COTS D in the On-Deck Circle...

[Luc]

oldspace commercial - who have been trained to maximize development/manufacturing costs under a cost plus government procurement economic model.

Where is your proof that this model exists?

Just more empty nuspace trash talking without anything to back it up.

So the RS-68 wasn't CAIV design?

You realize I am talking about an economic/business model...

Do you claim that oldspace does not ever develop aerospace technology for the government on a cost plus basis, or that this has had no effect upon the operation of their business?

The existence of the cost plus model is hardly in dispute and proof of its business impact is in the development costs themselves.  Really there is no need to get defensive; I am not trash talking oldspace. Both oldspace and cost plus have their place (read comparative advantages.)

Personally, I think newspace will prove more efficient/economical at developing comparatively routine design/manufacturing/operations of relatively mature technology, while oldspace will prove better at pushing the envelope and developing cutting edge technologies.  I believe that newspace and oldspace fill different market spaces and neither has the tools or structure to effectively compete with the other in its niche.

... and yes I realize this is just an opinion, and that you likely have a different one.  It will be fun to see how it turns out.

I've read many of your comments here and come to respect your rigorous analysis.  While my own is not so rigorous (especially from an engineering standpoint,) I know what I'm talking about when it comes to economic/business models, and I have no problem going on the record predicting that newspace will reshape the economics of human spaceflight in the coming decades and put NASA (and big chunks of defense/oldspace) out of the space transportation business within 30 years, and push it back into exploration and advanced development where it belongs.

Maybe newspace can take the place of the Soviets in terms of challenging Nasa and oldspace contractors to shake themselves out of any complacency and win the next space race...  I think we might actually agree who would likely win such a race.

[Luc]

in terms of the design and engineering challenges, it would be true to form for Spacex to share as many parts/dimensions/tooling with kerolox Merlin as possible to contain costs of production, even at the expense of some performance.  This is exactly the kind of thinking/decision making that gives SpaceX such an advantage over oldspace commercial - who have been trained to maximize development/manufacturing costs under a cost plus government procurement economic model.

Good grief, not to pile on here, but you're ignoring physics - the extreme difference in properties between RP-1 and LH2.

Lol, no I'm not - I probably don't know enough about the physics involved to ignore it.  What I said was that IF there were opportunities to share dimensions, components, tooling, etc. between the designs - that SpaceX might well elect to take advantage of them, even at the cost of some performance. 

I leave it to guys like you and Jim to spot such opportunities if they exist, but I assure you that SpaceX is looking (or has looked) for them.  If it is obvious to you that there are no such possibilities, then I will gladly defer to your knowledge and experience - suggesting only that the question likely was asked.

You're not piling on; I have no engineering pretensions.  Regular guys like me do bring something to the table though.  If it is left ONLY to government, big industry, and engineers we will never get to mars - though we certainly cannot get there without them

[mmeijeri]

Just more empty nuspace trash talking without anything to back it up.

There's a difference between saying that the established aerospace companies and especially the people working there are inferior to the New Space companies and the people who work there on the one hand and saying that a purely commercial model will ultimately yield better results. The former is likely nonsense, but the latter may have more than a kernel of truth to it.

Take MSFC for example. They may not know how to build launch vehicles, but I'm sure there are some talented people who work there. But without accountability and with Uncle Sugar keeping the money flowing nothing is likely to change. If MSFC had been a commercial company it would have changed its ways or folded more than 20 years ago.

The big problem is that there isn't enough of a launch market to allow for a completely commercial model, unless NASA goes with commercial propellant launches first, which would go against a lot of vested interests, and even then completely commercial operations would likely take 10 to 20 years. But if it did happen, I would expect a lot of innovation from both Old Space and New Space companies. The large companies wouldn't be likely to disappear, but there might very well be some very successful new entrants.

[kevin-rf]

BTW, don't call it a hydrolox "version".  Change fuels and it's a completely different engine, especially when it's a single shaft turbopump.

Considering how few details SpaceX has released on "raptor", have they stated it will be single shaft? Or is that an assumption based on SpaceX Merlin work.

