Discussion SpaceX - where can we find its current position in history?

[N_Molson]

I think that the idea behind the Falcon-Heavy is that it would become cheap if there were very numerous launches of Falcon-derivatives, to benefit from the first stage mass production cost-reduction effects.

But we're very very far from that right now.

SLS won't even become active. It's another dead horse from NASA.

It's cool to have a foreseer around there :crystalball:

 

[FADEC]

Well, why then fund a company who never become on a day really private?

Because it already offers what NASA sadly doesn't: cheaper access to space.

NASA can also theoretical build and study cheap rockets and a cheap spacecraft.

The problem is that NASA practically doesn't. Constellation was the biggest fail. Apollo was successful technologically and scientifically, but from a budget point of view and sustainability it also was a fail. STS as well, but at least we got the most scientific results from that program. More than from Apollo I guess.

And the Falcon-heavy become cancelled after 5-6 launches, because there is no one who is really interested in the Falcon-heavy. Also, its very unsure how much it really gonna cost.

If there would be a NASA program which is based on a Falcon Heavy it likely wouldn't get canceled. Just the way SpaceX got Falcon 9 operative for ISS support.

It's cool to have a foreseer around there :crystalball:

Ever since Constellation almost everyone knows the situation NASA finds itself in. And this didn't magically change only because they have a new job keeping program which offers basically animations and pictures once again but nothing that is close to rolling out of the VAB. Just like they did with Constellation.

 

[Alfastar]

Because it already offers what NASA sadly doesn't: cheaper access to space

Cheaper access? I don't think it become cheaper if NASA don't fund it 95% of SpaceX

The problem is that NASA practically doesn't. Constellation was the biggest fail. Apollo was successful technologically and scientifically, but from a budget point of view and sustainability it also was a fail. STS as well, but at least we got the most scientific results from that program. More than from Apollo I guess

Well, Apollo was a good program, but it was more because no American was will to have a soviet on the moon first. Budget fail? Not really. If you call that a Budget fail, then you can call the whole SpaceX company a budget fail, because it never, NEVER gonna be private, and only cares about a new Dragon design, or a new update of the Falcon first stage. And most lead to nothing, or even higher cost. And, without the STS, you never seen the ISS coming to be what it is today, no HST, no satellite repairs in space, ect.

If there would be a NASA program which is based on a Falcon Heavy it likely wouldn't get canceled. Just the way SpaceX got Falcon 9 operative for ISS support

And here we begin again the fact that SpaceX is nowhere without NASA funds. You can't fund something as SpaceX longer then 5 years on the ratio there doing now. There must learn to become a private spaceflight company / space agency, and not become a long-term project what don't survive in the private world. SpaceX need to move there view, and must much more focus on private contractors for launches. Profit is a MUST-DO in the private world. Or is SpaceX goal to become a pet of NASA, and have a very unstable launch cost, because the NASA funds make the rocket cheaper, or more costly (That last happens when NASA cuts on funds to SpaceX).

 

[FADEC]

Cheaper access?

NASA spent 10 billion USD on something that never flew. While SpaceX didn't only develop and launch a rocket for only a few hundred mio. USD, but also does service the ISS.

I don't think it become cheaper if NASA don't fund it 95% of SpaceX

NASA doesn't fund 95% of SpaceX as far as I know, but a little more than 50%.

Well, Apollo was a good program, but it was more because no American was will to have a soviet on the moon first. Budget fail? Not really.

No one was interested in the SaturnV, not even in the Saturn1b, because it was too expensive. Those things were build to beat the Russians no matter the costs. The program was anything but sustainable while the scientific outcome in terms of astronomy/researching the Moon actually was minor. It was canceled with good reasons.

If you call that a Budget fail, then you can call the whole SpaceX company a budget fail, because it never, NEVER gonna be private, and only cares about a new Dragon design, or a new update of the Falcon first stage. And most lead to nothing, or even higher cost.

SpaceX manages to design, build and launch a payload lifting rocket for only a few hundred billion USD, while NASA manages to spend billions on bloated programs that never see the light of reality. That's the huge difference if we talk about how budget is being used or rather wasted.

