This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Rematch Between Falcons and the Dinosaurs (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 18, 2015
Filed under , ,
Rematch Between Falcons and the Dinosaurs (Update)

SpaceX mocks rival in tetchy congressional hearing
“The two made a number of pointed comments about each other before Ms Shotwell responded sarcastically when asked why SpaceX thought it could provide launches to the US government for an average $100m. SpaceX claims ULA’s launches cost US taxpayers an average of $400m each. Ms Shotwell was asked why the company claimed to be able to offer its services for 25 per cent of the ULA price. “It’s hard for me to say,” Ms Shotwell replied. “I don’t know how to build a $400m rocket. The more difficult question would be to say that I don’t understand how ULA are as expensive as they are.”
How SpaceX and Elon Musk could conquer the market for military satellite launches, Washington Post
“If [ULA] stops the Delta IV rocket launches,” said Rogers, “is there anybody else that can compete with you for those missions?” Shotwell struggled to answer, referring vaguely to there being international launch providers. She then went back and conceded that the Pentagon probably wouldn’t trust those international services with sensitive military payloads. That was precisely the point, said Rogers. “You would have a monopoly, is where I’m going on this,” he said.”
Watch the hearing (archive)
– Witness statements: Tory Bruno, Gwynne Shotwell, John Hyten, William LaPlante, Katrina McFarland, and Mitch Mitchell

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

145 responses to “Rematch Between Falcons and the Dinosaurs (Update)”

  1. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    With ULA having their $1,000,000,000.00 per year junk fee awarded whether they fly or not at potential risk, expect them to get nasty.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      ULA gets their $1 billion subsidy from the US Government – every year – regardless of of many launches they have – and even if they have no launches.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, so when ULA says that they launch a NASA probe for $1XX million, it should actually be read as $2XX million.
        The junk fee almost made sense before. The launch market could not support Boeing’s Delta andL-M’s Atlas, so they were allowed to create the monopoly, ULA. Even that couldn’t support itself, so DoD provided a $1bill/yr retainer fee sufficient to keep them afloat.
        Now that there is an American alternative in SpaceX, then its time to drop the retainer and let ULA sink or swim.

        • rockofritters says:
          0
          0

          i realize the Elon Musk/Silicon Valley way is to state things boldly and arrogantly counting on the ignorance of the listener to be awed by the boldness of it all. but just for the talley books SpaceX is not an alternative yet because they are not qualified. and even when Falcon 9 is certified by AF they will then have a vehicle that will compete in the GPS payload class. they are not in anyway close to launching payloads that fly on AV 52x-55x vehicles let alone Delta heavy. That’s the part of the business AF developed EELV for. Delta II was already doing the GPS flights that a half loaded Atlas 401 or an F9 would be competing for.

          it will be time to drop the retainer when AF drops their desire for the type of deep insight inside ULA/LM/Boeing that makes them comfortable loading billion dollar satellites on a stack. SpaceX isn’t in that world yet. and not for several years if ever…

          • Todd Austin says:
            0
            0

            That does not appear to be the case, actually. Statements out of SpaceX make it clear that they are letting USAF inside their processes, that this works amounts to the majority of the certification work, and that this accounts for the assertion that certification of future iterations of their vehicles will go dramatically more quickly. It’s fully consistent with statements out of ULA about their expectations for certification of their proposed launcher, too.

            Falcon Heavy, while still in development, is reaching the point of test flights this year. According to the certification model described above, it should be ready to launch larger USAF payloads within a couple of years, around the time that ULA says they want to retire Delta iV.

          • RocketNoob says:
            0
            0

            SpaceX has an impressive resume but it will still be 10+ years before a Falcon Heavy will have the capabilities of the full EELV fleet. Yes, it can lift a lot of mass to LEO but the second stage is so week it falls short of an Atlas 551 or Delta-IV Heavy to higher orbits. In addition, the SpaceX 2nd stage has never proven multiple (3+) burn capability, long coasts between burns or complex maneuvers. This isn’t trivial and is a requirement of most EELV missions. When they can relight 3 times over a 6 hour period with multiple maneuvers in between then I’ll eat my words.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            ” Yes, it can lift a lot of mass to LEO but the second stage is so week it falls short of an Atlas 551 or Delta-IV Heavy to higher orbits.”

            Lets see:
            LEO:
            Atlas V 551 18,800 kg
            Delta IV Heavy 26,000 kg
            Falcon Heavy 53,000 kg

            GTO
            Atlas V 551 8,900 kg
            Delta IV Heavy 14,220 kg
            Falcon Heavy 21,200 kg

            Mars Transfer orbit
            Delta IV Heavy 7,983 kg
            Falcon Heavy 13,200 kg

            So where is this upper orbit weakness of the FH?

            Now these falcon blowout numbers are for the Classic Falcon 1.1
            Starting in June with the SES 9 launch the Falcon is being upgraded with a 15% boost in engine thrust, a 10% increase in 2nd stage fuel tank volume and use of higher density super-cooled LOX.

            As to multiple starts, the F9 2nd stages are known to do 2 starts 1/2 hour apart. It is unknown whether SpaceX has done further restarts after mission delivery (which they have done before).
            However, the first stage (with the same basic engine) has had multiple restarts from launch to landing all while performing intricate and precise manuevers.

          • Panice says:
            0
            0

            I think the Falcon 9 upper stage has a limited dwell time in orbit. Don’t know what the limiting factor is, but it won’t support restarts that are too far apart.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The old original Falcon 9 v1 had a 2 hour dwell time and 3 starts.
            The V1.1 enhanced is much larger and also uses a deep-cooled LOX, plus potentially other engineering changes to increase the hang time.

            http://upload.wikimedia.org

          • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
            0
            0

            The Merlin E ( upper stage vaccuum-only second stage engine) has a finite dwell time on orbit as you point out , since its tanks are helium pressurized and it burns kerosene. It can theoretically idle for a few hours and be ignited three times. BUT—that Merlin engine has 7 times the thrust of the Centaur RL-10 B upper stage , while weighing only twice as much dry. So it can do a lot more work .

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            Lets see:
            Atlas V 551 – flying
            Delta IV Heavy – flying
            Falcon Heavy – NOT FLYING

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The FH commercial and DoD flights are manifested. The first flight of FH is in a few months.
            The bottom line is: Why does ULA require $1,000,000,000.00 per year ABOVE and BEYOND the cost of the rockets, when SpaceX doesn’t need it and doesn’t request it?

