World rocket glut? Cut rocket models to save money?

[Robotbeat]

Indeed. Much safer that way.

[beancounter]

They'll have to do more than 12 next year to catch up on their backlog.

[Jim]

The US military is known for wasting money.

Not a relevant point for this thread

[Robotbeat]

They'll have to do more than 12 next year to catch up on their backlog.

They certainly won't do that.

I expect maybe 5. 6 would be awesome.

[Darren_Hensley]

Quant...

While I agree with Jim that the world does need a measure of redundancy making launcher types.

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

However, countries and cultures run the world, not perfect science. The standard will always be "well, oh yea, I've got one too! nanny nanny boo boo!"

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.
2. No more than 10 purposes should exist. Making 20 types of rockets the most there would ever be.
3. Any country can build or buy an existing rocket type. Mass production encouraged.
4. We don't build a rocket just to see if we can.(technology advancement of 3rd world countries included)
5. ICBMs, along with NBC warheads are unilateraly banned.
6. Science & exploration and comercial use payloads will be the only reasons to build a rocket.
7. No one country will be denied access to a rocket to be used for science, exploration or commercial use
8. We all watch each other like hawks, to maintain control and peacful use of rockets.
9. A rocket and or payload shall not be launched when shareing existing resources is possible(sell extra capabilities or unused capacity, eliminate over redundancy)
10. Orbital debris will be agressivly avoided or eliminated altogether
11. Reuse/recover/return of rocket components will be high priority
12. Payloads shall be recovered/deorbited/eliminated upon End-Of-Life, no loitering beyond 90 days.
13. Consolidation of payloads to one rocket will be considered and encouraged
14. All debris will be policed up by the launching country within 90 days of creation. Existing debris will be policed up NOW!
15. If a rocket type becomes old or obsolete, It will be retired. It can be replaced by a newer make and model if needed.

Peacful Purposes:
1. Manned Exploration
2. Command & Control of payloads
3. Commercial Profit Venture
4. Unmanned Exploration
5. Scientific Experimentation/Proof of theory/Discovery
6. Observation
7. Manufacturing
8. Colonization(preservation/perpetuation of humanity)
9. World defense against natural objects or alien beings (Extinction Level Events)
10. Logistical support of all other missions

You might say that this line of thinking would reduce or eliminate the "Glut" of rocketry brought on mostly by a military posture. But that's the purist in me talking.

[Jim]

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

Why not?  Why should launch vehicles be any different than trains, planes and automobiles?  The marketplace and national needs determine what gets produced.  How many fighter planes do the same thing?  Tanks?  Cargo ships?  Airliners?

Your list is just nonsense.  There shouldn't be anymore restrictions on launch vehicles than on other modes of transportation.   We got to stop with the space cadet type of thinking. Just because it is space related doesn't mean it is any more special.  ICBM's will not be eliminated.  Deal with it.

[Lars_J]

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.

Should there only be two car for sale of every size, to give everyone the illusion of choice? No, that doesn't benefit anyone - and sounds more like Soviet era planning.

The market will eventually hash things out and eliminate the non-competitive alternatives. New ones will rise in their places.

[QuantumG]

What market?

Launch vehicles are made for launching a lot more reasons than just servicing the commercial satellite industry.

[Lars_J]

What market?

Launch vehicles are made for launching a lot more reasons than just servicing the commercial satellite industry.

I'm not sure who you are responding to (quote button to hard to find?) - but it if it me, the market is of course the commercial market. Government purchasing will always be dictated by different rules - but that is no different than how gov't purchasing of cars and aircraft are different from commercial or individual purchasing. Or did you have another point?

[QuantumG]

The market will eventually hash things out and eliminate the non-competitive alternatives. New ones will rise in their places.

This won't happen because the market forces are not dominate.. launch vehicles are built for other reasons.

[gospacex]

They'll have to do more than 12 next year to catch up on their backlog.

Isn't is wonderful to have problems of *this* sort ("too many customers")? 

