5 ms·

>Thanks to its reusable, low-cost Falcon 9 rocket, Is the Falcon 9 really low-cost or maybe is it that NASA and the American government is indirectly subsidizi

>Thanks to its reusable, low-cost Falcon 9 rocket, Is the Falcon 9 really low-cost or maybe is it that NASA and the American government is indirectly subsidizing the company by overpaying for their launch contracts? Rocket technology hasn't really changed in decades. Reusability is not a panacea. It increases complexity, decreases safety and much of the cost savings are mitigated by the fact that you have to carry extra fuel for the return back (thereby cutting into the amount of payload you can carry). The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers).

systemvoltage 6y ago
> Reusability is not a panacea. It increases complexity, decreases safety and much of the cost savings are mitigated by the fact that you have to carry extra fuel for the return back (thereby cutting into the amount of payload you can carry). All evidence points against this. Sure, but you left out the fact that the entire booster comes back to earth. This is absurd.
- avmich 6y ago
  Increase in complexity is relatively small, decrease in safety is small, part of cost savings related to extra fuel is rather insignificant. So, with any reasonable growing launch market reusability wins.
runj__ 6y ago
The US govt isn't the only customer though, if I'm not mistaken they're paying the market price just as everyone else? Sure they subsidise launch prices by creating a market, but they do that for all companies, right? SpaceX doesn't win all contracts.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Well .. there was a couple recent news reports that U.S. Space Force paid out $316 million for a single mission[1]. The excuse was that this high fee was required in order to make capital investments to the infrastructure ... So if the government pays for you to build out your infrastructure you then own and use to secure other contracts ... isn't that a subsidy? Do you not think that will make SpaceX more competitive in the market? ULA got similar treatment, so I'm not saying it's all SpaceX but they are living off of government dole (in a way that is more than just providing a competitive service to the government) [1]https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-forc...
  - Denvercoder9 6y ago
    > So if the government pays for you to build out your infrastructure you then own and use to secure other contracts ... isn't that a subsidy? The other contracts are key here. It's very unlikely that the vertical integration facility will be used for anything else than US government missions, as vertical integration is basically only useful for spy satellites. Without more details it's hard to judge whether the same is true for the West Coast upgrades and extended fairing, but it wouldn't surprise me if we see those only being used for government contracts.
  - jccooper 6y ago
    If a customer wants capabilites you don't have, and don't otherwise have a use for, they get to pay for it. The customer being a government doesn't make it a subsidy.
  - thinkcontext 6y ago
    The government paid for the development of that same infrastructure for ULA in the past so its not specific to SpaceX. National security is a unique customer with very specific needs, if they want it they'll have to pay for it.
dogma1138 6y ago
Nice try ULA.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> space shuttle was reusable No, it wasn't. It was sort of reusable, but only with a lot of expensive refurbishment. > I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers Modern materials and computer aided design tools are incomparable to those the Shuttle designers had. Also, SpaceX is less conflicted than NASA was when it designed the Shuttle.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Denvercoder9 6y ago
> The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers). It helps that SpaceX actually lets their engineers design the rocket, while the Space Shuttle was designed by Congress for defense missions that never happened. SpaceX engineers probably aren't better than NASA engineers (though the fact that they have a clear mission and actually get stuff done helps with recruiting the best talent). The SpaceX organisation is significantly better than NASA.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
> (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers) The software I write can do a lot more than similar software written in the 1970's. That doesn't make me a better software engineer, it means I have access to tools they didn't.
ericd 6y ago
>Rocket technology hasn't really changed in decades. Raptor is the first full-flow engine to have flown (not on commercial missions yet, though). There are a bunch of other changes, besides that.
- avmich 6y ago
  Here we should add a much bigger than what was standard number of telemetry channels SpaceX had (they e.g. were listening to sounds in the tank, among other things, which helped to uncover the problem), modern signalling equipment (Ethernet onboard the rocket as the main mean of communications?), build-a-little-test-a-little philosophy of software engineering (on display with Starship, but actually there from the beginning), little nuggets like lithium alloys and stir welding for stages, best in class (thrust/weight) Merlin (for open cycle combustion engines), Dragon, bringing payloads from ISS (something only Shuttle did in large volumes and masses - but Shuttle was a completely different spaceship class) etc.
irrational 6y ago
You are coming across as someone who is mad that your predictions for Space X's failure or demise didn't come true.
topspin 6y ago