          • RocketNoob says:
            0
            0

            Those numbers for FH are assuming cross feeding propellant to the core. That feature has been taken off the table for the initial versions of the FH rocket. Delta-IV also had a design for cross feeding propellants which was to be implemented later. If you’re going to compare the numbers you can’t compare an existing rocket to a rocket with features to be added later. Doing a comparison using the same feature set the Delta-IV will lift more mass to GTO and GEO.

            Another Issue: The advertised lift capability of
            the SpaceX fleet is wishful thinking. I don’t know anyone in the industry who believes they can lift what they say.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Doing a comparison using the same feature set the Delta-IV will lift more mass to GTO and GEO.
            Show me. Or retract.

            I don’t know anyone in the industry who believes they can lift what they say.

            I don’t know who you know, and what they know or don’t know. Show me where you have evidence that SpaceX is lying.

          • duheagle says:
            0
            0

            I don’t know anyone in the industry who believes they can lift what they say.

            Allow me to introduce you to SES, the largest operator of GEO comsats in the world. They seem to think the enhanced Falcon 9 can put their newest 5300 kg bird where they want it and they’re willing to be the initial customer for Elon’s latest and greatest. That’s over a metric tonne more than the advertised capacity of the unenhanced Falcon 9 v1.1 by the way.

            So I can believe SES or I can believe you.

            Not a hard call, really.

          • NowWeTryItMyWay says:
            0
            0

            To be fair, those numbers apply only to expendable FH with crossfeed.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I do not disagree. I was asking Rocketnoob what is the published basis for his claim that the Delta IV Heavy has greater GTO/GEO payload than a non-crossfeed FH.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            (The below without SpaceX asking for, or receiving, the ULA annual $1,000,000,000.00 per year pork fee)

            On the contracted flight manifest for next year for the Falcon Heavy is the DoD STP-2 mission. In the specs for this mission, which SpaceX’s FH meets include:

            “EELV-Class Launch Vehicle – A launch vehicle or family of launch vehicles that can reliably launch a variety of payloads up to and including 13,500 lbs direct inject to geostationary orbit.

            The minimum lift-capability for a launch vehicle to qualify as an EELV-class vehicle is 20,000 lbs to a circular Low Earth Orbit (LEO) of 100 nautical mile altitude with inclination of 28.5 degrees.

            EELV-class launch vehicles must meet other Air Force technical requirements, including 98 percent design reliability, threesigma orbital insertion accuracy, and compliance with the standard EELV payload interface.”

            The LSC shall plan and execute a mission that includes the insertion orbits detailed below. The LSC shall also demonstrate a minimum of three upper stage burns and carry 5,000 kg (TBR) of LSC-provided ballast for the entire mission.”

            The payload includes an ISAT (Innovative Spacebased radar Antenna Technology) flight demonstrator satellite massing over 5000 kg, and COSMIC-2, a cluster of six satellites, massing at 277.8 kg each. The ISAT program aims to deploy extremely large (up to 300 yards) electronically scanning radar antennas in orbit. The primary role of the COSMIC-2 satellite constellation is to provide radio occultation data with an average latency of 45 minutes. The six satellites will be placed on an orbit with an inclination of 24 to 28.5 degrees with six separate orbital planes with 60 degree separation between them. The integrated payload stack will be integrated using EELV Secondary Payload Adapter. Two ESPA Grande rings will be used to mount the six COSMIC-2 satellites beneath the ESPA ring hosting the DSX payload and avionics modules. STP-2 will also host up to 8 Nano Satellites deployed with P-PODs (Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployers).

          • wwheaton says:
            0
            0

            Yup, Falcon 9 is terrific, but SpaceX does need to bite the bullet and develop an alternative LH2/LOX second stage for it, and a 5m version for the Falcon Heavy. Even better would be to buy them off-the-shelf from ULA — the Centaurs could do it fine, even if the engines are a bit expensive, until SpaceX have an LH2/LOX engine of their own.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Musk absolutely refuses to have anything to do with H2. He won’t build a hydrogen rocket and he won’t use hydrogen fuel cells in his car. Rightly or wrongly, he won’t do it.

            I think the Centaur is the pinacle of American rocket engineering design in space. General Dynamics built a masterpiece back in 1960.

          • wwheaton says:
            0
            0

            Yup, I think so too. Musk is pretty smart, and probably it’s not the right time for a hydrogen Tesla, but rockets are a different story. Apollo got to the moon on time because of LH2/LOX.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            He talks about poor little H2 like it’s a personal grudge! “It’s a little peewee molecule that creeps around, finding ways to sneak out!” [paraphrasing…]

            He’s right of course. It also requires insanely low temperatures and high pressures. Why develop engines using H2 from scratch given there are alternatives?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            It also causes embritlement, it is very bulky, it complicates tank design (methane and LOX are almost the same temperature), etc. The important thing is, and all that matters, can his rockets achieve their missions reliably and economically? If Mentos and Diet Coke works, then go for it.

            https://www.youtube.com/wat

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            The question is, can he meet the performance requirements without using H2. Not using H2 means a heavier 2nd stage which means a higher performance first stage.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            ” can he meet the performance requirements without using H2.?”

            Yes. The USAF STP-2 flight of the FH scheduled for next year is fully EELV compliant. (in fact it will be a certification flight. And that is all kerosene

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            This may be a stupid idea, and I’m sure it’s very inefficient, but why bother with an upper stage on a Falcon Heavy? Why not treat both a fully-fuled Centaur and the satellite as payload (from the Falcon’s point of view) and put them in a low Earth orbit (i.e a parking orbit.) Then, the customer can fire the Centaur and go wherever they like. That would give you the capability of an high-end Atlas or Delta and would require no changes to the Falcon. It’s not the most efficient flight plan, but I think the Falcon Heavy can get enough mass to LEO to handle it.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            Like the suggestion that ULA should buy Merlin engines, the suggestion that FH should use a Centaur upper stage is based on wishful thinking, not facts on the ground. Given the way things stand, I wouldn’t bet on seeing a Centaur on an FH in the reality in which we live. You might see it in a sci-fi story, maybe the same story in which an Atlas rocket is powered by Merlins.

