Ariane 5 Has No Chance, Says Elon Musk

status of their big rocket by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Sorry, failed at reading this with a straight face.

Re:status of their big rocket by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:30 · Score: 0

So is that a big rocket in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Re:status of their big rocket by Chrisq · 2012-11-19 02:13 · Score: 2

I've seen Musk's "big rocket" after we had a date last night. It was tiny and limp. A twizzler puts it to shame. Dude is trying to compensate for something big time with his sports cars and rocket making.
But you have to admit he is much cheaper than Ariane.
Re:status of their big rocket by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:28 · Score: 0

You get what you pay for, I guess. Pencil dicks aren't really my thing, though.
Re:status of their big rocket by ilguido · 2012-11-19 06:51 · Score: 1

Comparing apples to oranges, Ariane 5 is designed for heavier payloads. We could say that Vega (which in turn is designed for light payloads) is much cheaper than Falcon 9 (~41 million $ vs. ~60 million $).
Re:status of their big rocket by craigminah · 2012-11-19 08:09 · Score: 1

Austin Power's really messed my mind up regarding rockets: http://www.rocketreviews.com/descon-dr-evils-pocket-rocket-scott-turnbull.html
Re:status of their big rocket by jcdr · 2012-11-19 08:53 · Score: 2

Masse to LEO:
Vega: ~1.5 T
Falcon 9: ~10 T
Arian 5: ~20 T
Re:status of their big rocket by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:10 · Score: 0

I can't stand this shit convention that the Bbc have pulled out of their arse of writing ESA and NASA incorrectly.
Re:status of their big rocket by cheesybagel · 2012-11-19 10:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ariane 5 ECA has over twice the payload. Falcon 9 is competing with Soyuz, Zenit (including Sealaunch), Delta IV medium, Atlas V 4xx.
Falcon 9 Heavy reliability, with 27 (!) engines, is still unproven.
Ariane's customers want reliability. Ariane's flights are known to be easily insurable because of this. If the only driver was cost those clients would be flying their satellites on a Russian rocket. However when the satellite costs more than the Ariane flight itself it is cheaper to go on a more reliable vehicle.
Re:status of their big rocket by mug+funky · 2012-11-19 11:10 · Score: 1

here here. (or Hh).
it's inconsistent, too. apparently it's about whether the acronym is pronounced as a word or as individual letters, but i've never met anyone who pronounces ESA as "eesa".
Re:status of their big rocket by ilguido · 2012-11-20 05:10 · Score: 1

Masse to LEO: Vega: ~1.5 T Falcon 9: ~10 T Arian 5: ~20 T
Not exactly:
Vega: 1.5 t (LEO)
Falcon 9: 8.5-9 t (LEO)
Ariane 5: 16-21 t (LEO)
Falcon 9: 3.4 t (GTO)
Ariane 5: 6.2-10.5 t (GTO)
Completely different rocket classes, hence completely different prices.
Re:status of their big rocket by jcdr · 2012-11-20 05:31 · Score: 1

Thanks for the precise numbers.
I used approximate numbers to emphasize the different magnitudes.

Space company founder trash-talks competition... by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-11-19 01:14 · Score: 1

... news at eleven.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

It's a common problem with 'big space'. by queazocotal · 2012-11-19 01:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

To paraphrase part of TFA 'We can save money by developing X with components from Y', this is why it's cheaper to now spend money on Y.

Versus a clean-sheet design.

Combine that with SpaceX's largely integrated workflow, with minimal external contractors, and you have extreme problems for traditional aerospace to meet the costs.

Contracts are granted not on the basis of what would make the overall system cheaper, but electoral politics.

And if SpaceX gets even limited reusability working - http://phys.org/news/2012-11-spacex-story-reuseable-grasshopper-rocket.html - the price crashes further.

Re:It's a common problem with 'big space'. by Z00L00K · 2012-11-19 04:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Ariane 5 has been around for a rather long time now and it's a well tried launcher. And it has been improved during the years since the first launch in 1996. And considering that it's rated for up to about 21 tons to low earth orbit or about 10 tons to geostationary I would say it's a decent concept. Of course - they have had their failures, but when you look at the concept of space rockets it's a question of shaving weight as much as possible, so no wonder if things fails now and then when the margin for error is small.
That said - I would still consider that the Ariane 5 may not be entirely suitable for launching a capsule, even if it has the capacity to take the weight. There may be many modifications needed in order to handle a crewed capsule in a safe and reliable manner. I suspect that a three stage rocket would be more suitable compared to the two stages that the Ariane 5 has. Not that a Saturn V rocket capacity with 120 tons to low earth orbit is needed unless the Moon is the target, but for closer to earth activities it may be good to have something that can lift a bit more than just a crew capsule.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:It's a common problem with 'big space'. by Teancum · 2012-11-19 05:33 · Score: 2

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but SpaceX also doesn't suffer from obsolete union contracts and a bloated bureaucracy internal to the company which is preventing its expansion or even switch to other vehicles. SpaceX has never needed to retool to another vehicle, something which can sometimes cost more than simply building a new factory.
BTW, I agree with you on the Grasshopper and the eventual plans to make the Falcon 9 fully reusable (including oddly enough even the 2nd stage). Just partial reuseability will make some difference, and the rest is just gravy. If SpaceX can get the cost of spaceflight down to the point where fuel costs are significant (aka more than 10% of the cost of the launch and the price of petroleum in the Middle East impacts launch costs), they will start to really make a difference.
Remember, it was Elon Musk who suggested he could get the price of a round-trip ticket to Mars for an astronaut down to about $500k. He has his reasons for thinking that might be the cost, even though NASA put the figure at about $100 billion each instead.
Re:It's a common problem with 'big space'. by pe1rxq · 2012-11-19 06:11 · Score: 1

The Ariane is not really a two stage rocket, more a two and a halve. Boosters, Core-stage, and an upper stage.
Its concept is not unlike what NASA is building right now.
As for man-rating, it was originally intended to launch the Hermes shuttle. While not fully man-rated at the moment it isn't far off either.
(Besides the definition of man-rated is a pretty gray area).

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:It's a common problem with 'big space'. by khallow · 2012-11-19 15:22 · Score: 1

There may be many modifications needed in order to handle a crewed capsule in a safe and reliable manner.

Compared to what? It's already as man-rated as any manned launch vehicle ever made.

Competition by A10Mechanic · 2012-11-19 01:18 · Score: 1

Competition always brings out the best (or worst) in any Endeavour. Single-source-vendor vs. multiple vendors for heavy lift into LEO or Async? Hmm....

Re:Competition by queazocotal · 2012-11-19 01:43 · Score: 1

If the vendors are in true free competition, arguably.
The current vendors are basically not funded in general as rocket launch companies.
They are funded as aerospace/military welfare organisations.
Any launches that happen are a side-effect.
If your primary goal as a legislator is to get jobs for your constituents, it's quite easy to insist that technology X must be included in the vehicle - because you have a massive plant in your constituency doing X.
This does not result in good values for purchasers of the rockets launch capabilities.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by ArsonSmith · 2012-11-19 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea, just wait until some "Regulation" comes his way. You can't compete on a level play field with Government.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 01:28 · Score: 5, Informative

The Falcon 9 has flown four times IIRC; in two cases things went wrong -- on its first launch the orbital payload ended up rolling and yawing in the wrong orbit and on the fourth launch it lost an engine and couldn't deploy a secondary payload successfully and the mission was not a complete success. The Falcon Heavy is still to be completely assembled never mind actually flown.

The Ariane 5 in ES, GS and ECS configurations has 50 completely successful launches under its belt since the last failure back in 2002. It has a proven track record of delivering twice the payload of the Falcon 9 to LEO and twice the projected payload of the F9 v1.1 to GEO (since SpaceX has not yet attempted a launch to GEO).

Musk's comments sound like FUD to encourage sales of Falcon 9 launches, nothing more.

Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by queazocotal · 2012-11-19 01:37 · Score: 2, Informative

"and on the fourth launch it lost an engine and couldn't deploy a secondary payload successfully and the mission was not a complete success." - a couple of points.
Firstly, the secondary payload was launched on this basis, with the understanding it was not a guaranteed launch, for a reduced fee.
Secondly, the rocket was actually capable of doing the secondary mission, but was prevented due to NASA rules precluding it.
(The rules were there to eliminate even the theoretical possibility of the relit second stage hitting ISS. They were arguably a bit tough).
Reliability isn't everything.
At some point, if you're a third the cost, even if you lose one vehicle in five, you start getting a lot more business.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by arse+maker · 2012-11-19 01:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Falcon 9 is cheaper and has been pretty successful.
If I was running the Ariane program I would be worried. You are betting on the Falcon 9 having failures. Otherwise you cannot compete for a large part of the market.
If the Heavy works, you are out of business. It might be FUD, but it is also true.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by trout007 · 2012-11-19 01:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Look at the Ariane 5 flights before 2002. First flight had to be terminated. Second flight didn't reach intended orbit. Then 7 successes. Then a failure to reach intended orbit. Then 3 successes. Then a flight needed to be terminated. Success since then.
So far in the first 4 flights Falcon 9 has performed better than Ariane 5's first 4 flights. No terminations, one failure to insert in intended orbit and one failure of secondary payload.
This reinforces Musk's point. You get better the more you fly. As long as they keep flying and learning it will get better quickly. Now right now if I had a Billion Dollar payload I'd pay for an Ariane 5, Delta IV, or Atlas V. But if I was planning a $200 million dollar total mission it would be impossible on anything but a Falcon 9.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by arse+maker · 2012-11-19 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

That would almost never be true.
The cost of launch is almost (probably always) a tiny part of the total cost of designing, building and launching something.
The launch might be $80m, but if you lose a $200m payload its not so good.
There is insurance which makes the cost analysis more complex, I'm not sure how that would factor in. However it would have to be far more reliable than 1/5 for 1/3 the cost.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by queazocotal · 2012-11-19 01:57 · Score: 1

If launch costs go down, it becomes more economic to make the spacecraft cheaper.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by trout007 · 2012-11-19 01:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Insurance can be simplified.
Suppose you want to insure a $200M payload. Assume the insurance company can get a 10% profit. If the launcher is 80% reliable there is a 1 in 5 chance of paying out. So the even cost would be $40 million. Plus a 10% profit = $44 million.
For a 90% reliable = $22 million
For a 95% reliable = $11 million
For a 97.5% reliable = $5.5 million
So a company needs to look at a few things. How much cheaper is the launcher and what losses in income will you have during the delay to build a new satellite. You may be able to insure for those loses as well.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:58 · Score: 0

The first Ariane 5 launch was a failure and this by a company that had been doing this for years.
Give SpaceX another few years and you will be able to judge their success rate but I definitely would not chock anything Elon says as just FUD. Maybe a warning, a threat or a promise but not FUD. FUD exist only in the minds of SpaceX's competitors. Also, while the Falcons last launch was not a complete success it's understood that it could have been if not for some contractual requirements by NASA that prevented it from doing so.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by eulernet · 2012-11-19 02:01 · Score: 1

There are also political issues: Ariane is french but also european.
Using american rockets is interesting if you focus only on costs, but it is definitely an error if you intend to develop and improve technology.
It's obvious that europeans will continue to use Ariane, americans will use SpaceX, and russians will use their own system.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by arse+maker · 2012-11-19 02:07 · Score: 2

On the face of it, yes insurance is easy.
But its more complex. What is being insured? The parts, labor.. design time?
The cost of employing 100 people for another few years while its being rebuilt?
What if you can't launch again because of time, not money?
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:07 · Score: 0

It's true that Ariane has a proven track record, but it'd be wrong to write off Falcon based on 2 problems in its first (so far only) 4 launches.
The first Falcon mission is classes as a success, because it did make it to orbit. You can expect a few problems on a first launch, as it the first real test that gives them data to work on for the next launches. As you point out the 4th mission was a partial failure, but it did deploy the primary payload successfully.
Ariane 5's first launch was a total failure, and second a partial failure - so if you compare them on the first 4 launches alone Falcon is still in the lead right now. Just.
Ariane didn't have another problem until launch #10, so we'll need to wait a while for more launches before we can really compare the reliability of the two.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by dkf · 2012-11-19 02:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Falcon 9 is cheaper and has been pretty successful.
But is it because they're good or because they're lucky? You can't tell from Musk's comments; one of his tasks is to pitch as high as possible to bring in investors and persuade customers to jump ship.