[quanthasaquality]

5. ICBMs, along with NBC warheads are unilateraly banned.

You might say that this line of thinking would reduce or eliminate the "Glut" of rocketry brought on mostly by a military posture. But that's the purist in me talking.

You sound like an idealist.

The US military is known for wasting money.

Not a relevant point for this thread

If the US military is not interested in saving money, why would it bother trying to save money on launch vehicles? Congress might have changed the military's mind with planned future budget cuts.


If I had my way, the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Antares would be eventually cancelled. The United States would then have Mitsubishi build a factory in the United States to build the H-2A/B. Critical parts would be built in Japan, and stockpiled in the United States. Japan would perform upgrades, like man rating, of the rocket design. Production of many parts could also be stopped, including the RS-68A, and the RL-10. Development of Atlas V, and Delta IV software could cease. Launch pads would be closed. All the better to focus on the J-2X, RS-25E, and maybe F-1B.

[savuporo]

If everything would be defined and driven by "world glut" then the sequence of Falcon I appearing and disappearing, Vega and Epsilon coming online shortly after would be really, really hard to explain.

[Jim]

If I had my way, the Delta IV, Atlas V, and Antares would be eventually cancelled. The United States would then have Mitsubishi build a factory in the United States to build the H-2A/B. Critical parts would be built in Japan, and stockpiled in the United States. Japan would perform upgrades, like man rating, of the rocket design. Production of many parts could also be stopped, including the RS-68A, and the RL-10. Development of Atlas V, and Delta IV software could cease. Launch pads would be closed. All the better to focus on the J-2X, RS-25E, and maybe F-1B.

That is completely nonsensical and not based on any relevant intelligent thought.   You forgot to include Falcon 9.

[Robotbeat]

Quant...

While I agree with Jim that the world does need a measure of redundancy making launcher types.

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

However, countries and cultures run the world, not perfect science. The standard will always be "well, oh yea, I've got one too! nanny nanny boo boo!"

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.
2. No more than 10 purposes should exist. Making 20 types of rockets the most there would ever be.
3. Any country can build or buy an existing rocket type. Mass production encouraged.
4. We don't build a rocket just to see if we can.(technology advancement of 3rd world countries included)
5. ICBMs, along with NBC warheads are unilateraly banned.
6. Science & exploration and comercial use payloads will be the only reasons to build a rocket.
7. No one country will be denied access to a rocket to be used for science, exploration or commercial use
8. We all watch each other like hawks, to maintain control and peacful use of rockets.
9. A rocket and or payload shall not be launched when shareing existing resources is possible(sell extra capabilities or unused capacity, eliminate over redundancy)
10. Orbital debris will be agressivly avoided or eliminated altogether
11. Reuse/recover/return of rocket components will be high priority
12. Payloads shall be recovered/deorbited/eliminated upon End-Of-Life, no loitering beyond 90 days.
13. Consolidation of payloads to one rocket will be considered and encouraged
14. All debris will be policed up by the launching country within 90 days of creation. Existing debris will be policed up NOW!
15. If a rocket type becomes old or obsolete, It will be retired. It can be replaced by a newer make and model if needed.

Peacful Purposes:
1. Manned Exploration
2. Command & Control of payloads
3. Commercial Profit Venture
4. Unmanned Exploration
5. Scientific Experimentation/Proof of theory/Discovery
6. Observation
7. Manufacturing
8. Colonization(preservation/perpetuation of humanity)
9. World defense against natural objects or alien beings (Extinction Level Events)
10. Logistical support of all other missions

You might say that this line of thinking would reduce or eliminate the "Glut" of rocketry brought on mostly by a military posture. But that's the purist in me talking.

But you also can't have free market competition with just two rockets for every class. Duopoly--especially worldwide--breeds stagnation.

And besides, probably a good 50% of the launch demand is military in nature.

[Darren_Hensley]

But you also can't have free market competition with just two rockets for every class. Duopoly--especially worldwide--breeds stagnation.

