NASA and the Private Sector - Page 112
Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8693 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
| ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8693 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
Sir Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic are pleased to announce Virgin Orbit, a new commercial space company, and the appointment of Dan Hart as the first President of the newly created company. Virgin Orbit will offer flexible, routine and low cost launch services for small satellites via the LauncherOne system. Virgin Orbit's activities were previously conducted as a division of Virgin Galactic. Dan Hart joins Virgin Orbit after a distinguished 34 years at Boeing, where he was responsible for all of the company's satellite programs for the US government and several allied countries. As Boeing's Vice President of Government Satellite Systems, he led efforts in all phases of the aerospace product life cycle, from R&D through development, production and flight operations, and has supported numerous space launch missions across human spaceflight, satellite development, launch vehicle development, and missile defense. Virgin Orbit is headquartered in a state-of-the-art 180,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Long Beach, California, and employs a world class team of more than 200 experienced aerospace professionals. Its vehicles include the LauncherOne rocket and its 747-400 flying launch pad, dubbed Cosmic Girl. The LauncherOne service already has a substantial order book, including both commercial and government customers. Virgin Orbit is the third company in Virgin Group's commercial space portfolio, Galactic Ventures, led by CEO George T. Whitesides and owned by the Virgin Group and Aabar Investments PJS. The three companies are developing world-leading aerospace products and services in the following categories, each contributing to their shared vision of opening space to change the world for good. Source | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15522 Posts
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/finish-line-looms-for-google-lunar-xprize-finalists | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
Before the 2016 presidential election, businessman Robert Bigelow was one of the few people in the aerospace community to openly support Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Now that Trump is in office, Bigelow says the new administration is moving forward with a realistic space exploration plan that focuses on the Moon, rather than Mars. "Finally, we have someone practically engaged in the conversation here," he said Friday, during an interview with Ars. "The prior administration excluded the Moon, but that was really unrealistic. With Mars, there are issues with cost, and more. The Moon offers by far the most practical target in the near term, and of course the Moon has a far superior business case at the current time than asteroids or Mars." During recent weeks, Bigelow said he has spoken with Trump administration officials interested in space and talked about plans to jump-start NASA's human exploration program. Senior leaders within the Trump administration are interested in reaching some significant milestones by the end of President Trump's first term, in 2020. That led Bigelow to formulate a plan to have an orbital, human-tended outpost flying around the Moon by that time. Bigelow's company, in conjunction with NASA, launched an experimental expandable module called BEAM to the International Space Station in 2016. So far the BEAM habitat has performed well in orbit, demonstrating equal or superior radiation shielding than traditional aluminum modules on the station. This bodes well for a company looking to deploy habitats in deep space, beyond the protection of Earth's radiation belts. With its BEAM experience and data, the company has gained confidence in its next generation of expandable in-space habitats, the B330 module. It is so named because it offers 330 cubic meters of interior space, about one-third the volume of the entire International Space Station. Bigelow said Friday the company has built several different full-scale prototypes of the B330 and is working toward completing four full-scale units for qualification testing. Bigelow said he has talked with United Launch Alliance Chief Executive Tory Bruno about using the company's Atlas V 552 rocket, which has an extra-wide payload fairing, to deliver the B330 into orbit. Additionally, United Launch Alliance is developing an advanced upper-stage vehicle, ACES, to provide in-space propulsion. Two of these in tandem could be used to move the B330 into a low lunar orbit, perhaps to within 75km of the lunar surface, Bigelow said. Finally, he has also spoken to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell about using the company's Dragon 2 spacecraft to transport astronauts to the B330 in deep space. The upside of all this? Bigelow believes that by as early as 2020, NASA astronauts—as well as commercial partners—could be living and working in lunar orbit inside a functional space station. For the Trump administration, an orbiting depot would "send a message" that a real space exploration program has begun, Bigelow said. Source When SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk revealed Monday an audacious plan to deliver a pair of private citizens “on a trip around the Moon” in the fall of 2018, the impact was immense and immediate. Coming only days after NASA announced the onset of a study to potentially add a crew to its long-awaited Exploration Mission (EM)-1, the unfolding first quarter of 2017 seems stamped with a renewed vigor on both private and governmental levels to once again venture beyond low-Earth