It might be worth noting the "optimal" H2/LOX upper for falcon would not be the same shape as shape as the current upper. So placing a manned dragon on top of it would result in different (new) pad interfaces (than the existing Merlin upper).

I wonder if a Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper would look similar to a Titan Centuar. The LH/LOX upper being wider than the core.

[R.Simko]

At the mention of tooling, it made me wonder, does SpaceX  strictly use the metric system?

[ugordan]

BTW, don't call it a hydrolox "version".  Change fuels and it's a completely different engine, especially when it's a single shaft turbopump.

Considering how few details SpaceX has released on "raptor", have they stated it will be single shaft? Or is that an assumption based on SpaceX Merlin work.

Merlin is single shaft so the talk of a hydrolox "version" would imply the same. Nowhere is an LH2 engine even mentioned yet, let alone its internal workings.

It might be worth noting the "optimal" H2/LOX upper for falcon would not be the same shape as shape as the current upper. So placing a manned dragon on top of it would result in different (new) pad interfaces (than the existing Merlin upper).

It's not unreasonable to expect a new LH2 engine to have significantly lower thrust than MVac, making it lighter and optimized for beyond LEO spacecraft missions, but suboptimal for launching Dragon into LEO - abort trajectories, gravity losses, etc. I would bet LEO missions would use the regular RP-1 F9 US and that it would offer higher performance for heavier payloads.

I wonder if a Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper would look similar to a Titan Centuar. The LH/LOX upper being wider than the core.

I was thinking of a cheaper tank stretch to the F9 3.6 m diameter tooling. Far cheaper than making it wider. Isn't that slightly larger than Centaur's diameter as is? One obvious consideration is how stretched can it get before it won't fit into the horizontal Cape hangar.

[ugordan]

At the mention of tooling, it made me wonder, does SpaceX  strictly use the metric system?

IIRC, not internally, as the 12 foot diameter tanks suggest. They also prefer payload parameters for integration to be in the imperial system. Refreshing to hear the metric system used during launches, though.

[kevin-rf]

I wonder if a Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper would look similar to a Titan Centuar. The LH/LOX upper being wider than the core.

I was thinking of a cheaper tank stretch to the F9 3.6 m diameter tooling. Far cheaper than making it wider. Isn't that slightly larger than Centaur's diameter as is? One obvious consideration is how stretched can it get before it won't fit into the horizontal Cape hangar.

Cheap and LH? Never thought I would see those two in the same sentence

A thought exercise. I am going to use the Saturn V because they had the same 10m Dia first and second stage. Let's assume that that Saturn V had an ideal first / second stage split. The first stage was 42m long and the second 24.9m long. This gives us a volume ration of 0.6.

If we keep the upper dia on the Falcon 9 Heavy the same as the core dia, assuming it uses the same split. Lets see, ~27m first stage height.

So 3 cores * 27m * 0.6 (magic ratio) gives us a 48m upper.

That would be almost twice as long as first stage! Imagine what that that would do to your dry mass!

I would argue two points.

1. if they keep the same dia, the upper will be suboptimal!
2. the upper has to be a larger dia on a heavy!

Finally I am going to ask a question, which is cheaper a single core falcon 9 with LH/LOX upper or a three core heavy with a kero/lox upper. Meaning, will Raptor be for payloads to heavy for a Falcon 9 Kero/LOX heavy.

But I agree, sounds like Raptor is for HEO and not LEO.

[ugordan]

I wonder if a Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper would look similar to a Titan Centuar. The LH/LOX upper being wider than the core.

I was thinking of a cheaper tank stretch to the F9 3.6 m diameter tooling. Far cheaper than making it wider. Isn't that slightly larger than Centaur's diameter as is? One obvious consideration is how stretched can it get before it won't fit into the horizontal Cape hangar.

Cheap and LH? Never thought I would see those two in the same sentence

Where exactly did you see those two in the same sentence? 

[jongoff]

At the mention of tooling, it made me wonder, does SpaceX  strictly use the metric system?

IIRC, not internally, as the 12 foot diameter tanks suggest. They also prefer payload parameters for integration to be in the imperial system. Refreshing to hear the metric system used during launches, though.

