Somebody please tell me...

[aero313]

Why is SpaceX considered a "private launcher" while Pegasus and Taurus are "US launchers"??  Both Pegasus and Taurus were developed by Orbital Sciences with private money - upwards of $50M for Pegasus and $25M additional for Taurus.  Yes, the first missions for both were gov't payloads, but in both cases the gov't paid for a launch service, not the whole development.  This is exactly the same situation as SpaceX, where the rocket was developed commercially but the first two missions are gov't payloads.

[Tap-Sa]

Perhaps because both Pegasus and Taurus were built from pre-existing ICBM parts, courtesy of US tax payers.

[Jim]

Tap-Sa - 27/3/2006  5:19 PMPerhaps because both Pegasus and Taurus were built from pre-existing ICBM parts, courtesy of US tax payers.

nope, all new motors.

[Chris Bergin]

aero313 - 27/3/2006  11:10 PM

Why is SpaceX considered a "private launcher" while Pegasus and Taurus are "US launchers"??  Both Pegasus and Taurus were developed by Orbital Sciences with private money - upwards of $50M for Pegasus and $25M additional for Taurus.  Yes, the first missions for both were gov't payloads, but in both cases the gov't paid for a launch service, not the whole development.  This is exactly the same situation as SpaceX, where the rocket was developed commercially but the first two missions are gov't payloads.

We created the seperate sections as per coverage - if the question is in reference to the forum sections.

Remember, the site is just a year old as Orbital are carrying out NASA missions, such as ST-5. SpaceX are a private company working on becoming the likes of Orbital etc. Pegasus is a NASA/US launcher by such missions.

Welcome to the site, but please note your question might of been answered faster if you had created a thread with a specific title, as opposed to the "Somebody please tell me..." which can be hugely annoying if the whole forum was like that

[MartianBase]

aero313 - 27/3/2006  5:10 PM

Why is SpaceX considered a "private launcher" while Pegasus and Taurus are "US launchers"??  Both Pegasus and Taurus were developed by Orbital Sciences with private money - upwards of $50M for Pegasus and $25M additional for Taurus.  Yes, the first missions for both were gov't payloads, but in both cases the gov't paid for a launch service, not the whole development.  This is exactly the same situation as SpaceX, where the rocket was developed commercially but the first two missions are gov't payloads.

The small light weight launchers were developed with the financial backing of the US military, released from Hercules aircraft or supported by the US airforce, Taurus stage zero is adapted from the 1st stage of the Peacekeeper ballistic missile.

[aero313]

MartianBase - 27/3/2006  7:12 PM

The small light weight launchers were developed with the financial backing of the US military, released from Hercules aircraft or supported by the US airforce, Taurus stage zero is adapted from the 1st stage of the Peacekeeper ballistic missile.

That's absolutely untrue.  Pegasus used three brand new solid rocket motors specifically developed for that vehicle.  The development was done with private investment by Hercules (now ATK).  The rest of the vehicle was commercially developed by Orbital.  As for Taurus, the first vehicle used a Peacekeeper first stage.  At the time (1990) the PK motors were still in production and Orbital bought one commercially from Thiokol (with the Air Force's permission).  Subsequent Taurus vehicles (well about half of them) used the Castor 120 that was also commercially developed by Thiokol with a private investment of over $30M.

Actually, Pegasus did use one piece of gov't-developed hardware.  The Stage 2 flexseal was an adaptation of the one developed for the Pershing 2 missile.  I'm sure none of the design techniques or analysis tools or materials used by SpaceX (or Rutan for that matter) were originally developed by the gov't.  Of course, the SpaceX Falcon is just an updated Thor, after all.

[Tap-Sa]

Jim - 28/3/2006  2:47 AM

Tap-Sa - 27/3/2006  5:19 PMPerhaps because both Pegasus and Taurus were built from pre-existing ICBM parts, courtesy of US tax payers.

nope, all new motors.

Strike pre-existing, replace with pre-designed. From what I've read Pegasus used design from the cancelled Midgetman SICBM, to which OSC added wing and tail. Is this information false?

[Tap-Sa]

Here's one source: Access to Space: The Future of U.S. Space Transportation Systems, a US Congress Office of Technology Assessment publication from 1990.

