But they may have to do it with American rockets:
Declining to speak for attribution, the Chinese officials say they find the published prices on the SpaceX website very low for the services offered, and concede they could not match them with the Long March series of launch vehicles even if it were possible for them to launch satellites with U.S. components in them.
I don’t think that people realize yet just what a game changer SpaceX is, not just for American spaceflight, but for the global market.
It is nice to see an example of a technological competitive advantage in the US exceeding a low labor cost competitive advantage in China.
Space is an area where good design can make orders of magnitude difference, and there is still another two orders of magnitude in cost reduction possible there. SpaceX will have to keep innovating. Static launch cost structures that do not decrease year after year are hopefully now a thing of the past.
If there’s one thing China’s good at though, it’s copying American tech at a lower price point. Don’t expect this advantage to last for very long.
If there’s one thing China’s good at though, it’s copying American tech at a lower price point. Don’t expect this advantage to last for very long.
I hope you are right – that would infer even lower launch costs in the future.
It’s not as if the Chinese have a F9 they can reverse engineer or bootleg.
Hey, they are just pissed the Dragon belongs to US!!
Rand, I agree.. I was thinking something similar and trying to think of a way to say it without bashing people over the head with it like I usually do. Still haven’t gotten that far though.
China is good at copying.. and not just technology. They just announced they’ll be building their own 130 ton to LEO rocket:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/03/c_13759948.htm
This is the Buran all over again.. emulating NASA has to be the stupidest thing anyone can do with tax dollars. Perhaps if you’re ignorant of the horse trading backstabbing stupidity that goes into any NASA decision you could be forgiven for assuming they had to have a good reason for what they’re doing, but even then you’re still guilty of being intellectually lazy as well as naive.
Government bureaucrats should not make design decisions.. no matter what language they speak.
Actually, Dragon belongs to the shareholders of SpaceX. That’s the primary reason this post was written.
Also, two orders of magnitude is a bare minimum from my understanding of the market. You don’t hit an inflection point in elasticity until you become cheap enough that your cargo can be mass-produced instead of on-off works of art. That doesn’t happen until experiments from ordinary research 1 universities, development projects for small- and medium-sized businesses, and human beings can afford the ride in far greater numbers than we currently have.
Folks, we’re still staring at a valley of death for the industry. Retiring the Space Shuttle probably bodes well, but right now SpaceX is still competing for the same old limited stock of billion-dollar payloads. That business plan does not close if your endgame is a factor of 2 or 10 cost reduction. Anything more expensive than a few hundred $$ a kg just aint gonna open the necessary markets.
Satellites have a lifetime and are replaced. This is the foundation everything else is built upon. For that you don’t need 2x to 10x cost reduction. What you need is trust and a minor advantage.
Costs come down when use goes up. With FH, Bigelow’s BA330 can be launched with a large margin. I wouldn’t be surprised if they design a habitat specifically for the greater FH payload. Crewed Dragon and others will provide the final piece of the puzzle. You can then expect half a dozen separate habitats for various customers launched within a few years of each other. Servicing that market and going public will provide the finances for the next step… settlement.
Prices will come down but while it encourages it’s not what will drive development. SpaceX will reduce their costs but they have no reason to lower prices until they get some competition. They’ve taken the lead and also have further advances waiting in the wings. I wait to see if any other company steps up to the challenge.
China doesn’t need a F9 to reverse engineer, considering the sophistication of the Chinese hacking methodology.
ken, agreed. I can imagine Bigelow stations in LEO attracting sovereign and commercial customers, and without the albatross of NASA they’ll be free to experiment with the more effective ways to sustain long term crews. Some of the experiments might include *gasp* growing food in space, or artificial gravity.. eventually breaking the current endurance record. There will actually be competition between resupply providers, including market segmentation based on reliability (assuming the causal link between cost and reliability is anything more than a myth), and standing price offers to accept delivery of commodities from whoever can get it there, like water and propellant for reboost.
Not long after a business case for beyond LEO excursions to Lagrangian points, the Moon and asteroids will be made. With an actual customer in LEO and a competitive supply chain there is no need for profound visions of manifest destiny to justify the conquest of space, it’ll just happen because the market demands it.
