ShuttleDiscovery - 14/4/2007 1:16 PMI justed wanted to see what everyone thinks of the two competing systems for NASA's COTS program
Jim - 14/4/2007 6:33 PMQuoteShuttleDiscovery - 14/4/2007 1:16 PMI justed wanted to see what everyone thinks of the two competing systems for NASA's COTS programThe COTS competition is over and Kistler and Spacex won. There will be another one for services in a couple of years.l.
bad_astra - 14/4/2007 4:40 PMI am very skeptical that Falcon 9 will be ready to fly by the time phase one is over. I don't believe rpK will have progressed very far at all.
like the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history)
sammie - 15/4/2007 1:55 PMQuotelike the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history)I would like to point out that neither the NK-33 or NK-43 have much operating history. They we're ment to fly on the N-1, which as we all know never got very far. After the N-1 got cancelled and hushed-up the engines were stored to be never used again, until they were picked up by Kistler. The only history they have is from a number of failed N-1 flights, and from the test banches.
sammie - 15/4/2007 5:55 AM Quotelike the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history) I would like to point out that neither the NK-33 or NK-43 have much operating history. They we're ment to fly on the N-1, which as we all know never got very far. After the N-1 got cancelled and hushed-up the engines were stored to be never used again, until they were picked up by Kistler. The only history they have is from a number of failed N-1 flights, and from the test banches.
For the record, neither the NK-33 nor the NK-43 flew on the N1. AFAIK, what was on the N-1 was the NK-9, an early version of these engines. The engines available today were updates that were meant for later versions of the N-1.
wannamoonbase - 15/4/2007 12:53 PM...But I like that they are building at Michoud and aren't looking for cheap ways out they have suppliers, designers and asembliers with depth in experience....But one has to like SpaceX because they have some deep pockets and don't have to worry about finding funding and you can just work. ...Bottom line is that both companies will have many challenges in meeting their deadlines. But those can also be a great motivator.
wannamoonbase - 15/4/2007 11:53 AMIf they can pull it off then we really get an idea how badly the government has been getting hosed by the established launch vehicle builders.
Stowbridge - 15/4/2007 10:03 PMIs the COTS money ringfenced?
Norm Hartnett - 16/4/2007 3:46 AMI couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list. I believe that Dream Chaser will be capable of reaching the ISS prior to either the Orion or manned versions of either SpaceX or RPK. Whether they would be allowed to approach or dock is another matter.
Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2007 9:46 PMI couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list.
docmordrid - 16/4/2007 12:37 PMExactly, and there examples in other industries from automotive to weaponry where complex/expensive/twitchy gets trumped by simple/cheaper/reliable across the board.
JIS - 16/4/2007 4:25 AMIs this based on your knowledge of DCH or lack of it?
simonbp - 16/4/2007 6:45 AM?!?SpaceX and RpK are just as much "private sector efforts" as anything else! Indeed, if the Dreamchaser does fly on the DoD-developed Atlas V, it will have as much effective government funding as the COTS I companies are...Simon
simonbp - 16/4/2007 7:45 AMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 15/4/2007 9:46 PMI couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list. ?!?SpaceX and RpK are just as much "private sector efforts" as anything else! Indeed, if the Dreamchaser does fly on the DoD-developed Atlas V, it will have as much effective government funding as the COTS I companies are...Simon
nacnud - 17/4/2007 9:41 PMThat doesn't sound right to me. I think you've gone entirely the wrong way after the end of the contract with the Russians in 2011. Why does COTS threaten Ares/Orion? It doesn't in my book, COTS frees resources to concentrate on Luna missions and exploring. Which is really what the Ares rockets and Orion are all about rather than LEO. These vehicles are much more capable than just space station servicing, it seems a waste to use them for that.
nacnud - 17/4/2007 6:41 PMWhy does COTS threaten Ares/Orion?
nobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007 12:59 AMKistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -
Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.
JIS - 18/4/2007 5:58 AMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007 12:59 AMKistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.
MKremer - 18/4/2007 1:56 PMI've tied my tin foil hat really tight reading this thread.
ianmga - 19/4/2007 3:25 AMQuoteJIS - 18/4/2007 5:58 AMQuotenobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007 12:59 AMKistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.True. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh: Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.
