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

[go4mars]

Do you doubt a car company which has delivered cars before from being able to deliver the new models they announce? 

There are plenty of examples of this in the automotive industry; scrapped and abandoned new models that never really saw the light of day (yes even from the big 3). 

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. 

NASA is not renouned for being on schedule.  In fact, it's not really an expectation anymore is it?

SpaceX is a new company 

Really?  SpaceX has been around almost 10 years now.  What's the threshold where a company is not "new"?   

[Moe Grills]

Isn't aviation and rocketry filled with historic and recent cases
of failed promises? Delays? Bankrupcies? Biting off more than they
(private firms) could (technologically or financially) chew?

Examples: The late Robert Traux's plan to send himself into space on
a homemade suborbital rocket in the 1970's.
Gary Hudson's Rotan project.
Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose.
& his failed airline.
The British Comet.
The British Blue Streak.
Pan American Airways (bankrupt)
A long list of contestants from the first X-Prize (many of those contestants  bit off more than they could chew; one or two were out right frauds or incompetents: like the founder of the Da Vinci Project)

  And speaking of biting off more than they could chew:
SpaceX founder, Mr. Musk, (and others) keeps talking about sending men to Mars onboard his rockets.
He hasn't any firm plans to send men to the Moon first, even to do
a relatively simple and unambitious lunar circumnavigation, and he thinks he could scrape together enough funds & set up enough infrastructure within 10-20 years to pull off the more ambitious, risky and expensive project?

Hasn't he learned that you have to crawl, before you walk, and walk before you run? An elementary fact that all mothers will understand, and  as a metaphor is applicable to aerospace engineering.

[vt_hokie]

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").

My attitude is pretty much I'll believe it when I see it regardless of whether it's "newspace" or "oldspace" and that's just based on historical precedent.  I've seen one program after another get cancelled (I was hired out of college initially to work on X-33 after all, and even got assigned to Kistler very briefly but the disarray there led to me being pushed onto another program...ended up testing replacement gyros for Hubble during my final days at AlliedSignal, something real and tangible at least!)

[sdsds]

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]

- Engineering culture of the organization.

Flight failures are only symptoms.  Here's a different example:  has a newspace company ever conducted a "Design Equivalency Review"?  Apparently something by that name happens quite frequently at Lockheed-Martin.

I'm betting at SpaceX something like that might be considered wasteful bureaucracy.  At LM it is a valued part of their engineering process....  Neither is "right", they're just different.

[rcoppola]

I think New vs Old is a bit of a misnomer. I don't think it's based on how long a company has been around, but rather what and how they bring  products to market. legacy experience does not make a credible yardstick as to expected results. See Microsoft's Vista, the wonderful, but much delayed and always in crisis mode B787, the LM JSF.  That's the beautiful thing about markets. Very Darwinian. Competition drives the strong and weeds out the week. That's often the problem with govt. It's the reverse.  It has no competition and so has no incentive to do things more efficiently. They have  very little skin in the game with regards to money. They'll  just print more.  I am not saying the people and their accomplishments at NASA are not inspiring and valued, what I am saying is the unsustainable nature of all that genius being locked up inside a bloated, inefficient beaurocratic black hole..

At  the end of the day, we are told by NASA,  with many billions of dollars can not build an HLV with an EDS with a throw weight of 130 tons until the 2020s, 2030s? Really? I'd just assume they put the whole thing out for firm bid and let some enterprising, innovative,  risk taking company or companies make a run for it...to me I see no difference in LEO to BEO, except that LEO can and will establish it's own market for public and private and BEO will be a market of govts...for now. But so what, who else Is Newport News Shipyards building Ford Class Super Carriers for? It still has to maintain a credible business model to succeed.

If you are hungry and innovative enough, you'd find a way to make it happen. That's what new space is to me. Not new as in age, but new as in thinking and philosophy. And yes, legacy companies can do this.. See Apple's incredible resurrection and dominance,  Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works ( a great read) and at times Boeing Phantom works...

[go4mars]

and he thinks he could scrape together enough funds & set up enough infrastructure within 10-20 years to pull off the more ambitious, risky and expensive project? 

Having overarching goals is a good idea.  Some of the current developments might be applicable to different future uses if thought of in advance. 

Mother's also could tell you that crawling kids want to walk and run like their older siblings. 

As to scraping together the funds, I suspect that will be determined in no small part by the success of Tesla.  If his portion becomes monetizable at a certain dollar value (like $10 billion or something), perhaps he'll "go for it" in terms of fully reusable Mars colonization transport hardware (leveraging income from the SpaceX manifest and Solar-city). 

Alternatively, he might be wanting to hang on to Telsa, and finance unfunded SpaceX developments through Tesla dividends if Model S, X, and Bluestar are going like hot-cakes and the battery business is strong. 