Profound visions of manifest destiny in space will make for good TV ratings, thereby providing profit, whether or not those seeking to accomplish manifest destiny in space actually believe their own vision.
SpaceX hasnt changed any games yet. Their current flight rates are pathetic.
Will the game ever be changed for you? will you ever be looking on with awe, not sarcastically pointing out the next step which hasn’t been achieved yet? SpaceX have done *phenomenal* work and the big players are going nuts.
reader Says:
“SpaceX hasnt changed any games yet. Their current flight rates are pathetic.”
It’s pretty easy to get caught up in the SpaceX hysteria.
It might be ten years or more before SpaceX moves significantly beyond launching satellites or supplying the ISS with crew and cargo. In the grand scheme of things that is a small time frame but in terms of how most of humanity (or at least Americans) gauges time in relation to planning and projects, it is a long time.
There are conceptual paradigms about the passage of time that are at play.
It is hard to temper the enthusiasm and impatience with space exploration. Nothing happens as quick as people want it to or even as quick as things become possible.
The next ten years should be very exciting though 🙂
Heh, so you don’t think launching satellites for the prices SpaceX is offering is game changing? Iridium sure does. And you don’t think commercial resupply of the ISS is game changing? Or the Dragon Lab flights that are planned for next year?
I not sure but I think this is the first time I’ve seen the AI-is-anything-computers-can’t-do-next idea translate to another industry.
Trent Waddington Says:
“Heh, so you don’t think…”
I don’t know if you were referring to myself or reader but I will point out that regardless of whether or not SpaceX is a game changer the game won’t change over night, at least in any practical terms.
The effects of SpaceX’s innovations will be felt over a period of several years if not longer. Musk’s vision and full implementation of SpaceX’s business plan even longer.
Enthusiasm in SpaceX is warranted but people should also understand that things take time, especially in the space industry. It is sort of like people who think we could end the gap by not reinstating the shuttle program but not realizing the lead time it takes in preparing a shuttle launch.
Reader is right to point out flight rate. At this point in time it would be inappropriate to assume that everything SpaceX does in the future will be flawless.
The best way to put it would be to watch 8:50-8:57 of this clip.
The next ten years will be exciting but not day to day but 6 months to 6 months or year to year.
thanks. What’s with the “suggestions” for that video ya think? 😉
“by not reinstating” should read “by reinstating”*
Trent Waddington Says:
“thanks. What’s with the “suggestions” for that video ya think? ;)”
Long clip but basically be excited but not too excited 🙂
Maybe SpaceX’s next market should be cheap satellites to go with their cheap launchers. Heck, this would be closer to what Silicon Valley entrepreneurs normally do.
Game changer has almost nothing to do with rate; however, They have something like five launch sites in the works (two being at complex 40) and have upgraded their manufacturing capability more than ten fold from where they started. Growing a business is one of the most dangerous things any business can do. It puts many of them out of business. I worked for a company in NYC several decades back that went out of business because it, strange as it seems, had too many customers and didn’t know how to handle the growth. SpaceX IMHO is handling growth very well and has positioned itself for the growth of the industry. In the next decade I think we may be surprised at how fast things start to happen (perhaps not for a few years yet, but then watch out.)
Facilities are expanding in anticipation and it’s not just SpaceX. They expect 20 flights of F9 and FH per year but are capable of perhaps twice that while the F1e continues to have customers.
I’m certain they are working on the Merlin 2 internally. Dragon has a lot of potential diversity built into it. I’m watching for news of landers.
Bigelow is planning to land entire facilities on the moon in one piece. That’ll be something. FH will allow them to begin.
reader Says:
“SpaceX hasnt changed any games yet.”
No they haven’t..not quite. They have a great plan and a great design and some great numbers. They have to deliver.
I find the plan, design and numbers exciting, but it’s true that they have to deliver.
SpaceX have done *phenomenal* work and the big players are going nuts.
Arianespace in particular could be in deep, deep trouble.
>>Will the game ever be changed for you?
Yep, as soon as actual rockets start reaching orbit in numbers. The forecast looks bleak for 2011 ..
Costs come down when use goes up. With FH, Bigelow’s BA330 can be launched with a large margin. I wouldn’t be surprised if they design a habitat specifically for the greater FH payload.