AntiKev - 18/4/2007 6:49 PMBecause it forces NASA to go to the moon. Now this in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it gives NASA some worthwhile goal. But the bureaucratic inertia is very large, and when you've been sitting there for 25 years doing the same thing over and over, you don't want to change, and you resist change with all of your strength. The success of one COTS competitor or the other (or both!) would mean that NASA must actually now give results, because private industry is in the game.
jcanal12 - 18/4/2007 11:23 AM>Why would NASA secretly want COTS to fail?Does it have to be all (opts A-D) or nothing? What if just D is rejected? In that case it seems like NASA could halve their Russian buy AND support commercial space for cargo.
JIS - 19/4/2007 7:31 AMQuoteianmga - 19/4/2007 3:25 AMTrue. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh: Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.Not so standard. Upperstage works as a spacecraft too. It's pretty nonstandard. Something like STS.
ianmga - 19/4/2007 3:25 AMTrue. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh: Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.
ianmga - 19/4/2007 10:21 AMNow imagine the re-entry of that thing. It's basically a flying lead pipe.
pad rat - 19/4/2007 10:17 AMGoing one layer deeper in the onion, the onboard computer is supposed to not only handle all the flight duties, but the ground processing and launch process, as well. Just imagine what the code must look like.
possum - 19/4/2007 9:32 PMHave they even built/tested any hardware?
possum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.
possum - 19/4/2007 8:32 PM I think Kistler will get nowhere. They've been floundering for a decade and have never even attempted a launch. ... Have they even built/tested any hardware?
Kistler started out as the preeminent space venture of its times, with a very aggressive vision and the appearance of buy-in from many parts of the industry. The big knock against them was that even the biggest firms wouldn't dare do such a LV, let alone a start-up. Too risky. At first, the approach of total outsource seemed sensible, but when you calculated the total cost and time taken, it became obvious as a impossible financial nightmare.
I can imagine them finishing 1-2 complete LV's. I'm skeptical of them making it to hotfire. I'm very worried about flying such a vehicle, especially when they have to recover and reuse it. But I believe it is possible to fly, given enough billions applied. And not one cent of my investment capital.
jongoff - 18/4/2007 9:46 AM Interestingly enough, our Bus Dev guy, Michael Mealling was speaking with Rick Citron ... Rick said that the original intent was for the Kistler guys to build a subscale suborbital vehicle, and practice reusing it, figure out what worked, and what didn't, and maybe even try to market it. Only once they had some real RLV experience under their belt would they have taken on the orbital vehicle. He said that had they done that, Kistler probably still would've been around...
I'd heard about an subscale version, but only from a unreliable source, and when I inquired, they said no ... perhaps I asked the wrong person or wrong question. When was that decision made? Certainly illuminates history better ...
It certainly would have been a better use of capital, and probably increased the scope of potential investors. But there are many in this industry that would snort at a subscale prototype, as they do about Delta Clipper. Ridicule is deadly in financial circles, and all you have to do is look at these forums to see how often its employed, mostly by bright people too lazy to answer in the sentences and paragraphs, defaulting to three or four words for us simpletons ...
BTW, Space-X's approach of having an standalone product, namely the Falcon 1 as a "prototype" means that a fungible asset is developed - which makes investment *much safer*.
Jon, thanks for clearing up Kistler history for me.
It certainly would have been a better use of capital, and probably increased the scope of potential investors. But there are many in this industry that would snort at a subscale prototype, as they do about Delta Clipper. Ridicule is deadly in financial circles, and all you have to do is look at these forums to see how often its employed, mostly by bright people too lazy to answer in the sentences and paragraphs, defaulting to three or four words for us simpletons ...BTW, Space-X's approach of having an standalone product, namely the Falcon 1 as a "prototype" means that a fungible asset is developed - which makes investment *much safer*.
02hurnella - 20/4/2007 12:24 PMIf SpaceX develop the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule, they will just sell trips into space regardless of what Nasa do. In the process they would make Nasa look bad.
nobodyofconsequence - 19/4/2007 11:54 PMRidicule is deadly in financial circles, and all you have to do is look at these forums to see how often its employed, mostly by bright people too lazy to answer in the sentences and paragraphs, defaulting to three or four words for us simpletons ...
Jim - 19/4/2007 9:36 PMQuotepossum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.well you should read the press releases and photo gallery on the website
jongoff - 20/4/2007 1:26 AM I think that building a good, solid, reliable suborbital RLV is by far the best first step towards developing an orbital RLV that a company could take. In spite of all the semi-informed poo-pooing about the differences between suborbital and orbital LVs, suborbital LVs are in actuality a great first step.
