SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
SpaceX landing SN15 was the best answer I can imagine to the Blue Origin and Dynetics protests. I would love to see the hearing if there was an even vaguely impartial judge (Senator).
Senator: So, Blue, you feel that SpaceX is a schedule risk to the Artermis programme?
Blue: Absolutely.
Senator: So you are further ahead with your development than SpaceX, hence you feel you are less of a risk? Your engines for example, have you finished developing them - you've flown them I take it?
Blue: Er, no. Not yet.
Senator: Oh. I see SpaceX have now flown <counts on fingers and toes> 18 of their engines. But you think you are ahead? Hmm, your lander then, have you flown that with some other engine then, is that why you think you are less risky?
Blue: Ah, well, we haven't actually built anything other than a plywood mock up yet.
Senator. Ah. <Counts again> I believe SpaceX have flown 8 test vehicles, including five prototypes of their lander.
Blue: Yes, but, 4 of those exploded! They've only managed to land four prototypes and only one of them was of their lander!
Senator. That would be four more landings than you?
Blue: Well, yes. But they have to develop in flight refuelling, they have to dock their Starship in orbit.
Senator: Oh, I see. That could be tricky. Although to be fair they have built and flown three different capsules that have docked with the ISS many times, so I guess they know what they are doing with docking. Don't you have to dock your elements too?
Blue: Well, yes.
Senator: But you haven't docked your plywood mockup with anything I take it? Or flown it? Or landed it?
Blue: Of course not, it's a mockup!
Senator: And SpaceX are the risk???!?
Senator: So, Blue, you feel that SpaceX is a schedule risk to the Artermis programme?
Blue: Absolutely.
Senator: So you are further ahead with your development than SpaceX, hence you feel you are less of a risk? Your engines for example, have you finished developing them - you've flown them I take it?
Blue: Er, no. Not yet.
Senator: Oh. I see SpaceX have now flown <counts on fingers and toes> 18 of their engines. But you think you are ahead? Hmm, your lander then, have you flown that with some other engine then, is that why you think you are less risky?
Blue: Ah, well, we haven't actually built anything other than a plywood mock up yet.
Senator. Ah. <Counts again> I believe SpaceX have flown 8 test vehicles, including five prototypes of their lander.
Blue: Yes, but, 4 of those exploded! They've only managed to land four prototypes and only one of them was of their lander!
Senator. That would be four more landings than you?
Blue: Well, yes. But they have to develop in flight refuelling, they have to dock their Starship in orbit.
Senator: Oh, I see. That could be tricky. Although to be fair they have built and flown three different capsules that have docked with the ISS many times, so I guess they know what they are doing with docking. Don't you have to dock your elements too?
Blue: Well, yes.
Senator: But you haven't docked your plywood mockup with anything I take it? Or flown it? Or landed it?
Blue: Of course not, it's a mockup!
Senator: And SpaceX are the risk???!?
Flooble said:
SpaceX landing SN15 was the best answer I can imagine to the Blue Origin and Dynetics protests. I would love to see the hearing if there was an even vaguely impartial judge (Senator).
Senator: So, Blue, you feel that SpaceX is a schedule risk to the Artermis programme?
Blue: Absolutely.
Senator: So you are further ahead with your development than SpaceX, hence you feel you are less of a risk? Your engines for example, have you finished developing them - you've flown them I take it?
Blue: Er, no. Not yet.
Senator: Oh. I see SpaceX have now flown <counts on fingers and toes> 18 of their engines. But you think you are ahead? Hmm, your lander then, have you flown that with some other engine then, is that why you think you are less risky?
Blue: Ah, well, we haven't actually built anything other than a plywood mock up yet.
Senator. Ah. <Counts again> I believe SpaceX have flown 8 test vehicles, including five prototypes of their lander.
Blue: Yes, but, 4 of those exploded! They've only managed to land four prototypes and only one of them was of their lander!
Senator. That would be four more landings than you?
Blue: Well, yes. But they have to develop in flight refuelling, they have to dock their Starship in orbit.
Senator: Oh, I see. That could be tricky. Although to be fair they have built and flown three different capsules that have docked with the ISS many times, so I guess they know what they are doing with docking. Don't you have to dock your elements too?
Blue: Well, yes.
Senator: But you haven't docked your plywood mockup with anything I take it? Or flown it? Or landed it?
Blue: Of course not, it's a mockup!
Senator: And SpaceX are the risk???!?
Senator: So, Blue, you feel that SpaceX is a schedule risk to the Artermis programme?
Blue: Absolutely.
Senator: So you are further ahead with your development than SpaceX, hence you feel you are less of a risk? Your engines for example, have you finished developing them - you've flown them I take it?
Blue: Er, no. Not yet.