            I’ll go further: I think it’s more likely that we’ll see Putin give Crimea back to Ukraine, pay Ukraine war reparations, and spend the summer with his shirt on than it is to expect to see any such cooperation between SpaceX and ULA.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think you missed the point of my idea. I was not suggesting a Centaur as an integrated part of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. I was suggesting a Centaur as part of a Falcon Heavy’s payload.

            From SpaceX’s point of view, they would be asked to launch something like a 35,000 kg payload, about 15 m long by 3.5 m diameter, of which 21,000 kg happen to be liquid hydrogen and oxygen. I believe that’s well within the capabilities of a Falcon Heavy, and I don’t think SpaceX would object to the business.

            From the customer’s point of view, they would have to initialize the Centaur’s avionics on-orbit, which is novel but not all that difficult, and then use it themselves to put the actual payload when it needs to go. That would not be as convenient as a launch service talking them all the way to the desired orbit, but a bit of inconvenience could be worth the cost savings.

            So I’m unclear on the objection. Are you saying SpaceX would be unwilling to launch a payload containing liquid hydrogen and oxygen? That a customer would not or could not take over with a fully fueled Centaur and payload on a Low Earth orbit? Or that that the organizations involved would simply refuse to consider such a possibility for non-tehnical reasons? It isn’t really a matter of working together: I’m talking about SpaceX providing launch services for a payload with a large, Lockheed Martin-build component, and that Lockheed Martin-build component subsequently being used for in-space propulsion.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            Someone else has said that ULA can’t sell rocket parts, so your suggestion might fall under that heading. Even if they can sell parts, I don’t see ULA agreeing to sell a Centaur to a customer for a launch on a Falcon Heavy. I also don’t see ULA giving up flight control for a Centaur.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            How do you change the reality in which we live? First, You imagine a different reality.
            In my experience sc-fi stories have had a lot of influence on reality.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            All of your imagining isn’t going to suddenly make cooperation between SpaceX and ULA appear. Fantasies aside, selling engines to ULA is not what the nation should want. What’s needed are at least two independent businesses providing launch services. That would prevent all launches from being put on hold in the case where there is a launch failure/mechanical issue. With ULA buying Merlin engines, if something goes amiss with a Merlin or in the Merlin production line, then flights from SpaceX and ULA go on hold. That benefits no one.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            That’s right. The money hasn’t just been taken and flushed. It did work and the product of that is the current track record, the recovery from the 90’s.

            In a perfect world there would be no SLS, silicon valley would be getting the driverless cars going, and ULA would be putting up a lunar mission right now using multiple flights.

            One for the capsule/sm, another for the lm and booster. It would be great to see that.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            If Spacex and ULA succeed with their methane reusable rockets your prefect world may happen yet.

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            Dude, Space X is not going to contribute anything to ULA. Lockheed, long before it acquired Martin Marietta via phagocytosis, worked with methane at the same time it started screwing around with hydrogen as a fuel. Like, around when the SR-71 was being built.

            I mean, these organizations are not partners.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            They are competitors who both need affordable reusable rockets to survive.
            Both are working on methane engines for their next generation reusable rocket.
            It appears that ULA/Jeff Bezos maybe farther along than Spacex in methane engine development. The DOD needs two systems for assured access. So isn’t it likely in the next 10 years we will have two affordable systems that could go the moon? And if these rockets are successful, isn’t it likely SLS and Orion will finally be dumped. And by then cars will likely drive themselves.

            Thus your perfect world 🙂

          • Lewis says:
            0
            0

            ULA doesn’t need anything to survive. If they shut down this afternoon, tomorrow all their employees (that are worth anything at all) would be rolled back into Lockheed Marin and Boeing.

            LM has JSF-35, which is super-duper pork and a lot of other that never the less guarantees LM shareholders income for the life of that contract, or four decades… and all the other stuff that LM makes, which is probably 10% of everything on the planet. And if they have any financial problem for this quarter or that, during the next four decades, it’s no big deal because they’re owned by shareholders, not a single person. So the loss is a half column news article for six hours.

            Boeing makes airliners and other stuff, like 10% more of all the stuff on Earth. Same deal with income and owners and all that. The world would literally have to end for Boeing to go out of business.

            Space X, not quite the case. Maybe they do need a launch vehicle that is reusable because that’s the only thing they have done, for two years, or ten launches now? And before that they were some internet guy that dabbled in a payment system that ended up accounting for .0001% of all transactions going at any time on the planet.

            And I’m pretty sure a Space X employee fresh off of a company that just imploded because flight #18 blew up with a billion dollar payload on it, they’re not going to be highly sought after. They’ll all be in therapy recovering from working during every waking moment of their day thinking about Mars while their boss raked in hundreds of millions… for some reason.

            Commercial cargo or crew or something? Good for trying times, tight budgets, or what was it?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The Falcon 9’s capability covers the launch requirement of the majority of DoD launches from 2010 to date, including all Atlas V 401 and 501.
            The enhanched Falcon 9, flying in June, covers the Atlas V 41X and 51X and much of the Delta IV M class.

            And NOT requiring the $1billion per year ULA junk fee.

            The Falcon Heavy covers everything the Delta IV and Atlas V family can lift.

            It will take less than 1 2/3 years to certify the F9 (with the clunky slow-walk process USAF is using).
            The FH is flying in late summer and has multiple launches in its manifest. Based on the previous certification process, the Falcon Heavy will be available just when DoD flights become available.

            All WITHOUT the $1 billion per year junk fee.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The F9 1.1 is Atlas V 4/501 compatible and the F9 1.1 enhanced is Atlas V 4/511 capable.
            This covers the majority of DoD Atlas launches.

            And SpaceX doesn’t ask for the $1bill ULA junk fee.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            In 2010 thru 2014 there were 24 Atlas V DoD launches

            16 were Falcon 9 capable
            1 Falcon 9 enhanced capable
            or

            71% Falcon 9 compatible

            And SpaceX does not ask for the $1billion/year ULA junk/pork taxpayer ripoff fee.

            The FH can carry the other 29%

          • SpaceMunkie says:
            0
            0

            well said

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            You know, I posted a bunch of info on how Falcons can and will cover most to all DoD payloads. That is not the issue. With or without SpaceX there is no justification for the fee. Either ULA can or cannot supply launches. They shouldn’t need to get a stipend. Why can’t they get any real commercial business? Why can SpaceX – with a 100% performance record F9 1.1, build an entire infrastructure WITHOUT this handout and make a profit every single year?
            ULA is just fat and happy suckling on the taxpayer teat and now that they are exposed as bloated profiteers they are imploding.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            The argument they make of course is that these immensely capable rockets [giving the devil his due] are available on short notice, and that since there’s no really commercial market for these same rockets, the company cannot keep them at the ready.

