4 ms·

I'm not sure I agree. Mass production scales exponentially, sure, but that doesn't mean one producing two Falcon 9 Upper Stages per week isn't experiencing expo

I'm not sure I agree. Mass production scales exponentially, sure, but that doesn't mean one producing two Falcon 9 Upper Stages per week isn't experiencing exponentially more efficiencies than one producing a competing rocket at a rate of one per month. No matter how you cut it, more production is typically better for cost efficiencies.

panick21_ 3y ago
Yes its better, but my point is your not gone have cheap rocket launches because you produce 2 rockets a week. Your not gone beat a company that has rocket reuse. And you sure as shit wont compete with a larger reusable rocket.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Reusability isn't a panacea. Refurbishment is hand bespoke labor and its costs can add up quickly. The obvious example is the space shuttle, which cost $1B to refurbish. Elon has said that it costs 10% of new cost to refurbish a first stage. It's believed that a first stage costs $20M to make, so that puts refurb at about $2M. It's plausible that the first stage of a medium-class rocket can be built for less than $2M. Just barely plausible, but plausible. You're not going to do it if you pay $16M for a pair of BE-4 engines, but if you can get two Raptors for $250M apiece... The elephant in the room is Starship. Designed for reusability from the beginning, it's quite possible it pushes that $2M figure down besides reusing the second stage as well as the first.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    You can potentially build a small vehicle for the cost of a reused Falcon 9, but you don't compete on the rocket market, you compete on the payload to orbit market. > but if you can get two Raptors for $250M apiece... But if your competitor builds the same rocket with 3 Raptors that is reusable your still gone lose.
    - hirundo 3y ago
      They're aiming for $250K per Raptor, not M. The goal is less than $1K/ton of thrust.
      - panick21_ 3y ago
        I know but not sure what that has to do with the discussion on reusability? Sure if you have a $250K per Raptor that is mass produced then you can beat a reusable RS-25 that cost 140M.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      $250K per Raptor. Nasty typo that ruins my argument!
bumby 3y ago
It’s rarely discussed but a disproportionate amount of aerospace cost is quality control. High level QC doesn’t tend to scale as well as mass production.
- bhouston 3y ago
  I think as you do more pieces you can invest in more automated ways of doing QC as well. As the increased fixed cost for the QC infrastructure is amortized across the larger number of produced units.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    It all adds up. Scaling up production requires simplifying both product design and the entire process, minimizing the amount of complex manual work and bespoke components. That reduces QA/QC workload as well.
    - bumby 3y ago
      A lot of the QA cost is with pedigree and traceability and that doesn’t scale nearly as well. A $1k bolt isn’t expensive because it’s a bespoke design; it’s expensive because you have to maintain tight control from everything from material coupons to storage. This is one area that makes a lot of manufacturers balk at the selling to aerospace companies; the amount of QC work just doesn't make sense for the amount of product they're making. Another area is supplier control, which SpaceX has struggled with in the past. That doesn't scale well either, but maybe they can bring that cost down by vertical integration of manufacturing (although that doesn't really help as much for the pedigree cost).
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Yes, but I believe there are still synergies here. A $1k bolt may be expensive because of QA, but if you're making/buying enough of them, it could make sense to change the QA process to one that has higher false positive rate, but is cheaper to perform. Even if the change makes you throw every other bolt out, most of them perfectly good by the old process, if the new process means dropping per-item-cost from $1k to $250, it's very much worth it. In a similar way, increased scale also makes it reasonable to invest up front to redesign the final product so it doesn't need any of those $1k bolts in the first place.
rbanffy 3y ago
There is also a point where you simply run out of either payloads or launchpads and processing facilities. While it's arguable that running out of payloads isn't at all bad, as it opens the market for more competitive pricing, running out of launchpads and facilities to use requires sizeable investment that, in turn, requires higher cadence to be profitable.

panick21_ 3y ago

Yes its better, but my point is your not gone have cheap rocket launches because you produce 2 rockets a week. Your not gone beat a company that has rocket reuse. And you sure as shit wont compete with a larger reusable rocket.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Reusability isn't a panacea. Refurbishment is hand bespoke labor and its costs can add up quickly. The obvious example is the space shuttle, which cost $1B to refurbish. Elon has said that it costs 10% of new cost to refurbish a first stage. It's believed that a first stage costs $20M to make, so that puts refurb at about $2M. It's plausible that the first stage of a medium-class rocket can be built for less than $2M. Just barely plausible, but plausible. You're not going to do it if you pay $16M for a pair of BE-4 engines, but if you can get two Raptors for $250M apiece... The elephant in the room is Starship. Designed for reusability from the beginning, it's quite possible it pushes that $2M figure down besides reusing the second stage as well as the first.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  You can potentially build a small vehicle for the cost of a reused Falcon 9, but you don't compete on the rocket market, you compete on the payload to orbit market. > but if you can get two Raptors for $250M apiece... But if your competitor builds the same rocket with 3 Raptors that is reusable your still gone lose.
  - hirundo 3y ago
    They're aiming for $250K per Raptor, not M. The goal is less than $1K/ton of thrust.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      I know but not sure what that has to do with the discussion on reusability? Sure if you have a $250K per Raptor that is mass produced then you can beat a reusable RS-25 that cost 140M.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    $250K per Raptor. Nasty typo that ruins my argument!

bumby 3y ago

It’s rarely discussed but a disproportionate amount of aerospace cost is quality control. High level QC doesn’t tend to scale as well as mass production.

bhouston 3y ago
I think as you do more pieces you can invest in more automated ways of doing QC as well. As the increased fixed cost for the QC infrastructure is amortized across the larger number of produced units.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  It all adds up. Scaling up production requires simplifying both product design and the entire process, minimizing the amount of complex manual work and bespoke components. That reduces QA/QC workload as well.
  - bumby 3y ago
    A lot of the QA cost is with pedigree and traceability and that doesn’t scale nearly as well. A $1k bolt isn’t expensive because it’s a bespoke design; it’s expensive because you have to maintain tight control from everything from material coupons to storage. This is one area that makes a lot of manufacturers balk at the selling to aerospace companies; the amount of QC work just doesn't make sense for the amount of product they're making. Another area is supplier control, which SpaceX has struggled with in the past. That doesn't scale well either, but maybe they can bring that cost down by vertical integration of manufacturing (although that doesn't really help as much for the pedigree cost).
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Yes, but I believe there are still synergies here. A $1k bolt may be expensive because of QA, but if you're making/buying enough of them, it could make sense to change the QA process to one that has higher false positive rate, but is cheaper to perform. Even if the change makes you throw every other bolt out, most of them perfectly good by the old process, if the new process means dropping per-item-cost from $1k to $250, it's very much worth it. In a similar way, increased scale also makes it reasonable to invest up front to redesign the final product so it doesn't need any of those $1k bolts in the first place.

rbanffy 3y ago

There is also a point where you simply run out of either payloads or launchpads and processing facilities. While it's arguable that running out of payloads isn't at all bad, as it opens the market for more competitive pricing, running out of launchpads and facilities to use requires sizeable investment that, in turn, requires higher cadence to be profitable.