Debunking SpaceX's Low Cost Model
thedatascientist.com
thedatascientist.com
He claims that the cost of the Delta IV is lower than the Falcon 9 which is a misleading on multiple levels. First, SpaceX is a relatively new company which lacks the engineering legacy of Delta I-IV to build on. That they managed to launch the Falcon 9 on day 1 is nothing short of astounding. Scaling and legacy will reduce costs which he conveniently ignores.
Secondly, he claims that the $1.6B NASA COTS contract is more than the stated launch price. While it is true that a Delta IV launch is similar to the cost of NASA's launch configuration, we must remember that its different LAUNCH CONFIGURATIONS. Delta IV just shoves a satellite into orbit. Falcon 9 must dock with the ISS which is a different can of worms. A more proper comparison would be Falcon 9 with Constellation which is horrendously expensive to operate and over development budget.
This is before he degenerates into truly unforgivable pile of FUD, asking why couldn't "SpaceX obtain a contract from either a commercial or governmental entity for the development of the Falcon 1? Where are the private investors? It could be perhaps that there is no market."
Quite frankly, that's a load of disingenuous BS that does nothing more than to point to the author's lack of research.
One of the principles SpaceX was predicated on was the private development of rockets, not the cost-plus model the author assumes. Besides Musk himself, they got John Doerr and several other big name VCs. The fact that SpaceX was develop rockets with just private money is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Another nice bit of artifice on the author's part is his loudly wondering where the launch market is. Looking at their launch manifest, they already have over 25 launches lined up. It will much more once the company has matured.
Long story short: this author is full of shit.
First, I never claimed DeltaIV's cost was lower than Falcon 9's (or discrediting SpaceX)...I just said Falcon 9 was about market cost and probably won't be close to their $50m stated price. That price probably is the cost of the rocket anyways, not the mission. And no, I don't think the two craft are truly comparable because their missions are different, but I'm just arguing SpaceX's rockets won't be dramatically lower in price all things considered.
Second, looking at their launch manifest (http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php) most of those flights are for the Falcon 9 with the customer being NASA (the government). How many of those customers are purchasing the low-cost Falcon 1 rocket? 1 maybe 2? 8% of their manifest is low-cost flight. The rest are for (probably) market-cost flight. Do you have any links to suggest that the market for low-cost spaceflight is booming?
My point being: Most people think SpaceX is the future of spaceflight when it looks like they are just another NASA contractor. What's horrifying to me is how they were able to win the NASA COTS $1.6bn contract with absolutely no record of mission success.
EDIT: Another interesting tid-bit- NASA reportedly spends about $114m per a Soyuz mission (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13441.0). That docks with the ISS as well and the Soyuz is arguably the most efficient and reliable rocket out there.
What will happen when the technology is proven and ready to scale is a completely different game. As the GP said, the configuration and special requirements will likely keep the price up for government contracts. On the private end however the new market price will depend heavily on how much this technology can be scaled and how the market will react to a lower price. The exact figure is known to nobody, but enough variables are being changed to have a real hope that it will be sensibly lower.