Page 53:

Pegasus. The Lightsat program, initiated by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), has created a market for at least one
new small launcher, the Pegasus, capable of
launching between 600 and 900 pounds to
LE0.24 Pegasus is a three-stage, solid-fuel,
inertially guided winged rocket that is launched
from a large aircraft. It is the first all-new U.S.
launch vehicle design since the 1970s, though
it depends heavily on propulsion and systems
originally developed for intercontinental ballistic
missiles; it uses engines designed for the
Midgetman ICBM.

[Jim]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  3:05 AMHere's one source: Access to Space: The Future of U.S. Space Transportation Systems, a US Congress Office of Technology Assessment publication from 1990.Page 53:Pegasus. The Lightsat program, initiated by theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), has created a market for at least onenew small launcher, the Pegasus, capable oflaunching between 600 and 900 pounds toLE0.24 Pegasus is a three-stage, solid-fuel,inertially guided winged rocket that is launchedfrom a large aircraft. It is the first all-new U.S.launch vehicle design since the 1970s, thoughit depends heavily on propulsion and systemsoriginally developed for intercontinental ballisticmissiles; it uses engines designed for theMidgetman ICBM.

SICBM - 46" dia
Pegasus - 50" dia

Not the same

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  3:33 AM

Strike pre-existing, replace with pre-designed. From what I've read Pegasus used design from the cancelled Midgetman SICBM, to which OSC added wing and tail. Is this information false?

Yes, it is false.  Let me try this one more time.  Pegaus used three brand new solid rocket motors developed specifically for that vehicle.  I worked at Orbital at the time, so I have firsthand information.  Orbital did initially evaluate existing motors and designs, but these non-optimum solutions did not provide the performance and cost benefits Orbital was looking for.  

Yes, Hercules relied on design and production methods that were developed on government programs, but the same can be said for SpaceX and any other small launch vehicle developments (where do you think the design techniques and materials for the SpaceX ablative nozzle came from?).  The one place where the claim that Pegasus benefitted from the gov't has some truth is in the production facilities for the motors.  Hercules (now ATK) has a tremendous solid rocket motor production facility at Magna, UT that was primarily funded by the DoD for ballistic missile production.   Pegasus motors were (and are) manufactured in this facility.  On the other hand, a large part of the increase in Pegasus cost from the initial $6M per flight (sound familiar?) is the fact that ICBM production (and Titan IV strapon production) has dropped significantly from the early 1990s.  This causes Pegasus to carry a much larger share of the facility overhead than was originally planned.

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  3:05 AMHere's one source: Access to Space: The Future of U.S. Space Transportation Systems, a US Congress Office of Technology Assessment publication from 1990.Page 53:Pegasus. The Lightsat program, initiated by theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA), has created a market for at least onenew small launcher, the Pegasus, capable oflaunching between 600 and 900 pounds toLE0.24 Pegasus is a three-stage, solid-fuel,inertially guided winged rocket that is launchedfrom a large aircraft. It is the first all-new U.S.launch vehicle design since the 1970s, thoughit depends heavily on propulsion and systemsoriginally developed for intercontinental ballisticmissiles; it uses engines designed for theMidgetman ICBM.

And you believe everything the government tells you, right?

Here are the facts.  The SICBM stages were designed by three different companies.  Stage 1 came from what was then Thiokol Ogden.  Stage 2 was from Aerojet.  Only Stage 3 was from Hercules.  On the other hand, all three Pegasus stages were designed and built by Hercules.  SICBM used a number of expensive technologies to get performance, such as carbon-carbon nozzles and extendable exit cones on the upper stages.  Pegasus uses carbon phenolic nozzles and single exit cones on each stage.  (As a historical aside, the first SICBM test flight failed due to a crack in the fragile carbon-carbon stage 2 nozzle).  Finally, as was pointed out previously, SICBM is smaller than Pegasus, meaning the tooling is different, the grain design is different, the nozzles are different, etc.

[braddock]

Welcome to the site aero, and I think this is a great first thread.

I largely agree with you.  I think the differentiation is largely in spirit, and state of maturity.