If I was running the Ariane program I would be worried. You are betting on the Falcon 9 having failures. Otherwise you cannot compete for a large part of the market.
If the Heavy works, you are out of business. It might be FUD, but it is also true.
Right now, you've got someone talking up a product that hasn't actually entered service yet and you're believing them on the basis of an exceptionally short service history with a different system (the Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 are targeted at different types of payloads; you'd probably be better off comparing with the A5 predecessor). It's FUD and vaporware vs stuff that actually exists. We don't tolerate that when talking about software, so why should we be more lenient about rockets? Arianespace will start worrying once the Falcon Heavy has actually lifted a decent number of loads without incident (remember to compare the sum of the launch costs and the insurance, because the satellite owners will surely do that sum).

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by arse+maker · 2012-11-19 02:22 · Score: 1

With the Heavy you are right that it hasn't entered service.
Though none of their products are vaporware. They have delivered.
Its valid logic to say any one launch maybe lucky, however launching something in to space is so complex that doing it once is a pretty strong indicator that you can do it again.
If the Falcon Heavy has one successful launch Arianespace will be really worried. Of course if SpaceX then lose the next 3 it will be a disaster. But I said before.. Arianespace would be counting on them to fail, if SpaceX doesn't then they are out of business.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by crazyjj · 2012-11-19 02:25 · Score: 1

It's FUD and vaporware vs stuff that actually exists.
Musk may be engaging in FUD, but the Falcon is definitely not vaporware. It's a real rocket that launches real cheap, and has had several real launches delivering real payload.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by crazyjj · 2012-11-19 02:28 · Score: 1

russians will use their own system.
Soyuz--which has a much longer and better track record than either. But they're just dirty commies, right, so what do they know?

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 02:34 · Score: 5, Informative

The market SpaceX is competing in already has the Ariane as well as other commercial/military launchers like the Deltas, the HII-B and of course the venerable Soyuz (1700 launches and counting) which is a closer match to the Falcon 9's capabilities. They're playing catchup with their launch price being the big market attractor while they get the bugs out and improve their throw weight.
What would you be launching and where for 200 mill? A geosync DBS bird costs about 100 million shrinkwrapped for launch with insurance, load integration and launch costs pushing the total price up to about 400 million dollars US after it has been delivered to its final position in the GEO constellation.
Scientific and telecomms platforms can be put into LEO for a lot less, of course but there are a lot more boosters other than the Falcon 9 that can do this job; the Ariane's speciality is DBS launches, two at a time with a side-order of Space Station resupply and reboost ATVs delivering 6 tonnes plus of payload and fuel per shot in a 20-tonne vehicle (the first commercial DragonX resupply mission carried about 500kg of cargo and no fuel).
SpaceX still hasn't attempted even a test GEO launch of a single DBS/GEO payload and is incapable of putting the biggest such satellites in place -- INTELSAT 20 launched by Arianespace in August this year massed about 6 tonnes, a tonne more than the uprated Falcon 9 is expected to be able to put into GEO. The same launch also put a 3-tonne DBS into GEO making the entire launch load over 10 tonnes including ancillary materials, way above anything the Falcon 9 will ever be able to do.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Alioth · 2012-11-19 02:42 · Score: 1

At the same point in Arianne's life (the 4th launch), one Arianne 5 had exploded and not reached orbit, one had partially failed and there had been two successes.
It's too early days to say whether the Falcon will be more or less reliable than Arianne 5 (which now has a proven track record).

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

And when the Falcon 9 has 50 successful launches, what's going to be the argument then? Now is the time for Arianespace to move on this, not when its platform has been rendered firmly obsolete and overpriced for any sort of launch.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by SomeKDEUser · 2012-11-19 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative

you can get soyuz launches from Arianespace. TRhey launch from Kourou, which gives them a higher payload capability than if you bought it directly from the Russians to be launched in Baikonour.
Arianespace clearly knows that things are moving and that a medium launcher which is very cost competitive is a good idea. Soyouz is almost imposible to beat... And they also know about the need for small launchers, which is why they have added Vega to their lineup -- vega development which are also useful for future booster capabilities.
Musk talks about Ariane as though it were the only product from Arianespace. Not so :)
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 02:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

The cost of launch is almost (probably always) a tiny part of the total cost of designing, building and launching something.
It's the same "tiny" fraction of the total cost of the payload, roughly 10-20%. The only exceptions are really expensive payloads (say multibillion dollar US DOD/NRO satellties) or really cheap ones (such as test payloads for new launch systems).

So it's reasonable to expect as launch costs go down, new engineered systems, designed to go up on the cheaper launches, will also drop in cost.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 03:33 · Score: 2, Flamebait

DBS and other geosync birds are getting bigger and heavier for various reasons -- more propellant so they can stay in their orbit slot longer, more solar cells to drive stronger transmitters, more broadcast channels, more fail-soft backup gear etc.
At the moment the Falcon 9 can (theoretically) put a typical satellite maxing out at about 4 tonnes or so into GEO with the forthcoming V1.1 version increasing that to 5 tonnes. It can't lift the newer birds like INTELSAT 20 weighing over six tonnes as Ariane can (and has done).
Until the paper-exercise Falcon Heavy with its kludgey fuel-transfer-in-flight mode flies SpaceX can't compete with Ariane's proven lift capability. After that... SpaceX only has one customer pencilled in for Heavy and that's Intelsat in 2015. A 50-tonne to LEO lift capability fits few if any commercial niches today; even the Delta 4 Heavy is underused with its 23-tonne to LEO capability.
Of course the Falcon Heavy's main projected use is manned missions to the Moon and Mars but that assumes substantial and sustained funding for such a project in the trillion dollar range at a time when the focus for space exploration is turning more and more to capable robots and cheap expendable probes rather than spam-in-a-can.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Until the paper-exercise Falcon Heavy with its kludgey fuel-transfer-in-flight mode flies
I'd call it "brilliant" and "elegant" not "kludgey", but I guess such things are in the eye of the beholder. Just keep in mind that a) it significantly improves the mass fraction of the Falcon 9 Heavy (which rather than the Falcon Heavy, is the true Arianespace 5 competitor) at moderate complexity increase, and b) uses existing components, three copies of the Falcon 9 "core" (the first stage), greatly reducing production costs.

And as for calling it a "paper exercise", they've already demonstrated the rocket engines and launched the basic Falcon 9 core. It's not been tested as a whole, but the components are far from "paper".

Of course the Falcon Heavy's main projected use is manned missions to the Moon and Mars but that assumes substantial and sustained funding for such a project in the trillion dollar range
Cheaper launch vehicle means cheaper missions. And NASA is notorious for making things one to two orders of magnitude more expensive than they need to be. I think once the Falcon Heavy flies, we'll be in funding range of private manned space exploration of both the surface of the Moon and Mars.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:04 · Score: 0

I want the cheaper one, even if it doesn't work as well?
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:12 · Score: 0

GP didn't mention anything bad about the Russians, why all the butthurtsky comrade?
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 04:21 · Score: 2

Transferring fuel and oxidiser sideways between tankage sections under 3-4 gees of thrust and vibration is, as far as I am aware, going to be a first in rocketry. It takes plumbing, pumps, valve gear etc. meaning major changes to the core and strap-on sections which add to the vehicle weight as well as the cost of manufacture since the cores are no longer physically identical. In contrast the Delta 4 Heavy strap-ons are pretty nearly identical to the core; the central engine just runs throttled down so that when the strap-ons separate it has enough propellant left to continue to orbit without the extra parasitic weight of transfer pumps etc. I don't know why this option isn't available to SpaceX; do the Merlin engines have a throttle-down and/or in-flight start capability?
The major cost of a manned Moon or Mars mission isn't the launch vehicles, it's the crew vehicle design and testing and construction. There would be a large number of actual launches to lift everything needed for even a "boots and banners" go-there-and-never-go-back mission; not even Elon thinks he could go to Mars (even one-way) on a single Falcon Heavy stack. That's where the trillion dollars would be spent and saving even 20 million bucks a launch by flying a flock of Falcons wouldn't shave more than 50 billion off that thirteen-digit price ticket in the end.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Yoda222 · 2012-11-19 04:27 · Score: 1

That's a simplified vision of the world. CNES (french agency) use sometimes european launcher, sometimes american, sometimes russian. Some US satellite operators are launching european made satellite from Kazakhstan using a russian launcher operated by the european arianespace (in a joint company with russian) (this specific case is globalstar 2nd generation satellite) Luxemburgish-US operator buy french or us satellite, the satellite can be launched from guyana or florida or baikonour, Nasa send people on russian spacecraft...
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:55 · Score: 0

design time is hardly a factor, IMO, once a device is designed a second can be made without spending that again (design is a 'sunk cost' not a marginal one), thus it doesn't need to be insured.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:57 · Score: 0

Plus, they're a private company. They have to get it right if they want business, and as employees they have to have business to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not true of the ESA or most Government agencies.
Despite all the anti-corporate rhetoric on slashdot, private industry is much better than Government, especially at a constant, repeatable process. Government is better at figuring out how to do something where cost can be a factor, because they have the ability to absorb most of the costs. But people know how to launch rockets into space now. Now you give it to private industry and find a way to make it safe, reliable, and cheap; that's what the corporate sector is good at.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Transferring fuel and oxidiser sideways between tankage sections under 3-4 gees of thrust and vibration is, as far as I am aware, going to be a first in rocketry. It takes plumbing, pumps, valve gear etc. meaning major changes to the core and strap-on sections which add to the vehicle weight as well as the cost of manufacture since the cores are no longer physically identical. In contrast the Delta 4 Heavy strap-ons are pretty nearly identical to the core; the central engine just runs throttled down so that when the strap-ons separate it has enough propellant left to continue to orbit without the extra parasitic weight of transfer pumps etc. I don't know why this option isn't available to SpaceX; do the Merlin engines have a throttle-down and/or in-flight start capability?
Just because something is new doesn't mean it is a "kludge". Also, they have natural ways to throttle down arrays of engines. Just shut down some of the rocket engines as you no longer need the thrust.

The major cost of a manned Moon or Mars mission isn't the launch vehicles, it's the crew vehicle design and testing and construction.

No, there is a genuine bottleneck in the cost of getting it into space. Every kg you use adds cost to the mission. As a result, mission cost generally is five to ten times the launch costs. So shaving $50 billion in launch costs yields a additional $200-450 billion reduction in total costs.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by trout007 · 2012-11-19 05:28 · Score: 1

That's your call. In a free market it's like calling a bookie. "Hey Lou what are the odds on my satellite not making it to it's proper orbit? 10:1 Huh? All right put me down for a hundie mil."

