Next steps in commercial space flight

[Space Ghost 1962]

This topic is about the OP - towit:

Every once in a while, something significant happens. And while it may be recognized for being so, only through the passage of time is it revealed to what extent it changed....well, everything.

Of course, I'm referring to the SpaceX announcement of Red Dragon in 2018. However what intrigues me the most is, "What happens next?" Not with regards to mission planning but from a more general science, culture, business, politics and even international relations perspective.

The context: For the first time in history a privately owned and operated company has the will and the means to land a sizable spacecraft on another celestial body. Plans and capabilities untethered to the mood of the country, or that of its' President and elected Representatives. What are the implications of such an endeavor and those that follow, not being within the purview of Congressional control through funding and direct oversight? What new rules of engagement will manifest? New lines will be drawn, new alliances forged, old power structures defended yet inevitably breached. Or not?

For instance, how far will members of Congress, their largest current benefactors, and yes, some NASA employees go in maneuvering to counter this changing landscape? How far can they go? This outlier from Rep. Lamborn questioning how Musk finances his companies may be an overreach, but it won't be the last. What about the legions of Commercial and Government SpaceFlight Think-Tanks, Groups, Lobbyists? And how will other major Space Agencies from around the world view, respond to this?  How will this impact other spaceflight/craft/launch companies? How will they respond? Will they need to?

We here at NSF are an informed lot and I believe we share some responsibility to help inform others and when possible, direct the conversation in a meaningful and thoughtful way. So please keep things civil and help me and many others wrap our heads around, "What happens next?"

Red Dragon - deriving a lander from a HSF vehicle - Dragon - already in production. That's where HSF comes from. It's implicit in the thread. And that's what the post you're so upset about came from.

My claim is still valid, even if you can't understand it. Again, NASA is not pursuing PICA for HSF vehicles.

NASA is pursuing TPS materials. PICA is one, and there are derivatives of it. We haven't even begun to talk about some of the other developments in TPS either - because this isn't the place for such, as in the OP.

I can go twenty rounds. But it's rather boring to read. Feel free to interpret my words however you chose, that's your issue. Have already told you the meaning I meant by them.

Nor will I detour this thread further splitting hairs.

[Lar]

Tend to agree with the Ghost that going too far down the "did NASA fund this, how much" rathole is off topic. Doesn't really matter how we got to where we are except as it informs what happens next (the thread title). The OP (and some of the rest of us) see this announcement (and more importantly, the actual achievement, once it happens, if it happens) as signifying a phase change in how things can be done, in a very positive direction.

If you disagree, argue why not, but don't trot out the "SpaceX doesn't get the credit" stuff, because that's not the point.

[sanman]

Hmm, so that's something interesting that I'd never considered before in regards to SpaceX and Red Dragon. NASA is not a monolithic entity, and there are different centers and different mission groups in contention with each other for funding and support to gain approval for their missions to go ahead.

So SpaceX comes along and can now tilt the balance on that playing field. Does your NASA center or mission have a "SpaceX strategy"? If you don't, you might fall behind in the contest, and get shut out.

Will all NASA centers and mission groups now each be trying to come up with a "SpaceX angle" to make their stuff happen? Could re-writing your mission proposal to take advantage of SpaceX capabilities now be the key to jumping ahead in the queue, or even holding your place in line?

Will more and more NASA development be done in connection with interoperating with SpaceX hardware?

It seems to me that the emergence of SpaceX capabilities on the scene is a great benefit to NASA program managers, because SpaceX is offering the opportunity of more-bang-for-buck, and the chance for them to fly when it might otherwise be denied.

It is not just SpaceX that requires a new strategy but the entire commercial crew and cargo industry. Not only does SpaceX have rivals but new companies selling new goods and services are being created. The centre can now buy things that previously it would have had to spend time developing itself.

The other strategy changer is tiny satellites like cubesats. Instead of having to procure a $70 million launch vehicle, which requires Congressional approval, the entire project can be built and launched for a couple of million dollars. 'Small' projects can be approved by NASA's Administrator. (He can negotiate a general budget with Congress.)

But it will be harder for NASA people to adapt themselves to any old system from the broader New Space provider  pool, as contrasted with building familiarity with particular vendors like SpaceX and preferentially using their stuff.

As someone in IT, it's pretty common to see situations where managers will keep going back to the vendors and platforms they have the most experience with, rather than just trying any old new thing. You go with who/what you know - especially if you're job's on the line if it doesn't work out.

I've seen plenty of discussion on this forum where people will mention the heritage of a particular platform, which informs its reliability, and how new development is usually done off some previous heritage platform. So the same thing would likely be the case with NASA making use of 3rd-party hardware from New Space vendors.

If you've already used SpaceX hardware in doing your past 5 science missions, who're you going to go with for #6 - some new untried vendor, or SpaceX which has worked for you in the past?

That's where these other guys like Orbital ATK, etc better develop some specialty niches for their offerings, if they can't compete with SpaceX head-on on most mission types. Otherwise, SpaceX will clean up and sweep the field.

