Author Topic: US losing commercial side of space.  (Read 13363 times)

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
US losing commercial side of space.
« on: 07/07/2011 03:10 pm »
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.html

I 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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #1 on: 07/07/2011 04:46 pm »

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?

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.


Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #2 on: 07/07/2011 04:51 pm »
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.html

I 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?
ITAR is crushing America's ability to lead.  So many companies would rather go overseas, save a ton of money and time, and launch from Russia, China, or ESA.

Hopefully, we see some ITAR reform for the space sector.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #3 on: 07/07/2011 04:53 pm »
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.


1.  No, heavily subsidized foreign competition is the reason.

2.  No, ballistic missiles use large SRM's, LV don't

3.  "signed" contract is meaningless.  Hughes went and signed contracts for 10 launches for H-2, Delta III, Sealaunch, Long March, etc.  how many of those worked out?  Many companies had contracts for constellations with 20-70 spacecraft.  how many of those worked out? 

The same customer who signed the contract also signed a backup contract with another provider.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #4 on: 07/07/2011 05:06 pm »
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.


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. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #5 on: 07/07/2011 05:19 pm »
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.

Space tourism to Bigelow space stations, however, could require hundreds of manned launches per year in the 2020s' which could help to revitalize the US domestic launch industry. 

The Moon, however, could be a wild card if another nation and their industries are first to set up a base and and a reliable transportation infrastructure to and from the lunar surface. The Moon could have an almost infinite capacity to accommodate wealthy tourist and lunar lotto winners in the 2020s.  Tourist could even bring back free souvenirs (lunar rocks)!

Marcel F. Williams

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #6 on: 07/07/2011 06:29 pm »
Even without the 20-25/Year Comsat launches the US Govt. requirement for the next decade
8/year DoD
3-4/year NASA
6/year CRS
2/year Commercial Crew

That sound like a good market for 2-3 providers.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #7 on: 07/07/2011 07:15 pm »

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?

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.

All of the US launch systems are subsidized.  Practically all launch systems worldwide receive government support. 

The difference is that we have spent that money on many government exclusive systems that are of little commercial viability.  We just spent the last three decades subsidizing the Shuttle.  Now the Shuttle was an amazing vehicle, but it had practially no commercial viability after the Challenger accident.  Now we are once again spending billions of dollars to develop another system, this new HLV, which will consume billions a year. 

If you take a look at the policies of countries like Russia and Europe they do not operate such vehicles.  Vehicles like the Proton and the Ariane V serve both the government and commercial sector.  By doing so costs are lowered for both.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #8 on: 07/07/2011 07:18 pm »
1.  No, heavily subsidized foreign competition is the reason.

Are the Delta IV and Atlas V not heavily subsidized?

2.  No, ballistic missiles use large SRM's, LV don't

All modern rockets can trace their linage back to the V-2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2#cite_note-5


Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #9 on: 07/07/2011 07:53 pm »
This is total nonsense.  The US is commercial spaceflight.  Remember SS1, SS2 which is being built?  What about Lynx?  What about the others?

If you have not noticed I am not just talking about HSF.  In any case it is Russia that holds the record for orbital space tourists.  The US so far has got a score of 0. 

That may change in a few years with these new space tourism companies.

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).

The most successful commercial launch vehicles in the world were government-commercial partnerships.  Rockets like the Proton and Ariane V serve both sectors.  There is not "another country that is actively retiring its current capability in order to *supposedly* turn it over to commercial" because they do not operate government exculsive systems like the Shuttle. 

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. 

The COTS and commercial crew programs do not require much funding, and could of easily been accomidated along with the Space Shuttle program.  It was this cray drive to build a HLV that cost the big bugs, and required the Shuttle to be eliminated in order to fund.

If I were in charge I would stop funding this HLV, put that money into keeping the Shuttle program around, and wait until commercial cargo and crew have proven successful before proceeding.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #10 on: 07/07/2011 08:12 pm »
1.  No, heavily subsidized foreign competition is the reason.

Are the Delta IV and Atlas V not heavily subsidized?

2.  No, ballistic missiles use large SRM's, LV don't

All 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 work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement 
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 08:12 pm by Jim »

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #11 on: 07/08/2011 04:13 pm »
1.  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. 