            It’s a compelling argument, too, in a country sans SpaceX, which is where we were before Mr. Musk. We needed a home-grown rocket family no matter the cost to loft military and other birds. Could we have done it with out the assurance money given ULA? Maybe. I do think that the military boys leaned on ULA. God knows the military is down in their pants big time, more than I’d ever want the military or anyone else, ever. Other than my wife, that is 🙂

            Things have changed, and there is no longer any justification. Naturally ULA is squealing, but that’s to be expected.

            It’s a little disingenuous, I think, to crow about SpaceX not needing the money when they developed these new rockets standing on big shoulders- meaning simply that nearly a century’s experience, a clean slate, and a very rich, motivated owner- and were able to garner a huge backlog. Seems like a natural evolution to me.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The Atlas V and Delta IV were also built on big shoulders and big bucks. And they used ancient hardware like the fabulous Centaur and for atlas imported engines, or off-the-shelf 3rd part engines for the delta.
            The D4 and AV has been in use for 12 years. and a lot of costs have been more than depreciated. The actual launch facilities were on our dime.
            Yet the costs have been skyrocketing at a compounding rate, instead of the expected decreasing.
            The military has found this model unsustainable and harming their goals.
            The latest “money-saving” bulk core buy, when adding in the junk fee, comes out to $400million a rocket. Shotwell pointed out that she can’t even think of how to build a rocket for $400m.
            It was a simple matter of gouging the taxpayer, not a selfless sacrifice for the common good of national defense.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “since there’s no really commercial market for these same rockets, the company cannot keep them at the ready.”

            The only reason there is no commercial market is that they priced themselves out of the market.

            They gave the market to foreign competitors. SpaceX builds it rockets not only EELV compatible, but human-rated. ON THEIR DIME. There are flooded with commercial business and have been profitable all the way.

            ULA needing guarenteed cash to fly because they they are too pricy is the definition of the Yiddish word “chutzpah”.
            Chutzpah means unbelievable gall. The classic definition is a man murders his parents and in court he begs for mercy because he is an orphan.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            The point, Yale, is this: it is not useful to view the past with the spectacles of old age.
            So many things have changed in the industry, not the least of which is our own expectations. The wayback machine shows a world where the US was losing the ability to launch military rockets.
            Mr. Musk brought a whole lot more than cheap rockets to the table. He has given us a new way to look at the industry, a fully new paradigm, as they say.
            That being the case I’m simply saying it isn’t useful to look at the evolution of the current ULA through the glasses invented and suppled by Mr. Musk. ThThose glasses didn’t exist at the time.
            More’s the pity. And shame on all of us for not seeing the obvious solutions that Musk saw. Same with the lightbulb and lots of other things that somebody finally figures out.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            We’re on the same page. I accept the world was different and we cannot apply our 20/20 hindsight. That is why in my very first post in this thread I wrote:

            Now that there is an American alternative in SpaceX, then its time to drop the retainer and let ULA sink or swim.

            The past is past and must be left in the past. Whatever decisions were made before, as you astutely point out, “ …(Musk) has given us a new way to look at the industry, a fully new paradigm, “, and go forward on a new path.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            You’re exactly right. It serves no purpose to look back and judge what happened in aerospace prior to Musk coming on the scene with the Falcon 9 as there was no Musk and ULA/Boeing/Lockheed were doing business as business was done in those days….or at least as business had become in those days.

            What’s important now is to see how ULA, LM, Boeing, and others elsewhere respond to the new paradigm under which SpaceX works. It’s important not to judge those companies over the short term because they have a lot bureaucratic, programatic, and philosophical inertia. The true measure of the changes will be seen in 5 or 10 years.

            Hopefully those companies can respond and thrive because our country needs more than one launch provider, no matter how giddy some get over the prospect of having only one provider.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Mr. @torybruno told me on twitter he will detail his new rocket on the 13th. I believe that his response/to SpaceX is all important to the pace at which we get to an affordable future in Space. He has the power, money/public support to make even more of a difference than Musk in the near future. Get a twitter acct and ask him a few questions yourself Mr. PsiSquared. Pretty cool to have such an important player in space history answer your question directly. 🙂
            @dtarsgeorge

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            There’s still a significant number of DoD payloads that SpaceX can’t launch (MUOS, NRO).

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Yes, very true. Those payloads will be FH compatible in the 2017-2018 timeframe, after certification. DoD won’t have their desired 2nd source redundancy until then.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “it will be time to drop the retainer when AF drops their desire for the type of deep insight inside ULA/LM/Boeing that makes them comfortable loading billion dollar satellites on a stack. SpaceX isn’t in that world yet. and not for several years if ever…”

            It has taken a year of tussling for DoD to finally wrap their heads around alternate ways of doing things. As Shotwell just discussed:

            “We’ve definitely turned a corner. We’ve been working really well with [the Air Force] since we hit certification hard, which really started last March or April. So we’ve only been at it a year. “Generals [Ellen] Pawlikowski and [Samuel] Greaves have really pushed their teams hard to try to make them aware of how alternate ways of doing business are okay. Just because we do things differently doesn’t mean we don’t do them well, especially given the successes we’ve had to date. So the Air Force has been working really hard. It’s going really well and I anticipate being certified very shortly.”

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          UPVOTE
          -Air Force

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          I’m not sure its the case that the market was insufficient to support both companies. The reason sales were less than forecast was the failure of both companies to aggressively compete for commercial business as they had claimed they would do when the merger was proposed.

          The original concept was to choose only one EELV, not both. Then plans changed and both were funded. The idea that two vehicles provided redundancy was used as a selling point, but it was not originally a requirement.

          The Delta IV became unprofitable because Boeing made several errors in the design and operational concept that increased cost, such as the major mods required to the pad when the launch structure weight exceeded pad capacity, lengthy (and costly) time spent on the pad, which undercut the savings from horizontal integration, and the reliance on illegally obtained Lockheed cost information which resulted in loss of contracts. But their biggest mistake was in failing to appreciate the cost of using LH2, with its very low density impulse, as a booster fuel, which substantially increased the size and cost of the core stage in comparison to RP-1.