If SpaceX hits dire straights, there is always the IPO option as a last resort.

[joek]

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".
[snip]
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.

Started out as a short response.  Oh well.  This wanders OT, but hard to bullet-point criteria and process, and the source of some sentiments.  Context is everything and hard to put in 100 words or less...

The critical success factors for most efforts are broadly similar (organizational, financial, etc).  Nothing really different about NewSpace--or OldSpace for that matter--other than it's hard, and mistakes can be extremely expensive and may result in violent and very visible failures.  You don't get many of those, and that makes it very different than most other high-tech efforts.

In the case of NewSpace, experience seems to stand out as the major and common deficiency and cause for concern.  Repeatedly overly-optimistic schedules are the primary evidence (not to mention a few obvious mistakes).¹  Stretched schedules and mistakes have knock-on effects that can put financial stability at risk.  That can be very distracting and put additional strain on the organization (especially leadership), and lead to a downward spiral.  That is cause for concern especially with commercial ventures engaged in high risk activities without cost+ contracts.

The operative questions are then:
1. Does the organization have experience with similar efforts?
2. Is the organization learning from and correcting their mistakes fast enough?
3. Is the organization capable of effectively applying lessons learned to efforts outside their experience? 
The ability to acquire and effectively integrate experience into the organization may also be critical in obtaining positive answers to those questions.

Those questions can only be answered on a company-by-company and project-by-project basis, with a track record, or possibly (and more subjectively) with visibility into the bowels of the organization.  We don't generally have such visibility and fall back to track record.  Thus, given the lack of a track record with a similar effort, "I'll believe it when I see it."  For me the emphasis is generally concern over "when", rather than skepticism that nothing will happen.  However, stretch "when" too far and it can quickly become "never" due to knock-on effects.

With respect to specific companies and projects:

1. CCDev Boeing/CST-100 -- Boeing and ULA largely been there done that (ok, not recently launching people, but neither have the other contenders).  CST-100 wasn't from-scratch a few months ago.  NASA gave Boeing the highest technical rating (above SpaceX/Dragon).  For those reasons, #1 on my list to fly.

2. CCDev SpaceX/Dragon -- They've flown once, but not with the final configuration even for cargo.  They're doing everything pretty much for the first (or maybe second) time.  They're a fairly lean organization and also have CRS on their plate.  While I think they can pull it off, I'm concerned whether they can pull it off in addition to everything else in the time required (see below). #1.5 on my list to fly.

3. CCDev Dreamchaser -- All new, nothing like it has flown (unless you count the X-37B, which I don't), and lots of expensive development remains.  While it's building on a mountain of previous NASA work, SNC and ULA have no experience with anything remotely similar. There's arguably little room for more than two commercial crew providers in the foreseeable future (and possibly only one unless Bigelow goes big). There's likely no room in NASA's budget to help subsidize completion of development.  #3 on my list to fly (if ever), but I'd love to be proved wrong.

NASA"s CCDev-2 evaluation of technical confidence ranked Boeing "very high", SpaceX "high", with SNC and Blue Origin "moderate".  The business evaluation ranked SpaceX "very high", with Boeing, SNC and Blue Origin "high".  However, NASA's most pressing concern and priority is reducing risk and "closing the gap", not the lowest bidder or a fuzzy future commercial market.  Thus, I give the nod to Boeing/CST-100, with SpaceX/Dragon a close second.  If SpaceX can pull off a string of successful COTS/CRS flights in the next 12-18mo, I might put them ahead of Boeing for first past the post.

4. COTS/CRS SpaceX -- The next flight is going to be risky: longer duration than the first; the trunk for the first time; and only the third flight of F9.  And they have to repeat it three times a year for the several years (along with the rest of their manifest).  The technology is new but not new-new.  Experience is the issue.

5. COTS/CRS OSC -- The LV and cargo delivery system are all relatively new and unflown.  OSC hasn't flown a similar LV or payload before.  The Taurus II test flight (Dec 2010) as with any first flight, is going to be risky.  Again, the technology is new but not really new-new, and experience is the issue.

Introduction of risk reduction measures (and money) very late in the game, and the delayed decision as to separate or combined SpaceX COTS demo-2/3 flights, strongly suggests that NASA has substantive unresolved concerns.  Moreover, SpaceX was much more open in the past, but has largely gone dark.  No news is not good news in the case of COTS and CRS.  The paucity of information fuels concern, skepticism and fear.  If either blow it, it's going to be a huge setback for commercial and potentially the ISS.  The clock is ticking and there is an enormous amount of pressure.  How they'll perform under such conditions is TBD, but the situation is far from optimal and has to be taking a toll.

