-
#40
by
DarkenedOne
on 19 Apr, 2011 15:26
-
Correction. There is no payloads in Atlas V *price* category. And ULA did nothing to lower the price. Apparently, they felt no need to work towards that, because they had their key customer, DoD, cornered. They were a monopoly as far as DoD and NASA, who can't use foreign launchers regardless of price, were concerned.
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Know some real information instead of spewing the koolade.
"No payloads period." - What are you saying?
-
#41
by
Mader Levap
on 20 Apr, 2011 18:27
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Blind squirrel? FH was to never happen at all? Now this? And it is only what I seen after beginning of lurking here. I bet there are more failed predictions that Jim now pretends never happend, but I am too lazy to browse archives.
Reminds me of old saying "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct, when he says something is impossible he is probably wrong".
Just replace "sciencist" with "engineer" and we are all set.
-
#42
by
Jim
on 20 Apr, 2011 18:54
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Blind squirrel? FH was to never happen at all? Now this? And it is only what I seen after beginning of lurking here. I bet there are more failed predictions that Jim now pretends never happend, but I am too lazy to browse archives.
Reminds me of old saying "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct, when he says something is impossible he is probably wrong".
Just replace "sciencist" with "engineer" and we are all set.
What failed predictions? I never provided a prediction on a Spacex launch. Never said that FH was never going to happen.
And there are no payloads, because price is not a "real" issue for the DOD. If they have a real need, they would do it.
-
#43
by
robertross
on 20 Apr, 2011 20:34
-
What failed predictions? I never provided a prediction on a Spacex launch. Never said that FH was never going to happen.
Now Jim, you are quite ON RECORD that NOVEMBER was the launch date for the last SpaceX launch with Dragon (which proved to be correct)
hehe.
(sorry for the OT)
-
#44
by
DarkenedOne
on 20 Apr, 2011 21:13
-
wrong on all accounts. No payloads period.
Blind squirrel? FH was to never happen at all? Now this? And it is only what I seen after beginning of lurking here. I bet there are more failed predictions that Jim now pretends never happend, but I am too lazy to browse archives.
Reminds me of old saying "When an elderly but distinguished scientist says something is possible he is probably correct, when he says something is impossible he is probably wrong".
Just replace "sciencist" with "engineer" and we are all set.
What failed predictions? I never provided a prediction on a Spacex launch. Never said that FH was never going to happen.
And there are no payloads, because price is not a "real" issue for the DOD. If they have a real need, they would do it.
Well lets hope that changes. Given that budgets appear to be flat if DOD launch costs continue to rise than pretty soon it will mean the DOD will not be able to put up new satellties.
NASA has been complaining about the costs for some time already.
-
#45
by
Mader Levap
on 20 Apr, 2011 22:29
-
Never said that FH was never going to happen.
Unfortunately, multiple times you suggested just that or even said it almost straight.
F9H is not a given
Just be ready to accept that F9 and a manned Dragon is the end point.
How about that the F9H has zero payload capacity because it does exist and may never.
I omitted endless "no customers, no clients, very little use" comments, they are still not proven wrong.
Ok, enough. I am shutting up now.
-
#46
by
Jim
on 21 Apr, 2011 00:34
-
Note I never said I was "never" going to happen.
"Not a given"
the statements were valid when they were made.
And they were to balance all the fanboi gushing.
-
#47
by
psloss
on 21 Apr, 2011 02:29
-
I omitted endless "no customers, no clients, very little use" comments, they are still not proven wrong.
Ok, enough. I am shutting up now.
Sweet -- if you can get Jim to stop posting, that's less in the way of the wishful thinking and irrational exuberance. That'll definitely make it easier to decide whether the forums are worth visiting anymore.
-
#48
by
alexw
on 21 Apr, 2011 06:49
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
"when the commercial market collapsed" - I cannot hate it when this is used as a reason why the EELVs have not been successful in the commercial market.
Fact of the matter is that the commercial market is still very much alive and kicking. In fact last year 23 of the 74 launches were commercial. Of course not a single one of those commercial launches were launched with the EELV.
How many of those launches could have taken place in the US at all?
Now that SpaceX has gotten in the game they have shown they are quite capable of getting commercial launches. They have also shown that they could get government payloads from other countries.
All of the evidence supports one conclusion. There exists a significant commercial market, and the Atlas V and the Delta IV have simply priced themselves out of it. The current launch costs of these vehicles is almost double that of what is found on the market.
You do realize that when the EELVs were being designed, Boeing figured 40 DIV cores a year (call it 31 launches and three Heavies) and sized Decatur accordingly, and LockMart "conservatively" estimated (purportedly) something like 19 launches/year?
How about the history of Iridium, and competitor networks? Dot-com bust? But most importantly, ITAR?
-Alex
-
#49
by
Mader Levap
on 21 Apr, 2011 16:20
-
Note I never said I was "never" going to happen.
This was my interpretation of your arguments. This is how I read them. Of course, I could read your intentions wrong.
And they were to balance all the fanboi gushing.
Overdoing it for other side is not best idea, IMVHO. it makes your future arguments less realiable, especially if they are in same vein (at first, FH had to be non-exsistant, now it is supposed to have very little use).
Sweet -- if you can get Jim to stop posting,
Wow, someone used sarcasm. I am so impressed.
-
#50
by
DMeader
on 21 Apr, 2011 16:45
-
Wow, someone used sarcasm. I am so impressed.
I'd suggest you stop the trolling. This is not that type of a forum.
