5 ms·

I'm glad you convinced yourself, but this situation has been argued over for years by a lot of people on Reddit, and I really doubt you can bring any hard facts

I'm glad you convinced yourself, but this situation has been argued over for years by a lot of people on Reddit, and I really doubt you can bring any hard facts to the argument that aren't well-known.

hef19898 8y ago
See, I am not convinced at all. It is reasonable to assume that SpaceX has lower development cost (it would be hard to be more expensive than Ariane and ULA so). Which means SpaceX reaches the program break-even point earlier. Launch costs on the other hand are driven by production cost mainly. And there I don't see any systematic advantage that would explain the lower prices SpaceX is advertising. I know that there is no such thing as a "standard" launch, but all numbers that are available point at higher prices than the $ 62M a Falcon 9 is advertised for. Reusable launchers are different story. And SpaceX is giving 30% discounts for them (source: SpaceX, Gwynn Shotwell). So yeah, if you can point out wrong assumptions or errors, I'm more than happy because I am not convinced of my analysis so far myself. EDIT: Typos... man, typing on the phone really is suboptimal for sentences with more than three words...
- singingboyo 8y ago
  > Which means SpaceX reaches the program break-even point earlier I mostly agree, but it's entirely possible that they just spread the cost out more, which would reduce the cost of individual launches. As far as production goes - my recollection is that SpaceX does a lot of in-house stuff, so they've got vertical integration going for them. Perhaps more importantly, they build their own engines, and lots of them (10 per rocket, as I believe MVac is similar enough to the first stage engines to use essentially the same production). That's a pretty big advantage over buying RD-180s like ULA. Also, doesn't SpaceX use essentially 'off-the-shelf' electrical components, and just use more if needed for redundancy? 'Space-grade' hardware isn't cheap, so if they really are avoiding that entirely, that could be a big win. Whatever the case, unfortunately for us, they're a private company - so this is all semi-educated guesswork. They definitely seem to be doing well, so clearly something somewhere is keeping those costs down.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Yep, I fully agree. Would be real fun to dig into SpaceX numbers. I'll just for the IPO then. And it is impressive what they achieved.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    An Mvac takes two weeks to build, vs about a day for a sea-level Merlin. It's not just a different bell. If a sea-level Merlin fails (and this has happened, I think on CRS-5) the remaining eight engines gimbal a bit and burn a bit longer. If the Mvac fails the second stage and payload are lost. So the vacuum engine is built to far higher standards than the sea-level engine. The Falcon 1 even went so far as to strip the most failure-prone part of the engine that could be eliminated, the turbopump, and simply pressure feed the vacuum engine. They called it Kestrel, but the combustion chamber and most of the rest of the motor (sans bell) was identical to the Merlin on the first stage.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  There's a NASA study that says that SpaceX has lower development cost. SpaceX has a volume advantage for manufacturing. SpaceX makes a lot of usually-contracted-out stuff in-house and at high volume, for example they are the #1 maker of composite rocket fairings. Horizontal assembly and payload integration is much cheaper than the way ULA/Arianespace assemble and launch rockets. The most recent announced number for F9 cost was $50mm for a reused+landed GTO launch -- see the FH press conference. And so on. There are a lot of details flying around, some more solid than others, and you're probably not going to learn much in a discussion about them here.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Which is a pitty, really. But hey, regardless of the result it was fun think about it!
- gliptic 8y ago
  As just one example, you say Google most likely saved SpaceX from bankruptcy in 2016. As far as I know, neither Google nor anyone else did any investment into SpaceX in 2016. Where are you getting your information? Also, have you not even considered the official reasons given for why SpaceX is cheaper? Namely vertical integration, extreme cost consciousness, use of off the shelve hardware, designs made to take advantage of economies of scale (several smaller engines per rocket instead of a few), the advantages of clean slate designs, and details like friction welding?
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Alphabet and some other fund (fidelity?) invested $ 1bn in, I think 2016. Could have been 2015 as well. I don't have the numbers ready right now. But I'm rather sure it was the year after a Falcon 9 exploded and they didn't launch for a couple of months.
    - gliptic 8y ago
      Well, it was in January of 2015, half a year before the CRS-7 anomaly. Google and Fidelity jointly invested $1 billion on a $10 billion valuation. You can't have been researching this very carefully.
      - hef19898 8y ago
        See, that's the reason I put it up there. And yes, citing stuff from the top of ones head usually doesn't help accuracy. HN is a great place to have that kind of discussion. So let me rephrase my statement: Alphabet and Fidelity invested $ 1 bn in January 2015, this helped to keep SpaceX afloat when in June 2015 a launch mishap resulted in a launch hiatus and subsequent loss of $ 260m in fiscal year 2015. Now even the timeline is correct.