Similar to how we do stuff at Masten.  Most of the CAD models are 99-100% imperial, but other than structural analysis, almost everything else (thermo, fluid, and flight dynamics) is done in metric.

~Jon

[Antares]

BTW, don't call it a hydrolox "version".  Change fuels and it's a completely different engine, especially when it's a single shaft turbopump.

Considering how few details SpaceX has released on "raptor", have they stated it will be single shaft? Or is that an assumption based on SpaceX Merlin work.

Merlin is single shaft so the talk of a hydrolox "version" would imply the same. Nowhere is an LH2 engine even mentioned yet, let alone its internal workings.

Good point, Kevin.  I assume that the SpaceX engine design philosophy is SSTP.

[Antares]

So the RS-68 wasn't CAIV design?

You realize I am talking about an economic/business model...

Do you claim that oldspace does not ever develop aerospace technology for the government on a cost plus basis, or that this has had no effect upon the operation of their business?

The existence of the cost plus model is hardly in dispute and proof of its business impact is in the development costs themselves.  Really there is no need to get defensive; I am not trash talking oldspace. Both oldspace and cost plus have their place (read comparative advantages.)

Personally, I think newspace will prove more efficient/economical at developing comparatively routine design/manufacturing/operations of relatively mature technology, while oldspace will prove better at pushing the envelope and developing cutting edge technologies.  I believe that newspace and oldspace fill different market spaces and neither has the tools or structure to effectively compete with the other in its niche.

I know what I'm talking about when it comes to economic/business models, and I have no problem going on the record predicting that newspace will reshape the economics of human spaceflight in the coming decades and put NASA (and big chunks of defense/oldspace) out of the space transportation business within 30 years, and push it back into exploration and advanced development where it belongs.

Fair enough, Luc.  You've convinced me your opinions are at least measured, if light on the technical side.  However, I'd like to give you at least 2 caveats:

1) Don't underestimate the ability of significant parts of Old Space to compete just fine in a commercial market.  Like Jim said, the RS-68 was developed on the CAIV principle (though it came up long on cost, which Boeing had to eat, and short on performance).  Also, the Atlas II family in the 1990s launched a massive number of satellites on the commercial launch market.  Indeed, every Atlas between 1989 and 2006 was launched on a commercial basis.

Atlas is an Acura, Delta is a BMW, New Space is one of those Indian cars the U.S. doesn't import yet because it doesn't meet NHTSA requirements.

2) Don't overestimate the ability of New Space (and occasionally Old Space) to accurately match the technical model with the business model.  That, I think, is the biggest problem for New Space, especially if the leaders of a New Space company don't have Old Space experience.  A good business model still can fake physics.

[yinzer]

I wonder if a Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper would look similar to a Titan Centuar. The LH/LOX upper being wider than the core.

I was thinking of a cheaper tank stretch to the F9 3.6 m diameter tooling. Far cheaper than making it wider. Isn't that slightly larger than Centaur's diameter as is? One obvious consideration is how stretched can it get before it won't fit into the horizontal Cape hangar.

Cheap and LH? Never thought I would see those two in the same sentence

A thought exercise. I am going to use the Saturn V because they had the same 10m Dia first and second stage. Let's assume that that Saturn V had an ideal first / second stage split. The first stage was 42m long and the second 24.9m long. This gives us a volume ration of 0.6.

If we keep the upper dia on the Falcon 9 Heavy the same as the core dia, assuming it uses the same split. Lets see, ~27m first stage height.

So 3 cores * 27m * 0.6 (magic ratio) gives us a 48m upper.

That would be almost twice as long as first stage! Imagine what that that would do to your dry mass!

I would argue two points.

1. if they keep the same dia, the upper will be suboptimal!
2. the upper has to be a larger dia on a heavy!

While trying to figure out how big a LOX/LH2 upper stage for a Falcon 9 Heavy is an interesting problem, this is impressively wrong.  The actual rocket equation is not that complicated and you're a smart guy, why not and try to come up with a more accurate answer?

