5 ms·

Air Force Spending $60 Million for SpaceX U.S. Launches

48 points by velodrome 12y ago

dm2 12y ago
It seems like the $60 million is just to get SpaceX certified so that they can launch military satellites. Each launch will probably cost far more until their grasshopper system gets used. "Musk, 42, ranked 133rd on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index with a net worth of $9.2 billion as of May 13." Wow. "Davis said the Air Force estimates that SpaceX will be certified to receive contracts no later than May 2015." This Senate hearing explains some of the costs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE
- tankenmate 12y ago
  The DoD et alia are very conservative about launches; SpaceX would need at a bare minimum 5 "recycled" launches before they bought any, most likely more, as they don't have any previous experience buying quick turn around launches. Their closest analogous experience would be the space shuttle, but that typically went for a full head to toe check and refurbishment between launches. 5+ certified quick turn around launches would be at least several years away.
  - arjunnarayan 12y ago
    Yeah, but Musk can sell the DoD brand new rockets at full price (i.e. the disposable price), recover the first stage and keep it for himself/sell to more risk-seeking third parties like Orbcomm at a deep discount.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      That's the amazing thing about the Falcon 9R: they've managed to build a system where they can basically make a profit testing it. Nobody wants to use second-hand stages until they're proven? No big deal, just keep launching stuff as usual, and recover the first stages and test them until people are happy. At some point, some launch customer will observe that there have been N test launches of reused stages without incident, and thus it's worth buying a launch on one at a lower price. Since SpaceX is making money launching stuff anyway, they can take their time getting to whatever number N turns out to be.
      - dm2 12y ago
        I've never thought about that part but you are completely correct, and that is amazing and smart of them to do. The legs and computers are probably not too much more than a bolt-on kit that adds some weight to the rocket, the rocket will still preform as usual and the test is practically free (verses actually testing a new rocket design like other vertical landing rockets have tried).
        mikeash 12y ago
        Exactly. It does lower the maximum payload by something like 30%, so they can't use it for launching really heavy stuff. But if the customer's payload is within the limit, it just means bolting on legs and adding extra fuel. The total fuel cost of a launch is around $200,000 compared to $60 million total cost for the launch, so the cost of extra fuel is negligible. They've already done it twice (once without the legs and once with) while getting paid to launch payloads. The experimental part doesn't come into play until after the first stage has done its primary job, so there's no additional risk to the customer. This is why I think ongoing comparisons to the Shuttle and other reusable systems are completely wrong. Previous attempts have all been based on much more complicated and expensive vehicles that were expected to compensate by being reused. SpaceX is taking a system that's already one of the cheapest in the business (if not the cheapest?) and making some minor changes to reuse it and make it even cheaper. NASA had to reuse the Shuttle on its second flight ever. SpaceX can keep testing Falcon 9R for as long as customers are willing to pay for launches at their current prices, which looks to be quite a long time.
        dm2 12y ago