          Lockheed cheated much more successfully by failing to transfer RD-180 manufacturing to the US. The Atlas was at least marginally profitable and the DOD could have simply refused the merger deal, let Lockheed continue as a monopoly, and saved a lot of money.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            When you look at the annual launch market going back from the creation of ULA you see that Lockheed and even more boeing were getting killed in the commercial markets. Typically 3 atlases and sometimes 1 delta would fly. Ariane 4 and Proton and later sea launch and Ariane 5 swept the market. Both US vendors were too pricey (and less subsidized) than off shore competitors. So let them cooperate and cut costs and share and grow the market. It did not work out that way

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            In the time period leading up to the formation of ULA, the strong downtrend in GEO launches is plain. With Boeing and Lockheed priced to win only ~3.5 launches per year, and the market contracting, it was either join or die (with Boeing and its uber-expensive Delta being the likely dead one)

            As the GAO reported; In 2005, DOD revised the EELV acquisition strategy to reflect the collapse of the commercial launch market and the ensuing erosion of the industrial base which DOD believed threatened its assured access to space.

      • RocketNoob says:
        0
        0

        People like to bash the $1B/year subsidy because it is an
        easy target but they fail to recognize the reality. A company using their own dime would never maintain
        4 vertical integration facilities and 4 launch pads (2 each coast) but this is
        what the government is requiring ULA to do.
        Furthermore, the subsidy hurts when trying to get commercial contracts
        because a non-insignificant portion of the $1B must be paid back to the
        government for every commercial launch.
        This payback is on the order of the advertised SpaceX launch price. I’ll admit the situation looks like serious
        pork on the surface but there are lots of down sides to getting the money.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX is maintaining (and upgrading) a launch site and a landing site iat Vandenbergh California, two launch sites and a landing site in Florida, and a launch site in Texas, and is building out a launch tracking system, and has both horizontal and vertical integration. Plus they upgraded Stennis.
          All this WITHOUT a $1 billion per year taxpayer-soak pork fee.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          a non-insignificant portion of the $1B must be paid back to the government for every commercial launch. This payback is on the order of the advertised SpaceX launch price

          And you know this how? The GAO states the rebate: “dollar amount is proprietary”

          Also according to the GAO:
          “Although DoD negotiated larger dollar amounts in the current contract, DoD may not know if it is receiving fair and representative compensation because many ELC [EELV launch capability contract] costs are not allocated by launch.

      • SpaceMunkie says:
        0
        0

        SpaceX also gets subsidies, and not only from the US government.
        http://www.washingtonexamin

        • EtOH says:
          0
          0

          This article counts a subsidized loan to Iridium as a french subsidy to SpaceX, because they launched the Iridium sats…. At least we know that ULA can’t be accused of any such indiscretions, since they can’t compete on the international market.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Of course they get subsidies. Particularly for foreign sales. (Actually it was to iridium who then paid spacex for launches) That is what the Ex-Im bank is for. BTW, the nickname for the Ex-Im bank is “Boeing’s Bank”, because they are its main beneficiary.

          http://www.nationalreview.c

          SpaceX, like ULA and other companies also get things like local tax abatements and incentives.
          That isn’t the issue. It is the claim by ULA, and DoD’s aquiesence, that $1billion is necessary and justified. A billion bucks, year after year, launches or no launches. Yet a competitor says, sorry, don’t need and even want the fee, then will charge a fraction of ULAs price.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            the borrowed money in itself is not the subsidy. Low interest loans.. the interest rate is the subsidy. Relaxing loan requirements… again that is the subsidy.. assuming the risk, the risk is subsidized. But as long as the money is paid back .. that part isn’t.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            True dat

  2. Tritium3H says:
    0
    0

    Ahhhh…Elon Musk is not listed on the panel. Was hoping for a repeat of the “Thrilla in Manila”. Appearing in SpaceX’s corner is the CFO, Ms. Shotwell. I am sure she will give as good as she gets…but it won’t be the same without Musk.

  3. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    Keith, I don’t think Godzilla counts as a proper dinosaur. You may want to fix the image.

  4. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I don’t understand why they talked about the lack of commercial flight rate as being an important limiting factor, for Falcon Heavy during the second hearing, when the center core of a falcon heavy IS a single stick falcon 9? Spacex will have only two variants of their core, falcon 9 and falcon heavy side core all sharing the same engines and assembly lines. Seems to me that Falcon Heavy benefits greatly from standard falcon 9 commercial launches?

    Also there was not a word mentioned about reusability. But those odd ball falcon H side cores are the easiest to recover. 🙂

    http://aviationweek.com/blo

    not sure I understand which falcon heavy core is different from falcon 9

    http://www.transterrestrial

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      They’re playing up negatives to support their case. Remember, this politics, not science. Mis-statement, exaggeration, understatement and misdirection are the rule, not an anomaly.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      George:

      The way SpaceX will handle manufacturing Falcon booster stages is to only have two versions. One version will be used as a single stick core and as a side booster for Falcon Heavy. The second version will be used as a Falcon Heavy core stage. The Falcon Heavy core stage would need extra reinforcement to handle the side-loads of the strap-on boosters.

      This way, SpaceX only has two versions of the Falcon booster stage instead of three. Maybe one booster in ten would be needed for the core of Falcon Heavy.

      tinker

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I found it a little scary that they seemed to discourage the development of methane engines? Seems like they were willing to spend extra money to copy the RD-180 so that they could stick it on an atlas core. Seemed like either they didn’t know or pretended not to know the importance of methane engines in advancing rocket technology/reusability?

    Couldn’t ULA buy Merlin’s from Spacex to put on Atlases?

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      The’d rather gouge their collective eyes out with blunt sporks than buy SpaceX!

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Once upon a time Apple had the same attitude towards Intel. Lots of other factors make the comparison weak, but the point is that companies do what they have to do.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      They could buy the new “optimized” Merlins, but even they might not have the high ISP that the Atlas V design requires. Atlas V was optimized for high payload with minimum dry mass (i.e. like designing a missile, since it was designed from the beginning to be completely expendable). Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are designed to use lower ISP engines and incorporate higher margins in mind for reuse.

