wingod - 4/4/2007 12:05 AMQuoteaero313 - 2/4/2007 1:02 PMQuoteCretan126 - 2/4/2007 11:30 AM Has anyone noted that LockMart builds the Atlas V EELV - in its entirety - at its facility at the foot of the Rocky Mountains in Littleton, CO? Not a port in sight. They transport the booster (in the early morning hours) from Littleton to Denver International and fly them to the Cape or VAFB. So being near a port is not that big of a deal, although it helps. Free air freight on government-furnished C-5As probably doesn't hurt either.Let's be serious here. The decisions made by a company with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead costs being primarily carried on government contracts will be made differently than those of a purely commecial, supposedly "clean sheet" company whose stated goal is low cost launch. The location of the Martin Waterton plant was driven as much by Cold War-driven dispersion of national assets as anything else. Building Delta IIs in Pueblo, CO also made sense when you factored in goverment surplus facilities, incentives, etc.They only built the D-II upper stage there.
aero313 - 2/4/2007 1:02 PMQuoteCretan126 - 2/4/2007 11:30 AM Has anyone noted that LockMart builds the Atlas V EELV - in its entirety - at its facility at the foot of the Rocky Mountains in Littleton, CO? Not a port in sight. They transport the booster (in the early morning hours) from Littleton to Denver International and fly them to the Cape or VAFB. So being near a port is not that big of a deal, although it helps. Free air freight on government-furnished C-5As probably doesn't hurt either.Let's be serious here. The decisions made by a company with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead costs being primarily carried on government contracts will be made differently than those of a purely commecial, supposedly "clean sheet" company whose stated goal is low cost launch. The location of the Martin Waterton plant was driven as much by Cold War-driven dispersion of national assets as anything else. Building Delta IIs in Pueblo, CO also made sense when you factored in goverment surplus facilities, incentives, etc.
Cretan126 - 2/4/2007 11:30 AM Has anyone noted that LockMart builds the Atlas V EELV - in its entirety - at its facility at the foot of the Rocky Mountains in Littleton, CO? Not a port in sight. They transport the booster (in the early morning hours) from Littleton to Denver International and fly them to the Cape or VAFB. So being near a port is not that big of a deal, although it helps.
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:31 AMQuotewingod - 4/4/2007 12:05 AMQuoteaero313 - 2/4/2007 1:02 PMLet's be serious here. The decisions made by a company with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead costs being primarily carried on government contracts will be made differently than those of a purely commecial, supposedly "clean sheet" company whose stated goal is low cost launch. The location of the Martin Waterton plant was driven as much by Cold War-driven dispersion of national assets as anything else. Building Delta IIs in Pueblo, CO also made sense when you factored in goverment surplus facilities, incentives, etc.They only built the D-II upper stage there.The whole Delta II was built in Pueblo
wingod - 4/4/2007 12:05 AMQuoteaero313 - 2/4/2007 1:02 PMLet's be serious here. The decisions made by a company with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead costs being primarily carried on government contracts will be made differently than those of a purely commecial, supposedly "clean sheet" company whose stated goal is low cost launch. The location of the Martin Waterton plant was driven as much by Cold War-driven dispersion of national assets as anything else. Building Delta IIs in Pueblo, CO also made sense when you factored in goverment surplus facilities, incentives, etc.They only built the D-II upper stage there.
aero313 - 2/4/2007 1:02 PMLet's be serious here. The decisions made by a company with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead costs being primarily carried on government contracts will be made differently than those of a purely commecial, supposedly "clean sheet" company whose stated goal is low cost launch. The location of the Martin Waterton plant was driven as much by Cold War-driven dispersion of national assets as anything else. Building Delta IIs in Pueblo, CO also made sense when you factored in goverment surplus facilities, incentives, etc.
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:31 AMQuotewingod - 4/4/2007 12:05 AMQuoteaero313 - 2/4/2007 1:02 PMQuoteCretan126 - 2/4/2007 11:30 AM Has anyone noted that LockMart builds the Atlas V EELV - in its entirety - at its facility at the foot of the Rocky Mountains in Littleton, CO? Not a port in sight. They transport the booster (in the early morning hours) from Littleton to Denver International and fly them to the Cape or VAFB. So being near a port is not that big of a deal, although it helps. Free air freight on government-furnished C-5As probably doesn't hurt either.Let's be serious here. The decisions made by a company with a lot of legacy infrastructure and overhead costs being primarily carried on government contracts will be made differently than those of a purely commecial, supposedly "clean sheet" company whose stated goal is low cost launch. The location of the Martin Waterton plant was driven as much by Cold War-driven dispersion of national assets as anything else. Building Delta IIs in Pueblo, CO also made sense when you factored in goverment surplus facilities, incentives, etc.They only built the D-II upper stage there.The whole Delta II was built in Pueblo
wingod - 5/4/2007 1:56 PMThey may have sent it to Pueblo for some assembly but the stage was actually built in California.They always had problems with corrosion due to the proximity to the ocean there.
Jim - 5/4/2007 2:18 PMQuotewingod - 5/4/2007 1:56 PMThey may have sent it to Pueblo for some assembly but the stage was actually built in California.They always had problems with corrosion due to the proximity to the ocean there.In the 2000's, HB did no assembly of stages. Tank mate, centerbody construction, engine section construction, engine installation and wiring was done in Pueblo. That maybe applies since the 90's too. Tank construction is a different thing. Much like San Diego building Centaur tanks but Denver assembles the Centaur.
wingod - 4/4/2007 11:24 PM The problem with the small sat market is the cost/benefit ratio.
