SpaceX vs ULA.

[Psycix]

First of all, SpaceX is not a space program. It's a launch provider. They provide transport from the ground to LEO to people who pay. They are not competing with NASA or funding their own exploration program out their own pockets. If they do go to Mars one day, it will be because someone pays them to.

Yet thus far the whole rocket has been developed out of their own pockets.

Musk has invested gigantic amounts of his own money into SpaceX and Tesla. Not for profits, but because he wants to push innovation.

He's not the kind of guy who earns a billion and turns into a stock investor or retires, he invests it in innovation and techonological progression which he believes humanity needs, despite extreme risk of financial loss.

If he becomes rich enough, I'd not be surprised if he founds a small Mars colony out of his own bank account.

On the other hand, they are scaling their company for a huge amount of launches. Their production facilities, launch sites and the potential for reusability are all assuming that lowering launch costs will allow the emergence of new markets. They are unrealistically oversized for current launch rates.

Musk is taking a huge risk here, because if those new markets fail to materialize, he's going to be stuck with huge fixed costs and his reusable rockets simply won't be viable. We all know that reusability is only viable as a cost reduction measure if launch rates are high.

Yeah. Though I've heard Musk say that the current pricing is not counting any future reusability.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Psycix

[Albert VDS]

That's the same mindset that bought us the space shuttle; just look how well that turned out.

Politics turnned the space shuttle program into the mess it was among other things. Reuseabilty was not one of them, only the way it was executed due to the above.

Spacex is keeping it simple, thats the key to succes.

[Nibb31]

Yet thus far the whole rocket has been developed out of their own pockets.

Musk has invested gigantic amounts of his own money into SpaceX and Tesla. Not for profits, but because he wants to push innovation.

A large part of SpaceX's development has been paid for by NASA. And for his own personal investment, Musk expects a hefty return. Even if it's a money sink, SpaceX can only be viable if it is profitable.

He's not the kind of guy who earns a billion and turns into a stock investor or retires, he invests it in innovation and techonological progression which he believes humanity needs, despite extreme risk of financial loss.

If he becomes rich enough, I'd not be surprised if he founds a small Mars colony out of his own bank account.

But he can only become rich if his ventures are profitable. SpaceX has yet to prove that it can be profitable.

Yeah. Though I've heard Musk say that the current pricing is not counting any future reusability.

Reusability is not going to bring down launch costs significantly. It only reduces material costs of the parts that are reused, which is only a minor portion of the cost of launching a rocket. The bulk of launch costs are in personnel wages, R&D, and infrastructure.

On the other hand, reusing hardware means that you build less engines and stages, which reduces the benefit of mass production for which Musk has scaled his factory. There are no savings if reusability causes his production lines to be sit around underutilized.

[magnemoe]

A large part of SpaceX's development has been paid for by NASA. And for his own personal investment, Musk expects a hefty return. Even if it's a money sink, SpaceX can only be viable if it is profitable.

But he can only become rich if his ventures are profitable. SpaceX has yet to prove that it can be profitable.

Reusability is not going to bring down launch costs significantly. It only reduces material costs of the parts that are reused, which is only a minor portion of the cost of launching a rocket. The bulk of launch costs are in personnel wages, R&D, and infrastructure.

On the other hand, reusing hardware means that you build less engines and stages, which reduces the benefit of mass production for which Musk has scaled his factory. There are no savings if reusability causes his production lines to be sit around underutilized.

Natural NASA is a huge contractor and the reason the the dragon, however most spacex launches had been other things.

About reusability, R&D is a one time cost, reusability cost money to develop but the first stage reusability was cheap to develop compared to the falcon 9.

Doing the launches cost the same for both. Its lots of fixed cost so doing more launches don't cost much more here.

Reuseability uses less engines and rockets and will increase cost of them some, however they will still do expendable launches for larger payload, upper stage who shares a lots of parts is also expendable.

More launches will result in more parts used, you might also move used engines to expendable uses. Yes its pretty safe, an engine is more likely to break down on first launch, less on the second, at some time this risk start rising again so you dispose them before they are as unsafe as the first burn.

Think most like SpaceX not because of the mars dream but because the enthusiasm, falcon heavy and reuseability

[KSK]

For some irrational reason, SpaceX has attracted a fan following that the older aerospace corporations simply have never had, although those companies have done more for space flight than SpaceX ever has. This is probably more due to Elon Musk's rockstar status than to their actual technological or commercial accomplishments. He has a Tony Stark vibe about him that the CEOs of other companies simply don't have. <snip>

I think the 'irrationality' is a mix of supporting the underdog and a recapturing of the 'Space or Bust' spirit of the 60s and 70s. Rationally, it's not new, emotively it's SPACE! And this time with shinier spaceships, rockets landing on their tails and loads of cool stuff on YouTube!

I'm a SpaceX fan for two main reasons (aside from the Tony Stark vibe although that helps too ). First, a tangible sense of progress. SpaceX are on their fourth generation of main engine (I'm not counting the vacuum modified versions), have developed another smaller engine (Kestrel), orbital maneuvering thrusters (Draco) and lander engine (SuperDraco). They're on their second generation of medium lift launch vehicle, are developing their second generation capsule+service module and have taken big strides towards recovery and re-use of their booster cores. That's all verifiable stuff - I'm being cautious here and leaving Falcon Heavy, Raptor, Mars Colonial Transport etc. etc. on the 'I'll believe it when I see it' pile.