Really, I find a lot of SpaceX's claims are kinda awkwardly constructed.  First all new engine design, except for this one and that one, in this class, etc.  First privately funded vehicle development, if you don't count our $100 million government launch contract, our partnership agreement with NASA, etc.  While I think their work is certainly remarkable, I try to avoid the PR claims in the articles.

Certainly, in SPIRIT, SpaceX is a very different beast.  The Space Exploration Company is coming in from left field with the mission not of becoming a profitable government contractor, but of colonizing Mars, transforming the launch industry, and basically changing the world.  And they have collected just enough talented people, and shown just enough progress, that they may just succeed.

Perhaps instead of classing SpaceX, Rutan, etc into "Private Space Flight", they should be called "Transformational Space Flight", which would likely include Orbital, Sea Launch, etc who are all trying to do things differently.  But it is dangerous to argue semantics.

Frankly, I'd love to hear about the early days of Orbital.

[aero313]

braddock - 28/3/2006  10:51 AM

Welcome to the site aero, and I think this is a great first thread.

I largely agree with you.  I think the differentiation is largely in spirit, and state of maturity.

Really, I find a lot of SpaceX's claims are kinda awkwardly constructed.  First all new engine design, except for this one and that one, in this class, etc.  First privately funded vehicle development, if you don't count our $100 million government launch contract, our partnership agreement with NASA, etc.  While I think their work is certainly remarkable, I try to avoid the PR claims in the articles.

Certainly, in SPIRIT, SpaceX is a very different beast.  The Space Exploration Company is coming in from left field with the mission not of becoming a profitable government contractor, but of colonizing Mars, transforming the launch industry, and basically changing the world.  And they have collected just enough talented people, and shown just enough progress, that they may just succeed.

Perhaps instead of classing SpaceX, Rutan, etc into "Private Space Flight", they should be called "Transformational Space Flight", which would likely include Orbital, Sea Launch, etc who are all trying to do things differently.  But it is dangerous to argue semantics.

Frankly, I'd love to hear about the early days of Orbital.

Thanks braddock.  I'm surprised, however, that you differentiate SpaceX from Orbital in that SpaceX "is coming in from left field with the mission not of becoming a profitable government contractor".  OSC in the 1980s was not exactly a mainstream gov't contractor.  Everyone seems to forget that in the pre-Challenger days there was a commercial market to be made launching GEO comm satellites on the shuttle.  Orbital raised over $50M in private investment to commercially develop the Transfer Orbit Stage with the goal of providing a commercial propulsion system to get these satellites to geo transfer orbit.  Unfortunately Regan banned commercial satellite deployment missions on the shuttle after Challenger and Orbital went to NASA as the only potential customer for it's commercial transfer stage.

Orbital next formed a joint venture with Hercules to commercially develop Pegasus.  Each company put between $25M and 30M into the development.  DARPA paid $6M for the first launch service on Pegasus - as compared to the $8M DARPA paid for the recent launch attempt on SpaceX.  How is this different?  By the way, DARPA paid just under $15M for the first launch service on Taurus after Orbital had put an additional $25M into the development of that vehicle.

Also, be skeptical of Elon's $100M Air Force contract.  That was awarded under the Responsive Small Spacelift (RSS) procurement and it's an IDIQ contract (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity).  What that means is that there's a set of "catalog" prices for launch services over a period of years, but nothing is firm until a mission is actually exercised.  If you read the actual contract, you'll find that the $100M number comes from taking the value of the assumed but not funded RFP mission model.  The actual firm contract value is something like $30,000 to write a user's guide.  SpaceX isn't alone in misrepresenting an IDIQ contract, however.  Orbital got into trouble with investors a few years ago when it announced the award of a "billion dollar" satellite contract with NASA.  Turns out this was only an IDIQ award from Goddard under the RAPID satellite bus procurement and the POTENTIAL value was UP TO $1B if all options were exercised.  The firm value at the time was something like $50K.

Oh, and speaking of SpaceX claims, one that I've always found amusing is that their fairing design (clamp bands and explosive bolts for separation) has been 100% reliable in flight.  They must have Futron doing the math on that claim as well, since I remember the very famous "angry alligator" photo from Gemini 9 where the clamp band can be seen holding the partially deployed fairing on the docking target.