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 06:01 · Score: 0

LOX/RP-1 motors aren't hypergolic just like fully-cryogenic motors so shutting them off in flight is something you do only once. Relighting them would require extra hardware and may not work anyway -- relightable motors tend to use hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide since they're hypergolic and store nicely. Using a bulky array of redundant motors as Soyuz and SpaceX do it is possible to throttle-down by shutting one or more motors in a cluster off but it can't throttle back up again after booster separation or in-atmosphere peak dynamic load points are passed.
Modern cryogenic engine designs like the Vulcain-1, the RS-68A and even the venerable RS-25 Block 2 have throttle-down capability so they don't need to use the venerable clustered-motor system SpaceX has adopted from Soyuz. It's certainly possible to design LOX/RP-1 motors to be throttleable but it costs in complexity and weight penalties and they're a bugger to design to keep the Isp numbers high throughout the throttle range.
As for the base cost of a boots-and-banners Mars mission, assuming 2000 tonnes into LEO to get four or six crew to Mars and back the launch costs using a hundred Ariane launches of 20-tonne lumps would be around 25 billion dollars. Doing it with two hundred Falcon 9 launches of 10-tonne lumps would cost about 12 billion dollars. That's excluding crew flights to the Mars transfer vehicles in orbit which would add another few hundred million dollars to the cost. Quantity discounts apply, of course but the actual launch cost of such a mission would still be well under 30 billion using existing pre-tested launchers whichever vehicle family you choose to throw the lumps up there. Building and testing the fleet of fuel tanker/motor modules, landers, ascent stages, Mars orbiter transfer vehicles, supply landers etc. is where the rest of the trillion bucks goes. It's also the giant suck of time, the years that would stretch into decades since all of it would have to be built and working before the first crew gets into their Soyuz or Dragon capsule on their ride to orbit.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Teancum · 2012-11-19 06:09 · Score: 2

In the case of the OrbComm satellite, what was lost was a demonstration satellite where the intention was to test the technology in space, to turn on the computers and bounce a few signals off of the satellite. While it would have been incredibly useful to have the satellite go to a higher orbit and to be used for a longer period of time, there were considerable tests and engineering activities that were able to be proven over the few days that the satellite was able to stay in orbit.
In short, what was insured by OrbComm was the cost of the launch (which SpaceX may just give to OrbComm for free anyway as a good-will gesture in a future flight) plus a partial replacement of the vehicle. The design time is essentially meaningless as it is a part of a whole series of identical satellites that are going into serial production. The production line is still in place so there isn't even a need to retool... they just need to increase their orders from their suppliers and keep the production line going. The production line also won't take "a few years", as they are producing a satellite every couple of months at the moment. As I said, it is in serial production right now. The insurance underwriter refused to pay full price for the vehicle because it did make the trip into space and in fact engineering tests were able to be performed successfully even in the lousy orbit it was put into.
OrbComm has been considering other launch companies for their vehicles, but the fact is that the other companies can't beat SpaceX for price. The market that OrbComm is going into has extremely tight profit margins and competition from companies who don't even use vehicles in space. That price difference is what will likely make OrbComm profitable instead of a financial disaster like Iridium was once upon a time.
The fact that the primary payload on the CRS-1 flight was placed into the proper orbit in spite of a significant mechanical failure is something that the insurance company is looking at very favorably, and in that case a refund/reflight by SpaceX will further encourage any insurance company flying payloads with SpaceX. The only negative feature for future flights is that insurance for secondary payloads where NASA is the primary payload contractor will most certainly increase. Ultimately that justifies charging NASA more for future flights... above an beyond what other commercial customers wouldn't have to pay because their flight rules wouldn't be nearly as stringent as NASA's. I understand the concern that there was a 1% chance of the OrbComm satellite + Falcon 9 upper stage crashing into the ISS (the excuse for why the OrbComm satellite wasn't put into the proper orbit), but I expect future payloads and missions will take those issues into mind.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by voidptr · 2012-11-19 06:35 · Score: 1

Transferring fuel and oxidiser sideways between tankage sections under 3-4 gees of thrust and vibration is, as far as I am aware, going to be a first in rocketry.
The Space Shuttle would like a word. What do you think was in that big orange tank that didn't have engines on the bottom of it?

--
This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by hackertourist · 2012-11-19 07:21 · Score: 1

Remember the Shuttle? 3 engines that were fed using sideways fuel transfer from the ET?
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 07:26 · Score: 1

Modern cryogenic engine designs like the Vulcain-1, the RS-68A and even the venerable RS-25 Block 2 have throttle-down capability so they don't need to use the venerable clustered-motor system SpaceX has adopted from Soyuz.
In other words, they need a throttle down system because they haven't adopted the venerable clustered-motor system. As it turns out, the Merlin engine can be throttled between 60% and 100% (which is handy for the second stage), but they don't need that for the first stage.

Building and testing the fleet of fuel tanker/motor modules, landers, ascent stages, Mars orbiter transfer vehicles, supply landers etc. is where the rest of the trillion bucks goes.
Well, if that's too much, then spend less. I don't take the trillion dollar estimate seriously. If we launch 1000 tons, including the four person crew, to LEO, at $3000 per ton on the Falcon 9 Heavy (in 20 ton lots) or $2000 per ton on the Falcon Heavy (in 50 ton lots), then that's only $2-3 billion in launch costs.

It's also the giant suck of time, the years that would stretch into decades since all of it would have to be built and working before the first crew gets into their Soyuz or Dragon capsule on their ride to orbit.
What would take so long? Obviously, there's nothing going on now (with NASA doing psychological experiments, of all things) so it would take some time to ramp up. But we made rapid progress before, going from the first orbital launches to a person on the Moon in twelve years. The claim that it would take decades isn't based on actual history of manned space flight.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 07:36 · Score: 1

The fuel and oxidiser from the ET was fed directly into the Shuttle's motor pump intakes; once the valves shut and the ET disconnected that was it. That valve gear and disconnect system was a pain in the arse as it was complicated, a major failure point if it ever let rip in flight and also heavy, cutting into the Shuttle's payload capacity. The SpaceX design for the Heavy requires topping up the core booster's LOX and RP1 tanks from the two outboard booster segments. Instead of using gravity and acceleration to provide most of the force to make the liquids flow downwards as the Shuttle used, it will need transfer pumps as they're going to be refilling the tanks sideways, not straight down. They will have to be decent-sized pumps too, each capable of transferring 30-40 tonnes of liquid in a minute or so further eating into the final payload.
If SpaceX could throttle their motors like modern launchers can then they could avoid this fuel transfer problem but more sophisticated engines would mean costlier launches.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by queazocotal · 2012-11-19 07:44 · Score: 1

A 1% chance of the relit stage not performing to target performance, as I understand it.
Far from a 1% chance of it hitting ISS.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 07:54 · Score: 1

What would take so long...
Development of a capsule system that could keep people alive for 18 months to two years for the round trip to and from Mars. Part of that development time would be taken up by a full-dress unmanned rehearsal flight under remote control before risking human beings -- that would take about two years total after maybe ten years development work. Nine months there, nine months back and six months in Mars orbit waiting for Earth and Mars to align properly again. If something goes wrong and the scratch monkeys on board die in some interesting manner then it's back to the drawing board again of course.
Development and deployment in LEO, Mars orbit and the Martian surface of the fleet of fuel tankers, tugs, supply landers, manned landers, ascent stages and transfer vehicles plus emergency rescue spares in case something goes bonk along the way. That's what makes up the 2000 tonnes to LEO I mentioned; note that at least half of that mass will be fuel, probably hydrazine and N2O4 as cryogenic gases don't store well in orbit.
A worked example is the ISS -- 400 tonnes of modules, none of which massed more than 20 tonnes on the pad before launch. From proposal to completion took well over a decade, funding was trimmed and restored, corners were cut and major revisions made as it was built. For 150 billion dollars we ended up with a large spacecraft that can only go round in circles and if a really serious problem ever occurred then the crew could be rescued in theory since a compatible biosphere is only 400 km away. A manned Mars mission is going to cost a lot more than that, and the launch costs are a minor part of the time and money budgets.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 08:06 · Score: 1

Development of a capsule system that could keep people alive for 18 months to two years for the round trip to and from Mars.. Part of that development time would be taken up by a full-dress unmanned rehearsal flight under remote control before risking human beings -- that would take about two years total after maybe ten years development work.
Here's part of the problem. Bogus and excessive testing procedures. What's the point of not having people on such a mission? It's not a full-dress rehearsal flight without people anyway. Might as well put some people on board and hit the Martian moons while you're out there. And maybe land on Mars for a couple of years while you're at it.

Development and deployment in LEO, Mars orbit and the Martian surface of the fleet of fuel tankers, tugs, supply landers, manned landers, ascent stages and transfer vehicles plus emergency rescue spares in case something goes bonk along the way. That's what makes up the 2000 tonnes to LEO I mentioned; note that at least half of that mass will be fuel, probably hydrazine and N2O4 as cryogenic gases don't store well in orbit.Development and deployment in LEO, Mars orbit and the Martian surface of the fleet of fuel tankers, tugs, supply landers, manned landers, ascent stages and transfer vehicles plus emergency rescue spares in case something goes bonk along the way. That's what makes up the 2000 tonnes to LEO I mentioned; note that at least half of that mass will be fuel, probably hydrazine and N2O4 as cryogenic gases don't store well in orbit.
Or get your propellant from Mars and cut that payload requirement in half or more right there.

A worked example is the ISS -- 400 tonnes of modules, none of which massed more than 20 tonnes on the pad before launch. From proposal to completion took well over a decade, funding was trimmed and restored, corners were cut and major revisions made as it was built. For 150 billion dollars we ended up with a large spacecraft that can only go round in circles and if a really serious problem ever occurred then the crew could be rescued in theory since a compatible biosphere is only 400 km away. A manned Mars mission is going to cost a lot more than that, and the launch costs are a minor part of the time and money budgets.
And if there was more funding lying on the table, it would have cost even more than it did. It is foolish to take the ISS as a serious spacecraft rather than a convenient white elephant for transferring money from taxpayers to political merchants.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Teancum · 2012-11-19 09:13 · Score: 1

The concern was really hitting the ISS. The relit stage was not a concern but rather that there might not be enough fuel to clear the ISS orbit, particularly as more delta-v was needed than was thought left in the 2nd stage. Because the 2nd stage had to burn a little bit longer due to the loss of engine, that pretty much ate up the reserves that NASA felt was necessary to inject the OrbComm satellite into a higher orbit and clear the ISS... so they decided to fly under the ISS orbit instead. That of course put it closer to the Earth and a much higher air resistance from the atmosphere... which is why the OrbComm satellite reentered the atmosphere a little more than a week later with the Falcon 9 2nd stage.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Teancum · 2012-11-19 09:32 · Score: 1

While it would seem as though SpaceX may capture the market for American spaceflight companies, note that there are nearly a dozen companies in America that are playing catch-up to SpaceX and could in theory reduce costs below what SpaceX is currently charging. Some of those are traditional spaceflight companies like Boeing, ATK, and Lockheed-Martin (all of whom have launchers that can compete against the Falcon 9), but you also have companies like Stratolaunch, the Spaceship Company (yes, that is the name), Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, Masten, Sierra Nevada, XCor, Northrup-Grumman, and others who are all in the process of building competitive launch vehicles at some stage or another.
There are even a couple European companies of interest that are developing rockets that may even compete against the Ariane rockets within the EU and some entrepreneurial start-ups in Russia to compete against RKK Energia.
If SpaceX sits back and thinks they have captured the market, they will be passed by some other start-up company to take their place. There is nothing really unique to what SpaceX has done, other than they are the only company currently flying man-rated hardware in orbit from America. That counts for something, but they won't be alone.
Perhaps there will be a shakedown of the space launch industry with some or even many of these companies going out of business, but it is very competitive right now and I wouldn't pick any particular company dominating for some time.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by Teancum · 2012-11-19 09:41 · Score: 1

I haven't really understood why SpaceX gave up the Falcon 1e development, in terms of competing for the small launcher market. SpaceX developed the technology to have secondary payloads fly on their vehicle, giving them the ability to launch almost any satellite or even any number of satellites. Still, it would seem there is a market for precisely timed launches that have a relatively modest payload.
Essentially SpaceX has given up that small launcher market segment. I'm not sure if that was a good move or not, as the Falcon 1 is a proven launch design.
Re:SpaceX vs. ESA by khallow · 2012-11-19 12:32 · Score: 1

If SpaceX could throttle their motors like modern launchers can then they could avoid this fuel transfer problem but more sophisticated engines would mean costlier launches.
That's not the point of cross-feed. The point is that the Falcon 9 heavy launches with three side by side "cores" (first stages) and engines on the bottom of every one of those cores. By emptying the two on the outside first before even touching the propellant stored in the core in the center, the rocket minimizes the time that it is burning fuel to lift those two heavy outer cores (which aren't going to space).