Of course some of this is reinventing the wheel to a certain extent (or more charitably, building a better mousetrap) but it's still an impressive program of hardware updates that shows no sign of slowing down.

Second, as others have mentioned, is the aspirational side of SpaceX. They're in it for space and nothing else. I have no idea what their financials look like but they have this air of 'the profit is a means to an end - and that end is getting to Mars' about them. If Musk makes enough money from SpaceX, I honestly believe he's going to Mars whether or not anyone specifically pays him to go.

I just hope your (well reasoned) pessimism about SpaceX's long term viability turns out to be wrong.

Edited June 9, 2014 by KSK

[Klingon Admiral]

Arianespace.

[magnemoe]

I think the 'irrationality' is a mix of supporting the underdog and a recapturing of the 'Space or Bust' spirit of the 60s and 70s. Rationally, it's not new, emotively it's SPACE! And this time with shinier spaceships, rockets landing on their tails and loads of cool stuff on YouTube!

I'm a SpaceX fan for two main reasons (aside from the Tony Stark vibe although that helps too ). First, a tangible sense of progress. SpaceX are on their fourth generation of main engine (I'm not counting the vacuum modified versions), have developed another smaller engine (Kestrel), orbital maneuvering thrusters (Draco) and lander engine (SuperDraco). They're on their second generation of medium lift launch vehicle, are developing their second generation capsule+service module and have taken big strides towards recovery and re-use of their booster cores. That's all verifiable stuff - I'm being cautious here and leaving Falcon Heavy, Raptor, Mars Colonial Transport etc. etc. on the 'I'll believe it when I see it' pile.

Of course some of this is reinventing the wheel to a certain extent (or more charitably, building a better mousetrap) but it's still an impressive program of hardware updates that shows no sign of slowing down.

Second, as others have mentioned, is the aspirational side of SpaceX. They're in it for space and nothing else. I have no idea what their financials look like but they have this air of 'the profit is a means to an end - and that end is getting to Mars' about them. If Musk makes enough money from SpaceX, I honestly believe he's going to Mars whether or not anyone specifically pays him to go.

I just hope your (well reasoned) pessimism about SpaceX's long term viability turns out to be wrong.

This, its often good to get outsider companies into the competition.

They don't have any existing products who compete with the new ones and tend to think fresh.

Take Falcon 9 reusability, genial simple then you think of it. Powered landing is nothing new but everyone was thinking parachutes or wings then landing on earth.

The newbee changing the rules is nothing new, the company who makes the glock gun had never made a gun before.

[RuBisCO]

ULA and SpaceX are presently different business models, one is daringly trying to take up the commercial and even military launch market, the other is focus on lobbying and squeezing the military industrial complex of every dollar they can, and has basically given up on the commercial market. One company is very risky with a good chance of failure but also the best chance in the next 10 years to elevate manned space travel (pun intended), the other is stable with little chance of doing anything else then what it is presently doing.

[Nibb31]

Natural NASA is a huge contractor and the reason the the dragon, however most spacex launches had been other things.

About reusability, R&D is a one time cost, reusability cost money to develop but the first stage reusability was cheap to develop compared to the falcon 9.

Doing the launches cost the same for both. Its lots of fixed cost so doing more launches don't cost much more here.

SpaceX seems to be structured like a software company, where R&D is ongoing. In hi-tech industries, it's never a one-time cost. The fact that SpaceX's designs are evolving all the time is actually both a strength and a weakness.

- It's a strength because the ongoing innovation allows them to improve the cost and performance of their vehicles.

- It's also a weakness because this is an industry where you build confidence in a launcher over time.

SpaceX is all about reducing cost, but for many customers in the space industry (especially institutional customers), cost and performance is a secondary factor. They will rather pay for the most reliable rocket (which will also save them money on insurance costs), because they simply can't afford to lose a payload on a new unproven launcher. Reliability is calculated from the number of successful launches of a specific design and by resettin their reliability counter each time they redesign their rocket, any certification or confidence built on the old vehicle is lost when the new one comes out. This is especially true for DoD contracts, where ULA's launchers are favored against SpaceX regardless of cost, but it's also true in the commercial sector.

I'm not overly pessimistic about SpaceX. They are great with the innovation and the technology, and the PR too, but they have some very significant business challenges ahead of them that are not technology-related and it's something to be aware of.

And I find fanboism annoying in general, whether it's in favor of SpaceX, Linux, Apple, football teams, or the latest dumb boys band. The constant worshipping tends to hide any sense of reality and lacks healthy criticism.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Nibb31

[RuBisCO]

If reliability was the primary concern then how the heck do they keep finding customers for the Proton and Sea Launch Rockets?

[Nibb31]

Because they have an actual track record, which is better than no track record. Their components are certified and their failure rates are known so they are easier to insure. They also tend to launch payloads that are more easily replaceable.

As I said, it largely depends on the customer. Institutional payloads tend to be more valuable than comsats because they are either military or scientific one-offs. Comsats are produced in larger series with a common spacecraft bus.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Nibb31

[KSK]

And I find fanboism annoying in general, whether it's in favor of SpaceX, Linux, Apple, football teams, or the latest dumb boys band. The constant worshipping tends to hide any sense of reality and lacks healthy criticism.

Agreed. I do try to keep my enthusiasm at the 'fan' rather than 'fanboi' level.