[Scotty]

It's totally relevent.

As Karajorma stated, one of the biggest points of the article is that innovation and experimentation yields production methods which are significantly more cost-effective than old designs that have been used (either conceptually or physically) for decades.

CV-65 is a totally outdated design that is much more cost-effectively replicated in her role by newer, more innovative designs.

The only way that comparison is irrelevent is if your entire position is also irrelevent to the conversation to be had.

[Dragon]

You failed to mention one thing: CV-65 is a war machine, and it's a ship. War evolves quickly, but space missions aren't much different from what was done in '60s. Sailors and marines are expected to take risk, civilian scientists are not. Also, risks involved are somewhat lesser than with rockets. Contrary to popular belief, a nuclear carrier will not disintegrate if something goes wrong with the reactor, and if there's a disaster, you can always use the lifeboats, which are a somewhat updated version of a thousands of years old concept of a raft. An aircraft carrier doesn't have to be build to standards as tight as a rocket, and doesn't have to sustain nearly as much stress. If a new, shiny carrier breaks down, it's hauled off to a drydock. If a new, shiny rocket breaks down, you get a huge explosion. This has an effect one the cost-benefit ratio, especially that payloads carried into space are in most cases so expensive you just can't afford failure.

[The E]

And you failed to make sense. Please try again.

[Dragon]

TL;DR: Rocket accidents are more destructive than carrier accidents. In the latter case, the ship usually can be re-used. Not so with rockets. Also, physics aren't different from what they were in '60s, neither are space missions. You can't say that about military technology nor the nature of warfare.

[The E]

:facepalm:

You misunderstand the issue under discussion, I think. It's not about whether old tech is safer than new tech (by all accounts, the new stuff SpaceX is doing is at least equivalent to the old stuff in that regard), or that nuclear Carriers are different from rockets in several important aspects (well, duh), it's about whether the established space industry is far too reliant on old technology to be able to actually innovate and create new opportunities.

[666maslo666]

Are people here actually implying that we should not innovate, and settle for outdated, more dangerous, less efficient and less economic 50 year old designs because they are "proven"?

So much has changed in the engineering and manufacturing technology during those decades that new designs have potential for significant improvements in all areas over the old rockets. The example from the article (riveting and machining vs. stir welding), propellant crossfeed, multiple engine failure tolerance without jeopardising the mission etc.. Not to mention the holy grail of rocketry - full reusability, which is now within reach.

Just look at 60s cars vs. current cars. Would you still use car from the 60s today?

SpaceX is going to leave rockets designed 50 years ago in the dust. And coupled with inflatable space habitats, the potential for space infrastructure cost reduction is massive. What we have today (old rockets and solid tin can modules) is significantly inferior to what is possible with today or near future technology.

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm not sure you understand the relative costs of failure for a rocket engine and a car engine.

[The E]

Yes, the failure modes or a failing rocket engine are somewhat more terminal, however this does not mean that we should stop finding ways of making them more efficient. After all, we're so much better at modelling highly dynamic systems these days that creating new designs is a much safer approach than it was back then.

[Polpolion]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that innovation is bad, it's just that SpaceX is the only company in a position where it's really at all economic (more or less). ULA has the satellite launch market in the US pretty well cornered for the time being. They have these engines just sitting around, it would be a lot of work to develop new engines that would be significantly faster or safer, and since they already have pretty lovely contracts why would they care about bringing down the price?

[666maslo666]

I'm not sure you understand the relative costs of failure for a rocket engine and a car engine.

I understand it, and thats one more reason to not use outdated rocket designs (especially in terms of safety), but pursue designs that can survive multiple engine failures without compromising mission goals, like Falcon 9 can. So your point implies that innovation is even more important in rocketry, not less. When it comes to things where failure can bring massive costs, we cannot compromise with outdated designs, but we must use the best technologies we can to ensure reliability.

[Luis Dias]

It's not even really a risk-aversion issue, however. It's an issue of cost-benefit. Making improvements is literally not worth the money most of the time because, again, you're just shaving small amounts of weight off a design in exchange for higher costs. The greater chance of failure is merely icing on an ass-shaped cake as far as most commercial applications of the technology are concerned; they wouldn't bother with it before that was a factor

Yeah, nevermind the article which clearly makes the mathematical case that a lot of things are just costing too much because of that same attitude you are so fond of. That is so full of wrong that I won't even bother to porsue this conversation.

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm not sure you understand the relative costs of failure for a rocket engine and a car engine.

I understand it, and thats one more reason to not use outdated rocket designs (especially in terms of safety), but pursue designs that can survive multiple engine failures without compromising mission goals, like Falcon 9 can. So your point implies that innovation is even more important in rocketry, not less. When it comes to things where failure can bring massive costs, we cannot compromise with outdated designs, but we must use the best technologies we can to ensure reliability.

And yet you were drawing an analogy between 60s cars and cars of today.

[Luis Dias]

Cars are an extremely bad example because market forces are pressuring the car makers to go for a not-so-reliable system where they can milk the repairs from the buyers of those cars, allowing for smaller upfront prices. I'd say that if anything, market forces here are working the exact opposite fashion. Because it is so deadly, costly and dangerous, these rockets have to perform and be reliable.

