NewSpace: "I'll believe it when I see it" comments from a few members

[peter-b]

I've noted that the most widely-shared sentiment expressed about "NewSpace" companies on this site, and most vociferously about SpaceX, is "I'll believe it when I see it".

Now, this is often a perfectly justifiable attitude. Certainly, when a new player appears in an established market, using an unfamiliar business model and making preposterous claims about prices and schedules, anyone sensible should treat them with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Now contrast this with the prevalent attitude here towards established firms' (and NASA's) non-STS human spaceflight/launcher plans, which seems to include the tacit assumption that if started, they will succeed (i.e. "I'll believe it when it's announced"). For example, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that CST-100 will fly with passengers, even though it's not flown at all yet.

I think I'm missing some contextual information or something, because I don't understand why some projects seem to deserve much more scepticism than others. For example, I personally (perhaps naively) consider, from the status quo at the time of writing this post:

- manned Dragon more probable to succeed than manned CST-100, on the basis that a Dragon test article has already flown on the intended launch vehicle and reentered safely, whereas CST-100 has not;

- Falcon Heavy more probable to fly successfully before 2017 than SLS, on the basis that SpaceX has a track record of successful & timely de novo launcher development in the near past, whereas NASA doesn't.

Now, I'm not arguing that I'm right about this, and I don't want this thread to devolve into a debate about whether the USA needs SLS or not, etc. 

What I'm interested in is what objective factors people feel weigh into their assessments of how likely a given launcher or spacecraft development project is to succeed, because I guess they're different from mine.

- Experience of key staff?
- Financial security?
- Funding source/contract type?
- Success rate of similar projects (recent, or otherwise)?
- Flight history of technologies involved?
- Governmental support?
- Other factors?

Please illustrate with examples, because I'm really interested to see why people adopt an "I'll believe it when I see it" stance towards some projects but not towards others.

Hopefully this'll be an interesting discussion. 

(P.S. I'm a long-time lurker, but have just recently created an account. Sorry to mods if this thread is created in the wrong section.)

[sdsds]

- Experience of key staff?
- Financial security?
- Funding source/contract type?
- Success rate of similar projects (recent, or otherwise)?
- Flight history of technologies involved?
- Governmental support?
- Other factors?

- Engineering culture of the organization.

Why did the first flights of Falcon 1 fail?

[peter-b]

- Engineering culture of the organization.

Why did the first flights of Falcon 1 fail?

This seems like half a post. Perhaps you could expand on this for me?

[Paper Kosmonaut]

I don't think it's that strange to see a first rocket fail on its first flight. There's a long record of failures of rockets of all kinds. The N1 did, on every flight. Many Atlases has blown up, many Thors and later Deltas too have not reached space. Those Deltas being proven and deemed operational. So that is not the issue.

I presume it has to do with an all-over kind of conservative view of how the cards were dealt in the past. NASA was asking for a new piece of hardware, Boeing, Martin, Lockheed, Convair, McDonnell and the other big ones, all being long time established aircraft factories, were the competitors to the contract.

In the past fifty years this was how it went, and everyone was used to it. All the manufacturers (and NASA too) however, changed from daring, inventive and innovating institutions into bureaucratic monsters, too many levels of decision making, non-transparent and conservative.

The "apparition" of firms like SpaceX, where you can almost call all the employees by name, with shorter lines from the executive desk to the workfloor, might seem like a breach of the old established way of working.
In fact what they do in my opinion, is more or less what NASA did in the late 50's: taking more risks, inventing stuff, all in all being more adventurous and creative. I think it pays off well.
Of course one thinks that what comes from Boeing, must be good. A brand we can trust. But now and then it is good to let the big boys know they should not take their position for granted. There is no place for a John Houbolt at Boeing, LockMart or at NASA these days.
(Isn't that why Direct was considered to be kind of rogue?)

I guess it is the same with the car market. People tend to buy stuff from established brands because of their reliability or fame. When a new car company arrives, everyone first wants to see good results and good reviews. But even Ford had its rear kicked with the Pinto.

Just my 2 cents.

tl;dr: I think it's all to do with a conservative view on how the cards were dealt in the past before the new batch came along.

[Chris Bergin]

Given it a descriptive thread title and moved to SpaceX. Not a fan of generalizations of the community.

[A_M_Swallow]

Given it a descriptive thread title and moved to SpaceX. Not a fan of generalizations of the community.

Possibly, however SpaceDev have not produced a manned spacecraft before so Dream Chaser is also a new kid on the block.

[kevin-rf]

- Funding source/contract type?
...snip...
- Other factors?

How about a viable business plan once the development is completed.

That is the hardest part, to make money without writing off the money you spent developing the rocket.

No, we will make Billions on an IPO is not a viable business plan in my opinion. You need to be able to stand on your own after an IPO and open the books and say, this how we plan on making your money back. You can spin fancy accounting and accounting terms like cash flow positive all you want, but spin is not a solid business plan.

[Garrett]

Given it a descriptive thread title and moved to SpaceX. Not a fan of generalizations of the community.