I had a good visit with the Bigelow representatives at the Space Symposium last week. The space station design that they’re hoping to launch around 2016 features two 180 cubic meter modules and one BA 330 (330 cubic meter) modules. I got the impression they can launch those modules individually on existing boosters. They did have a model of a 2100 cubic meter module in their booth but not a lot of info on it. That’s something that woud likely require the services of a Falcon Heavy.
When the FH was announced a couple weeks ago, there was some speculation as to what performance the Merlin D engine could provide to the F9. Someone here was speculating that the F9 would be able to put about 16 MT into LEO. According to the SpaceX representatives, that isn’t the case. They’re standardizing on the Merlin D engines for all of their boosters and the earlier Merlin engines were only for the first 7 or so F9s. The current F1e and F9 performance numbers listed on their website are for the Merlin D engines. They aren’t planning on selling any more of the smaller engined versions of either booster.
The SpaceX representatives told me that they’re still working on recovering the first stages of both booster designs. He said the Merlin engines were designed for 20-40 launch cycles and that salt water exposure won’t hurt them. They designed the Merlin for mass production and that’s one of the keys to keeping their costs low.
It is true that SpaceX has to deliver. What is also true is that, of late, SpaceX has been exceeding expectations in terms of technological achievement, and seems to be moving at an accellerating pace as they gain both confidence and expertise. They are doing better than their critics have claimed would be the case up to this point.
Also, even if we take a very conservative and pessimistic position on SpaceX’s pricing posibilities, they still beat most of the existing market by a significant margin. If the Falcon Heavy ends up costing twice what SpaceX is currently projecting, that is still 40% of what any other competitor can offer if they even had an equivalent launcher. As it is, Delta IV Heavy would take 2 launches at a total of $500 million to launch what one Falcon Heavy could do.
I also think SpaceX will miss their intended inaugural launch dates for both Vandenberg and the Cape (2013 and 2014). Still, I think they may actually have at least one, if not two, launches in 2015. Even if they miss that, they are very likely to have had both test launches no later than 2016 — the mythical, ludicrous, unobtainable deadline for the SLS.
If SpaceX choses to upgrade the F9 with the Merlin 1-Ds, it could launch the downgraded LEO Orion. It could also launch a larger, more robust Dragon with service module and landing gear integral to the entire vehicle.
Don, according to the SpaceX representative I met last week, the Merlin D is the default engine for all of their boosters. Only the first 7 or so of the F9s will use the older Merlin engine and those have already been sold. They’ve already updated their performance figures on their website to reflect the use of the Merlin D on the Falcon 1e and Falcon 9.
So, if the Orion can be launched by a booster with 10.45 MT to LEO capability, then the F9 will be able to do the job. What’s the mass of an Orion?
As for the Dragon, I never have found the max weight of one, only the figure of 6 MT of payload up and 3 MT down. Since the Dragon has to fit on an F9, that suggests an mass of about 4.5 MT for everything other than payload.
Brock: If there’s one thing China’s good at though, it’s copying American tech at a lower price point. Don’t expect this advantage to last for very long.
Pete: I hope you are right – that would infer even lower launch costs in the future.
Wow. I really can’t understand the sort of thinking expressed here by “Pete”.
So long as launch costs come down he doesn’t care if the Chinese copy/steal technology from an American company in order to accomplish that end.
I not only don’t want the Chinese to succeed in stealing tech to accomplish this (or any other) goal I hope they don’t do it without stealing tech. Even if that failure were to mean launch costs stayed high for all of us.
Maybe one day people like Pete are going to realize that China is not our friend nor the friend of freedom period.
Cecil, I think Pete just means you can’t depend on any other US company to compete with SpaceX. All the other players are more likely to be taken care of by Uncle Sam like the Europeans already are.
The low prices charged by Space wil not help the small sat market as long as Andrew Space keeps charging so much to integrate the one kg sats.
I not only don’t want the Chinese to succeed in stealing tech to accomplish this (or any other) goal I hope they don’t do it without stealing tech. Even if that failure were to mean launch costs stayed high for all of us.
Why would one need US technology to develop low cost access to space? What significant non substitutable space technology does the US have to steal?
Are you really suggesting that if the US can not develop low cost access to space, you hope that no one can develop low cost access to space?