And besides, probably a good 50% of the launch demand is military in nature.

You don't realy need competition if IF!!!! improvments are made for a number of reasons, like payload capacity increases, tech advancement, streamlining, consolidation and so on...

It's like this. Einstien had a selection of suits in his closet, one for every day of the week. They were all black, same size, make and model. He waseted no time getting dressed in the morning, and moved on to more important things.

Or you could order any color Model A ford you wanted, as long as it was black.

My point is why be presented with too many decision points in the LV process. Find one that will lift your object, buy it, launch it!. Move on to other things like what your payload can do, and how much does it weigh, what orbit do you need and so on... If everything is man rated all the better. It would mean more reliability, and redundancy, and safety were already built in.

Two competing LVs, who cares, maybe it's the launch sites and mission controls that need to compete?

Just thinking out of the box here...

[Darren_Hensley]

I'd like to see the standards as follows:

1. A purpose for every rocket, and not more than two types of rockets for every purpose.

Should there only be two car for sale of every size, to give everyone the illusion of choice? No, that doesn't benefit anyone - and sounds more like Soviet era planning.

Yep, given a choice, no matter how limited, humans still feel the same level of satisfaction as long as they have the freedom to choose.

Given the choice between two poor products, well that opens up a bad can of worms.
I'm no socialist, or soviet, and I do like my freedom, it's just seems like a lot of hoopla over a few features, that if built-in and "standard" would not require any effort of thought. Automation is a good thing in alot of products.

I hate going to a car dealer, asking for electric door locks and windows, and being told, those are not standard features, they cost extra, and we need to special order them, or upgrade your requirements. It's just BS, smoke and mirrors.

If every model (LV or Car) came standard with all the bells and whistles, but not fancy eye candy, then making an informed decision gets very easy, and you can concentrate on your payload (Sattelite, space station, passengers, cargo, what ever) 10 weight classes, defined broadly, would help narrow your choice base.

[Darren_Hensley]

I agree with you to the point that the world should act as one agency. In that we don't need multiple rockets in multiple countries making the same size payload go up. It's just stupid.

Why not?  Why should launch vehicles be any different than trains, planes and automobiles?  The marketplace and national needs determine what gets produced.  How many fighter planes do the same thing?  Tanks?  Cargo ships?  Airliners?

Your list is just nonsense.  There shouldn't be anymore restrictions on launch vehicles than on other modes of transportation.   We got to stop with the space cadet type of thinking. Just because it is space related doesn't mean it is any more special.  ICBM's will not be eliminated.  Deal with it.

Jim I'm a realist, with vision, and common sense. It's just an opinion, with thought behind it. Just because everyone does not think like you, doesn't make those thoughts any less sensable, or devalued.

The marketplace is fickle, National needs to seek solutions on a global level if "WE the world" would just sell these types of things to each other. The marketplace doesn't know what it wants.

I know ICBMs and warheads will never be eliminated. I'm a 20 year USAF vet of two wars. I don't just "Deal with it" I live with it, everyday, and I gave you and everyone else in the US the right to debate it. (but in another thread)

Basically above, I'm just saying what the title of the thread says, "Lets trim the fat" building redundant new types of LVs just for the sake of it, is not practical on any level, especially when we have a such a large variety to choose from already.

I'm sure you don't run out and buy a new car, plane, tank, or train every year, just because it's newer? THere has to be a significant improvement, or age factor involved when I buy a new car. I certainly don't throw away my car after I drive it once. I'm all for building reusable LV's. But we don't need so many models that do basically the same thing, herf a payload into space.

[Jim]

Jim I'm a realist, with vision, and common sense.

The list says otherwise

[Jim]

I know ICBMs and warheads will never be eliminated. I'm a 20 year USAF vet of two wars. I don't just "Deal with it" I live with it, everyday, and I gave you and everyone else in the US the right to debate it.

You did me no favors.  I don't know what has happened in the last 20 years, we had more grounded people back when I served (especially in national security space) and they didn't talk nonsense.