Quote from: Star One on 05/01/2017 04:45 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/01/2017 02:29 pmULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).That's not a very constructive response by them.Tory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/01/2017 02:29 pmULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).That's not a very constructive response by them.
ULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).
Les Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.
Quote from: getitdoneinspace on 05/01/2017 09:26 pmQuote from: Star One on 05/01/2017 04:45 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/01/2017 02:29 pmULA response at same forum as Lt agency Kwast:QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312Oh dear. Guess what ULA, customers don't care if rocket is still powerful to lift their payloads (and on the evidence so far F9 is doing just fine on that score).That's not a very constructive response by them.Tory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.The SMART reuse concept/promotion (instead of booster reuse) is a product of the Tory regime.He personally made a pretty strong argument that launches would never become a commodity. Doesn't sound like he is part of the solution.
I'd think the USAF were very much noting yesterday's launch and I am sure even something as trivial as the eye catching video of the first stage return would have helped.
It was an honor to host CSAF @GenDaveGoldfein at the 45th SW! Thank you for taking time to meet with our #Airmen and launch team!
Nothing like impressing the big boss. This all plays into the Air Force's long held desire for rapid access to space. Something they know certain peer competitors will also be seeking.
However, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.
Quote from: getitdoneinspace on 05/01/2017 09:26 pmTory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.The SMART reuse concept/promotion (instead of booster reuse) is a product of the Tory regime.He personally made a pretty strong argument that launches would never become a commodity. Doesn't sound like he is part of the solution.
Tory Bruno has one heck of a challenge to change this culture given the persistence of this attitude even with the ever growing pile of evidence that reuseability is the only viable path forward to have a sustainable future.
Yes, in Eric Berger's Ars article cited above:QuoteHowever, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.Although I have to admit that my first thought when Star One mentioned AF peer competitors was that it was a reference to inter-service rivalry with the army
What I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.
Quote from: Lemurion on 05/02/2017 10:51 pmWhat I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position. The disconnect is that launch payloads aren't bulk commodities. There's no "penalty" for reducing lift capacity so long as they have enough for any specific customer.
Quote from: Lemurion on 05/02/2017 10:51 pmWhat I find funny about ULA's response is that they seem to be implying that the heat shield and parafoil they intend using for "SMART" reuse doesn't reduce payload capacity in exactly the same way that SpaceX's landing legs do.It doesn't. When ULA (or other knowledgeable others) are criticizing the reduced capacity of fully recoverable rockets, it isn't due to the "extra hardware" that is put on like legs, grid fins, beefier RCS, etc. It's due to the large amount of propellants that have to be reserved for the recovery burns. Compared to that, all the added hardware is just a drop in the bucket. So, in ULA's eyes, SMART avoids the payload hit because no performance is being reserved (i.e. they use all the prop). They are only adding a little bit of hardware mass which is totally negligible. So, from that perspective, there really is no bad logic in such a statement/position.
QuoteLes Kovacs, ULA: want to throw a wet blanket on concept of reusability. Additional systems needed to land stages comes at cost of payload.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/859033383598477312
...Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/02/2017 07:24 pmYes, in Eric Berger's Ars article cited above:QuoteHowever, the report warns, other countries such as China could copy these ideas and surpass the United States if strategic government investments are not made.Although I have to admit that my first thought when Star One mentioned AF peer competitors was that it was a reference to inter-service rivalry with the army Yea, I'm dubious that government **investment** is necessary, especially the strategic kind. Just start buying water delivered to LEO and contracting for cargo delivered to the lunar surface, and the rest will follow.
And Big Boss was definitely impressed...."Glad I could see this in person. Congrats to all involved!"https://twitter.com/GenDaveGoldfein/status/859065684671815684
A close-up look at the Commander in Chief's trophy. Great job, Falcons. #BoltBrotherhood #LetsFly #SinkNavy #BeatArmy