orbit with humans. If SpaceX meets its self-imposed target of a flight late next year, it will coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 8 mission, which saw NASA astronauts Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders circumnavigate the Moon way back in December 1968. However, in recent comments provided to AmericaSpace, SpaceX revealed that its plans for the lunar voyage have been under consideration for at least the past two years. More intriguingly, “additional requests” for other private flights were also made, with Monday’s announced mission “and at least one more” having emerged relatively recently. It remains to be seen what the nature of these potential missions will be and SpaceX are presently keeping tight-lipped about whether they will voyage to low-Earth orbit or beyond. Since the formation of SpaceX, way back in May 2002, Mr. Musk has made no secret of his intent to deliver humans into deep space, colonizing Mars and other destinations in the Solar System. As part of this architecture, SpaceX has focused on reusability technologies: most visibly the capability to return spent first stages of its Falcon 9 booster to soft landings on either the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS) in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans or on solid ground at Landing Zone (LZ)-1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. Having thus far brought eight Falcon 9 first stages safely back to Earth between December 2015 and February 2017, SpaceX now stands ready to re-use one of them on an upcoming flight in March to deliver the SES-10 communications satellite to orbit. A long-term partner with NASA, SpaceX was one of two commercial entities to support the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) effort to deliver cargo and equipment to the International Space Station (ISS). Following the signing of the inaugural CRS agreements, back in December 2008, SpaceX also won a $2.6 billion share of the Commercial Crew transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, which will see its Crew Dragon (or “Dragon 2”) spacecraft deliver astronauts to the ISS on a rotating basis, thereby helping to eliminate NASA’s uneasy reliance on the Russian Soyuz vehicles. However, as outlined last year by AmericaSpace’s Mike Killian, ongoing technical issues forced SpaceX to postpone an unpiloted and piloted test flight of the Crew Dragon to the ISS, with the former now scheduled to fly no sooner than November 2017 and the latter no earlier than May 2018. When these “certification” missions have been completed, SpaceX will receive the green light to push ahead with six “operational” Post-Certification Missions (PCMs) to the space station. The first two PCM awards were issued in November 2015 and July 2016, followed by four more in January 2017. The timeline for when these PCMs will take place remains in flux, although NASASpaceflight.com has recently indicated that they may begin as soon as September 2018. In SpaceX’s press release on its website, it was noted that the passenger-carrying lunar flight of a Crew Dragon will not take place until both the unpiloted and piloted test flights have been completed and the PCMs are underway. “Once operational Crew Dragon missions are underway for NASA,” it was stressed, “SpaceX will launch the private mission on a journey to circumnavigate the Moon and return to Earth.” The close proximity of the first ISS-bound PCM in September 2018 and the proposed end-of-year lunar voyage raise concerns that both dates may slip to the right. Already, SpaceX’s bold plan to send an unpiloted Crew Dragon vehicle to Mars as soon as 2018 has already moved to no sooner than 2020, despite only being announced last year. Aside from the readiness of the spacecraft to carry humans, the status of SpaceX’s home-grown Falcon Heavy rocket remains equally uncertain, with a tentative target of summer 2017 for its maiden flight. The Heavy—which comprises three Falcon 9 boosters, one serving as a central core, side-mounted to two others—was intended by SpaceX from the outset to be capable of delivering humans to the Moon and Mars. With a total propulsive yield from its 27 Merlin 1D+ engines of more than 5.1 million pounds (2.3 million kg) at liftoff, the three cores and a single Merlin 1D+ engine on the second stage carry the potential to deliver 35,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of payload across cislunar space to the Moon. And if all goes well, the Heavy will position the Crew Dragon for the first Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) of a human-carrying vehicle in 46 years. Originally targeted to conduct its first flight in the 2013 timeframe, the Falcon Heavy has met with significant delay, not least after the failures of a pair of Falcon 9 vehicles in flight in June 2015 and on the launch pad in September 2016. Last December, SpaceX shared images of a Falcon Heavy “interstage”—a key structural component between the first and second stages—under construction. Current plans call for the Falcon Heavy to undertake an initial test flight this summer, followed by a mission carrying the Space Test Program (STP)-2 mixed payload in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) certification process for future national security customers. This will be followed by Saudi Arabia’s heavyweight Arabsat-6A communications satellite in 2018. Several other potential commercial customers originally signed up for Falcon Heavy launches, but subsequently moved to alternate vehicles: Intelsat will now fly one of its birds on a standard Falcon 9 and Inmarsat will ride Europe’s Ariane 5 later this year. Source | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
SpaceX is likely going to underdeliver out the wazoo though. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
