It may be a false perception, but from the outside it looks like SpaceX are actively developing a lot of new hardware, whereas ULA have some very cool plans and designs, but are waiting for someone else to fund them.
Quote from: kkattula on 10/27/2009 03:34 amIt may be a false perception, but from the outside it looks like SpaceX are actively developing a lot of new hardware, whereas ULA have some very cool plans and designs, but are waiting for someone else to fund them.Exactly - the perception is that ULA (Boeing/Lockmart AKA "OldSpace") don't really have any interest in advancing spaceflight. They only want to cash in on their cost-plus contracts and only innovate when a large contract is up in the air. But they do not attempt to grow and expand into more space markets, or open up whole new markets, like most companies would be eager to. Again, that is the perception. (before the wrath of Jim descends on me) Personally I think there is some degree of truth in that perception, but I suppose there is also cold hard business reality where they do not want to take any chances that would hurt their stock values further.
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/27/2009 04:08 amQuote from: kkattula on 10/27/2009 03:34 amIt may be a false perception, but from the outside it looks like SpaceX are actively developing a lot of new hardware, whereas ULA have some very cool plans and designs, but are waiting for someone else to fund them.Exactly - the perception is that ULA (Boeing/Lockmart AKA "OldSpace") don't really have any interest in advancing spaceflight. They only want to cash in on their cost-plus contracts and only innovate when a large contract is up in the air. But they do not attempt to grow and expand into more space markets, or open up whole new markets, like most companies would be eager to. Again, that is the perception. (before the wrath of Jim descends on me) Personally I think there is some degree of truth in that perception, but I suppose there is also cold hard business reality where they do not want to take any chances that would hurt their stock values further.Another way of putting it is that SpaceX acts more entrepreneurially than the other big launch companies. Elon put his money in on speculation that they'd be able to deliver a product that would be profitable. For the most part Boeing/LM/ULA don't act entrepreneurially very often, in a big part due to being publicly traded companies. I don't think it's that they can't act entrepreneurially so much as that it is hard for them to do so.That said, I think that as ULA goes on, they aren't going to have a choice--they're going to have to innovate or risk in the long run being marginalized by new entrants. I happen to know, and be friends with, many members of the ULA team, and I think that at least talent-wise they could do some really interesting things. My hope is that SpaceX being successful actually helps light a bit of a fire under them as well.~Jon
I read ULA's papers on the ACES based exploration architecture, and was very impressed. Not just the pretty new technology, but the synergy from re-applying the same basic technology for multiple purposes. Also the recovery & accummulation of residual propellant at every step.There's some really good thinking gone into those proposals. It's a crying shame they haven't been funded and empowered to actually buils the new stuff.
I've noticed that some people are fans of both NASA launchers and SpaceX while they dislike ULA. I found this perplexing, but it may have something to do with political outlook.
1. That -- plus on-target delivery of WMD to assure our national security -- is what OldSpace is all about. 2. Augustine is/was OldSpace. It's impressive that he can "get it" regarding NewSpace. It seemed clear for example that he personally would prefer to see NewSpace handle LEO HSF. That's amazing!
Yeah, poor Boeing/LM have to sustain themself on potato scraps... they have only a few tens (or hundreds?) of billions worth of contracts with DoD, where would I expect them to find money to develop, say, a WBC?
ULA could easily launch crews, but they've chosen not to.
Quote from: gospacex on 10/27/2009 07:00 amYeah, poor Boeing/LM have to sustain themself on potato scraps... they have only a few tens (or hundreds?) of billions worth of contracts with DoD, where would I expect them to find money to develop, say, a WBC?they already sunk billions into the EELV development. They have yet to make that back. Anyways, can we stop the LM and Boeing references, it is ULA. ULA does not have access to LM and Boeing finances.
Quote from: MP99 on 10/27/2009 07:35 amULA could easily launch crews, but they've chosen not to.No, they want to, they just can't build the spacecraft. They must work with someone else to provide the capsule.
Quote from: Jim on 10/27/2009 01:45 pmQuote from: gospacex on 10/27/2009 07:00 amYeah, poor Boeing/LM have to sustain themself on potato scraps... they have only a few tens (or hundreds?) of billions worth of contracts with DoD, where would I expect them to find money to develop, say, a WBC?they already sunk billions into the EELV development. They have yet to make that back. Anyways, can we stop the LM and Boeing references, it is ULA. ULA does not have access to LM and Boeing finances.Exactly. If ULA goes out of business, Boeing and LM shrug and say good riddance--but ULA goes out of business. ULA has a lot more at stake than either of its parent companies. ~Jon
I have never of a parent company that doesn't care about its subsidiaries. For the parent companies, it's an asset that produces income.
(what happens when a team of 500 Aerospace/Analex/NASA/DoD mission assurance folks walk in the door to ensure the irreplaceable payload is successfully placed in orbit?).
