COTS D in the On-Deck Circle...

[Swatch]

Only the interiors were cheap in those cars.... guess that means Dragon and Cygnus will not be 'posh' rides into space... 

"Control, one of the couch adjustment arms just broke off."

"That's fine, just use some superglue, it'll go right back on, no problem."

[Luc]

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.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to give me such thoughtful replies.  I appreciate the opportunity to learn some things and (I hope) contribute to the conversation.

1) I had simply put Atlas as GM, because GM was the dominant player circa 1970 - what is it you're thinking that makes you consider Atlas more like Ford?  I'll likely defer to your deeper knowledge on the subject; I just want to capitalize on the opportunity to learn something new.

2) Agreed - emphatically.  I think ULA's presentation on their proposed exploration architecture communicates the value of a real track record of reliability as opposed to theoretical reliability very effectively. 

NASA's "Human Rating" was reduced to being an artificial barrier to outside competition when it became so fungible in the case of Ares/Constellation. 

I do think that Falcon 9 has great potential for reliability, as it appears to be a simpler, though less efficient design than current EELVs, once SpaceX develops some depth of experience with it - and operations in general.  I do acknowledge that ULA has both these things with their vehicles - especially Atlas.

3) Agreed, and I am probably one of those 'many.' I do stipulate that it could take some time for the required learning, but I do think SpaceX is positioned to be more cost effective eventually for some routine operations.

4) Agreed in principle.  I actually think it is important to buy American at this stage, but the market does need to be broadened domestically.  One of the problems I see in American Aerospace is the dramatic reduction in the number of competitors/contractors/bidders since WWII - and even Apollo.

This is one of the market distortions of huge cost plus contracts that I refer to.  Rather than agile/innovative/entrepreneurial companies, these huge contracts favor political influence that can only be achieved through scale (big lobby money.)

My hope is that COTS is just the beginning of a rethink in aerospace (and other) procurement which will have one eye on cost effectiveness in the short-term and another on sustaining a long-term healthy aerospace industry domestically. 

The recent meltdown in the financial sector highlights the fact that bigger is definitely not always better, and "to big to fail," or more accurately, "to big to take no for an answer" is a very bad thing.

5) Agreed in principle.  I think there is a lot of room for discussion here, and that the conversation is long overdue, but may be beginning in earnest where it counts.

6) Agreed - emphatically.



 

[Antares]

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 think it's going to be tough to find leaps in rocket science manufacturing.  To be sure, there are increments and spirals that can be accomplished; but fundamentals that cause a 10% jump in any technical metric aren't low or even medium hanging fruit.  I think the industry would be hard pressed to find a way to change a technical metric by 3% without spending a lot.  Maybe an aerospike?  Nanotech someday in the far future?

That said, there are massive opportunities in process and design that can cause big deltas in cost.  Though, I was pondering while addressing one of those "some assembly required" Christmas gifts that design-for-manufacture items could really hurt dry mass.

In any case, I think it's going to be hard for one company in this industry to maintain a true competitive advantage on cost or performance.  There just don't seem to be a lot of different methods to doing what customers want in this business.

Then again, I would do well to remember my Franklin: "Of what use is a newborn baby?"

[Antares]

1) I had simply put Atlas as GM, because GM was the dominant player circa 1970 - what is it you're thinking that makes you consider Atlas more like Ford?  I'll likely defer to your deeper knowledge on the subject; I just want to capitalize on the opportunity to learn something new.

'Twas in reference to which ones took bailout money and which ones didn't.  It wasn't the need of Atlas that ULA (bailout) addressed.  One could also draw minor parallels with their internal standards, but Delta has made big strides in the last several years on what they let themselves get away with even prior to the combination of the two.

[tnphysics]

Using the existing F9 first stage with a hydrolox second stage would be a more incremental growth path than Merlin 2.  It would open up a lot more GTO commercial missions (maybe even GSO) as well as NASA planetaries.  Without a high Isp second stage, these missions need a 3rd stage or be really light or can't fly on F9.  Tom Mueller is a pretty smart guy, so I'll defer to him which makes more sense to develop next: a 1M+ kerolox booster engine or a Merlin 1-class hydrolox engine.

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.

You can run the RL10 on LOX/Methane, but that is an exception. Usually, a dual-fuel engine must be designed as such.

