( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
No, it won't. Still too much of the OEM to be involved. Even though NASA had Lockheed (then USA) "operate" the shuttle, Rockwell (Boeing) still did a lot of work and was paid a lot of money.
( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
No, it won't. Still too much of the OEM to be involved. Even though NASA had Lockheed (then USA) "operate" the shuttle, Rockwell (Boeing) still did a lot of work and was paid a lot of money.
Claiming knowledge of the entire future is a rather bold statement!
I think you read my whole comment, so you know I agree that at present, this is the case. I don't think Starliner or Dragon or any other capsule for that matter will ever be sold to an operating company. And correct me if I'm wrong but NASA still owned the orbiters. They didn't sell them to USA.
We can build on both the successes and failures of others.
The fact the shuttle failed to be a commercial success using the operating company model means that others can see what worked and what didn't.
IF people can learn from the failed endeavours of others, it makes future enterprises more likely to succeed.
(Sorry for the pun, I couldn't help myself!)
( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
No, it won't. Still too much of the OEM to be involved. Even though NASA had Lockheed (then USA) "operate" the shuttle, Rockwell (Boeing) still did a lot of work and was paid a lot of money.
This doesn't affect the overall accuracy of your statement, but USA was not just Lockheed, but a 50:50 joint venture of Rockwell and Lockheed (later 50:50 Boeing:Lockheed after the Boeing acquisition of Rockwell). Rockwell's half of USA was the former RSOC/Houston, which was distinct from RI/Downey that had the shuttle sustaining contract.
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
The real question with Vulcan is the timeline. With the first launch not scheduled before 2022, and the next two being Dream Chaser, that puts a first potential Vulcan flight for Starliner into 2023 at the absolute earliest even with no further Starliner delays and Boeing having the resources to do the modifications in parallel with the existing program.
You might just as well ask the same question for Fireball XL5.
This doesn't affect the overall accuracy of your statement, but USA was not just Lockheed, but a 50:50 joint venture of Rockwell and Lockheed (later 50:50 Boeing:Lockheed after the Boeing acquisition of Rockwell). Rockwell's half of USA was the former RSOC/Houston, which was distinct from RI/Downey that had the shuttle sustaining contract.
I was referring to LSOC. The rocket launching part. Most of what RSOC did would not be applicable to that.
The fact the shuttle failed to be a commercial success using the operating company model means that others can see what worked and what didn't.
That has nothing to do with my point. The shuttle failed commercially long before the operating company model was employed. The point is that space launch is too complex for the OEM not to be involved in daily operations.
The fact the shuttle failed to be a commercial success using the operating company model means that others can see what worked and what didn't.
That has nothing to do with my point. The shuttle failed commercially long before the operating company model was employed. The point is that space launch is too complex for the OEM not to be involved in daily operations.
I disagree. Ballistic missiles and satelite launch vehicles are of comparable complexity, and the former are not operated by their respective OEM on a daily basis.
(And since it's been awhile since this was discussed, I'll remind the audience that my position is not that starliner will be operated by a third party, simply that in the future reusable spacecraft very well could be)
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
I disagree. Ballistic missiles and satelite launch vehicles are of comparable complexity, and the former are not operated by their respective OEM on a daily basis.
wrong. Weapon systems don't count. They can take lower reliability (70%) and most are solid propellant. Anyways, the OEMs built them up and placed them in the silos and designed the trajectories.
I disagree. Ballistic missiles and satelite launch vehicles are of comparable complexity, and the former are not operated by their respective OEM on a daily basis.
wrong. Weapon systems don't count. They can take lower reliability (70%) and most are solid propellant. Anyways, the OEMs built them up and placed them in the silos and designed the trajectories.
Actually, I think that your points about the role of the OEM in relation to ICBMs is a perfect example of the relationship that future vehicle operators and OEMs will have.
Future OEMs will manufacture, perform initial system verification, construct GSE, and train operators. I think they may even provide operators a catalog of GNC trajectories.
-----
I appreciate the valuable contributions you make to this community but the anthills you defend are beyond my comprehension.
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Def: comparable: Logical to compare. Does not mean identical or equal. Otherwise stated more alike than not alike in a given context. Although any two objects may be compared, comparable implies that the insight of the comparison exercise is valuable to an overarching objective or discussion.
If you wish to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to oblige the discussion on another thread.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
This is a technical site, not a sophism charades site. Please study how a solid ICBM is used by the military, and how prepared by the contractor, and then see how is crewed launch. You will find the answer yourself.
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
This is a technical site, not a sophism charades site. Please study how a solid ICBM is used by the military, and how prepared by the contractor, and then see how is crewed launch. You will find the answer yourself.
A technical discussion is exactly what I offered, in the appropriate thread.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
Statements from a former Air Force officer, now NASA engineer whose whole career has involved rockets and their payloads is somewhat more than "anecdotal evidence of little consequence".
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge compared to something that needs to survive ready to launch for a few days. A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff. A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge compared to something that needs to survive ready to launch for a few days. A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff. A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
All those potential ICBM issues were resolved decades ago.
Back to the topic of the thread?
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
The real question with Vulcan is the timeline. With the first launch not scheduled before 2022, and the next two being Dream Chaser, that puts a first potential Vulcan flight for Starliner into 2023 at the absolute earliest even with no further Starliner delays and Boeing having the resources to do the modifications in parallel with the existing program.
Human rating Vulcan is not a (unsolvable)
technical issue.
It's a
financial issue.
ULA is waiting for a customer to pay for it.
It represents a substantial "barrier to entry" for commercial (non-NASA, non-ISS) Starliner flights.
(Anyone have a basis with which to estimate to how much it would cost?)
Who is going to pay for it before the first flight?
It really looks like an insurmountable barrier for Starliner.
Unless Sierra Space needs it for a crew capable Dream Chaser.
In which case Starliner would have two competitors.
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge compared to something that needs to survive ready to launch for a few days. A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff. A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
All those potential ICBM issues were resolved decades ago.
I don't understand your point. It doesn't reduce the amount of investment of time and engineering in the rocket. The technology may be older but the problem was very difficult to solve. These vehicles are designed to withstand EMP pulses from hydrogen bombs exploding in the atmosphere, they can withstand intense vibrations from a nuclear attack and launch within a few minutes afterward. Even the ground support equipment has to be extremely robust and yet useable my military personnel. People who doubt the sophistication of ICBMs are making a mistake.
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
Human rating Vulcan is not a (unsolvable) technical issue.
It's a financial issue.
ULA is waiting for a customer to pay for it.
It represents a substantial "barrier to entry" for commercial (non-NASA, non-ISS) Starliner flights.
(Anyone have a basis with which to estimate to how much it would cost?)
Who is going to pay for it before the first flight?
It really looks like an insurmountable barrier for Starliner.
Unless Sierra Space needs it for a crew capable Dream Chaser.
In which case Starliner would have two competitors.
This
Boeing has said, as recently as yesterday in relation to Starliner that they
intend to complete their contractual obligations to NASA. They already have the Atlas-V launchers needed for this, but there are no other Atlas-V rides available. Boeing has made no statements that I'm aware of that indicate that they're even considering launches of Starliner outside of this Commercial Crew contract.
Starliner appears to be already an expensive vehicle relative to Crew Dragon, and adding in the cost of Vulcan crew qualification would only make this worse.
