mj1":2uuvrbxo said:
That's a BIG if right now Steve. You know as well as I do that there will be delays and there is no way Orbital will be ready for a launch by next spring. The rocket isn't even built yet. It is the nature of the beast. Just look at all of the delays SpaceX had in getting the Falcon 9 off the ground. It took six months after the hardware was delivered to the cape just to test fire the engines, much less the launch delays and they are not nearly as dependent on subcontractors as Orbital. And don't make excuses for Orbital not meeting time lines while SpaceX is running rings around them, doing all of the things Orbital did not do, like building their OWN engines and spacecraft. Also, SpaceX did NOT have that much of a head start over Orbital either. While Orbital was basking in all of the press coverage for getting a COTS contract, SpaceX was busy designing and building their own rockets. Don't get me wrong, I am all for Orbital or any other company developing as many rockets and spacecraft as possible, the more the merrier. It's just that all I see here is a company that is procuring a contract that it itself can't deliver on. With the proper business smarts, and the right subcontractors, you and I could do a COTS contract too. That does not make us a rocket building company. That being said, I still have a wait and see attitude on Orbital. As long as they get it done, I guess it does not so much matter how.
Your arguments don't hold water for a lot of reasons, MJ. First, SpaceX was awarded the COTS contract in August of 2006, while Orbital wasn't awarded the contract until February 2008. That means that SpaceX has a year and a half head start over Orbital. While I also doubt that a spring 2011 launch is feasible, according to this metric, they have until December, 2011 before they start falling behind Orbital. Furthermore, SpaceX announce the development of the Falcon 9 rocket in September 2005, almost a year before it was awarded the COTS contract and four months before the COTS program was even announced. So, in reality SpaceX has an almost two and a half year head start over Orbital.
As of right now, the engines have been test fired, the tank for the first stage has been built, and most of the Cygnus spacecraft has been built. Intriguingly enough, this is about how far along SpaceX was at this point. Admittedly, this is not entirely accurate. SpaceX was further along with some things (first stage integration) and lagging behind on others (Dragon capsule development), so an actual metric on how far Taurus II's development is compared to the Falcon V is hard to make. The only real guidepost is the first launch, which Orbital has yet to do. I doubt that they will get it done by Q2 2011, but if they get it done by Q4 2011 they will be either on track with SpaceX or one year ahead depending on how you look at it.
As for Orbital subcontracting out most of the fabrication work, welcome to the modern aerospace industry. Just about everybody, and I mean
everybody in the aerospace industry subcontracts out at least one sub-assembly. The big aerospace companies such as Boeing and LockMart do little more than final assembly and overall program management on nearly all of their products. SpaceX could afford to do all R&D in house because they were originally on no deadline. If it hadn't been for the fact that Elon Musk played Mr. Moneybags for SpaceX during the R&D phase, this could have killed SpaceX when they finally had to meet NASA mandates. Orbital, on the other hand, has been playing catchup since day one. They've had no time to tarry, and subcontracting has been the only viable way to close the gap with SpaceX.
In this sense, SpaceX and Orbital are taking two opposite approaches to the same idea. SpaceX has had to pay for hight R&D costs up front, but their in-house development will likely mean lower reoccurring costs and low overall price tag in the end. Orbital, on the other hand, has relatively little R&D costs and the project is being fairly quickly put together. However, they will pay for this with higher reoccurring costs in the long run. So which company had the better solution? In reality, neither. Both did what they had to do to get the job done.