      “Things that are different, just aren’t the same.” – second hand quote from an unknown Aerospace Engineer

    • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
      0
      0

      No. It wouldn’t be something as simple as a plug and launch. The entire structure of the Atlas would have to change, starting with propellant and oxidizer tankage (284,089 vs 385,000kg), down through the lower thrust, etc. In the end, you would simply have the stage one of a F9v1.1.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      Where is it stated that Musk will sell Merlin’s?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        @nasawatch tweeted yesterday evening that Musk has said they could use Merlin’s.???

        • PsiSquared says:
          0
          0

          I don’t use Twitter, and don’t know what the question marks after your period mean. Are you asking a question or making a statement?

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            My question marks after my statements period, are for whoever at @nasa watch tweeted yesterday to help find your source.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The main point for having two competitors .. Boeing and Lockheed, was to have two seperate supply chains. If something happens to one chain there is still launch capabiliity from the other.
      I hope Musk doesn’t start selling engines..

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      I believe it would take 6 Merlin 1D engines to replace the RD-180 used in Atlas for thrust alone.The Merlin also has a lower ISP so more fuel/oxidizer would be required I believe.

  6. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    It would be nice.. no it would be fantastic if LegacySpace and NewSpace could treat each other with respect and work together to the common goal of maintaining and progressing their country’s space presence. Of course, the amount of money on offer makes that unlikely.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Its pretty much a zero-sum game. For ULA, maintaining a near monopoly is an existential issue. Being threatened with extinction doesn’t make one charitable and cooperative.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Unprotected monopolies never last. Once all the commercial space acts were passed, and roadblocks removed… it was basically over for Boeing and Lockheed… now they either innovate or die.
        Unless congress steps in again to protect them.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          ULA is openly begging for the chance to keep buying RD-180 engines from Russia for Atlas V cores while simultaneously threatening to stop building Delta IV cores (except for the Heavy, at a greatly increased cost). The trouble with Russia has been increasing over the past several years. The fact that ULA has not acted on its own shows that they are extremely reluctant to spend any of their profits on a replacement engine or replacement vehicle.

          ULA’s recent claims that they are working on a next generation vehicle should be taken with an absolutely huge grain of salt. Until they spend real money on such a project, it’s vaporware, pure and simple.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Hmm. Microsoft and Amazon come to mind, both monopolies, at least functionally. Amazon especially controls the book market. Apple has made Microsoft squirm but it is still a Windows world.
          It is basically the nature of capitalism that fosters monopolies, isn’t it? Standard Oil controlled petroleum at one time; ATT owned phone service. In these cases only governmental intervention forced more competition.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            As for Microsoft, it depends on how you view the computing world. If you view it as the desktop environment, then Microsoft is now doubt the leader as far as operating systems go. However if you include mobile computing–pads, smart phones–then suddenly Microsoft doesn’t seem to be the leader anymore. In fact Microsoft was found itself being out-innovated lately and is struggling somewhat to match what Apple, Samsung, Google/Android, et al are bringing to market.

            In that respect, Microsoft is a bit like ULA, LM, and Boeing in that it was caught a bit flat footed by the direction the computing world went just as Big Aerospace was caught flat footed with the direction that SpaceX went.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            ATT was a controled monopoly, the federal government didn’t allow competition. The thought was it was an a service that was to important to suffer the vulgarities of the market.. multiple sellers some going bankrupt living half a city or state without service…
            ATT was finally broken up and that is what started the whole innovation parade. There is no financial incentive to innovate or do R&D as a protected monopoly .. look at Boeing.Lockheed.ULA.. Microsoft and Amazon are not protected. They innovated into monopolies. What happens though is capital automatically flows towards extra normal profits. So, as a general rule .. companies that innovate into a monopoly pressure legislatures to try and add road blocks to stave of capital entering. They also tend to after a time lower prices so that even if the cost of entry is low.. the ROI is so low capital will find a more productive place to rest.

    • wwheaton says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX would sell ULA Merlin engines, and ULA could sell SpaceX Centaur upper stages for their Falcons. Hope to live to see it.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Didn’t Spacex just launch Falcon with a Boeing Satellite bus? Why couldn’t a customer buy a first stage launch from Spacex and a second stage Centaur from Ula? doesn’t the mighty centaur have enough kick to ride on about anything? Maybe the customer should request it???

        2020 I want send Mission to Europa I want Reusable falcon H price with centuar second stage.
        Launch day Spacex provides/ controls launch and return of their reusable boosters at Staging ULA takes over and flies the centaur. Then NASA flies the mission to Europa.

        Seems very doable to me?

        The customer NASA is in control

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Cx-40 doesn’t currently have Centaur GSE. Such a mod to the LV and pad would require time and investment that SX may feel is better directed toward FH.

          • wwheaton says:
            0
            0

            Yup, I know, but the GSE would be worth it, I think, for 50% more velocity and twice the energy. Falcon 9 can handle a 5 m fairing, so even a fat Centaur is possible.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            In the Sixties when performance was king and cost was no object, an LH2 upper stage would certainly have been attractive. But SX is the first LV provider to seriously consider operational cost as a design goal. They looked at the tradeoffs and felt it was more economical to stick with only RP-1 and avoid either solids at the bottom or hydrogen at the top, even if it required a slightly larger booster. So far their reasoning appears supported by events.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            True, they’re building launch vehicles and working on reusability, not building expendables using the “performance uber alles” approach of the 1950s and 1960s.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            By not using LH2, SpaceX is limiting their performance or requiring more and more engines to increase performance.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “By not using LH2, SpaceX is limiting their performance or requiring more and more engines to increase performance.”

            Its the latter, plus larger fuel tanks.
            But so what? It isn’t a contest.
            Its does it work reliably and is it economical?
            The answer is yes and yes.
            The Falcon heavy does use only one 2nd stage engine and it is EELV compliant. With kerosene and not LH2.
            The BFR will use only methane, which is not for eelv, and its designed to carry people to Mars.
            BTW- multiple engines are a benefit, not a cost. The FH has multiple engine out mission assurance.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The Falcon second stage has only one engine, the vacuum version of the Merlin, which (being a kerosene burner) has lower specific impulse but much higher thrust than the RL-10. For geosynchronous and other high energy trajectories the Centaur would permit a heavier payload but would also increase cost. But the existing stage was selected to accomodate most existing comsats, so the additional cost of LH2 would not add much in market value.

            For LEO payloads (ISS supply and ultimately human launch) the payload is generally a lot heavier but does not need to reach as high a velocity, so thrust is often the limiting factor rather than energy. The higher thrust of the Merlin pretty much balances the advantage the RL-10 has in higher energy.