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/27/2009 11:42 pmI have never of a parent company that doesn't care about its subsidiaries. For the parent companies, it's an asset that produces income. It is not a subsidiary. It is a joint venture between two companies which is to limit the liability of the parent companies. It was a way of the parent companies to limit their losses.
So the parent companies care about their LLC units (unless they have become worthless because, for example, the company will never be profitable -but this is not the case for ULA).
1. If ULA is profitable, the parent companies care about it. I am not sure why they would let it sink. But ULA might be able to get its own financing, it may not need anybody else's help. But that doesn't mean the parent company doesn't care about it. If they didn't care about ULA, they would liquidate it or sell its assets. 2. The shareholders name ULA's board of managers and they can decide to liquidate ULA or sell its assets, if they wish.
But OldSpace companies as a whole have no will to do it unless someone covers the cost with sizable margins. They are accustomized to work for govt (DoD and NASA), they don't want to risk.
I'm interested whether ULA would fund a launcher HR programme themselves once someone gets serious about a capsule to go on it.
Quote from: kkattula on 10/27/2009 03:34 amIt may be a false perception, but from the outside it looks like SpaceX are actively developing a lot of new hardware, whereas ULA have some very cool plans and designs, but are waiting for someone else to fund them.Quote from: gospacex on 10/27/2009 07:00 amYeah, poor Boeing/LM have to sustain themself on potato scraps... they have only a few tens (or hundreds?) of billions worth of contracts with DoD, where would I expect them to find money to develop, say, a WBC?Quote from: gospacex on 10/27/2009 02:54 pmBut OldSpace companies as a whole have no will to do it unless someone covers the cost with sizable margins. They are accustomized to work for govt (DoD and NASA), they don't want to risk.Oh, give me a flogging break! Whose money do you think is paying SpaceX's bills RIGHT NOW? Go back and look at their press releases from contracts they've won or financing they've secured. There's a hell of a lot more of the former than the latter.
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/28/2009 01:02 am1. If ULA is profitable, the parent companies care about it. I am not sure why they would let it sink. But ULA might be able to get its own financing, it may not need anybody else's help. But that doesn't mean the parent company doesn't care about it. If they didn't care about ULA, they would liquidate it or sell its assets. 2. The shareholders name ULA's board of managers and they can decide to liquidate ULA or sell its assets, if they wish. You don't understand why ULA exists.1. ULA was created so that LM and Boeing no longer had the boat anchors of the Delta and Atlas programs. They in essences did sell the assets, when they created ULA. That was the whole reason for ULA to exist. 2. There is no board of managers. The shareholders have no say. Boeing and LM executives name the ULA executives .
a) SpaceX developed Falcon 1 without NASA funding.
'Old space' has typically developed systems under cost plus not fixed price contracts. Although I believe EELV & X-33 were exceptions.
Falcon 9LEO (s/c<80% capacity) $44M LEO (s/c>80% capacity) $49.5M GTO (s/c<3,000 kg) $44M GTO $49.5M
1. Forget GTO, then if you wish. I feel certain that SpaceX will get to GTO, since that's where a good bit of the comsat and geosat market is. 2. And I'm sure government prices are much lower. [stifled snort] And when SpaceX sez: "same pricing for all customers" on their website, that's a falsehood?3. It appears that Atlas V 401 and Falcon 9 can carry roughly the same payload to LEO, and it also appears that Falcon 9 costs about half as much to launch. And if SpaceX has 1/10th the personell overhead, that tells me that oldspace looks more like a dinosaur, and newspace looks more like a mammal. It also suggests that SpaceX is making a good profit. Unless there's profit to be made in space, there will be no companies doing business in space.
No, I haven't made a single assumption. Quit putting words into my mouth. The only info I have to go from is a couple of official looking websites.If SpaceX's claim of an order of magnitude smaller workforce is true, who am I to assume otherwise? If someone has better info, then may they come forward. I could make the "assumption" that SpaceX is paying their workforce 10times the going rate and thus they aren't making a good profit. That's a safe assumption. Not.Furthermore, SpaceX claims to be making the large part of their rockets, not relying on sub-contractors, with their inevitable layers of overhead and profit. I didn't look into ULA's use of sub-contractors, just at the reported bottom line $90M number, so I can't comment on that.Now maybe my suggestions are wrong. So say that. Again, I didn't make a single assumption.
