Winning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?add:A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.
Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.
Tory Bruno, CEO @ulalaunch: CDR for Vulcan rocket by end this yr; we'll determine engine choice - @AerojetRdyne v @blueorigin before then.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/31/2017 05:50 pmWinning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?add:A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.That's what Jim said about the first 20 launches that SpaceX added to its manifest.
I don't doubt that BE-4 and NG could (will) be delayed... OneWeb and Eutelsat know that, too. Yet prices plus capability (or something else?) appeared attractive enough for each customer to go out on the limb and announce their intention to fly early on NG. That's not nothing.
So, is your estimate that NG first flight will slip to 2025? What is your basis for that prediction? -- just curious.
There's some L2 information regarding BE-4 testing progress:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42173
Quote from: AncientU on 12/31/2017 09:18 pmQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/31/2017 05:50 pmWinning launches is irrelevant, as they'll just rebook when things go long. Performing launches is all that matters.Woods170 is right in saying that BO is quiet due to becoming serious about entry into the business i.e. launch. However, this additional attention hasn't yet resulted in the necessary gains to insure that they'll get there. Still in a "provider business free fall".(Note we haven't heard of the BE-4 recently. Isn't ULA supposed to do an engine downselect about now? Shoe to drop?add:A successful FH demo and STP-2 will cause many of those on the BO manifest to switch IMHO. Between Ariane and FH, expect significant attrition as NG first flight slips by five years as my current estimates suggest.Sure hope that BE-4 announcement happens soon.That's what Jim said about the first 20 launches that SpaceX added to its manifest.Jim is wise.SX has lost missions to Ariane 5. And you know, it does make sense that the same logic fits the *any* LV introduction, including FH and NG, as it did Ariane 5's early issues.QuoteI don't doubt that BE-4 and NG could (will) be delayed... OneWeb and Eutelsat know that, too. Yet prices plus capability (or something else?) appeared attractive enough for each customer to go out on the limb and announce their intention to fly early on NG. That's not nothing.No, it isn't.Who knows, maybe everything just comes together smoothly, passes all tests/qualifications, and flies the first time (haven't experienced this joy yet but I'd love to see it). I'd even like to see it on NS RSN.QuoteSo, is your estimate that NG first flight will slip to 2025? What is your basis for that prediction? -- just curious.Can give you some.First, everything falls out of the propulsion and plumbing aspects of this, as "long poles". From the artifacts in the brief BE-4 video we've been allowed to see, they were straining at the time to have a marginal "safe" test burn. So the work to progress to the point where ULA can accept the engine for Vulcan and downselect AR-1 is still a considerable challenge. Having BE-4 be used by Vulcan means that BO can skip an interim vehicle development to prove the engine on, to reduce schedule pressure. As that delays, everything else backs up, as you can't get certain information you need to advance designs.Next, other subsystems that you might refine on NS that might be re-implemented for NG possibly need more flight history and application before you can move on, and this also appears to be stalled.Next, your GSE and pad infrastructure needs a structural test item to be fabricated to layout and build key elements of the facility, for the others to come together. Don't see it.More like this. In general, its a lack of specific items that have to be present that aren't present, and also the fact that a partner also isn't crowing about what they badly need being provided as expected.Am all ears to hear that these have been done and everything is on schedule.As to my 5 year assessment, its from things I'm hearing as to how others are "managing expectations". I don't see the confidence and I do see alternative paths considered. These often shift, but seem pretty consistent at the moment.Quote from: Navier–Stokes on 12/31/2017 09:55 pmThere's some L2 information regarding BE-4 testing progress:https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42173Am aware of non-public information. Have been asked to offer an opinion on it too.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/30/2017 01:33 pm...The fact that Blue is rather secretive hides the fact that Blue is very much accelerating. To get New Shepard off the ground took them 11 years (from project start in 2004 to first flight in 2015). ...Nit: Blue started that project in 2000 with its founding. 15-16 years.
...The fact that Blue is rather secretive hides the fact that Blue is very much accelerating. To get New Shepard off the ground took them 11 years (from project start in 2004 to first flight in 2015). ...
One fatal flight can setback HSF industry by years or decades. Companies would closeup or kill programs as investment money disappears.
“New Glenn has the capability and performance to launch customers into polar orbit from Florida,” the company said in a statement. “We are working diligently to finish our launch site at Launch Complex 36 so we can meet the market demands of commercial, civil, and national security customers from the Space Coast.”Brian Holz, CEO of OneWeb Satellites, which next year will start building satellites at KSC, said a polar launch option from Florida would benefit rocket and satellite providers.“From a OneWeb Satellites perspective, having the satellite manufacturing located next door to a launch facility that has such flexibility would be a huge benefit,” he said.
* I believe this is on topic because of the claim above that the initial set of flights booked by Blue are fluff(irrelevant) -- going away if/when NG is delayed. OneWeb, who placed five of those seven orders and is quoted above, seems to still be in the game with Blue/NG.
What lost missions were associated with F9's initial manifest* of 20 flights?
Oneweb order isn't like GEO sat mission where it is specific satellite. For example OneWeb may target satellites No50-60 for first NG but if expected delays happen then it maybe No100-110 or even No200-210 that fly. OneWeb will be launching so many satellites over a few years it doesn't matter.
Buzz Aldrin I’d Rather Work With Bezos than SpaceX or NASA 1/9/18 2:02 PM PST
Question: With the first flight of New Glenn planned in about 2 years I would assume that Blue has to start to work on their recovery ship about now. Is there a way to find it from public records?There has to be a registry of vessels under US flag...
New license for GPS/radio testing was just granted. I think it expires in 2098...https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/GetApplicationInfo.cfm?id_file_num=0833-EX-CN-2017