And, without the STS, you never seen the ISS coming to be what it is today, no HST, no satellite repairs in space, ect.

A space station can be build without the Shuttle. Mir was quite impressive already. And future space stations will be impressive as well without doubt. It's not that it is impossible without Shuttles, but just different.

And here we begin again the fact that SpaceX is nowhere without NASA funds.

That's a fact which I already mentioned, but it's not the point. The point is that SpaceX does do it cheaper, with less employees.

Constellation wasn't justifiable, and they stopped it for good reasons. In other words: it was utter insane. And I don't see a SLS lifting off the pad. Especially because there are nor payloads for it, while the rocket is "slightly" oversized for Orion.

SpaceX does something with useful results. No matter if it ever becomes fully private. But it shows that less money cane be spend on something that shows real results and doesn't only amaze people by animations and quarterly reports wich report that there is actually nothing to report but bathing mock-up capsules.

 

[T.Neo]

because it never, NEVER gonna be private,

What definition of 'private' is relevant for the purposes of this discussion? SpaceX is not wholly or partially owned by the government, which already qualifies it as private in many people's view.

 

[garyw]

From SpaceX's website:

PROFILE

SpaceX is a private company owned by management and employees, with minority investments from Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and Valor Equity Partners.

So there you have it. Private.

 

[Alfastar]

NASA spent 10 billion USD on something that never flew. While SpaceX didn't only develop and launch a rocket for only a few hundred mio. USD, but also does service the ISS

Got you any very serious facts that the SLS never gonna be launched? And again, developed thanks by NASA Funds. SpaceX don't developed anything after the Falcon-1 without NASA funds.

NASA doesn't fund 95% of SpaceX as far as I know, but a little more than 50%

Well, for every Falcon-9 launch, there is mostly thanked by NASA. Same for the Falcon-heavy, and the Dragon. It is not 95%, but also not a little bit more then 50%. More between the 60-75% And this means that SpaceX can't survive without NASA, and this means also that it is nothing more ATM then a government-owned company.

No one was interested in the SaturnV, not even in the Saturn1b, because it was too expensive. Those things were build to beat the Russians no matter the costs. The program was anything but sustainable while the scientific outcome in terms of astronomy/researching the Moon actually was minor. It was canceled with good reasons

The Saturn rocket family was mostly be launched because nobody in America was like to see a Russian on the moon. Agree, the Saturn program was not cheap.

SpaceX manages to design, build and launch a payload lifting rocket for only a few hundred billion USD, while NASA manages to spend billions on bloated programs that never see the light of reality. That's the huge difference if we talk about how budget is being used or rather wasted

Pfff, do you forget the Falcon-1e and the Falcon-5? There never seen the light of reality also! NASA SLS-Orion program got a good chance to seen be launched, and stay active after 5 years. The Falcon-heavy not. NASA known to spend there budget, but politics are mostly the reason to have too less funds for programs. And NASA can build also cheaper stuff, but there don't focus on that ATM.

A space station can be build without the Shuttle. Mir was quite impressive already. And future space stations will be impressive as well without doubt. It's not that it is impossible without Shuttles, but just different

Pfff, Mir was long not so colossal as the ISS is today. And mostly because the Space Shuttle, the ISS is a big, good space station.

That's a fact which I already mentioned, but it's not the point. The point is that SpaceX does do it cheaper, with less employees

Cheaper? Let see how cheap it still is when NASA cuts on the funds for SpaceX.

Constellation wasn't justifiable, and they stopped it for good reasons. In other words: it was utter insane. And I don't see a SLS lifting off the pad. Especially because there are nor payloads for it, while the rocket is "slightly" oversized for Orion

oversized? No. The SLS-Orion program is not for ISS stuff, but for serious plans to send people on the moon, landing on the moon, and even manned asteroid and mars missions. And maybe the SLS gonna launch on a day stuff for a lunar base.

SpaceX does something with useful results. No matter if it ever becomes fully private. But it shows that less money cane be spend on something that shows real results and doesn't only amaze people by animations and quarterly reports wich report that there is actually nothing to report but bathing mock-up capsules.

Every space agency does something with useful results. And its a matter that SpaceX become private, because no one government will hold this project more then 10 years. Don't we think that cuts are at this time more a basic thing by NASA every year? Sadly, but that is true.