Jon, I'd like to believe it, but my take on the industry is that they don't think a suborbital LV is a business, and so isn't fungible, and won't pass the litmus test.
possum - 20/4/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim - 19/4/2007 9:36 PMQuotepossum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.well you should read the press releases and photo gallery on the websiteThere is only one picture of an engine in a support dolly and one picture of an engine being tested. .
jongoff - 20/4/2007 3:13 PM Who doesn't think suborbital is a business? ~Jon
My industry contacts don't think suborbital launch vehicles are a generalized business, where you market a product to service companies that operate the vehicle, or specific launch customers attempting to obtain a launch. E.g. not a generalized business as an orbital vehicle is.
As opposed to, say, space tourism, like Virgin Galactic, which is an owner/operator of exclusively obtained SS2's from Scaled.
Sorry for not being precise in my terms.
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2007 5:52 PMQuotejongoff - 20/4/2007 3:13 PM Who doesn't think suborbital is a business? ~JonMy industry contacts don't think suborbital launch vehicles are a generalized business, where you market a product to service companies that operate the vehicle, or specific launch customers attempting to obtain a launch. E.g. not a generalized business as an orbital vehicle is.As opposed to, say, space tourism, like Virgin Galactic, which is an owner/operator of exclusively obtained SS2's from Scaled.Sorry for not being precise in my terms.
Jim - 20/4/2007 4:57 PM Must not be in the "real "industry suborbital launch vehicles ARE a generalized business. Sounding rockets, target vehicles, RV test vehicles, weather rockets, ICBM and RV interceptors Coleman Aerospace and OSC are big leader in this business
Hi Jim,
"Sounding rockets, target vehicles, RV test vehicles, weather rockets, ICBM and RV interceptors" are clearly application specific, like SS2. Duh.
We were talking in the context of Kistler. So I guess you believe that a minature 3/8ths scale K1 is a useful vehicle that lots of customers would sign-up for, to have the sub-OV dump off a payload for a brief period of exposure? :laugh:
nobodyofconsequence - 20/4/2007 6:43 PM. So I guess you believe that a minature 3/8ths scale K1 is a useful vehicle that lots of customers would sign-up for, to have the sub-OV dump off a payload for a brief period of exposure? :laugh:
JIS - 20/4/2007 2:23 PMSome time ago I was expecting that Space X uses 1st stage of Falcon 1 to carry passengers for suborbital trips. It could be doable if the stage is reusable. Unfortunatelly, they've neglected this opporunity. Maybe it's not financially feasible.
Jim - 20/4/2007 9:02 PM It could be used as a "sounding rocket, target vehicle, RV test vehicle, weather rocket........"
It could be used as a "sounding rocket, target vehicle, RV test vehicle, weather rocket........"
"It's a dessert topping, AND A FLOOR WAX!"
And such a great investment opportunity that would be. Gee, gotta rush off to tell Elon, he'd better refocus to pick up that vital segment of the market ... not! :laugh:
Guess its time to educate here. Industry breaks down into vertically and horizontally organized businesses, and the economics are radically different between them. Horizontal businesses sell more "generically", like choosing in this case from a field of roughly equivalent LV's - do you as SS/L fly XM-5 on Atlas, Delta, Ariane, or ? So much so, you might even sell it as less than a package. The whole idea economically is interchangeability - which tends to level pricing and widen total market size. IBM and Intel took the largely vertical computer industry and made it horizontal.
The opposing arrangement is a vertical, where typically you sell an application/solution, with all the components crafted for the application. Economically, prices rise to individual levels based on the market perception of value, thus are called "value pricing", and competitive items are not interconvertable to a large degree.
A common naive mistake is to assume you can cluster verticals to form a horizontal play, like the attempt at generalization. In the case of say OSC, having different product lines like Pegasus or Taurus or Minotaur is to address what we describe as seperate market segments, which is an independant concept from vertical / horizontal businesses.
Kistler K-1 is an example of a application specific vehicle, just as Lockheed Venture Star was. The subscale X-33 was an attempt at a proof of concept prototype for Venture Star. Had they done aluminum tanks and got it through suborbital flight tests, it would not have been used as a "sounding rocket, target vehicle, RV test vehicle, weather rocket...", that is unless the business people were drunk or on drugs.