> The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment We're well past the point where we risk discovering that SpaceX Falcon rockets are a "disappointment." Just so you know. > (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers) And ESA/Arianespace engineers are on par as well. Yet here we are. Has it occurred to you that this isn't really about the quality of engineers? Would you like to know what it is actually about?
jccooper 6y ago
The USG is paying SpaceX less than their (older, better connected) domestic competitors. Usually substantially less. Arianespace gets large direct subsidies, in addition to being paid more per launch by European governments (and commercial customers) than SpaceX. The subsidies talking point is dumb and needs to die, but I guess it's easier to try to deflect blame than, you know, compete.
thinkcontext 6y ago
> Is the Falcon 9 really low-cost or maybe is it that NASA and the American government is indirectly subsidizing the company by overpaying for their launch contracts? How can it be overpaying when they crushed the previous monopoly on launch held by ULA? It is known that both Delta and Atlas are a lot more expensive than F9. And that's been borne out when competing for government contracts, they pretty much always have the low bid and/or have forced their competitors to significantly lower their prices. ISS resupply 1 and 2, Commercial Crew, NROL launches, GPS launches, etc. Look back at the award process if you like. They did come in 2nd to Vulcan for the recent NSSL contract, which surprised a lot of people. Vulcan, of course, is a newly developed, as yet to be flown rocket and it looks like factors other than price made the difference.
nickik 6y ago
You are directly repeating the propaganda Arianespace and Russia has been pushing about SpaceX since the beginning. I would honestly advice you to rethink this before repeating stuff that is pushed by lots of Russian government channels. First of all, you are applying a total double standard. If you want to honestly analyses you need to look at all rockets and the amount of commercial support. If you are actually interest in the history, you will see that SpaceX got some money for ISS servicing. This money was conditional on flying lots of time, and they had to win the contract against a whole host of competitors. However this amount of money, was tiny compared to the development cost of say an Ariane 5 or Ariane 6. > Rocket technology hasn't really changed in decades. This depends on what you mean by 'changed'. Depending on how you look at it a lot has changed, another way of looking at it nothing has. You could make the argument we are still using lithium batteries today, so nothing has changed since the 90s, but that would be a terrible argument. And so it is for rockets, there clearly have been advancements that have changed the industry fundamentally since the 90s. > Reusability is not a panacea. It increases complexity, decreases safety and much of the cost savings are mitigated by the fact that you have to carry extra fuel for the return back (thereby cutting into the amount of payload you can carry). This is true. But again, please actually look at history. SpaceX started taking the majority of contracts BEFORE re-usability was a factor, before SpaceX had human space launches, or even DoD launches. SpaceX Falcon 9 was taking the majority of launch contracts simply based on rocket design and production. During this time they did not get any money from government for development and yet the improved the rocket every single year by a substantial amount. They developed re-usability themselves and thus were able to fly even more rockets. And pretty much every expert not paid by the Russian government has now admitted that re-usabiltiy is actually worth if for SpaceX. The fuel cost doesn't matter that much if your rocket is big enough to carry the required payload that the market demands. Often it would be hard to sell that extra payload to costumers anyway. It is simply false to say 'most of the savings are mitigated by fuel', this is simply not true. The construction of the booster cost 30 million, and its insane to argue that it is not worth it for them to recover that. Safety is not increased, as both very conservative NASA and DoD certification programs have shown. Reusable boosters have a 100% perfect flight record so far. Reusable boosters are certified for both human and the most expensive scientific missions. > The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment The Shuttle was partially reusable. Remember that gigantic orange tank? Yeah, that was thrown away. Solid can not really be reused as the cost is in the fuel manufacture. The Shuttle reused the 'box' of the solid boosters but basically replaced almost all of it. > (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers). This is just another terrible argument, where I don't even know where to start its so bad. SpaceX Falcon 9 booster reuse and Shuttle reuse are totally different concept. Shuttle is a second stage, orbital human capable vehicle. The Falcon 9 booster flies only a couple 100km into the ocean and then lands. Also, the Falcon 9 re-usability was designed in the year 2010-2019. They used modern tools, and used 10s of iterations, and multiple times evolved and adjusted the design. NASA engineers (actually contractors for the most part) had to basically figure out something that is much harder (second stage reuse) with 1960 technology and basically get it correct on the first try. You are simply creating false equivalency. Even so, nobody in the world today would deny that SpaceX had the best rocket building team in the world. They have top people vertically integrated from valves to structures, to engines. I don't think even NASA engineers working on SLS would deny that SpaceX has the best overall rocket team in the world.

