4 ms·

> Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? He argued exactly why in his 2nd presentation (with

by AlanSE 9y ago

> Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? He argued exactly why in his 2nd presentation (with the revised and smaller BFR). His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. This isn't accounting for payload, he was saying the cost of of single launch would be lower for the BFR - it's a bombastic claim. Having read about this subject, I can at least grok the economic argument. SpaceX is already in the rocket reuse business, and over the long run their costs will limit to the costs involved with refurbishment. Falcon Heavy will always have a higher operational cost because of the management of the 3 separate cores. Having only a single massive core offers obvious cost reduction. There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. Since the large rocket can launch small payloads, they can just use it for all their customers. Cost savings come in the form of simplification of the company's processes. Again, since they are now a rocket reuse business, this is possibly their primary cost driver. While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments and consolidation. Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars".

iamcreasy 9y ago
> While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments Probably BFR will lower the launch cost low enough that would create new customers.
- le-mark 9y ago
  Absolutely this; also current customers can launch cheaper satellites, because they're easier to replace. For example, spend $500M on a satellite that has to have extreme reliability due to high launch cost and availability, or $50M on one you can replace at whim.
phkahler 9y ago
>> His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper. If it's not, there will be room for a competitor. >> There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. That was my take on what he said, and if there's a case for BFR then perhaps it makes sense. >> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars". Nice thing about a private company. Elon doesn't really have to answer to anyone. Well, actually he's got enough investors that maybe he does, but they all understand his goals are bigger than just making money. BFR will be the ferry to mars and that opens a door. Nobody know what lies behind that door and I think his investors want to know as much as anyone.
- ygra 9y ago
  Well, apart from a first stage that's designed to be re-used more often, there's also a second stage that's designed for re-use (and no fairings that are ditched). So simply by not throwing anything away (except for reaction mass) they have a cost advantage (assuming everything works as planned). And at least the F9 first stage has proven to be considerably cheaper to refurbish than the the Space Shuttle, so I'm confident that they won't fall into the trap of having re-use at a cost that's way above throwing the hardware away after every launch.
- thinkcontext 9y ago
  > I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper He absolutely said it would be cheaper, indeed that it was fundamental to the project. Here's slide in his presentation: https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?t=25m9s https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?t=25m9s
- valuearb 9y ago
  Yea, the BFR is designed to be fully re-usable, unlike the partial re-usability of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Which is why Musk believes it will be far cheaper than either. Now Elon has always been excessively optimistic, but in the long run he's probably right (More likely in BFR2 or BFR3, than first BFR design, in my opinion).
thinkcontext 9y ago
> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars". I agree, they are taking on huge risk attempting something on the scale of BFR. It seems likely that development will take much longer than planned giving their competitors time to catch up.
- AlanSE 9y ago
  Hit the nail on the head. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-deb... ^ this was a tremendously good article about Blue Origin. I can't recommend it enough. If you can read closely, you can see the tiny little business-sense decisions that are obviously learned from SpaceX's experience. They go even further, with a lot of things that look like what BFR should have been but isn't shaping up to be. Consider the plans for rapid manufacture of the (disposable) 2nd stage. I would love 2nd stage reusability, but we might just not be there yet. Blue Origin could close the loop enough by manufacturing them right next to where they're flown at low cost. The large first-stage core seems to be the ticket too. The piping between 3 cores starts to sound enough like the Shuttle experience. Reuse of a single first stage core is going great. No need to rock the boat, just continue to improve refurbishment processes. Also keep in mind that Bezos is like scary ruthless. I've read several books, and it really comes through in the conflict Amazon had earlier on with similar book sellers. No one took him seriously enough, because they didn't understand what kind of businessman he is. He is out to crush. Now, he has virtually unlimited resources and is targeting his life-long dream. Spending a year on pursuing the wrong size-class and the wrong second stage technology is likely to leave you a bug on his windshield.
  - thinkcontext 9y ago
    That is a good article. Hadn't seen a complete description of New Glenn before, thanks. I'm very curious to see how the economics pencil out. I'm a little skeptical that it will be possible for Blue Origin to catch SpaceX with the first iteration of their rocket. It took SpaceX a while to master all of the competencies to get where they are, with a number of setbacks (and explosions) along the way. Its likely Blue Origin will face a number of those all well before they are routinely launching reused rockets like SpaceX is today. So, I'd guess SpaceX has about 5 years before it has to worry about Blue Origin.