Forget GTO, then if you wish. I feel certain that SpaceX will get to GTO, since that's where a good bit of the comsat and geosat market is. And I'm sure government prices are much lower. [stifled snort] And when SpaceX sez: "same pricing for all customers" on their website, that's a falsehood?It appears that Atlas V 401 and Falcon 9 can carry roughly the same payload to LEO, and it also appears that Falcon 9 costs about half as much to launch. And if SpaceX has 1/10th the personell overhead, that tells me that oldspace looks more like a dinosaur, and newspace looks more like a mammal. It also suggests that SpaceX is making a good profit. Unless there's profit to be made in space, there will be no companies doing business in space.Which then suggests that commercial actors are beginning to succeed.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/28/2009 06:11 pmNo, I haven't made a single assumption. Quit putting words into my mouth. The only info I have to go from is a couple of official looking websites.If SpaceX's claim of an order of magnitude smaller workforce is true, who am I to assume otherwise? If someone has better info, then may they come forward. I could make the "assumption" that SpaceX is paying their workforce 10times the going rate and thus they aren't making a good profit. That's a safe assumption. Not.Now maybe my suggestions are wrong. So say that. Again, I didn't make a single assumption.Well, risking to continue this off topic discussion:4. ULA has more employees than SpaceX. This is surely correct, but it is far from being one magnitude higher than SpaceX, despite ULA operating 3 rocket families with different rocket variations. I remember that Musk in an interview in 2004 said that he wanted to limit SpaceX to about 500 people because he wanted it to be small and efficient. SpaceX is at 800 now and counting - they will break the 1000 mark quite soon.
No, I haven't made a single assumption. Quit putting words into my mouth. The only info I have to go from is a couple of official looking websites.If SpaceX's claim of an order of magnitude smaller workforce is true, who am I to assume otherwise? If someone has better info, then may they come forward. I could make the "assumption" that SpaceX is paying their workforce 10times the going rate and thus they aren't making a good profit. That's a safe assumption. Not.Now maybe my suggestions are wrong. So say that. Again, I didn't make a single assumption.
1. Falcon 9, despite all announcements and efforts, is still a paper rocket with not a single launch.
2. It's very easy to state paper rocket launch prices on company websites. People might not remember, but the price for the Falcon 1 was originally stated to be 5 million USD in 2005, now it has risen to 10 million in just 4 years. Inflation wasn't that high...
3. Jim correctly pointed out that the prices SpaceX put on their website aren't prices that the government would have to pay. And even SpaceX says that those prices are only "guidance" and dependent on actual negotiations of particular contracts.4. ULA has more employees than SpaceX. This is surely correct, but it is far from being one magnitude higher than SpaceX, despite ULA operating 3 rocket families with different rocket variations. I remember that Musk in an interview in 2004 said that he wanted to limit SpaceX to about 500 people because he wanted it to be small and efficient. SpaceX is at 800 now and counting - they will break the 1000 mark quite soon.5. And just to put labor costs vs. claimed launch costs into perspective, let's assume the average engineer at SpaceX costs them 200k (that's salary, benefits, taxes etc. etc.) and assume they also got lower paid workers, very optimistically their per employee cost is in the 120k area (that's VERY optimistic) then at 800 employees SpaceX's labor costs alone are 100 million per year and once they got 1000 employees next year it's more. They need at least 3 launches per year at their stated prices to just pay their employees. And that's just labor costs, not counting costs for infrastructure, buildings, rocket parts, launch site fees, range fees etc.
To sum things up, we can safely assume SpaceX's actual launch prices will be in the range of other market players. They will compete with others and offer launches at prices that help them get contracts even for a yet unproven rocket. If the Falcon 9 proves to be a reliable vehicle, they will increase its price further.
Building rockets to a companies internal requirements sets up a certain level of needed people. Such a company may or may not wind up with a reliable launch system. I think that although SpaceX has succeeded twice in launching Falcon 1s the jury is still out as to will it be reliable. And the Falcon 9 is still a complete unknown. I am not in anyway trying to be unkind to SpaceX here, I wish them the best of luck!The American government payloads are typically one of a kind, very expensive, frequently over $1,000 million. The government self insures these payloads because loss of mission means so much more than simply the money involved. To help ensure a successful launch the government literally hires a large mission assurance army of civil servant and contract help to poke into every aspect of the rocket. Jim and Antares represent just 2 of the thousands of these folks trying to ensure successful launches. This mission assurance armys sole job is to dig and dig and dig trying to find hidden failure opportunities. At the contractor it takes another army of equally dedicated people to answer the questions brought forth by the mission assurance army.For COTS NASA kept their mission assurance army away from SpaceX to allow SpaceX the freedom of a small company to develop Falcon. SpaceX is just beginning to enjoy the oversight environment of trying to get American government launch approval for critical, expensive, national payloads.
1) And then there is the CRS $1.6B which he doesn't get any money from until he delivers but can be used to leverage private investment.2) NASA sience had the free ride, getting to use these two world class rockets without investing in their development.
