Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

One of teh fascinating aspects of the grousing against ESAS has been that when one can pry an idea of an alternative from the internet rocketeer crowd, the suggestion has always been Earth Orbit Rendeavouz using EELVs. Now, however, we find that EELVs are not sufficiently commercial either, are expensive and unreliable. (The last proposition is something I've been pointing out, by the way.)

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 31, 2006 09:57 AM

But Mark, I thought we never provide alternatives. You just (absurdly) accused me of this the other day. How can you criticize our alternatives if we never provide any? Oh, right, the logic thing.

One of the reasons that EELVs are expensive and unreliable is that they have a very low flight rate. One of the reasons that they have a very low flight rate is that NASA insists on not using them, instead wasting taxpayers' money by developing two entirely new vehicles. EELVs aren't the best way to execute the president's vision, but they'd certainly be a better alternative than ESAS.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2006 10:12 AM

Rand: all our alternatives are defined to be unacceptable, and hence don't really exist.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 31, 2006 11:17 AM

"Seems like", Rand?

Posted by Peter at January 31, 2006 11:45 AM

>> EELVs aren't the best way to execute the president's vision, but they'd certainly be a better alternative than ESAS.

I don't know, Rand. When Clark starts comparing the Delta IV to the Titan IV, I have reason to doubt that. You folks really need to come up with better alternatives (or at least some alternative) if you're going to complain.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 31, 2006 12:07 PM

Unreliable? Every launch of the EELV Delta and Atlas has been successful except for 1 Delta test flight that had nothing but a load of rocks on top. You may not be able to say that those 2 LVs are reliable based on that data, but you certainly can’t say that they are unreliable.

EELV program…. biggest mistake?
There were no more Titans (and good reasons not to want any more), and no other LVs capable of launching the necessary assets. What was the Air Force supposed to do use a sling shot? Can the Air Force help it that there were only 2 companies capable of handling such a large project in such a limited amount of time? Maybe LVs like Falcon will ultimately succeed, and maybe they won’t, but that’s not good enough when national security is at stake. The Air Force has very interesting reasons for wanting Falcon or any other low cost LV to succeed. Everyone has a shot at Air Forces business (assuming they can meet security requirements); guess I don’t understand what all the griping is about?

Posted by brian d at January 31, 2006 12:16 PM

I am just a member of the public, but it seem to me that DoD has a long way to fall to NASA's level of mismanagement. And those behemoth aerospace majors can turn a little better when DoD asks, it appears. Can you imagine a NASA program flying on a Russian engine?

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at January 31, 2006 02:11 PM

Can you imagine a NASA program flying on a Russian engine?

We currently have a NASA program (ISS) running on a Russian launch vehicle and crew capsule.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2006 02:17 PM

Interesting side point. For all the carping at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and big aerospace in general, I noticed that the proposed SpaceX Launch vehical (Falcon 9 S5 or S9) is only about 65-70% the cost of the comparable Atlas. I expect SpaceX will experience some of the same cost growth that Lockmart did and in the end theirs will end up costing roughly the same + or – 10%. Wow is that the fantastic advancement in acsess to space we’re going to get from these “new” companies?

Posted by brian d at January 31, 2006 03:11 PM

I'd say SBIRS is in the running for one of the "biggest mistakes, if not fiascos, in Air Force management history". At least the EELV's have flown. Where's SBIRS and how overbudget is it???

http://tinyurl.com/car64

Posted by Jason at January 31, 2006 03:18 PM

Now, however, we find that EELVs are not sufficiently commercial either, are expensive and unreliable. (The last proposition is something I've been pointing out, by the way.)

When did we find that out? Nobody has launched an EELV in volume yet.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at January 31, 2006 03:19 PM

I noticed that the proposed SpaceX Launch vehical (Falcon 9 S5 or S9) is only about 65-70% the cost of the comparable Atlas.

I'd be fascinated to learn how you got access to Space X's proprietary cost data.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2006 03:24 PM

I'd be fascinated to learn how you got access to Space X's proprietary cost data.

it wasn't hard, it's on their web site

http://spacex.com/index.html?section=falcon&content=http%3A//spacex.com/falcon_overview.php

Posted by brian d at January 31, 2006 03:48 PM

> You folks really need to come up with better alternatives (or at least
> some alternative) if you're going to complain.

"Come up with some alternatives"? Have you forgotten about Operationally Responsive Space, which you were just trashing yesterday?

What about the large space prizes proposed by Rohrabacher, Brownback, Gingrich, Worden, etc.?

You suffer from very selective amnesia, Mark. There's no shortage of alternatives. Just a lack of alternatives that pass your ideological barriers.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 31, 2006 03:52 PM

it wasn't hard, it's on their web site

Are you unaware of the distinction between cost and price?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2006 04:03 PM

Are you unaware of the distinction between cost and price?