-
#51
by
Rabidpanda
on 21 Apr, 2011 17:57
-
mader it's time to get a grip on reality and admit you were wrong. In all three of the quotes from Jim that you linked he never ruled out the possibility of F9H existing. If you interpreted them differently then that is your problem because IMO it is quite clear what he meant.
-
#52
by
DarkenedOne
on 21 Apr, 2011 18:54
-
What was preventing LM and/or Boeing to do what Elon did? They had no spare $0.5bn? I think not. They had no need. They were a monopoly.
They actually kinda did, on a different scale. Boeing and LockMart (and their predecessors?) invested far more of their own money than the US government's (~several billion vs. half-billion, roughly, for each of Atlas and Delta). Didn't go so well when the commercial market collapsed.
"when the commercial market collapsed" - I cannot hate it when this is used as a reason why the EELVs have not been successful in the commercial market.
Fact of the matter is that the commercial market is still very much alive and kicking. In fact last year 23 of the 74 launches were commercial. Of course not a single one of those commercial launches were launched with the EELV.
How many of those launches could have taken place in the US at all?
Many. When it comes to satellites the US clearly has the best technology. We also have many leading commercial satellite producers and operators.
With commercial satellite manufacturers we have Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences Corporation.
You have Iridium, Orbcomm, and Globalstar asmajor satellite operators.
I could name many more if I were to search for them.
Now that SpaceX has gotten in the game they have shown they are quite capable of getting commercial launches. They have also shown that they could get government payloads from other countries.
All of the evidence supports one conclusion. There exists a significant commercial market, and the Atlas V and the Delta IV have simply priced themselves out of it. The current launch costs of these vehicles is almost double that of what is found on the market.
You do realize that when the EELVs were being designed, Boeing figured 40 DIV cores a year (call it 31 launches and three Heavies) and sized Decatur accordingly, and LockMart "conservatively" estimated (purportedly) something like 19 launches/year?
How about the history of Iridium, and competitor networks? Dot-com bust? But most importantly, ITAR?
-Alex
IT is like I said they are very much underused thus their costs are quite high. The problem would be alleviated if the Air Force dropped one of them.
As far as ITAR goes it encourages satellite manufacturers using ITAR tech to launch from US rockets. Problem is that there are no affordable rockets in the US, thus ITAR hurts US companies because they cannot launch ITAR technology.
-
#53
by
Xplor
on 22 Apr, 2011 00:09
-
Time will tell, but it is very challenging to compete commercially on the global market.
- How much money did Arianne invest in Arianne development? ESA has funded essentially the entire development cost (>$10B). Same is true for Proton, HII, Long March. Lockheed and Boeing had to invest some $5B combined to get into the EELV business.
- ESA bears the full brunt of the upfront cost for bulk buys of Arianne rockets.
- Back in the 1990's when Martin was truly trying to compete in the commercial market place Arianne would offer 5% less than the lowest bid, regardless of its price.
I truly wish Elon luck, but my guess, even if he is completely successful on the technical and cost fronts he will still not be succesful competing in the international launch market.
Time will tell.
-
#54
by
Bernie Roehl
on 22 Apr, 2011 00:50
-
Time will tell, but it is very challenging to compete commercially on the global market.
- How much money did Arianne invest in Arianne development? ESA has funded essentially the entire development cost (>$10B). Same is true for Proton, HII, Long March. Lockheed and Boeing had to invest some $5B combined to get into the EELV business.
- ESA bears the full brunt of the upfront cost for bulk buys of Arianne rockets.
- Back in the 1990's when Martin was truly trying to compete in the commercial market place Arianne would offer 5% less than the lowest bid, regardless of its price.
I truly wish Elon luck, but my guess, even if he is completely successful on the technical and cost fronts he will still not be succesful competing in the international launch market.
Time will tell.
Agreed, time will tell.
It's worth noting that the development cost for Falcon 9 is an order of magnitude less than that of Ariane 5, despite being in the same payload class.
Given the current economic situation in Europe, I'm not convinced that Ariane launches will continue to be subsidized at previous levels. Perhaps someone closer to the ESA or EADS can comment on that...?
-
#55
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2011 00:59
-
F9 is less than 1/2 the capability of the Ariane 5
-
#56
by
Bernie Roehl
on 22 Apr, 2011 01:27
-
F9 is less than 1/2 the capability of the Ariane 5
F9 with uprated Merlin engines has 16 ton payload.
Ariane 5 G has 16 ton payload.
Both have heavier variants.
-
#57
by
Jim
on 22 Apr, 2011 02:06
-
GTO is the relevant orbit
5 ton for F9
Ariane G is not the standard model
-
#58
by
baldusi
on 22 Apr, 2011 02:42
-
GTO is the relevant orbit
5 ton for F9
Ariane G is not the standard model
Ariane 5 ECA (current model) does 10.5tn to a GTO on 4deg orbit.
Falcon 9 Block II (future model) should do about 5tn to a 28deg orbit.
Never forget the expenditure of the plane change. Plus the unproven system.
-
#59
by
DarkenedOne
on 22 Apr, 2011 06:05
-
GTO is the relevant orbit
5 ton for F9
Ariane G is not the standard model
Yeah the GTO capacity of the Falcon 9 is not all that spectacular because of the kerosene second stage. They probably went with it because of the low development cost.
Not to long ago they announced that they are working on a LH2/LO2 upper stage, which should bring very significant increased performance to GTO.
hehe.