-jake

[sdsds]

While trying to figure out how big a LOX/LH2 upper stage for a Falcon 9 Heavy is an interesting problem, [the] rocket equation is not that complicated

My fear is that it's even simpler than the rocket equation.  For a three-body "heavy" design, the masses of the upper stage and payload are carried by the center booster core.  Aren't structural loads likely to be be the strongest constraints on upper stage mass?

[Swatch]

Similar to how we do stuff at Masten.  Most of the CAD models are 99-100% imperial, but other than structural analysis, almost everything else (thermo, fluid, and flight dynamics) is done in metric.

~Jon

I would just like to point out that doing structural analysis in imperial isn't too bad, nor is fluid.... but thermal stuff is gawdawful in imperial.  What the hell is a (BTU/s)/(in2*degF)?  Its a unit that typically results in numbers on the order of 10e-5... its Metric counterpart (W/m2*K) lands nicely ranging between 0 and 200 for most reasonable thermal conditions.  Oh yea, there also happens to be two definitions of BTU.  And lets just ignore that stupid lbf vs lbm problem... that's just generally a bad road to go down. [/vent]

I would have to think that European companies spec their things in metric, but the shipping to America probably isn't very conducive to cutting costs.  So.... "when in Rome, use Roman units".... "when in America, use American units"

~Former Undergrad Research Analyst at the University of Cincinnati

[mlorrey]

While trying to figure out how big a LOX/LH2 upper stage for a Falcon 9 Heavy is an interesting problem, [the] rocket equation is not that complicated

My fear is that it's even simpler than the rocket equation.  For a three-body "heavy" design, the masses of the upper stage and payload are carried by the center booster core.  Aren't structural loads likely to be be the strongest constraints on upper stage mass?

An LH2/LOX upper stage is going to be less mass than the existing upper stage, least when fully fuelled, since the hydrolox is higher isp. So the structural loads will be less than those already existing with the kerolox upper stage. LH2 fuel density is 0.07 g/cm^3 while kerosene is 8.17 g/cm^2, so even if the hydrolox upper stage DRY mass is heavier due to the larger tank size, the fuel is going to weigh MUCH less.

What is going to cause greater loads is the larger upper stage tanks will impose larger aerodynamic losses.

[Luc]

Fair enough, Luc.  You've convinced me your opinions are at least measured, if light on the technical side.  However, I'd like to give you at least 2 caveats:

1) Don't underestimate the ability of significant parts of Old Space to compete just fine in a commercial market.  Like Jim said, the RS-68 was developed on the CAIV principle (though it came up long on cost, which Boeing had to eat, and short on performance).  Also, the Atlas II family in the 1990s launched a massive number of satellites on the commercial launch market.  Indeed, every Atlas between 1989 and 2006 was launched on a commercial basis.

Atlas is an Acura, Delta is a BMW, New Space is one of those Indian cars the U.S. doesn't import yet because it doesn't meet NHTSA requirements.

2) Don't overestimate the ability of New Space (and occasionally Old Space) to accurately match the technical model with the business model.  That, I think, is the biggest problem for New Space, especially if the leaders of a New Space company don't have Old Space experience.  A good business model still can fake physics.

...

I appreciate your viewpoint.  Given your automotive analogy; I would say that Atlas is GM and Delta is Ford, while SpaceX is Honda - circa 1970.

My understanding may be incorrect, but as far as I know SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon is the ONLY rocket/spacecraft combination on the table (including Ares/Orion) that actually meets NASA's original "Human Rating" requirements.

1) I do not think I underestimate Oldspace's ability to compete in the commercial market; my position is that as a given technology becomes commoditized (relatively cheap and easily reproducible,) that Oldspace will need to innovate to push the envelope in order to compete in the commercial space.  I do not doubt that they will do this and have some success at it.

2) Your point is well taken.  I would rely upon the market (however distorted and imperfect) to reward those who can match their business model with technical requirements (physical laws,) and punish those who cannot.  In this context, Boeing eating the cost overrun for RS-68 is a case in point and a good thing - Boeing is a better (wiser) company as a result.

One thrust of my argument is that Oldspace (like GM and Ford) has been artificially protected from economic consequences by a government imposed distortion of market mechanisms.  History teaches us that such distortions are always temporary.

