Effects on Industry of Falcon 9

[frodo1008]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

Just for the information of others here. The EELV contracts from the Air Force to both LM and Boeing were NOT cost plus!

That may very well have been why those new EELV's have succeeded in bringing down the cost per pound to LEO from the Earth from $10.000+ per pound to less than $5.000 per pound for all versions of the Delta IV and the Atlas V. and quite possibly even further down for the Delta IV or the Atlas V Heavies!

After all, that is just what the goals of the Air Force were in the first place!

And, while I truly wish spacex all the success in the world with its Falcon 9, and eventually with its Falcon 9 Heavy. It is not going ot be very easy at all to go on to the next step. The next step being to shoot for the relatively magical $1,000 per pound to LEO!

Heck even getting down to some $2,000 per pound to LEO, is going ot be very hard! Besides which, what some may not realize is that with enough launches then ULA will also be within striking distance of such a goal with either the Delta IV Heavy, if the Atlas V Heavy. And I find all that competition to be for the betterment of getting humanity into space, regardless of just who is doing it!

However, it IS not going to be very easy to reach this goal with the kinds of launch systems now being used by anybody. In order for a Heavy rocket capable of launching some 50,000 lbs into LEO at even $2,000 per pound to LEO, the launch must cost less than $100 million, and that is just about as low a cost as even far smaller rockets are now launching to LEO!

However, IF there were to be enough launches, than that just might be possible!

Those of us on the outside looking in at places such as space.com, we can only hope!!

 

[JonClarke]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

Why? Every rocket NASA uses is built by a private company. Why should one more supplier be the death knell of NASA launches?

The difference is in the "buy" model. The Shuttle and especially the Ares I were substantially designed by NASA. Michael Griffin seemed to take great pride in the fact that NASA itself was going to largely lead the development of the new rockets. It reminds me of Apple designing and developing the iPhone but leaving the manufacturing to the Chinese.

The contract model also pretty much guarantees the contractors will not lose money. The government pays for pretty much everything, including, often, a guaranteed profit.

The new "buy" model has the private company doing the design, development, and manufacturing on their own, often with an eye towards a market larger than just NASA. The private company also pays for a much more significant amount of the design and development on their own (although, as with SBIR programs, the government has kicked in some money with COTS). The private companies take a huge financial risk if their venture fails.

So what if there is a new cost model? How does this "spell the death knell" for NASA? That is like saying a new ship builder with design and a new cost model will shut the USN.

Jon

 

[SpacexULA]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

Why? Every rocket NASA uses is built by a private company. Why should one more supplier be the death knell of NASA launches?

The difference is in the "buy" model. The Shuttle and especially the Ares I were substantially designed by NASA. Michael Griffin seemed to take great pride in the fact that NASA itself was going to largely lead the development of the new rockets. It reminds me of Apple designing and developing the iPhone but leaving the manufacturing to the Chinese.

So what if there is a new cost model? How does this "spell the death knell" for NASA? That is like saying a new ship builder with design and a new cost model will shut the USN.

Jon

It IS the death of NASA if you see the purpose of NASA as launching big rockets into space.

It all comes down to, if you had to lay off 1 Space program employee every hour of every day for a year, who would be the 1st and the last out the door? Who really is NASA, and what is their job?

Some people see NASA as being the launchers, the Saturn 5, Mercury, Atlas, and Shuttles. If you took the launchers away they would say NASA is dead.

Some people see NASA as a pure science organization, the probes, and rovers are the point of NASA. NASA dies the day the science budget gets cut for HSF

Some people see NASA as a jobs program. The Job of NASA is to employ a standing army of aerospace engineers, and to curry favor in elections. NASA dies the day there workforce shrinks

Some people see NASA as being the Astronauts. NASA dies the day we stop sending 6 crews of 6 astronauts a year to the ISS, and start sending 4 crews of 1 on the Soyuz.

I have always seen NASA as being about the science, and the Astronaut. Therefore I don't feel any worse for the NASA employees and contractors that get laid off, than I do for the GM employees that got laid off in their bankruptcy.

 

[radarredux]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

So what if there is a new cost model? How does this "spell the death knell" for NASA? That is like saying a new ship builder with design and a new cost model will shut the USN.

Well, my position is that NASA's role for designing, building, and launching rockets to take cargo and crew to LEO may be dead because of work by organizations such as SpaceX and the expected recommendations by the Augustine Committee. As it currently stands, I don't think there is any reasonable expectation for a beyond LEO mission before 2022, so we are looking at roughly 12 years of NASA not being responsible for putting anything into space.

Having said that... the commercial sector still hasn't proven it is up to the task, and the Augustine Committee's report can easily be ignored. More importantly, Congressmen and women will fight like mad to guarantee continued funding for the people and companies in their districts and states, and that does not bode well for diluting the role of NASA for launching rockets.

If I had to take a bet, unless the Obama administration comes out forcefully for the privatization of Crew/Cargo launches to LEO, Congress will continue supporting Constellation and Ares I. For those who question the political nature of who gets funding for space efforts, here are a couple of quotes:

At the press conference where the commission unveiled its report, Aldridge admitted that realpolitik also played a role in the commission's decision to convert the centers into FFRDCs. "We thought about it a long time," he said, "and our view was that if we put into our report that the Congress and NASA should undertake a base realignment and closure action, the report would probably have burned on the first day."
http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume16/aldridge.html

Space News reports in its print edition this week that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is holding up the release of “most if not all” of the $1 billion allocated to NASA in the stimulus bill approved earlier this year. The problem is that NASA is planning to spend $150 million of the $400 million appropriated to exploration for ISS commercial resupply activity, including early work to support commercial crew missions to the station. As you may recall, Shelby expressed his opposition to such spending in a hearing last month, saying that “manned spaceflight is something that is still in the realm of government”
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/08 ... s-funding/

Sen. Shelby and his staff have certainly been busy. They don't like the way that the Obama Administration and NASA have been looking at using stimulus money for commercialization. So, how did he act on this? He threatened to put amendments into legislation that would punish various field centers at NASA (other than MSFC of course) that have been involved in commercialization by stripping them of facilities or programs so as to send a message.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/ ... _gets.html

 

[neutrino78x]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

Guys, there is no reason that a NASA program for launching NASA missions into space would prevent private actors from also launching things.