NASA is far from a perfect government agency. As former space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale recently noted, NASA is hobbled by three major problems—rivalries between field centers, "mind-numbing" bureaucracy, and a "paralyzing" cultural requirement for perfection in all things. But for all of its problems, NASA remains an organization capable of doing great things, filled with talented and motivated people. And among the goals NASA has committed to is encouraging US companies to invest in spaceflight and develop sustainable business plans. NASA seeks to open outer space for business, particularly low Earth orbit. To that end, NASA has been a great partner to SpaceX and its goal of reducing the cost of access to space. NASA essentially saved the launch company with a $1.6 billion contract in 2008 to provide cargo delivery to the International Space Station. The space agency is also in the midst of providing the company more than $3 billion to develop and begin flying crewed missions to the station. These funds have allowed SpaceX to design and develop its workhorse Falcon 9 rocket and two variants of the Dragon spacecraft, including the Dragon 2 capsule the company proposed to send two humans around the Moon in next year. After SpaceX's dramatic announcement Monday about its lunar tourism plans, NASA issued what at the outset appears to be a supportive statement: "NASA commends its industry partners for reaching higher." However, reading a bit deeper into the statement, there is something of a rebuke, suggesting the agency's patience with the Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX is wearing a bit thin. It is not clear where this important relationship is now headed. Forbearance Considering all of the support it has provided SpaceX, it is illustrative to look at how SpaceX has treated the space agency. On the plus side, the company has provided cargo transport services to the space station that would have cost NASA billions of dollars more to develop using its traditional, cost-plus contracting processes. With its splashy launches and landings, SpaceX has also increased public interest in—and support for—NASA's activities on the space station. But on the negative side, consider the following: During a resupply flight to the station in June 2015, a Falcon 9 rocket disintegrated about two minutes into flight. NASA lost 2.5 tons of payload, including an expensive docking adapter. NASA's response was to support the company in its accident investigation and get the company flying again. As part of its commercial crew mission profile, SpaceX has proposed to NASA that it will load chilled propellants on the rocket at the last minute, with crew on board. However, in September, 2016, NASA watched as a Falcon 9 rocket exploded during a preflight test on the launch pad, destroying its satellite payload. It's possible the crew might have survived due to a launch abort system on Dragon. Again, NASA assisted with the investigation, but it remains gravely concerned about such "load and go" operations with crew strapped in. In the fall of 2016, SpaceX announced an ambitious plan to colonize Mars in the 2020s. While nominally the company said it only needed $10 billion to land the first colonists on Mars, in reality it likely would need much more than that to build its large Interplanetary Transport System. The company's first (and probably only) choice for those funds? NASA. Only the space agency already has its own plan to go to Mars in the 2030s. NASA also recently announced that it is studying the possibility of sending two astronauts on a week-long looping flight around the Moon and back in 2019 using its Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft. Then, on Monday, SpaceX said it may do the same thing in 2018. If the government would like to use its rocket and spacecraft instead of the NASA vehicles, that would be just fine, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said. Finally, even as SpaceX was announcing competing plans to explore deep space, its timeline for delivering commercial crew astronauts to the International Space Station was slipping to the right. Late 2017 has become late 2018, and NASA is considering buying seats from the Russians for 2019 due to the likelihood of further slippages. NASA: SpaceX, please The second part of NASA's statement on SpaceX's lunar-tourism news offers some insight into how the space agency really feels about the latest announcement. The agency says, "We will work closely with SpaceX to ensure it safely meets the contractual obligations to return the launch of astronauts to US soil and continue to successfully deliver supplies to the International Space Station." Roughly translated, this means: Dear SpaceX, we have stood by you. We have given you $3 billion for crew services, the majority of your revenues in recent years, and we are desperately tired of relying on Russia to get our astronauts to the space station. Could you please focus on our contract? Like, now? A more blunt assessment was offered by Mary Lynne Dittmar, who is familiar with the thinking of NASA's human spaceflight program managers. “I find it extraordinary that these sorts of announcements are being made when SpaceX has yet to get crew from the ground to low-Earth orbit," she told The New York Times. This is essentially the position of many—although certainly not all—at NASA, along with its primary contractors. Dittmar serves as executive director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, the organization formed by the principal contractors behind NASA's SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft. These are the old-guard aerospace firms, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, whose government