Why yes I am, and that's what I was comparing. Guess what Lockmart makes a profit too. Quite a nice one too judging from their recent earnings report.

Posted by brian d at January 31, 2006 04:11 PM

lets not be nit picky, who cares what something costs. When I ask what a coke costs at the ball game I think everyone understands that I'm asking for the price. Anyway since you seem to want to pick nits, THE PRICES of Atlas and Falcon are or will be roughly the same.

Posted by brian d at January 31, 2006 04:17 PM

If you believe that the difference between cost and price is "picking nits," remind me never to go into business with you. Ignorance (like this) of basic business economics is one of the fundamental problems with the socialistic space industry, in which they live off cost-plus contracts, that unlike the real world, there is little distinction between cost and price.

You were complaining about SpaceX's costs. You have no idea what SpaceX's costs are. They price enough below Atlas to make themselves attractive against them in the marketplace, and high enough to make a healthy profit. If price pressures are brought to bear on them by another competitor, then presumably they'll drop their own price in response.

In other words, your complaint about their "cost" not being low enough has zero merit (and zero basis).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 31, 2006 04:28 PM

Of course you’re just speculating about SpaceX "cost", I could just as easily assert that the Atlas “costs” less than the equivalent Falcon. Lockmart could easily “price” their Atlas at $20M and run SpaceX right out of business then raise their “price”. The only relevant point here is for the people that think going into space will ever be cheap they’re in for a bitter disappointment. My original point for those that didn’t catch it is that SpaceX has done virtually nothing to lower the “price” of access to space. I offer as proof their advertised "prices" (which are only about 30% less than Atlas). I contend that they’ll go up because right now all they have is a paper rocket, real rockets always cost more. BTW the AF is already planning on a higher “price” for Falcon 1. What does that tell you about the other advertised “prices” and their "cost" for that matter?

Posted by brian d at January 31, 2006 05:33 PM

"Sometimes it seems like the DoD is in a heated competition with NASA to see who can accomplish the least in space with the most amount of money."

Sorry to say this Rand... but bravo. The frickin' quote of the past quarter century. Shit, give Burt Rutan the tens of billions we've wasted on DoD and NASA space "projects" over the past 25 years... and ask yourself... where would we be now.

Posted by Jim Rohrich at January 31, 2006 05:36 PM

> Unreliable? Every launch of the EELV Delta and Atlas has been successful
> except for 1 Delta test flight that had nothing but a load of rocks on top.

That would come as a big surprise to the owners of the satellites that Delta IVH placed into the wrong orbit. Or do you consider that success?

> You may not be able to say that those 2 LVs are reliable based on that
> data, but you certainly can’t say that they are unreliable.

There is plenty of data from previous ELVs that can be extrapolated. Ask anyone in the insurance industry. If they thought ELVs were reliable, they wouldn't charge premiums of 15-20% for a single launch.

If aircraft were as "reliable" as ELVs, there would be several fiery crashes at every major airport, every day.

> EELV program…. biggest mistake? There were no more Titans (and good reasons not
> to want any more), and no other LVs capable of launching the necessary assets.

There were no more Titans and other launch vehicles because the Air Force stopped ordering them, in the belief that EELV would be cheaper -- not because it was impossible to build more of them.

> Can the Air Force help it that there were only 2 companies capable of handling
>such a large project in such a limited amount of time?

Yes, obviously, it could have. The mergers that reduced the number of contractors could not have happened without DoD approval (and encouragement, in fact).

> I could just as easily assert that the Atlas “costs” less than the equivalent Falcon.

If that's the case, Lockheed's lying to DoD about their losses and charging more than the maximum allowable profit on their military contracts.

That's a serious charge. Do you have any proof to back it up, Mr. Dempsey?

> The only relevant point here is for the people that think going into
> space will ever be cheap they’re in for a bitter disappointment.

You're the one in for a bitter disappointment.

The SpaceX figures you're quoting are based on the assumption that they cannot reuse their hardware even once. Of course, that's going to be expensive.

If they're able to reuse some of their hardware, the cost will obviously drop because they won't have to replace it each time they fly.

When someone develops hardware that can be reused frequently, the cost will drop a lot.

> I contend that they’ll go up because right now all they have is a paper
> rocket, real rockets always cost more.

It's metal, not paper. You continue to display your ignorance.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 31, 2006 06:41 PM

Ed Wright writes: "It's metal, not paper. You continue to display your ignorance."