I agree with Chris here. Sentiments of posters here about New Space companies vary widely on a continuum from "They're the only solution" to "Get them out of my airspace, pronto!". Most reasonable posters have a more rational approach, trying to weigh up the pros and cons, sometimes leaning to one side, but usually willing to learn.

Sometimes posters are stubborn and hot-headed, but that's more an issue with the nature of discussion on internet forums. I hope

To respond to your question, my two cents are that the "I'll believe it when I see it" stance should be the de facto stance for all vehicles, commercial or public. History has shown us that false promises are two a penny, and so skepticism is justified for all announcements.

[Jim Davis]

I've noted that the most widely-shared sentiment expressed about "NewSpace" companies on this site, and most vociferously about SpaceX, is "I'll believe it when I see it".

Now contrast this with the prevalent attitude here towards established firms' (and NASA's) non-STS human spaceflight/launcher plans, which seems to include the tacit assumption that if started, they will succeed (i.e. "I'll believe it when it's announced").

I have exactly the opposite impression, Peter.

From what I've seen the most prevalent attitude seems to be if SpaceX says it, it will come to pass. Falcon Heavy is spoken of as if it is a sure thing to meet its performance, cost, and schedules. Manned Dragons will be flying in a few years. Unmanned Dragons will be landing on Mars. Etc, etc.

This attitude filters down to other NewSpace companies. Nary a skeptical word is heard about the XCOR Lynx. Skylon will be flying by 2020; it's just a matter of funding. Virgin Galactic will be flying tourists in 18 months. Etc, etc. Propellant depots are the future, etc. Relatively modest accomplishments by Masten and Armadillo are lauded as revolutionary breakthroughs.

Traditional aerospace companies are derided and dismissed with terms like "DinoSpace". Their costs and schedules are ridiculed when compared to NewSpace competitors. Their employees are dismissed as dishonest and corrupt. Their accomplishments are dismissed as failures. They are depicted as a barrier to future space development.

[Garrett]

I have exactly the opposite impression, Peter.

If ever proof was needed that opinions here form a continuum from one extreme to the other ...

Moral: there is no "prevalent attitude" on NasaSpaceFlight.com

[mikegi]

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning a newbie's ability to make good on large claims, like SpaceX has made. They don't have a history of success and experienced people think SpaceX will run into the same realities that the more established players discovered long ago. For example, costs are expected to rise significantly and SpaceX doesn't have cash cows to fall back on. That could be lethal if there's an accident that shuts them down for a while.

There's also nothing wrong with assuming that established players, like Boeing/ULA, will succeed in their efforts. They have known histories of success. For example, I have no doubt that Boeing can create and fly a successful capsule. The cost of creating it probably doesn't even make a dent in their business. ULA's success is a given since it already has Atlas and Delta flying. However, the cost of that guaranteed success is higher prices (see the numerous threads here comparing the prices of Falcon9/H vs. EELV).

This is nothing new. It happens in almost every industry. For example, PCs back in the early 1980s were derided as "toys" and beneath "serious" programmers. If you wanted reliable computing power, you bought a minicomputer, workstation, or higher. However, those "cowboy" PC programmers were persistent, the barrier to entry of new companies was low, and there was rapid innovation in software and hardware. It was chaotic but eventually all the established minis and workstations were overtaken.

I don't know if that same effect can happen in something as controlled as spaceflight. The barrier to entry is high and the user base is small (USGov right now). In addition, a mistake can literally be lethal.

[peter-b]

Thanks for replies so far.  As I said, maybe my impressions were wrong, but they were based on having lurked here regularly for several months.  Maybe it's because some posters post more often than others?  Anyway.

To reiterate: I'm interested in what factors feed in to feelings of scepticism (or otherwise) of whether a project is going to succeed or not. I'm not interested to hear whether everybody agrees about a particular project or company.  Please keep it constructive.

So far we have, in addition to the factors I listed in the OP:

- Post-development business plan [kevin-rf]
- Financial "buffer" available (e.g. from larger parent business) [mikegi]
- Initial flight failures [sdsds & Paper Kosmonaut]

TBH, I don't agree with kevin-rf that post-development business plan success (or otherwise) affects the likelihood of a spacecraft or launcher being successfully developed, unless someone's going to travel back in time and tell them not to bother.    I can't think of any companies worth mentioning on this site that have "make billions from an IPO" as their business plan either, off the top of my head -- do you have a specific example?

Chris: I meant this thread to apply to all of the "NewSpace" companies, not just SpaceX (so Blue Origin, SpaceDev etc).  I should have guessed that using SpaceX as the illustrative example would make people focus on it to the exclusion of all else. I also agree that "skepticism is justified for all announcements", but perhaps there is some room for debate as to degree. ;-)

[go4mars]

To reiterate: I'm interested in what factors feed in to feelings of scepticism (or otherwise) of whether a project is going to succeed or not.

Efficient use of labour and capital dispells skeptics. 

A wise man once said, "Running a business is nothing more than organizing a bunch of people to do something useful."   

