Author Topic: Boeing Statement on the Need for Immediate Development of a Heavy-lift Vehicle  (Read 70956 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

I think libs0n is correct. Boeing and LockMart are currently not standing idle waiting for a decision to be made. They are lobbying in order to get the best possible deal for them.

Which is SDLV or new vehicle and not EELV

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
Why start a heavy lift project now with obsolete technology?  Five years from now, we will have those NASA sponsored advanced game changing technologies that will enable design of a much more capable product.  Then US space technology can leapfrog over anything either in use or in concept now.

---  CHAS

Chas,

Simply because everything in your post is either a surmise, guess, hope, or dream on your part. 

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Yeah, I see your point.  It is all about money.  Nothing more.  Thanks again. 
I think these guys are a bit jaded.  I know quite a few inside of Boeing, and they do, actually, have more scruples than just out for a buck.  If the last tanker competition had not changed the rules mid-bid, Boeing likely would not have protested, for example.  They could have thrown a fit over the issues with the first tanker bid as well, but didn't.

I will not write this move up to pure greed, altho making money is definately within Boeings mindset, it is not all that is within their mindset.

1. The foremost goal of a for profit company is making profits. Shareholders can sue management if they make a conscious decision that clearly foregoes profits from a project just for idealistic reasons, unless the decision can be traced back to the company's incorporated statement of purpose.

2. For Boeing, the best HLV solution for NASA might just also be the best solution for them as it probably would not be cancelled. The press release put out by them shows that a. they do not feel the HLV line-item and waiting for a decision on an HLV until 2015 is the right decision and b. they think they can benefit both NASA and themselves by advocating an HLV development just now.

3. If they would be rooting for a SDLV, why do they not clearly say so in their statement?

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

I think libs0n is correct. Boeing and LockMart are currently not standing idle waiting for a decision to be made. They are lobbying in order to get the best possible deal for them.

Which is SDLV or new vehicle and not EELV

What would be the rational for them to lobby for a new vehicle than an EELV growth part? Up until last year they advocated to invest into their EELV growth strategy.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
3. If they would be rooting for a SDLV, why do they not clearly say so in their statement?
You don't get politics or business, if you have to actually ask that question. 

The key to profits is long term viability, as you said.  However, due to the current tax law, long-term viability is no longer what stockholders want.  In fact, it is exactly not what is wanted due to increased tax liability.  Short term payoff is.  EELV is the best way forward, not growth, not expantion, flat out EELV as-is.  if Boeing was focusing on your point #1, we'd be hearing "Delta IV, now, Delta IV tomorrow, Delta IV Forever." 

Instead, Boeing is playing with its card very close to its chest, being very smart so as to cover all bases.  This way, whichever way the wind blows, they wind up the winner.  Even Lockmart is not playing it as smartly, and Lockmart is a very smart company.  Boeing has its preferred arrangement, but is poised to make out no matter what way things go. 
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Short term payoff is.  EELV is the best way forward, not growth, not expantion, flat out EELV as-is.

I think Boeing is playing this game very well, I agree. Just to counter this part of your post above, shareholders do not just want short-term payoff, as a matter of fact they could not care less about short-term payoff. They look at the company's share price and that is determined by the market. And the market is NOT just looking at short-term payoffs, not at all. The market is very sophisticated and market movers clearly analyse what helps Boeing best in being more profitable now, in the near and in the mid and far future.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

What would be the rational for them to lobby for a new vehicle than an EELV growth part? Up until last year they advocated to invest into their EELV growth strategy.

That was before the formation of ULA, when they were marketing Delta IV.  Now EELV profit is split between Boeing and LM.  It was also before they won the Ares I upperstage contract.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 03:17 pm by Jim »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Why start a heavy lift project now with obsolete technology?  Five years from now, we will have those NASA sponsored advanced game changing technologies that will enable design of a much more capable product.  Then US space technology can leapfrog over anything either in use or in concept now.

---  CHAS

There will not be any "Game changing" technologies for a HLV lower stage, most will just be upperstage/propellant depot related, the laws of physics remain the same.  HLV will probably either be Shuttle or EELV derived, no need to reinvent the wheel.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:05 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
And I'm sure getting in on the ground floor of a long term uncontested income stream has nothing to do with anything.

[gets on soapbox]
Boeing is doing what every commercial company worth it's salt should be doing - trying to create profitable business. They didn't get into this game just to look good. Yes, they are unashamedly in it for the money. Good for them!

What I don't understand is people thinking that is a shameful thing in a country that is capitalist in nature. The business of this nation is "business" and the purpose of business is to make money. What is wrong with making money? Nothing. If we didn't, then there would be no tax revenue for the USG to fund all its programs with. There would be no paychecks for the workers to pay their mortgages with and do other superfluous things like, oh, I don't know, maybe eat. Profit is a good thing! Lack of profit motive is a BAD thing. I am very happy that Boeing is in it for the money. I applaud them for that. I hope they make gobs of money!

