Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next
1
They are just observing that a product that requires both fully subsidized development and guaranteed institutional launches is probably doomed to irrelevance in a competitive market.

What are COTS/CRS etc if not subsidized development?  What is the difference between guaranteed institutional payloads and SpaceX having access to a noncompetitive domestic market protected from international competitors? 

Does this make SpaceX doomed to irrelevance?

SpaceX is no more "competitive", the simple fact is there isn't a level playing field in the first place.

Adding my two cents (make that two Euros...)

Folks here claiming that Falcon 9 is, unlike A6, NOT a subsidized rocket are incorrect.
Money from both COTS and CCP has been used to do development work on multiple iterations of Falcon 9.

It is however true that A6 is a subsidized rocket to a far greater extent than Falcon 9. But, both are subsidized rockets.

Also: Arianespace is honest in claiming they cannot be competitive in the commercial field if they don't have a guaranteed minimum number of institutional launches.
But, consider this: just how much life would there be in SpaceX if they didn't have institutional launches? Launches for the USG alone constitute HALF of the Falcon 9 launch manifest.

And that is funny, because Ariane 6 is projected to fly a minimum of 12 times per year - to be viable - with HALF of those launches being institutional.

Level playing-field? The answer to that is straightforward: No such thing exists. And the impact of that is substantially bigger (in terms of money) than the fact that A6 is subsidized with $4 billion while Falcon 9 was subsidized with only $1.0 billion.

SpaceX can compete on the US institutional market, the European institutional market and the global commercial market.

However, Arianspace canNOT compete on the US institutional market, but it can compete on the European institutional market and the global commercial market.

You see, the USA will never allow NSS missions to be launched by non-US launch service providers. But European countries in fact DO allow their NSS missions to be launched by non-European launch service providers.

It is for this particular hole/bump in the playing field that Arianespace is calling for "Buy European". To level the playing-field the majority of European institutional space missions should be launched by European launch service providers; similar to the situation in the USA.
But, it is unlikely this will ever happen.

Finally: ITAR adds quite a lot to un-leveling the playing field.
2
Besides, there is no guarantee that any launch company that is fed and nourished through these protections, will innovate and evolve beyond the constraints & expenses typically imposed by servicing these interests and remain a commercially viable/competitive entity. (if they ever were to begin with)
Indeed.
Arianespace has. ULA has not.
Quote from: rcoppola
But in the final analysis, I ask myself this question: What would it cost to design and build a reusable A6, a fleet of reusable capsules to put on top of it, then to launch and recover them 12 times? Would Arianespace have been able to compete with SpaceX's offer on that initial Commercial Cargo Contract, before they received the benefits of having done so in the first place? IMO...not a chance. And that's ok.
That's might generous of you. I guess it depends on what side of the boundary wall you sit, how much you trust that a countries access to space will remain "assured."
Quote from: rcoppola
2020 will see the board do a reset of sorts with Vulcan, New Glenn, A6 competing against a fully mature F9/FH Block 5. Let the games begin.
"Fully mature" that is until F9 block 6 is introduced. 
3
SpaceX General Section / Re: Falcon-9 propellant feed system.
« Last post by speedevil on Today at 06:45 AM »

What could be the diameter of these openings....because these openings seem small for the flow rate of the propellant...or the feedlines dia increases afterwards??
The flowrate per engine is 270kg/s or so for both propellants.

Neglecting to properly measure things, it looks like the top guys hat width is about equal to the outside of the flange of the tubes on the tank,, call it 30cm, or 25cm internal.
20cm will lead to, with a flow of 270l/s a speed of ten meters a second or so.

Neglecting a bunch of stuff, and assuming it's water, and plugging it into the first pipe-flow calculator I find, I get ~1PSI pressure drop over 5m of pipe, with that diameter.
In other words, probably not enough to matter in a meaningful way.
4
Suborbital Missions / Re: The suborbital thread!
« Last post by Lewis007 on Today at 06:45 AM »
5
SpaceX General Section / Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Last post by su27k on Today at 06:43 AM »
This is why a larger fairing is not needed.

They'll need longer fairing for EELV Category C payloads.
7
Launch services compare better to taking buses instead of buying cars.
I presume you mean in the sense of a "ticket to ride" rather than an outright purchase of a transport vehicle?

Safety wise I think car crashes massively outnumber bus crashes in the US.
8
I find it interesting that OneWeb is applying to license thousands of MEO satellites and gives no indication in their application that they would ever be deorbited.
Under the current orbital debris mitigation guidelines, OneWeb can leave them in the operational 8500 km circular orbit.  The guidelines say that disposal orbits should be above 2000 km, and stay at least 500 km away from 20200 km (12-hour orbit) and at least 500 km below or 300 km above 35800 km (GEO).

https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/usg_od_standard_practices.pdf

So, in other words, no de-orbiting at all.  >:(   (yes I know graveyard orbits are established practice and make a certain amount of sense for some orbits - but the sheer amount of satellites for this constellations should give people pause)
9
Historical Spaceflight / Re: Good Apollo 11 Video
« Last post by catdlr on Today at 06:22 AM »
Bump.  I found an additional Apollo 11 launch video consisting of various black and white pad cameras and one color camera from the press area provided by an unknown network feed.

1969 Apollo 11 Saturn V launch, 1969 TV broadcast

Raw Space
Published on Jan 28, 2017

1969 TV broadcast of the launch of the Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket which carried astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to the Moon.  Armstrong and Aldrin landed the lunar module "Eagle" and became the first humans to set foot on another celestial body.  Collins piloted the command module "Columbia" in its orbit around the Moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxzMPi19sU?t=001

10
I just watched the first episode and it looks exciting so far.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 Next