Quote from: Xplor on 10/28/2009 10:26 am1) And then there is the CRS $1.6B which he doesn't get any money from until he delivers but can be used to leverage private investment.2) NASA sience had the free ride, getting to use these two world class rockets without investing in their development.1) False. Most commercial launch contracts, NASA and USAF and private satellites, have milestone payments. Rare are the ones all at the end (NSS-8 being one I can think of). The CRS RFP, just like other NASA launch contracts, asked for milestone payments to be proposed. Given the structure of the SpaceX COTS milestones which get most of the money without launching, I wouldn't imagine that SpaceX would settle for all of the money at the end. Those who provided earlier funds and expect a return would never go for that.2) Sorta. The launch prices, for all customers not just NASA Science, include what Boeing and LM want to recoup their development costs.I really like this commercial debate, but we're in a wrong thread for it. Can we move it somewhere else?
Quote from: Xplor on 10/28/2009 09:25 pmXplor, I'm curious what you think the relative sizes of armies are:Shuttle ContractorsShuttle NASAULAOrbitalSpaceXUSAF ELVNASA ELV
If there's some magical launch site with virtually no range restrictions (like their Kwaj site)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/28/2009 09:30 pm If there's some magical launch site with virtually no range restrictions (like their Kwaj site)Kwaj isn't so magical. It shuts down weeks at time.
200k? 120k? That's pretty impressive... I know how much benefits, etc, cost, but that is rather high pay.
SpaceX makes their own rocket parts, they bought their launch site second-hand, they don't have requirements to keep two or more separate rocket families available etc...
1. There are many, many differences between SpaceX and ULA that could drive down the cost of launching for SpaceX. 2. Besides, SpaceX is a private company owned by, as far as I'm aware of, space enthusiasts (Elon Musk, etc) that have a non-financial motive for lowering the costs.
1. If Falcon 9 turns out to be a reliable and reusable launch vehicle, it would likely have lower launch costs rather than higher launch costs. 2. Otherwise, their customers would demand a brand new Falcon 9 every time.
It seems to me that Ares V is the most capable vehicule. I am no sure why you would want to cancel it. The 5 segement boosters and the J-2X are upgrades. I am not sure why you would be against upgrading technology.
An expendable HLV in the Shuttle class would be as expensive as the Shuttle, or even more expensive, without having a spacecraft (payload) at all.
An HLV built by ULA would also be expensive. Besides, as Bo mentionned, is there a huge difference between a rocket made by ATK with NASA supervision and one made by ULA without NASA supervision?
And without high flight rates we'll still have to wait a long time before the general march of technological progress makes cost to orbit low enough to allow substantial commercial activity in LEO.
1)All kerolox. While less efficient for the upper stage, it makes handling far easier. Their whole vehicle can get a better mass-fraction, and they use the same design for the upper stage as the lower stage (and for most LVs, the upper stages tend to be more expensive than the lower stages, even though they are smaller). This decreases costs by increasing commonality (same diameter tooling, same engine with some modifications like a nozzle extension, same fuel, same tubing, same avionics, etc).2) Manufacturing techniques, like an all-friction-stir-welded tank and other state-of-the-art and automated manufacturing/quality-assurance machines. Also, the tanks don't have to be pressurized except for launch, making a lighter tank than an all-isogrid structure but much easier handling than a tank that relies on pressure-strength to stand under its own weight.3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice).4) Lower pressure engines with still enough performance margin ensures a robust design with larger factors of safety than is practical for a higher-pressure design.5) In the first stage, a large numbers of engines (ridiculously large if you have a high launch rate), without having to rely on any one of them, (potentially) increases reliability yet greatly increases economy of scale at the same launch rate.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/29/2009 03:16 pm1)All kerolox. While less efficient for the upper stage, it makes handling far easier. Their whole vehicle can get a better mass-fraction, and they use the same design for the upper stage as the lower stage (and for most LVs, the upper stages tend to be more expensive than the lower stages, even though they are smaller). This decreases costs by increasing commonality (same diameter tooling, same engine with some modifications like a nozzle extension, same fuel, same tubing, same avionics, etc).2) Manufacturing techniques, like an all-friction-stir-welded tank and other state-of-the-art and automated manufacturing/quality-assurance machines. Also, the tanks don't have to be pressurized except for launch, making a lighter tank than an all-isogrid structure but much easier handling than a tank that relies on pressure-strength to stand under its own weight.3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice).4) Lower pressure engines with still enough performance margin ensures a robust design with larger factors of safety than is practical for a higher-pressure design.5) In the first stage, a large numbers of engines (ridiculously large if you have a high launch rate), without having to rely on any one of them, (potentially) increases reliability yet greatly increases economy of scale at the same launch rate.1. It is a wash, Since the higher performing upperstage can lift more.2. The EELV's use state of the art. They were the first with friction-stir-welded. Also, not all EELV's are pressure stabilized.3. Payload driven. Spacex is not going to get some launches because of this.4. That has nothing to do with cost.5. That is yet to be seen
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/29/2009 02:40 pmIt seems to me that Ares V is the most capable vehicule. I am no sure why you would want to cancel it. The 5 segement boosters and the J-2X are upgrades. I am not sure why you would be against upgrading technology. Well, I can think of an even more capable paper vehicle, just as or even more unaffordable than Ares V. Would you support it too, because capability, e.g. throw mass, is all you are interested in?Analyst
HLV, whether it's SDLV (Inline or Sidemount), Ares V, or even EELV Phase 1 all are only really NECESSARY and economical for exploration class HSF missions.