        • Ben Russell-Gough says:
          0
          0

          Rockets aren’t Lego bricks. The Centaur doesn’t fit on top of the Falcon-9 first stage and it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to build a version that did.

        • RocketNoob says:
          0
          0

          ULA is prohibited by the FTC of selling any rocket parts. They can only sell launch services. Except the government has an exception for themselves :>)

  7. Robert van de Walle says:
    0
    0

    Watching the subcommittee I mostly noticed how terrifically smart more than half the people in the room are.

  8. dbooker says:
    0
    0

    I wonder if Keith’s choice for a title was meant as a subliminal message. After all, evolutionarily all that is left of the carnivorous dinosaurs are the raptor birds which includes the Falcons!

  9. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Interesting note that the next SpaceX launch has been delayed from March 21 perhaps to April 9.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Or later
      I heard this rocket is healthy.
      They have found an “anomaly” at the factory.

      I’m wondering if they fired him/her?

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Not quite as long as the 4 month delay of the ULA Delta IV GPS-IIF-5 from October 2013 to February 2014. S-happens.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        It happens more often than not for SpaceX.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          A while back I did a comparison of the 2 companies. Both have delays. SpaceX does not yet have a real cadence. Partly because they are innovating at a tremendous pace, partly because of bottlenecks in production, and partly hardware anomalies.
          ULA’s delays seem to discovering out-of-spec or anomalous hardware in their production.

          • John Thomas says:
            0
            0

            Companies buying their services are expecting meeting their schedule. For the lower launch cost, I would expect the customers would let it slide. Bottlenecks in production are part of increasing your production rate. It’s something ULA has solved. We’ll see how SpaceX does at the end of the year. ULA and SpaceX will have isolated problems but SpaceX has had more delays recently than ULA.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I got tired looking back but at least the last 5 Delta launches were scrubbed due to hardware failures.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Nothing ULA has ever done compares to the growth in engine production of the worlds largest manufacturer, SpaceX. They are engaged in essentally an annual doubling. Plus rolling out a 15% thrust upgrade.

            As I said – : Partly because they are innovating at a tremendous pace, partly because of bottlenecks in production,”

      • disqus_wjUQ81ZDum says:
        0
        0

        And just how far behind is SpaceX with regards to their CRS contract? Technically, CRS-6 should have launched 4 Feb. Or how about CRS-3? Original schedule NET 28 Nov 2013, launched 18 Apr 2014. True not all delays were SpaceX issues. But it did cascade. Like you said…it happens…to everyone.

  10. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Does the government or ULA have say so over which rocket is used to launch a given payload? Could ULA be forced to fly Deltas before atlas to save those few precious Russian engines?

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      There is no apparent limit to the overall number of RD-180s available since Russia has (informal comments notwithstanding) not indicated that there would be any difficulty supplying them. The limitation is the deadline set by Congress. How many engines could be purchased before the deadline is unclear. Moreover, engines can and no doubt will be purchased after the deadline for non-DOD Atlas launches.

  11. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    After watching over two hours of this testimony I notice that the congress still wants a engine that can be used by “everyone” does not make much since with ULA and Space X as competitors still if aerojet wants to be a competitor perhaps my thoughts below might make some since.
    the other thought is spaceX submits a smaller methane powered engine but this also does not make since with the sharing requirement

    http://yellowdragonblog.com

    Logic should tell us that a design of a Methane powered SSME
    or RS-25 is a less R & D expenditure then a clean sheet engine design.

    This would be an attractive competitive feature in an air
    force RSVP for a new EELV engine

    This would be an attractive feature to the congress

    The customer here might very well be NASA along with the air
    force

    In an air force RSVP with a public /private feature with a
    guaranteed purchase would need NASA as a purchaser as well

    Methane powered RS-25 might be less than 5 to 7 years’ time
    frame for development

    A Methane powered RS-25 might be close to the BE-4 in order
    to allow for the possibility for commonality with launch vehicle tankage and
    other subsystems

    Using methane gelled with hydrogen is a bridge to a BE-4 and
    Methane RS-25 as a drop in replacement to a common launch vehicle

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      RS-25 is a staged combustion engine. Replacing LH2 with liquid methane isn’t as simple as filling the LH2 tank with methane. You are proposing drastic changes to the fuel turbopumps, preburners, and etc.

      • Steven Rappolee says:
        0
        0

        On my blog I have a paper from 1978 that looked into dual fueled Methane Hydrogen SSME
        True there would be modifications but not as much as you might imagine
        The 1978 paper did rule out a duel fuel RP-1 Hydrogen engine for reasons you cite

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Dual-fuel engines were proposed for SSTO or potentially a sustainer-core design to allow high thrust for launch and high impulse for acceleration into orbit. It’s hard to see how they would provide much benefit in a conventional booster stage. The RS-25 is a reusable engine and too expensive to throw away. Yet recovering a sustainer core for reuse is vastly more difficult than recovering a booster stage. As impressive as the engine is, we have to be practical. I have difficulty seeing any path that would make it practical to use the RS-25.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          I consider a new fuel pump a major modification which would require quite a bit of time to design and test. Other modifications might also be needed, but I stopped reading after “it was found that a new main fuel pumpwould be required in every case.”

          • Steven Rappolee says:
            0
            0

            The testimony at the congressional hearing was more than $1 billion and 7 years for a new engine so perhaps a methane RS-25 expandable would with its new pump be less of an effort

      • Steven Rappolee says:
        0
        0

        1978 SSME Methane study

        https://yellowdragonblogdot

        Methane gelled in LH2 a way forward to a reduced R & D and reduced timeline EELV engine to replace the RD-180
        http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          From the 1st paper you cite: “However, it was found that a new main fuel pumpwould be required in every case.”

          So yes, it was “studied”. No, it would not be easy without major modifications, like a new main fuel pump.

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      “Sense”, not “since”.

  12. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    I recall the saga of Lockheed’s failed X-33 / Venture Star program. L-M chose not to proceed privately after a boneheaded NASA senior official named Ivan Bekey ( read: Pontius Pilate ) crucifed the program by demanding L-M Skunk Works proceed with faulty carbon composite hydrogen fuel tanks in spite of suitable lithium aluminum tankage being available , eventually. That rigid but unwarranted decision caused the collapse of government support for X-33, even though the Air Force would’ve liked to see it hang on. Worse, Lockheed threw in the towel rather than investing a few hundred million of its own money to see it through the test launches and prove up the innovative tech, solo, then sell the full sized Venture Star as a fully reusable space vehicle down the road. I cite Lockheed’s X-33 track record as Exhibit A in prosecuting them for capriciousness and greed. They had their opportunity.