by AlanSE 9y ago

iamcreasy 9y ago

> While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments Probably BFR will lower the launch cost low enough that would create new customers.

le-mark 9y ago
Absolutely this; also current customers can launch cheaper satellites, because they're easier to replace. For example, spend $500M on a satellite that has to have extreme reliability due to high launch cost and availability, or $50M on one you can replace at whim.

phkahler 9y ago

>> His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper. If it's not, there will be room for a competitor. >> There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. That was my take on what he said, and if there's a case for BFR then perhaps it makes sense. >> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars". Nice thing about a private company. Elon doesn't really have to answer to anyone. Well, actually he's got enough investors that maybe he does, but they all understand his goals are bigger than just making money. BFR will be the ferry to mars and that opens a door. Nobody know what lies behind that door and I think his investors want to know as much as anyone.

ygra 9y ago
Well, apart from a first stage that's designed to be re-used more often, there's also a second stage that's designed for re-use (and no fairings that are ditched). So simply by not throwing anything away (except for reaction mass) they have a cost advantage (assuming everything works as planned). And at least the F9 first stage has proven to be considerably cheaper to refurbish than the the Space Shuttle, so I'm confident that they won't fall into the trap of having re-use at a cost that's way above throwing the hardware away after every launch.
thinkcontext 9y ago
> I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper He absolutely said it would be cheaper, indeed that it was fundamental to the project. Here's slide in his presentation: https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?t=25m9s https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?t=25m9s
valuearb 9y ago
Yea, the BFR is designed to be fully re-usable, unlike the partial re-usability of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Which is why Musk believes it will be far cheaper than either. Now Elon has always been excessively optimistic, but in the long run he's probably right (More likely in BFR2 or BFR3, than first BFR design, in my opinion).

thinkcontext 9y ago

> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars". I agree, they are taking on huge risk attempting something on the scale of BFR. It seems likely that development will take much longer than planned giving their competitors time to catch up.

AlanSE 9y ago
Hit the nail on the head. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-debut-new-glenn-rocket/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/blue-origin-2020-deb... ^ this was a tremendously good article about Blue Origin. I can't recommend it enough. If you can read closely, you can see the tiny little business-sense decisions that are obviously learned from SpaceX's experience. They go even further, with a lot of things that look like what BFR should have been but isn't shaping up to be. Consider the plans for rapid manufacture of the (disposable) 2nd stage. I would love 2nd stage reusability, but we might just not be there yet. Blue Origin could close the loop enough by manufacturing them right next to where they're flown at low cost. The large first-stage core seems to be the ticket too. The piping between 3 cores starts to sound enough like the Shuttle experience. Reuse of a single first stage core is going great. No need to rock the boat, just continue to improve refurbishment processes. Also keep in mind that Bezos is like scary ruthless. I've read several books, and it really comes through in the conflict Amazon had earlier on with similar book sellers. No one took him seriously enough, because they didn't understand what kind of businessman he is. He is out to crush. Now, he has virtually unlimited resources and is targeting his life-long dream. Spending a year on pursuing the wrong size-class and the wrong second stage technology is likely to leave you a bug on his windshield.
- thinkcontext 9y ago
  That is a good article. Hadn't seen a complete description of New Glenn before, thanks. I'm very curious to see how the economics pencil out. I'm a little skeptical that it will be possible for Blue Origin to catch SpaceX with the first iteration of their rocket. It took SpaceX a while to master all of the competencies to get where they are, with a number of setbacks (and explosions) along the way. Its likely Blue Origin will face a number of those all well before they are routinely launching reused rockets like SpaceX is today. So, I'd guess SpaceX has about 5 years before it has to worry about Blue Origin.