And it efficiently uses all available rockets on the base of all of the cores. When it has three times the mass of the first stage, it has three times the propulsion power. You could develop a engine (or engine cluster) that can throttle back to under a third of its original thrust, but what would be the point of that when you can have three such engines one each on the base of each core?

That means a better mass fraction and more mass to orbit.

Even with far more sophisticated engines, the advantage of cross-feed remains, namely, that the dead weight of the two empty side cores comes off earlier than it would in the absence of cross-feed, and every rocket is used in the first few minutes of liftoff.

Translated by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Ariane 5 has no chance,"
translates to "Arian 5 is our big competitor"

"Mr Musk said that the cost of producing the current European rocket would kill it as a commercial entity."
Translates as "Give us a subsidy US military or we can't keep competing on price!"

"Not only can we sustain the prices, but the next version of Falcon 9 is actually able to go to a lower price,"
Translates as:
"We hope to get to the stock market before we burn through our $1 billion in capital, Groupon/Facebook style! Ka-chink!"

Sounds like marketing to me. Whenever I see a company focus on dissing a competitor, I immediately wonder why they're going negative campaigning.

Re:Translated by trout007 · 2012-11-19 02:32 · Score: 1

Sounds like marketing to me. Whenever I see a company focus on dissing a competitor, I immediately wonder why they're going negative campaigning.
Usually it's the upstarts that try to tear down the competition. The market leaders never mention the competition. You rarely see Honda, Toyota, Apple, etc mention the competition. Kia always says how much cheaper they are than Honda. Samsung always pokes fun at Apple for being overpriced.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:Translated by yesterdaystomorrow · 2012-11-19 03:23 · Score: 1

Whenever I see a company focus on dissing a competitor, I immediately wonder why they're going negative campaigning.
Musk doesn't need to diss Ariane 5: his company is taking business away from them without any negativity. The thing that surprises me here is how positive he is about Ariane 6. Given how rapidly SpaceX is improving their product, I don't see how Arianespace, with its slow expensive processes, could ever get ahead with a new vehicle.
Re:Translated by Ja'Achan · 2012-11-19 03:26 · Score: 1

"Mr Musk said that the cost of producing the current European rocket would kill it as a commercial entity."
Translates as "Give us a subsidy US military or we can't keep competing on price!"
Fairly sure by "it" he means the Ariane, not SpaceX. I.e. the Ariane is too expensive to be cost-effective.
Re:Translated by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:09 · Score: 0

You rarely see Honda, Toyota, Apple, etc mention the competition.
Hi, I'm a PC...and I'm a Mac.
Re:Translated by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-11-19 13:31 · Score: 2

Eh. You have to remember Elon Musk is an engineer first and a sales guy only a very distant second. Most of the time when he's talking, it's the engineer speaking. He's actually quite bad at the now-classic "salespeak" that we're accustomed to hearing from typical corporate mouthpieces. He speaks too much truth.
"Ariane 5 has no chance" translates as "everybody knows how much an Ariane 5 costs and Falcon 9 Heavy will cost a lot less for the same payload. A whole lot less."
Same for your second quote.
"Not only can we sustain the prices, but the next version of Falcon 9 is actually able to go to a lower price" translates as "we are already profitable on every single launch and our profit margin is good enough that we will be able to reduce our retail price to match our cost savings when we start making the revised Falcon 9." And this is true. Your "translation" is utter nonsense and doesn't deserve anything like the moderation it got. SpaceX is profitable. Right now. At its current prices. All three of your bogus "translations" fall apart on that fact alone. Their launch price for customers is lower than all of their competitors, their reliability at this stage in the launch counts is better than most of their competitors, and there is no reason to believe either of those conditions will change with the rollout of the Falcon 9 Heavy.
They are not using startup capital to build rockets anymore. They're using customer revenue, and that revenue includes non-governmental entities. Each and every launch from now on is paid for completely by the customer with the payload, with profit left over for SpaceX to use for continuing engineering work. Worse for you, even their contracts with governmental agencies, NASA most notably, are fixed price. They are not cost-plus contracts. They don't get to screw up, either accidentally or intentionally, and pad the bill to pay for it. What they bid is what they get, and no more. This is extremely unusual in this day and age. You can't even get such a contract with ULA. This means that, on top of their reliability and overall reduced cost, that cost can be depended upon by their customer, which simplifies their own financial planning tremendously. Even if their prices didn't already have the yawning chasm of advantage they currently enjoy, the fixed price alone would win them contracts.
If I were Elon Musk, I would never take SpaceX public. Why would he? SpaceX is profitable and sustainable right now, without any additional capitalization, and they're in a business that almost no one understands, as you have so thoroughly demonstrated with your utter failure. Why bother with ignorant stockholders who know nothing and don't care to, when the business is already making money? There are no good reasons to go to the time, trouble, and expense of dealing with fools like you who happen to own some of their stock, and plenty of good reasons not to bother.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Kergan · 2012-11-19 01:30 · Score: 1

Especially with governments who have traditionally viewed keeping this kind of know-how a matter of national security.

ONE WORD: SATURN 5B !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:30 · Score: 0

The king of kings of launch. Everything else is so -- so chinese !!

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by icebraining · 2012-11-19 01:36 · Score: 2

And what government would that be?

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Cost and Payload by MyLongNickName · 2012-11-19 01:36 · Score: 1

If you don't want to RTFA and Wikipedia it

Launch Cost: $60M
Payload: 13,150 kg to LEO, 4,850 kg to geostationary.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

Re:Cost and Payload by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:52 · Score: 0

Is that the Cost/Payload of Ariane or Falcon? And how does it compare to the other one?
The absolute cost is only interesting if you are going to buy a lift. For competition, it's the relation that counts. It doesn't matter too much if you are expensive as long as your competitors are even more expensive (assuming you are not so expensive that the customers decide not to buy at all).
Re:Cost and Payload by 0123456 · 2012-11-19 02:18 · Score: 2

Is that the Cost/Payload of Ariane or Falcon? And how does it compare to the other one?
Put it this way. Ariane is expensive enough that many people launching billion-dollar satellites would rather put them on a Russian rocket and hope they didn't leave a vodka bottle in the engine when they built it.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-19 01:37 · Score: 1

He founded Tesla which has yet to produce a car which is more than an expensive toy that few people can afford.

How is that a scam? Who's forcing you to buy a Tesla?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by captainpanic · 2012-11-19 01:47 · Score: 2

Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp

There's an old word for this by mrthoughtful · 2012-11-19 01:47 · Score: 1

Hubris

--
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by ArsonSmith · 2012-11-19 01:49 · Score: 2

Did you want a list? The governments of: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Happy?

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:51 · Score: 0

Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp

And they are the only possible competition SpaceX could ever have, right? With no government players involved anywhere in this industry, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, the summary mentioning two private companies doesn't take away a posters' freedom to bring up other related topics. Wow! Isn't that a mind-expanding thought?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:52 · Score: 0

I being forced to pay for it though taxes in the form of government loans and tax breaks to those that purchase these vehicles.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:56 · Score: 1, Funny

Frankly, if you are impressed by what Musk has done, that's enough to determine that you have poor analytical skills are are instead swayed by shiny things.

So, an Apple customer?

Companies price to what the market will bear by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

"At some point, if you're a third the cost, even if you lose one vehicle in five, you start getting a lot more business."
Companies price their products to what the market will bear, if he could price it at Arianne - 5%, he would. He's having to deep discount and that suggests he's having difficulty attracting customers with so many teething problems.

"Reliability isn't everything"
We use to send mobile phones via registered post in the UK. A lot of them were stolen, our contract meant we received the value of the phone back from their insurance. We lost those customers who didn't re-order, we got a bad reputation and eventually we had enough and ditched Royal Mail. See it only works if you ONLY count the cost of the lost satellite, not the damage it does by the failure to launch as contracted.

SpaceX need to improve their reliability, and get their heavy launcher out the door. Less hype, less fake 'reusable' claims from a rocket that gone only 2 feet off the ground. Less BS attacks on competitors, they need to iron out THEIR problems with THEIR first launcher. Discounting to keep customers is a short term fix only.

As it is, it looks like he's trying to draw attention away from his owns companies problems.

Re:Companies price to what the market will bear by Teancum · 2012-11-19 08:28 · Score: 2

What reliability issues are you talking about? SpaceX has launched a total of 46 Merlin engines with three failures. That is an 85% success rate... something that most launch companies would be glad to see in the early phases of their launch program. Some of those failures were engineering failures (like forgetting about galvanic corrosion, or that rockets continue to burn even after the engines shut down). Those have been addressed, but it is reasonable to ask what other lessons does SpaceX need to still learn that should have been obvious?
Dismissing the Grasshopper program is getting pretty low. That is supposed to be a test program. I also dare you to find anybody anywhere that has flown a vehicle as large as the Grasshopper up for any distance (it actually went up about 20 feet, not two) and has been able to do a successful vertical landing like SpaceX. There was a NASA flight where a rocket "burped" and the engines fired but were shut off suddenly... and the rocket wobbled on the launch stand for awhile with everybody on the pad panicking with the thought that it would fall over. That is the only other similar rocket of the same scale that even comes close and that wasn't even intentional. Next time try to look at the scale of that vehicle first before you start to criticize it, not to mention that it is but the first of several flights that are planned. You can be critical if it goes up and corkscrews down onto the launch pad afterward like Armadillo Aerospace's Pixel did on its final flight (after several dozen successful flights by John Carmack).
I do agree that SpaceX need to do rather than talk though. The only way to genuinely silence their critics is to get their manifest cleared by sending payloads into space where they belong. I have reason to think SpaceX is going to be successful at doing just that, but they are working on that too. There should be another flight of the Falcon 9 very soon. It was supposed to be in December, so it will be interesting to see if they can get the FAA-AST to clear the use of the Merlin 1-C engine after the mishap on the last flight. Oh yeah, it isn't just SpaceX that has to sign off here or even NASA for that matter. There are regulations in place for commercial spaceflight that must be met.
Re:Companies price to what the market will bear by intangible · 2012-11-19 20:20 · Score: 1

To be fair the Delta Clipper DC-X accomplished a lot... It was about 40ft tall (compared to the Grasshopper's 109ft I think). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I being forced to pay for it though taxes in the form of government loans and tax breaks to those that purchase these vehicles.

Here's a hint for you -- the $7500 tax credit is just that -- a credit on taxes. The car costs $100k.