hef19898 8y ago

See, I am not convinced at all. It is reasonable to assume that SpaceX has lower development cost (it would be hard to be more expensive than Ariane and ULA so). Which means SpaceX reaches the program break-even point earlier. Launch costs on the other hand are driven by production cost mainly. And there I don't see any systematic advantage that would explain the lower prices SpaceX is advertising. I know that there is no such thing as a "standard" launch, but all numbers that are available point at higher prices than the $ 62M a Falcon 9 is advertised for. Reusable launchers are different story. And SpaceX is giving 30% discounts for them (source: SpaceX, Gwynn Shotwell). So yeah, if you can point out wrong assumptions or errors, I'm more than happy because I am not convinced of my analysis so far myself. EDIT: Typos... man, typing on the phone really is suboptimal for sentences with more than three words...

singingboyo 8y ago
> Which means SpaceX reaches the program break-even point earlier I mostly agree, but it's entirely possible that they just spread the cost out more, which would reduce the cost of individual launches. As far as production goes - my recollection is that SpaceX does a lot of in-house stuff, so they've got vertical integration going for them. Perhaps more importantly, they build their own engines, and lots of them (10 per rocket, as I believe MVac is similar enough to the first stage engines to use essentially the same production). That's a pretty big advantage over buying RD-180s like ULA. Also, doesn't SpaceX use essentially 'off-the-shelf' electrical components, and just use more if needed for redundancy? 'Space-grade' hardware isn't cheap, so if they really are avoiding that entirely, that could be a big win. Whatever the case, unfortunately for us, they're a private company - so this is all semi-educated guesswork. They definitely seem to be doing well, so clearly something somewhere is keeping those costs down.
- hef19898 8y ago
  Yep, I fully agree. Would be real fun to dig into SpaceX numbers. I'll just for the IPO then. And it is impressive what they achieved.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  An Mvac takes two weeks to build, vs about a day for a sea-level Merlin. It's not just a different bell. If a sea-level Merlin fails (and this has happened, I think on CRS-5) the remaining eight engines gimbal a bit and burn a bit longer. If the Mvac fails the second stage and payload are lost. So the vacuum engine is built to far higher standards than the sea-level engine. The Falcon 1 even went so far as to strip the most failure-prone part of the engine that could be eliminated, the turbopump, and simply pressure feed the vacuum engine. They called it Kestrel, but the combustion chamber and most of the rest of the motor (sans bell) was identical to the Merlin on the first stage.
greglindahl 8y ago
There's a NASA study that says that SpaceX has lower development cost. SpaceX has a volume advantage for manufacturing. SpaceX makes a lot of usually-contracted-out stuff in-house and at high volume, for example they are the #1 maker of composite rocket fairings. Horizontal assembly and payload integration is much cheaper than the way ULA/Arianespace assemble and launch rockets. The most recent announced number for F9 cost was $50mm for a reused+landed GTO launch -- see the FH press conference. And so on. There are a lot of details flying around, some more solid than others, and you're probably not going to learn much in a discussion about them here.
- hef19898 8y ago
  Which is a pitty, really. But hey, regardless of the result it was fun think about it!
gliptic 8y ago
As just one example, you say Google most likely saved SpaceX from bankruptcy in 2016. As far as I know, neither Google nor anyone else did any investment into SpaceX in 2016. Where are you getting your information? Also, have you not even considered the official reasons given for why SpaceX is cheaper? Namely vertical integration, extreme cost consciousness, use of off the shelve hardware, designs made to take advantage of economies of scale (several smaller engines per rocket instead of a few), the advantages of clean slate designs, and details like friction welding?
- hef19898 8y ago
  Alphabet and some other fund (fidelity?) invested $ 1bn in, I think 2016. Could have been 2015 as well. I don't have the numbers ready right now. But I'm rather sure it was the year after a Falcon 9 exploded and they didn't launch for a couple of months.
  - gliptic 8y ago
    Well, it was in January of 2015, half a year before the CRS-7 anomaly. Google and Fidelity jointly invested $1 billion on a $10 billion valuation. You can't have been researching this very carefully.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      See, that's the reason I put it up there. And yes, citing stuff from the top of ones head usually doesn't help accuracy. HN is a great place to have that kind of discussion. So let me rephrase my statement: Alphabet and Fidelity invested $ 1 bn in January 2015, this helped to keep SpaceX afloat when in June 2015 a launch mishap resulted in a launch hiatus and subsequent loss of $ 260m in fiscal year 2015. Now even the timeline is correct.