2. 
a. That is not true.  JPL and Aerojet did some independent work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement

I'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.   
« Last Edit: 07/08/2011 04:15 pm by DarkenedOne »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #12 on: 07/08/2011 04:53 pm »

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?

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.



More to the point, government can best help by maintaining a reasonable regulatory environment, including ITAR reform, and serving as a good customer for commercial systems.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #13 on: 07/08/2011 05:20 pm »
1.  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. 

2. 
a. That is not true.  JPL and Aerojet did some independent work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement

I'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.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #14 on: 07/08/2011 07:38 pm »
1.  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. 


Not the same at all. US Govt *may* subsidize by paying high prices and being forced to use US launchers, but Europe directly subsidizes Ariane which they can "sell cheap" to others.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #15 on: 07/08/2011 07:39 pm »
1.  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. 

2. 
a. That is not true.  JPL and Aerojet did some independent work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement

I'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.



No it wasn't... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #16 on: 07/08/2011 07:40 pm »
1.  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. 

2. 
a. That is not true.  JPL and Aerojet did some independent work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement

I'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.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #17 on: 07/08/2011 11:59 pm »
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.

Labor costs in Russia no longer are very cheap. Russian "democracy" is deeply flawed, but at least they got rid of socialism, and as a result, economy is growing and incomes are higher now.

Basically the same is happening in China.

While US is going into opposite direction: more welfare, which hurts economy, making salaries a bit lower.

So don't despair: the chasm between US and Russian/Chinese labor costs is shrinking.

Offline A8-3

  • Member
  • Posts: 50
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #18 on: 07/09/2011 12:29 am »
1.  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. 

2. 
a. That is not true.  JPL and Aerojet did some independent work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement

I'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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #19 on: 07/09/2011 12:32 am »
1.  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. 

2. 
a. That is not true.  JPL and Aerojet did some independent work
b. That is history, you were referring to the present in your statement

I'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.

Great ! someone gets it
 
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/dr_goddard.html
 
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #20 on: 07/09/2011 12:53 am »
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?

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
« Last Edit: 07/09/2011 12:55 am by edkyle99 »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #21 on: 07/09/2011 02:11 am »
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...

Offline neutrino78x

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #22 on: 07/09/2011 02:55 am »
surely, collectively, some of them have to be responsible for something..  ;)

Im sure there is a reason we pay their salaries...

Well, Bush 43 is the one who cancelled the Space Shuttle Program.

Congress of the time, and since, are the ones who underfunded the Constellation program.

I support the plans of the current President to accelerate and support commercial space as the lasting space program.

--Brian

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #23 on: 07/09/2011 05:03 am »
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...

Ed forgot to talk about LM making a deal for "Russian Engines" that would be manufactured in the usa with PW.   The US got the engines, PW upgraded them with modern manufacturing.  The key element of the deal was 25 million in modern CNC machines from Germany sent to Russia to make better engines.
 
We can see the results of the deal.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #24 on: 07/09/2011 01:42 pm »
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

We have to out compete them not turn to quotes in order to avoid competition. 

There have been many economic studies devoted to figuring out whether or not various forms of state protection from foreign competition result in a local competitive industry. 

From what I remember in economics it typically results in a local industry that requires continual support and protection.

That is now the case in the US launch industry.  The current US launch industry would not exist at least in its present form if it were not for a monopoly over US government launches.  With the exception of SpaceX there seems to be no desire from the other companies to seriously compete for the commercial rocket.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #25 on: 07/09/2011 01:51 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

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #26 on: 07/09/2011 05:27 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

The 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #27 on: 07/09/2011 05:37 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

The 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.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #28 on: 07/09/2011 05:47 pm »
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.

http://www.space.com/1701-spacex-sues-boeing-lockheed-martin.html

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #29 on: 07/09/2011 05:56 pm »

OR they can allow SpaceX to launch DOD payloads.


Huh?  Your link has nothing to do with this topic.
They are not the ones preventing Spacex to launch DOD payloads.  It is not up to ULA.