contracts are threatened by SpaceX. Orion, in particular, appears to be particularly vulnerable if SpaceX can show that Dragon is capable of performing the same kind of deep space missions and high velocity returns from the Moon. With his latest proposal, Elon Musk is playing a dangerous, but potentially winning, game with his lower-cost alternatives to NASA's existing programs. He recognizes that NASA has nurtured his company, and on Monday night, he remained publicly appreciative of the space agency. However by talking about Mars and now the Moon, he not only indicates that his company isn't entirely focused on its most important contract—commercial crew—but also is making a play for NASA's future deep space exploration plans. Musk is betting that Vice President Mike Pence will strongly suggest that NASA leverage SpaceX's more affordable capabilities to get American astronauts into deep space, sooner. If the Trump administration fails to come through, however, Musk risks alienating his closest—and by far his most important—ally. Source Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I in general think that NASA was a little too nice to SpaceX and should have been much more reserved in its support of a hypester who underdelivers quite a lot. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
New ad that emphasizes cheaper insurance costs (IMO they should emphasize delay costs etc as well): Solid progress on Vulcan (new, cheaper rocket with reusability from ULA): $170M contract for 2021: Various uneventful launches that did not yield any explosions, on the pad or otherwise. Some further planned downsizing at ULA as they reduce to 2 pads (from 6) and phase out their more redundant rocket systems as they make Vulcan and try to help keep prices down. Incidentally, Delta II seems to be at the end of its life and the last rocket is looking for a museum to be housed in. Stephen Colbert in Boeing's blue space suit (I didn't like it at first but it looks really beautiful when someone is actually wearing it in a less sterile environment): And the stock photo of Boeing Starliner Suit: | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Mark Dowhan, Vice President of Launch Operations for ULA will be retiring at the end of this month. Mark said he will “play more golf” in his retirement. He has been with the company for almost 17 years following a 21 year career as a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force. His replacement will be Tony Taliancich, Director East Coast Launch Operations. Tony has been with Lockheed Martin/ULA for 13 years, mostly in launch operations. Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, he was with the United States Air Force. ___________________________________________________________ According to a credible inside source, major layoffs are about to occur at United Launch Alliance (ULA). Following the launch March 1st, 2017 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, most if not all of the staff of ULA at VAFB will be laid off over a few months. Also, according to the inside source a key senior level manager is retiring in March. No replacement is known of at this time, however, two mid-level executives are under consideration. The launch from VAFB was a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) mission, NROL-79, stacked on an Atlas V (401) booster. The launch was a success. This is big news as ULA still has a launch manifest, following NROL-79, on the west coast at Vandenberg. To process these launches, the inside source said that teams from the east coast will travel to VAFB to process the launch vehicle, payload and control the launch. The inside source also reported that ULA will be changing its name. Source | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
An atmospheric test model of Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser space plane is being readied for tow and landing tests at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in California this spring. The partially-assembled test craft arrived at the California test site, located on Edwards Air Force Base, on Jan. 25. Technicians are adding the ship’s V-shaped tail fins and other equipment before kicking off ground and flight tests in the coming months, according to Mark Sirangelo, corporate vice president of Sierra Nevada’s space systems division. “We’ll do a series of ground tests,” Sirangelo said in a recent interview. “That will include towing the vehicle down the runway, and that allows us to see how it stops and how it moves, but it also allows us to test all the sensors on the vehicle because we can get it up to a high enough speed where that will happen.” The Dream Chaser spacecraft, originally envisioned to fly with astronaut crews, will now fly on space missions with cargo deliveries heading for the International Space Station. That change means the spaceship will return to Earth on autopilot, using navigation aids to descend to a runway, deploy its landing gear and touch down like NASA’s space shuttles. After the ground tests, Sirangelo said the Dream Chaser test article will perform “captive carry” tests suspended under a helicopter, using the exercises to verify the movements of the craft’s aerosurfaces and navigation instrumentation. “When that’s done, we’ll move into a series of flight tests, where it will be dropped for approach and landing like the shuttle Enterprise,” Sirangelo said, referring to the vehicle NASA used for landing demonstrations in the 1970s before the first full-up space shuttle mission. The Dream Chaser will be dropped from heavy-duty carrier helicopter for an autonomous landing at Runway 22L at Edwards Air Force Base. The test campaign in California’s Mojave Desert comes three-and-a-half years after Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser last flew on its own. A drop test in October 2013 ended with a crash landing after the ship’s left landing gear failed to deploy. Sierra Nevada says the 2013 flight was successful until that point, and Dream Chaser’s autopilot landing system steered the craft toward the runway for a touchdown on the centerline. Engineers blamed the mishap on a landing gear borrowed from a U.S. Air Force F-5E jet. Future Dream Chaser cargo missions to the space station will fly with a different landing gear, and the spaceship preparing for tests this spring in California features a gear more advanced then the suspect system at fault in 2013. Source | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
