Jim - 21/3/2007 2:38 PMQuoteaero313 - 21/3/2007 2:29 PMQuoteJim - 21/3/2007 2:25 PMF-1 also used RP-1 as hydraulic fluid. There were 5 of them so roll control wasn't neededTitan second stage (UDMH) and Delta IV CBC (H2) use turbopump exhaust roll control. Their propellants didn't have hydraulic fluid propertiesFalcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension.Didn't Thor use turbine exhaust for roll control in the 1950s? I've said this before, but Falcon I isn't very different from an early Delta.Always had verniers. This was leftovers from the IRBM version
aero313 - 21/3/2007 2:29 PMQuoteJim - 21/3/2007 2:25 PMF-1 also used RP-1 as hydraulic fluid. There were 5 of them so roll control wasn't neededTitan second stage (UDMH) and Delta IV CBC (H2) use turbopump exhaust roll control. Their propellants didn't have hydraulic fluid propertiesFalcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension.Didn't Thor use turbine exhaust for roll control in the 1950s? I've said this before, but Falcon I isn't very different from an early Delta.
Jim - 21/3/2007 2:25 PMF-1 also used RP-1 as hydraulic fluid. There were 5 of them so roll control wasn't neededTitan second stage (UDMH) and Delta IV CBC (H2) use turbopump exhaust roll control. Their propellants didn't have hydraulic fluid propertiesFalcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension.
vda - 21/3/2007 1:42 PMQuoteAnalyst - 20/3/2007 4:31 PMI don’t share the enthusiasm, the 95+% success. This has been a failure, period.I don't understant the purpose of this idiotic discussion "how many percents of success it was?". We all know what exactly worked, and what didn't. It cannot be quantified in percents.
Analyst - 20/3/2007 4:31 PMI don’t share the enthusiasm, the 95+% success. This has been a failure, period.
pippin - 21/3/2007 3:27 PMQuoteyinzer - 20/3/2007 8:29 PMEnh. Orbital tried to change the world also, and at the time people were praising them to the skies. They changed the world (more or less), found out that changing the world doesn't pay the rent, and joined the establishment. Dissapointed, the masses waited for someone else to come along looking to change the world. It's nothing personal against Orbital.Yep. Difference is: Orbital gut stuck on a design that is neither scaleable nor cost effective.The solid motors are cheap to develop but expensive to build and you just cannot scale something being launched from an plane by a factor of, say, 10.So their business model was flawed. No growth potential. They had to look for their segment of the market and stick with it.That's different with SpaceX, IF they succeed...
yinzer - 20/3/2007 8:29 PMEnh. Orbital tried to change the world also, and at the time people were praising them to the skies. They changed the world (more or less), found out that changing the world doesn't pay the rent, and joined the establishment. Dissapointed, the masses waited for someone else to come along looking to change the world. It's nothing personal against Orbital.
aero313 - 21/3/2007 2:44 PMQuote from Musk:"I think it is fair to characterize this as a success"I find this amusing, since Musk has previously characterized as failures Pegasus missions that DID make it to orbit, albeit degraded orbits. At least in those cases, the satellites were able to perform useful if shortened missions.Again, this isn't denegrating the current SpaceX accomplishment, but the BS factor has gone up significantly.
Flightstar - 21/3/2007 3:54 PMYou're getting a bit obsessive over this.
aero313 - 20/3/2007 9:41 PMQuotepippin - 21/3/2007 3:27 PMYep. Difference is: Orbital gut stuck on a design that is neither scaleable nor cost effective.The solid motors are cheap to develop but expensive to build and you just cannot scale something being launched from an plane by a factor of, say, 10.So their business model was flawed. No growth potential. They had to look for their segment of the market and stick with it.That's different with SpaceX, IF they succeed...I'm afraid all your assertions are incorrect. First, Orbital has ALREADY demonstrated the ability to scale Pegasus from a 41,000 lb standard Pegasus to a 50,000 lb Pegasus XL. Second, if you think that's limiting the air launch, I suggest you talk to t/Space. Third, Pegasus grew to Taurus with three times the payload performance for less than twice the per mission cost. Finally, if you really think Falcon 9 is simply a scaled up Falcon 1 and not a completely new rocket development, you're being very naive.
pippin - 21/3/2007 3:27 PMYep. Difference is: Orbital gut stuck on a design that is neither scaleable nor cost effective.The solid motors are cheap to develop but expensive to build and you just cannot scale something being launched from an plane by a factor of, say, 10.So their business model was flawed. No growth potential. They had to look for their segment of the market and stick with it.That's different with SpaceX, IF they succeed...
To get away from this sillyness of "how much of a success", which to me is just disguised schadenfreunde, lets get to financial nuts and bolts.