Odds are the buyers are paying more in taxes than most people on Slashdot make, so guess what? Its *their* taxes that are paying for those vehicles, not yours.

As someone who pays well into the six figures in just federal income tax, let me be the first to say "fuck you". *My* taxes are paying for those discounts. *My* taxes are paying for your schools. *My* taxes are more than an order of magnitude higher than any benefits *I* get from the government.

And guess what? *I* am not so fucking shortsighted as to complain that my taxes are going to things that help the country, and help the environment.

Yep, it's all fun and games... by Noryungi · 2012-11-19 02:01 · Score: 1

... Until one of your rockets explode while going up, or even on the launchpad.

Not to belittle SpaceX, but they have had, what? Four successful launches so far? Ariane has had 62 successful launches out of 66.

And don't get me started on Soyuz rockets - the first one flew in 1966 - with 1600+ successful launches to its credit.

Wake me up when SpaceX has had 60+ launches without a hitch. Until then, Musk is just talking P.R. for his firm.

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

Re:Yep, it's all fun and games... by crazyjj · 2012-11-19 02:30 · Score: 1

Musk is just talking P.R. for his firm.
Yeah, you'd almost think that was part of his job or something.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Rogerborg · 2012-11-19 02:02 · Score: 1, Offtopic

It's a scam in the same way that all heavyweight electric vehicles are in the real world. Half a billion dollars of Federal "loans" has produced resource intensive toys with poorer than advertised range and performance, that catch fire, the batteries brick themselves, and even even if everything worked, the majority of the electricity used to charge them is still coming from fossil sources and will continue to do so until well after the extant Teslas are being shoved into landfills.

If they worked, and if we had enough grid capacity to charge them and if a lot (a lot) more electricity came from renewable sources and if those renewable sources weren't themselves a financially and fossil-energy subsidised techno-welfare scam... then they'd be just dandy.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Musk is help ESA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:05 · Score: 0

By doing this, he is pushing the politicians. Smart man.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Savage-Rabbit · 2012-11-19 02:09 · Score: 1

Especially with governments who have traditionally viewed keeping this kind of know-how a matter of national security.

And what government would that be?

Did you want a list? The governments of: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Happy?

Not really, Space X is a US company with it's headquarters and launch sites in the USA, those countries can regulate all they want without affecting Elon Musk and Space X in any way. The only regulations Space X has to worry about are Uncle Sams's, and possibly the eventuality that the Pan Galactic Transport Authority might slam Space X with a fine for launching space trash into their hyperspace bypass.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:09 · Score: 1

Thank you. You are a good citizen and a patriot.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:11 · Score: 0

Arianespace is a private company, with private shareholders.

http://www.arianespace.com/about-us-corporate-information/shareholders.asp

And how many of these shareholders are government owned?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:12 · Score: 0

So they don't need the tax credit and $7500 would be better spent else ware.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:13 · Score: 0

He founded Tesla which has yet to produce a car which is more than an expensive toy that few people can afford.

How is that a scam? Who's forcing you to buy a Tesla?

I being forced to pay for it though taxes in the form of government loans and tax breaks to those that purchase these vehicles.

I don't mind financing research into non-fossil fuel powered vehicles. Tesla, however, is a manufacturer of luxury vehicles. They can pay for their own research.

FUD by mbone · 2012-11-19 02:18 · Score: 1

What more needs to be said.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:24 · Score: 0

$7500 would be better spent else ware

Yeah, like, oh I don't know, encouraging people with means to invest in alternative energy powered personal conveyances! That's a fucking thought, isn't it?

Likely cheaper option for Arianespace by PerMolestiasEruditio · 2012-11-19 02:25 · Score: 1

Instead of developing Ariane 6 Arianspace could just buy up 51% of SpaceX after their IPO - then they can mostly do what they want with it.

Re:Likely cheaper option for Arianespace by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:11 · Score: 0

Musk has always said he wants to keep control of the company and so the IPO will not give up 51% of the total voting shares.
Re:Likely cheaper option for Arianespace by cbhacking · 2012-11-19 07:24 · Score: 1

What makes you think SpaceX is planning on going public, or that if they do Musk would release enough shares? I expect that even if they do go on the public market, he'll hold onto a controlling interest. Money isn't his goal; he's got tons of that. Space is his goal. Read the stuff he writes; SpaceX is less a company to him, than the vehicle to fulfill his dreams of spaceflight and interplanetary travel. No way he's giving that up while he's still young enough that such flight is even a remote possibility for him.
Also, given their record, I suspect that a controlling interest in such a company would be pretty damn expensive.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Re:Likely cheaper option for Arianespace by Teancum · 2012-11-19 10:49 · Score: 1

I can't remember the actual link (it was nearly six months ago), but Elon Musk is treating SpaceX as if it was a publicly traded company in terms of organizing its balance sheet and releasing information. He has some experience in doing IPOs due to his involvement with Tesla Motors (TSLA on NASDAQ) and certainly knows how to raise capital.
Basically, Elon Musk has said that "going public" and doing an IPO is a long-term goal for SpaceX. Long term as in something he plans on doing "in the next five to ten years" or something like that. By that time, assuming that SpaceX is able to fulfill the current manifest and refill it with a similar list of companies and projects, SpaceX will indeed by a significant player in the industry and worth some serious money as an IPO.
To give some sort of comparison of the money invested, Elon Musk personally invested a little over $100 million into SpaceX as seed capital. He has also done several rounds of additional investing from venture capital firms (mainly from California). The two roughest times in terms of ownership of SpaceX involved his divorce from Justine (Elon did not sign a prenuptial agreement with her and technically she owned 50% of his interest in the company at the time of the divorce) and when the 3rd flight of the Falcon 1 failed to achieve orbit. I think about a billion dollars has been invested into SpaceX so far from non-government sources, and sales of somewhere between $2-$5 billion... if that can give an approximate market cap if it were a public company. In theory it is already in the black and making a profit as a company, and has done so for a couple of years now from an IRS accounting perspective and what would be needed for the SEC.
Re:Likely cheaper option for Arianespace by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 13:09 · Score: 0

Actually, he WAS going to go IPO in 2013 to afford more development. However, things are going his way so much, that I think that he is holding off. In the mean time, they are pushing hard on Falcon Heavy (2013), Dragon Rider (2014), and Red Dragon (2015 or 16). Basically, SpaceX is pushing a new item each year. What I find interesting is that SpaceX has the money to do the development.
This is similar to what Musk is doing at tesla. Model S this year. Model X in 2013. Gen 3 under 30K car in 2014.
Re:Likely cheaper option for Arianespace by Teancum · 2012-11-19 14:13 · Score: 1

It shouldn't be too surprising that SpaceX has money rolling in now. They've been making deliveries and meeting deadlines for stuff like COTS. While he has been reinvesting the revenue into the company, they definitely are getting revenue as checks are getting cut.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by 0123456 · 2012-11-19 02:32 · Score: 0

Yeah, we should totally be taking money from poor people and giving it to the 1% who can afford to blow $60k dollars on a toy car.

It's all about the payload by j-b0y · 2012-11-19 02:40 · Score: 1

Ariane 5 is and continues to be a success but the premise on which Ariane 5 was built -- heavy payloads -- is a small and shrinking market segment. Ariane 5 can launch two payloads, but matching payloads -- the right orbital configuration and mass constraints -- is not easy.

Arianespace hedged their bets by bringing this Soyuz launchers over to CSG with a new (ESA-funded) launchpad at Sinnamari. The much smaller Vega rocket is way off in the distance. The reasoning for Ariane 6 (not having to pay the Russians, as far as I can work out) is sound enough, but the politics (money for France for A6 vs money for Germany for revised A5) is getting in the way.

--
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:43 · Score: 0

*My* taxes are more than an order of magnitude higher than any benefits *I* get from the government.

And guess what? *I* am not so fucking shortsighted as to complain that my taxes are going to things that help the country, and help the environment.

So in other words, your first sentence is not true. Sorry dude, but you haven't done any actual analysis to demonstrate what benefits you get from the government.

Yeah, I know it's so common to think that those people on Welfare get all the benefits, while you get nothing. But you want to know who profits from Welfare?

Wal-Mart. That's right, they do.

You? I don't pretend to know you, but I don't think you should be so blithely claiming you pay an order of magnitude higher than any benefits you get from the government.

That said, I have no problem with the Tesla tax credit. All those internal combustion cars get their subsidies too, it's just not obvious what parking an Aircraft Carrier in the Persian Gulf is about.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 02:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Completely wrong.

EU legislation can make the market for Space X very limited and increase the cost per launch due to reduced launch frequency of Space X. You want a concrete example of this. For years India's ISRO had the cheapest launch vehicle for LEO. (This is distinct from their GSLV program which hasn't been very successful). PSLV has an excellent success rate and is cheap. For years they tried to get other countries to launch their satellites on the PSLV. None of the countries placed their satellites on the PSLV.

There is US legislation which prevented any satellite, even a civilian satellite which used US components being launched by countries outside the approved list of launchers, EU, US or Russia. I am not sure if China is now on the list as well. India got on the list a couple of years ago. Now they launch LEO satellites for Israel, France, SE asia and a growing list of countries. It's not just the cost it's legislation.

EU could very well just legislate for satellites with EU made components to be EU launch only. Or they could just legislate to have all government funded direct or indirect funding to be EU launch vehicles only. Or EU could legislate for all EU television channels to hire only EU launched satellite transponders and if EU television channels need to lease transponders on non EU satellites for broadcast in EU require them to get a governmental waiver which oh just takes 9 months to a year to process. This is just the tip of the ice-burg.

Don't for a minute think none of this will happen as there will be retaliation from US. So you won't let your satellites launch on our platform good for you. Think of the only two aircraft manufacturers in the world. It's the same equation here. Some countries cannot or will not be allowed to launch their satellites from US. All of them have to use EU.

Space-x is being delusional here. The market is pretty big and governments will win most of the time. It's also about diplomacy. You launch your puppy on ours we will scratch your back in the UN, WTO and in that free trade agreement.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by ArsonSmith · 2012-11-19 03:05 · Score: 1

We shall see.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

SpaceX want ESA to create & develop the market by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:07 · Score: 1

SpaceX are only entering marketplaces ESA helped create & develop.
Musk wants ESA to do all the hard work of creating a superheavy lift vehicle and seeing if there is the market demand for its services, then he can enter the market knowing there is the demand.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah because it's a negative sum economy and that money would have went directly to the poor people that need it. How is life in the Hollywood movie you live in?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:22 · Score: 0

Yeah, I know it's so common to think that those people on Welfare get all the benefits, while you get nothing. But you want to know who profits from Welfare?

Wal-Mart. That's right, they dov

I'm Sorry. I ialmost took You seriously until You compared a private citizen's economic status to that of a multinational conglomerate. Troll harder.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 03:31 · Score: 2

Here's a hint for you -- the $7500 tax credit is just that -- a credit on taxes. The car costs $100k.

Yes, people who buy $100,000 toys really need the tax break.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:32 · Score: 1

That money was going to the poor people until the government stole it to give to the 1%.

If you want to talk about economic theft, who do you think the government "stole" that money from in the first place? Who do you think pays most of the taxes? Who do you think provides the jobs? Who do you think invests their money back into the economy? The great thing about having your simplistic view of class warfare is the so-called "1 percent" will always be here for you to villainize no matter how prosperous everybody else is. Even in the most socialist and centrally planned economies there is a top 1 percent.

I honestly don't know how anyone can support taking money from someone working on a low wage to give to some finance fat-cat to go towards buying a new car they can show off to their coworkers for a few days.

I see you peeing yourself in spasmodic glee over your populist misinterpretation of my arguments. Enjoy.

