SpaceX news @ FAA conference

[Dr Mordrid]

* SpaceX spent <$600M on Falcon 9/Dragon development, and ~$800M in total, including all their infrastructure and all seven F1 & F9 launches to date. OTOH, NASA spent $30B on Ares I and Orion and flew nothing before they were cancelled.

* SpaceX is moving "expeditiously" on Falcon 9 Heavy, which will be the largest active launcher worldwide with a 32 (kerosene 2nd stage) to 45 (hydrogen 2nd stage) metric ton capacity to low Earth orbit.

Falcon 9 Heavy is not just PR talk; SpaceX just got environmental clearance to set up Vandenberg AFB's Space Launch Complex 4-East (SLC-4E) to support the F9 and the F9 Heavy, including a huge assembly hangar for F9H.

[Wulfman]

How much earlier research did they use when they designed their systems?

mfg
w

[Dr Mordrid]

The truth is that all rocket/spaceship designs are based on evolutions of the works of everyone from Robert Goddard to Werner von Braun, Sergey Korolyov and on, so the same question could be asked of any program.

Technologies improve, witness SpaceX's PICA-X heat shield, a large improvement of NASA's PICA, but it's all evolutionary. SpaceX is just choosing its options based on merit instead of doing what was done in the past because that's how it's been done before - ex: NASA using the same conical pressure hull shape for Orion as for Apollo even though it's an inefficient use of internal volume. SpaceX went spherical, giving it more useful interior space for a given diameter.

As for whose program SpaceX's most resembles, that would be Russia's - multiple combustion chambers with engine-out capability, horizontal integration, simple & clean pad, spherical capsule, kerosene/lox 1st stage, etc. That's why some aerospace observers call F9/Dragon the "American Soyuz."

[Technoid]

SpaceX probably represent the real actual costs of doing it, and Nasa represents the situation arising from "the race to the moon, money flows like water".

[Dr Mordrid]

SpaceX probably represent the real actual costs of doing it, and Nasa represents the situation arising from "the race to the moon, money flows like water".

SpaceX/Dragon being a COTS (commercial off the shelf)-fixed price/non-union contractor program and Ares I/Orion being a cost-plus-profit/union-shop contractor program.

Those plus SpaceX is vertically integrated (they make most all major components, with tight cost control) while NASA is horizontally integrated (multiple component sources, with much less cost control)

And for the record; SpaceX is now the #1 producer of rocket engines in the world. Not even close what with all the types; Merlin, M-Vac (Merlin vacuum), Raptor (hydrogen 2nd stage), Kestrel (Falcon 1 2nd stage), the Draco thruster and the in-development Dragon escape/landing engine. Down the road add the huge Merlin 2 and a proposed Merlin that runs on methane.

SpaceX's most recent roadmap.

Falcon X Heavy: 125 metric tons to low Earth orbit (Saturn V was 104-119 m/t)

[Wulfman]

I was only suggesting that the cost comparison is not fair, since SpaceX was able to hire pre-trained & qualified personal & build on a vast technology base, thereby avoiding costly errors.

I'm obviously not claiming that NASA is highly cost efficient.

mfg
w

[Dr Mordrid]

Everyone has access to the same tech databases.

The difference is how they're utilizing them and how they are organizing their operations. One result; NASA takes hundreds of engineers and that huge, legacy hardwired control center to do a launch while SpaceX runs theirs with 2-3 dozen engineers using a bunch of laptops.

That difference is starting to cause folks to stand up and take notice, to the point that even ESA's directors have said they need to change their operational ways.