6. SpaceX Falcon Heavy -- I wouldn't include "timely" in the statement "SpaceX has a track record of successful & timely de novo launcher development in the near past".  Nor is recent LV development unique to SpaceX--EELV development isn't yet ancient history (Boeing and LM).  I'd love to see Falcon Heavy fly and be successful--and it may be important to SpaceX--but it has little or no relevance to NASA's more pressing needs, which are commercial cargo and crew.  You might throw MPCV or DoD in there, but MPCV is still years and billions away, and DoD's needs are being met by Atlas V and Delta IV.

With respect to SpaceX in particular and the sometimes vehement comments, "I'll believe it when I see it" is not only a product of their track record, but also sometimes "Shut up and focus.".  I'm sure SpaceX is working hard and watching the clock (they and OSC have a lot at risk).  I hope and expect they have all the people they can effectively apply working on COTS and CRS.  However, sans visible progress, any perception that other efforts might diffuse their focus and put NASA's more immediate needs at risk is going to generate some negative responses (especially on this site), regardless of how laudable those other efforts are or how important they may be to SpaceX's grand plan.

Granted NASA probably should have known better and not let themselves be so easily seduced and put the ISS, SpaceX, OSC and potentially the rest of NASA at risk with the current situation.  But we are where we are, it's a tense time, and many are not feeling particularly charitable towards the parties involved.  When we're over this hump and SpaceX (and OSC) is flying regularly, I expect the atmosphere will improve considerably.  But that's going to take a while.  Check back in a year or two or three.

On a more optimistic note... Everyone appears to be learning and correcting quite rapidly, and NASA and NewSpace appear to be learning how to work together more effectively.  In particular for COTS, CRS and CCDev, NASA as experienced partner, mentor, facilitator, and concerned major investor--versus manager or nanny.  NASA's role is more akin to that of a VC to a startup.²  Not a typical role for NASA and no surprise it has taken a while.


¹ The original COTS SAA with SpaceX was signed Jun 2006 ($278M) with COTS demo 3 flight Sep 2009 (subsequently revised twice); the original 27mo schedule now looks like it will be 65mo and +~$150M.  The original COTS SAA with OSC was signed Feb 2008 ($170M) with COTS demo flight Dec 2010; the original 34mo schedule now looks like it will be 48mo. and +~$150M.  In 2005 Virgin Galactic estimated first suborbital flight in 2007-2008; that has now slipped to 2012-2013 and is reportedly ~4x the originally estimated ~$110M cost.  Not that OldSpace is immune as plenty of programs have similar or worse track records.

² No "vulture capitalists" tirades please.

edit: correct typos

[baldusi]

Let me add that with all the schedule slips and extra expenditures of the COTS program, if both companies fly in 2012 to the ISS, it would probably have been the cheapest development program of LV and spacecrafts ever for NASA.

[joek]

Let me add that with all the schedule slips and extra expenditures of the COTS program, if both companies fly in 2012 to the ISS, it would probably have been the cheapest development program of LV and spacecrafts ever for NASA.

Agree.  If I have the numbers right, it's ~$850M for two new LV's and two new spacecraft.  That is impressive.  Although COTS/CRS is a nail-biter, in the balance I remain optimistic and believe commercial (NewSpace or whatever) should play a larger role.

[AlexCam]

One of the main reason for the attitude towards small companies vs. big companies in spaceflight (or any other complicated technology area) is history. The number of small companies succeeding in the launch business is extremely slim, even big companies have struggled, but at least they have delivered in the past.

Yes, it is entirely possible that NewSpace will succeed in providing low cost access to space for crew an cargo, but is it likely? I do not have enough data points to make a determination one way or the other for SpaceX, but based on history their chance of actually delivering their price point, their reliability promises and their sustainability is not high.

For me the main reasons why Boeing and LockMart will ultimately remain the dominant US players in the launch business and human spaceflight area is sustainability. Those companies have the resources to cope with delays, complications, failures and Congressional shifts in policies. SpaceX, despite a great culture and great visions unfortunately does not. If CCDev were cancelled at this moment and out of some reason the resupply missions to the ISS as well, I do not believe SpaceX could survive for long. It would probably have to enter into a strategic partnership or be bought outright by a bigger rival. If SpaceX were to develop a crewed Dragon and there was a human loss in one of the first flights, I equally doubt SpaceX could survive as a standalone company.

[Paul Adams]

One of the main reason for the attitude towards small companies vs. big companies in spaceflight (or any other complicated technology area) is history. The number of small companies succeeding in the launch business is extremely slim, even big companies have struggled, but at least they have delivered in the past.

Yes, it is entirely possible that NewSpace will succeed in providing low cost access to space for crew an cargo, but is it likely? I do not have enough data points to make a determination one way or the other for SpaceX, but based on history their chance of actually delivering their price point, their reliability promises and their sustainability is not high.