So I'm not surprised you're posting anonymously.

Using a computer at an actual place of work without sending credentials over the wire. Not that you would know anything about that I'm sure.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

*My* taxes are more than an order of magnitude higher than any benefits *I* get from the government.

So move to Somalia.

Oh, wait - maybe you are getting something for your money.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 03:39 · Score: 3, Funny

If you want to talk about economic theft, who do you think the government "stole" that money from in the first place? Who do you think pays most of the taxes? Who do you think provides the jobs? Who do you think invests their money back into the economy? The great thing about having your simplistic view of class warfare is the so-called "1 percent" will always be here for you to villainize no matter how prosperous everybody else is. Even in the most socialist and centrally planned economies there is a top 1 percent.

C'mon, Mitt. I know you're out of work, but surely you've got better things to do than post on Slashdot.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:39 · Score: 0

So move to Somalia.

Oh, wait - maybe you are getting something for your money.

Ask yourself this. What preceded what, Somalia being in a terrible state of warfare, mass starvation, and daily terror from various warlords, or the dissolution of a recognized government. If you're honest you'll admit that using Somalia as an example of how an anarchist society could be is disingenuous at best.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:42 · Score: 0

Uhm, what about ALL TAX money- it gets distributed to the people - poor or rich. This isnt about subsidizing the rich, it's about investing in new technology.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:45 · Score: 0

Alot of if's.... Look at any new industry - chicken and egg. Industries were built around solving for the if's. Tesla is pushing the envelope to make something work. Other industries, if they see ROI, will grow around to fill in the gaps and provide jobs and money etc. TAX dollars are merley used as a catalyst to spurn on new industry - just like we did for the airlines, the auto industry, the oil industry etc..
The only difference here is that this investment should be cleaner and greener.

Re:ONE WORD: SATURN 5B !! by nucrash · 2012-11-19 03:45 · Score: 1

Energia was actually able to lift a heavier payload. Still, Saturn V was no doubt the most capable rocket the US has ever had.

--
Place something witty here

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 03:46 · Score: 0

Yes, people who buy $100,000 toys really need the tax break.

Obviously the government sees spending the 7,500 dollars as a wise investment. Nobody has a crystal ball but Musk is making a solid effort with Tesla to make electric cars a practical reality. That is something that can help us all since eventually we will be paying to clean up the mess made by our internal combustion powered automobiles and I guarantee you our great grandchildren will see that 7,500 dollars as quite a bargain then if it incentivizes people to plunk the 100k down on that electric roadster who otherwise would not.

Economics and long term planning are obviously not your strong point so maybe try to shut up and learn something.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by khallow · 2012-11-19 03:50 · Score: 1

EU legislation can make the market for Space X very limited and increase the cost per launch due to reduced launch frequency of Space X.

ESA != EU. They still have to get non-EU players, Norway and Switzerland to go along. If that means that their space industry is precluded from using the best competitor in the field, then it's going to hurt the EU in the long term.

A Rocket a Day by mbone · 2012-11-19 03:50 · Score: 2

If we really seriously want to move from the expensive launch vehicle, expensive hardware optimization we are currently in, we probably need to do something like this.

Re:A Rocket a Day by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 06:19 · Score: 0

Wasn't that exactly the strategy for the Space Shuttle?
It didn't work out as expected, however.

All your base are belong to us by Ranger · 2012-11-19 03:57 · Score: 1

You have no chance to survive, Ariane 5, Make your time.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

You're forgetting the equator by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:04 · Score: 0

The closer you launch from the equator, you get a bigger, free boost of energy from the rotation of the earth.

Ariane launches from South America. As a result, the rockets can carry a bigger payload than if they launched from the USA.

Re:You're forgetting the equator by 0123456 · 2012-11-19 04:24 · Score: 1

As a result, the rockets can carry a bigger payload than if they launched from the USA.
A bigger payload is irrelevant if it costs 2x as much per pound launched. And the difference in launch velocity between Florida and French Guiana is probably less than 200 m/s, which saves you a few thousand dollars in fuel.
Re:You're forgetting the equator by PerMolestiasEruditio · 2012-11-19 05:36 · Score: 1

Kourou vs Canaveral gains typically about 2% payload. For a $100 million dollar launch that is worth nearly $2million. Not a big deal if you are a US company, but given Europe's lack of alternatives it is definitely the place to be for Arianespace
Re:You're forgetting the equator by 0123456 · 2012-11-19 07:02 · Score: 1

Kourou vs Canaveral gains typically about 2% payload. For a $100 million dollar launch that is worth nearly $2million.
Not if your competitor can launch it for $25,000,000.
Wikipedia claims Ariane 5 is over $10,000 per kilo to LEO, while Falcon Heavy is expected to be about $2,250. Assuming they're similarly reliable, no-one is going to pay four times as much for the same launch just because it's closer to the equator.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Xest · 2012-11-19 04:09 · Score: 1

Yes, that's exactly what he said in his closing sentence.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Yoda222 · 2012-11-19 04:12 · Score: 1

Wrong.

EU can take a law restricting exportation of weapon and include satellite in it. Two of the top six satellite manufacturer are european. Such a move would reduce the SpaceX market, but would probably be a bad move.

And EU could also decide to create an ambitious space program and decide to overpaid the launcher company, which could in turn reduce the price of commercial launch. Like SpaceX and US gouvernment.

Self promotion. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:34 · Score: 0

One thing you have to give credit to Tusk; he's an amazing self promoter.

He talks about these wonderful free market solutions, all the while he runs his Tesla Government Motors on Federal loan money.

His cheapo rocket has had substantial problems in 2 out of the 4 launches. But here he is trying to tell us that Ariane 5 - having 50 of it's last launches go perfect - has "no chance" with his product. And he's saying it with a straight face.

SpaceX will survive if they persuade the politicians to cut NASA budget even more and force NASA to buy from SpaceX. And that is exactly what SpaceX is lobbying for behind closed doors.

Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 04:39 · Score: 0

Musk is not trashing ESA tech. What he tried to silently convey is that the US gov't will soon invoke the Monroe Doctrine on equatorial French Guyana, the colonial territory where criminals-turned-mercenaries French Foreign Legionaires terrorize to aboriginal amero-indians "in defence" of the ESA space launch platforms. The political left alleges villages had been torched there. Why? Because aboriginal indians protested there that french rocket industry spews lotsa toxic waste and destroys their natural habitat, the jungle environment.

This cannot continue. Frech Guyana needs to stop being french and must become a free state, that can stay independent or freely join in another country in the Americas for mutual prosperity. European colonial powers finally need to stop oppressing and exploiting the American continents! Europe needs to find another launch spot for its Ariane rockets, maybe a floating platform at the open sea or at least offer equal terms of lease to the aboriginal guyanians, similar to how russians pay big bucks for lease of Baikonur-Tyuratam to Kazakhstan's government. Observe, how the kazakhs banned russian launches when the big Proton rockets started to fail serially, spewing extremely toxic unburnt fuel over the steppe. Kazakhs forced russians to fix their tech before continuing with the lease. Guyanian aboriginals currently have no such power, as the french legionaire mercenaries seal their mouths with rifle butts.

Mr. Musk, please ask Mr. Obama to grant the gift of freedom to the oppressed amero-indians of "French" Guyana! Kick Europe out of the new continents!

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Dishevel · 2012-11-19 04:50 · Score: 1

How exactly does reducing the cost of a Tesla by $7500 do any good for the country?
Or is "Fuck You" your actual argument and no further information is needed?

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Dishevel · 2012-11-19 04:53 · Score: 0

I have to say that ...
A) Most money that the government spends is taken from the rich.
B) Almost all non defense spending is going to the poor.
If you want to let the rich have more of the money that they worked for I am ok with that. (Lower their fucking taxes.)
Do not give a $7500 tax break for a fucking electric toy.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Teancum · 2012-11-19 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

All that the EU can do to SpaceX is to impact his suppliers (which are few in number.... SpaceX makes most of their own components from raw bulk materials like sheets of aluminum, titanium, and steel) or his potential customers in the EU. Given that few of his customers are in the EU, it isn't all that big of a deal to them and increased regulations by the EU would impact all potential launchers.

It should be noted that until recently, it was the Ariane rockets that carried the bulk of commercial spaceflight vehicles. In other words, increased regulations on spaceflight (assuming they "play fair" and impose those regulations equally to all companies participating) would mainly kill European companies who are doing (and still doing currently) a very robust commercial business. Much of the reason why they have the launch rate that they do is because they have been very competitive on the world market and undercut American launch companies like Boeing (with the Delta rockets) and Lockheed-Martin (with the Atlas rockets). They worked their way to become compliant with American regulations like ITAR, but were also in a position to avoid ITAR if needed so they could launch vehicles from companies that American launch providers can't because of American regulations. There are some ESA payloads as well as satellites that have been launched by EU members.... but those will likely go to Arianespace anyway regardless of how cheap SpaceX makes their launch prices go and will never be on the table for SpaceX.

Arianespace can become an EU-only launch provider, but they will give up most of the market by doing so. Elon Musk's assertion here is that he can compete against Arianespace for contracts from countries like Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, and Qatar. None of those countries care or will even pay attention to EU regulations and will go to SpaceX if they can provide a launch for a quarter of the price that Arianespace can offer for the same payload. That should be a no-brainer, especially if SpaceX can deliver the same level of reliability that Arianespace is currently providing.

That really is the trick for SpaceX right now: to prove that their system is reliable enough that you can be 95%+ certain that the payload will make the trip into the intended orbit. A whole bunch of people are waiting to see if SpaceX can deliver on that promise, and that is the only real selling point at the moment for either Arianespace or RKK Energia for that matter. It has nothing to do with governments, but simply engineering that is well done and quality manufacturing processes.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by TWX · 2012-11-19 05:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, we should totally be taking money from poor people and giving it to the 1% who can afford to blow $60k dollars on a toy car.

I don't know about you, but my commute is only about 20 miles round-trip daily. If an electric gets only 50 miles on a charge I can still run some errands on the way home even if work doesn't install a charging station for me. If it weren't for the speed limits I could get away with a GEM neighborhood electric vehicle. I choose not to afford a $60K electric car, but if I really, really wanted one I could probably save up for two or three years for the bulk of the purchase price and could finance the rest.

I like the progressive tax system and I think that either a new upper tier needs to be defined for a higher tax rate or else the rates in general could stand to increase at the top level, but I'm okay with a few tax subsidies at those levels as well. An electric car is one that I agree with at this point in time, because if the wealthy start to accept electric cars, then that might help drag the market for middle income new-car buyers with it when car manufacturers see that there is indeed interest.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Teancum · 2012-11-19 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

It should be pointed out that SpaceX has figured out how to reduce the cost of its launches to the point that the subsidy needed for Arianespace to compete would be embarrassing and noticeable to EU members and their constituents. Keep in mind SpaceX is making their rockets so cheap that even the Chinese don't think they can underbid SpaceX.

If the ESA was to expand slightly and include additional EU members (ESA and EU membership... while there is considerable overlap... isn't identical), they might be able to embark in an incredibly ambitious space program like a manned European Lunar or Martian program on a level comparable to NASA but with a much larger budget. Keep in mind though that would be a financial commitment of about $100 billion USD (or equivalent)... and I don't think it would be any cheaper simply because it is a European concept instead of being an American one. Just see if something like that would fly through the EU parliament, much less national parliaments in the EU in terms of funding.

