Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/23/2017 11:20 pmMany scenarios to encompass NSS need are possible. NSS need itself is changing - right now getting up rapidly a fresh set of assets. Examples might include comprehensive contracts requiring priority to having a dedicated provider running a launch service with its own set of vehicles obtained from a non-compete commercial launch provider.As always, meet/secure a need in a way that leverages common in-use capability without compromise of missions.The fundamental problem with National Security Space requirements is the word NationalIt implies a launch system under direct control of relevant country or block of countries.
Many scenarios to encompass NSS need are possible. NSS need itself is changing - right now getting up rapidly a fresh set of assets. Examples might include comprehensive contracts requiring priority to having a dedicated provider running a launch service with its own set of vehicles obtained from a non-compete commercial launch provider.As always, meet/secure a need in a way that leverages common in-use capability without compromise of missions.
Current VTO TSTO rockets are so bound up with the intimate details of their entire GSE that it's virtually impossible to deliver a complete system to another country without telling them so much about it that it would violate ITAR restrictions, not to mention their deep ICBM heritage.
What I think some of SX's competitors are missing is that the baseline has fundamentally shifted. Booster stage recovery and reflight is no longer a hypothesis or a concept, it has now happened.
Turning the question on its head. Knowing that recovery and reuse is possible why would you not design in R&R friendly features to your new booster design from day one? Not necessarily for immediate use but available once its flight qualified for you target market.
For both Vulcan and Ariane 6, and probably Soyuz 5 and others, day one has already passed. Not too late for a reset, IMO, but quickly becoming so.
even if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet
Quoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and counting
Falcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmFalcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.If you widen out from 2017, F9 did launch DSCOVR.https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2017/11/20/jpg/epic_1b_20171120054200.jpgAnd - well - heavy, RSN.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 07:44 pmQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and countingFalcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.
Atlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmQuote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 07:44 pmQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and countingFalcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.This is true for Atlas, but not so for Ariane 5, the latter mainly launches communications satellites, with a few Galileo, planetary/cislunar/large NSS is very few and far between.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/25/2017 02:37 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmQuote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 07:44 pmQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and countingFalcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.Quote from: su27k on 11/25/2017 03:51 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.This is true for Atlas, but not so for Ariane 5, the latter mainly launches communications satellites, with a few Galileo, planetary/cislunar/large NSS is very few and far between.Didn't give a full and detailed list, nor are all of Ariane 5's capabilities for missions and the leadership position it hold well known.They know them, and won't accept a launch that exceeds them. As any provider does. As SX does.If you ask for a mission bid that is outside proven capability, the provider will tell you that its not currently possible. They will also tell you a eventual means by which they may work up to such a mission in the fullness of time, and likely by performing other missions to augment capabilities. We're talking years, possibly decades. They may also alter the mission in ways to have a desired outcome through proven capabilities.To do otherwise would be foolish.This does not diminish any provider. Just addresses that there are limits/scope present one works within.
If you ask for a mission bid that is outside proven capability, the provider will tell you that its not currently possible. They will also tell you a eventual means by which they may work up to such a mission in the fullness of time, and likely by performing other missions to augment capabilities. We're talking years, possibly decades. They may also alter the mission in ways to have a desired outcome through proven capabilities.To do otherwise would be foolish.This does not diminish any provider. Just addresses that there are limits/scope present one works within.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/25/2017 02:37 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmQuote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 07:44 pmQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and countingFalcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.No, you entirely miss the point. Perhaps because you need to. A leader must address more than a subset of launch capabilities. Because you never know when that particular capability will be required. A leader cannot be just a niche provider....
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/25/2017 06:11 amQuote from: meekGee on 11/25/2017 02:37 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/24/2017 09:16 pmQuote from: AncientU on 11/24/2017 07:44 pmQuoteeven if you aren't necessarily the world leader in space launch yet 2017:Atlas V = 6 launchesArine 5 = 5 launches, 1 plannedFalcon 9 = 16 launches and countingFalcon = Zero planetary / cislunar / large NSS missionsAtlas/Ariane = most planetary / cislunar / large NSS missions.If you can't do them, you're not a leader. Cherry picking payloads only works for so long.Sure they can. It's just that the dominance in commercial launches is simply the first "symptom". Obviously planetary launches lag, but give it a couple of years and you could do the same comparison with those as well.You can also make the point that SpaceX has yet to launch people. And give it a few more years, and there's going to be very little left to compare even on that field.No, you entirely miss the point. Perhaps because you need to. A leader must address more than a subset of launch capabilities. Because you never know when that particular capability will be required. A leader cannot be just a niche provider....There is no question that Atlas V and Ariane 5 have traditionally carried the highest dollar payloads and that because of their impeccable launch records and long-established 'leadership' positions. Similar track record would make AJR the 'industry leader' in rocket engines.