For me the main reasons why Boeing and LockMart will ultimately remain the dominant US players in the launch business and human spaceflight area is sustainability. Those companies have the resources to cope with delays, complications, failures and Congressional shifts in policies. SpaceX, despite a great culture and great visions unfortunately does not. If CCDev were cancelled at this moment and out of some reason the resupply missions to the ISS as well, I do not believe SpaceX could survive for long. It would probably have to enter into a strategic partnership or be bought outright by a bigger rival. If SpaceX were to develop a crewed Dragon and there was a human loss in one of the first flights, I equally doubt SpaceX could survive as a standalone company.

I don’t want to get too far off topic, but unfortunately what you are saying is endemic in the USA right now and will ultimately stifle innovation.

A few years ago I was working for a small start-up company with some very advanced and promising aerospace technology. We were strong on the technical front, but not company development and expansion. We spoke with a few industry management and development specialists, and the overall response was “when you sell out to Boeing or Lockheed” you will get somewhere. We were shocked. Whatever happened to the small guy with a good idea being able to make good?

The company moved to Europe and is doing very well.

[AlexCam]

I don’t want to get too far off topic, but unfortunately what you are saying is endemic in the USA right now and will ultimately stifle innovation.

A few years ago I was working for a small start-up company with some very advanced and promising aerospace technology. We were strong on the technical front, but not company development and expansion. We spoke with a few industry management and development specialists, and the overall response was “when you sell out to Boeing or Lockheed” you will get somewhere. We were shocked. Whatever happened to the small guy with a good idea being able to make good?

The company moved to Europe and is doing very well.

I did not want to give the impression that I do not believe in small start-ups and the possibility of a handful of dedicated entrepreneurs to be successful, I just said that in today's complicated world when it comes to aerospace (integration of software, hardware, politics etc.) deep pockets unfortunately a requirement in most cases.

I wish it would be different. I wish SpaceX would have shown everybody how a small, dedicated company can provide relatively cheap and reliable access to space quickly. It just hasn't and it is even more unfortunate that it looks like it won't in the future (their actual price points do not differ much from the competition).

[Danderman]

I wish it would be different. I wish SpaceX would have shown everybody how a small, dedicated company can provide relatively cheap and reliable access to space quickly. It just hasn't and it is even more unfortunate that it looks like it won't in the future (their actual price points do not differ much from the competition).

Compare and contrast the price of a Falcon 9 vs comparable ULA vehicles, and you will see that your statement above is not accurate.

[AlexCam]

I wish it would be different. I wish SpaceX would have shown everybody how a small, dedicated company can provide relatively cheap and reliable access to space quickly. It just hasn't and it is even more unfortunate that it looks like it won't in the future (their actual price points do not differ much from the competition).

Compare and contrast the price of a Falcon 9 vs comparable ULA vehicles, and you will see that your statement above is not accurate.

Price is one of three components I mention, the other two are reliability and being on schedule.

SpaceX wants to compete on the international launch market and prices its vehicle based on reliability and availability vs. market prices.

If they start to deliver what they have promised, I will change my mind. Until then I will just stay dissapointed that they have failed to deliver what they have promised throughout the last several years.

[beancounter]

I wish it would be different. I wish SpaceX would have shown everybody how a small, dedicated company can provide relatively cheap and reliable access to space quickly. It just hasn't and it is even more unfortunate that it looks like it won't in the future (their actual price points do not differ much from the competition).

Compare and contrast the price of a Falcon 9 vs comparable ULA vehicles, and you will see that your statement above is not accurate.

Price is one of three components I mention, the other two are reliability and being on schedule.

SpaceX wants to compete on the international launch market and prices its vehicle based on reliability and availability vs. market prices.

If they start to deliver what they have promised, I will change my mind. Until then I will just stay dissapointed that they have failed to deliver what they have promised throughout the last several years.

Harsh, very harsh.  I believe they've delivered on all fronts.  They've had schedule slippage and some cost growth but they have produced  2 LVs, 1 space vehicle, several new engines, various infrastructure, etc, etc, all for less than a $1 billion.  This is actual hardware that's made it to orbit. 

In fact, they're 4 in a row and 1 return, ( F1 flights 4 & 5, F9 flights 1 & 2, Dragon flight 1).  They also have a launch manifest to envy including both NASA and commercial.  China and Europe are worried about trying to compete on cost.  When you add that up, I wouldn't call that 'fail to deliver'.

[grr]

I wish it would be different. I wish SpaceX would have shown everybody how a small, dedicated company can provide relatively cheap and reliable access to space quickly. It just hasn't and it is even more unfortunate that it looks like it won't in the future (their actual price points do not differ much from the competition).

Compare and contrast the price of a Falcon 9 vs comparable ULA vehicles, and you will see that your statement above is not accurate.

Price is one of three components I mention, the other two are reliability and being on schedule.