Don't let anybody kid you. We are *all* in it for the money in one way or another; every single one of us, excepting only those who have chosen state welfare as a career path. But even those poor lost souls depend on the rest of us to make money because if we didn't then we wouldn't have any cash to pass out to them and they would likely starve. Heaven forbid! Maybe then they would be motivated to get off their butts and get a job - any job - and pay their own way. There's a thought. (oops – did I say that out loud? Sorry. [caution – politically incorrect statement])

Now, can we please dispense with this questioning of Boeing's motives in pushing for early development of an HLV? Let's be clear about their motives. They are in it for the money! Three cheers for Boeing - and every other company in this nation that is in it for the money. I love it! So say we all!

[gets down from soapbox] :) :)
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:21 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Um...

Am I the only one who noticed that HIPAR's post was probably intended to be sarcastic?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Why start a heavy lift project now with obsolete technology?  Five years from now, we will have those NASA sponsored advanced game changing technologies that will enable design of a much more capable product.  Then US space technology can leapfrog over anything either in use or in concept now.
There will not be any "Game changing" technologies for a HLV lower stage, most will just be upperstage/propellant depot related, the laws of physics remain the same.  HLV will probably either be Shuttle or EELV derived, no need to reinvent the wheel.

That's not at all clear. There are some pretty interesting designs (eg: TAN - Thrust Augmented Nozzle) that have not been explored. Also, current first stage engines aren't designed for reuse, or are minimally reusable (3 times for an RD-180, if you're careful) -- a lot of people would like to change that. Finally, flyback boosters just might finally get their day in the sun, so that you aren't cleaning seaweed and jellyfish out of your engines. Bolden has identified that a research phase of up to five years long might be needed to determine which set of technologies he wants NASA to support -- that's not that unreasonable, is it?

Besides, in five years SpaceX will be up to speed and able to hold its own against ULA. SpaceX is developing this technology on their own, and others are looking at the business prospects offered. Bolden wants some real competition in launch services; if you pull the trigger now, you'll have fewer vendors to choose from than in five years time.

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Excellent points Jim Gagnon

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

Besides, in five years SpaceX will be up to speed and able to hold its own against ULA

That is not a given.  More it will fail or be taken over.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:56 pm by Jim »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173

Besides, in five years SpaceX will be up to speed and able to hold its own against ULA

That is not a given.  More it will fail or be taken over.
Perhaps. If it gets bought who do you think will buy it? ULA? I don't see OSC buying it.
Fail only if f9 proves non viable IMO.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900

Besides, in five years SpaceX will be up to speed and able to hold its own against ULA

That is not a given.  More it will fail or be taken over.
Perhaps. If it gets bought who do you think will buy it? ULA? I don't see OSC buying it.
Fail only if f9 proves non viable IMO.

Zenit was viable.  Look what happened to Sea Launch.  The problem is that there are going to be a lot of launch systems fighting for a very small pie for quite a while.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428

Fail only if f9 proves non viable IMO.

Which could mean non profitable vs workable.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Besides, in five years SpaceX will be up to speed and able to hold its own against ULA
That is not a given.  More it will fail or be taken over.

I do believe that Musk's pockets are deep enough to carry SpaceX at least five years, and that's assuming they have little success. Just searched and Vegas isn't offering odds on SpaceX -- are you a betting man, Jim?

Offline HIPAR

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • NE Pa (USA)
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
'We have the technology and the people to commence development of these vehicles now'.  --- Boeing

That's true if we want to go that way.  Someone who knows about these things must have performed an analysis proving current technology grossly under performs.

Since nobody in actual charge seems to be in any hurry to get on with advanced manned missions, we might as well wait for Thrust Augmented Nozzles or whatever else will materialize from Administrator Bolden's vision.

---  CHAS

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
'We have the technology and the people to commence development of these vehicles now'.  --- Boeing

That's true if we want to go that way.  Someone who knows about these things must have performed an analysis proving current technology grossly under performs.

Unless, of course, there is another reason for not proceeding immediately that has nothing whatsoever to do with performance. 

Like what? They might want to focus all attention on getting commercial crew launch on its feet and moving with some momentum rather than developing a NASA launch system that would crush it out of existance.  Just a suggestion. :)

Quote
Since nobody in actual charge seems to be in any hurry to get on with advanced manned missions, we might as well wait for Thrust Augmented Nozzles or whatever else will materialize from Administrator Bolden's vision.

Assuming it generates anything except Powerpoint presentations.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935

Besides, in five years SpaceX will be up to speed and able to hold its own against ULA

That is not a given.  More it will fail or be taken over.
Perhaps. If it gets bought who do you think will buy it? ULA? I don't see OSC buying it.

GM or maybe Chrysler. ;-)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1