In 2014, the rocket company United Launch Alliance (ULA) entered into an agreement with Blue Origin to jointly fund development of the latter company's BE-4 rocket engine. While ULA didn't commit to using the Blue Origin engine in its next-generation booster, its "significant" investment signaled it was enthused about the innovative rocket engine. However some members of Congress have been pushing ULA to use a different engine, the AR1, being developed by Aerojet Rocketdyne. At the end of February, two US representatives, Mike Rogers of Alabama and Mac Thornberry of Texas, decided to push a little harder. On February 28, they sent a letter to Lisa Disbrow, the acting secretary of the US Air Force, and James MacStravic, who is performing the duties of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. In addition to reiterating a desire that ULA continue to fly a second rocket, the Delta IV Heavy, the letter urges the Pentagon officials to be skeptical about the BE-4 engine. "The United States Government (USG) must have a hands-on, decision-making role... in any decision made by United Launch Alliance to down-select engines on its proposed Vulcan space launch system, especially where one of the technologies is unproven at the required size and power," the letter states. "If ULA plans on requesting hundreds of millions of dollars from the USG for development of its launch vehicle and associated infrastructure, then it is not only appropriate but required that the USG have a significant role in the decision-making concerning the vehicle." The letter then goes on to say the Air Force should not give any additional funding to ULA, other than for current launch vehicles, until the company provides "full access, oversight of, and approval rights over decision-making" in its choice of contractors for the engines on Vulcan. On Thursday evening a spokeswoman for ULA, Jessica Rye, said ULA will continue to support the Department of Defense's needs. "We will work with the Congress to resolve concerns raised in the letter," she said. Although both Rogers and Thornberry are members of the House Armed Services Committee, it is difficult to avoid ascribing at least some political motives to the letter. In January, Aerojet Rocketdyne said it would produce the AR1 rocket engine in Huntsville, Alabama, creating 100 new jobs near NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Already, another Huntsville company, Dynetics, has become a subcontractor for the engine’s main propulsion system. (A spokesman for Rogers didn't not reply to a request for comment). As part of the January announcement, another Alabama lawmaker, Senator Richard Shelby, praised the company's decision to build its engines in Huntsville. "Aerojet Rocketdyne's announcement that it is bringing 100 new jobs to Huntsville is excellent news for our state," Shelby said at the time. "I look forward to working with them and other businesses to bring economic development to Alabama." A former adviser to President Obama, whose administration sought to increase commercialization of US space flight, says this appears to be a case of elevating local politics above what's best for the nation in space. "This letter puts Alabama first instead of America first," Phil Larson told Ars. "NASA, the Pentagon, and our country will be better situated with a robust, diversified, and innovative commercial space industry here in the United States. By targeting an innovative partnership between established companies, this letter shows that Alabama's delegation is stuck in the past." With its workhorse Atlas V rocket, ULA has launched satellites for the US defense and intelligence communities for more than a decade—it was the sole provider until SpaceX was recently certified for some launches. But by 2014, as tensions between the United States and Russia were spiking due to the Crimean crisis, ULA came under pressure from Congress to end its use of the Russian RD-180 engine. The engine is extremely reliable, but Congress did not want to see us using Russian technology to get our national security assets into space. As ULA moved forward with development of its Vulcan rocket, it needed new engines, ones made in the United States. In addition to the Blue Origin partnership, ULA also said it was working with the California-based Aerojet Rocketdyne as a back-up option. The company has a long history of building large rocket engines, including the Space Shuttle main engines. Aerojet has since said that it is developing the AR1 engine as the option that will provide the "lowest cost to the taxpayer." Source | ||
zatic