[josh_simonson]

There's a big difference between an established rocket maker modifying the size of a booster, and developing one from scratch.  Pegasus development was certainly considerably cheaper due to existing (government funded) experience, tooling and testing with similar rockets.

[aero313]

josh_simonson - 28/3/2006  1:44 PM

There's a big difference between an established rocket maker modifying the size of a booster, and developing one from scratch.  Pegasus development was certainly considerably cheaper due to existing (government funded) experience, tooling and testing with similar rockets.

Just out of curiosity, how was OSC an "established rocket maker" in 1987?  What do you consider "considerably cheaper"?  The OSC/Hercules joint venture investment of $50M from 1987-1990 inflates to $75M in today's dollars.   What do you consider "government funded expertise, tooling, and testing"?  The motor fabrication tooling was all purpose-built for the Pegasus motors.  I've already established that they were brand new designs - developed with private investment.  Yes, Hercules did use facilities that were originally paid for by the gov't.  The wing and fins were also brand new designs - by Scaled Composites in fact.  The avionics was brand new, and contrary to what Elon claims, Pegasus first used a networked distributed avionics design in 1990.  

If you think SpaceX is not using technology and experience that the gov't originally developed, you're being naive.  Friction stir welding of propellant tanks was perfected for the Delta IV program.  Aluminum lithium was used on the shuttle external tank.  Elon brags about the fact that their fairing design is copied from that of the Agena.  Pintle injectors come from TRW (lawsuit notwithstanding).  Graphite ablative nozzles were developed for ICBM programs.   Barber Nichols used gov't-developed techniques to design and build their turbopump.  Oh, and where do you think all the analysis codes and tools that SpaceX used for propulsion design, thermal analysis, structural analysis, and performance analysis were developed and verified?

I'm not saying that leveraging the gov't investment is a bad thing, in fact it's a smart thing to do.  I just don't understand why Orbital is denounced for doing it and SpaceX for some reason isn't.

[blairf]

Thanks for that on Orbital's history - always learing! The difference to me is that SpaceX clearly share the space cadet dream; big rockets, manned spaceflight, citizen astronauts, orbital hotels, Mars - the lot.

Also Orbital has morphed into a pretty hard core Missle Defence/Govt pork outfit. It probably doesn't help their case with space cadets that, by some accounts, they are responsible for the current SNAFU with Dawn (bolloxed design, cost over runs etc).

For what it's worth I am always amazed that Rutan and Scaled are held up as alt-space paraagons. Scaled is half owned by Northrup and most of their work is in composites for drones and other mixed assorted thing that shot.

[aero313]

blairf - 28/3/2006  6:16 PM

Thanks for that on Orbital's history - always learing! The difference to me is that SpaceX clearly share the space cadet dream; big rockets, manned spaceflight, citizen astronauts, orbital hotels, Mars - the lot.

That was also the case at Orbital in the first ten years.  Dave Thompson was a much bigger space cadet than Elon will ever be.  The difference is that Dave didn't have a ton of dot.com money and needed to figure out how to do it with other people's money.  Frankly, that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Unfortunately reality set in after a few Pegasus failures, as did the need to show a profit for stockholders when the company went public.  

If you're interested in the early years of Orbital, get a copy of the Harvard Business School case study.

Also Orbital has morphed into a pretty hard core Missle Defence/Govt pork outfit.

To be honest, that's one of the reasons I bailed out.  Orbital is going to be in a world of hurt when MDA gets reigned in after 2008.

For what it's worth I am always amazed that Rutan and Scaled are held up as alt-space paraagons. Scaled is half owned by Northrup and most of their work is in composites for drones and other mixed assorted thing that shot.

Actually, didn't Burt buy the company back several years ago?

[Tap-Sa]

aero313 - 28/3/2006  6:01 PM
 
Here are the facts. ...

Thank you for correcting the facts! Clearly you know them well while I'm just at the mercy of what comes up from Google etc.

