For those of us that aren't subscribed to Aviation Weekly, does it say anything new or interesting in the article? Thanks.
Hankelow8, right, but as was said, if you are not subscribed to Aviation Week, you don't really see the article, you only get a paragraph...
From the Aviation Week digital magazine. Photo credit Reaction Engines
I'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/29/2015 03:41 pmI'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else. Doesn't mean it is right.
Quote from: Jim on 07/29/2015 03:45 pmQuote from: john smith 19 on 07/29/2015 03:41 pmI'm not the only one who thinks of LM as strictly a government contractor and nothing else. Doesn't mean it is right.When it's someone who makes their living analyzing companies in (or not in) the aerospace and defense business whose reputation matters to them I think that adds credibility to the view.However let's look at LM's market segments, from their 2014 annual report.Aeronautics."is engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, sustainment, support and upgrade of advanced military aircraft,"IE Military aircraft, mostly for the US government. Information Systems & Global Solutions."IS&GS provides advanced technology systems and expertise, integrated information technology solutions and management services across a broad spectrum of applications for civil, defense, intelligence and other government customers. "So basically selling IT systems and services to governments. Missiles & Fire Control.I think this is pretty self explanatory. Not something you sell to private customers. Mission Systems & Training"In 2014, U.S. Government customers accounted for 75%, international customers accounted for 24% and U.S. commercial and other customers accounted for 1% of MST’s net sales."So 1% of this segments $7.1Bn revenue is from civilian customers. Space Systems"In 2014, U.S. Government customers accounted for 97%, international customers accounted for 1% and U.S.commercial and other customers accounted for 2% of Space Systems’ net sales. "So maybe 2% of their $8.1Bn revenue is commercial."Operating profit for our Space Systems business segment includes our share of earnings for our 50% ownership interest in United Launch Alliance (ULA)."On that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue. Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget.
Military government applications are likely to reach reality before any commercial ones are and in that case LM are ideally placed.
Quote from: Star One on 07/29/2015 11:15 pmMilitary government applications are likely to reach reality before any commercial ones are and in that case LM are ideally placed.That's an assertion.Perhaps you could take us through your reasoning?
guys, did you see the design for an airbreathing nuclear rocket reported by nextbigfuture? I know that it's just summer speculation, but I was wondering whether an integrated design with the SABRE is, as a pure matter of principle, possible. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/nuclear-thermal-turbo-rocket-with.html
On that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue.Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 07/29/2015 10:05 pmOn that basis I think I'd suggest most people looking at LM would conclude it's essentially a government contractor, mostly (but not entirely) for the US government. Non governmental works is a very small part of their total revenue.Which I would suggest makes them about the worst candidate for building a large commercially funded project to a (relatively) tight time scale and budget, where you can't get an additional appropriation if you overrun your budget. That is a statement based on bias and not supported by any relevant data. Not all gov't contracts are cost plus.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 07/30/2015 07:18 amguys, did you see the design for an airbreathing nuclear rocket reported by nextbigfuture? I know that it's just summer speculation, but I was wondering whether an integrated design with the SABRE is, as a pure matter of principle, possible. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/nuclear-thermal-turbo-rocket-with.htmlFission is a barely controlled potential runaway catastrophe. And the idea of strapping one to a type of vehicle that flies over our heads, and typically has a 1 in 50 chance of exploding... I would never say never, but very unlikely. The US and USSR experimented with nuclear powered airplanes, but they only did a few test flights with the reactor on board, and not active, before the ICBM made them pointless. One of the issues was the mass for shielding, and in a mass sensitive concept like Skylon, it just doesn't make sense as far as I can see.