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

More Opposition to ICBM's as Satellite Launchers

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 13, 2016
Filed under
More Opposition to ICBM's as Satellite Launchers

Space Angels Network Opposes ICBM Amendment to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, SpaceRef Business
“On Sunday the Space Angels Network released a letter in opposition to Mike Lee’s amendment to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act which would allow the commercial use of ICBM’s. The primary arguments are that the amendment would benefit one company and hurt the burgeoning small satellite commercial launch market.”
Previous:
Hearing Discusses Using Old ICBMs As Satellite Launchers
Why Not Use Old Missiles To Launch New Satellites?

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

11 responses to “More Opposition to ICBM's as Satellite Launchers”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    This seems like more of a philosophical argument than economic one given the historical cost of using these launchers and their limited payloads, they would only seem to be competition to existing systems, not the new generation ones.

    But if I was the USAF instead of using these for commercial launch I would look at how feasible it would be to use them as standby launchers to rapidly replace space assets lost during wartime. Their design lends themselves well to that function.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      I disagree. There are several companies working right now to create new, lower cost, launch vehicles in the “limited payload” category. Dumping used missile stages on the market will put a huge damper on the ability of these companies to compete, economically, with a long existing company who already builds and launches large solids stages.

      • Mike Rocket says:
        0
        0

        But this isn’t great for existing big solid makers either right? Sure they may be able to get a work refurbishing old motors but wouldn’t they rather make new ones?

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          They would, but the costs to manufacture new solid stages are significantly higher than refurbishing an existing “military surplus” solid stage. And nothing is stopping Orbital ATK from manufacturing new solid stages for their own launch vehicles. They have the expertise and all of the equipment necessary.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        There have been firms working to create new low cost launchers for that market for over 30 years, yet SpaceX, who actually built a launcher to serve it, stopped offering their Falcon I because of lack of demand even though its price per lb/LEO was less than half of the price of a Minotaur I.

        And yes, it is OrbitalATK would be launching them since it has been doing so since 2000. They are the only ones that have deigned the upper stages they need to place payloads into orbit. And at launch prices ranging from $14,500/lb (Minotaur 1) to $21,000/lb (Minotaur IV) they are not that much a bargain.

        So tell me, why do you think the groups, including startups. that might want to launch payloads in that range should have their business plans on hold for years waiting for some startup to build a launcher to serve them?

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          They don’t need to have their business plans on hold. Nothing is stopping Orbital ATK from manufacturing new solid stages for orbital launch vehicles.

          One of the reasons that it’s difficult to fund smaller launchers is the uncertainty of the market. This would *not* be helped by dumping surplus ICBM stages in the very same market at pennies on the dollar. And unfortunately, that’s a very real possibility.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Your argument makes no economic sense. Nor does it seem to take in the taxpayer’s interest in this issue.

            It cost the American taxpayer some $200-300 million per MX missile produced. Why do you think it would cost any less per unit for new motors to be produced for commercial use? The cost would be prohibited for the firms wanting to
            launch payloads if these surplus motors are not made available, so producing new motors is not an option economically. And let’s not even get into the environmental costs of producing them. The only alternative for firms wanting to launch in this payload range would be Pegasus, at $56,000/lb or going to a foreign launcher.

            So the bottom line is that if these ICBM motors are not made available it is likely these payloads will not fly. Meanwhile American taxpayers will be required to continue paying to store these rocket motors since the only alternative would be to destroy them by burning them, with the associated environmental impacts.

            Add to that the economic cost to the nation of the American lost jobs from not launching the payloads on them or having the payloads going overseas. Also add the potentially lost science from missions, like LADEE, not flown because
            the cost is too high, or which become more expensive to taxpayer as a result.

            And for what purpose? Because a handful of firms that are proposing new vehicles believe it will raise the bar for their business models to close? Business models that will probably not close anyway given the size of the market.

            So sorry, your argument doesn’t wash economically. The greater good for both the American taxpayer and economy is to make these surplus motors available for commercial use. And it should be the greater good that should be the deciding factor, not the protectionism of a handful of launch firms that have little prospect of success. Congress is suppose to be on the side of the taxpayers. Again, if their business model and design is good they will have no problems competing against these used motors. And if they are not
            the government shouldn’t be protecting them at the expense of the taxpayers.

  2. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Obviously a companythat launches solid fueled rockets would like a captive market and has greased the palms of the appropriate members of Congress.

  3. Tim Blaxland says:
    0
    0

    If they worried about the missiles sending negative P&L signals to the start-up market, just sell the missiles in lots by tender. A range of purchasers get a crack at buying them, which stops all the benefit (or potential benefit) going to one company and the government gets to include non-price criteria in their tender evaluation.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      There’s nothing to be seen here, folks.

      As the junior senator from Utah Mr. Lee is more about protecting a certain manufacturer of solid rocket components. Which in fact is his job; I expect Mssrs. Rubio and Nelson to do the same for my own fair state (which on balance is a very mixed bag indeed).

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Except not every launch company knows how to deal with large solids like these. It’s also a huge step backwards when compared to the progress being made on reusable launch vehicles, which have the capability of lowering launch costs by orders of magnitude.

      Dumping missiles on the market will do nothing but delay progress on reusable launch vehicles. In other words, it may lower costs in the sort term, but over the long term it will only serve to keep costs higher than the could be.