        Look how much will be recoverable in the Falcon Heavy reusable stages, the monetary savings there look massive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg It seems like such a simple solution to the cost problem (with the attachable reusable legs on existing flights) but I'm amazed that no other rocket company has done it until now, congratulations SpaceX. I guess it was mostly because of the rocket technology (relighting an engine), the new materials (probably carbon fiber legs), and the new/cheap/lightweight computer technologies available today. Hopefully there will be some great videos/pictures from the next test which will land closer to land: http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch
- mikeash 12y ago
  Yes, my first reaction was, at $60 million, there's no way they're paying for launches, plural. As I recall, a normal Falcon 9 launch is $60 million, and they estimate something like a $30 million premium for Air Force work due to the extra certification required. I have no real idea what Falcon 9R (reusable) launches will cost, and I'd hazard that SpaceX only has a rough idea for the moment, until they can actually see how the rockets withstand multiple launches. But the cool thing about their reusable program is that they're building it on top of a sustainable, economic conventional program, so they can take it slow and incrementally. Regarding Musk's net worth, a lot of that is tied up in stock of somewhat questionable value. He owns about a quarter of Tesla, for example, and with a current market cap of $23 billion, that'll account for around 2/3rds of his total net worth. Tesla isn't necessarily overvalued, but the stock value is heavily based on enormous future success, and unforeseen circumstances could bring it down in a way that a more established company might withstand. (To put it in perspective, Tesla is worth about half of what GM is worth, even though GM sells literally 100 times more cars. Again, it could very well be justified based on future performance, but it's uncertain.)
nobodyshere 12y ago
About time. The only sad thing is that the govt had to wait for someone to bite them in the arse (Russian counter-sanctions that is) to get back to action.
sschueller 12y ago
Does the US even have any engines for the short term? Sound like both Lockheed and Boeing are/were getting their engines from Russia.
- wolf550e 12y ago
  ULA's other rocket, the Boeing Delta IV uses engines designed and made in the US - the Rocketdyne RS-68[1]. The Delta IV is more expensive to fly than the Atlas V, for missions both launchers can do. Also, it is not manufactured in large numbers, though it can be, but only if given enough lead time. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68
  - furyg3 12y ago
    My understanding was also that they had many Russian rockets warehoused for national security launches.
    - dm2 12y ago
      2-3 years worth of Russian engines, but the contracts were for 5+ years, so if Russia banned exports of rockets to the US then we could be screwed without SpaceX or scrambling to produce our own engines at a much greater cost (most likely). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE
      - runlevel1 12y ago
        Based on the testimony in that video: The Delta IV and Atlas V have overlapping use cases. The Russian engine (RD-180) is only used in the Atlas V. So it would seem that they could shift to the Delta IV once the stockpile runs out. They also have the blueprints and specs for the RD-180. It would take a lot of time and money to ramp up production, but not as much as if they were building a new engine from scratch. That said, I do agree that the US would probably be screwed (in the wallet) without SpaceX.