Elon financed this himself, because he couldn't prove to another investor what the investment thesis was, given everything was done from scratch in constructing a vertical business. Like past private space investments, the whole thing could have blow up in his face, with nothing salvageable from it. Investors typically invest based on taking something thats already working, salable, and salvageable, then taking a risk by adding money to improve market size, revenue, and/or profit, and the risk model requires among other things salvageable assets here for tax reasons.
Now that he's got a launch system, credible engines, a first stage with flight history, and is credible in the market, he can go back to investors and they can calculate a reasonable risk model for continued development, as there are salvageable assets, comparable costs for getting to completion, a viable business model ("rapid deployment"), a future growth strategy and an competitive advantage ("low cost") in the industry. He may not have won the war but he has won the battle of survival.
Better get used to "Space-X Falcon" as it will be around for many, many years to come.
As far as Falcon 9 being more complex - so what? At his costs to prove out systems, its already obvious his model of development will arrive at something useful within reasonable budget, so its just a matter of time.
As to budget/cost/performance numbers - "there are lies, damn lies, and ... statistics" . Part of the fun of running any business is the acting and showmanship so necessary to generating a belief in the business - don't confuse it with the hard numbers realities on the inside of a firm.
pippin - 21/3/2007 1:59 PM Quoteaero313 - 20/3/2007 9:41 PM Quotepippin - 21/3/2007 3:27 PM Yep. Difference is: Orbital gut stuck on a design that is neither scaleable nor cost effective. The solid motors are cheap to develop but expensive to build and you just cannot scale something being launched from an plane by a factor of, say, 10. So their business model was flawed. No growth potential. They had to look for their segment of the market and stick with it. That's different with SpaceX, IF they succeed... I'm afraid all your assertions are incorrect. First, Orbital has ALREADY demonstrated the ability to scale Pegasus from a 41,000 lb standard Pegasus to a 50,000 lb Pegasus XL. Second, if you think that's limiting the air launch, I suggest you talk to t/Space. Third, Pegasus grew to Taurus with three times the payload performance for less than twice the per mission cost. Finally, if you really think Falcon 9 is simply a scaled up Falcon 1 and not a completely new rocket development, you're being very naive. OK, that's not the kind of scaling I'm talking about. I said "factor of 10". What's PegasusXL's payload? 500 kg? Into LEO? Is there anybody out here believing there's a huge market for that kind of payload into LEO? The only big market segment MAY BE for low flying communication sattelites and then you need a network of them and probably end up cheaper if you launch a couple of them with a big LV. Now show me how you get from that to a competitive launcher delivering, say, 4.5t into GTO? SpaceX has a roadmap for that. That they start with the small one makes sense. We all see their lerning curve right now, and if they did this with a Falcon-9-size vehicle it would be way more expensive and complex. So their approach looks fine to me. That said, of course I do not know, for example, how cost effective 9 simple first stage engines are compared to a single complex one. I did not say their approach works and they will reach their commercial targets, it's up to Elon to judge on that, I just say: the potential is there an they are doing the right steps. The potential has never been there for OSC.
aero313 - 20/3/2007 9:41 PM Quotepippin - 21/3/2007 3:27 PM Yep. Difference is: Orbital gut stuck on a design that is neither scaleable nor cost effective. The solid motors are cheap to develop but expensive to build and you just cannot scale something being launched from an plane by a factor of, say, 10. So their business model was flawed. No growth potential. They had to look for their segment of the market and stick with it. That's different with SpaceX, IF they succeed... I'm afraid all your assertions are incorrect. First, Orbital has ALREADY demonstrated the ability to scale Pegasus from a 41,000 lb standard Pegasus to a 50,000 lb Pegasus XL. Second, if you think that's limiting the air launch, I suggest you talk to t/Space. Third, Pegasus grew to Taurus with three times the payload performance for less than twice the per mission cost. Finally, if you really think Falcon 9 is simply a scaled up Falcon 1 and not a completely new rocket development, you're being very naive.
pippin - 21/3/2007 3:27 PM Yep. Difference is: Orbital gut stuck on a design that is neither scaleable nor cost effective. The solid motors are cheap to develop but expensive to build and you just cannot scale something being launched from an plane by a factor of, say, 10. So their business model was flawed. No growth potential. They had to look for their segment of the market and stick with it. That's different with SpaceX, IF they succeed...