[yg1968]

I hadn't linked this article before now because I thought it was mere speculation by the author but now I am starting to wonder why the CCDev announcement has been delayed for so long.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/01/where-art-thou-galileo-and-ccd.html

Incidentally, I sent an e-mail to the C3PO team and they told me that they didn't know when the CCDev announcement would be.

P.S. I am not sure if it is related to anything but the CCDev website appears to be offline:

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev/

[RocketEconomist327]

This will be resolved once the CxP debacle is resolved.  In all fairness to General Bolden, he has a lot on his plate.  NASA is so centralized control, centralized execution; it is going to be a bit.

This is all my opinion.

VR
RS327

[robertross]

I believe this is all tied to Obama's plan for CxP, shuttle, and ISS. State of the Union is days away....hang on just a little while longer, and then a little longer for NASA's annoucement.

[yg1968]

I hadn't linked this article before now because I thought it was mere speculation by the author but now I am starting to wonder why the CCDev announcement has been delayed for so long.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/01/where-art-thou-galileo-and-ccd.html

Incidentally, I sent an e-mail to the C3PO team and they told me that they didn't know when the CCDev announcement would be.

P.S. I am not sure if it is related to anything but the CCDev website appears to be offline:

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev/

Never mind. His post was speculation. 

[telomerase99]

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-ares-rocket-report-sn-100119.html

I wonder if CCDev announcement is delayed becuase NASA decided that it is not safe for commercial companies to try to launch humans. Good way to protect themselves I suppose.

[Jim]

NASA decided that it is not safe for commercial companies to try to launch humans. Good way to protect themselves I suppose.

NASA has not made such a decision

[simonbp]

NASA has not made such a decision

You're right; a federal oversight committee has. Which means if NASA doesn't play its game right, said report could be used by Congress to kill CCDev. NASA cannot simply ignore the report, and neither cannot it ignore that Ares I is technically the law now.

[mr. mark]

Everyone needs to understand that the rules of the game have  changed. Spacex does not need the United States or Nasa's permission to launch, except in the United States at Kennedy Spaceport. They can establish operations at any spaceport around the world and launch Falcon 9 from there with either their own asrtonauts or international ones. The Swedish Government is already at work on their spaceport and have asked Spacex to launch the Falcon 1e from their facility. So really there is nothing to stop Spacex except funding. If Nasa or the US government shows Spacex the door, I'm sure that another country would pursue their services.

[mr. mark]

Here is a link to spaceport sweden. http://www.ssc.se/?id=9500

[Jim]

Everyone needs to understand that the rules of the game have  changed. Spacex does not need the United States  permission to launch,

Incorrect, as a US operator has to get FAA permission (see Sealaunch)

[William Barton]

Everyone needs to understand that the rules of the game have  changed. Spacex does not need the United States  permission to launch,

Incorrect, as a US operator has to get FAA permission (see Sealaunch)

I've always wondered what would happen if a "US operator" decided to take its whole operation elsewhere. Stories about OTRAG, Libya, Katanga, etc.? I have no idea.

[bad_astra]

Everyone needs to understand that the rules of the game have  changed. Spacex does not need the United States  permission to launch,

Incorrect, as a US operator has to get FAA permission (see Sealaunch)

I've always wondered what would happen if a "US operator" decided to take its whole operation elsewhere. Stories about OTRAG, Libya, Katanga, etc.? I have no idea.

How IS Gerald B ull these days?

[agman25]

He was Canadian

[Robotbeat]

Everyone needs to understand that the rules of the game have  changed. Spacex does not need the United States  permission to launch,

Incorrect, as a US operator has to get FAA permission (see Sealaunch)

I've always wondered what would happen if a "US operator" decided to take its whole operation elsewhere. Stories about OTRAG, Libya, Katanga, etc.? I have no idea.

How IS Gerald Incorrect these days?

Lol. If you really want to get past the filters, here's how to do it:

Gerald Bu[b][/b]ll

will render as Gerald Bull.

The extra formatting code between the letters fools the filters.

Of course, if you abuse this, the mods will punish you. (This is still true if you abuse this by typing "B.u.l.l.s.h.o.o.t." or something like that.) Let the fact that you are circumventing the filters remind you to double-check whether you really want to use that word.

[mr. mark]

If Spacex needs US permission to launch worldwide, I'm wondering how Virgin Galactic works within this framework. Most likely it's a British concern linked with Virgin enterprises and their rules may be less stringent. It may be practical in the long run to move Spacex operations abroad and just build launchers in the United States, California. There may be advantages to moving operations somewhere else.