The question I pose to you guys is whether or not you believe that focusing all of our money and attention to BEO while letting Russia, Europe, and China dominate the commercial market is a wise policy?
I find it interesting how while the US is in this huge debate about how to get humans beyond LEO, other countries particularly Russia has set their goals on dominating us in the commercial market. Check this article out.http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110407/163423444.htmlI bring this up because I think it demonstrates a bad choice of priorities on our part. Remember the commercial side of the space sector is the only side that makes money. It is the only side that creates services that can be exported. Ultimately the loss of the commercial space sector in the US results in higher prices for the military and government civilian sector as well. The high costs of the Atlas V and Delta IV systems are largely a result of the demise of the commercial launch sector in the US. The loss of the commercial market also hurts the US strategically. The same rockets that launch commercial satellites also launch military ones. The same technology used in launch rockets is also the same technology used in ballistic missiles. With any luck SpaceX will regain what we have lost. They have already set records with the largest commercial contract ever signed.The question I pose to you guys is whether or not you believe that focusing all of our money and attention to BEO while letting Russia, Europe, and China dominate the commercial market is a wise policy?
1. The high costs of the Atlas V and Delta IV systems are largely a result of the demise of the commercial launch sector in the US. 2. The same technology used in launch rockets is also the same technology used in ballistic missiles. 3. With any luck SpaceX will regain what we have lost. They have already set records with the largest commercial contract ever signed.
I find it interesting how while the US is in this huge debate about how to get humans beyond LEO, other countries particularly Russia has set their goals on dominating us in the commercial market. Check this article out.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 07/07/2011 03:10 pmThe question I pose to you guys is whether or not you believe that focusing all of our money and attention to BEO while letting Russia, Europe, and China dominate the commercial market is a wise policy?How else is the money going to be used? Subsidies. That is non starter. There isn't a way for the US gov't directly help.The only way is for the US gov't to use existing systems.
1. No, heavily subsidized foreign competition is the reason.
2. No, ballistic missiles use large SRM's, LV don't
This is total nonsense. The US is commercial spaceflight. Remember SS1, SS2 which is being built? What about Lynx? What about the others?
Relative to orbital, name me another country that is actively retiring its current capability in order to *supposedly* turn it over to commercial. Name me another country that is actively funding that investment (which is meant to apply seed money to cover some costs, provide a core and robust destination - we'll see - in order to reduce some of the programatic costs and close business cases, etc).
Our priorities are out of wack but not for the reasons in which you attempt to imply. We should not have retired our current capabilities at all cost until commercial was up and running, verifying it's con-ops, to ensure that ISS, and hence ALL of commercial, has the best chance at success.If this was the logical priority then other things would have become it easier as well. It would have addressed and secured "the key" to the future (commercial transport to LEO from what we are told), enabling a real policy for BEO (and the mission scope(s), architecture(s), destination(s) and time table(s)) to be worked out in better detail while preserving the elements (that also could have been run commercially at a reduced cost and provided a pathfinder to NASA) of a potential heavy lift vehicle for if NASA ever decided to prove if it was necessary once and for all.
Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 04:53 pm1. No, heavily subsidized foreign competition is the reason.Are the Delta IV and Atlas V not heavily subsidized?Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 04:53 pm2. No, ballistic missiles use large SRM's, LV don'tAll modern rockets can trace their linage back to the V-2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2#cite_note-5
1. Not as heavily.
2. a. That is not true. JPL and Aerojet did some independent workb. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement
Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm1. Not as heavily.The US government pays out money to support the costs of operating Delta IV and Atlas V. On top it pays launch costs far higher than that of the market. Perhaps their greatest subsidy is the monopoly over the DOD market. Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm2. a. That is not true. JPL and Aerojet did some independent workb. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statementI'm not saying they are the only ones who worked on it, but they are considered by many if not most to be the ancestor of modern rockets.
Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm1. Not as heavily.The US government pays out money to support the costs of operating Delta IV and Atlas V. On top it pays launch costs far higher than that of the market. Perhaps their greatest subsidy is the monopoly over the DOD market.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 07/08/2011 04:13 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm1. Not as heavily.The US government pays out money to support the costs of operating Delta IV and Atlas V. On top it pays launch costs far higher than that of the market. Perhaps their greatest subsidy is the monopoly over the DOD market. Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm2. a. That is not true. JPL and Aerojet did some independent workb. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statementI'm not saying they are the only ones who worked on it, but they are considered by many if not most to be the ancestor of modern rockets. The V2 was built on the early rocket research of Goddard.
Trying to compete with Russia and China for the commercial satellite launch market is going to be tough since extremely cheap labor and government subsidies can lower their cost at will.