Amaze people by animations and quarterly reports? Well, look to all private manned mars ideas at this times. You find all of them in that list. Even that Red Dragon idea of SpaceX is something very unlikely to happens, because that concept is never tested really, and most stuff of it must still come. And don't say that NASA is also someone with only animations and quarterly reports, because NASA did much more in more then 50 years then SpaceX got done ATM.

From SpaceX's website:



So there you have it. Private.

Pfff, You can't call a company private if it needs government funds to stay alive. More then 50% of there funds are from the government, and that is totally not something what is in the name of the private world!

 

[garyw]

Pfff, You can't call a company private if it needs government funds to stay alive. More then 50% of there funds are from the government, and that is totally not something what is in the name of the private world!

What? It is a private owned company that has a Government based contract. Many hundreds of companies in the UK, USA and beyond operate the same way. Check out Accenture, they do a huge amount of government paid work but are still a private company.

I worked for a company, a private company that had G-Cloud accreditation, that is it has security in datacenters that allow it to host GOVERNMENT systems and get paid by the Government.

Or are you seriously saying that any company which gets a government contract isn't private?

 

[T.Neo]

Pfff, You can't call a company private if it needs government funds to stay alive.

The definition of 'private company' is 'privately owned', not "majority of revenue from non-government sources". As much as we can scrutinise or criticise a reliance on government contracts by SpaceX, it's still a private company, unless we are to make up a definition of 'private company' that excludes companies with such a reliance- which would also likely exclude various other US aerospace companies.

 

[FADEC]

You are missing the point Alfastar. Whether SpaceX is funded by NASA or privately funded does not change the fact that SpaceX does support the ISS for less money as if NASA would use Ares 1 and Orion as initially intended. NASA has spend 10 billion USD on Constellation with no flying results to this day. But meanwhile SpaceX services the ISS and potentially could carry astronauts to space - they have the launcher flying and the spacecraft flying.

Without SpaceX there would be no ISS support from the US side anymore. SpaceX is a chance to get things done by less money and in a more or less predictable timeframe. And since NASA is the biggest customer, they pay for it. Just like they pay other companies.

As for SLS: there is no payload for it, except Orion.

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

Pfff, You can't call a company private if it needs government funds to stay alive. More then 50% of there funds are from the government, and that is totally not something what is in the name of the private world!

Even if SpaceX would be 100% owned by NASA, it still does offer cheap access to space and support of the ISS. Whether it is private or not doesn't matter.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

As for SLS: there is no payload for it, except Orion.

True, but there is at least one reasonable application for an HLV like that. Until we learn to store LH2 on-orbit without boiloff, launching a main propulsion stage all in one go isnt such a bad idea. It would certainly be overpowered for just Orion on its own

 

[Alfastar]

What? It is a private owned company that has a Government based contract. Many hundreds of companies in the UK, USA and beyond operate the same way. Check out Accenture, they do a huge amount of government paid work but are still a private company.

I worked for a company, a private company that had G-Cloud accreditation, that is it has security in datacenters that allow it to host GOVERNMENT systems and get paid by the Government.

Or are you seriously saying that any company which gets a government contract isn't private?

Well, I think I don't told it good. What I mean is that SpaceX got funds from NASA to stay alive. Even if the Falcon-9 launch something else then a Dragon, then uncle NASA pays for it. No matter of it is a commercial satellite.

Government paid work is something really else then government support (government aid) to stay alive. The first is good, and a lot of companies got that system. The second is bad, and that is also the problem by SpaceX. There need government support to stay alive. And SpaceX does almost nothing to find private companies who will launch there satellite also.

You are missing the point Alfastar. Whether SpaceX is funded by NASA or privately funded does not change the fact that SpaceX does support the ISS for less money as if NASA would use Ares 1 and Orion as initially intended. NASA has spend 10 billion USD on Constellation with no flying results to this day. But meanwhile SpaceX services the ISS and potentially could carry astronauts to space - they have the launcher flying and the spacecraft flying

Well, the Ares-I was a failed design. But the problem with you point that NASA can't everything, and SpaceX can everything, is that NASA programs got always the risk to been have a cut on it. And this is also why SpaceX needs to find also private companies who are interested in launching a satellite. Because cuts are almost normal in this times, and this means that SpaceX got on a day less government-support money to stay alive.