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. 
« Last Edit: 07/09/2011 06:00 pm by Jim »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #30 on: 07/09/2011 08:39 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
The 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.
Quote
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. 
    Are you suggesting that a true-CBC, perhaps using a unified Centaur, might be cost-comparable as a LV with AV? Has Boeing actively been working towards that, and a resurrection of the M[+] as a commercial platform?

    I had the impression that the future of ULA was basically Atlas, with DIVH keeping DIV alive to give a little factory throughput and practice for the launch teams (and that conceivably going away down the road should FH-West Coast become a reliably viable DOD polar platform).
          -Alex

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #31 on: 07/09/2011 09:40 pm »
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.html

I 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?

I believe that BEO is significantly larger potential market than GEO stationary satellite market. And is also a way of dominating the GEO market.
The best place to launch to GEO on earth is to launch from equator.
So if US wanted to support US launch business they could provide a launch site near the equator.
Is that what you mean by supporting?

But the best location to launch to GEO in the earth system is the Moon or bringing resources [asteroids] into the earth/moon system. So Cis lunar is best location to launch from and what is needed in Cis lunar is rocket fuel available.
So would you support developing a market for rocket fuel in space?
« Last Edit: 07/09/2011 09:42 pm by gbaikie »

Offline rklaehn

  • interplanetary telemetry plumber
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1259
  • germany
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: US losing commercial side of space.
« Reply #32 on: 07/10/2011 09:23 am »
I think a big part of why US commercial space is unsuccessful in competing for international business is not the cost at all. It is just that it is generally unpleasant for somebody from outside the US to do business with US companies.

This turned out a bit of a rant.

First of all there is ITAR. It does not distinguish between germany, which has been an US ally in NATO for half a century now, and pakistan. That is an insult. It gives the impression that we germans are just as likely to give the technology to terrorists or enemy nations than the pakistanis. And it comes over as arrogant: it gives the impression that we are some unsophisticated idiots that need technology transfer from the US to get something done in space. German industry is perfectly capable of building a LOX valve, thank you very much.

Then there is the whole homeland security stuff. Traveling to the US for a conference is a lot more unpleasant than traveling pretty much everywhere else in the world. A colleague of mine was going to the US for the Space Ops 2010 conference in huntsville. Everybody going there was briefed in a special meeting that they should remove all proprietary code and data from their notebooks and external hard disks, since it might be taken away for no reason by the TSA. Encryption would not be enough, because the TSA people can force you to reveal the encryption key if they find encrypted data on your notebook. Having an international computer science conference in the US is a bad idea anyway since half the invited people might not be able to attend because they don't get US visa.

Then there is the fact that the US space industry is not allowed to hire non us citizens or pernanent residents. I recently got a recruiting email from an US aerospace company. It would be a dream for me to work for them. I told them that I was willing to do a phone interview, but that I was a german citizen. They did not even bother to respond after that. It appears that the only way for a german aerospace professional to work for a US aerospace company in the US would be to work for 5 years in a non-aerospace related field, gain permanent residency, and then apply for the aerospace job. But after working 5 years for a non-aerospace company they will probably not want you anymore. Besides, if you have family you can't give up a well-paid job in european aerospace for the off-chance that you might be allowed to work for american aerospace in 5 years.
At the german space operations center we have people working from all over the world. Not just ESA member nations, but also south america and china.

In my experience working with US aerospace companies is just a pain. In one project a few years ago it was decided for whatever reason to use a major ground system software component from an US vendor. The software was marketed by an european subsidiary of a US company. Due to ITAR the european branch was not allowed to have the source code of the software. So whenever we had a problem, we had to contact the european subsidiary, which in turn had to beg the US main company to deal with the problem. The US main company always assigned the requests form the european subsidiary a very low priority compared to requests from the US. The whole experience was so unpleasant that all people involved in this project will now go to great pains to avoid dealing with US aerospace companies. Not because they are bad, but because it is impossible due to ITAR and other export regulations to just let an engineer from the customer directly talk to an engineer from the manufacturer. Some of the people involved in the above project are now in a position to influence decisions about what launch vehicle to use.

I guess the bottom line is that if you treat your potential customers like potential terrorists, you will have difficulty getting business from them even if your prices are competitive.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2011 09:37 am by rklaehn »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0