Still, when a private venture subcontracts an aerospace firm to build three stage solid rocket while said firm is deeply involved in developing three stage solid rocket for the government it is difficult to avoid thinking that a) the two projects share a lot of design and b) the 'synergy' flows in the direction where tax payer's buck buys work that helps the private project 'for free' rather than vice versa. But technically almost all aerospace knowhow that also SpaceX utilizes now is at some point in history bought by tax payers.

I agree what blairf wrote about SpaceX and OSC. It seems that Elon is putting up a genuine, somewhat philanthropic attempt to achieve CATS, or at least bring it closer to reality. OSC strikes me as a firm which has no problems if it launches just one Pegasus a year (or less) as long as somebody with very deep pockets (like US gov) can pay them high enough $/lb to keep their business afloat.

[blairf]

For what it's worth I am always amazed that Rutan and Scaled are held up as alt-space paraagons. Scaled is half owned by Northrup and most of their work is in composites for drones and other mixed assorted thing that shot.

Actually, didn't Burt buy the company back several years ago?[/QUOTE]

http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/03paris/topstor3_18.htm
is from the 03 Paris Air Show, I vaguely remember rummaging around in some on line Northrop accounts when I first read the news and finding a fairly tidy sum changed hands. Who knows maybe he has bought it back in the last three years?

By the way here is an extract from the Harvard review mentioned above
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4703&t=entrepreneurship

Quite a read - Orbital's story seems to be a fine allegory. A Ben Bova inspired start-up that dreams of privatising the final frontier ends up launching missles to be shot down by other missles. Sheesh

[aero313]

Tap-Sa - 28/3/2006  6:57 PM

Still, when a private venture subcontracts an aerospace firm to build three stage solid rocket while said firm is deeply involved in developing three stage solid rocket for the government it is difficult to avoid thinking that a) the two projects share a lot of design and b) the 'synergy' flows in the direction where tax payer's buck buys work that helps the private project 'for free' rather than vice versa. But technically almost all aerospace knowhow that also SpaceX utilizes now is at some point in history bought by tax payers.

I certainly won't argue that, but how is what OSC did any different from SpaceX using Barber Nichols to design and build their turbopumps while BN is also doing the same for gov't-funded programs, or having Spincraft fabricate tank domes using techniques and facilities paid for on the Delta program?  

I agree what blairf wrote about SpaceX and OSC. It seems that Elon is putting up a genuine, somewhat philanthropic attempt to achieve CATS, or at least bring it closer to reality.

I've always had a problem with the concept of CATS.  Where exactly do you draw the line at gov't support?  It's not OK to use commecially developed Pegasus motors because they're "tainted" with ICBM cooties, but it's OK to use analysis codes, materials, and design techniques validated on those same programs?  Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

OSC strikes me as a firm which has no problems if it launches just one Pegasus a year (or less) as long as somebody with very deep pockets (like US gov) can pay them high enough $/lb to keep their business afloat.

First, keep in mind that most Pegasus payloads cost upwards of $50M for the satellite.  If that were your money, would you rather risk it on an unproven low-cost rocket or would you be willing to spend more on a rocket in which you had insight (and in some cases oversight) to the flight assurance process.  Pegasus was $6M a copy at one time.  Several failures and partial successes resulted in process changes that increased both cost and reliability.  Unfortunately there's also the flight rate isse with launch vehicles - as price goes up launch rate goes down, which makes price go up, which makes launch rate go down, etc, etc.  Let's see what happens to the SpaceX price after the first half dozen launches.  Elon's got 175 employees now.  At SoCal salaries and rents that must add up to around $20M a year in labor and overhead costs.  That tells me he has to fly 4-5 rockets a year to break even (when you add in the materials and parts costs).  That breakeven doesn't include any recovery of his $100M investment, either.  If he doesn't launch 5 (and certainly won't this year) either he has to raise the price or he's losing money.  Maybe his motives are purely philanthopic (although that's not how he got where he is today), but at some point he flat runs out of money.  Clearly he's betting that he gets the launch rate up to a sustainable level before that, but history isn't on his side.  OSC went through this same problem on Pegasus, which is one reason why it isn't $6M a copy anymore.

One final thought.  There are a lot more Honda Civics sold than Yugos.  Sometimes reliability trumps low price.