SpaceX wants to compete on the international launch market and prices its vehicle based on reliability and availability vs. market prices.

If they start to deliver what they have promised, I will change my mind. Until then I will just stay dissapointed that they have failed to deliver what they have promised throughout the last several years.

Harsh, very harsh.  I believe they've delivered on all fronts.  They've had schedule slippage and some cost growth but they have produced  2 LVs, 1 space vehicle, several new engines, various infrastructure, etc, etc, all for less than a $1 billion.  This is actual hardware that's made it to orbit. 

In fact, they're 4 in a row and 1 return, ( F1 flights 4 & 5, F9 flights 1 & 2, Dragon flight 1).  They also have a launch manifest to envy including both NASA and commercial.  China and Europe are worried about trying to compete on cost.  When you add that up, I wouldn't call that 'fail to deliver'.

ESA IS worried.
China is not.

[douglas100]

ESA isn't worried. Arianespace might be.

[AlexCam]

ESA isn't worried. Arianespace might be.

I doubt even Arianespace is really worried. A hefty part of their manifest is guaranteed for quite some while and they have the reliability and on schedule record that large telecom operators require for planning purposes.

[apace]

And if the competition goes in the direction of lower prices, all contractors for government payloads can recalculate their pricing... as most development costs are paid in advantage by the old contracts ;-) I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

[kevin-rf]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

[Jason1701]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

They're a monopoly. As long as that's true, and in the absence of regulations to the contrary, they will keep their price at the maximum profit point.

[apace]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

Why?

[baldusi]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

Why?

Because they are out of the commercial market because of the ELC. If they could do away with the ELC they would have most commercial launch contracts. ULA has as good track record as Ariane, and can accommodate payloads at the right sizes. Ariane 5 has the problem of dual manifest. So if ULA could get it's prices into the commercial sector, they would be launching five to ten more missions per year. At that rate they would be much cheaper and earn a lot more money.
And that would have helped the US satellites manufacturers too. For example, I know that the three ARSAT (GSO ~ 2900kg) and both SAOCOM (SAR of 3500kg) use French and Italian electronics, because thus they are ITAR-free. And Argentina is really small in the satellite market. With all the capacity demand in Asia and Europe, this decade the launchers that will thrive will be the ones that dominate the commercial market.

[apace]

Whats ELC?

[joek]

Whats ELC?

EELV Launch Capability -- essentially a subsidy to maintain national security space (NSS) launch capability.

[deltaV]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

[apace]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

And if so, for example because of the contracts needs more paperwork, standing fleet of personal, etc... why not creating a second launch provider with deals with Altas and Delta and without the overhead of a gouvernment provider.

[joek]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

Why?

Because they are out of the commercial market because of the ELC. If they could do away with the ELC they would have most commercial launch contracts. ULA has as good track record...

ULA may be out of the commercial market, but Boeing and LM are not.  If they were competitive I expect they would have more commercial payloads...

Delta IV had one commercial payload in 2002 (also first Delta IV flight).  Atlas V had several commercial payloads in the early years with the last in 2008.  Delta II also had a number of commercial payloads, especially in the early years (last was in 2007), but D-II now looks like history since the USAF is no longer wants it.

I don't how many of those commercial payloads were forced to use a US launch provider due to ITAR, but I bet it's > 0.  Some of the earlier commercial payloads were also likely attracted by early adopter discounts.

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

ULA is for US government (NSS and NASA) only.

why not creating a second launch provider with deals with Altas and Delta and without the overhead of a gouvernment provider.

There are: Boeing and Lockheed Martin launch services (see above).

[Downix]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

[Jim]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

And if so, for example because of the contracts needs more paperwork, standing fleet of personal, etc... why not creating a second launch provider with deals with Altas and Delta and without the overhead of a gouvernment provider.

 Atlas and Delta are not airliners.   There is no second "provider". The same company that builds them, integrates and launches them.  There is no separating them.

[Jim]

There are: Boeing and Lockheed Martin launch services (see above).

They are only marketing arms, ULA still does everything else.

[Downix]

ULA may be out of the commercial market, but Boeing and LM are not.  If they were competitive I expect they would have more commercial payloads...

Delta IV had one commercial payload in 2002 (also first Delta IV flight).  Atlas V had several commercial payloads in the early years with the last in 2008.  Delta II also had a number of commercial payloads, especially in the early years (last was in 2007), but D-II now looks like history since the USAF is no longer wants it.

I don't how many of those commercial payloads were forced to use a US launch provider due to ITAR, but I bet it's > 0.  Some of the earlier commercial payloads were also likely attracted by early adopter discounts.

Commercial providers are free to launch on ULA, there just is not enough demand however.  The prices are high due to the lack of demand.  If there were this vast untapped commercial market, ULA would be more than capable of meeting it.  I just highly doubt that there is.

