SpaceX was a primary facilitator of this change, true, but Russia/Ukraine and Pentagon/Congress unhappiness with EELV status quo costs also played a role.
None of this sounds "Old Space" to me. "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc.. "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/19/2017 02:46 amNone of this sounds "Old Space" to me. "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc.. "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.There is no definitive description for "New Space" and "Old Space", so I won't be surprised by disagreements.My observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.SpaceX obviously fits this mold because of their efforts to drive down costs with reusable rockets, even though there is not an existing market for reusable rockets and the vastly more launches they enable. But Musk is hoping to create new demand for lower cost reusable launchers that would not have been possible with expendable rockets.ULA, which is owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is reacting to the situation at hand caused by RD-180 political issues, the high cost of Delta IV, and SpaceX becoming a competitor for their core customer. Vulcan is no doubt a good design for an expendable rocket, but it's not apparent that it creates any new markets.This announcement between ULA and Bigelow is great marketing, but it's not evidence that ULA is "New Space", even though I would consider Bigelow a "New Space" company (Bigelow is spending his own money to create a new capability that does not yet exist - i.e. market risk).My $0.02
I find this odd.I have no issue with the technical proposal - looks great HoweverBigelow and ULA are seemingly asking NASA to pay $2.5B to do something that NASA are planning to do themselves with their own resources (SLS/Orion and ISS type modules).It has been described on here as a DSG precursor but seems to me more like a DSG replacement. Doesn't it take away or delay mission(s) for SLS (a system previously seen as scratching around for something meaningful to do)? Doesn't it potentially take away funding for SLS or something else?Also, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!Or did I misunderstand?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/18/2017 10:02 pmMany would find it hilarious that I am defending ULA, but you have to understand how "Old Space" does things vs "New Space". ULA is still rooted in "Old Space" thinking (because of it's parents) which means that they tend to pursue mature markets and try to only accept minimal risk. SpaceX ("New Space") is OK with lots of risk, and is trying to create new markets by dramatically lowering the price to move things to space. LM and Boeing have been very successful overall with their approach so this comparison is really only in a very narrow market, the launch services sector- which SpaceX has been disrupting.I'm ready to move on from the "Old Space" versus "New Space" discussion era. ULA is slashing, what, 40% of its staff, abandoning 60% of its launch sites and probably more than half of its subcontractors, and replacing three of its launch vehicles with one new do-it-all rocket that (most likely) will burn a brand new fuel in brand new rocket engines made by a, that's right, "New Space" company. Oh, and it plans to cut launch prices significantly too. And now an agreement to plan for a crazy lunar Bigelow mission, highlighting an innovative on-orbit cryo-propellant transfer system that steps right over the current envelope. None of this sounds "Old Space" to me. "Old Space" was Lockheed Martin flying out the Titan IV inventory for the U.S. Air Force at half-a-billion per, etc.. "Old Space" was already history ten years ago.SpaceX was a primary facilitator of this change, but Russia/Ukraine and Pentagon/Congress unhappiness with EELV status quo costs also played a role. - Ed Kyle
Many would find it hilarious that I am defending ULA, but you have to understand how "Old Space" does things vs "New Space". ULA is still rooted in "Old Space" thinking (because of it's parents) which means that they tend to pursue mature markets and try to only accept minimal risk. SpaceX ("New Space") is OK with lots of risk, and is trying to create new markets by dramatically lowering the price to move things to space. LM and Boeing have been very successful overall with their approach so this comparison is really only in a very narrow market, the launch services sector- which SpaceX has been disrupting.
But what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.
Also, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!
Quote from: edkyle99 on 10/17/2017 09:59 pmQuote from: Basto on 10/17/2017 06:00 pm“The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat.”This is just blatantly false. Vulcan fairing will be 5.4 meters diameter. Falcon fairing is 5.2 meters diameter. NGL fairing will be 5.25 meters diameter. New Glenn fairing was to be 5.1 meters diameter for the two-stage version, but that was just recently changed to 7 meters. - Ed KyleWhat about the height of the fairing? If I remember correctly the Atlas/vulcan fairing is significantly longer than the spacex fairing (35ft vs 22ft for the cylinder and 52ft vs 36ft with the cone). The BA330 seems pretty tall to me. I'm guessing that's the fairing part they refer to? I haven't seen how long the fairing for NG or SpaceX's next vehicle are.
Quote from: Basto on 10/17/2017 06:00 pm“The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat.”This is just blatantly false. Vulcan fairing will be 5.4 meters diameter. Falcon fairing is 5.2 meters diameter. NGL fairing will be 5.25 meters diameter. New Glenn fairing was to be 5.1 meters diameter for the two-stage version, but that was just recently changed to 7 meters. - Ed Kyle
“The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat.”This is just blatantly false.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/19/2017 06:05 amMy observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.But what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.
My observation though is that it boils down to whether a company is willing to risk their own money to create a new market.
Quote from: Star One on 10/19/2017 08:30 amBut what point does it serve anyone trying to maintain this artificial division in the industry.(fan)It's about motivations. OldSpace is motivated by profit first and vision second. NewSpace... isn't. So it's a valid distinction.
(mod) ...but not one that we should argue about interminably in this thread which should stay narrowly focused.
(fan)Quote from: SimonFD on 10/19/2017 09:25 amAlso, and I accept this could be my Brit outlook here, I find it distasteful to be announcing a project that uses someone else's money without that someone else agreeing to it first!Slideware (unfunded) spacecraft/missions/aircraft/launchers etc are pretty routine in the MIC, and usually are presented to make the presenting companies look good and possibly stir up interest so people will agitate for funding. LockMart just did it with their Mars vision. Both OldSpace and NewSpace do this... but OldSpace usually wants government funding and NewSpace... doesn't always. Sometimes it wants VC funding.
A plan that attempts to offend no one... There really isn't a clear rational for this thing.
1. Not sure a propellant depot should be Manned.
2. Placing it in LLO does not afford much chance for anything commercial to use it at this moment. Nor is it on the path for Orion to reach(i.e. attempting not to compete with the DSG).
BFR if it ever did lunar would likely be used for a landing and if it did stop off in LLO it is not clear what the BA330 could offer to Space X.
I think Bigleow needs to work more with Space X and Blue to find products that can be used by more companies.
3. It never made much sense for Biglow to design his payload so that only a ULA rocket could lift it. A meter smaller isn't going to make that much difference. I know he thinks it is the best way to get some funding from the government by hitching his wagon to a large well connected aerospace company or SLS but so far it has done little.
4. Equipping\outfitting in LEO is nice and this step does offer a place for commercial.
Honestly, this thing needs to replace the DSG or be a part of it to have any purpose.
The sideways port is noted as an airlock hatch in drawings on Bigelows website. I do hope they have plans for some sort of node module though, either internally-built or contracted out. A station with only 2 ports isn't very useful