There is a third business strategy to consider that could ameliorate the issues of high vertical integration/low flight rates. Outsource as much of the production of your RLV as possible. Many of the parts of an RLV could be sourced externally or bought off the shelf, avoiding the expense of maintaining huge facilities or standing armies. This would be helpful in variable or low production rates. Basically, the Orbital Sciences strategy.Although no company has directly tried it for RLVs, new entrants to the launch market are mostly developing small mass produced RLVs. It's worth considering that SpaceX had its demo ITS LOX tank made by Janicki Industries and that DC-X used existing RL10s, avoiding the gargantuan expense of developing new engines.
There is a third business strategy to consider that could ameliorate the issues of high vertical integration/low flight rates. Outsource as much of the production of your RLV as possible. Many of the parts of an RLV could be sourced externally or bought off the shelf, avoiding the expense of maintaining huge facilities or standing armies. This would be helpful in variable or low production rates. Basically, the Orbital Sciences strategy.
Although no company has directly tried it for RLVs, new entrants to the launch market are mostly developing small mass produced RLVs.
It's worth considering that SpaceX had its demo ITS LOX tank made by Janicki Industries and that DC-X used existing RL10s, avoiding the gargantuan expense of developing new engines.
The Antares approach is along these lines, but getting much hardware from overseas where prices are more reasonable -- yet they are still not selling commercial launches.
Quote from: AncientU on 12/27/2017 11:56 pmThe Antares approach is along these lines, but getting much hardware from overseas where prices are more reasonable -- yet they are still not selling commercial launches.That's probably because their launch site is in the wrong location.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 12/28/2017 03:54 amQuote from: AncientU on 12/27/2017 11:56 pmThe Antares approach is along these lines, but getting much hardware from overseas where prices are more reasonable -- yet they are still not selling commercial launches.That's probably because their launch site is in the wrong location.Not sure I understand... they can launch to space station and any orbit with less inclination. Maybe don't have as much delta-v advantage because they are further north, but that can only account for a few hundred m/s at most.What is their restriction (for commercial launches)?
I understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.
Quote from: Lar on 12/29/2017 02:14 pmI understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.
Quote from: tater on 12/29/2017 02:19 pmQuote from: Lar on 12/29/2017 02:14 pmI understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.This forum frequently attracts people from inside the industry. In the real world once you know someone's preference, going against that preference appears intentionally disrespectful, dismissive and/or rude.
Quote from: mme on 12/29/2017 02:32 pmQuote from: tater on 12/29/2017 02:19 pmQuote from: Lar on 12/29/2017 02:14 pmI understand that Blue Origin prefer Blue to BO as a short form, for fairly obvious reasons.People can prefer certain nicknames be used, but that's not how things work in the real world, lol. If they didn't like BO, they should have just called the company Blue to start with, because BO is easier to type.This forum frequently attracts people from inside the industry. In the real world once you know someone's preference, going against that preference appears intentionally disrespectful, dismissive and/or rude.It's not our fault they didn't think through their brand name. It's branding 101 really. Disappointing they didn't.
AFAIK Blue Origin is planning to convert a /several surplus panamax tankers into landing vessels. This is the maximum vessel size (800') that can utilize the spaceport berth, planned by port Canaveral. VLCC are far larger.
Quote from: Norm38 on 12/27/2017 09:01 pmI read a discussion here about the two companies recovery ships and which approach was better. But this seems an area where cooperation and/or third parties could benefit all. I doubt either wants to maintain a naval fleet of ships, barges and tugs. If we get to the point where stages are landing in ocean on a weekly basis, that's where I see a general recovery service operating. Thoughts on that?Sounds like asking for trouble to me. Who gets priority when there are resource conflicts? What if the other guy's rocket destroys the recovery ship you need tomorrow (and for the rest of the year)? What about IP?
I read a discussion here about the two companies recovery ships and which approach was better. But this seems an area where cooperation and/or third parties could benefit all. I doubt either wants to maintain a naval fleet of ships, barges and tugs. If we get to the point where stages are landing in ocean on a weekly basis, that's where I see a general recovery service operating. Thoughts on that?
Quote from: Rik ISS-fan on 12/30/2017 12:33 amAFAIK Blue Origin is planning to convert a /several surplus panamax tankers into landing vessels. This is the maximum vessel size (800') that can utilize the spaceport berth, planned by port Canaveral. VLCC are far larger.Any idea why a tanker is preferable to - say - a container ship ?