Quote from: Prober on 07/08/2011 05:20 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 07/08/2011 04:13 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm1. Not as heavily.The US government pays out money to support the costs of operating Delta IV and Atlas V. On top it pays launch costs far higher than that of the market. Perhaps their greatest subsidy is the monopoly over the DOD market. Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm2. a. That is not true. JPL and Aerojet did some independent workb. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statementI'm not saying they are the only ones who worked on it, but they are considered by many if not most to be the ancestor of modern rockets. The V2 was built on the early rocket research of Goddard.That's a stretch. Please don't say that. Von Braun pulled that off to get the US guys questioning him off his back.
Quote from: GncDude on 07/08/2011 07:40 pmQuote from: Prober on 07/08/2011 05:20 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 07/08/2011 04:13 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm1. Not as heavily.The US government pays out money to support the costs of operating Delta IV and Atlas V. On top it pays launch costs far higher than that of the market. Perhaps their greatest subsidy is the monopoly over the DOD market. Quote from: Jim on 07/07/2011 08:12 pm2. a. That is not true. JPL and Aerojet did some independent workb. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statementI'm not saying they are the only ones who worked on it, but they are considered by many if not most to be the ancestor of modern rockets. The V2 was built on the early rocket research of Goddard.That's a stretch. Please don't say that. Von Braun pulled that off to get the US guys questioning him off his back.Hardly. Von Braun was well aware of Goddard's application of the de Laval nozzle to liquid rockets engines, which was a major breakthrough without which the V2 would have been impossible.
I find it interesting how while the US is in this huge debate about how to get humans beyond LEO, other countries particularly Russia has set their goals on dominating us in the commercial market. ...The question I pose to you guys is whether or not you believe that focusing all of our money and attention to BEO while letting Russia, Europe, and China dominate the commercial market is a wise policy?
It isn't Russia's fault. It isn't Obama's fault, or Griffin's, or Bolden's or Garver's, or Dems or Repubs, etc. It has nothing to do with ITAR. Follow the money to find out who to blame for the decimation of U.S. launch capability. - Ed Kyle
surely, collectively, some of them have to be responsible for something.. Im sure there is a reason we pay their salaries...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/09/2011 12:53 amIt isn't Russia's fault. It isn't Obama's fault, or Griffin's, or Bolden's or Garver's, or Dems or Repubs, etc. It has nothing to do with ITAR. Follow the money to find out who to blame for the decimation of U.S. launch capability. - Ed Kylesurely, collectively, some of them have to be responsible for something.. Im sure there is a reason we pay their salaries...
You are asking these questions about 14 years too late. The issue was decided in about 1996, when the U.S. government allowed Russia, with Lockheed Martin's help via. International Launch Services, to increase the quotas of U.S. commercial satellite launches on Proton. McDonnell Douglas opposed increasing the Russian quota then, as it had opposed an earlier Ukrainian quota for the Zenit rocket (Boeing was investing in Sea Launch then - this was before it bought out McDonnell Douglas). The company noted that higher foreign quotas would cause it to lose value in its Delta 3 investment. The McDonnell Douglas argument lost out to the lobbying of satellite manufacturers such as then-Hughes, Lockheed Martin, etc., who called for eliminating the quotas to reduce their launch costs. Guess who contributed more and lobbied harder? The result? McDonnell Douglas and its Delta 3 commercial launcher are long gone. Boeing doesn't do commercial launches. Neither does Lockheed Martin. The latter companies got what they wanted.It isn't Russia's fault. It isn't Obama's fault, or Griffin's, or Bolden's or Garver's, or Dems or Repubs, etc. It has nothing to do with ITAR. Follow the money to find out who to blame for the decimation of U.S. launch capability. - Ed Kyle
[ With the exception of SpaceX there seems to be no desire from the other companies to seriously compete for the commercial rocket.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 07/09/2011 01:42 pm[ With the exception of SpaceX there seems to be no desire from the other companies to seriously compete for the commercial rocket. That is unsubstatiated
Quote from: Jim on 07/09/2011 01:51 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 07/09/2011 01:42 pm[ With the exception of SpaceX there seems to be no desire from the other companies to seriously compete for the commercial rocket. That is unsubstatiatedThe Delta IV was taken off the commercial market completely. The only launches that rocket does are US government. I do not know how much clearer they can make their intention not to compete.
That is not from lack of trying. It is reality of the actual costs of the vehicle. Baselining the RS-68A which will allow ULA to delete two different core configurations, which will reduce costs.
OR they can allow SpaceX to launch DOD payloads.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 07/09/2011 05:27 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/09/2011 01:51 pmQuote from: DarkenedOne on 07/09/2011 01:42 pm[ With the exception of SpaceX there seems to be no desire from the other companies to seriously compete for the commercial rocket. That is unsubstatiatedThe Delta IV was taken off the commercial market completely. The only launches that rocket does are US government. I do not know how much clearer they can make their intention not to compete.That is not from lack of trying. It is reality of the actual costs of the vehicle. Baselining the RS-68A which will allow ULA to delete two different core configurations, which will reduce costs.
Also, the removal of Delta IV from the commercial market was not a ULA decision but Boeing. At the time, Boeing had a "better" solution in Sealaunch.