[Robotbeat]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

SpaceX isn't gambling on a vast untapped market for low cost launches. The market they're looking to take IS tapped. By foreign launch providers. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are aimed at that market.

SpaceX is gambling that they'll be able to take a significant amount of that existing market. They're hoping that their is some significant elasticity in the market so that the lower price will attract a lot more customers and grow the global number of launches.

[Downix]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

SpaceX isn't gambling on a vast untapped market for low cost launches. The market they're looking to take IS tapped. By foreign launch providers. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are aimed at that market.

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

SpaceX is gambling that they'll be able to take a significant amount of that existing market. They're hoping that their is some significant elasticity in the market so that the lower price will attract a lot more customers and grow the global number of launches.

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

[apace]

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

As we can count that SpaceX is not stupid and knows this factors, what's the key behind their statements about launch numbers?

[Downix]

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

As we can count that SpaceX is not stupid and knows this factors, what's the key behind their statements about launch numbers?

That's what bothers me.  What bothers me more is that if SpaceX does prove that such a market does exist, they seem to fail and grasp that the current 800 lbs gorillas in the room are not dinosaurs, and can actually increase their production rates to match it, which would mean matching his prices as well.  And they can do it without heavy up front R&D, as that was already paid for years ago.

[apace]

That's what bothers me.  What bothers me more is that if SpaceX does prove that such a market does exist, they seem to fail and grasp that the current 800 lbs gorillas in the room are not dinosaurs, and can actually increase their production rates to match it, which would mean matching his prices as well.  And they can do it without heavy up front R&D, as that was already paid for years ago.

Perhaps SpaceX was founded only to get the big ones moving forward ;-) we will see what the future will show us. I'm not sceptic at all... there's a small chance to do more than in the last 30 years.

[baldusi]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

[Robotbeat]

I'm sure if needed, Arianespace and ULA can go down with their prices.

If ULA could have, they would have...

No, why would you cut prices if there is no market for it?  SpaceX is gambling on there being this vast untapped market for low cost launches.  They are not the first to gamble on this.  If SpaceX proves that there is such a market, ULA can rapidly adapt to match, and even beat, his prices.  If he fails, his company will go out of business due to lack of enough business to support his costs *or* he will be forced to raise his prices to match demand, which will make him as expensive as ULA.

SpaceX isn't gambling on a vast untapped market for low cost launches. The market they're looking to take IS tapped. By foreign launch providers. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are aimed at that market.

Their predicted flight rate would require taking away at least half of Russia's launches which the Falcon 9/Heavy would cover, and all of the US launches.  Do you honestly believe that they will capture that?

SpaceX has claimed they only need to hit a fraction of their "predicted" (better to say hoped-for) launch rate in order to be profitable. Remember, they already get a few launches just with their CRS contract, and if they get commercial crew, they'll have even more. This would put it in the same league with Russian launches, which provide a lot of launches for ISS logistics and thus get a high enough launch rate to be quite competitive commercially.

SpaceX is gambling that they'll be able to take a significant amount of that existing market. They're hoping that their is some significant elasticity in the market so that the lower price will attract a lot more customers and grow the global number of launches.

Ponder it a moment, for that elasticity to exist that means that companies are refusing to build multi-billion dollar payloads due to $50 million extra launch costs.

Not multi-billion dollar payloads in every case (if that were true, there'd definitely be virtually no elasticity in the market). How much did each Iridium satellite cost to build?

In the case of Bigelow, for instance, the idea is that the vast majority of the launches are logistics with a reusable spacecraft, not building billions of dollars of spacecraft every launch. This is the "hoped for" market.

Another thing they're hoping for is that the lack of a low-cost domestic launch vehicle is holding back part of the market who don't like launching on foreign launch vehicles because of export restrictions, etc. We know that Orbital was so concerned with the lack of a good, low-cost domestic launch vehicle (post-Delta II) to launch Orbital-built satellites that they decided to develop their own, though members of Orbital have mentioned publicly on here that they'd be more than happy to launch their spacecraft on SpaceX's launch vehicles and that a successful SpaceX would be great for Orbital.

[joek]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

Not just commercial, but NASA (which hasn't had to contribute to ELC in the past).  NASA estimated that could add $100-150M per flight to their cost.  It depends on what the final DOD-NASA ELC cost sharing agreement looks like; not sure what if any decisions have been made.  Presumably that is only for Atlas V launches as NASA doesn't use Delta IV (although reportedly it is being on-ramped for NLS-II starting this month, so that may change); Delta II is history; and Falcon 9 and Taurus II aren't covered by ELC.

[joek]

They are only marketing arms, ULA still does everything else.

Agree they include marketing and ULA does much of the work, but they are also the contract and management vehicles for commercial rides on Atlas and Delta.

Commercial providers are free to launch on ULA, there just is not enough demand however.

