More Good SpaceX News (Dragon)

[frodo1008]

My main question is STILL: Is COTS the Dragon capsule alone (what I thought it to be) or a complete delivery system including Dragon + Falcon 9?<br /><br />Further, is the Falcon 9 itself sufficient to launch a fully loaded Dragon capsule up to the ISS?<br /><br />As you seem to have at least some answers here, please illuminate me!

 

[frodo1008]

OOPS, the link seems to have my answers, thanks!

 

[j05h]

<i>> Is COTS the Dragon capsule alone (what I thought it to be) or a complete delivery system including Dragon + Falcon 9? </i><br /><br />It is currently for Dragon and F9 together. From what I understand, the COTS proposal is specific but renegotiable. We've talked about the security of having multiple launchers (F9 backed up by EELV). Whether NASA or future client, that kind of backup would be reassuring. <br /><br />The real issue is integration time. COTS Phase I is fairly short duration, Dragon-on-Delta is many years away in terms of integration work according to JimFromNSF. Dragon-on-Delta could be available as a COTS II contender.<br /><br /><i>> Further, is the Falcon 9 itself sufficient to launch a fully loaded Dragon capsule up to the ISS? </i><br /><br />Yes. The baseline F9 single core (not heavy) is designed for flying Dragon capsules to LEO destinations. The Heavy would be used for launching modules or transplanetary craft. The art on SpaceX.com clearly shows a Dragon on basic F9.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I will say this, IF spacex can truly deliver such a system for the costs they say they can then they will be far more than just the winners of COTS!<br /><br />Even at a price of $50 million per launch (and they are quoting $36 million) if they can truly develop such a launch system they will get more then 80% to 90% of the space LEO launch business! <br /><br />They will even beat out such low cost launchers as the Russians, Chinese, and everybody else (unless these countries are willing to build such launch systems at a loss). <br /><br />I even believe that NASA should be watching this development far more than its own single stick Ares I, as it would seem that this launch vehicle would indeed be fully capable of doing the launch for going to the moon (for the astronauts at least) at a far less cost then the NASA launcher!<br /><br />Of course, all that is totally dependent upon spacex really being able to do this!<br /><br />Why should I have doubts? Well, the Air Force (not NASA) was responsible for the development of both the Delta IV and the Atlas V as part of its own efforts to develop a lower cost rocket system called the EELV. This system was NOT to be revolutionary, just bring the to LEO cost down from the $10,000 per pound range to the $3,000 per pound launch range. <br /><br />The last I heard this program will bring the cost per pound to LEO down from the $10,000 range to the $5,000 per pound range. That would bring the cost of placing a 10,000 lb satellite into LEO from $100 million to $50 million, or if enough satellites are then launched even lower, but still nowhere near $36 million! Which would be some $3,600 per pound, a truly revolutionary jump!<br /><br />From all this I do believe that spacex DOES have its work cut out for it now, don't they just?

 

[frodo1008]

Of course (to me at least) the true barrier for CATS comes at the $1,000 per pound to LEO barrier.<br /><br />However, there is a true Catch 22 here. In order to reach such a price there would have to many times the number of launches now completed. And to generate this kind of business the price would have to come down to the $1,000 per pound level! <br /><br />Hopefully, if spacex can really bring the price down to $3,600 they will generate far more business than is now possible, and thus bring their price down even further. Indeed, as Elon Musk and some of his more enthusiastic supporters here (and IF spacex can truly do this then I too will become a very loud supporter of their efforts) can even bring their price down to what they initally state they can, then they just might generate this level of business!<br /><br />I must admit, their would be dancing in the streets (and it might just spur the likes of ALS to follow suit, to me at least, the more the merrier)!!<br /><br />As I stated earlier, the future could be veeeeery interesting!<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

<OOPS, the link seems to have my answers, thanks!><br /><br />You are welcome!

 

[spacelifejunkie]

At the risk of going off topic for the thread, let's not forget about Bigelow's launch needs. He may need more manned launches than NASA in 10 years. The combination of ISS resupply and ferrying people and cargo to BA330's should be enough to make Musk's price targets, right? How many launches of F9 will he need per year to make the $36 million price target? How does the F9 Heavy factor into this price?<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[frodo1008]

Indeed, if spacex can really bring the costs of such launches down to the level that they say, then EVERYBODY is going to be beating a path to their door! And eventually, Elon Musk and his company are going to be very, very rich!!

