Quote from: meberbs on 08/04/2017 03:01 pmA full scale production engine is not powerpoint, I have spoken with Blue Origin employees, and indications are that it is a great place to work. Did you know they can bring their dogs in with them to work?Some people might not consider others bringing their dogs, children etc to a shared work space great at all.Unprofessional, disruptive, unhygienic, allergenic and prone to interpersonal animosity whether overt or otherwise.
A full scale production engine is not powerpoint, I have spoken with Blue Origin employees, and indications are that it is a great place to work. Did you know they can bring their dogs in with them to work?
Quote from: rakaydos on 08/04/2017 04:45 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/04/2017 04:26 pmSame goes for developing a second, dissimilar rocket design. Nothing could be further from Spacex's plansOther than being single-stick, I'm not sure how you can call ITS and ITSy a "Similar" rocket design to F9.But ITSy the 9m is an SHLV not a HLV. It is overkill for all DOD payloads. Also I doubt that VI would ever even be considered. It is just that it's per launch costs would be comparable to that of an F9. That element is what could make things interesting.
Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2017 04:26 pmSame goes for developing a second, dissimilar rocket design. Nothing could be further from Spacex's plansOther than being single-stick, I'm not sure how you can call ITS and ITSy a "Similar" rocket design to F9.
Same goes for developing a second, dissimilar rocket design. Nothing could be further from Spacex's plans
I suppose there will be three pages on the definition of "overkill" now.
Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2017 04:26 pmQuote from: woods170 on 08/04/2017 03:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/04/2017 12:48 amQuote from: AncientU on 08/03/2017 09:17 pmMaybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...Not going to happen. Spacex doesn't even want their partCorrect. Hence the lack of priority for VI. Getting certified for NSS launches really is all about disruption, not about putting ULA out of business. Same goes for developing a second, dissimilar rocket design. Nothing could be further from Spacex's plansOther than being single-stick, I'm not sure how you can call ITS and ITSy a "Similar" rocket design to F9.
Quote from: woods170 on 08/04/2017 03:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/04/2017 12:48 amQuote from: AncientU on 08/03/2017 09:17 pmMaybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...Not going to happen. Spacex doesn't even want their partCorrect. Hence the lack of priority for VI. Getting certified for NSS launches really is all about disruption, not about putting ULA out of business. Same goes for developing a second, dissimilar rocket design. Nothing could be further from Spacex's plans
Quote from: Jim on 08/04/2017 12:48 amQuote from: AncientU on 08/03/2017 09:17 pmMaybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...Not going to happen. Spacex doesn't even want their partCorrect. Hence the lack of priority for VI. Getting certified for NSS launches really is all about disruption, not about putting ULA out of business.
Quote from: AncientU on 08/03/2017 09:17 pmMaybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...Not going to happen. Spacex doesn't even want their part
Maybe SpaceX will develop a second, dissimilar rocket design and take both halves of the NSS market...
Mark Twain's quote is directly applicable. This is the only place of where rumors of ULA's demise exist.Launch vehicles that only serviced the military existed for decades. Martin (now LM) Titan existed on it for four decades. They only had 3 commercial launches, ever.
I'd personally put the chance of ULA being disbanded and liquidated before 2030 at above 50%.
Quote from: ZachF on 08/04/2017 06:16 pmI'd personally put the chance of ULA being disbanded and liquidated before 2030 at above 50%.Equally applicable to Spacex, Orbital, Blue.
But ITSy the 9m is an SHLV not a HLV. It is overkill for all DOD payloads. Also I doubt that VI would ever even be considered. It is just that it's per launch costs would be comparable to that of an F9. That element is what could make things interesting. But also as I stated we are talking 6+ years out NET 2023 for ITSy operational status. This thread is about what will be the case in just 2 years EOY 2019. So what may be the case four years after that is OT.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/04/2017 05:03 pmBut ITSy the 9m is an SHLV not a HLV. It is overkill for all DOD payloads. Also I doubt that VI would ever even be considered. It is just that it's per launch costs would be comparable to that of an F9. That element is what could make things interesting. But also as I stated we are talking 6+ years out NET 2023 for ITSy operational status. This thread is about what will be the case in just 2 years EOY 2019. So what may be the case four years after that is OT.So the estimate is per launch f9 is comparable to ITSy?I don't buy that if you have complete and rapid reuse.I think ITSy will be per launch a lot cheaper
For the Seattle Washington tech area .... Some just can't take the weather conditions. No sun unless you travel out of the area.
ULA and Ariane are both very reliable when it comes to launching on time. They don't need to match SpaceX for price, just need to close the current large price gap.LV price is not everything, satellites can cost their owners a lot of money sitting on ground waiting for LVs.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 02/28/2016 03:47 amULA and Ariane are both very reliable when it comes to launching on time. They don't need to match SpaceX for price, just need to close the current large price gap.LV price is not everything, satellites can cost their owners a lot of money sitting on ground waiting for LVs.This makes no sense to me when closing the price gap is first matching SpaceX for price and SpaceX has demonstrated an approx 1 launch per two weeks cadence.
Rumors of ULAs demise exist because of their ownership structure....ULA was a money printing machine for Lockheed and Boeing.Flash foward to now, ULA is no longer the only player in town, ...... And it's corporate parents, run by executives who care most about next quarters profit, will have two decisions.1. Invest billions in ULA to make it competitive. ..., it still might not make money.or2. Sell your assets and IP, make a quick buck, be a hero in the next quarterly profit report, forget about the launch industry and focus on areas you (Boeing, LM) are still profitable in.ULA has many smart, talented engineers and hard working employees, but the fate of their company does not rest in their hands unfortunately. And for ULA's corporate parents, I think as time goes on option 2 is going to look more and more attractive.I'd personally put the chance of ULA being disbanded and liquidated before 2030 at above 50%.
Quote from: ZachF on 08/04/2017 06:16 pmRumors of ULAs demise exist because of their ownership structure....ULA was a money printing machine for Lockheed and Boeing.Flash foward to now, ULA is no longer the only player in town, ...... And it's corporate parents, run by executives who care most about next quarters profit, will have two decisions.1. Invest billions in ULA to make it competitive. ..., it still might not make money.or2. Sell your assets and IP, make a quick buck, be a hero in the next quarterly profit report, forget about the launch industry and focus on areas you (Boeing, LM) are still profitable in.ULA has many smart, talented engineers and hard working employees, but the fate of their company does not rest in their hands unfortunately. And for ULA's corporate parents, I think as time goes on option 2 is going to look more and more attractive.I'd personally put the chance of ULA being disbanded and liquidated before 2030 at above 50%.Well I agree with option 2 (except I'd say 2025), I think it is more likely they will cut ULA loose and let it stand or fall on its own. ULA may find other investors. Maybe even bought up by Bezos, ULA has a lot of expertise in the launch business that Blue doesn't have.