systemvoltage 6y ago

> Reusability is not a panacea. It increases complexity, decreases safety and much of the cost savings are mitigated by the fact that you have to carry extra fuel for the return back (thereby cutting into the amount of payload you can carry). All evidence points against this. Sure, but you left out the fact that the entire booster comes back to earth. This is absurd.

avmich 6y ago
Increase in complexity is relatively small, decrease in safety is small, part of cost savings related to extra fuel is rather insignificant. So, with any reasonable growing launch market reusability wins.

runj__ 6y ago

The US govt isn't the only customer though, if I'm not mistaken they're paying the market price just as everyone else? Sure they subsidise launch prices by creating a market, but they do that for all companies, right? SpaceX doesn't win all contracts.

macspoofing 6y ago
Well .. there was a couple recent news reports that U.S. Space Force paid out $316 million for a single mission[1]. The excuse was that this high fee was required in order to make capital investments to the infrastructure ... So if the government pays for you to build out your infrastructure you then own and use to secure other contracts ... isn't that a subsidy? Do you not think that will make SpaceX more competitive in the market? ULA got similar treatment, so I'm not saying it's all SpaceX but they are living off of government dole (in a way that is more than just providing a competitive service to the government) [1]https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-forc...
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  > So if the government pays for you to build out your infrastructure you then own and use to secure other contracts ... isn't that a subsidy? The other contracts are key here. It's very unlikely that the vertical integration facility will be used for anything else than US government missions, as vertical integration is basically only useful for spy satellites. Without more details it's hard to judge whether the same is true for the West Coast upgrades and extended fairing, but it wouldn't surprise me if we see those only being used for government contracts.
- jccooper 6y ago
  If a customer wants capabilites you don't have, and don't otherwise have a use for, they get to pay for it. The customer being a government doesn't make it a subsidy.
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  The government paid for the development of that same infrastructure for ULA in the past so its not specific to SpaceX. National security is a unique customer with very specific needs, if they want it they'll have to pay for it.

dogma1138 6y ago

Nice try ULA.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> space shuttle was reusable No, it wasn't. It was sort of reusable, but only with a lot of expensive refurbishment. > I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers Modern materials and computer aided design tools are incomparable to those the Shuttle designers had. Also, SpaceX is less conflicted than NASA was when it designed the Shuttle.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Denvercoder9 6y ago

> The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers). It helps that SpaceX actually lets their engineers design the rocket, while the Space Shuttle was designed by Congress for defense missions that never happened. SpaceX engineers probably aren't better than NASA engineers (though the fact that they have a clear mission and actually get stuff done helps with recruiting the best talent). The SpaceX organisation is significantly better than NASA.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

> (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers) The software I write can do a lot more than similar software written in the 1970's. That doesn't make me a better software engineer, it means I have access to tools they didn't.

ericd 6y ago

>Rocket technology hasn't really changed in decades. Raptor is the first full-flow engine to have flown (not on commercial missions yet, though). There are a bunch of other changes, besides that.

avmich 6y ago
Here we should add a much bigger than what was standard number of telemetry channels SpaceX had (they e.g. were listening to sounds in the tank, among other things, which helped to uncover the problem), modern signalling equipment (Ethernet onboard the rocket as the main mean of communications?), build-a-little-test-a-little philosophy of software engineering (on display with Starship, but actually there from the beginning), little nuggets like lithium alloys and stir welding for stages, best in class (thrust/weight) Merlin (for open cycle combustion engines), Dragon, bringing payloads from ISS (something only Shuttle did in large volumes and masses - but Shuttle was a completely different spaceship class) etc.

irrational 6y ago

You are coming across as someone who is mad that your predictions for Space X's failure or demise didn't come true.

topspin 6y ago

> The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment We're well past the point where we risk discovering that SpaceX Falcon rockets are a "disappointment." Just so you know. > (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers) And ESA/Arianespace engineers are on par as well. Yet here we are. Has it occurred to you that this isn't really about the quality of engineers? Would you like to know what it is actually about?