When it's metal that FLYS, it's worth considering if you're a customer. Even when it does, (by their own estimates) there's
no radical cost reduction. They might be competitive enough
to win contracts, good for them. So what huge breakthough/
paradigm shift/fundamental change is brian d ignorant of?

Im sure the answer will be "They did it with out govt $$". Again,
good for them. As a customer, do I care how you started
your business? If SpaceX is competitive, they'll survive and the
world will be a better place, but you and your dog are not going
to the moon for the price of a subway token. Get used to it.

Posted by greg at February 1, 2006 08:38 AM

I don't see how the EELV program qualifies as one of the biggest mistakes in Air Force management history. Had we not built them, we would be flying the same small number of missions on Atlas, Delta III and Titan IV, with less redundancy, and maintaining production lines for a greater number of stages, engines and motors.

Posted by Will McLean at February 1, 2006 08:41 AM

I don't want to get into the cost/price or ESAS/EELV/SpaceX debate. However, as they say, people should read the whole thing, including the comments. I think too many people often don't understand just how small the unmanned market is.

Posted by Leland at February 1, 2006 09:11 AM

Does anybody have a reliable source for the Atlas costs?

Thank you.

Posted by Daniel Schmelzer at February 1, 2006 10:45 AM

> I could just as easily assert that the Atlas “costs” less than the equivalent Falcon.
If that's the case, Lockheed's lying to DoD about their losses and charging more than the maximum allowable profit on their military contracts.

Actually that’s a good point. Since SpaceX is developing Falcon under a DARPA contract, they are required to comply with government accounting practices, which means DARPA has a very good idea what the actual cost of the Falcon is. This disproves Mr. Samberg’s assertion that the SpaceX cost is far less than their price and they’re making a “healthy profit” (his words). Nope they’re making the same measly profit that Lockmart is, and their cost IS their price – 8%. And please lets not get into a discussion on overhead.

Posted by brian d at February 1, 2006 10:45 AM

What are the costs for Atlas that you are using, Brian? The prices for the Falcon that are published appear to be only 1/3rd that of the cost of Atlas, not 2/3rd. But maybe you have a better source for the costs of an Atlas launch...

Posted by Daniel Schmelzer at February 1, 2006 10:53 AM

Actually that’s a good point.

It is, but not for your position.

Since SpaceX is developing Falcon under a DARPA contract, they are required to comply with government accounting practices, which means DARPA has a very good idea what the actual cost of the Falcon is.

Since this premise is nonsense, the rest of your post is as well. It would behoove you to educate yourself on these things instead of continuing to look foolish with these comments.

SpaceX is not developing Falcon under a DARPA contract. SpaceX was developing Falcon long before DARPA was interested in their own FALCON program (the two names are coincidental). The vast majority of development funds for the SpaceX Falcon were provided (and continue to be provided) by Elon Musk. To the degree that DARPA has any insight at all into SpaceX accounting, it's only for the trivial amount of money that they provided for their Phase 1 program, which was (I believe) for studies to determine how the SpaceX vehicle could be adapted to DARPA's needs. They have no idea what SpaceX's costs are, unless Elon has told them (something that there's no reason to think has occurred). Not being a cost-plus contractor for hardware, I'm sure that he only discusses prices with the government, not costs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 1, 2006 10:57 AM

> When it's metal that FLYS, it's worth considering if you're a customer.

So, EELV was not worth considering before it flew? Back when DoD was giving Boeing and Lockheed a billion dollars?

Thank you for that admission, Greg. :-)

> Even when it does, (by their own estimates) there's
no radical cost reduction.

Yes, though it's not clear why anyone should believe your estimates. And Falcon will not be the last vehicle ever built, no matter what you and Brian may think.

> So what huge breakthough/paradigm shift/fundamental change is brian d ignorant of?

The shift that began when SpaceShip One flew flast year.

Yes, I know you can't see it. Most computer scientists didn't see microcomputers as a breakthrough/paradigm sift/fundamental change, either.

> As a customer, do I care how you started
your business?

Since when are you a customer, Greg? Last I knew, you were just a math professor who hates spaceflight because he thinks the government should be spending the money on more subsidies for math professors.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 1, 2006 11:28 AM

Ed: I do not know who you think I am, but Ive never been a
math professor. I do not hate space flight. Where is this
coming from?

True, Im not a customer. How about this: "Does any customer
care how your business was started?" The point's the same.

Ed writes: "The shift that began when SpaceShip One flew flast year."

I made a comment in a previous thread some weeks ago about
Rutan taking advantage of those who couldnt pass Physics
for Dockworkers. Rand took this personally, and I apologize, it was not directed at him. (All I know about Rand is that he's a
Michigan football fan. While a blight on one's resume, Ill try not
to hold it against him!).

