“That would be about 50 flights per year of the F9 or a few less if you toss in a few F9 heavy launches which use 27 engines per flight.”

There was an article in a composites magazine earlier this year that interviewed the manufacturing people at SpaceX. They said their current F9 tank assembly tooling would support one body every 3 weeks. I assumed it was only the 1st stage, and I would imagine they use the same fixture for the 2nd stage too for now. That would give them a capacity of at around 12 common cores per year – as many as 12 F9, or 4 F9Heavy.

Once they get enough momentum going, I’m sure they have planned to add more production lines – maybe one line on the East Coast? Falcon X and XX (if funded) would likely be built near the launch site, so an East Coast production facility makes a lot of sense at some point in the future. Perhaps Shelby would lobby for it to be set up in Alabama…

Regarding reusability, I think they are planning for the worst, while working on the best. Other than Shuttle, no one else has reused rocket engines of that size, and no one has reused rocket bodies. Truly rocket science, and only time will tell…

Of course, should the demand materialize, there would be a business case in investing further in launch infrastructure. But given Falcon I modest demand and launch rates, its hard to see the floodgates opening …

I find this quite credible.

I recall reading that an RL-10 rocket motor is somewhat less sophisticated than state of the art gas turbine helicopter motors that cost ~$100,000 to make. The reason RL-10s cost seven figures each and helo motors cost $100K is that thousands or tens of thousands of helo motors are sold each year while RL-10 production is in the small single digits.

Of course, if SpaceX reuses those engines, the price per engine goes up because they need fewer if them.

I can not find the link now for the video but Elon said at one point he was setting up the engine production line for around 500 engines a year? One of the reasons he went with 9 small engines is it was cheaper to both develop and build. I think he said each engine cost about 1 mil+ a pop and that could be cut that in half if he can build about 500 a year, or 1mil per engine if he builds 500. Wish I could find the link, sorry.

That would be about 50 flights per year of the F9 or a few less if you toss in a few F9 heavy launches which use 27 engines per flight. So I definately think he has his eye on really high flight rates.

Its not about the expense, not yet anyway.
Its about the ability to do quick turnaround and reflight, so that at least there is potential to get into price ranges that are largely determined by propellant costs.

>>My point is that you are comapring apple with oranges.
I was not comparing the system capabilities or costs. I said that SS1 flights demonstrated something far significant that has bigger effects on breaking existing paradigms.

BTW, SpaceX demonstrated flight rate so far has been pretty low. This is not to say that a lot higher potential is not there. If they really end up doing 30-40 flights a year that would be magnificent.

However i think there are some significant roadblocks on the way, range availability being one of them for instance.

>>Your statements demonstrate your ignorance wrt sub-orbital versus orbital spaceflight.

And you are entirely missing the point.

“Why i don’t see it as significant as SS1 for instance, is that their system is not going to break the paradigm of inherently low flight rates, ”

And you base this remark on what exactly? How do you know? My point is that you are comapring apple with oranges. SS1/2 is suborbital and of course a lot less expensive to design and operate. An orbital version of SS is not here yet that I know. And even if it were the cost would be a lot larger than that of SS1/2 and of Dragon. Even if reusable. It would take a very large number of fights to ammortize the development cost.

Your statements demonstrate your ignorance wrt sub-orbital versus orbital spaceflight. The latter is so much more difficult than the former and the technology requirement is consequently also so much more difficult.
Try doing some research before posting. Check out such things as energy , telemetry and guidance requirements and you might then take a reality check.

“Contractors that launch the shuttle get government money to launch things. SpaceX is getting government money to launch things. How are they (SpaceX) commercial and USA, Boeing, etc… is not commercial? Why does everyone think SpaceX is in some special category….Goofy.”

You’re confusing two issues. First, let’s talk about getting paid:

If the Shuttle fails to take off, or fails to make it’s delivery in orbit, USA and all the other contractors still get paid. They are paid to perform work. Sure they need to do it right, but they are not responsible for whether NASA’s equipment performs it task.

If SpaceX fails to make a CRS delivery to the ISS, SpaceX will not get paid. They are paid for a service, and not for the effort. No payload, no pay.

Regarding what commercial is, when commercial space is being discussed it means that you or I could purchase commercial space services for things like putting payloads in orbit or getting someone to the ISS. There does exist a commercial launch industry, humans is a different story.

Right now your only option for paying for a ride to the ISS is to buy passage on Soyuz. The Shuttle is reserved for NASA appointed passengers, and no one pays for their ride.

So the reason we’re excited about a commercial space industry, is that it holds out the possibility for a space transportation market to emerge for human space flight. That won’t happen with government-run systems like Shuttle and it’s successor.

Not so Goofy after all!

“Also Dragon would need a beefed up service module to supply fuel and consumables to the crew, not to mention a powerful engine.”

Many of us have tried to educate you on this topic, but you seem to not understand. I’ll put it in nautical terms, since you say you’re a sailor.

Capsules are like the launches that are used to ferry sailors from ship to shore. Sure they can hold lots of people, but you can’t really stay on them for long periods of time.

Because capsules are so confining, especially if you have more than two people in them, any exploration will be done in larger volume vehicles, with the capsules attached as lifeboats, and for return to Earth. They are not big enough for the exercise equipment needed to keep astronauts from losing too much muscle mass during a mission.

Got it?