Missed that, but in the case of EELV Phase 1 there is actually an overlap. The single core versions would have similar payloads to the current heavy versions. The multiple core versions might not ever have to fly if cryogenic propellant transfer happens in time or exploration is delayed by enough.
So in the end SpaceX is going to approximately get as much as Boeing & Lockheed got for the Delta IV & Atlas V (not including the CRS contract as that is a set of missions not for development). And will produce less capability with it.
Try to get a good engineer in CA for under 120k per year (that doesn't even have all the extra costs that are not going to the employee in it). Impossible.
Quote from: alexSA on 10/29/2009 11:54 amTry to get a good engineer in CA for under 120k per year (that doesn't even have all the extra costs that are not going to the employee in it). Impossible.Hey, what are you insinuating about those of us who make only a fraction of $120k/yr...Thems is fightin words. ;-)~Jon
Apples-to-Apples... It's about what they are goign to do with the approximately the same money. Not what they could do in the future. Unless someone can correct my $250-mil of DARPA money memory... With the same amount of money that Boeing got to develop the Delta IV line (Med-to-Heavy) and 2 pads, SpaceX will give us a Falcon 1 & 9 as is and 1 pad. Ok 1-1/2 pads if you include Kwaj. By your reasoning we can throw in ACES, 5-Core Super Heavy, etc for Delta IV. Because they are about as far along as Falcon 9 Heavy or high-energy US is for Space X
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/28/2009 12:34 am So the parent companies care about their LLC units (unless they have become worthless because, for example, the company will never be profitable -but this is not the case for ULA). not really. They aren't going to provide ULA any money for expansion or new markets. ULA is off on its own to swim or sink.jongoff is correct in his statement.
In an unrelated development, Boeing said it may be obliged to record $386 million in pre-tax losses if the U.S. Air Force maintains its refusal to pay higher prices for four United Launch Alliance (ULA) launches. Boeing has agreed to indemnify ULA against potential losses on these four missions if the Air Force refuses to raise the agreed-to contract price.
It seems that Boeing does care if ULA sinks or swims. See this article:
This rocket-launching business is the most screwed up thing I've seen in quite a while. You have to be a masochist to want to get into it. According to the Sea Launch/Boeing article linked above, Boeing needs almost $100M more per launch (assuming the extra can be distributed evenly across all four). Plus, the space division's profit of $672M may sound like plenty until you compare it to revenue of $6B. That's only 11% profit to begin with ... and all of that would be eaten up by the potential liabilities.Then there's NASA refusing to or not being allowed to use the perfectly good Delta/Atlas for crew transport to LEO. I just don't get it...
Why would Boeing or Lockheed Martin ever allow such a development when they are looking at risk free contracts directly from NASA for Ares I, Orion, Ares V and Altair without needing to risk their own investment?
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/31/2009 01:40 pmIt seems that Boeing does care if ULA sinks or swims. See this article:No, it follows my point. Boeing isn't going to provide any more money. Boeing would record a loss either way, if ULA went away or ULA continues and doesn't get the money from the USAF. Anyways, this is from the contract that Boeing got before the formation of ULA.
SpaceX is working on Falcon 9 heavy and perhaps a hydrolox upperstage.
Ares V is not built by ATK.
I though ULA was being paid cost-plus.
It seems that Boeing does care if ULA sinks or swims. See this article:http://www.spacenews.com/launch/091030-boeing-losses-sea-launch-bankruptcy.htmlQuoteIn an unrelated development, Boeing said it may be obliged to record $386 million in pre-tax losses if the U.S. Air Force maintains its refusal to pay higher prices for four United Launch Alliance (ULA) launches. Boeing has agreed to indemnify ULA against potential losses on these four missions if the Air Force refuses to raise the agreed-to contract price.
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/31/2009 07:56 pmI though ULA was being paid cost-plus. Never. They get paid to maintain a certain launch rate and the hardware is fixed price.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/29/2009 03:16 pm... 3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice)....3. Payload driven. Spacex is not going to get some launches because of this.
... 3) No need for a large vertical integration facility (horizontal integration will suffice)....
What sorts of payloads can't be integrated horizontally?
The canceled Vega.
Quote from: Jim on 10/29/2009 05:28 pmThe canceled Vega.I thought the Vega stage cancelled in 1959 was going to have storable propellants, rather than kerolox.