[Lar]

As someone in IT, it's pretty common to see situations where managers will keep going back to the vendors and platforms they have the most experience with, rather than just trying any old new thing. You go with who/what you know - especially if you're job's on the line if it doesn't work out.

Yes. Old saying in IT... "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" ... not as true as it used to be, we compete on merit like everyone else these days, but it's definitely something that people do, sticking with the safe supplier.

[A_M_Swallow]

But it will be harder for NASA people to adapt themselves to any old system from the broader New Space provider  pool, as contrasted with building familiarity with particular vendors like SpaceX and preferentially using their stuff.

As someone in IT, it's pretty common to see situations where managers will keep going back to the vendors and platforms they have the most experience with, rather than just trying any old new thing. You go with who/what you know - especially if you're job's on the line if it doesn't work out.

I've seen plenty of discussion on this forum where people will mention the heritage of a particular platform, which informs its reliability, and how new development is usually done off some previous heritage platform. So the same thing would likely be the case with NASA making use of 3rd-party hardware from New Space vendors.

If you've already used SpaceX hardware in doing your past 5 science missions, who're you going to go with for #6 - some new untried vendor, or SpaceX which has worked for you in the past?

That's where these other guys like Orbital ATK, etc better develop some specialty niches for their offerings, if they can't compete with SpaceX head-on on most mission types. Otherwise, SpaceX will clean up and sweep the field.

With cubesats it is more like new vendor or no mission. A manager/researcher may get a $2 million budget but not a $70 million one.

[sanman]

Yes. Old saying in IT... "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" ... not as true as it used to be, we compete on merit like everyone else these days, but it's definitely something that people do, sticking with the safe supplier.

Yeah, that's exactly the old saying I was thinking of - and like SpaceX , IBM were pioneers in the computer industry, and were known for their deep thinking and farsightedness (they still are), while employing the best and brightest.

But one can also imagine engine-makers like Blue Origin or Aerojet-Rocketdyne becoming similar to chipmakers like Intel or Motorola or DEC, since engines are the key component of rockets, just as processors are for computers.

I don't know if the engine-supply deal between Blue and ULA was an exclusive one - otherwise what's to prevent some other intrepid rocket-builder from approaching Bezos to acquire BlueEngines to base their own rocket on? After all, isn't Orbital Sciences in need of a good engine following their unfortunate mishap? Once Bezos has his own orbital launch vehicle, his relationship with ULA may change. I see that everyone says he'd become their competitor, but suppose he began selling BlueEngines to a wider set of customers?

At the very least, since Aerojet-Rocketdyne is more of a dedicated engine-maker than a launch company (OEM?), perhaps their future engine would be up for grabs if ULA isn't going to make use of it.

It's too bad that there aren't more deep-pocketed internet billionaires out there interested in becoming rocket engine-makers primarily, since engines are the key building blocks, just like computer processors. If you focused all your efforts purely on building better rocket engines, maybe the (New Space) world would beat a path to your door.

[Lar]

Interesting. Are rocket engines more like
- chips (which are mostly all fabbed now, IBM has shed chip fab for low end devices, and hardly anyone else was that vertically integrated ever)
- like jet aircraft engines (neither Boeing and Airbus make their own engines and neither has for a very long time, Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce and GE have the market, and buyers specify which engines they want)
-  automobile engines/locomotive engines (almost every manufacturer of automobiles makes their own engines, ditto railway locos, but there is SOME ferment, in that you can get a GE loco reengined with a CAT diesel if you wanted to, and in that some car makers have joint projects with others for engines, or sell them)

Or none of those? Currently rocket engines are not like LEGO elements at all, it takes massive engineering to change a vehicle's engines, to the point that it's a new vehicle.

[A_M_Swallow]

We are getting near the point at which payloads can be switched between different makes of launch vehicles. For instance the ISS can launch cubesats and it is not a launch vehicle.

The Vulcan upper stage can be Centaur or ACES - which have different engines (and propellant systems).

[abaddon]

It's too bad that there aren't more deep-pocketed internet billionaires out there interested in becoming rocket engine-makers primarily, since engines are the key building blocks, just like computer processors. If you focused all your efforts purely on building better rocket engines, maybe the (New Space) world would beat a path to your door.

The last thing we need is more rocket engines built for rockets that don't (or won't) exist.  Because chances are you'll end up with a fun technology demonstrator that goes nowhere but to storage.

Anyway it seems like there are plenty of new rocket engines being built using new fuels and processes and scales.  Aren't we covered there already?

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

It's too bad that there aren't more deep-pocketed internet billionaires out there interested in becoming rocket engine-makers primarily, since engines are the key building blocks, just like computer processors. If you focused all your efforts purely on building better rocket engines, maybe the (New Space) world would beat a path to your door.

The last thing we need is more rocket engines built for rockets that don't (or won't) exist.  Because chances are you'll end up with a fun technology demonstrator that goes nowhere but to storage.

Anyway it seems like there are plenty of new rocket engines being built using new fuels and processes and scales.  Aren't we covered there already?