jccooper 6y ago

The USG is paying SpaceX less than their (older, better connected) domestic competitors. Usually substantially less. Arianespace gets large direct subsidies, in addition to being paid more per launch by European governments (and commercial customers) than SpaceX. The subsidies talking point is dumb and needs to die, but I guess it's easier to try to deflect blame than, you know, compete.

thinkcontext 6y ago

> Is the Falcon 9 really low-cost or maybe is it that NASA and the American government is indirectly subsidizing the company by overpaying for their launch contracts? How can it be overpaying when they crushed the previous monopoly on launch held by ULA? It is known that both Delta and Atlas are a lot more expensive than F9. And that's been borne out when competing for government contracts, they pretty much always have the low bid and/or have forced their competitors to significantly lower their prices. ISS resupply 1 and 2, Commercial Crew, NROL launches, GPS launches, etc. Look back at the award process if you like. They did come in 2nd to Vulcan for the recent NSSL contract, which surprised a lot of people. Vulcan, of course, is a newly developed, as yet to be flown rocket and it looks like factors other than price made the difference.

nickik 6y ago

You are directly repeating the propaganda Arianespace and Russia has been pushing about SpaceX since the beginning. I would honestly advice you to rethink this before repeating stuff that is pushed by lots of Russian government channels. First of all, you are applying a total double standard. If you want to honestly analyses you need to look at all rockets and the amount of commercial support. If you are actually interest in the history, you will see that SpaceX got some money for ISS servicing. This money was conditional on flying lots of time, and they had to win the contract against a whole host of competitors. However this amount of money, was tiny compared to the development cost of say an Ariane 5 or Ariane 6. > Rocket technology hasn't really changed in decades. This depends on what you mean by 'changed'. Depending on how you look at it a lot has changed, another way of looking at it nothing has. You could make the argument we are still using lithium batteries today, so nothing has changed since the 90s, but that would be a terrible argument. And so it is for rockets, there clearly have been advancements that have changed the industry fundamentally since the 90s. > Reusability is not a panacea. It increases complexity, decreases safety and much of the cost savings are mitigated by the fact that you have to carry extra fuel for the return back (thereby cutting into the amount of payload you can carry). This is true. But again, please actually look at history. SpaceX started taking the majority of contracts BEFORE re-usability was a factor, before SpaceX had human space launches, or even DoD launches. SpaceX Falcon 9 was taking the majority of launch contracts simply based on rocket design and production. During this time they did not get any money from government for development and yet the improved the rocket every single year by a substantial amount. They developed re-usability themselves and thus were able to fly even more rockets. And pretty much every expert not paid by the Russian government has now admitted that re-usabiltiy is actually worth if for SpaceX. The fuel cost doesn't matter that much if your rocket is big enough to carry the required payload that the market demands. Often it would be hard to sell that extra payload to costumers anyway. It is simply false to say 'most of the savings are mitigated by fuel', this is simply not true. The construction of the booster cost 30 million, and its insane to argue that it is not worth it for them to recover that. Safety is not increased, as both very conservative NASA and DoD certification programs have shown. Reusable boosters have a 100% perfect flight record so far. Reusable boosters are certified for both human and the most expensive scientific missions. > The space shuttle was reusable and yet, it is generally seen as a disappointment The Shuttle was partially reusable. Remember that gigantic orange tank? Yeah, that was thrown away. Solid can not really be reused as the cost is in the fuel manufacture. The Shuttle reused the 'box' of the solid boosters but basically replaced almost all of it. > (and I don't believe for a second SpaceX engineers are better than NASA engineers). This is just another terrible argument, where I don't even know where to start its so bad. SpaceX Falcon 9 booster reuse and Shuttle reuse are totally different concept. Shuttle is a second stage, orbital human capable vehicle. The Falcon 9 booster flies only a couple 100km into the ocean and then lands. Also, the Falcon 9 re-usability was designed in the year 2010-2019. They used modern tools, and used 10s of iterations, and multiple times evolved and adjusted the design. NASA engineers (actually contractors for the most part) had to basically figure out something that is much harder (second stage reuse) with 1960 technology and basically get it correct on the first try. You are simply creating false equivalency. Even so, nobody in the world today would deny that SpaceX had the best rocket building team in the world. They have top people vertically integrated from valves to structures, to engines. I don't think even NASA engineers working on SLS would deny that SpaceX has the best overall rocket team in the world.