I know the costs but can not reveal them.

Do you know the costs or the prices? Because if the prices are with 2/3 to 3/4 of those of ULA that may merely reflect a discount SpaceX has to offer to compensate for its much more limited track record. As SpaceX builds up a record, prices may increase to reflect that. That says very little about costs.

“I know the costs but can not reveal them.”

Understandable, and in fact laudable, especially since we’re debating space politics, not doing investigative reporting.

However that means that unless you can point to public sources of information to strengthen your points & positions, then you’re at a disadvantage. Not that you can’t state your opinions, but that any doubt cast is hard to lift.

However, on Space Politics, even facts don’t stand in the way of a good Ares I defense…

I know the costs but can not reveal them.

“I’m curious about this Byeman.

Is it just because Falcon 9 can’t deliver as much to GTO as Atlas/Delta, or is it more than that?”

It is true that the design of Atlas V and Delta IV provide for a number of launch payload capacity variations depending on the number of SRB’s that are used. The base Atlas V 401 has a capacity to GTO of 4,750kg, whereas Falcon 9 does 4,540kg (96% of the 401). But if you need 5,000kg to GTO, then Falcon 9 cannot help you.

However, there are a number of sub-markets that one can target in the launch business, and SpaceX has obviously decided not to chase ULA in all of them, but to focus on the ones where they can be disruptive. If you look at the theory behind disruptive innovation, you’ll see the following, which looks like what SpaceX is doing:

“[Wikipedia] Clayton M. Christensen defines a disruptive innovation as a product or service designed for a new a set of customers.

“Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream.”

For SpaceX, their $59M Falcon 9 is sized very well for the emerging cargo & crew LEO services field (plus other other stuff too).

Where the next market disruption will come from is Falcon 9 Heavy, which is currently priced at $95M – I think this is an introductory price, but will stay well below Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5. Another factor is that Falcon 9 Heavy can put 19,500kg into GTO, versus 12,980kg for Delta IV Heavy and 10,500kg for Ariane 5. While no current payloads need Falcon 9 Heavy, it’s price means that customers can choose it for payloads that would have normally gone for much smaller launchers like Atlas V 551, and still save money.

The next few years will be very interesting in the launcher market…

“Inclusion in the NLS II contract is meaningless, winning a launch service task order is what matters. Spacex was on the NLS I and failed to win any task orders that were competed.”

Since NLS I was originally awarded in 1999, you obviously know that SpaceX was only recently added (per the onramp provision), and since they are still in test for the Falcon 9, they would not have had an opportunity to launch anything for NASA yet. However, once they become operational, NASA now has them listed under NLS II, which IS an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task order contract.

Now maybe what you really meant is that NASA has not assigned them a payload yet, and that’s obviously because 1). they don’t have any Falcon 1 class payloads at this time, and 2) Falcon 9 is not yet operational. Since the leadtimes on the Falcon 9 alternatives are much longer (Atlas & Delta), it would not be prudent to assign Falcon 9 any payloads yet. No big deal.

“Not true. They are already within 2/3 to 3/4 of ULA”

What is the advertised price for Atlas V 401, and how current is it (what year is it as of)?

According to your math, with a current Falcon 9 price of $59M, you’re estimating that Atlas V 401 is priced between $79-89M/flight.

Again I’ll point back to what the ULA President, Michael Gass, stated last year, which was if NASA paid $400M to “man-rate” Atlas V, then ULA would charge $130M/flight. Since ULA is only charging for the launcher, and not the payload, then it’s hard to see how much less an Atlas V would be WITHOUT being “man-rated”.

The ball is back in your court to prove your cost assumptions.

The rest of the non Iridium F-9 contracts are place holders. Watch how they will always be 2-3 years in the future or just plain disappear.

I’m curious about this Byeman.

What makes SpaceX’s systems so incredibly bad that you think they won’t get any new contracts? Is Falcon 9 really that bad of a launcher?

Is it just because Falcon 9 can’t deliver as much to GTO as Atlas/Delta, or is it more than that?

also, F-1 contracts don’t matter, there is little competition in that area.

The rest of the non Iridium F-9 contracts are place holders. Watch how they will always be 2-3 years in the future or just plain disappear.

“they have quite a few years, if not decades, to go before they get even close to what ULA charges.”

Not true. They are already within 2/3 to 3/4 of ULA

Are you kidding?

ORBCOMM – Multiple flights
2011-2014
Falcon 1e
Kwajalein

MDA Corp. (Canada)
2011
Falcon 9
Cape Canaveral

CONAE (Argentina)
2012
Falcon 9
Vandenberg**

Spacecom (Israel)
2012
Falcon 9
Cape Canaveral**

CONAE (Argentina)
2013
Falcon 9
Vandenberg**

NSPO (Taiwan)
2013
Falcon 1e
Kwajalein

Space Systems/Loral
2014
Falcon 9
Cape Canaveral**

Astrium (Europe)
2014
Falcon 1e
Kwajalein

Iridium – Multiple flights
2015-2017
Falcon 9
Vandenberg

C’mon, people…

“2. ULA costs are not increasing and certainly not at the rate of Spacex’s. Spacex has yet to win a relevant NASA spacecraft launch”

On September 23rd, SpaceX was one of four launch companies that won inclusion on the $15B NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract, which provides a broad range of launch services for NASA planetary, earth-observing, exploration and scientific satellites. It was in the news – did you miss it?

Regarding “costs”, I second Rand’s statement that cost’s should not be confused with prices. SpaceX’s prices have gone up some, but since they are so far under anyone else’s, they have quite a few years, if not decades, to go before they get even close to what ULA charges.

No one here knows whether or not SpaceX’s costs are increasing, or by how much. Don’t confuse cost with price.