The amount of ludditism in this thread is something that staggers me, and I'm already writing more than I already said I would. I'll try my best not to be dragged down to what is surely a terrible discussion. Go on.

[Dragon]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that innovation is bad, it's just that SpaceX is the only company in a position where it's really at all economic (more or less). ULA has the satellite launch market in the US pretty well cornered for the time being. They have these engines just sitting around, it would be a lot of work to develop new engines that would be significantly faster or safer, and since they already have pretty lovely contracts why would they care about bringing down the price?

That's pretty much it. Nobody says innovation is bad, but it might simply not be needed in that particular area. Space-X is making reusable rockets which are supposed to be manned in the near future, so they might consider developing a new engine, but most people use disposable rockets that we knew how to make since '60s. People who want satellites launched don't seem to mind the cost, and old, proven technology does just fine at this kind of missions.

Development costs for new rockets are very high, partially due very strict standards and multiple tests they have to pass in order to get certified. The demand for commercial rocket launches isn't that great, so it would be hard to come out even if the new technology wasn't much cheaper than the old. Most space launch companies focus of this kind of missions. Space-X, on the other hand, wants to do something new, so they have to invent new technologies anyway. The last rocket design that could reach Moon with a manned capsule was Saturn V, which wasn't worked on at all since the last Apollo mission. While most rockets used today have their origins in '60s-'70s, they were more or less constantly developed since that time (see Titan series, or the venerable Soyuz, originated as a 1954 design). When talking Moon missions, a few kilos shaved off the engine translate into much bigger cost reductions than in missions to LEO.

You misunderstand the issue under discussion, I think.

My point was that carrier example has nothing to do with rockets. Car example is also bad, for the reasons Luis Dias mentioned. If you want to compare rockets with something, compare them to airplanes.

[The E]

That's pretty much it. Nobody says innovation is bad, but it might simply not be needed in that particular area.

The cited reduction in cost by a whole ****ing lot says otherwise. The ambitions at play here (i.e. a manned mission to Mars) say otherwise. I get the impression you haven't actually read the article linked to completely.

Space-X is making reusable rockets which are supposed to be manned in the near future, so they might consider developing a new engine, but most people use disposable rockets that we knew how to make since '60s. People who want satellites launched don't seem to mind the cost, and old, proven technology does just fine at this kind of missions.

People didn't mind the cost because there was no other game in town. Now that that is no longer a factor, things may get interesting.

My point was that carrier example has nothing to do with rockets. Car example is also bad, for the reasons Luis Dias mentioned. If you want to compare rockets with something, compare them to airplanes.

Or, you know, compare them with other rockets. Because that's the only comparison that makes any sense; provided you want to compare the complete package and not just aspects of the design process. Because drawing analogies (and that is all that happened, someone drew an analogy, and in the grand tradition of nerddom, other people started to complain that the analogy is not 100% accurate. Congratulations on missing the point.) is a different thing to a comparison.

[Dragon]

That's pretty much it. Nobody says innovation is bad, but it might simply not be needed in that particular area.

The cited reduction in cost by a whole ****ing lot says otherwise. The ambitions at play here (i.e. a manned mission to Mars) say otherwise. I get the impression you haven't actually read the article linked to completely.

I also said that it makes sense for Space-X innovate, because they're pretty much the only ones seriously considering a mission to Mars (well, there's Excalibur-Almaz, but their plan is completely different). The cost reduction for "normal" missions is significant, but the question is, how much did the development cost? Chances are, if it wasn't for this development being needed anyway for missions to Moon and Mars, the cost would outweigh the benefits.

Space-X is making reusable rockets which are supposed to be manned in the near future, so they might consider developing a new engine, but most people use disposable rockets that we knew how to make since '60s. People who want satellites launched don't seem to mind the cost, and old, proven technology does just fine at this kind of missions.

People didn't mind the cost because there was no other game in town. Now that that is no longer a factor, things may get interesting.

If Space-X manages to reduce launch costs by a significant margin, it'll most likely motivate other companies to find a way of doing it themselves. This might be through improving existing designs though, not by designing a completely new launch system. Anyway, it'll indeed be interesting.

[The E]

Yeah, you haven't actually read anything about the issue, haven't you.

The cost reduction for "normal" missions is significant, but the question is, how much did the development cost?

Not enough to make the whole venture unprofitable, it seems.

If Space-X manages to reduce launch costs by a significant margin

They ALREADY DID THAT. Which you would know, if you had actually read anything about this.

[Dragon]

If Space-X manages to reduce launch costs by a significant margin

They ALREADY DID THAT. Which you would know, if you had actually read anything about this.

I haven't been looking at space launch prices lately (OK, I couldn't find a good list), and the article doesn't quote any figures in dollars. Tell me exactly how much Space-X can launch a 1-ton ship for using the Falcon, and for how much can (for example) ILS do the same using a Proton-M+Briz-M launch vehicle. Space-X claims to have managed to reduce launch prices, but can I actually launch anything at these reduced prices?

The cost reduction for "normal" missions is significant, but the question is, how much did the development cost?