[peter-b]

Efficient use of labour and capital dispells skeptics.

Can you give examples, please?

[go4mars]

Efficient use of labour and capital dispells skeptics.

Can you give examples, please?

Any organization that can use less money to achieve the same or better result as their competition builds a track-record that de-claws skeptics.    Federal Express in its first 15 years is a great example. 

[Danderman]

I have exactly the opposite impression, Peter.

If ever proof was needed that opinions here form a continuum from one extreme to the other ...

Moral: there is no "prevalent attitude" on NasaSpaceFlight.com

Yep, its either "everyone is going to get ponies" or "nothing will come of this".  I tend to believe that one or two of the major NewSpace companies will survive and be flying operational missions 10 years from now (I have to admit that I thought the same about the 1990s generation of Newspace companies, too), and that the big NASA HLV/BEO plans of this generation will come to naught.

[Danderman]

Efficient use of labour and capital dispells skeptics.

Can you give examples, please?

Any organization that can use less money to achieve the same or better result as their competition builds a track-record that de-claws skeptics.    Federal Express in its first 15 years is a great example. 

Not in the political world. Congress likes NewSpace less than the established companies because NewSpace companies are more efficient; ie they don't have a presence in every major congressional district - although SpaceX is working on that one.


I can recall when Congressman George Brown, who was a major figure on the Authorization committee, bemoaned the fact that no space company set up business in his district.

[Nathan]

A useful example in this discussion is that of T/Space. They were a new kid on the block that everyone thought would succeed. They didn't because, in my opinion, they relied too heavily on NASA for contracts rather than expanding the business model.
What they did have was good, likely affordable designs for their spacecraft. They were also testing hardware - a key indicator of progress.
SpaceX has to be careful not to rely on NASA too much and start launching non-NASA customers into space regularly and successfully in order to dispel the naysaying.

I think I can add "Diverse customer base" to your list of reasons.

[Downix]

I've noted that the most widely-shared sentiment expressed about "NewSpace" companies on this site, and most vociferously about SpaceX, is "I'll believe it when I see it".

Now, this is often a perfectly justifiable attitude. Certainly, when a new player appears in an established market, using an unfamiliar business model and making preposterous claims about prices and schedules, anyone sensible should treat them with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Now contrast this with the prevalent attitude here towards established firms' (and NASA's) non-STS human spaceflight/launcher plans, which seems to include the tacit assumption that if started, they will succeed (i.e. "I'll believe it when it's announced"). For example, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that CST-100 will fly with passengers, even though it's not flown at all yet.

I think I'm missing some contextual information or something, because I don't understand why some projects seem to deserve much more scepticism than others. For example, I personally (perhaps naively) consider, from the status quo at the time of writing this post:

- manned Dragon more probable to succeed than manned CST-100, on the basis that a Dragon test article has already flown on the intended launch vehicle and reentered safely, whereas CST-100 has not;

Boeing has a track record with hundreds of successful launches and recoveries.  SpaceX has one.  Do you doubt a car company which has delivered cars before from being able to deliver the new models they announce?

- Falcon Heavy more probable to fly successfully before 2017 than SLS, on the basis that SpaceX has a track record of successful & timely de novo launcher development in the near past, whereas NASA doesn't.

SpaceX has not delivered anything on time, nor on the performance curve promised.  NASA has, however, but suffers from political whim syndrome, with projects cancelled before completion due to political winds changing.  Not an excuse, just how it is.

Now, I'm not arguing that I'm right about this, and I don't want this thread to devolve into a debate about whether the USA needs SLS or not, etc. 

What I'm interested in is what objective factors people feel weigh into their assessments of how likely a given launcher or spacecraft development project is to succeed, because I guess they're different from mine.

- Experience of key staff?
- Financial security?
- Funding source/contract type?
- Success rate of similar projects (recent, or otherwise)?
- Flight history of technologies involved?
- Governmental support?
- Other factors?

Please illustrate with examples, because I'm really interested to see why people adopt an "I'll believe it when I see it" stance towards some projects but not towards others.

Hopefully this'll be an interesting discussion. 

(P.S. I'm a long-time lurker, but have just recently created an account. Sorry to mods if this thread is created in the wrong section.)

Thanks for de-lurking.  It helps to hear new voices, just realize that the perspective is different.  Boeing is an old company, with a very long track record for crew space vehicles.  SpaceX is a new company, and full of new company mistakes, which it looks like they are trying to fix.  And you have the other two CCDev entrants, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada Corp.  Blue Origin is in much the same boat as SpaceX, but SNC is an old company with a long track record as well but not in crewed spaceflight.  It is going to be a very interesting decade is all I can promise you.

[Chris Bergin]

Chris: I meant this thread to apply to all of the "NewSpace" companies, not just SpaceX (so Blue Origin, SpaceDev etc).  I should have guessed that using SpaceX as the illustrative example would make people focus on it to the exclusion of all else. I also agree that "skepticism is justified for all announcements", but perhaps there is some room for debate as to degree. ;-)

Sorry Peter, all sorted now