On the sea, most vessels are merchants and only a few are military.

If NASA started using private carriers for LEO launches, that would guarantee a market for the private actors, but do nothing else, and if NASA chose not to use them, there would be nothing stopping them from operating. My understanding is that Bigelow Aerospace operates entirely with private funds. I see no reason why SpaceX cannot continue to do so. Bigelow does not need the government's help to make a private space station or space hotel.

The government can stimulate the development of space, and I believe they should, but it will happen whether the government accelerates it or not.

I still say the Outer Space Treaty needs to be modified so it is easier for the USA to give tax/legal support to homesteaders on Mars etc., and possibly charter colonies, the way Britain chartered colonies in North America.

--Brian

 

[zergnerd]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

I still say the Outer Space Treaty needs to be modified so it is easier for the USA to give tax/legal support to homesteaders on Mars etc., and possibly charter colonies, the way Britain chartered colonies in North America.

I agree. I'm looking back at Columbus's time. If the European nations had made a treaty to not lay claim to the western hemisphere, to not conquer and exploit the Native Americans (& steal their gold) and to not damage the native beauty of the hemisphere, the West would still be a mostly undeveloped wilderness.

There are several parallels between then and now. Building ocean going vessels back then was difficult and touchy. Ships were still fragile enough that a good storm could rip one apart and navigation was extremely crude. Men were crammed into tiny ships for months at a time and had to deal with disease and malnutrition. By that days standards ocean-going ships were enormously costly and could only be afforded by the kings and richest of the rich.

There were also several differences. Europe quickly discovered how to exploit the new world for a profit. They plundered the Aztecs, Inca and other civilizations. They were allowed to claim lands for their own once they did a manned exploration of the land -- and they did. They didn't spend 4 year investigations and shut down their programs when a ship failed to return or there was an accident. Sailor lives were cheap to those kings.

These differences pushed European nations to explore, claim and develop the new world as fast as their economies would allow. It also resulted in several wars between European powers as they fought for land and control of the resources in the new world. It resulted in the colonization of America, but also in the exploitation of both the land and the native people.

In our day, space is the next "new world." We haven't yet discovered how to make money off of it, though perhaps helium-3 could be a moneymaker. We also have treaties preventing any nation from claiming planets, moons or asteroids.

In order to create any real push for space development, there has to be 1) a proven economic opportunity for that type of development, and 2) a legal framework that allows that development to proceed unhindered. With the exception of LEO, I am not aware that either exists yet.

Deregulating space claims by allowing nations to claim all or a portion of a moon, planet or asteroid on which they had done manned exploration would, of course, dramatically accelerate space exploration; however, it would also likely lead to intense rivalry between the U.S., Russia, India, China, EU and any other space fairing nations. One would expect several wars to break out over control of various resources, both in space and on Earth. It is possible that a careful partial deregulation could retain some of the advantages without the conflicts, but that is beyond my expertise.

For the killer economic opportunity, one has yet to be discovered. A cure for a major disease (AIDS, Cancer) that could only be produced in space would definitely lead to a push for cheap LEO access and possible limited mining. Proof that He-3 really would enable efficient fusion might spark some interest in mining, though I think most people would just run with solar to avoid the high capital costs of developing a He-3 mining infrastructure unless nations could claim active mines. Some material's science advance (e.g. nanotubes or superconductors) that required space manufacturing might create a large push for mining and development as shipping raw materials from Earth would be even more expensive. The (very, very unlikely) discovery of nonhuman technology remnants would immediately spark a human surge into the solar system and beyond in order to claim and exploit the technologies (as no treaty would cover them).

In Columbus's day, the killer economic reason was easy. Everyone already knew what gold was and the natives had already refined it, even. In our day we have yet to find such a reason. Other than possibly He-3, I am not aware of any raw elements that provide an economic reason, and He-3 is iffy. This leaves just the possibility of compounds that can only be produced in microgravity. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any real theories or research that allow us to predict the types of molecules that we should attempt to make in microgravity. If we had such knowledge, we could then simulate the molecules here, study their expected properties and then develop plans to produce test quantities of promising molecules in space. Perhaps that would be the first step in forming a killer reason: a theory that allows us to predict which simulated molecules can only be formed in a gravity-free environment.

 

[radarredux]

Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch

Well, my position is that NASA's role for designing, building, and launching rockets to take cargo and crew to LEO may be dead because of work by organizations such as SpaceX and the expected recommendations by the Augustine Committee.

By the way, here is some text from NASAWatch. Keep your eyes on Ares 1-X. I suspect if NASA chooses not to launch it, that will pretty much mean the end of Ares I. (Keep in mind, this wouldn't say the rest of Constellation (J-2X, Orion, some variant of Ares V) is dead).

QUESTION: Ares 1-X is stacked and it's ready to go. Are we going to launch it?

BOLDEN: That's a good question - and that is a question that I know everyone is muddling over. How do we explain something that was not an option offered by the Augustine Committee. We have that vehicle and the opportunity to launch it and gain data and information from it that may be helpful to future programs ... I don't know the answer today - I wish I could tell you that I knew the answer - I don't.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Good piece of info, rr, thanx.

Wayne

 

[SpaceXFanMobius57]

Nasa will still have plenty of things to do.