Senator: Oh. I see SpaceX have now flown <counts on fingers and toes> 18 of their engines. But you think you are ahead? Hmm, your lander then, have you flown that with some other engine then, is that why you think you are less risky?
Blue: Ah, well, we haven't actually built anything other than a plywood mock up yet.
Senator. Ah. <Counts again> I believe SpaceX have flown 8 test vehicles, including five prototypes of their lander.
Blue: Yes, but, 4 of those exploded! They've only managed to land four prototypes and only one of them was of their lander!
Senator. That would be four more landings than you?
Blue: Well, yes. But they have to develop in flight refuelling, they have to dock their Starship in orbit.
Senator: Oh, I see. That could be tricky. Although to be fair they have built and flown three different capsules that have docked with the ISS many times, so I guess they know what they are doing with docking. Don't you have to dock your elements too?
Blue: Well, yes.
Senator: But you haven't docked your plywood mockup with anything I take it? Or flown it? Or landed it?
Blue: Of course not, it's a mockup!
Senator: And SpaceX are the risk???!?
Ha, very good. 
As for the Moon:
“Geometric Energy Corporation proudly announces the DOGE-1 Mission to the Moon — the first-ever commercial lunar payload in history paid entirely with DOGE — will launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.“
The 40 kg spacecraft will be a rideshare and will launch early next year.
As for the Moon:
“Geometric Energy Corporation proudly announces the DOGE-1 Mission to the Moon — the first-ever commercial lunar payload in history paid entirely with DOGE — will launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.“
The 40 kg spacecraft will be a rideshare and will launch early next year.
Beati Dogu said:
Ha, very good.
As for the Moon:
“Geometric Energy Corporation proudly announces the DOGE-1 Mission to the Moon — the first-ever commercial lunar payload in history paid entirely with DOGE — will launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.“
The 40 kg spacecraft will be a rideshare and will launch early next year.
As for the Moon:
“Geometric Energy Corporation proudly announces the DOGE-1 Mission to the Moon — the first-ever commercial lunar payload in history paid entirely with DOGE — will launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.“
The 40 kg spacecraft will be a rideshare and will launch early next year.
Here's a question - just how long in reality can all these other medium/heavy launch providers stay in business given the cost undercutting - which will only become more pronounced? The small stuff I suspect the likes of Rocket Lab can compete on, but your Arianespace and the big US megaliths space division? They're going to be on life support soon, relying on the lucrative NASA and military contracts, but even those cannot continue forever when those at the top can no longer justify sending payloads up at several times the cost.
Dog Star said:
Here's a question - just how long in reality can all these other medium/heavy launch providers stay in business given the cost undercutting - which will only become more pronounced? The small stuff I suspect the likes of Rocket Lab can compete on, but your Arianespace and the big US megaliths space division? They're going to be on life support soon, relying on the lucrative NASA and military contracts, but even those cannot continue forever when those at the top can no longer justify sending payloads up at several times the cost.
I suspect that behind the scenes ULA et al are a bit worried. ESA have already announced they are looking at a Falconesque launcher, as have the Russians and Chinese, while all ULA have done so far is talk about parachuting the engines of their Vulcan back for recovery.ULA are actually at something of a disadvantage - while ESA & Roscosmos are state funded, ULA have to keep the gravy rolling in for their shareholders, and R&D on a recoverable booster would eat into profits
[quote=MartG
ULA are actually at something of a disadvantage - while ESA & Roscosmos are state funded, ULA have to keep the gravy rolling in for their shareholders, and R&D on a recoverable booster would eat into profits
[/quote]
I suggest that a drying up of the order book will make an even better job of eating into profits.
ULA are actually at something of a disadvantage - while ESA & Roscosmos are state funded, ULA have to keep the gravy rolling in for their shareholders, and R&D on a recoverable booster would eat into profits
[/quote]
I suggest that a drying up of the order book will make an even better job of eating into profits.
MartG said:
ULA are actually at something of a disadvantage - while ESA & Roscosmos are state funded, ULA have to keep the gravy rolling in for their shareholders, and R&D on a recoverable booster would eat into profits
It'd be interesting to see where we would be in let's say 2040 if SpaceX never arrived and kicked this whole industry up the arse? I suspect we would still have the bulk of transport being done on 80 year old tech Soyuz clones, with the odd halo mission - at eye watering cost - being done on SLS (if it was finished). Compare this with a fair estimate of current advances which will see boots on Mars about 2030 (I don't think we will ever see a city there). decent sized moon base and orbiting workshops.That sounds about right. SpaceX has certainly been a market disruptor in the previously cosy launch business. They haven't really had a shake up since Arianespace came on the scene in the 80's and dominated commercial launches. Now, even the risk averse NASA and US Air Force are allowing use of reflown rockets and capsules.
