Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2010 04:02 pmOrbital is more of a satellite company than a launch vehicle company.Yet, the first two products developed by Orbital were the Transfer Orbit Stage (development started in Dec 1986, first of only two flights 12 Sep 1992) and Pegasus (development started in summer of 1987, first flight April 5, 1990)QuoteSatellites are more expensive than launch vehicles.... but a launch vehicle plus a satellite does not a space mission make! You are missing the satellite's payload (as distinct from the satellite bus) and, in most cases, the ground infrastructure required to use it, which in some cases may include thousands and thousands of user devices (GPS receivers, Iridium handsets, VSat terminals, etc, etc.)In the National Security world, an approximate "rule of five" applies: 20% for the satellite bus, 20% for the satellite payload, 20% for the launch services, 20% for the ground system(s) and 20% for the Systems Engineering and other "glue" keeping the whole Shabang together (emphasis on the approximate nature of these 20%'s)Note that Orbital does three out of those five things: buses, launch services (or rockets, for those customers that just buy the rocket) and "glue" (integration). We do not do payloads or ground systems.Notice that some of this also applies to, say, ISS cargo resupply: arguably the SM is the bus and the PCM (or other cargo modules) is the "payload" (certainly it is when filled with cargo... ). We also build Taurus II and, last but not least, the ground infrastructure needed to properly store the cargo in the PCM and fly the darn thing to ISS and down to its fiery demise. Then we do the systems engineering to make the whole thing dance together, such as sizing Taurus II to match the smalles economically efficient spacecraft sizeAs I think I have said before, people tend to forget you do need tires when you buy a car...QuoteThey could afford to basically give away launches if they built the payload.Not if it's 20% of the cost!!!QuoteIf there is significant elasticity of demand in the satellite market when it comes to launch prices,Uhhh... I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but let me give it a try:Commercially, there is VERY LITTLE elasticity for space systems in general. Let me illustrate: the "killer app" in commercial space has always been communications, both phone and, increasingly, direct TV. Futron Corporation issued a report a few years ago (“How Much of An Impact Do Launch Prices Really Have on the Cost of Satellite Services?” November 14th, 2002 - I have a copy but, sorry, I can't port it) where they showed that the percentage of the cost of VSat services (what say, gas stations use to process credit cards in the middle of nowhere) - due to the cost of launching the satellites that transmit the signal was something like 3%. So, if launch became free, the gas station's bill would lower by 3%. How many more subscribers do you think a 3% cost reduction will bring?In the case of voice (phone) services, the percentage is 0.2%...Quotethen they may make a lot of money this way, even if SpaceX costs less (heck, maybe even ESPECIALLY if SpaceX is able to lower costs like they claim they can... more money to be spent launching more satellites that Orbital can build!).You mean, would Orbital benefit if SpaceX manages to sell their launches for what they are advertising without going bankrupt? Absolutely yes!!! And if we were certain they would be able to do so, we would not waste our money on Taurus II (with emphasis on the economic, not the technical difficulty).
Orbital is more of a satellite company than a launch vehicle company.
Satellites are more expensive than launch vehicles.
They could afford to basically give away launches if they built the payload.
If there is significant elasticity of demand in the satellite market when it comes to launch prices,
then they may make a lot of money this way, even if SpaceX costs less (heck, maybe even ESPECIALLY if SpaceX is able to lower costs like they claim they can... more money to be spent launching more satellites that Orbital can build!).
...Meabwhile, a little...
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/14orbital/Culbertson, a former astronaut, said Orbital is still discussing opportunities to launch the Taurus 2 from several facilities at Cape Canaveral.
IIRC, LC-36 has space (acreage) issues vis-a-vis the Taurus II.Just about any pad on ICBM row would work just as well, assuming the AF will let you at one of them.LC-34, anyone?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/14orbital/
Culbertson was doing a lunch talk to some Florida space group that had been planned for months. No coincidence.IMO, it's an interesting juxtaposition where Elon has admitted Falcon 9 needs to walk before running versus this line of marketing. Mr Culbertson seems to be playing to the crowd - nevermind the comparatively small amount of lift of his rocket compared to that of Falcon 9. F9 may not be able to lift the Shuttle-sized crew in the animations, but T2 would have a real problem with any modern capsule containing crew on the way up.
SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort.
Quote from: Antares on 07/15/2010 05:23 amCulbertson was doing a lunch talk to some Florida space group that had been planned for months. No coincidence.IMO, it's an interesting juxtaposition where Elon has admitted Falcon 9 needs to walk before running versus this line of marketing. Mr Culbertson seems to be playing to the crowd - nevermind the comparatively small amount of lift of his rocket compared to that of Falcon 9. F9 may not be able to lift the Shuttle-sized crew in the animations, but T2 would have a real problem with any modern capsule containing crew on the way up.Taurus 2 with an enhanced stage could lift 7 tonnes to 200 km LEO (nearly Soyuz-class) - IF it was launched from the Cape. SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort. This would be for the Block 2 Falcon 9, which has yet to be developed. Clearly both companies would have work to do to provide crewed options. Even then, the options would be substantially limited, mass-wise, compared to EELV Heavy or Ares I, etc. Think about it this way - either option would leave the U.S. with a crew carrying spacecraft that would be less capable than those of Russia and China. - Ed Kyle
SpaceX says that Falcon 9 can lift 6.8 tonnes and that anything heavier than that will require some type of engineering effort. This would be for the Block 2 Falcon 9, which has yet to be developed.
The lighter the launch vehicle, the lower its cost is likely to be...
Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/15/2010 07:18 pmThe lighter the launch vehicle, the lower its cost is likely to be...Not necessarily. It depends on why it's lighter. If exotic materials were used or exotic new processes were employed in manufacturing, these could be overall more costly. My point is that you can't make a blanket statement like that without qualifications.
Quote from: marsavian on 07/14/2010 10:08 amhttp://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/14orbital/Includes the quote "Orbital Sciences Corp. could reevaluate moving some of its Taurus 2 rocket missions from Virgina to Florida if the company wins a contract to launch astronauts"A big "if" indeed! Interesting, isn't it, that this story is released just before Sen. Nelson's NASA budget plan vote?Orbital made its launch site choice several years ago, snubbing Sen. Nelson's state in the process. - Ed Kyle