Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history... Being selected for full and SNC for partial wouldn’t be a bad thing. SpaceX will still go on to develop Dragon and Falcon will have more launches under its belt from cargo...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:17 pmIt's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
Quote from: clongton on 06/18/2014 11:36 amQuote from: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:17 pmIt's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.
The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.
Quote from: Star One on 06/18/2014 01:26 pmThe likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010). Since they have multiple divisions, the can act as one or the other. Let them have a hard time with CST-100 and, if they lose, let them see how the ISS transition contract and SLS go on. If those are threatened by commercial operations, they'll bring in the innovators and commercial minded guys they do have within other divisions.
Don't underestimate Boeing. ... They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010).
Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.
But SpaceX is different. There is a big difference between being profitable enough to keep going and being profitable enough to satisfy your stockholders.
>They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.>
Quote from: Go4TLI on 06/18/2014 06:31 pm>They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation.>If the Boeing CC case is closed why is it they were talking about switching to Falcon 9 because Atlas V is so expensive? Certainly the Atlas V situation hasn't improved in the last few weeks. Have they decided to jump ship to get the costs down?
Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.
Quote from: rcoppola on 06/18/2014 07:07 pmWhy are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.Agreed 100%.My guess is SpaceX will be the only one doing an in flight abort test using the actual launch vehicle. They build it and it's cheaper than Atlas. The design certification can be met using another vehicle, ie Little Joe or Peacekeeper.
If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:17 pmIt's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.
Quote from: clongton on 06/18/2014 11:36 amQuote from: IslandPlaya on 06/17/2014 08:17 pmIt's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.While there is some truth to what you say, two key points to keep in mind:1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.2) I significant driver for Boeing is NASA, not neccessarily Boeing. Boeing is used to workign with NASA and doing things NASA's way. That is why a lot of NASA people feel more comfortable with Boeing over SpaceX. NASA lists a requireemnt. Boeing says how much fault tolerance? Here is the massive analysis and documentation. SpaceX says why do you need that? This is good enough.