Dog Star said:
It'd be interesting to see where we would be in let's say 2040 if SpaceX never arrived and kicked this whole industry up the arse? I suspect we would still have the bulk of transport being done on 80 year old tech Soyuz clones, with the odd halo mission - at eye watering cost - being done on SLS (if it was finished). Compare this with a fair estimate of current advances which will see boots on Mars about 2030 (I don't think we will ever see a city there). decent sized moon base and orbiting workshops.
If you read Eric Berger's liftoff book, he notes that SpaceX challenged a sole-supplier award (i.e. no bids were invited) Nasa made to Kistler aerospace in, I think, 2004 for "data". Amazingly SpaceX won the challenge and, in a somewhat convoluted way, out of the back of that win eventually came the Commercial Cargo Supply contracts. It's not hard to imagine therefore that without SpaceX the regular suppliers would have continued churning out powerpoints and design studies. I think SLS and Orion would still be on the drawing board requiring regular infusions of extra cash to re-design something or other.
The cynic in me suspects Starliner's troubles were at least partly a result of Boeing being surprised to discover that when SpaceX said they would build a spaceship for $X, it actually built a spaceship for $X.
I can't help but feel that Boeing had planned to string Starliner out for many more years with several "unexpected challenges" requiring extra dollops of funding. Then when SpaceX flew the Dragon I can imagine Boeing realising they had better actually build something that worked and having to rush it.
MartG said:
I suspect that behind the scenes ULA et al are a bit worried. ESA have already announced they are looking at a Falconesque launcher, as have the Russians and Chinese, while all ULA have done so far is talk about parachuting the engines of their Vulcan back for recovery.
ULA are actually at something of a disadvantage - while ESA & Roscosmos are state funded, ULA have to keep the gravy rolling in for their shareholders, and R&D on a recoverable booster would eat into profits
Just a single SpaceX booster, B1051 with 10 launches, is only 1 behind the total number of ULA launches in the same time.ULA are actually at something of a disadvantage - while ESA & Roscosmos are state funded, ULA have to keep the gravy rolling in for their shareholders, and R&D on a recoverable booster would eat into profits
Same number of flights as Challenger.
Flooble said:
The cynic in me suspects Starliner's troubles were at least partly a result of Boeing being surprised to discover that when SpaceX said they would build a spaceship for $X, it actually built a spaceship for $X.
I can't help but feel that Boeing had planned to string Starliner out for many more years with several "unexpected challenges" requiring extra dollops of funding. Then when SpaceX flew the Dragon I can imagine Boeing realising they had better actually build something that worked and having to rush it.
I tend to agree with you thereI can't help but feel that Boeing had planned to string Starliner out for many more years with several "unexpected challenges" requiring extra dollops of funding. Then when SpaceX flew the Dragon I can imagine Boeing realising they had better actually build something that worked and having to rush it.
Looks like there will be another Starlink launch this weekend. Probably using booster B1058, which will make this its 8th flight. This is Starlink-26 which comes after last Sunday’s Starlink-27 for some reason. It’ll probably have some rideshare sats onboard, which may explain why it got bumped.
Launch time is likely to be about midnight on Saturday UK time though.
Launch time is likely to be about midnight on Saturday UK time though.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Tuesday 11th May 00:06
CraigyMc said:
Does anyone know if/when SpaceX will fly from Vandenberg again? They seem to have stopped doing so for the last couple of years.
This article suggests it might be from July this year - they have demonstrated polar orbit Starlink launches from Florida, but the payloads have to be reduced in exchange for additional fuel burn to avoid overflying populated areas on the way out - not a problem at Vandenburg, and SpaceX want to start building up the polar Starlink constellation.Beati Dogu said:
That sounds about right. SpaceX has certainly been a market disruptor in the previously cosy launch business. They haven't really had a shake up since Arianespace came on the scene in the 80's and dominated commercial launches. Now, even the risk averse NASA and US Air Force are allowing use of reflown rockets and capsules.
I think it goes further than launches. The old model was NASA paying a contractor to build a rocket. The rocket was duly built, at vast expense, and no one had anything to show for it than a bag of moon rocks or whatever. SpaceX are still using this model, but in addition to the delivery of the contract, they are also getting, effectively for free, a cheap, reusable way of getting into space.
If they get the launches cheap enough, I suspect space tourism will explode. Even at the current price of $24m a seat, they could fill Dragon 10x over. At 2m a seat, they’ll have a waiting list, and at $500K a seat, they could launch every week. At some point, if you want to access the best people who understand human space flight, you’ll be going to SpaceX, not NASA.
They’ve already done the first stage of this with Starlink. Effectively for the price of R&D (they needed to fly the rockets anyway) they’ve built a constellation that will be an unimaginable revenue stream for them.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff