NASA wants a new dragon for each flight.

First I’ve ever heard of that being a requirement in the IDIQ…

That is how you get the higher price.

…or that undemonstrated reusability of Dragon figured into SpaceX pricing.

Because you had said “If SpaceX enters a stagnant launch market, how does she plan to price to undercut ULA?”, and so I was talking about ULA.

You might as well have been talking about ULA’s dental plan, since I’m still not sure what any of this has to do with SpaceX undercutting ULA pricing.

There’s what companies say, and then there is what companies do. I look at what they do, and that points to them focusing on the U.S. Government and not trying to be competitive outside the U.S.

And ULA launches commercial birds. Perhaps not nearly as much as say Ariane 5, but then again Ariane 5 has a five year head start into the market and just under twice as many launches as both ULA platforms combined. You could easily say that it’s just taking some time for ULA to build market share.

I haven’t stated that number on this forum thread, so what are YOU talking about?

You apparently know exactly what I’m talking about.

However if you are talking about the SpaceX CRS contract for delivering cargo to the ISS ($1.6B for 12 deliveries) then that is quite different than a launch only service. I thought we were comparing apples to apples?

Really? I thought the point was we were looking for a launch only service provider.

Obviously, and one of the chief complaints about them.

And yet it’s apples and oranges when SpaceX does the same?

Again, we’re talking about ULA, and we already know that they don’t have fixed pricing, so why does this surprise you? I had also stated that my baseline estimates for an Atlas 401 were around $100M, and that there was a lack of transparency in how their pricing was arrived at. Companies like predictability, and ULA does not seem to provide that for commercial clients, much less government ones.

And what evidence is there that we’ll see such predictability moving forward?

Look it up. Wikipedia has a good definition.

I asked “what disruptive effect,” not “what is a disruptive effect.”

It’s what SpaceX is doing.

How so? Zenit-2 lifts almost 3 tons more than Falcon 9 and costs less per launch than even SpaceX is quoting despite only 31 successful launches since 1985. Didn’t really shake things up.

NASA wants a new dragon for each flight. That is how you get the higher price.

“Not sure what this [ULA] has to do with anything.”

Because you had said “If SpaceX enters a stagnant launch market, how does she plan to price to undercut ULA?”, and so I was talking about ULA.

“According to EELV program mission statement:”

There’s what companies say, and then there is what companies do. I look at what they do, and that points to them focusing on the U.S. Government and not trying to be competitive outside the U.S.

“So how do you get $1.6 billion for 12 flights?”

I haven’t stated that number on this forum thread, so what are YOU talking about?

However if you are talking about the SpaceX CRS contract for delivering cargo to the ISS ($1.6B for 12 deliveries) then that is quite different than a launch only service. I thought we were comparing apples to apples?

“Probably because ULA pricing is not static.”

Obviously, and one of the chief complaints about them.

“And yet NASA’s paid out as little as $124 million (2007 dollars) for a 401 launch. Perhaps your estimates for “fixed cost” launches are too…well…fixed.”

Again, we’re talking about ULA, and we already know that they don’t have fixed pricing, so why does this surprise you? I had also stated that my baseline estimates for an Atlas 401 were around $100M, and that there was a lack of transparency in how their pricing was arrived at. Companies like predictability, and ULA does not seem to provide that for commercial clients, much less government ones.

“What disruptive technology effect?”

Look it up. Wikipedia has a good definition. It’s what SpaceX is doing.

“You’ll forgive me if I take your back of the envelope predictions on the state of the commercial market with a grain of salt.”

Add some pepper too if you want. I have stated my guesses and opinion where the facts were not present, and stated them as such, so I don’t care what you do with them.

ULA is…..

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

LM and Boeing were going to concentrate on the U.S. Government business almost exclusively, and not try to compete on the world market for commercial business.

And certainly not sure where you got that idea. According to EELV program mission statement: ” “Partner with industry to develop a national launch capability that satisfies both government and commercial payload requirements and reduces the cost of space launch by at least 25 percent.”.

As far as pricing, SpaceX publishes their prices on their website, and the current pricing for the Falcon 9 is $54-59.5M, and the Falcon Heavy is $80-125M.

So how do you get $1.6 billion for 12 flights?

ULA pricing is not public…

Probably because ULA pricing is not static.

That article pins the cost of an Atlas V 401, which is close in performance to the Falcon 9, at $187M for NASA, so maybe my assumptions are far too low?

And yet NASA’s paid out as little as $124 million (2007 dollars) for a 401 launch. Perhaps your estimates for “fixed cost” launches are too…well…fixed.

And while SpaceX is able to attract business from outside the U.S., ULA is not priced to do so, so SpaceX could slowly acquire some of ULA’s U.S. customers while adding more foreign customers to solidify their already low pricing.

Arianespace pricing is even more difficult to pin down over different configurations, though Astronautix pegs what I can only guess to be an average at $138 million. And that’s leaving out the launch and a half worth of subsidy subsidy ESA gifts to them year after year.

And of course I haven’t even factored in the “disruptive technology” effect that would increase business beyond what ULA can generate.

What disruptive technology effect?

It’s a tough situation for ULA, but I hope they figure out how to lower prices and stay competitive since I don’t like monopolies, even if they are perceived as benevolent.

You’ll forgive me if I take your back of the envelope predictions on the state of the commercial market with a grain of salt.

“If SpaceX enters a stagnant launch market, how does she plan to price to undercut ULA?”

ULA is an established company that was built, as far as I can see, on the assumption that LM and Boeing were going to concentrate on the U.S. Government business almost exclusively, and not try to compete on the world market for commercial business. Because of that, they built DoD grade products and facilities. Dependable, but not inexpensive.

SpaceX, a much younger company, was built to provide low cost access to space, and used a number of techniques (both low and high tech) to build a family of products that address the vast middle market of customers needs while keeping costs low.

As far as pricing, SpaceX publishes their prices on their website, and the current pricing for the Falcon 9 is $54-59.5M, and the Falcon Heavy is $80-125M.

ULA pricing is not public, and so I have to resort to guessing. My guess on Atlas V is somewhere starting at $100M, and for Delta IV Heavy it’s $450M (this per Paul Spudis, who said he had inside knowledge). However government funding from various agencies makes any number hard to pin down, but I found this NASA website to help shed some light:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/EELV_main.htm

There is also this Space News article:

http://spacenews.com/military/110114-eelv-program-costs-skyrocket.html

That article pins the cost of an Atlas V 401, which is close in performance to the Falcon 9, at $187M for NASA, so maybe my assumptions are far too low?

So the Falcon 9 is somewhere between $40-120M less expensive than the Atlas V, and the Falcon Heavy is 1/3 the price while more than equaling it’s capacity.

And while SpaceX is able to attract business from outside the U.S., ULA is not priced to do so, so SpaceX could slowly acquire some of ULA’s U.S. customers while adding more foreign customers to solidify their already low pricing. And of course I haven’t even factored in the “disruptive technology” effect that would increase business beyond what ULA can generate.

It’s a tough situation for ULA, but I hope they figure out how to lower prices and stay competitive since I don’t like monopolies, even if they are perceived as benevolent.

Of course the BA 2100 is a fictional product…

So is BA 330. And our deep space ship for that matter.

…and so it would take a fictional launcher to get it to space.

Or require some fictional orbital assembly arena to assemble it’s fictional pieces, along with its fictional power plant and fictional engine. Let’s not forget our fictional propellant depots and fictional taxis to transfer our fictional Lego blocks to libration.

Unfortunately the Senate is funding a fictional launcher, but since it’s fictional it won’t ever get a chance to carry a fictional BA 2100.

Who knows? Maybe your fictional Falcon 9 Heavy won’t ever get a chance to carry your fictional BA 330.

Why not just dock multiple BA 330′s?

If we’re contemplating fictional architectures, you’ve got a point. If not, then the answer is “who knows?” Certainly not Musk and Bigelow, who keep paying the salaries of people still mulling over super heavies and their payloads.

I think large internal volume space habits will be wonderful places to visit, but so far their utility hasn’t been standardized.

The utility of a space habitat of any size hasn’t been standardized. More to the point, it remains to be seen whether super heavy can be thoroughly obviated by some clever way around a 25 mT, 5 meter fairing constraint on payload.

I look forward to the day that they are, since they have lots of nice attributes, but we’re aways away from that point. Just like we’re aways away from needing an HLV that can carry a BA 2100.

Give me a break. Regardless of what happens with SLS, commercial cargo kicks off next year and crew two to three years afterwards. That’s besides the point. The “need” to put men on rockets is wholly contingent on the pound of flesh you can carve out of space, and whatever that is it’s not to be found dumping a $100 billion into an LEO Space Camp and flying the privileged few to play on it. Right or wrong, SD HLV is post-Griffin NASA’s solution to the problem of how to to make manned space flight pay.

Even if the market for U.S. launches doesn’t increase, as SpaceX takes away business from ULA the $/lb average goes down.

If SpaceX enters a stagnant launch market, how does she plan to price to undercut ULA?

The documents printed by the Wall ST Journal citing $60 Billion for full operation of MPCV/SLS/21st century spaceport.

That gives you one fence post. where’s the other one?

1. It doesn’t need to get up to super high flight rates. Just fully utilizing them is good enough

There’s been 52 attempted launches world wide this year. There were 78 just two years ago. I doubt 2 to 3 extra launches are going to make a dent in price pound for pound.

2. We have 2 pieces that can put in place for a true deep space craft – Orion and Bigelow habs.

We don’t have either one of those assemblies, and no one has anything more than a dim idea of how to work them into anything more than what they are by themselves.

And we have substantial experience with station, as a starting point.

Your “substantial experience” involves bolting together a 100 billion boondoggle with 100 kW power plant and a nasty tendancy to shake under a few hundred pounds of thrust. Starting point, indeed.

3. NASA has more recent experience with in-space construction than it does with building big rockets. i’ll trust that

NASA has more recent experience with in-space plumbing, wiring, and legos. How that magically translates into experience in building deep spacecraft out of the commercial flavors of the week escapes me.

Lets start with the BA-330, and we’ll see if there is a need for the 2100.

Which is tantamount to admitting that we don’t know whether the Lincoln Log approach will obviate any need for a super heavy lifter.

A question I actually agree with. But when you have a Congress demanding “spend the money, spend the money, don’t worry about anything than spend the money”, I suspect its Congress who wants to ensure those things aren’t released.

A conspiracy theory with two glaring problems.

1. Congress can’t do a damn thing to stop Bolden, Garver, or anyone else who can get their hands on it from releasing the report. Obviously someone got some of it to the Journal; and low and behold, the only portions we’ve seen are those critical of SLS.
2. The supposed culprits went down the exact opposite path you proposed they should have gone.

“How do you launch a BA 2100 in pieces?”

Very carefully?

Of course the BA 2100 is a fictional product, and so it would take a fictional launcher to get it to space. Unfortunately the Senate is funding a fictional launcher, but since it’s fictional it won’t ever get a chance to carry a fictional BA 2100.

Why not just dock multiple BA 330’s?

I think large internal volume space habits will be wonderful places to visit, but so far their utility hasn’t been standardized. I look forward to the day that they are, since they have lots of nice attributes, but we’re aways away from that point. Just like we’re aways away from needing an HLV that can carry a BA 2100.