 

[jimfromnsf]

ULA is not working the integration of Dragon on any of its vehicles

 

[j05h]

I know they aren't working Dragon integration at ULA, hence why I said "years" of integration. For the same reason that EELV program consisted of two separate rockets, it makes sense to be able to fly a commercial capsule on several different launchers.<br /><br />j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"Even at a price of $50 million per launch (and they are quoting $36 million) if they can truly develop such a launch system they will get more then 80% to 90% of the space LEO launch business! "<br /><br />The only problem with that statement is that there is currently no LEO launch business for a 10ton launcher except for human spaceflight. There is a market for GEO satellites and a (much smaller) market for various scientific and commercial satellites in other orbits, however for LEO there is basically no commercial market.<br /><br />"That would bring the cost of placing a 10,000 lb satellite into LEO from $100 million to $50 million"<br /><br />Could you elaborate on when or for whom there has been a 10,000 lb satellite launch to LEO? And to be honest, a 10,000 lb (=4.5 metric tons) payload could be launched to LEO by a Dnepr rocket which would cost substantially less than 50 million USD right now.<br /><br />However, because the F9 will be capable of launching 10 metric tons to LEO, I actually assume you meant 10,000 kg instead of 10,000 lb. With $50 million, they will not be cheaper than Russian (Soyuz) or Chinese (CZ-2F) to LEO. The real question on whether they can succeed on the commercial market (so outside of NASA and DOA business) will be, whether they can compete in the GEO launch market with Ariane 5, Proton, Soyuz, CZ-3, GSLV-III (if that is successful) and Zenit. <br />

 

[docm]

Sounds like the zero-sum game often used by budgeters, but those don't account for new opportunities currently priced out of the market. <br /><br />Time has shown zero-sums only work when costs are high and opportunities therefore limited. Lower costs enough and the zero-sum falls apart, soon followed by a non-zero sum market. Non-zero sum markets float all boats by expanding the market into unserved territories.<br /><br />What space needs, desperately, is a non-zero sum market.<br /><br />As for excessive payload capacity; it can be used to launch multiple payloads as has been done 3 times this year with Ariane 5;<br /><br />Launch article link.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

launching multiple payloads only works for common orbits. The only common orbit is GTO. Very few spacecraft want to go to the same orbit<br /><br />NASA did it 4 times in PEO in the last 10 years. For 2 of the missions, there were compromises in requirements of the spacecraft to allow them to be comanifested

 

[frodo1008]

Well then I guess that spacex is doomed, aren't they?

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"Well then I guess that spacex is doomed, aren't they? "<br /><br />Why that? You should read my post, especially the last paragraph. For commercial launches they have to compete with other launchers that currently split the GEO market up among themselves. If SpaceX can show it is reliable and a good price, they can also be commercially successful. <br /><br />By the way, price is by far not the only thing customers consider when selecting a launcher. Just look at this recent statement from ISRO (http://sify.com/news/scienceandmedicine/fullstory.php?id=14520657): "We can offer very competitive satellite launch rates, nearly 40 per cent cheaper than the prevailing rates. In the small satellite launch market our rates are lower by 20 per cent," ISRO chairman G Madhavan Nair said. "<br /><br />They claim to be 40 percent cheaper than prevailing rates and still they are totally out of the market, basically due to their lack of a reliable launch record.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>launching multiple payloads only works for common orbits. The only common orbit is GTO. Very few spacecraft want to go to the same orbit <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I can understand why that might be true. But physics allows for multiple orbits if each satellite has its own tug to change orbits.<br /><br />In theory if such a tug was made cheap enough that may allow for reducing price per satellite. <br /><br />I like what Ariane Space is doing. For 35 years its been operating Ariane 5 which was designed for multiple payloads. Now its increasing its launches. So they must be doing good.<br /><br />And also now they are developing the Vega launcher that will launch payloads up to 2000 lbs, but was also designed for multiple microsat deployment.<br /><br />I bet SpaceX would want to compete in the same market. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Well, your last paragraph IS a bit on the confusing side! First you state that the Soyuz is still cheaper than the projected price of spacex (and the Soyuz has certainly shown a high degree of reliability), and then further on in the same paragraph you state that they will succeed on whether or not they can compete with the Soyuz (well, you DID also list some of the more expensive launcher as well). Do you see the inconsistency here?

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Ok, frodo, I will explain the last paragraph of my post:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, because the F9 will be capable of launching 10 metric tons to LEO, I actually assume you meant 10,000 kg instead of 10,000 lb. With $50 million, they will not be cheaper than Russian (Soyuz) or Chinese (CZ-2F) to LEO. The real question on whether they can succeed on the commercial market (so outside of NASA and DOA business) will be, whether they can compete in the GEO launch market with Ariane 5, Proton, Soyuz, CZ-3, GSLV-III (if that is successful) and Zenit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. If, as you have stated in your post, the cost of Falcon 9 to LEO will be 50 million USD, this is not cheaper than Soyuz or CZ-2 and or the planned Indian mid-sized launcher GSLV-III. So if there were any commercial payloads (satellites etc.) that would need to be carried to LEO (there are none, because LEO is not an orbit suitable for commsats or any other scientific satellites), Falcon 9 at that price would not be cheaper than these launchers, period. I think that statement is fairly clear.<br /><br />But the point I actually wanted to make is<br /><br />2. Because - as oultined above - it does not matter if Falcon 9 is cheaper or more expensive to LEO than other launch vehicle, what counts in the commercial markets is GTO/GEO capabilities and the price+reliability of the launch craft to deliver a GEO satellite into its intended orbit. And therefore my conclusion is, if Falcon 9 wants to be COMMERCIALLY successful (that is beside payments from NASA, the DOD or other governmental agencies), it needs to be the preferred launch vehicle for some customers in that market. In the market for GEO commsats price is important, but it is by far not the only thing that matters. For instance, the president of ISRO today commented that their GSLV is actually 40 percent cheaper than other vehicles in the midsize comsat market (up to 2 tons to GEO) - still, they ar