Much of this 'leadership' is based on an industry that reached stasis (stagnation to most observers) and thus is highly resistant to change (see Block Buy which placed most of this decade's NSS launches with one provider) or very long lead selection of the launch provider (see JWST).
Most definitions of leadership include the aspect of 'followership.' In the launch industry, now that it appears to be moving again, are the followers emulating the Atlas V/Ariane 5 model? Are new vehicles choosing AJR engines? Which of these 'leaders' are advancing the state of the art in rocketry? Who are their followers (not traditional customers only)?
Falcon 9 (soon FH) are gaining ascendancy and capability quite rapidly. The most flexible/nimble customers are following their lead to lower cost and reusable rockets. And major launch providers across the globe are following, too, but from a distance and time lag that demonstrates the inertia of the launch industry.
2019 will present an opportunity for Phase 2 NSS launches to be openly competed (as will this year's handful of Phase 1A offerings, though many are 'just' GPS-IIIs). That competition plus the ongoing competition on the commercial side will demonstrate who is a niche/boutique provider and who leads the US/global launch industry.
Minor nitpick. Interplanetary and research launches are THE niche market. Commercial sats are the opposite, they form the majority of launches. So ULA/Ariane are the niche providers, not SpaceX.
I'm not going to argue whether that makes a change to any leadership - they are very different markets with different requirements, and you can have leaders in both.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 11/25/2017 07:32 pmMinor nitpick. Interplanetary and research launches are THE niche market. Commercial sats are the opposite, they form the majority of launches. So ULA/Ariane are the niche providers, not SpaceX.You are speaking of market segmentation, which is meant for economic comparison.I am speaking in the context of leadership of industry, where all segments need to be present for the consideration of leadership.(Space launch isn't a "real" market because it is too small in numbers, thus being a category or segment leader is nonsensically small. Remember that markets work by statistics in the hundreds minimally per sample, not ones.)
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/25/2017 09:14 pmQuote from: JamesH65 on 11/25/2017 07:32 pmMinor nitpick. Interplanetary and research launches are THE niche market. Commercial sats are the opposite, they form the majority of launches. So ULA/Ariane are the niche providers, not SpaceX.You are speaking of market segmentation, which is meant for economic comparison.I am speaking in the context of leadership of industry, where all segments need to be present for the consideration of leadership.(Space launch isn't a "real" market because it is too small in numbers, thus being a category or segment leader is nonsensically small. Remember that markets work by statistics in the hundreds minimally per sample, not ones.)"Quantity has a quality all its own"
If SpaceX can do 30 launches next year, I don't think there's any doubt they're the industry leader even if they couldn't do somethings like Vertical Integration.
The current administration, even more so than the former, has an interest in commercialization of "national security". This means taking it out of the direct purview of agencies and placing it, its management and oversight, in private hands, sometimes with little/no scrutiny.Under the guise of being cheap, it also is easier to manipulate to justify your own "confirmation bias", which is exactly what is desired at the moment. Also, leakage into the commercial sector and use for political games becomes more possible, the further it is from the guise of duty to country. Which should concern all more than it appears to at the moment.To illustrate the point in a related manner, a recent death of a soldier in Niger was directly traceable to commercial extraction with no viable backup/cover. We left a man behind to horrible end. It was the whole universe lost to that one, for all the wrong reasons.The reasons for control, chain of custody, and chain of command come in the compromises/consequences of security.
As to "national", its more about indigenous source to not be beholden to another. As well as economic results of maintaining a key industrial capability and its share of the global economy. However, for this look to JSF "good and bad".
QuoteTurning the question on its head. Knowing that recovery and reuse is possible why would you not design in R&R friendly features to your new booster design from day one? Not necessarily for immediate use but available once its flight qualified for you target market.Because it interferes with the direct costing of your narrow mission, because you cannot "unwind" things that you need from things the way they've been done in the past.So you separate the two in a modern context, get that to work to do your mission, then examine how to make it viable in a actual, bidded cost environment where you are competing at a like level. Which is what Vulcan and Ariane 6 are about.Which is why you can't do "R&R friendly features in your new booster design from day one", you need to "unwind" first. Which is why we are here, no surprise.
Why is it important to be a leader?
To get those accomplishments took decades and hard work to maintain, also dealing with a certain aspect of terror in potentially losing it. Watching someone else bumble along fecklessly and always appear golden, where disaster might be in the next step, dripping arrogance and condescension,
Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success.