Congratulations SpaceX

Launch video here too:

$1.6E9 / 1E3 = $1,600,000 per pound delivered. Can US afford this now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

?? 12 flights, $1.6 billion, average of 2000 pounds a flight = $66,000 a pound.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And they stated that the contract requires a minimum of 20k lbs to be moved, but SpaceX estimates they could do more, up to 60k.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

$66k /lb is still a far cry from their desire for sub-$1000/lb to LEO, but it's a start, although I'm not sure the numbers are a true reflection of the "cost" of launching.
It's unclear whether the $1.6bn includes development costs rather than merely pure incremental launch costs.
It would almost certainly include a healthy profit margin rather than being pure cost, whereas NASA costs would probably be pure cost (i.e. not-for-profit organisation).

To put it into comparison, my understanding is that the shuttle cost around $6-10k per lb to LEO - based on c.$450m per launch and max payload to LEO of 50,000lbs.
But the Shuttle programme in total cost c.$200bn and launched 135 times. Assuming 50,000lb per payload (and not all launches were at the full capacity) that's c.$30k per lb, although more frequent launches would have bought the average cost down.

SpaceX is currently quoting their Falcon-9 launch cost at $54m (which they quote based on their "Paid in full standard launch prices for 2012"). It doesn't seem to stack up with the 12-launches-for-$1.6bn that NASA are paying, though, so there is clearly some lack of clarity in the numbers - perhaps it is a wider contract than just the launches?
But based on the $54m per launch and a max-payload of 29,000 lb, that's a cost of c.$2k/lb.

 

Read post 21 more carefully and understand that the 2000 lbs is for the return trip. I think only 1000lbs can be lifted up when rocket is full of fuel at Earth lift off.

"It is the first of a dozen NASA-contracted flights to resupply the International Space Station, at a total cost of $1.6 billion." I take that as the cost of all 12 flights - much worse if each costs $1.6E9.

I made a math mistake - in 12 flights they lift 12E3 lbs. So I should have said: 1.6E9 / 1.2E4 = $133,000 per pound.

Perhaps not so bad, if they were being conservative with the first cargo flight and put 1000lbs more fuel instead of cargo in?

Anyway if I am correct that there will be run on dollar by Halloween 2014, there will not be a launch #12, probably less that 7 launches prior to contract cancellation.

 

Now there's a great euphemism. "Engine pressure release."

"After the BLU-82 was delivered to its destination by the delivery vehicle, it underwent a pressure release and caused some minor local damage."

 

They had stated in one of the press briefings that the payload up was only 1000 lbs because it contained lots of items that were not all that dense. Obviously the weight affects the fuel needed, but the capacity is greater than 2000 lbs. Plus they also were carrying a secondary cargo as well.

 

So in reading the current understanding of what happened to Engine #1, there was something that affected its performance and triggered a shutdown, and that shutdown then caused the fairing to fail, with the damage we see on the video, right? There definitely seemed to be a bright spot on that engine for a few seconds before the incident. I have full confidence that like in previous launches, they'll figure out if it's a problem and find a way to adjust for it, if the fairings have a problem with the stress in that situation.

 

That's 20k kg, not lbs. The contract requires them to move at least 44,000 lbs. over 12 flights. The cost per pound on this contract works out to (at most) ~$36k/pound. I say "at most" because the contract specifies the minimum delivered weight - it's possible they'll deliver more than that.

The capacity of the Dragon system is 7300 lbs. of pressurized cargo plus 7300 lbs. of unpressurized cargo up, 5500 lbs. pressurized cargo down, and 5700 lbs. waste disposal (i.e., trash from the ISS that you can load into its trunk, which then detaches and burns up in the atmosphere).

So between the potential for heavier launches and the fact that this is a new program that is spending a lot on development costs (the prices in this contract do not represent the long-term incremental launch costs for this system), it seems that it should become cost-competitive in future years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_(spacecraft)

 

No, it's 44E3 lbs. over 12 flights. You are off by a factor of almost four.

 

It's a lot greater than 2000 lbs. It's nearly 15,000 lbs.

 

I don't think the contract specifies exactly what they spend the money on, but the pricing indicates that NASA sees itself as paying for the development of private space-launch systems. If they were just shopping for a deal on incremental costs, the numbers would be way lower.

Right, that's the incremental cost of launches after the program had reached maturity and been heavily optimized. It's not really comparable to the Dragon program at its current phase.

Right, that's a better comparison to the Dragon system. And note that the Dragon system is already just about comparable to the Space Shuttle. Which isn't that impressive since the Space Shuttle was not a great performer by that metric, but it's an interesting point of reference.

It's only 14,600 lbs. of payload, so more like $4k/lb. That is competitive with the cheapest non-subsidized systems currently on the market, although it's probably somewhat optimistic (since it assumes that you can max out on weight, which is only possible if you are shipping dense objects that do not need to be pressurized).

But it also makes sense as a target that NASA and SpaceX would have chosen to pursue, as it's about what the Russians charge.

 

here is link to The Economist article (and at least 50 comments): http://www.economist.com/blogs/babb...s?fsrc=nlw|newe|10-8-2012|3710276|37052430|LA

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Welcome home, Dragon - good job done well.

 

Well done, again! See more details here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...rgo-flight-to-space-station-after-glitch.html

Unlike Boeing 787, SpaceX has well separated Li-ion cells, so over heating in one does not make fire in all and they are each smaller so heat at the core can get to the surface easily. Musk has publicly stated that Boeing compact design of 8 large cells is "inherently unsafe" and an MIT profressor of electrical engineering completely agrees. Commenting on Musk´s more detained explaination* of how Boeing´s design promotes thermal run away, he said: "I would have used exactly the same words."

* Read it here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...any-millions&p=3041392&viewfull=1#post3041392

 

I find it hilarious that people are actually congratulating SpaceX for its failure in docking to ISS, the solar panels and thee of its its propulsion elements did not function! The entire vechicle had to be rescued by a Canadian arm...

 

Technically, they managed to fix the temporary glitch with the thrusters (or it wouldn't have gotten to the ISS), they didn't deploy the panels until they were sure they had the problem resolved, and they aren't approved for auto dock yet, so it would be a bit of an overstep to not play by NASA's rules for berthing.

So yeah, congratulations, SpaceX.