 

[jimfromnsf]

Falcon doesn't need an additional upperstage for GTO missions. It can use its second stage just like Atlas V and Delta IV

 

[j05h]

SpaceX is looking at generating a new market (commercial US crew access) while getting some of the old market. They will launch GEO birds but see the "next Big Thing" is crewed spaceflight. This is a generative market, it needs to be built. They have secondary plans for reusability, along with extremely frequent flights, which will eventually drive their launch prices and costs lower.<br /><br />Another factor is that all the "cheap" rockets are foreign. This is onerous for US companies because of ITAR, not that ITAR is bad, it just limits what a US company can do abroad. Having access to rockets cheaper than EELV (and available for commerce) brings up all sorts of possible new USA markets. This is especially so once it's possible to buy your own US-built-and-launched space stations and capsules. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> ... the cost of Falcon 9 to LEO will be 50 million USD, this is not cheaper than Soyuz or CZ-2 and or the planned Indian mid-sized launcher GSLV-III.</i><br /><br />That is true, for now, in terms of cost. It still ignores the cost of doing space-business with foreign providers. That has proven to be expensive, time-consuming and stressful for several companies and groups. Planetary Society and the Cosmos I solar sail, for example. <br /><br /><i>> because LEO is not an orbit suitable for commsats or any other scientific satellites)</i><br /><br />Minor nit, but commsats are not scientific craft and there are plenty of scientific satellites in LEO, including Hubble and several environmental monitors.<br /><br /><i>> it does not matter if Falcon 9 is cheaper or more expensive to LEO than other launch vehicle, what counts in the commercial markets is GTO/GEO capabilities</i><br /><br />Cost to LEO is critically important to SpaceX. The major market they are going for is human spaceflight (crew & modules), with satellite launch as secondary. If the Falcon series is successful, it will have vastly cheaper (like 10X or 12X cheaper) than EELVs and be roughly competitive in costs with foreign launchers. All this while building a new market and perfecting reusable first stages. <br /><br />They've got a lot of work ahead but have already made some striking achievements.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nuaetius]

It's turned into a hen house in here. Guys do me a favor, if any real news comes up for SpaceX don't post it on this thread, I have basically just started scrolling though it for links, no links no read.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />SpaceX is looking at generating a new market (commercial US crew access) while getting some of the old market. They will launch GEO birds but see the "next Big Thing" is crewed spaceflight. This is a generative market, it needs to be built. They have secondary plans for reusability, along with extremely frequent flights, which will eventually drive their launch prices and costs lower.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was talking about being commercially successful. I do not think NASA uncrewed (and maybe even crewed) flights to the ISS can be labled "commercial", rather this is governmental subsidized contract business. Any LEO manned LEO launches of the Falcon 9 to other destinations than the ISS are wild speculation, no market exists and all indications from today of a future market tell us that market might not be worth more than 100-150 million at the most (that is a couple of millionaires/billionaires at a per flight price of 10 million).<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Another factor is that all the "cheap" rockets are foreign. This is onerous for US companies because of ITAR, not that ITAR is bad, it just limits what a US company can do abroad. Having access to rockets cheaper than EELV (and available for commerce) brings up all sorts of possible new USA markets. This is especially so once it's possible to buy your own US-built-and-launched space stations and capsules.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes of course governmental agencies could see Falcon 9 as an option for their payloads, actually I am convinced that if SpaceX is successful with its rocket (even with failures at the beginning) it will get business from the US government respectively its agencies.<br /><br />jim: I did not know Falcon just uses its second stage to get payloads into GTO. This is however confusing, because SpaceX on its website quotes higher prices for GTO missions on Falcon 9. If the

 

[jimfromnsf]

"But physics allows for multiple orbits if each satellite has its own tug to change orbits"<br /><br />A tug doesn't help. It reduces payload mass or eliminate a second spacecraft. Or conversely, it requires a larger launch vehicle to accomodate the orginal spacecraft and its tug.<br /><br />For example trying to combine a GPS and a comsat. the GPS would require a tug about the same size as the spacecraft<br /><br />Microsats don't count. Most just need to get into space regardless of the orbit<br /><br /><br />"I like what Ariane Space is doing. "<br />That proves my point about GTO orbits<br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"This is however confusing, because SpaceX on its website quotes higher prices for GTO missions on Falcon 9. If the hardware is the same, why do they quote 45 and 55 million USD for GTO missions, while quoting 35 million for LEO missions?"<br /><br />That is there price structure. You aren't buying a rocket, you are buying a launch service. If you don't use the full capability, then Spacex is going to try to comanifest some with you