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

[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...