I submit that Ford and the New GM are very competitive in the automotive market today, but that Honda (Acura,) which was a laughingstock circa 1970 has established itself as a formidable competitor as well.  It wasn't until distortion of the domestic automotive market by the federal government became unsustainable that GM and Ford began to adapt and "catch up" with the Europeans and the Japanese in particular.

I submit that we have reached the point where cost plus is unsustainable for NASA and soon will be for Defense as well.  Oldspace will adapt (has adapted) only when compelled to by the changing landscape and competition from Newspace.

I look forward to a blurring of the lines between Oldspace and Newspace and a continuous lowering of barriers to entry in spaceflight so that new companies can spring up as today's Newspace companies join the ranks of Oldspace and at least half of the resulting New/Oldspace companies go out of business because they failed to match their business model with the laws of physics, as you so aptly outlined the problem.

[Antares]

1) I would say that Atlas is GM and Delta is Ford, while SpaceX is Honda - circa 1970.

2) as far as I know SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon is the ONLY rocket/spacecraft combination on the table (including Ares/Orion) that actually meets NASA's original "Human Rating" requirements.

3) my position is that as a given technology becomes commoditized (relatively cheap and easily reproducible,) that Oldspace will need to innovate to push the envelope in order to compete in the commercial space.  I do not doubt that they will do this and have some success at it.

4) One thrust of my argument is that Oldspace (like GM and Ford) has been artificially protected from economic consequences by a government imposed distortion of market mechanisms.  History teaches us that such distortions are always temporary.

5) I submit that we have reached the point where cost plus is unsustainable for NASA and soon will be for Defense as well.  Oldspace will adapt (has adapted) only when compelled to by the changing landscape and competition from Newspace.

6) I look forward to a blurring of the lines between Oldspace and Newspace and a continuous lowering of barriers to entry in spaceflight

1) I would mostly agree with Atlas being Ford and Delta being GM, but definitely not vice versa.

2) And yet, I think most folks in the industry would, prior to ~8? successes and at least ~6? in a row, consider Falcon 9 less safe than Atlas, Delta or Ares.

3) It will be interesting to see if SpaceX can make that.  Many would claim that the current technology is commoditized, and SpaceX is using essentially the same physics and chemistry as the others.  The savings has, on a knee jerk, to come in process.

4) This is true, and will be as long as the US government has to buy American launches and protects American aerospace labor rates.  Those are the distortions that have to be cleared.... Yeah.

5) Cost-plus makes sense when you're buying something no one else does.  Yet, in space the USG doesn't seem to try to move its requirements closer to what other buyers would want.  Actually, I think the unmanned launch community has done a fairly good job with this.  Almost all of manned launch has its feet in concrete, aside from the pittance provided for CCDev and COTS.  The unmanned space segment is actually backsliding from past commercial efforts.

6) Every step is a doozie when lowering the barriers to entry in this business.  There's a lot of stuff (technology development, process streamlining, disappearance of government paranoia) that has to occur.

[jongoff]

3) It will be interesting to see if SpaceX can make that.  Many would claim that the current technology is commoditized, and SpaceX is using essentially the same physics and chemistry as the others.  The savings has, on a knee jerk, to come in process.

Not saying anything about the overall discussion, but isn't essentially the same physics and chemistry involved in both a Model T and a 2010 Ferrari? or a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic?  While there are some areas that we've pretty much reached limits on (hard to get better than 100% of theoretical Isp on an engine), there are tons of other areas that we've barely scratched the surface on.  As I think you put elsewhere today, it's not the physics/chemistry per se, but the engineering (and as you say here process) that really makes the difference.

I agreed with most of the rest of your comments.

~Jon

[docmordrid]

Not to mention - has anyone really checked out the Corolla vs. Honda's build quality 20-25 years ago? 

My best friend had an early Corolla and it ran and ran, getting great mileage and with very good reliability. I think his was a '70 and he had it for 10 years before selling it.

My mother had a '73 Civic (first year: '72) and its build quality matched its fuel econemy - rather high. She also owned it for 10+ years then sold it. 

As such I wouldn't put either of them at the negative end of a car comparison.