Wingod, thanks for the attempt at a market justification. When you look at financing a new business activity, its a lot more complex than just a cost/benefit ratio, because the risk always outweighs the small advantage you start off with.
To begin with, you look at comparative history, because the decisions are made looking at the history of what has been done before as a model of what will happen. Most of the LV's we now have (Atlas, Delta) had large portions of development at cost plus as military vehicles, so they make for lousy models. Strike one against doing a small sat market LV, where we don't have history. If you were to account for the total development of past vehicles with dependencies, they are all massively unprofitable.
Next, we need to have a market opportunity that will be permanent and doesn't get subsumed into another segment. Having a cluster of small sats launch as part of another program, like recently with Orbital Express, undercuts the segmentation of small sats and smart sat LV markets, because its more convenient to account for them as offsets to a program rather than as components of a distinct market segment. Even if you could justify something like a low budget Iridium to generate a need for a volume in the market, it would likely be the case to be accounted for as if it were a single or few "big things" of standard treatment. So the big problem with creating a new market segment is the fight for definition, as it tends to sublimate away. We've gotten nowhere near a satisfactory return scenario, because the market itself is too insignificant.
A better case might be made for fast response, as Falcon 1 is justified. However, Jim already correctly challenged this by pointing out how much needs to happen for such to be brought off. In this case, its not market or cost effectiveness that kill you, but operational performance in delivering the fast response launch capability.
nobodyofconsequence - 5/4/2007 2:15 PMNo. Space-X won't disrupt the LV market - its too incestuous with its customers for that to happen.
nobodyofconsequence - 5/4/2007 4:23 PMA better case might be made for fast response, as Falcon 1 is justified.
A better case might be made for fast response, as Falcon 1 is justified.
rpspeck - 5/4/2007 5:36 PM“1. major error in this is passengers don't want to be in a spacesuit for the whole flight.”Additional note: I believe the U2 pilots spend a lot more than two hours suited up.2. A more serious note: Given the proven loss of life (Russian) from spacecraft depressurization and experience with fast and slow depressurization in less demanding aircraft situations, why has the manned spaceflight industry decided to reverse aviation standards and condemn participants to death following any hull failure, including serious leakage? The large cross section of the pressure hull becomes an “Acceptable”, single point Fatal failure? To buy into this scenario and then talk about “Risk” in a spacesuit makes very little sense. To avoid the fatal single point failure, all astronauts need to stay in their pressure suits until they at least transfer to a more robust (probably double walled) low stress space station. 3. For two hour rendezvous, I assumed a more precision control system than used in Mercury/Atlas. Probably a “Hot Dog” like the 486 used on ISS. Plus I assumed use of GPS so you would know where you were. 4. Re Ejection: You can eject from a rocket after engine shutdown (near apogee if still deep in the atmosphere) with a bungee cord plus your standard deployment mechanism (already in freefall). It is hard to think in these terms since explosive “Flight Termination” has been more common than Thrust Termination. Richard P. Speck, Micro-Space, Inc.
Jim - 5/4/2007 4:13 PM2. You have no idea what you are talking about. Both Russian and American spacecraft use pressure suits for launch. Once on orbit, the pressure shells of both spacecraft are just as good as the space stations. If there is a leak, the life support system pumps in enough air to maintain pressure long enough to allow the crew to put on their suits. Also, the space stations don't use double hulls.
rpspeck - 5/4/2007 3:58 PM Quotenobodyofconsequence - 5/4/2007 2:15 PM No. Space-X won't disrupt the LV market - its too incestuous with its customers for that to happen. You make some excellent points. But I was specifically addressing future markets, involving customers currently “locked out” of space. Customers similarly locked out of innovative computer work (by high prices) had an unexpectedly large impact in the years after 1976!
nobodyofconsequence - 5/4/2007 2:15 PM No. Space-X won't disrupt the LV market - its too incestuous with its customers for that to happen.
These are called "white space" opportunities, and are the hardest to justify for finance, because you never know at what level your total cost profile has to reach to get enough of them. Also, a long sales cycle, possibly indefinite ensues. No sane investor touches these, just mavericks that almost always lose their shirt.
As to computers, it occurred in phases, not all at once. How you financed silicon valley start-ups at the time was off of the easy to prove productivity improvements, and may of the ventures were seeded on less than $50k. Wozniak and Jobs built Apple 1 out of junk from a junk dealer FYI. I don't think this is a good comparison.
aero313 - 5/4/2007 4:13 PM Quotenobodyofconsequence - 5/4/2007 4:23 PM A better case might be made for fast response, as Falcon 1 is justified. Once again, please let's not confuse a countdown recycle with true responsive launch.
nobodyofconsequence - 5/4/2007 4:23 PM A better case might be made for fast response, as Falcon 1 is justified.
Could not agree more. I said *justified*, not *achieved*. As in "financially justified", i.e. what they are trying to achieve.
If they don't deal with the many issues needed to achieve true responsive launch, then Falcon I is just a stepping stone to Falcon 9, and they are simply trying to undercut Delta IV's business, and the responsive launch was a convenient sham.
BarryKirk - 5/4/2007 11:05 AMGetting back to the original topic sort of...Any word on the publishing of the Falcon 9 user manual ...
nobodyofconsequence - 6/4/2007 1:30 AMBut it comes from the hard work both in business and engineering in confronting requirements and making things work across the board. Not from fantasy.
