Slashdot Mirror


China Space Official Confounded By SpaceX Price

hackingbear writes "Declining to speak for attribution, the Chinese officials from Great Wall Industry, a marketing arm of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CAST), 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. According to the SpaceX website, launch on a Falcon 9 — which has an advertised lift capacity of 10,450 kg. (23,000 lb.) — from Cape Canaveral costs $54 million — $59.5 million. If the SpaceX price is real and its quality is proven, both are big IFs, it is remarkable to see that US can beat China in term of price. Between August 1996 and August 2009, the Chinese rockets have achieved 75 consecutive successful launches were conducted, ending with a partial failure in the launch of Palapa-D on August 31, 2009. If we all learn from SpaceX, maybe soon China will outsource from the US."

5 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Orbital Inclination + no equator access = money by gavron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a common difference between countries that have equatorial regions and none. The US can launch its spacecraft from Florida (or in the alternative Edwards AFB). This allows them to reach the right inclination with LESS energy (delta-V, fuel, money, take your pic). Good explanation at http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Launch_Azimuth.

    This is why the Space Shuttle could not simultaneously reach both the International Space Station AND the Hubble Space Telescope. To put it simply, the two were in such different inclinations (think "how do I tilt an orbit wheel over the earth, right, left, flat...") that the shuttle could only reach one or the other.

    SpaceX launching from the US or central America will ALWAYS have to expend significantly less fuel than launches from China.

    Inclination. It's a big word, but it means $$$.

    Ehud
    Tucson AZ

  2. Re:Reverse outsourcing? No. by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You will see soon enough how much damage it truly has done. As a long-time investor, researcher, and currently in charge of a large global voice and data network for a global corp, I see it first-hand. A lot of research and many great books have been written on this topic, you should check some out and then see if your opinion holds. Japan as Number One, China Inc., and anything on the topic of BRIC are decent starting points in normal prose.

    My personal opinion is that we are heading for a large fall and one that we will not quickly or easily climb out of. My best guess is that in 3-5 years China and BRIC (as well as allies they bring in as they get closer to #1) will start to flex their muscle, you can see the framework in place now. I am also guessing the quickest we could begin to recover will be 10-15 years, with 20 seeming not out of the question. Positions/rankings may not be important to you but they mean quite a lot in terms of resources and where they go, and many of the countries with the resources will go where the growth and numbers are... which is not the US, a number of those ties are already strained or deteriorating. Again, this is my opinion, but it is based on a lot of information. No one has a crystal ball, but I would be very shocked if I'm completely wrong.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  3. Re:Comparitive Advantage by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think "mass production" in terms of rockets means "a dozen". It's the kind of "mass production" where China has little to offer.

    SpaceX are talking about manufacturing 400 engines per year; there aren't many rocket booster engines that have been produced in three digit numbers, let alone that many per year.

    I believe a single Falcon Heavy launch would have more engines on it than all the SSMEs ever built, for example.

  4. Re:Reverse outsourcing? No. by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, I can buy your argument on greed and artificial constructs. As for your .sig, the Brits used espionage to steal tea secrets from the Chinese. As I said, all nations have used theft to get ahead. (For those interested in the history of tea, the Brits used to drink coffee. They switched to tea to protest government efforts to shut down the trade unions and other "unapproved" organizations. America switching to coffee as a protest against essentially the same government for essentially the same practices is one of history's greatest ironies.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. Re:Chinese lying? by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't see what's so shocking about those numbers. Just under $6k per kilo? The cheapest US and European launch systems have long gotten $10k per kilo. What's so shocking about a 40% reduction in price per kilo from a totally new launch stack that makes use of "lessons learned"? And Russia's regular prices hover around $7k per kilo, with "specials" at $5k per kilo or less. China should be embarrassed that with their cheap labor costs, they can't do any better than $6k per kilo. They won't just be ceding the market to the US, but to India, too.

    --
    He may be bullet-proof, have the ability to fly, be a great baseball player, and/or Santa Claus.