48 points by velodrome 12y ago

dm2 12y ago

It seems like the $60 million is just to get SpaceX certified so that they can launch military satellites. Each launch will probably cost far more until their grasshopper system gets used. "Musk, 42, ranked 133rd on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index with a net worth of $9.2 billion as of May 13." Wow. "Davis said the Air Force estimates that SpaceX will be certified to receive contracts no later than May 2015." This Senate hearing explains some of the costs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE

tankenmate 12y ago
The DoD et alia are very conservative about launches; SpaceX would need at a bare minimum 5 "recycled" launches before they bought any, most likely more, as they don't have any previous experience buying quick turn around launches. Their closest analogous experience would be the space shuttle, but that typically went for a full head to toe check and refurbishment between launches. 5+ certified quick turn around launches would be at least several years away.
- arjunnarayan 12y ago
  Yeah, but Musk can sell the DoD brand new rockets at full price (i.e. the disposable price), recover the first stage and keep it for himself/sell to more risk-seeking third parties like Orbcomm at a deep discount.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    That's the amazing thing about the Falcon 9R: they've managed to build a system where they can basically make a profit testing it. Nobody wants to use second-hand stages until they're proven? No big deal, just keep launching stuff as usual, and recover the first stages and test them until people are happy. At some point, some launch customer will observe that there have been N test launches of reused stages without incident, and thus it's worth buying a launch on one at a lower price. Since SpaceX is making money launching stuff anyway, they can take their time getting to whatever number N turns out to be.
    - dm2 12y ago
      I've never thought about that part but you are completely correct, and that is amazing and smart of them to do. The legs and computers are probably not too much more than a bolt-on kit that adds some weight to the rocket, the rocket will still preform as usual and the test is practically free (verses actually testing a new rocket design like other vertical landing rockets have tried).
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Exactly. It does lower the maximum payload by something like 30%, so they can't use it for launching really heavy stuff. But if the customer's payload is within the limit, it just means bolting on legs and adding extra fuel. The total fuel cost of a launch is around $200,000 compared to $60 million total cost for the launch, so the cost of extra fuel is negligible. They've already done it twice (once without the legs and once with) while getting paid to launch payloads. The experimental part doesn't come into play until after the first stage has done its primary job, so there's no additional risk to the customer. This is why I think ongoing comparisons to the Shuttle and other reusable systems are completely wrong. Previous attempts have all been based on much more complicated and expensive vehicles that were expected to compensate by being reused. SpaceX is taking a system that's already one of the cheapest in the business (if not the cheapest?) and making some minor changes to reuse it and make it even cheaper. NASA had to reuse the Shuttle on its second flight ever. SpaceX can keep testing Falcon 9R for as long as customers are willing to pay for launches at their current prices, which looks to be quite a long time.
        dm2 12y ago
        Look how much will be recoverable in the Falcon Heavy reusable stages, the monetary savings there look massive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg It seems like such a simple solution to the cost problem (with the attachable reusable legs on existing flights) but I'm amazed that no other rocket company has done it until now, congratulations SpaceX. I guess it was mostly because of the rocket technology (relighting an engine), the new materials (probably carbon fiber legs), and the new/cheap/lightweight computer technologies available today. Hopefully there will be some great videos/pictures from the next test which will land closer to land: http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch
mikeash 12y ago
Yes, my first reaction was, at $60 million, there's no way they're paying for launches, plural. As I recall, a normal Falcon 9 launch is $60 million, and they estimate something like a $30 million premium for Air Force work due to the extra certification required. I have no real idea what Falcon 9R (reusable) launches will cost, and I'd hazard that SpaceX only has a rough idea for the moment, until they can actually see how the rockets withstand multiple launches. But the cool thing about their reusable program is that they're building it on top of a sustainable, economic conventional program, so they can take it slow and incrementally. Regarding Musk's net worth, a lot of that is tied up in stock of somewhat questionable value. He owns about a quarter of Tesla, for example, and with a current market cap of $23 billion, that'll account for around 2/3rds of his total net worth. Tesla isn't necessarily overvalued, but the stock value is heavily based on enormous future success, and unforeseen circumstances could bring it down in a way that a more established company might withstand. (To put it in perspective, Tesla is worth about half of what GM is worth, even though GM sells literally 100 times more cars. Again, it could very well be justified based on future performance, but it's uncertain.)

nobodyshere 12y ago

About time. The only sad thing is that the govt had to wait for someone to bite them in the arse (Russian counter-sanctions that is) to get back to action.

sschueller 12y ago

Does the US even have any engines for the short term? Sound like both Lockheed and Boeing are/were getting their engines from Russia.

wolf550e 12y ago
ULA's other rocket, the Boeing Delta IV uses engines designed and made in the US - the Rocketdyne RS-68[1]. The Delta IV is more expensive to fly than the Atlas V, for missions both launchers can do. Also, it is not manufactured in large numbers, though it can be, but only if given enough lead time. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68
- furyg3 12y ago
  My understanding was also that they had many Russian rockets warehoused for national security launches.
  - dm2 12y ago
    2-3 years worth of Russian engines, but the contracts were for 5+ years, so if Russia banned exports of rockets to the US then we could be screwed without SpaceX or scrambling to produce our own engines at a much greater cost (most likely). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE
    - runlevel1 12y ago
      Based on the testimony in that video: The Delta IV and Atlas V have overlapping use cases. The Russian engine (RD-180) is only used in the Atlas V. So it would seem that they could shift to the Delta IV once the stockpile runs out. They also have the blueprints and specs for the RD-180. It would take a lot of time and money to ramp up production, but not as much as if they were building a new engine from scratch. That said, I do agree that the US would probably be screwed (in the wallet) without SpaceX.