Quote from: William Barton on 11/01/2009 08:31 amQuote from: Jim on 10/29/2009 05:28 pmThe canceled Vega.I thought the Vega stage cancelled in 1959 was going to have storable propellants, rather than kerolox.Say's here it was kerosene/LOX.http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch12-5.htm - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/01/2009 02:55 pmQuote from: William Barton on 11/01/2009 08:31 amQuote from: Jim on 10/29/2009 05:28 pmThe canceled Vega.I thought the Vega stage cancelled in 1959 was going to have storable propellants, rather than kerolox.Say's here it was kerosene/LOX.http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch12-5.htm - Ed KyleThis says you're both right: that there was supposed to be a storable stage atop the vanguard based second stage:http://www.solarviews.com/history/SP-4212/ch2-2.html
My understanding is the customer requests bids on a specified payload to a specified orbit, then evaluates the resultant bids. ULA generates a bid for each of its vehicles and then decides whether to pitch both or just offer the one that serves the customer best.
Quote from: Will on 11/02/2009 03:52 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/01/2009 02:55 pmQuote from: William Barton on 11/01/2009 08:31 amQuote from: Jim on 10/29/2009 05:28 pmThe canceled Vega.I thought the Vega stage cancelled in 1959 was going to have storable propellants, rather than kerolox.Say's here it was kerosene/LOX.http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch12-5.htm - Ed KyleThis says you're both right: that there was supposed to be a storable stage atop the vanguard based second stage:http://www.solarviews.com/history/SP-4212/ch2-2.htmlVega WAS the second stage with a full 10 foot diameter structure. The upper stage would have probably been a solid stage. Interesting that Vega was cancelled because of Agena B; Vega was to be powered by a 30,000 pound thrust engine. And then the looming shadow of Centaur was falling across the Convair Vega hard mockup.....
As a business person trying to deal with SpaceX. I'll vote for the old boys. SpaceX has no small business liason, no concern for HubZone or disadvantaged companies, from what I can tell, but I hear they have $50,000 a month free lunch room. I am all for the cutting costs on space flight, but the old-timers and ULA win my vote. I am on the bottom of the food chain, but there has not been one shuttle launch in the last few years without our fasteners holding things together. I hope SpaceX attends to the nuances of the business that others have spent years learning.
Quote from: Alyce Branigan on 11/11/2009 08:07 pmAs a business person trying to deal with SpaceX. I'll vote for the old boys. SpaceX has no small business liason, no concern for HubZone or disadvantaged companies, from what I can tell, but I hear they have $50,000 a month free lunch room. I am all for the cutting costs on space flight, but the old-timers and ULA win my vote. I am on the bottom of the food chain, but there has not been one shuttle launch in the last few years without our fasteners holding things together. I hope SpaceX attends to the nuances of the business that others have spent years learning. Welcome to the site's forum Alyce - and well said.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 11/11/2009 08:23 pmQuote from: Alyce Branigan on 11/11/2009 08:07 pmAs a business person trying to deal with SpaceX. I'll vote for the old boys. SpaceX has no small business liason, no concern for HubZone or disadvantaged companies, from what I can tell, but I hear they have $50,000 a month free lunch room. I am all for the cutting costs on space flight, but the old-timers and ULA win my vote. I am on the bottom of the food chain, but there has not been one shuttle launch in the last few years without our fasteners holding things together. I hope SpaceX attends to the nuances of the business that others have spent years learning. Welcome to the site's forum Alyce - and well said.Indeed. I've noticed a companies success is often times based on how well they treat the smallest firms they deal with. Those which focus only on the large fish often times find themselves on the short end of the stick, but those which will work with smaller entities are the ones which last.
Quote from: Downix on 11/11/2009 08:51 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 11/11/2009 08:23 pmQuote from: Alyce Branigan on 11/11/2009 08:07 pmAs a business person trying to deal with SpaceX. I'll vote for the old boys. SpaceX has no small business liason, no concern for HubZone or disadvantaged companies, from what I can tell, but I hear they have $50,000 a month free lunch room. I am all for the cutting costs on space flight, but the old-timers and ULA win my vote. I am on the bottom of the food chain, but there has not been one shuttle launch in the last few years without our fasteners holding things together. I hope SpaceX attends to the nuances of the business that others have spent years learning. Welcome to the site's forum Alyce - and well said.Indeed. I've noticed a companies success is often times based on how well they treat the smallest firms they deal with. Those which focus only on the large fish often times find themselves on the short end of the stick, but those which will work with smaller entities are the ones which last. Small business is the framework on which our country is built, and I just hope the "new, big" companies follow your discussions. My experience with the old big companies so far, has been one of mutual respect. I salute ULA, NASA, Northrup, Raytheon, Aerojet, Lockheed,and all the other giants on whose shoulders the new companies should try to stand. Thank you all, you are great American companies.
