic, but did SpaceX ever disclose any information on what caused the in flight termination of the F9R Dev vehicle?