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

[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.