Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[DerekL1963]

20 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Pointless, because there is nothing that such a flight would prove that hasn't already been proven multiple times by a whole campaign of full duration burns at McGregor.

Other than the whole "full duration burns aren't actual flights and don't expose the vehicle to the environment and stresses of flight" part.

[Nibb31]

The cost of a launch is not the cost of a rocket. The first stage is only a part of that hardware, let's say 70%. But reusing doesn't mean that you don't pay for recovery, refurbishment, and amortization of that hardware, so even a reused first stage isn't free, which brings the savings down to something closer to 50%.

However, the launch hardware is only a small part of the total cost of a launch. Probably like 50%. You need to factor in construction and maintenance of the launch facilities, transportation, integration, launch range fees, as well as R&D, manufacturing, testing, and all the usual overhead stuff of running a business. Your biggest cost factor is going to be your workforce, but reusability doesn't do much to reduce that.

In the end, you only really save the manufacturing cost of the first stage which probably represents less than 50% of 50% percent of the total cost of a launch campaign, which is 25%.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Nibb31

[WinkAllKerb'']

i don't want to play the no "not that anoyin' obvious reminder once a gain" but still:

%%earth mass
%%atmosphere
%%natural atmosphere small particule((and/or energetic)) decay (( // %%small "meteoritic" refill ))
%%planet core
%%sun decay
%% moon and ocean and sea dynamic and mass // earth mass
[%% insert here blablabla climatic global warming/colding and energetic signature of earth and human construct 1700-1900; 1900-now]
%% launcher after each others mass and fuel

...

back in 1904 there was a few plane, nowdays ... well nowdays it's slighty more complicated *grumpf*

Edited February 5, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
search?q=earth+mass+and+moon+equilibrium+is+a+finite+number+...+just+sayin%27&rlz=

[sojourner]

OK, I'll bite.  Did your post get garbled in transmission?

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

In the end, you only really save the manufacturing cost of the first stage which probably represents less than 20 percent of the total cost of a launch campaign. 

If I get this right:

An advanced commsat can cost up to, say, 500 mln.
A Mir module costed (according to internet) about 200-250 mln.
A Falcon9 itself costs about 60-65 mln.
Every Shuttle flight took 450 mln for fueling and refurbishing.

So, with the 20%-of-Falcon economy a customer can pay for his satellite either 300 mln if a new rocket or 290 mln if a refurbished rocket?
Sounds like "You should pay 3% more if want to fly by a new plane, rather than by a veteran one."

Edited February 5, 2017 by kerbiloid

[WinkAllKerb'']

1 hour ago, sojourner said:

OK, I'll bite.  Did your post get garbled in transmission?

just tried to sum up a few wall of text thingies ; ) that's how i do it ^^ srry if it appear garbled ^^

Edited February 5, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If I get this right:

An advanced commsat can cost up to, say, 500 mln.

We're only talking about launch costs here. Launch cost is traditionally regarded as about 20% of the cost of the satellite: one fifth for the payload, one fifth for the satellite bus, one fifth for the ground station, one fifth for the launch, and one fifth for operating the satellite. That is the traditional rule of thumb.

So for the actual customer, saving 20% on the launch represents a total saving on the project of 20% of 20% = less than 5%. That's nice, but it's not a game changer.

Of course, this assumes that SpaceX passes on their own cost cutting to the customer, which would actually be silly given that they are already 40% cheaper than the competition. They have nothing to gain in cutting prices even more.

 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, with the 20%-of-Falcon economy a customer can pay for his satellite either 300 mln if a new rocket or 290 mln if a refurbished rocket?
Sounds like "You should pay 3% more if want to fly by a new plane, rather than by a veteran one."

When you buy a plane ticket, you don't buy a plane, or even a share of the plane's cost. You buy a transportation service to get from A to B. It's the airline's job to manage their fleet competitively. You don't get to choose the type or the age of the plane.

In the same way, launch customers don't buy rockets. They buy a launch service. They pay SpaceX to get their payload into a specific orbit.

 

 

[kerbiloid]

I.e. as the end user gains 3..5 % (almost nothing), why the "reusability" of the booster should play any role for him, and be an argument to select SpaceX?

[kunok]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I.e. as the end user gains 3..5 % (almost nothing), why the "reusability" of the booster should play any role for him, and be an argument to select SpaceX?

SpaceX wants the cheap but reliable enough market. Not the added value market

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, kunok said:

SpaceX wants the cheap but reliable enough market. Not the added value market

That's fine, but why GreedyCorp Industries should choose the option which is just 3..5% cheaper itself, and probably this is minus 1..2% because insurance for reused rockets would be more expensive?
Why shouldn't it just roll dice then?

Edited February 5, 2017 by kerbiloid

[kunok]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

That's fine, but why GreedyCorp Industries should choose the option which is just 3..5% cheaper itself, and probably this is minus 1..2% because insurance for reused rockets would be more expensive?
Why shouldn't it just roll dice then?

I think in the first ones there will be a huge discount, but after that SpaceX will offer you the launch services but wont allow you to choose a new or old rocket.
If the customer want a new reliable rocket is in the added value sector. If for you SpaceX is cheap but not reliable enough you will choose another launch provider. Only if almost nobody wants to use used rockets then SpaceX will be forced to offer new or old ones, I don't think that will happen IF used stages are reliable enough which is still to be seen.

 

And if the used rocket stages goes well, there is still to be seen what is done with the 400 engines/year factory. In the end I think the engines will be a lot more expensive.

[Ten Key]

35 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I.e. as the end user gains 3..5 % (almost nothing), why the "reusability" of the booster should play any role for him, and be an argument to select SpaceX?

