Quote from: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:24 pmLaunch can't be a free market, ever? Yes. You don't understand that?Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?Space is not Walmart.
Launch can't be a free market, ever?
Quote from: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:24 pmLaunch can't be a free market, ever? Yes. You don't understand that?Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 02:30 pmSpace is not Walmart.True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.
Space is not Walmart.
Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.
Quote from: RonM on 03/28/2017 03:14 pmTrue, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.
True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.
BTW, aren't we all getting off topic? How does this apply to NASA FY 2018?
By the way, has anyone here actually read either paper? Is a link to Pace's piece available anywhere? (I've checked SpaceNews's website and have googled around, to no avail).
The central focus of this paper is a comparison between the two approaches to maintain and expand American access to space that NASA and the federal government have followed since the mid-2000s.
Zimmerman offers a series of complex comparisons purporting to do just that, but he doesn't cite hardly any numbers to support his case....
United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture that is SpaceX's main competitor for government launches, has never lost a payload in 117 launches. SpaceX has lost two missions in just the last two years, in both cases due to design features in its launch vehicle.
No doubt about it, SpaceX prices are low -- but it isn't the model of market-driven responsiveness that Zimmerman would have you believe. On average, its launches are over two years late, and the unlaunched missions it is carrying in its backlog on average are nearly three years late.
Companies typically achieve low prices by taking out cost, but much of the overhead associated with space efforts goes into assuring the safety of missions.
One problem with buying launch services under commercial contracts rather than using the traditional approach is that the government has less latitude to investigate what happened when things go wrong. The company leads investigations of mishaps rather than the government. The company may be forthcoming about what it finds, but it doesn't have to be.
Imagine where Donald Trump's business empire would stand today if he typically delivered project two years late, and every once in a while one of the blew up due to design features.
I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?
Quote from: Star One on 03/31/2017 11:10 amI do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?You are blatantly begging* the question.*For those who only know today's misuse of the term, it classically means assuming your premise is true -- a rhetorical fallacy.
Quote from: Star One on 03/31/2017 11:10 amI do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?To AncientU's post I might add that if you read my previous post in this thread, you'll see that I am not defending Zimmerman at all: I'm attacking Thompson quite heavily, but I do not defend Zimmerman.
Is there any sign in the budget for the gateway station for which NASA will apparently end up paying much/most of the cost? I see slides from the NAC that show a 4-piece station up and working by 2026...https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf...but with those slides should go a budget and cost and such. How is the station supposed to be paid for? Sounds like ESA might be contributing an ECLSS, and Canada an arm, but there's a lot more than that that needs to get paid for.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 02:30 pmQuote from: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:24 pmLaunch can't be a free market, ever? Yes. You don't understand that?Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?Airplanes are munitions or can be. Cars are munitions or can be. Suitcases are munitions or can be if they are carrying the right things. That all governments today treat rockets as super special? Sure. True fact.That they always will, if we get to flight rates similar to commercial airliners ("millions of people living and working and living in space")? No, you haven't convinced me that no government anywhere ever will decide to relax and treat rockets more like airplanes. regulated, but freer than they are now.You don't have to convince me, that's cool. We have different views. All good. But I don't buy your blanket assertion. And "You don't understand that?" isn't the tone one uses when one wants to convince me of things. You don't have to care one whit what I think... but if you do....Quote from: RonM on 03/28/2017 03:14 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 02:30 pmSpace is not Walmart.True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.That's another model that works too.Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 03:21 pmLaunch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.Today. We have different visions about how things SHOULD be in the future.We might be veering more than we should (it was driven by that reference, to be sure) so I'll stop for now.
Can we stop acting like Russia does not exist? Russia sells Arianespace the Soyuz rocket to be launched from Arianespace launch sites. Russia also sells rocket engines to ULA. They have assisted South Korea with their rocket technology. Everything you guys are arguing about has been done. Yes of course rocket technology is a technology that can be weaponized, but that only means that the market is restricted to our allies and friendly nations. Our private companies sell weapons to other nations all of the time. There is no reason to believe that companies like SpaceX will not be able to sell reusable rockets to allies especially ones that already have ballistic missile technology.