Zurich15205 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Mind you, the US (well, the company that uses the engine at any rate) has the technology to make its own RD-180 engines as per a technology transfer agreement. They just simply can't make them as cheap as the Russians, so it's cheaper to buy. Nevertheless, it's true that ultimately a transition away from Russian engines into a domestic engine is a good idea, so ULA is getting one for their new Vulcan rocket. Blue Origin's rocket is the strong favorite right now, but Aerojet Rocketdyne also has an engine they are making and they're trying to sell it. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Wow, this blatant attempt to ram AR-1 down ULA's throat pisses me off. I accept their claim that is the USG helped pay for the development they should get some say in the outcome. However, this is going too far. Like dictating to NASA that they needed to build a large rocket, oh, and you have to use these parts to do it. All of this for 100 new jobs! Cripes. I hope ULA tells them to shove it and moves forward with the path they (you know, the fricking rocket engineers?) think is best. They seem to love government funding though. I hope it doesn't compromise them. Aerojet Rocketdyne has a shitty engine but they're sort of desperate because the company needs to sell to survive. They even tried to acquire ULA to buy themselves a customer. (Will probably write more on this later today, time permitting.) | ||
ShoCkeyy
7814 Posts
On March 11 2017 01:15 LegalLord wrote: It's sort of a historical anomaly. There was a time when the US government specifically requested that the current contractor use Russian engines (the RD-180, which to be fair is a very good engine in its own right) and it just ended up staying that way for a while considering that it's tough to switch when the current rocket has remarkable 100% reliability over ~115 launches. Mind you, the US (well, the company that uses the engine at any rate) has the technology to make its own RD-180 engines as per a technology transfer agreement. They just simply can't make them as cheap as the Russians, so it's cheaper to buy. Nevertheless, it's true that ultimately a transition away from Russian engines into a domestic engine is a good idea, so ULA is getting one for their new Vulcan rocket. Blue Origin's rocket is the strong favorite right now, but Aerojet Rocketdyne also has an engine they are making and they're trying to sell it. You mean SpaceX is the strongest favorite right now? They're launching and returning more than any other current private space organization. I mean the previous explosion did leave a set back, but they were able to come back pretty quickly from it. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 11 2017 04:22 ShoCkeyy wrote: You mean SpaceX is the strongest favorite right now? They're launching and returning more than any other current private space organization. I mean the previous explosion did leave a set back, but they were able to come back pretty quickly from it. Strongest favorite for ULA to use as their new rocket engine. SpaceX makes a full rocket separately, not just an engine. SpaceX vs ULA as a whole is an entirely different matter, one that I'll probably get back to later. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
However, privatization of space has made some solid advances recently, and so there are a lot more competitors now, most notably SpaceX. ULA's launches are mostly for military projects, so it wasn't really that much of a problem until SpaceX started to get contracts from the Air Force. Eventually, though, it started to become clear that ULA's rockets, despite their reliability, were just too damn expensive to sell commercial, and it was harder to compete on contracts. They're still getting by, but it's clear that something needs to change because they lose a lot of business this way. And a side-issue of importance is simply that ULA's previous CEO underestimated the usefulness of media presence - hence SpaceX is the company of all the annoying fanboys whereas few people actually are all that interested in ULA and the like. So ULA recently went through a pretty big restructuring, with a few major changes: 1. Reduced from six pads to two to reduce infrastructure costs. 2. Lay off the redundant workers in 2016 and 2017. 3. Phase out some of the older, less workable rockets (Delta II for example) 4. Create a new all-American rocket with reusability. Their new rocket is the Vulcan - which they hope to use to slash launch prices in half while keeping their reliability. They still won't be cheaper than SpaceX for a number of reasons - more overhead for ensuring high reliability, certain pork projects, pensions that need paying since the company is bigger, and so on - but they can make it cheap enough that the reliability plus cost starts to be competitive. ULA is cheaper on insurance and has fewer launch delays than SpaceX, which are still very solid selling points even if they aren't worth $100 million more. Also a lot of effort devoted to marketing and media presence so that they don't look as unapproachable as they did before and get more media love. Of course another factor is that all indications (including internal documents) suggest that SpaceX operates at a loss - but that isn't going to help ULA right now to know that SpaceX won't be feasible in a decade, so they have to adapt and make it work while still charging enough to profit. Well they need an engine for it, and they basically decided on the BE-4 engine. They even invested good money into it. But Aerojet Rocketdyne has their own engine and they want to sell it really badly. So they're doing what they can, including leveraging Alabama legislators (traditionally important allies of ULA) to try to change the engine. I think it's not going to work. But they are pretty desperate so they're trying this. Though I also have a feeling that ULA chose Blue Origin specifically because they want to make "New Space" allies to help them along. If they get publicity like this article they're looking like a company that really cares about progress and moving forward in the wake of porkers like AJRD. Probably a good idea to curry favor that way. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
| ||