If I remember correctly, a reusable first stage allows SpaceX to reduce its manufacturing bottleneck and (potentially) maintain a higher number of launches per year. That in turn allows them to spread their fixed costs over a larger number of launches, reducing the cost of each individual launch. 

[kunok]

4 minutes ago, Ten Key said:

That in turn allows them to spread their fixed costs over a larger number of launches, reducing the cost of each individual launch. 

Don't forget that reusing launch stages add new fixed costs derived from the new installations and personnel required. It ain't the same process, is not that simple.

[kerbiloid]

30 minutes ago, kunok said:

the first ones there will be a huge discount

Any discount for the first must be payed by the next, otherwise it would be not a discount, but a donation. So, this doesn't change the average value.

10 minutes ago, Ten Key said:

That in turn allows them to spread their fixed costs over a larger number of launches, reducing the cost of each individual launch. 

I.e. increasing the cost for the premium class.

Edited February 5, 2017 by kerbiloid

[kunok]

28 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Any discount for the first must be payed by the next, otherwise it would be not a discount, but a donation. So, this doesn't change the average value.

It will be a donation of course, in reality a 50% off is "the customer paid 50% of my reusability test" (numbers totally made up)

[kerbiloid]

12 minutes ago, kunok said:

It will be a donation of course

Any donation must be sponsored by somebody.
SpaceX is a commercial company, it exists to bring money to her founders. It has goods, they have a planned price.
Any decreasing must be compensated by an increasing. Every discount/donation to one customer must be payed by another customer, otherwise it's called not a "discounting" but a "loss".
So, if you sell something for somebody for -10% below average, this means that the next customer must pay +10% above average, and this +10% you publish as "price", while the price minus 10% you nicely call a "discounting".
Also when you get something "for free" (except open source software of course), this means "price is already included in your ticket" or "somebody else will pay for this free"

(Numbers are arbitrary here, of course)

Edited February 5, 2017 by kerbiloid

[kunok]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Any donation must be sponsored by somebody.
SpaceX is a commercial company, it exists to bring money to her founders. It has goods, they have a planned price.
Any decreaing must be compensated by an increasing. Every discount/donation to one customer must be payed by another customer, otherwise it's called not a "discounting" but a "loss".
So, if you sell something for somebody for -10% below average, this means that the next customer must pay +10% above average, and this +10% you publish as "price".
(Numbers are arbitrary here, of course)

Look at the prices that are charged NASA and other USA institutions from SpaceX. I don't really trust SpaceX prices, Tesla for example is know from selling cars bellow the costs, and both are musk companies.

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, kunok said:

Tesla for example is know from selling cars bellow the costs, and both are musk companies.

If something gets sold below a cost, this means either that the sponsors wait when it will begin solding for a cost enough to cover this "below", or they are Samaritans gifting their money for everybody who wants a car.
As Tesla is mentioned as a commercial company, I guess, the first one.

Edited February 5, 2017 by kerbiloid

[kunok]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

If something gets sold below a cost, this means either that the sponsors wait when it will begin solding for a cost enough to cover this "below", or they are Samaritans gifting their money for everybody who wants a car.
As Tesla is mentioned as a commercial company, I guess, the first one.

Or dumping the prices so you get the a monopolistic position, or something similar, no is not the first time, Amazon is a good example of that. but that economical things are outside my engineering formation.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, kunok said:

Or dumping the prices so you get the a monopolistic position

And what for can be the monopolistic position except to raise the price and cover the early discounting with the late overpricing?

[kunok]

40 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And what for can be the monopolistic position except to raise the price and cover the early discounting with the late overpricing?

Or because you did an oversized factory of 400 engines/year and you need to amortize it, and for that you need all the launches you can get. Maybe is that, maybe is other thing, not my problem anyway.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, kunok said:

Or because you did an oversized factory of 400 engines/year

And did this occasionally, without planning?
Anyway, even if so, it's cheaper to sell nothing than sell below the cost, unless you plan to return your loss increasing price for later customers.
Sponsors would ask: "where is my money?" They wouldn't be happy to hear: "Well, we just gifted them to nice people". They should get at least what they'd paid.

Edited February 5, 2017 by kerbiloid

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, kunok said:

SpaceX wants the cheap but reliable enough market.

When "reliable" basically means "your payload either arrives at the correct orbit or ends up scattered across the landscape" - there's no such thing as "reliable enough".  Either it works, or it doesn't.   And if it doesn't, then those lovely government contracts that are currently paying a good deal of the freight dry up, and not long after that insurers stop underwriting and commercial contracts go elsewhere too.  The next step is the Sheriff at the door.

Musk may be <REDACTED> insane in some senses, but he's no dummy.  He's not about to make the same mistake he made with Falcon 1 (basically building for a non-existent market).

Edited February 5, 2017 by Frybert

[kunok]

4 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

When "reliable" basically means "your payload either arrives at the correct orbit or ends up scattered across the landscape" - there's no such thing as "reliable enough".  Either it works, or it doesn't.   And if it doesn't, then those lovely government contracts that are currently paying a good deal of the freight dry up, and not long after that insurers stop underwriting and commercial contracts go elsewhere too.  The next step is the Sheriff at the door.

I was only saying that SpaceX is not in the market of the Ariane 5 or the Delta IV. Very expensive launchers but with a 100% success rate.

[IncongruousGoat]

41 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Anyway, even if so, it's cheaper to sell nothing than sell below the cost, unless you plan to return your loss increasing price for later customers.

Not necessarily. Assuming that they can cover their variable costs and at least some of their fixed costs by launching below the full cost, it makes sense to do so, since they end up losing less money than they would, were they to not launch at all. Remember, the fixed costs (in the short term) need to be paid regardless of whether SpaceX is doing anything.

I'm not arguing whether they're launching at a loss, or whether this is even their plan. I'm just saying there's short-term reasons to do it as well as long-term ones.