    Being relentlessly profit driven as an industrial corporation , Lockheed bailed when the cushy cost-plus contract and assured followon funding was not there for them. No money up front, no rocket. R & D is also a revenue stream at Lockheed, so long as somebody else ( read: US taxpayer) is paying for it.

    So when Lockheed-Martin and Boeing start casting aspersions at SpaceX in a thinly veiled effort to protect their turf and twist the market, it should be seen for what it really is. Gwynne was nicely dressed at this Congressional hearing parade. Them other testifiers are wearing no clothes…

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      That’s not the only thing that killed the X-33. nearly every part of the test vehicle was overweight, particularly the engines. it was severely aft-heavy, it would never have flown the way that it was supposed to. the X-33 was in the middle of a complete redesign when the program was cancelled.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        “A half-scale experimental model, the X-33, was to demonstrate this technology. The design would be for a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, the class of rocket vehicles with the lowest possible operating costs. A set of problems and funding limits resulted in premature abandonment of this worthy and attainable goal early in 2001.” — Ivan Bekey(2003) Advanced Space System Concepts and Technologies: 2010-2030+.

        This is puzzling to me. Wasn’t it Mr. Bekey himself who ordered this “premature abandonment”?

        IMHO several design elements used in the X-33 had potential and deserved adequate testing, as individual components, through an adequate program in technology development, _prior_ to a decision on whether to actually use them in an operational vehicle. Unfortunately NASA (to this day) invests relatively little in technology development.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          There is a diverging philosophy between X-33 and Falcon/Dragon technologies. Both are valid.
          X33 was pushing technology and physics right to the very edge. Falcon/Dragon is a synergistic machine of current capabilities with a clean sheet view of reusability.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The problem with X-33 was not, I believe, the technology. A major problem was that it was presented as an actual prototype (albeit half size and suborbital) of an operational single stage to orbit (SSTO) launch vehicle. Bekey cancelled it because he (apparently still) believes practical access to space can only be achieved with SSTO and it began to appear that the X-33 design could not achieve this. If the project had been approached as a technology demonstration program such a criterion would have been irrelevant, indeed each of the major components might have been tested separately rather than in a single vehicle.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I was trying to illuminate the differences in the approaches to achieve the goal, not so much whether it failed. X33 was working at the bleeding edge, with exotic designs and exotic materials pushing at the very limits of the possible. SpaceX took an alternative path to quick turnaround re-usability, stretching basic, well understood materials and designs just enough to make it work.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Just MHO, but SpaceX has introduced some really revolutionary technologies. One difference is that SpaceX developes technolgies (like the landing process of the Merlin, Super Drago, Raptor, etc) that then does final design on the vehicles using the concepts that prove out. The X-33 was designed based on the assumption that untested new technologies (the semi-conformal composite LH2 tank, the linear spike nozzle, the metallic tiles) would not only be technically achievable, but would achieve specific weight, cost and performance goals. Moreover the use of LH2 rather than RP-1 as a booster fuel, as with the Delta IV, neglected basic cost drivers in such an important tradeoff. SSTO is probably not practical, but if it can be done a dual-fuel engine is probably needed.

            Part of the reason SpaceX can take a more flexible approach and save development time and operational cost is that under the SAA/commercial market strategy they are not obligated to commit to specific designs or performance goals in advance of technology development, and don’t need government approval for design modifications. Technical and financial authority is unified, and organizational interfaces are minimized.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          I agree, there should have been several technology development and maturation programs for the parts of the X-33.

          It’s not true that NASA does little tech development, it is a significant portion of what NASA does…

  13. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    In the hearing they pleaded for Spacex to hurry with the Falcon H. Seems to me what they will get is a falcon H R too.

    Falcon heavy R will likely be able to fly for the price of a current expendable falcon 9.

    Within the next 12 months Spacex should be hopping reused cores in NEW Mexico, qualifying them making them the must tested/safest launch vehicles ever!

    The Air Force is about to get flight assurance like they never dreamed.

    See Spacex reusable schedule here

    http://www.nasaspaceflight….

    How is my friend @torybruno going to compete with this?
    He is not.

  14. majormajor42 says:
    0
    0

    Not reading through all the comments but there is a decent thread that went on twitter. It was acutally started by Keith’s tweet where he quoted the comment about SpaceX/Shotwell “not even knowing how to make a $400 million dollar rocket”. Lori Garver commented and then Tory Bruno had a lot to say.

    Gotta like Tory here. He is spinning, yes. But I still like the guy for the way he handled his testimony and his social media presence.
    But as DTARS says, his arguments may be just good enough for the USAF to justify the premium for ULA for the moment. That time is running out. Plus, ULA Boeing/LM did little to control costs and win back commercial launches over the years. ULA is reacting and not leading although their hands may be tied by what ULA really is in the first place.

    I think ULA’s fate is clear but Tory’s, not so much.

  15. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    This helps 🙂

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.co

  16. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Who REALLY runs SpaceX? 🙂

    http://spacenews.com/spacex

  17. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    An interesting thought (or a “gedanken“). Shotwell says the upgrades to Falcon 9 rolling out 4 flights from now (the June launch of SES 9) will increase performance by at least 30%.
    Now, if that margin holds true and scales to the Falcon Heavy (?), then the FH would have a LEO capability of 69+ tons compared to the SLS at 70 tons.
    That was with private cash equal to less then 1 year’s spending on SLS and years ahead.
    I know they are different critters – the SLS Block 1 can put 24.5 tons toward the the Moon, while the maybe performance of the conjectured FH enhanced is <20 tons, but it shows what can be done (and be done reusably).
    At least that is what I see on the crayoned back of my envelope.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      Slightly off topic…

      In grad school my office was in the room with a placard that said “Gedanken Lab”, a cold, windowless room, only accessible by a stairwell. It was a perfect place for a TA to have an office since a fair number of students couldn’t find the room.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        The rolls of razor wire, claymores, and loosed Dobermanns arrayed around the base of your windowless tower may have had the desired dampening effect on those pesky undergrads.