I would say the potential has been there for Orbital, but the business logic has not. Part of good business strategy is going with your strengths. Orbital built a niche in the small space market, not just launch vehicles. If you some of the posts from Antonio Elias (antonioe) (who is credited with conceiving of Pegasus), you will see that the motiviation was actually driven by ORBCOMM - a network of small satellites, built by Orbital, and ultimately operated and marketed by an Orbital subsidiary. That was the hoped for source of cash flow, not necessarily the rocket. Scaling up didn't - and probably still does not - make sense because that market is pretty well locked up by Delta and Atlas, as well as multiple foreign rockets. And SpaceX will eventually prove that scaling up from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 is not nearly as simple as they think and/or claim.
Hubris, thy name is Elon...
pippin - 21/3/2007 3:59 PM1. OK, that's not the kind of scaling I'm talking about. I said "factor of 10". What's PegasusXL's payload? 500 kg? Into LEO?Is there anybody out here believing there's a huge market for that kind of payload into LEO? The only big market segment MAY BE for low flying communication sattelites and then you need a network of them and probably end up cheaper if you launch a couple of them with a big LV.2. Now show me how you get from that to a competitive launcher delivering, say, 4.5t into GTO? SpaceX has a roadmap for that.That they start with the small one makes sense. We all see their lerning curve right now, and if they did this with a Falcon-9-size vehicle it would be way more expensive and complex. So their approach looks fine to me.3. That said, of course I do not know, for example, how cost effective 9 simple first stage engines are compared to a single complex one. I did not say their approach works and they will reach their commercial targets, it's up to Elon to judge on that, I just say: the potential is there an they are doing the right steps.4. The potential has never been there for OSC.
nobodyofconsequence - 21/3/2007 4:06 PMTo get away from this sillyness of "how much of a success", which to me is just disguised schadenfreunde, lets get to financial nuts and bolts.Elon financed this himself, because he couldn't prove to another investor what the investment thesis was, given everything was done from scratch in constructing a vertical business. Like past private space investments, the whole thing could have blow up in his face, with nothing salvageable from it. Investors typically invest based on taking something thats already working, salable, and salvageable, then taking a risk by adding money to improve market size, revenue, and/or profit, and the risk model requires among other things salvageable assets here for tax reasons.Now that he's got a launch system, credible engines, a first stage with flight history, and is credible in the market, he can go back to investors and they can calculate a reasonable risk model for continued development, as there are salvageable assets, comparable costs for getting to completion, a viable business model ("rapid deployment"), a future growth strategy and an competitive advantage ("low cost") in the industry. He may not have won the war but he has won the battle of survival.Better get used to "Space-X Falcon" as it will be around for many, many years to come.As far as Falcon 9 being more complex - so what? At his costs to prove out systems, its already obvious his model of development will arrive at something useful within reasonable budget, so its just a matter of time.As to budget/cost/performance numbers - "there are lies, damn lies, and ... statistics" . Part of the fun of running any business is the acting and showmanship so necessary to generating a belief in the business - don't confuse it with the hard numbers realities on the inside of a firm.
Jim - 20/3/2007 10:12 PM1. spacex does. That's why the falcon 1 exists. The market is not just LEO comsats. Look at the Falcon 1, Pegasus, Taurus, Minotaur , Vega manifests2. The Pegasus was a Scout replacement not an Atlas or Titan. So scaling was not a factor. But OSC used their avionics and upperstages for other vehicles. Look at this product line: Pegasus, Taurus, and Minotaur 1, 2,3, and 4.3. OSC has already leverage their first product into a larger fleet. It is an apples to orange comparsion.4. Never was OSC's intention of going in the 4.5t market
Kayla - 20/3/2007 10:43 PMYes, the current market dollar volume for larger payloads is bigger than small payloads. But where does $300M/launch come from? When was the last commercial launch priced above ~$100M?
Cretan126 - 20/3/2007 10:11 PM I would say the potential has been there for Orbital, but the business logic has not. Part of good business strategy is going with your strengths. Orbital built a niche in the small space market, not just launch vehicles. If you some of the posts from Antonio Elias (antonioe) (who is credited with conceiving of Pegasus), you will see that the motiviation was actually driven by ORBCOMM - a network of small satellites, built by Orbital, and ultimately operated and marketed by an Orbital subsidiary. That was the hoped for source of cash flow, not necessarily the rocket. Scaling up didn't - and probably still does not - make sense because that market is pretty well locked up by Delta and Atlas, as well as multiple foreign rockets. And SpaceX will eventually prove that scaling up from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 is not nearly as simple as they think and/or claim.
pippin - 21/3/2007 4:49 PMQuoteKayla - 20/3/2007 10:43 PMYes, the current market dollar volume for larger payloads is bigger than small payloads. But where does $300M/launch come from? When was the last commercial launch priced above ~$100M?Bad guess, couldn't find a quick figure ;-) But at $100M it's still 10 times the size.