Not enough to make the whole venture unprofitable, it seems.

Maybe if "normal" missions were the main objective, this would actually be unprofitable, or at least have a very small profit margin. Since the ultimate objective is the mission to Mars, it's rather irrelevant, as long as it doesn't ruin the company. My point is, it might not be worth developing such technology just to launch satellites, but once it's developed for something greater, it can also find a use in more "mundane" areas. That's how a lot of technology we use today was made.

[The E]

I haven't been looking at space launch prices lately (OK, I couldn't find a good list), and the article doesn't quote any figures in dollars. Tell me exactly how much Space-X can launch a 1-ton ship for using the Falcon, and for how much can (for example) ILS do the same using a Proton-M+Briz-M launch vehicle. Space-X claims to have managed to reduce launch prices, but can I actually launch anything at these reduced prices?

**** off. Read the damn article. Musk says they've brought prices down significantly. Does he cite concrete numbers? No. Because it's not an article aimed at people looking to shoot stuff into space.

By the way, their website says that a Falcon 9 launch (capable of lifting up to 12 tons of cargo) is priced at 54 million. Took me less than a minute to find that. If you want to have a more precise figure, I suggest you contact their sales department.

EDIT: Oh, look here. A simple wikipedia search turned up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

Maybe you should work on your google-fu, it seems awfully weak.

Maybe if "normal" missions were the main objective, this would actually be unprofitable, or at least have a very small profit margin.

Last I checked, SpaceX is not a ****ing charity. They have a bottom line they have to look at. If they were incapable of launching sats at the prices quoted AND turn a profit, this whole venture wouldn't make sense. Somehow, I don't see them loss-leading this whole thing.

Since the ultimate objective is the mission to Mars, it's rather irrelevant, as long as it doesn't ruin the company. My point is, it might not be worth developing such technology just to launch satellites, but once it's developed for something greater, it can also find a use in more "mundane" areas. That's how a lot of technology we use today was made.

Jesus Christ, do you even think about what you are typing here? Of course they're developing their tech for standard space launches now, but they're also using them as scale experiments for interplanetary launches.

I mean, they're not like those morons who wanted to start a Space Elevator project by starting to build a Space Elevator, hoping the necessary tech would be developed along the way. Musk et al have a plan, involving several incremental steps, towards getting to their endgoal.

[Dragon]

Since the ultimate objective is the mission to Mars, it's rather irrelevant, as long as it doesn't ruin the company. My point is, it might not be worth developing such technology just to launch satellites, but once it's developed for something greater, it can also find a use in more "mundane" areas. That's how a lot of technology we use today was made.

Jesus Christ, do you even think about what you are typing here? Of course they're developing their tech for standard space launches now, but they're also using them as scale experiments for interplanetary launches.

I mean, they're not like those morons who wanted to start a Space Elevator project by starting to build a Space Elevator, hoping the necessary tech would be developed along the way. Musk et al have a plan, involving several incremental steps, towards getting to their endgoal.

Which is exactly what I said. The development of Falcon 9 a stepping stone on the road to Mars. It's value is not only monetary, but also as a way to develop technology that will be needed for a future Mars rocket.

By the way, their website says that a Falcon 9 launch (capable of lifting up to 12 tons of cargo) is priced at 54 million. Took me less than a minute to find that. If you want to have a more precise figure, I suggest you contact their sales department.

I know that. I had a problem with finding figures for Proton. Looking at the wiki article, it does indeed put it much below the Proton (80 million), and Falcon 9 1.1 has about 75% of it's launch capability. That's an improvement, all right. Then there's Russian Angara A3, which has a similar launch capability, but costs about 70 million. Same goes for Zenit, but it's lacking launch capability. The wiki article is missing numbers for a few important rockets. It'd be nice to have some data on larger Angara versions, different versions of Zenit and Soyuz.

Regardless, going by the wiki article, he managed to shave off 14 milion when keeping the launch capability comparable to Angara. That's about 63% of Proton-M's price, while having about 75% of it's launch capability. I'd say, those numbers sound good, and he promises further cost reduction. That's certainly an attractive option.

**** off. Read the damn article. Musk says they've brought prices down significantly. Does he cite concrete numbers? No. Because it's not an article aimed at people looking to shoot stuff into space.

It's not about what he said. You strongly backed his claim he already brought down launch costs, so I asked for clear evidence. Regardless of who the article is aimed at, it's always better to have concrete numbers. What exactly a "significant" reduction means? (OK, I'm guilty of that one myself. Still, it's good to have the numbers.)

Last I checked, SpaceX is not a ****ing charity. They have a bottom line they have to look at. If they were incapable of launching sats at the prices quoted AND turn a profit, this whole venture wouldn't make sense. Somehow, I don't see them loss-leading this whole thing.

Individual launches will obviously turn a profit (a hefty one, I suspect), but I wonder if (and if they do, when exactly) they're going to pay for development costs. It's not like there's a satellite launched every day. However, a lot of it's value lies in the fact it's a scale experiment for interplanetary launches. It's harder to pinpoint this value and convert it to dollars, but it's most likely the most important one in the long run.