I don't believe anything has changed since the FTC consent order which would allow commercial to contract directly with ULA?

11. Are Boeing Commercial Launch Services, Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services, and ULA in competition with each other?  That is, is it envisioned that a SV Prime can ask all 3 companies to bid on a given launch service and expect 3 independent bids? Does the Consent Order apply to this scenario?

Answer: The three Respondents are not in competition with each other. An SV prime contractor pursuing a Government Contract must work with ULA exclusively and not the parent companies. Commercial efforts must go to Lockheed Martin Commercial Services (LMCS) for Atlas Vs or Boeing Launch Services (BLS) for Delta IVs exclusively. Bids would be based on the same ULA provided pricing information. [emphasis added]

Questions and Answers from ULA Industry Day, ULA, May 2007

Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services (CLS), has the responsibility for all Atlas commercial launch service contracts, and performs marketing, sales and mission management for commercial Atlas missions.

Lockheed Commercial Launch Services - About CLS

[deltaV]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

Thanks. Has the DoD considered restructuring the ELC so that commercial launches pay at most say $50 million towards the ELC share? Would such a change be enough for the EELV to be internationally competitive?

[Downix]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

Thanks. Has the DoD considered restructuring the ELC so that commercial launches pay at most say $50 million towards the ELC share? Would such a change be enough for the EELV to be internationally competitive?

If they could get the flight rate SpaceX is projecting, each launches share of ELC would be $21 million (based on 2009's ELC costs)

[Robotbeat]

The idea that a subsidy (ELC) keeps ULA's prices high is rather unintuitive to me.

That's because for each commercial launch they should reimburse the ELC prorata share. It's more of a guaranteed minimum income than a true subsidy. The problem is that when the gvt launch few crafts, the ELC share of an additional launch is huge and thus is priced outside of the market. Even for the (arguably) most reliable launcher and adding the advantage of using ITAR controlled electronics.

Thanks. Has the DoD considered restructuring the ELC so that commercial launches pay at most say $50 million towards the ELC share? Would such a change be enough for the EELV to be internationally competitive?

If they could get the flight rate SpaceX is projecting, each launches share of ELC would be $21 million (based on 2009's ELC costs)

If they got the flight rate SpaceX is projecting, they wouldn't need the ELC at all, most likely. It's kind of like how if you pay someone unemployment, the amount of work per dollar you get (from that person, not talking about macroeconomic effects) is very low, but if you pay them to work, the amount of work per dollar you get from that person is much higher.

In some ways, you can look at NASA as a more effective form of ELC, in that instead of paying companies directly to just maintain the capability to make spacecraft buses and launch vehicles while not actually building anything, you're paying them to build and launch spacecraft on endeavors that would otherwise not be done.

[edkyle99]

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".

What the heck is "NewSpace"?  If it is what I think it is, how does SpaceX qualify as "NewSpace"? 

SpaceX is primarily a government contractor, working on big NASA contracts now, and originally supported via. DoD contracts.  Its rockets fly, when they fly (on average once per year), from U.S. government owned or leased launch sites.  Etc.  In addition, SpaceX isn't really "new", since it has existed for nearly a decade now - several years longer than United Launch Alliance has existed!

Is Orbital, a decades-old company, "NewSpace"?  I doubt anyone would call ULA "NewSpace" even though ULA is the "newest" U.S. orbital launch services company.

SpaceX, Orbital, ULA.  That covers all of the U.S. orbital launch companies that have actually flown anything in recent years. 

So what's "new"?

 - Ed Kyle

[Danderman]

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".

What the heck is "NewSpace"?  If it is what I think it is, how does SpaceX qualify as "NewSpace"? 

SpaceX is primarily a government contractor, working on big NASA contracts now, and originally supported via. DoD contracts.  Its rockets fly, when they fly (on average once per year), from U.S. government owned or leased launch sites.  Etc.  In addition, SpaceX isn't really "new", since it has existed for nearly a decade now - several years longer than United Launch Alliance has existed!

Is Orbital, a decades-old company, "NewSpace"?  I doubt anyone would call ULA "NewSpace" even though ULA is the "newest" U.S. orbital launch services company.

SpaceX, Orbital, ULA.  That covers all of the U.S. orbital launch companies that have actually flown anything in recent years. 

So what's "new"?

 - Ed Kyle

Maybe you have to be in the belly of the beast to understand the difference. Boeing/Lockheed are OldSpace, but Orbital is what is called a "baby dinosaur".  At times, the aerodinosaurs realize that they are dinosaurs and try to shake it off, that is where the Skunk Works concept comes from.

[John-H]

I have been following this discussion for some time, and my view is somewhat in the middle.