Agreed. As a general rule, the existence of rockets, trumps the existence of a surplus of engines. The two need to be roughly equivalent to each other, or, at the very least, you manufacture an engine with the expectation that it might end up mated to an LV. Even tech demonstrators need some scent of an evolutionary of path to practical use.

After all, a rocket without a rocket is a rocket to nowhere. As for LVs, you have people like Jim who would argue that the market is oversaturated for LVs already, and people like the guys running Electron or Blue who believe the world will have a niche for more LVs. As to who is right - it's probably somewhere in the middle. One thing's for sure though, not every engine in development right now is necessarily going to fly (*cough* AR1 *cough cough*).

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

If we are going to go back to COTS, why not go farther and talk about the development of PICA. Most of the money for space development, including Dragon, has come from government funding. I think the numbers for private space investment is clearing 1 or 2 billion plus per annum but that is a recent phenomenon. Those recent numbers dwarf previous years and it is still dwarfed by government investment.

And?

This has no impact on this statement: "...you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false."

I'm not a Randian libertarian. Elon Musk didn't invent rocketry. But SpaceX is most certainly paying for Red Dragon.

[savuporo]

Tend to agree with the Ghost that going too far down the "did NASA fund this, how much" rathole is off topic.

I understand off topic and the downsides of threads getting sidetracked. However, the question i have is: how much of an echo chamber do you want around here ? Like in this instance, correcting an obviously false narrative with actual sourced historical background and facts is .. to be avoided ?

[wannamoonbase]

Agreed. As a general rule, the existence of rockets, trumps the existence of a surplus of engines. The two need to be roughly equivalent to each other, or, at the very least, you manufacture an engine with the expectation that it might end up mated to an LV. Even tech demonstrators need some scent of an evolutionary of path to practical use.

After all, a rocket without a rocket is a rocket to nowhere. As for LVs, you have people like Jim who would argue that the market is oversaturated for LVs already, and people like the guys running Electron or Blue who believe the world will have a niche for more LVs. As to who is right - it's probably somewhere in the middle. One thing's for sure though, not every engine in development right now is necessarily going to fly (*cough* AR1 *cough cough*).

I agree that it seems that the AR1 has an uphill climb.  But my initial gut feel when ULA announced they were looking at the BE-4 was that they were using that as a bait and switch for leverage with DOD and Aerojet.

[Robotbeat]

Agreed. As a general rule, the existence of rockets, trumps the existence of a surplus of engines. The two need to be roughly equivalent to each other, or, at the very least, you manufacture an engine with the expectation that it might end up mated to an LV. Even tech demonstrators need some scent of an evolutionary of path to practical use.

After all, a rocket without a rocket is a rocket to nowhere. As for LVs, you have people like Jim who would argue that the market is oversaturated for LVs already, and people like the guys running Electron or Blue who believe the world will have a niche for more LVs. As to who is right - it's probably somewhere in the middle. One thing's for sure though, not every engine in development right now is necessarily going to fly (*cough* AR1 *cough cough*).

I agree that it seems that the AR1 has an uphill climb.  But my initial gut feel when ULA announced they were looking at the BE-4 was that they were using that as a bait and switch for leverage with DOD and Aerojet.

I totally disagree. BE-4 is the one they actually want to use.

[jongoff]

I totally disagree. BE-4 is the one they actually want to use.

Yeah, BE-4 is going to be as good or better performance, more responsive to their needs, likely a lot more reusable, significantly less expensive, and something that will likely see continuing improvements in support of Blue Origin's RLV ambitions.

~Jon

[Kabloona]

I totally disagree. BE-4 is the one they actually want to use.

Yeah, BE-4 is going to be as good or better performance, more responsive to their needs, likely a lot more reusable, significantly less expensive, and something that will likely see continuing improvements in support of Blue Origin's RLV ambitions.

~Jon

Not to mention BE-4 is probably far ahead of AR1 on schedule, and Blue was willing to commit significant development funds where AJR was not. Clear winner all around.

[docmordrid]

Isn't part of the USAF Raptor upper stage contract that it'll be made available for use by others? If so, upper stage version only?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Tend to agree with the Ghost that going too far down the "did NASA fund this, how much" rathole is off topic.

Like in this instance, correcting an obviously false narrative with actual sourced historical background and facts is .. to be avoided ?

It's discussion in this thread was awkward and impossible to rectify because the premise was wrong, the "facts" skew to the thread, and the manner of "exactitude" required would irreparably damage this thread (back it all out, redo the means to bring it in, and change the discussion development to suite). Too much work, even this post alone.

Add to that: a) that it is in the wrong place (should be in "historical spaceflight"), b) it should start with weapons/sat reentry vehicles, and  c) you should have someone like Blackstar to actually dig up the references, because the origins of this cast a lot of light (or dark  ) on subsequent matters.

Did a little searching, found this post. It might be a good place for you to grab attention to "heat shield"/TPS developments that lead in to modern materials, and from that point then offer to create a thread to take that forward to the present. Then be careful at what you post, and what you discover.

Then you can reference that thread whenever you think something isn't to your liking.

No one wants to mislead on the past. But it might help to develop it in the right context with the right assistance.