Trash Talking Amongst Space Cargo Providers
Orbital's Culbertson: We'll launch 3 ISS missions in 8 mnths. 'That other co. launched lst wk for 1st time in 13 mnths. But who's counting.'
— Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes) April 22, 2014
Keith’s note: You know that there is indeed a “there” there vis-a-vis the viability of space commerce when companies start trash talking their competitor’s products.
Gotta love it. You’re right, Keith; it is a sign of some healthy competition. But given the fickle nature of launch schedules, it’s a bit like the National Hurricane Center issuing hurricane warnings in January for specific cities later on in the year. Musk & Co. have to be chuckling just a little over this one.
But Dragon is a bit less than twice the size and a bit less than twice the capacity of Cygnus, and it has the added feature of being able to carry people in the future, so I do not see a clear winner.
The winner is the one that the customer decides is better.
Dragon also has external cargo capability, late load capability and return capability none of which Cygnus has.
The real ace up Spacex’s sleeve tho is that dragon will also, as you have rightly mentioned carry crew too, meaning that both crew and cargo dragon will subsidize one another because they share the same production line and fixed infrastructure costs. #economies of scale.
Better, as has been done, to avoid a single winner, and instead assure two competitors, two options, at the low cost end. Better yet if one can stand on their own one day with non-government business because of mutually beneficial investment approaches and alignment of incentives. Why pay more for one (traditional program Orion anyone?), when you can end up paying an order of magnitude less for two (with non-traditional partnering programs, Falcon, Antares, and Dragon, Cygnus).
Yeah your dead right! Competition and COTS have really show the way it should be done from now on and yes Orion’s procurement is a joke compared to COTS.
NASA’s William Gerstenmaier has said that they will only take on one crew provider because there would not be enough flights to sustain two. So if we assume Spacex wins the crew contract. Well then that would leave two provider’s. Spacex for cargo/crew and orbital for just cargo.
Competition would be there for cargo but not for crew. Well how could we get competition for both crew and cargo if NASA can only sustain one crew provider? The Answer is to have both cargo providers also be the two crew providers.
Both Dreamchaser and CST-100 could do cargo mission’s but they clearly would not be as good as cargo dragon(volume). but in the long run cst-100 could be upgraded to provide more room for cargo and possible allow them to be competitive on future cargo contracts
Neglects to mention that other company was also launching other commercial missions during that time.
Bob Clark
As has Orbital…
Interesting comment from Culbertson whose company relies on a Ukrainian made first stage and Russian made engines. No uncertainty in supply chain there.
Actually kind of surprised this came from a former astronaut.
Lost all respect for Orbital and Culbertson. Sounds like sore losers!
I’m sure the likes of Boeing and L-M aren’t too appreciative of Orbital’s aspirations either. But at least SpaceX is 100% made in America unlike “that other co.”
Eh, I think Culbertson has been respectful before from what I’ve seen in press conferences. No biggie for me. Continue competing…
This serves to underscore the reasons why SpaceX is eager to have its own launch site. Much of the delay for SpX was in waiting for others. Perhaps we can expect them to launch their own docking port for ISS, too, so that they don’t have to sit on their hands when Cygnus is at the station.
Harmony’s zenith node is available, but does ISS actually have a need for cargo from both Dragon and Cygnus at the same time? I doubt it.
Both Orbital and SpaceX have been given contracts to accommodate “Dual Berthing Visiting Vehicles”. Namely one vehicle berths on the nadir port and one on the zenith port. The changes in thermal considerations and power are non-trivial for vehicles that have been optimized for the nadir port. I believe this capability will come online for both companies sometime in 2015 (but don’t quote me on the date)
Only delay was due to SpaceX contamination issues (not waiting for others)
Another delay was due to the range fire (waiting for others)
And the rest of the schedule is the nightmare that NASA has setup choreographing 6 visiting vehicles, dealing with ISS issues, and working around crew constraints and beta angle limits.
Both are assets to our nation,
is it inspiration mars and others that show a Dragon like vehicle docked to a Cygnus like hab vehicle?
so is this possible?
http://yellowdragonblog.com…
Let’s put it this way: There’s no reason (other than money) that it would be impossible.
Is this the same Orbital whose Taurus rocket put two NASA research satellites in the Southern Ocean? We call them Sub-Orbital….
G.
Yup, the same Orbital who has had 28 successful Pegasus and 25 successful Minotaurs in a row. Orbital’s total success rate across five different rocket variants: 73 for 79 (92%). SpaceX success across 2 rocket variants: 11 for 14 (79%)
You can take digs at Orbital on cost and on potential future supply chain issues. But taking digs at them on launch vehicle reliability doesn’t make sense.
Well, that is 0% success for my field, and they probably got paid anyway. I doubt we will use a Taurus XL ever again.
G.
NASA needs to payroll SpaceX to have Dragon and Falcon man rated ASAP so we can quit using Soviet made equipment. The emergency abort system is probably the biggest item left. In the good ole days of the 1960s we built 3 man rated spacecraft in 7 years…………
Just a friendly dig…Culbertson has been respectful before of Musk.
I understand the comment, while Orbital has had one chance to launch, SpaceX had three. Orbital launched on schedule with no technical problems, SpaceX has yet to have single flawless launch that is on time.
SpaceX (Elon, really) has been talking trash about his competitors for a long time too.
On the other hand both Orbital and SpaceX have been quick to congratulate each other after every CRS launch. Like it or not, they are in this together. A major failure of either player will make NASA/Congress rethink the whole commercial approach. It is in the interest of both companies for both to be successful.
Folks:
Notice how SpaceX is not ‘going after’ Orbital Sciences? Orbital competed fair & square for ISS cargo runs regardless of where they get the launch vehicle hardware.
So, SpaceX let them live in peace.
What was Culbertson thinking? Is he trying to draw the judiciary’s attention to Orbital Sciences over their foreign outsourcing for launch vehicle hardware?
tinker