What if Elon Musk had decided to develop the Falcon launch vehicle family back in South Africa (lower labor costs, no visa or ITAR constraints). Would you have wanted him to fail?
I might note here that a fairly inexpensive way for say China to destroy US technological competence, would be to indirectly spend a few million on lobbying against professional class visas – Silicon Valley would implode. I wonder if they are doing this already, there does seem to be a significant migration of smart people back to the East – where all the economic growth is.
Maybe one day people like Pete are going to realize that China is not our friend nor the friend of freedom period.
I take it you have never been to China, they have some economic and regulatory freedoms that people in the US could only dream of. Notably, regulatory authorities actually want prosperity. Having said that, China has a number of fundamental structural inefficiencies which probably prevent income per capita parity (unlike many other countries, like Australia, Singapore and Denmark, for example, that have greater per capita income than the US). However, with a tenth the current average income, they still have a long way to come up, and with four times the population they should dominate economically – as has been the historic norm. China is also but a few years away from surpassing the US in R&D output (number of papers, patents, scientists, engineers, etc.).
There is an interesting historical concept/doctrine in China called “the mandate of heaven”. It basically states that no ruler can rule without the support of the people. Rulers in China are perhaps far more accountable to the people than you might think.
I should perhaps clarify that I would like to see the US do well in space launch, but I do not want to see that happen due to everyone else doing badly. I would like to see the launch industry global and openly competitive – like most other industries. I would like to see companies the world over competing to bring lower launch prices to the customer. If a company in China or any other country can deliver lower launch costs, then I think that would be great. I accept that many, especially on the left and the right, would think me evil and/or crazy for such free market idealism.
I think Pete just means you can’t depend on any other US company to compete with SpaceX.
Early on it looked like they might have kept SpaceX down with political activity but SpaceX was able to outmaneuver that attempt. American competition would be a good thing. I’m encouraged that Bigelow has some potential American competition.
Pete Says:
“It basically states that no ruler can rule without the support of the people. Rulers in China are perhaps far more accountable to the people than you might think.”
Oh yeah…as amply shown by Tiananmen Square….
sheesh……
I was in China in early March. The society as a whole is one of the most capitalist places anywhere. I got the impression that if they have Greens there, they’ve been told to shut up and color. The rate of change and construction in China is exceptionally fast by American standards. I doubt they have to go through a multi-year (and multi-payoff) environmental impact studies process for anything they do.
At the same time, the Chinese government has been cracking down hard on any sign of protest against the communist leadership. It’s hard to see how they can both grow the economy for the long term and keep the government the same as it is now. I think something is going to have to give and in a country with about 1.3 billion people, the process may not be very pretty.
However, the Chinese have a different view of history than we do. I remember reading back in the 1970s when Nixon went to China, a reporter asked Mao what his opinion of the French Revolution was. Mao reportedly replied, “Too soon to tell.”
I’ve been to China. I’ve lived in China. I’ve done business in China. Let me explain how the economic and regulatory freedoms work over there for the Chinese. If you buy the right guanxi then you can do pretty much what you like (that is not embarassing to The Party of course) regardless of whether there is a regulation against it or actual environmental or safety problems. If you don’t pay off the right people then you get harrassed and hamstrung and not allowed to succeed regardless of whether what you’re doing is within the law or good or safe.
If we keep electing Chicago ward politicians to head the federal executive we’ll have that same level of regulatory and economic freedom here soon, too. G.E. seems to be on the cutting edge of it.
I do actually feel a little sorry for the Chinese rocket engineers having to deal with the local suppliers who are used to just being able to pay their way around material certifications, quality proceedures, calibrations, etc.
Pete – Why would one need US technology to develop low cost access to space? What significant non substitutable space technology does the US have to steal?
I wasn’t the first to express the opinion that there was such tech that could be stolen, but when that opinion was expressed your first response was “I hope you are right”.
Pete- Are you really suggesting that if the US can not develop low cost access to space, you hope that no one can develop low cost access to space?
Not “no one”, just not a dictatorial regime like China.
Pete- I take it you have never been to China,
I’ve also never been to Iran, North Korea or Nazi Germany but I don’t think that is an insurmountable obstacle to my forming an informed opinion on those regimes. Perhaps your visiting China and being smitten by the people and culture has blinded you to the fact that the country is ruled by a bunch of murderous thugs.