Welcome, Alyce!Look. SpaceX shouldn't be worshiped and they have flaws like every single company out there. But, SpaceX is a new company. They don't have a liason for every single kind of company out there (they make most of their parts in-house). They don't have to convince the tax payer that they are "looking out for the little guy" since they are already seen by many as "the little guy" and they have Popular Science as a very effective PR firm . It sucks and may seem unfair (I work for a small business myself that tries--often unsuccessfully--to break into the purchasing cycle of large companies who like to buy from other large companies), but SpaceX may not have the time or resources to give some random business the time of day unless they already know they need their product.And, perhaps they may be trying to cut costs by using conventional components such as conventional fasteners versus Space Shuttle fasteners.But, keep at it, Alyce! If they need your product and you have an attractive price, they'll eventually go for it. Sometimes it takes a long time for leads to flower.
It "shows" that together we can do more than each individually, it "shows" why certain things are best done by governments, that we shouldn't leave everything to the "whims" of the market.ULA on the other hand is seen as part of big business, and part of the military industrial complex. It is also the major rival to both SpaceX and NASA launchers.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/11/2009 09:09 pmWelcome, Alyce!Look. SpaceX shouldn't be worshiped and they have flaws like every single company out there. But, SpaceX is a new company. They don't have a liason for every single kind of company out there (they make most of their parts in-house). They don't have to convince the tax payer that they are "looking out for the little guy" since they are already seen by many as "the little guy" and they have Popular Science as a very effective PR firm . It sucks and may seem unfair (I work for a small business myself that tries--often unsuccessfully--to break into the purchasing cycle of large companies who like to buy from other large companies), but SpaceX may not have the time or resources to give some random business the time of day unless they already know they need their product.And, perhaps they may be trying to cut costs by using conventional components such as conventional fasteners versus Space Shuttle fasteners.But, keep at it, Alyce! If they need your product and you have an attractive price, they'll eventually go for it. Sometimes it takes a long time for leads to flower.Oh, I will, I don't need bunches of liasons, just one. I have had contact with SpaceX and received nice feedback after very little trouble, actually. My comments were intended to compliment the established companies who started the business, but we are talking big fat rockets with people eventually sitting on top of them. We need to be concerned with how people conduct business and if the little details aren't attended to, I'd be very concerned about the big ones. This isn't a software game, it is about real travel to outerspace. This is America and if these companies prove themselves over time, we all want to be in their vendor base, but don't discount us because we have serviced the big companies. Above all, it is about treating people with respect and dignity.
Spamming with 'SpaceX will do this and that' like this company is the second coming of the Christ*
Quote from: mmeijeri on 11/13/2009 10:00 amAh, I thought you meant in this thread.No, I just meant, in general. SpaceX seems to be thrust up as the saviour of HSF and US rocketry.
Ah, I thought you meant in this thread.
ULA is big corporate welfare, Space X is a guy doing what he wants with his money. That is why Americans deplore the first and like the second.
I agree with most of what you say, I put the word "shows" in quotation marks because it describes what I conjecture proponents of government launchers may think. As far as I'm concerned it shows no such thing.
Quote from: braymh102 on 11/12/2009 11:36 pmULA is big corporate welfare, Space X is a guy doing what he wants with his money. That is why Americans deplore the first and like the second. WrongSpacex has received a larger portion of working funds from the US gov't than from other sources. More than ULA (LM & Boeing) got for developing the EELV's. So Spacex sucks on the gov't teet too.
1. Of course SpaceX sucks on the government teat, as does ULA. Is a 1960 dollar worth the same as a 2002 dollar? Could 1960 technology possibly be cheaper than today's? 2. But I still feel that I have to B&M at Jim. He's a Zen master. Always in the present. "No, GTO is the market. There is little use for LEO". Today that is true. This shallow, inconvenient truth conveniently overlooks that SpaceX is working on getting into the LEO market. To supply ISS, just to pick a random example.
Garsh. I wonder what percentage of the two dollars a day per employee comes from my hard earned tax dollars? And fruit? That is extravagant. Shocked. Shocked I am.
But I still feel that I have to B&M at Jim. He's a Zen master. Always in the present. "No, GTO is the market. There is little use for LEO". Today that is true. This shallow, inconvenient truth conveniently overlooks that SpaceX is working on getting into the LEO market. To supply ISS, just to pick a random example.
2. ISS is a niche market. Not enough to sustain a program. There won't be any LEO destinations to support a launcher for quite some time, even with a Bigelow.