Without SpaceX there would be no ISS support from the US side anymore. SpaceX is a chance to get things done by less money and in a more or less predictable timeframe. And since NASA is the biggest customer, they pay for it. Just like they pay other companies

There is a different between having a government customer and government support funds to stay alive. Anyway, you got a point there. SpaceX can re-live the American part of the ISS, and can even return stuff to earth safely.

As for SLS: there is no payload for it, except Orion

Do you think the SLS is made for GEO launches? No, the SLS is pure made for Orion missions beyond earth.

Even if SpaceX would be 100% owned by NASA, it still does offer cheap access to space and support of the ISS. Whether it is private or not doesn't matter.

Cheap access, yes. But at a very unstable rate. If NASA cuts on government aid to stay SpaceX alive, then the price rise.

I'm curious how much a Falcon-9 launch really cost without government aid.

 

[Mader Levap]

And the Falcon-heavy become cancelled after 5-6 launches

Manifest (three flights), DoD and Intelsat says otherwise. That darn reality again.

For something that you predict it will launch only 5-6 times over lifetime of launch system, they sure haven't any trouble getting 3 flights already almost year before first flight.

because there is no one who is really interested in the Falcon-heavy.

You seem to think that FH was developed and spent money on for giggles. It have one clear destination: GTO - very popular place for commercial satellites, mainly telecommunication. F9 is too weak, and FH is ideal for this purpose. In fact, SpaceX predicts that in future, half of their launches will be done with FH. It suggests they think they will have no problems with acquiring customers for it.

Also, other providers' launchers with similar capabilities (Ariane 5, Atlas V, Delta IV etc) somehow get use and are regularly launched, both for goverment and for private sector. So yeah, you have no basis whatsoever for this claim.

 

[Urwumpe]

So there you have it. Private.

So is Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and even Energia or Chrunichev. EADS Astrium would not count there, since the German and French government are more or less directly owners.

What is new in SpaceX then?

Also CASSOIPE is not a private payload. It is paid by the CSA, the Canadian Space Agency. Again, tax payers money is risked on a SpaceX vessel - not the private capital of people who own a company, but the taxes of other people.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Manifest (three flights), DoD and Intelsat says otherwise. That darn reality again.

The manifest lists intentions that far into the future (for some payloads, it would be impossible even telling when they will be ready for launch) - only for the test flights you have contracts for easily expendable payloads, that likely had been signed for a friendship price - if they are already signed at all.

 

[AlfalfaQc]

I really don't see what the big deal about private funding is... Here in canada (at least in quebec), the vast majority of the civil enginerring company depends on the government and city contract. Without those, they would literrally not exist. The same goes for SpaceX in this case. They are privately owned, that makes them a private company.

Now, I understand that if you cut funding from NASA, they would be in some trouble because they don't have other contracts (so far). But saying that is like saying saying that our governement will stop building road or bridge or that kind of stuff. NASA need the service, why would they stop paying for it.

As for CASSIOPE, even though it is not private since it is for the Canadian governement, I almost count it as a private payload. But again, who cares where the money comes from. Canadian governement is still a client who needs to put a payload in orbit. This money from canadian taxes is as valuable as the money from investors.

If we consider the NASA funding to be the ''problem'', I would still consider CASSIOPE and other space agency as ''private'' or ''external sources of money.


PS: Sorry for the necropost, I wanted to add my grain of salt

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Can't find a better thread to put this up, so here it goes.....

Two days ago there was a rare direct confrontation between the Elon Musk and ULA's CEO Michael Gass on a US Senate Appropriations Committee meeting about the launch contracts of the US military spacecrafts (a.k.a. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-class contracts). Whatever your side is on, the arguments about the competitiveness of the Atlas V and Delta IV vs the Falcons should be a good read for tonight. :tiphat:

NASASpaceflight.com: SpaceX and ULA go toe-to-toe over EELV contracts

Here's the archived complete meeting: link & statements: link