The reason why top satellite manufacturers are in the EU is in part because Arianespace has been successful at competing on the international market, and because American legal regulations have been idiotic to put it mildly. ITAR regulations alone have driven out much of the commercial spaceflight market from America, which has gone almost exclusively to Europe and a few launches to Russia via RKK Energia/Roscosmos. China has tried to enter this market too, but they've had their own set of problems.

The satellites made in the EU are often being done on a contract basis, and if the EU wants to follow in the stupid path that the American Congress has done over the past couple of decades to drive out commercial spaceflight business.... EU companies would have the same problems that American launch providers have faced over the past couple of decades but without the American military or American military budgets to prop them up.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Teancum · 2012-11-19 05:18 · Score: 1

From the page you listed:

They include companies from the Ariane industrial team and national space agencies

Yeah, that sounds like "private shareholders". Almost everything Arianespace gets involved with in terms of major decisions requires diplomats from various governments and frequently decisions are made for political and not fiscal reasons. While not unusual in the EU, you shouldn't confuse this with how SpaceX is financed, as the ownership of SpaceX is entirely from private entities (although it wouldn't surprise me if In-Q-Tel has a small stake in SpaceX already).

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 05:20 · Score: 0

Nissan sels a cheaper electric car that works. Tesla is a scam.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by BiggerBadderBen · 2012-11-19 05:24 · Score: 2

While PayPal may have evolved into a ripoff, when it first came out it was a godsend. Remember paying for things on eBay using money orders? Musk then turned his attention to big, serious engineering challenges that nobody else had the vision or cojones to tackle. Which is much more than can be said for you, Anonymous Coward.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 05:36 · Score: 0

Wow. I don't see you complaining when the government later makes that money back AND produces profits AND advances technology AND makes the environment cleaner. (While I'm at it, I don't see private enterprises investing money like "the market will fix everything" whiners say.) Cry more, bitch.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Teancum · 2012-11-19 05:37 · Score: 1

If you don't agree with those tax breaks, vote for people who will get them repealed. These tax breaks are not just for Tesla vehicles either, but for any electric automobile made by any company... including Toyota, General Motors, or Fisker. If you think it is such a good deal, why don't you dismantle a few golf carts and make your own electric automobile company?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Teancum · 2012-11-19 05:51 · Score: 2

The government isn't spending a dime here. It is just not collecting federal excise taxes that otherwise would be collected if the person purchasing the automobile had purchased something else instead.

Besides, the federal government isn't exactly losing money either,as Tesla still is paying federal income tax on earnings as well as on salaries for its employees. Telsa is also paying property taxes for its factories and dozens of other taxes are being paid to state and local government authorities. You shouldn't be crying too hard about "government spending" here that isn't even happening in the first place. If nobody buys a Tesla Model S, the tax would never have been collected in the first place.

On top of that, the Model S has a starting price of about $50k, and Tesla is looking to eventually develop a high volume-low cost consumer vehicle once they get enough working capital from hopefully robust sales of their other products. The next generation vehicle is anticipated to cost about $30k... while still expensive is definitely something more affordable for a non-millionaire. That sounds like an excellent reason to even encourage this kind of business and marketing behavior to have the wealthy help finance the development of a low-cost consumer vehicle by offering luxury vehicles that also do something useful for the environment.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 05:57 · Score: 0

It should be noted that until recently, it was the Ariane rockets that carried the bulk of commercial spaceflight vehicles. In other words, increased regulations on spaceflight (assuming they "play fair" and impose those regulations equally to all companies participating) would mainly kill European companies who are doing (and still doing currently) a very robust commercial business.

That entirely depends on the type of regulations involved. For example, they could make conditions on the launch vehicles used for European satellites which the Ariane fulfils, but the Falcon doesn't, and if it were modified to fulfil them, it would get just as expensive as the Ariane.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 06:02 · Score: 1

The government isn't spending a dime here. It is just not collecting federal excise taxes that otherwise would be collected if the person purchasing the automobile had purchased something else instead.

That loss in federal revenue has to be made up some wear either though reduced services, increased taxes, or increased borrowing.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 06:04 · Score: 0

*My* taxes are more than an order of magnitude higher than any benefits *I* get from the government.

Your taxes benefit you much more than you realize. If Venezuela invades and redistributes the wealth, you will lose a lot. So, a good portion of your taxes is going toward defending your lifestyle. The government also provides laws that protect your assets. What's to stop a bank from simply zeroing your balance one day? People who don't pay a lot in taxes tend to be poor, and thus have very little the lose, and therefore they benefit very little from the protection the government provides.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 06:11 · Score: 0

Think of the only two aircraft manufacturers in the world.

Huh?? There are literally hundreds of aircraft manufacturers in the world.

Re:ONE WORD: SATURN 5B !! by jbeaupre · 2012-11-19 06:17 · Score: 1

I can't find any reference for Energia lifting a bigger payload. Just references that show Saturn VB lifting more. Can you point to your source? I'm curious.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 06:26 · Score: 0

Don't forget the US itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 06:47 · Score: 0

Nissan is offering the leaf, selling would require somebody buying it. Last I heard they aren't selling well.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by ilguido · 2012-11-19 06:59 · Score: 1

It should be pointed out that SpaceX has figured out how to reduce the cost of its launches to the point that the subsidy needed for Arianespace to compete would be embarrassing and noticeable to EU members and their constituents. Keep in mind SpaceX is making their rockets so cheap that even the Chinese don't think they can underbid SpaceX.

Sources? Because India's PSLV has a flyaway cost of 17 million $ per launch and Russian launch vehicles are even cheaper. SpaceX said they were developing a reusable launch system, but until now they haven't.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by cbhacking · 2012-11-19 07:00 · Score: 1

It brings it from the price range of "ultra-rich only" to the price range of "very well off", and that's important. Every additional person who can afford to purchase such a vehicle is simultaneously a reduction in fuel consumption, a reduction in emissions, and (this is the big one) an improvement in the economies of scale necessary to reduce the cost of such cars. The mid-range Model S is about 10% cheaper thanks to the tax credit. The base model is 14% cheaper. That doesn't magically move it into the price range of a Mazda or Toyota or Ford, but it does mean that somebody who might otherwise buy a Lexus or Audi (expensive cars, but not really targeted at the 1%) may now see the Model S as being feasible. It's still more expensive, but the difference - the marginal cost - is a lot lower.

That, in turn, helps Tesla bring the price down further on current and future models, and also funds their R&D which currently looks like one of the best approaches to weaning the USA (and eventually the world) off its dependency on gasoline.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...

Re:Musk is a scam artist by cbhacking · 2012-11-19 07:05 · Score: 2

A good point. I hate PayPal and avoid using it whenever possible, but when Musk was focused on that project, he basically made possible the entire concept of small online payments to individuals who don't have the time or resources to set up PCI themselves, but want to conduct business or accept donations over the Internet.

I don't like what it's turned into over time, and I'd like it if Musk (or somebody) were to slap it around a bit and make it behave more properly, but I don't fault him for creating it, or for moving on to other (IMO, far more interesting) projects since.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by ultranova · 2012-11-19 07:09 · Score: 1

If that means that their space industry is precluded from using the best competitor in the field, then it's going to hurt the EU in the long term.

It will hurt the people who want to launch satellites. It will help the people who want to build rockets. IMHO the latter industry is the more important one, thus protectionism could well end up helping the EU.

Of course this is all assuming the EU will actually bother. Right now we have no reason to think it will, aside from speculation on Slashdot.

--

Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Nice thought, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 07:10 · Score: 0

SpaceX is working on a TRUE SHLV that will take 150-200 tonnes to LEO that will be out before 2020.
Keep in mind that FH takes 53 tonnes to LEO, Delta IV H does 22.5 tonnes to LEO, and the Arianne 5 does 21 tonnes to LEO.

Musk and Shotwell are dropping specs and other hints on the launch vehicle over and over. However, once FH is up and flying we will see more about this. At that time, the SLS will be dead.

Re:Nice thought, but ... by Teancum · 2012-11-19 10:58 · Score: 1

I presume that is the Falcon XX vehicle using the Merlin 2 engine (something that will have the thrust capabilities of the F1 engine used on the Saturn V)? The Falcon XX would fly with six of those Merlin 2 engines, thus giving it in theory a larger payload capacity than even the Saturn V... or as I like to put it the capability of putting a fully loaded and fueled 747 into orbit.
That is a long-term plan at least, but at the moment development work is not happening on the Merlin 2. Elon Musk did float the idea for NASA to help fund the development of the Merlin 2, but Congress hasn't been all that receptive. I wouldn't fault the guy for at least trying.
Re:Nice thought, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 12:57 · Score: 0

Nope. SpaceX is working on a 200 Tonne SHLV that uses a 'MCT' engine. Do not know much more, other than that the LV will have more than 50% more than Saturn V capacity as well as ability to 10-12 meter diameter payload (I am guessing that is a hammerhead and not the core size; otherwise ....woof).

I have to wonder how grasshopper will impact that one.

There's a bit of bravado there by chebucto · 2012-11-19 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Falcon Heavy is still in development.

The Falcon 9 has a 75% success rate and a 25% partial success/partial failure rate after 4 launches.

The Ariane 5 has a 94% success rate, a 3% partial success/partial failure rate, and a 3% failure rate, after 66 launches.

Everything I've read says the Falcon series is likely to be very reliable, but the proof of the success is in the launching - and the Ariane 5 has more launches under its belt. I hope Musk succeeds and lowers launch costs for everyone, but he hasn't proven anything yet.

--
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.

Re:There's a bit of bravado there by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 14:01 · Score: 0

So what was the Ariane 5 success rate at 4 launches?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 07:18 · Score: 0

Then the proper solution is instead of giving a $7500 tax credit to 5 rich people, that the US government buys a Nissian Leaf for a Welfare recipient. This will spur the electric car industry while at the same time help a welfare recipient get off welfare buy giving them a mode of transportation that they can use to drive to employment.

That is EXACTLY SpaceX's strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 07:21 · Score: 0

SpaceX has the F9 for doing monthly, if not weekly launches. In fact, they plan to have so many, that they are buying land for another base. As they drop the price of launches, they are counting on more nations and companies want to go up to LEO, the moon and Mars. The reason for the FH is that it is using the same first stage as the F9. As such, it is just like launching 3-4 F9's at once, but for less than double the price. That will allow them to put up larger and cheaper loads. The much larger launch vehicle that will come around 2020 is expected for putting loads on the moon and mars.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 08:23 · Score: 1

Yes, that's exactly what he said in his closing sentence.

I replied to the wrong guy, didn't I.

Oh, well. Senility starts early in my family.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-19 08:28 · Score: 1

That money was going to the poor people until the government stole it to give to the 1%.

If you want to talk about economic theft, who do you think the government "stole" that money from in the first place?

Stole? Since when is taxing the same as stealing?

Who do you think pays most of the taxes?

If rich people are paying more than their share, how come we keep hearing about rich people that paid a lower rate then their secretaries, or none at all? How come I paid a higher rate last year than Mitt Romney?

Who do you think provides the jobs? Who do you think invests their money back into the economy?

Whisking it away to the Cayman Islands isn't an investment in the economy... though I suppose it helps keep the Cayman bankers employed.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Teancum · 2012-11-19 08:37 · Score: 1

That entirely depends on the type of regulations involved. For example, they could make conditions on the launch vehicles used for European satellites which the Ariane fulfils, but the Falcon doesn't, and if it were modified to fulfil them, it would get just as expensive as the Ariane.

I don't possibly see how modifying the faring and coupling links on satellites as well as launch standards that the Falcon 9 currently has which aren't similarly a problem for the Ariane 5 that would end up causing the Falcon 9 to cost 2x-4x the current launch price. You are talking hypothetically here on something that simply wouldn't happen.