The Physics for Dockworkers comment WAS directed at the 10's
of people who approached my colleagues at Oshkosh last year.
Many of these people could draw no distinction between Rutan's accomplishments and orbital flight. Hope you werent one of those, Ed. But hey, ya gotta start somewhere. I really wish the
NewSpacers luck.

Ed writes: "So, EELV was not worth considering before it flew? Back when DoD was giving Boeing and Lockheed a billion dollars?"

I believe LM and Boeing had flown other things
by that point.

Posted by greg at February 1, 2006 12:47 PM

> Ed: I do not know who you think I am, but Ive never been a math professor. I
> do not hate space flight. Where is this coming from?

Then perhaps you should provide a last name to distinguish yourself from the other "greg."

> True, Im not a customer. How about this: "Does any customer care how your
> business was started?" The point's the same.

The point, since you missed it, is that it affects the company's ability to reduce prices in the future.

Why customers care about that is left as an exercise to the student.

> The Physics for Dockworkers comment WAS directed at the 10's of people
> who approached my colleagues at Oshkosh last year. Many of these people could
> draw no distinction between Rutan's accomplishments and orbital flight.

Who are these "colleagues"? NASA? Lockheed? Boeing? And how many orbital flights did they do at Oshkosh? :-)

Your "colleagues" sound very much like the computer scientists who were so educated they couldn't understand what dockworkers saw in microcomputers.

> Ed writes: "So, EELV was not worth considering before it flew? Back when DoD
> was giving Boeing and Lockheed a billion dollars?"

> I believe LM and Boeing had flown other things
by that point.

What other things? X-33? X-37? NASP? Do you think Boeing and Lockheed have never failed to deliver on a promise?

Just as they failed to deliver on their promise that EELV would save the government money.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 1, 2006 01:24 PM

The prices for the Falcon that are published appear to be only 1/3rd that of the cost of Atlas, not 2/3rd.

I agree sort of, but I also scaled for mass to GTO since the Falcon 9 delivers less mass (about 65%) to GTO than the smallest Atlas.

And I don't get the spaceship 1 paradigm shift??? a 3000kg suborbital flight for $30M vs. an orbital flight of 5000kg (maybe 1000 times or more energy, whitout looking up the performance of either, v^2 is a big number) for $75M. Seems like the Atlas is about 500 times cheaper. Yeah I know, Atlas doesn't have to reenter so lets just say it's only 50 times cheaper. Get to work Burt.

And why do internet rocket people like SpaceX so much anyway. They're just recycling an old TRW rocket engine (build with evil NASA funding). Why that makes them so great I'll never understand?

Posted by brian d at February 1, 2006 03:14 PM

Why that makes them so great I'll never understand?

There are apparently many things you'll never understand. Fortunately for all, this is your problem, not ours.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 1, 2006 03:20 PM

There are apparently many things you'll never understand. Fortunately for all, this is your problem, not ours.

Well I guess there's only one thing left to say to that. I'm bubble gum, and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! I'm sticking my tongue out at my monitor right now. HA!

Posted by brian d at February 1, 2006 03:55 PM

> And I don't get the spaceship 1 paradigm shift??? a 3000kg suborbital flight
> for $30M vs. an orbital flight of 5000kg (maybe 1000 times or more energy,
> whitout looking up the performance of either, v^2 is a big number) for $75M.

We're in full agreement about that, Brian -- you don't get it. :-)

SpaceShip One didn't cost $30 million per flight. The entire project only cost $25 million, and it included a lot more than one flight.

Your calculations were way off because you overlooked the fact that reusable spacecraft can be reused.

Given mistakes like that, it isn't surprising that you think the cost of space transportation can never be reduced. With sufficiently bad math, you can prove anything.

> v^2 is a big number) for $75M. Seems like the Atlas is about 500 times cheaper.

No, you're confusing velocity (v) with money ($). $75 million is not cheaper than $25 million, no matter how much sophistry you use.

Especially when that $75-million rocket is trash after its first flight, while the $25-million rocket can be used again and again.

> And why do internet rocket people like SpaceX so much anyway. They're just
> recycling an old TRW rocket engine (build with evil NASA funding). Why that
> makes them so great I'll never understand?

If you were spending your own money, instead of asking for government handouts, you might understand.

You and Mark keep making snide remarks about "internet rocket people," as if you're somehow superior to Musk, Rutan, etc. Apparently, you fancy yourselves to be "real" rocket scientists. Why don't you and Mark tell us what rockets you have developed?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 1, 2006 04:51 PM

You might think of expendables as similar to prostitutes. After a flight, you have a memory and a lighter wallet, regardless of the quality of the flight.

Posted by john hare at February 2, 2006 04:40 AM

Post a comment