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