The bulk of launches will be to higher energy orbits.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/13/2009 02:37 pm1. Of course SpaceX sucks on the government teat, as does ULA. Is a 1960 dollar worth the same as a 2002 dollar? Could 1960 technology possibly be cheaper than today's? 2. But I still feel that I have to B&M at Jim. He's a Zen master. Always in the present. "No, GTO is the market. There is little use for LEO". Today that is true. This shallow, inconvenient truth conveniently overlooks that SpaceX is working on getting into the LEO market. To supply ISS, just to pick a random example.1. I am only talking the present. EELV's were developed in the late 90's. LM and Boeing were awarded 500 million each and each put in 2-3 billion of their own money2. ISS is a niche market. Not enough to sustain a program. There won't be any LEO destinations to support a launcher for quite some time, even with a Bigelow. The bulk of launches will be to higher energy orbits.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/13/2009 02:37 pmGarsh. I wonder what percentage of the two dollars a day per employee comes from my hard earned tax dollars? And fruit? That is extravagant. Shocked. Shocked I am.Only a small percentage of the SpaceX lunch room cost is the fruit. The major expense is for the standing army of workers keeping the lunch room stocked. SpaceX efforts to recover and reuse banana peels will only exacerbate that expense.
Oh, I will, I don't need bunches of liasons, just one. I have had contact with SpaceX and received nice feedback after very little trouble, actually. My comments were intended to compliment the established companies who started the business, but we are talking big fat rockets with people eventually sitting on top of them. We need to be concerned with how people conduct business and if the little details aren't attended to, I'd be very concerned about the big ones. This isn't a software game, it is about real travel to outerspace. This is America and if these companies prove themselves over time, we all want to be in their vendor base, but don't discount us because we have serviced the big companies. Above all, it is about treating people with respect and dignity.
SpaceX isn't really in a situation where that matters. They have a goal oriented contract with COTS plus some side stuff with the DoD.
2. ISS is a niche market. Not enough to sustain a program. There won't be any LEO destinations to support a launcher for quite some time, even with a Bigelow. The bulk of launches will be to higher energy orbits.
which will vanish in 2020/21 at the very latest.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 11/14/2009 04:37 pmwhich will vanish in 2020/21 at the very latest.That hasn't been decided yet.
What were the other two?cheers, Martin
Similarly, LEO seems to be a real market. 37 of the year's launch attempts to date have been to LEO. Only 27 have been to higher energy orbits.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 11/14/2009 04:09 pmSimilarly, LEO seems to be a real market. 37 of the year's launch attempts to date have been to LEO. Only 27 have been to higher energy orbits.Exclude the ISS and polar missions.
Other two what?
Quote from: Jim on 11/14/2009 05:52 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 11/14/2009 04:09 pmSimilarly, LEO seems to be a real market. 37 of the year's launch attempts to date have been to LEO. Only 27 have been to higher energy orbits.Exclude the ISS and polar missions.Why? Companies are getting paid money to launch all of these missions, whether it comes from governments or commercial companies, whether it goes to polar or sun sync or ISS or GTO. It is all "commerce" for a launch services company. - Ed Kyle
Most polar aren't EELV class. ISS Progress and ATV flights are not transferable to other LV's
You get money from the government, you have responsibilities to spend a percentage in a certain manner.
Armadillo, SpaceX, et al. get government money. If they get too strung out trying to do everything themselves in house, we all know that does not work.
The argument is based on prior history. NASA has been much less patient with entirely commercial projects that are over budget (Venture Star, etc.) than they have been with projects in which they are more involved and in which they have more control (Ares, Shuttle, etc.).
To demand that a commercial project demonstrate their belief in their business case being solid by putting skin in the game is only common sense to me.
No one is holding SpaceX down
NASA didn't have to pick SpaceX for COTS
... I'd fly on a NASA rocket today. SpaceX, the CEO admitted he wouldn't fly on his own rocket, yet. ......
Quote from: MP99 on 11/14/2009 04:18 pmWhat were the other two?cheers, MartinNot sure if your asking about the ISS missions, but here's a breakdown year to date.R-7/Progress: 5R-7/Soyuz (crewed): 3Shuttle (crewed): 3H-2B (HTV-1): 1Total 12 to ISS to date in 2009 - half cargo, half crew. - Ed Kyle
"You dont impress the people at NASA with your paper airplanes"--Max Lucado. I'm glad NASA is showing discretion about where to spend money on COTS. If I were a billionaire, I would open a business that I had some experience with, not just one that fulfilled some dream. I don't expect tax payer's to fund my dreams until I can prove that I can deliver the reality.
I don't expect tax payer's to fund my dreams until I can prove that I can deliver the reality.
Exactly, at least one of the contracts/agreements should have been awarded to an EELV-based solution. Having another go to SpaceX or Orbital would have been fine.
A. NASA has established the Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office at the JohnsonSpace Center as part of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The objectives ofthe Commercial Crew/Cargo Project are to: implement U.S. Space Exploration policy with an investment to stimulatecommercial enterprises in space, facilitate U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and crew spacetransportation capabilities with the goal of achieving reliable, cost effectiveaccess to low-Earth orbit, and create a market environment in which commercial space transportationservices are available to Government and private sector customers.
The spacecraft for the EELV wasn't ready either.
I was reminded of this today<a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-07-07/" title="Dilbert.com"><img src="http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/60000/0000/300/60354/60354.strip.gif" border="0" alt="7 July 2009 Dilbert" />[/url]