Mods, can you clean out this drek, so we can try and have this thread in the ULA section be about ULA?
Well, not matter what anyone says. SpaceX has proven the reuse case. Rocketlab is following, along with the Electron and Neutron rockets. ULA can't until it's parent companies Boeing and Lockheed decide to come off of some money to develop a reusable launch vehicle.
It is difficult for a publicly traded company like Boeing to justify large long term investments if the payback is several years away,...
...especially if it is a new concept that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
The thread is in the ULA section because it was started by George Sower’s spreadsheet looking at the reuse business case.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 02:09 pmIt is difficult for a publicly traded company like Boeing to justify large long term investments if the payback is several years away,...You mean, like building a commercial airliner?Quote...especially if it is a new concept that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.You mean, like building a commercial airliner out of carbon fiber or with large, folding wingtips?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/28/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 02:09 pmIt is difficult for a publicly traded company like Boeing to justify large long term investments if the payback is several years away,...You mean, like building a commercial airliner?Quote...especially if it is a new concept that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.You mean, like building a commercial airliner out of carbon fiber or with large, folding wingtips?In spite of Boeing’s PR about how amazing composites are (Shuttle used it extensively, it was designed half a century ago… payload bay doors were carbon fiber, so was the leading edge, composite struts, etc, etc…), those are minor and incremental compared to reusable vs expendable rockets.A bigger analogue would be fully electric aircraft or supersonic aircraft or VTOL commercial aircraft. Which the duopoly are nowhere near doing.The low expectations that you have for what counts as significant innovation in passenger air travel is actually kind of revealing for the state of the industry.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 03:20 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/28/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 02:09 pmIt is difficult for a publicly traded company like Boeing to justify large long term investments if the payback is several years away,...You mean, like building a commercial airliner?Quote...especially if it is a new concept that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.You mean, like building a commercial airliner out of carbon fiber or with large, folding wingtips?In spite of Boeing’s PR about how amazing composites are (Shuttle used it extensively, it was designed half a century ago… payload bay doors were carbon fiber, so was the leading edge, composite struts, etc, etc…), those are minor and incremental compared to reusable vs expendable rockets.A bigger analogue would be fully electric aircraft or supersonic aircraft or VTOL commercial aircraft. Which the duopoly are nowhere near doing.The low expectations that you have for what counts as significant innovation in passenger air travel is actually kind of revealing for the state of the industry.I thought you were talking about "long term investments" and things that haven't "been demonstrated yet", not "significant innovation".
Quote from: Lee Jay on 07/28/2022 03:30 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 03:20 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 07/28/2022 02:16 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 02:09 pmIt is difficult for a publicly traded company like Boeing to justify large long term investments if the payback is several years away,...You mean, like building a commercial airliner?Quote...especially if it is a new concept that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.You mean, like building a commercial airliner out of carbon fiber or with large, folding wingtips?In spite of Boeing’s PR about how amazing composites are (Shuttle used it extensively, it was designed half a century ago… payload bay doors were carbon fiber, so was the leading edge, composite struts, etc, etc…), those are minor and incremental compared to reusable vs expendable rockets.A bigger analogue would be fully electric aircraft or supersonic aircraft or VTOL commercial aircraft. Which the duopoly are nowhere near doing.The low expectations that you have for what counts as significant innovation in passenger air travel is actually kind of revealing for the state of the industry.I thought you were talking about "long term investments" and things that haven't "been demonstrated yet", not "significant innovation".Folding wings and composites have been in fairly widespread use in aviation for half a century and demonstrated earlier. And I said difficult, not impossible. The incrementality of your attempted counterexamples illustrates my point nicely.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/28/2022 01:44 pmMods, can you clean out this drek, so we can try and have this thread in the ULA section be about ULA?The “drek” is pushback because of you calling one side of the argument of the very premise of the thread the “height of stupidity.”The thread is in the ULA section because it was started by George Sower’s spreadsheet looking at the reuse business case.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 01:55 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/28/2022 01:44 pmMods, can you clean out this drek, so we can try and have this thread in the ULA section be about ULA?The “drek” is pushback because of you calling one side of the argument of the very premise of the thread the “height of stupidity.”The thread is in the ULA section because it was started by George Sower’s spreadsheet looking at the reuse business case.The idea that a company needs to hit the 1000 reuse mark is what makes this drek. It has no basis in current reality.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/28/2022 06:26 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/28/2022 01:55 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/28/2022 01:44 pmMods, can you clean out this drek, so we can try and have this thread in the ULA section be about ULA?The “drek” is pushback because of you calling one side of the argument of the very premise of the thread the “height of stupidity.”The thread is in the ULA section because it was started by George Sower’s spreadsheet looking at the reuse business case.The idea that a company needs to hit the 1000 reuse mark is what makes this drek. It has no basis in current reality. I'm really turned off that reasonable discussion is called out to the admins as "drek" requested for cleaning. It's quite unfriendly and it puts a damper on discussions. Consider sharing your opinion and letting others have theirs.
Why did no one else do it? ULA’s freedom of action is constrained due to their corporate parents, Boeing in particular.It is difficult for a publicly traded company like Boeing to justify large long term investments if the payback is several years away, especially if it is a new concept that hasn’t been demonstrated yet.It took years, hundreds of millions (at least),and a bunch of spectacular explosions for SpaceX to bring reuse to workhorse status. It’s not TERRIBLY a surprising that no one else had already done so, although as you say, it’s not magic and could’ve been done 50 years ago.Traditional publicly traded defense contractors are very constrained. It takes some vision and ability to put up a lot of money without second guessing by everyone’s cousin on the public market.
The idea that a company needs to hit the 1000 reuse mark is what makes this drek. It has no basis in current reality.