There is a window of opportunity for a Newspace company at the moment. The US government will be spending several billion per year on lift  for conventional launches and shuttle replacement, and it is unlikely to all go to ULA.  However, to enter this market, a company must be American and have three things:

1. a realistic rocket
2. a believable business plan
3. political support.

SpaceX has built up its rocketry experience in the most economical way possible. The Falcon 1 was the simplest, smallest and least adventurous vehicle possible and yet provided valuable experience and exposure. The Falcon 9 is a straightforward upgrade, not even needing a new engine, and yet gets into a useful payload range. Their NASA contract will pay for enough demonstration launches to give them credibility.

The business plan is based on frequent launches, lower prices and an expanding market. This was the plan that raised government support for the EELVs and for the shuttle itself, so even if not everyone believes it, it should at least get them going.

Like it or not, we live in a political world, and a company needs to sell itself. Talking about reusability, Mars bases and an exploding market will always make friends in the space community, and it makes much better press than the inevitable delays and setbacks in the real world. It's also good to frequently bring up "private enterprise" and "the little company that could"

I see a healthy future for SpaceX  even if they just share the government market with ULA. Everything else is gravy.

[edkyle99]

Maybe you have to be in the belly of the beast to understand the difference. Boeing/Lockheed are OldSpace, but Orbital is what is called a "baby dinosaur".  At times, the aerodinosaurs realize that they are dinosaurs and try to shake it off, that is where the Skunk Works concept comes from.

Let's talk about Boeing first.  Boeing was not a primary orbital launch vehicle manufacturer.  It got the S-IC contract.  It was the prime for Lunar Orbiter and Burner II and IUS and others, but its main job was prime for the Minuteman missile.  Boeing was once a great, world-beating company.  Now, watching the 787 fiasco, I'm worried about the future of U.S. nuclear deterrence. 

McDonnell Douglas was the space launch company, but it's gone.  Boeing gobbled it up and spit it out.  It can't be OldSpace if its gone.  A shame too since McDonnell Douglas performed nearly twice as many orbital launches as the second place company.

Lockheed Martin did the same with General Dynamics, the spitting out part.  The Martin Marietta part not so much at first, but whatever was left ended up given to ULA.  A shame about General Dynamics since it was the company in second place to McDonnell Douglas.

The truth is that ULA is fairly new, not just as a corporate entity, but in terms of its buildings and people and products.  Delta IV and Atlas V are still new machines.  They have little in common with the "OldSpace" that came before.  They cost a heck of a lot more for one thing.  That's partly the Martin Marietta Titan legacy at work, since it appears to have been the sole surviving corporate culture.

Here's the deal though.  Back before the gobbling up and spitting out part, OldSpace worked!  It gave us Atlas and Agena and Thor and Titan and Centaur and Saturn.  It gave us astronauts on the Moon, weather and communication and spy satellites frequently launched (more than one thousand four hundred launches), robot explorers cruising the planets, and on and on.  What has "NewSpace" provided by comparison?  Projected launch manifests?  Interesting presentations?  A handful of launches, a few successful?

"NewSpace", all of it combined, has about 600 more launches to perform before it catches up with McDonnell Douglas.

Yes, I have to see it.

 - Ed Kyle

[deltaV]

What has "NewSpace" provided by comparison?  Projected launch manifests?  Interesting presentations?

NewSpace has provided hope that we might be able to afford exploration without an Apollo-sized budget.

[edkyle99]

What has "NewSpace" provided by comparison?  Projected launch manifests?  Interesting presentations?

NewSpace has provided hope that we might be able to afford exploration without an Apollo-sized budget.

There's a lot of talk about "hope" these days.  I'm tired of talk.  Talk has cost us far more than any projected "hoped" for savings, if ever realized, could ever compensate.

The rockets exist, NewSpace or OldSpace or whatever you want to call them.  The spacecraft nearly exist, and soon will.  The immediate destination (ISS the biggest, coolest thing ever built by humans) exists.  The Moon is right there, waiting.  Let's go already! 

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

  That's partly the Martin Marietta Titan legacy at work, since it appears to have been the sole surviving corporate culture.

Actually, it is mostly the GD culture that survived.

[edkyle99]

  That's partly the Martin Marietta Titan legacy at work, since it appears to have been the sole surviving corporate culture.

Actually, it is mostly the GD culture that survived.

I would have thought ex-Martin would have the biggest role, operationally, because the Pentagon is the primary customer and Martin Marietta was regarded at being the best at serving the Pentagon customer.  Also ULA HQ is still near Denver, etc.

Yes, the rocket is named Atlas and it has a Centaur stage, the hardware has a GD ring to it, but we know what the "V" in "Atlas V" really means!

 - Ed Kyle

[peter-b]

This is getting a bit off-topic, guys. ;-)

Thanks to everyone who's responded constructively so far!

To those who object to the term "NewSpace": I do too, hence the use of quotation marks.