The point of a K-1 subscale would have been a proof of concept, and not a sensible business in itself. Falcon 1 is a sensible business by itself in comparison. The danger with a subscale is that nitpickers claim things won't scale anyways, so we'd better not try anyways ... even though we proved it works.
We return you to your normally scheduled forum ... unless we persist in nitpick the obvious mode ...
Jim - 20/4/2007 4:05 PMQuotepossum - 20/4/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim - 19/4/2007 9:36 PMQuotepossum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.well you should read the press releases and photo gallery on the websiteThere is only one picture of an engine in a support dolly and one picture of an engine being tested. .There are pictures of built tanks and composite structures. Look harder
pad rat - 19/4/2007 11:36 AMThe RpK briefing I sat in indicated the vehicle's computer was to handle both ground and flight roles.
possum - 19/4/2007 9:32 PMI think Kistler will get nowhere. They've been floundering for a decade and have never even attempted a launch. The only reason they are still around is the incredible amount of ex-NASA senior managers that they have employed. Their political connections are keeping them alive in spite of a pitiful business plan and almost non-existent technical progress. What have they ever done to warrant getting a piece of COTS? They got awarded the COTS contract based solely on political connections. They haven't done anything in 10 years. Just look at their website, it is devoid of any technical accomplishments. It's just one press release after another about still yet another business deal they've managed to sign. Who the hell is stupid enough to sign a contract with these guys? Other than NASA, of course. Have they even built/tested any hardware?
Kayla - 21/4/2007 9:32 AMQuoteJim - 20/4/2007 4:05 PMQuotepossum - 20/4/2007 3:08 PMQuoteJim - 19/4/2007 9:36 PMQuotepossum - 19/4/2007 10:07 PMWell they should post something on their website.well you should read the press releases and photo gallery on the websiteThere is only one picture of an engine in a support dolly and one picture of an engine being tested. .There are pictures of built tanks and composite structures. Look harderI think the issue here is that most of Kistler's hardware was built a decade ago when they still had a strong technical team. Have they really made much additional progress in the last 6 months since winning COTS1?
pad rat - 16/4/2007 7:16 AMAs far as the government getting hosed by the big players, it's worth noting that none of the established rocket builders are making a huge profit. Figures I've heard point to marginal profits. If it weren't for the subsidies ULA is receiving to cover some of its costs it'd be operating in the red - and maybe looking hard at shutting down one of the two launcher lines. High launch costs are an indictment of the way the biggies operate, the way the government requires them to operate (when it's involved), and the demanding nature of the prize - a reliable launch of an expensive asset.
khallow - 29/4/2007 8:12 AM It strikes me that space launch is a sort of loss leader for high margin defense contracts. Even if the company cannot make a profit on that, it can decide where to employ people, spend money, etc and hence, has indirect ways to reward politicians for defense funding. So there's a lot of hidden value in there.
nobodyofconsequence - 2/5/2007 5:38 PMQuotekhallow - 29/4/2007 8:12 AM It strikes me that space launch is a sort of loss leader for high margin defense contracts. Even if the company cannot make a profit on that, it can decide where to employ people, spend money, etc and hence, has indirect ways to reward politicians for defense funding. So there's a lot of hidden value in there. Different customer base - not all such defense contracts require such generalized services, so not a loss leader. Defense or other space customers have very specific needs in a launch vehicle. More like a highly selective service provider to a very refined and tiny customer base you can't grow.
khallow - 3/5/2007 10:46 PM There's a lot of high margin defense contracts that are assigned or altered based on political considerations. For example, you might be able to get a $2 billion dollar DoD contract (which need not have anything to do with space) because you have the best bid. But a few hundred million dollars spent on your low margin space business in the appropriate congresscritter districts might mean that defense contract gets a few hundred million extra. Ie, the low margin business attacts the high margin business just like a loss-leader should.
The original Delta IV business, like the Atlas V, qualified as valid standalone businesses. If this business were dominated by "loss leaders", than the remaining commercial and science payloads none of which having $2b contracts, would tend to show up on more frugal foreign built launchers. Even with defense projects, not all of them package in this way. This is what I meant earlier.
Also, when you have a horizontal launch vehicle market, you have components independently consumed, so its hard to link contracts because of separate bidding. But this only works with volume. Sooner or later, this is the way this business has to go to mature. Loss leaders in such markets distinguish themselves from competition who are perceived as otherwise indistinguishable from.