At best, all that the EU could do is to simply not let European manufacturers launch on non-European launchers. But that would make those European satellite manufacturers to simply lose business to American, Russian, Chinese, and Indian companies. Oh, and I suppose Brazil is getting into the business too.

This is a very competitive global market with lots of players... both in terms of customers (not all of them are even governments) and a whole lot of suppliers. Anybody treating this as a monopoly or even monopsony situation simply doesn't understand the commercial spaceflight market at all... which is the point of why this concern about European regulations is totally ludicrous. Not only is the market pretty large, but it is getting larger and there are many more players involved along with multiple governments... any one of which is more than willing to undercut the "competition" to get the business. In other words, a real competitive marketplace where launchers are now seen as commodities for commercial activity.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Teancum · 2012-11-19 08:53 · Score: 3, Informative

What is the cost per kilogram delivered into LEO? The Falcon 9 can deliver 13 metric tons to LEO for $54 million, or $4 million per metric ton. That PSLV rocket that you are quoting only puts 3 metric tons to LEO for the $17 million, or about $5 million (plus change) per metric ton. The $54 million is the quote on the SpaceX Falcon 9 web page if you want the source.

Russia has actually raised their launch prices in part because of the demand for them is outstripping their supply and they have a backlog on production at the moment. They are simply being capitalists, which is a good thing too but sort of shoots your theory out of the water. Name a specific launcher if you think it can be more competitive.

The Ariane V vehicle has a launch cost of $120 million and puts about 15 metric tons into orbit, or about $8 million per metric ton. In other words, it is literally twice the cost as the Falcon 9. It can put up a slightly heavier payload at the moment, but that is something SpaceX is trying to fix with their Falcon Heavy rocket.

If you want to find the source from Chinese space officials who toured the SpaceX plant in Hawthorne, California and said they couldn't compete, do some Google searching on the topic. I won't bother but it was widely reported at the time including a post here on Slashdot when it happened.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Teancum · 2012-11-19 09:06 · Score: 1

The real proper solution is to let people keep their own damn money and let that "welfare recipient" be able to start their own business so they can earn the $100k after taking care of their basic needs and buy their own luxury Tesla vehicle.

I'd rather live in a society where anybody can be rich through hard work than in a society where everybody is equally poor. Buying toys and giving them away to people who didn't earn them just makes everybody poor and these kind of cars would never be made in the first place.

Thats ok... governments can compete by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 09:52 · Score: 0

Just privatise the largest single government monopoly to be the largest private monopoly and still be legal.

Sweden did that with Systembolaget :) Should work for space ships too no?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 10:00 · Score: 0

Not that I believe in taking tax money and giving to others. I do not.
But. If you are going to do that and wish to make major improvements in the amount of shit going into the air would it not make much more sense to just find
people with horrible old cars and give them $7500 toward the purchase of new fuel efficient car?

Re:ONE WORD: SATURN 5B !! by Teancum · 2012-11-19 10:31 · Score: 1

The largest rocket that RKK Energia ever built was the N1. It had a higher launch pad thrust than the five F1 engines combined, but ultimately didn't put as much payload into LEO (IMHO what really counts). That is also why if you watch Saturn V launches, it seems like it takes a long time for the rocket to leave the launch pad. All of that mass with a modest set of thrusters doesn't gain as much acceleration as something a bit more powerful. The Space Shuttle, by comparison, seemed to leap off of the launch pad.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 11:51 · Score: 0

why not support the electric car industry! remember all those hummers on the road 10 years ago? how do you think that happened? $100,000 TAX CREDIT from Shrub and his oil cronies.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by khallow · 2012-11-19 11:59 · Score: 1

It will help the people who want to build rockets. IMHO the latter industry is the more important one

No, it isn't. The launch industry is completely irrelevant without something to launch. That's what happened with the Space Shuttle. NASA made a huge vehicle with no need for the vehicle and then spent many decades rationalizing the decision rather than do actual space development. If Arianespace and the ESA go that route, then what are they going to launch on this platform? Makework that has no value to anyone other than the people skimming off of it.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by cheesybagel · 2012-11-19 13:40 · Score: 2

He is one of the PayPal founders but not the only one.

Tesla has produced cars and sold them. Sure they are expensive but what did you expect? You need vast capital expenditures to make a single high-volume factory which is a necessary investment to make a low cost car. He doesn't have the capital required to do this so he makes a lower volume of higher priced cars.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by cheesybagel · 2012-11-19 13:46 · Score: 1

the buyers are paying more in taxes than most people on Slashdot make

Or they aren't. Try searching the web for Elon Musk's salary (hint: Wikipedia) and then compute the income tax he's paying from that. He is not an isolated case among the entrepreneur class.

I am not against the tax breaks per se. If more people use electrics pollution and oil use go down. However you are extremely nearsighted if you think the people buying these cars all pay the level of income tax you claim to be paying.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by cheesybagel · 2012-11-19 13:58 · Score: 2

Who do you think pays most of the taxes?

Not by percentage of income.

Who do you think provides the jobs?

Who do you think does the bulk of the work which creates the wealth in the first place?

Who do you think invests their money back into the economy?

Elon Musk is one of these people. However not everyone is like him. A lot of these people are investing abroad, not in the US. At least the poor keep their money on US banks where it gets loaned and invested. The money going to the tax shelters abroad is probably not going to be invested in the US.

Do you honestly think these people work 10x more than a middle class citizen to be worth their income, let alone the 1000x or more they earn?

Even in the most socialist and centrally planned economies there is a top 1 percent.

You are being silly if you think even the top echelons of the Soviet Union had the vast differential in wealth the US upper class enjoys. They got a regular car and a summer house and that was it. Even the "nice" car belonged to the State and went back to someone else. Even Stalin himself had to share a house with other people when he was Party Secretary.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by cheesybagel · 2012-11-19 14:17 · Score: 1

Having an educated and physically fit workforce would also be considered to be an asset by other people but I guess he doesn't get it.

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 16:42 · Score: 0

Hey jerkoff, what do you have against a draft dodging chicken shit who scammed and squandered $billions of American taxpayer money, and who secretly fantasize that the French will shove a Ariane5 up his ass and set it on pulse program?

Re:Musk is a scam artist by khallow · 2012-11-19 17:33 · Score: 1

And guess what? *I* am not so fucking shortsighted as to complain that my taxes are going to things that help the country, and help the environment.

I'd say the problem here is that you don't complain about things that don't help the country. What's the point of paying a lot in taxes, if they aren't to our collective benefit?

No meme reference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-19 18:28 · Score: 0

Kinda shocked no one made a "all your base" reference here.

Also kinda shocked there isn't a beowulf cluster comment considering Falcon Heavy is a cluster rocket setup...

Re:Musk is a scam artist by Xest · 2012-11-19 21:08 · Score: 1

We've all done it at some point :)

Re:ONE WORD: SATURN 5B !! by nojayuk · 2012-11-19 21:42 · Score: 1

The Saturn V stack burned through 10% of its total fuel and oxidiser load (about 200 tonnes) just clearing the tower. Despite the giant F1 motors in the first stage it was actually underpowered for its takeoff mass; at T-0 when the clamps came off its acceleration upwards was only 1.5G gross (or 0.5G net). It relied as all rockets do on burning fuel to reduce its mass fast enough that its acceleration would increase. When the first stage was just about empty it was pulling 4Gs gross since it had lost over half its takeoff mass.

The Shuttle's acceleration profile on takeoff wasn't actually much different to the Saturn V, pulling 0.5G net on liftoff but it took a lot less time to get into orbit, 510 seconds compared to the Saturn V's 680 seconds or so. It topped out at about 3Gs gross rather than the more brutal Saturn V's max of 4G gross but the longer time taken is due to the lower acceleration of the Saturn V's second and third stages. In comparison the Shuttle achieved peak Gs about a minute before the ET was empty.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by ilguido · 2012-11-20 04:58 · Score: 2

What is the cost per kilogram delivered into LEO? The Falcon 9 can deliver 13 metric tons to LEO for $54 million, or $4 million per metric ton. That PSLV rocket that you are quoting only puts 3 metric tons to LEO for the $17 million, or about $5 million (plus change) per metric ton. The $54 million is the quote on the SpaceX Falcon 9 web page if you want the source.

That link is about the still non-existent Falcon 9 v1.1, that's why I'm very dubious: it's just trash talking, smoke and mirrors. They said the Falcon 1 would have been the first reusable and cheap launch system, it wasn't; then it was the time of Falcon 5, it was never built; then NASA came to the rescue and fully funded Falcon 9, neither this time it was reusable, however they say Falcon 9 v1.1 will be: I'll believe it when I see it.

Just to point out, according to the original sheets the planned launch cost for Falcon 9 was $35-55 m for 8.5-9 t (2007), in 2010 it was already $50-56 m, now it's "under $60 million".

So being generous, i.e. SpaceX 2010 prices vs. PSLV 2012 prices:
Falcon 9 v1.0 | 8.5t-9.0t | $56 million | 6.22-7 million $/t
PSLV | 3.25 t | $17 million | 5.23 million $/t
Russian and Ukrainian launches are still cheaper. I don't know about Chinese launches, but I'd bet their cheaper as well...

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 10:48 · Score: 0

Yes and then the EU will never sell another jet fighter, missile system or even Airbus Jet outside of its borders as all of those contain major pieces of US tech. Airbus jets on average contain about 30% US content. The fact is that the EU won't pull such a stunt because as you point out many US products rely on a great deal of European tech and would be affected by such shenanigans. The issue in this case though relates to Ariane 5s flawed business model. The Ariane 5 is simply too big for EU government payloads so most of those are launched on Soyuz or even US rockets. Ariane 5 depends almost exclusively on commercial satellites to fund it's operations and this means they need about 6 launches a year for 12 satellites comprising about 50% of the global market, in general the Ariane 5 is only used for one EU launch a year, usually the ATV which is going away after 2 more launches anyway. With SpaceX undercutting their prices Arianespace will no longer be able to get 50% of the market thus undercutting their business model, and since the Rocket is way to big for EU science and French and British military payloads; Arianespace can't depend on government contracts to bail them out the way the US Government pays for the Atlas V and Delta IV programs. The simple fact is the puppy is going to be launched, the puppy will grow up quickly and take a lot of Arianespace business and given that it is an American Puppy there isn't anything the EU can do about it other than try to fix the flawed Ariane business model. The EU should be launching Ariane 6 ASAP instead of complaining that Musks dog hunts a lot better than theirs does.

Re:Space company founder trash-talks competition.. by Teancum · 2012-11-20 11:18 · Score: 1

NASA did not "fully fund" the Falcon 9. I'm not even sure where you get that notion. That NASA did subsidize the development effort I'd agree, along with some DARPA funding and a whole lot of private investor equity as well.

As for differences between originally planed specifications and what was actually delivered, I'd suggest you talk to any engineer who has worked on a project that took longer than a year and ask them if the specifications ever met what was originally planned. Customer needs change and so sometimes engineers can tweak performance.

All you are pointing out is that SpaceX is competitive with the other launchers. Is that a revelation? Launching with the Ariane 5 is currently at a premium price in part because of reliability and its ties with the ESA. More important for SpaceX, they are winning contracts.

The original thread was about how Arianespace could tweak costs of things like faring couplers and a whole sheaf of regulations from European regulators (through lobbying presumably) that would drive the Falcon 9 prices above that of Ariane launches. My contention is that even doing that Arianespace is not going to be able to cut costs that much without massive subsidizes... which even your cost numbers bear out.

Slashdot Mirror

Ariane 5 Has No Chance, Says Elon Musk

188 comments