

Air Force Spending $60 Million for SpaceX U.S. Launches - velodrome
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-15/u-s-air-force-busting-butt-to-certify-musk-s-spacex.html?cmpid=yhoo

======
dm2
It seems like the $60 million is just to get SpaceX certified so that they can
launch military satellites.

Each launch will probably cost far more until their grasshopper system gets
used.

"Musk, 42, ranked 133rd on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index with a net worth
of $9.2 billion as of May 13." Wow.

"Davis said the Air Force estimates that SpaceX will be certified to receive
contracts no later than May 2015."

This Senate hearing explains some of the costs:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE)

~~~
tankenmate
The DoD et alia are very conservative about launches; SpaceX would need at a
bare minimum 5 "recycled" launches before they bought any, most likely more,
as they don't have any previous experience buying quick turn around launches.
Their closest analogous experience would be the space shuttle, but that
typically went for a full head to toe check and refurbishment between
launches.

5+ certified quick turn around launches would be at least several years away.

~~~
arjunnarayan
Yeah, but Musk can sell the DoD brand new rockets at full price (i.e. the
disposable price), recover the first stage and keep it for himself/sell to
more risk-seeking third parties like Orbcomm at a deep discount.

~~~
mikeash
That's the amazing thing about the Falcon 9R: they've managed to build a
system where they can basically make a profit testing it. Nobody wants to use
second-hand stages until they're proven? No big deal, just keep launching
stuff as usual, and recover the first stages and test them until people are
happy.

At some point, some launch customer will observe that there have been N test
launches of reused stages without incident, and thus it's worth buying a
launch on one at a lower price. Since SpaceX is making money launching stuff
anyway, they can take their time getting to whatever number N turns out to be.

~~~
dm2
I've never thought about that part but you are completely correct, and that is
amazing and smart of them to do.

The legs and computers are probably not too much more than a bolt-on kit that
adds some weight to the rocket, the rocket will still preform as usual and the
test is practically free (verses actually testing a new rocket design like
other vertical landing rockets have tried).

~~~
mikeash
Exactly. It does lower the maximum payload by something like 30%, so they
can't use it for launching really heavy stuff. But if the customer's payload
is within the limit, it just means bolting on legs and adding extra fuel. The
total fuel cost of a launch is around $200,000 compared to $60 million total
cost for the launch, so the cost of extra fuel is negligible.

They've already done it twice (once without the legs and once with) while
getting paid to launch payloads. The experimental part doesn't come into play
until after the first stage has done its primary job, so there's no additional
risk to the customer.

This is why I think ongoing comparisons to the Shuttle and other reusable
systems are completely wrong. Previous attempts have all been based on much
more complicated and expensive vehicles that were expected to compensate by
being reused. SpaceX is taking a system that's already one of the cheapest in
the business (if not the cheapest?) and making some minor changes to reuse it
and make it even cheaper.

NASA had to reuse the Shuttle on its second flight ever. SpaceX can keep
testing Falcon 9R for as long as customers are willing to pay for launches at
their current prices, which looks to be quite a long time.

~~~
dm2
Look how much will be recoverable in the Falcon Heavy reusable stages, the
monetary savings there look massive:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_rocket_family.svg)

It seems like such a simple solution to the cost problem (with the attachable
reusable legs on existing flights) but I'm amazed that no other rocket company
has done it until now, congratulations SpaceX.

I guess it was mostly because of the rocket technology (relighting an engine),
the new materials (probably carbon fiber legs), and the new/cheap/lightweight
computer technologies available today.

Hopefully there will be some great videos/pictures from the next test which
will land closer to land:
[http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html](http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html)
[http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch](http://www.orbcomm.com/networks/og2-launch)

~~~
mikeash
I think it comes down to how much refurbishment the rocket needs afterwards.
The Shuttle reused a lot of expensive hardware, but needed so much work after
each flight that it ended up not saving any money.

I'd say the odds are good for SpaceX, as it's a much easier problem (no
thermal protection system, the engines are a lot less fragile, nothing is
being dunked in salt water), but we'll have to see how it really works out.

As for why it hasn't been tried before, it seems like the space industry is
afraid of doing anything that is somehow short of what's seen as optimal.
Rockets are optimized for fuel use by pushing engines and weight to the limit,
which is odd because the fuel isn't really expensive. If you're going to cut
down on that in the service of another goal like reusability, it seems like
they want some _huge_ payoff in exchange. Thus the shuttle ended up as a fancy
spaceplane that could bring entire satellites back from orbit, and Rotary
Rocket, DC-X, and X-33 were all shooting for single-stage-to-orbit. I don't
know how much technology SpaceX is bringing in versus just an attitude that
it's OK to be suboptimal, that it's OK to lose payload to reusability, that
it's OK to work incrementally and keep throwing away some of your hardware,
etc.

~~~
outworlder
Fuel is not expensive. Unless it has to go up the gravity well, then it is.

------
nobodyshere
About time. The only sad thing is that the govt had to wait for someone to
bite them in the arse (Russian counter-sanctions that is) to get back to
action.

------
sschueller
Does the US even have any engines for the short term? Sound like both Lockheed
and Boeing are/were getting their engines from Russia.

~~~
wolf550e
ULA's other rocket, the Boeing Delta IV uses engines designed and made in the
US - the Rocketdyne RS-68[1]. The Delta IV is more expensive to fly than the
Atlas V, for missions both launchers can do. Also, it is not manufactured in
large numbers, though it can be, but only if given enough lead time.

1 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68)

~~~
furyg3
My understanding was also that they had many Russian rockets warehoused for
national security launches.

~~~
dm2
2-3 years worth of Russian engines, but the contracts were for 5+ years, so if
Russia banned exports of rockets to the US then we could be screwed without
SpaceX or scrambling to produce our own engines at a much greater cost (most
likely).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVZYKGTenE)

~~~
runlevel1
Based on the testimony in that video:

The Delta IV and Atlas V have overlapping use cases. The Russian engine
(RD-180) is only used in the Atlas V. So it would seem that they could shift
to the Delta IV once the stockpile runs out.

They also have the blueprints and specs for the RD-180. It would take a lot of
time and money to ramp up production, but not as much as if they were building
a new engine from scratch.

That said, I do agree that the US would probably be screwed (in the wallet)
without SpaceX.

