SpaceX vs. Everyone - ULA, NG, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

[mongo]

--So there's no such thing as a spaceX shop? The machine that builds the machine? Other rocket companies don't have half the resources and associated waste.
--For flight equipment, are we saying SpaceX has reused every core, fairing, and second stage ever?
--Why isn't spaceX smart enough to just build Starship and launch it?

The point: Progress exists in grey space. Shitting on others because your team sets the bar of white and everyone else is a darker shade is, again, short sighted and antithetical. There's no advancement in that perspective; there's no value in that approach.

My comment had nothing to do with your observation of the criticism of other rocket companies.

I have no clue what you are taking about with SpaceX shop waste, or what medium-heavy orbital class rocket makers you comparing their waste to.

I'm not saying SpaceX reused everything ever, but that doesn't mean that developing reusability created a lot of extra waste.

SpaceX has created all manner of flight and industrial waste over the years, both in the ocean and on land, in the pursuit of reusability[/QUOTE]They did not launch any F9s only to test reuse. They used existing launches that would throw away the stages anyway to test. No incremental additional waste.

It seems like they are pretty much just building Starship and launching it.

 

[Grendal]

I too am happy to see ULA making progress. Their history has its good and bad (to very bad) points. I do like that they are moving away from using the RD-180 and paying the Russians to get our stuff into orbit. They are mostly a business with a business's attitude of "show me the money" and playing the long term political game to get that money. Expecting them to be anything at all like SpaceX with its ambitious goals is expecting way too much. Reusability is low on their priority list since they will win the AF contract without it.

 

[ecarfan]

And its fine for you to do so. Just understand that it comes across as "Hey everyone! Look at that stupid baby! It can't even walk! HA HA HA STUPID NOT WALKING BABY!!!".

It may come across to you that way, but I wasn’t yelling, I was not engaging in punctuation abuse, and I find your comparison of ULA to a “baby” to be inaccurate. The companies that make up that “alliance” are decades old. They have had plenty of time to watch SpaceX accomplish something that their leaders repeatedly said was “impossible”. Which was indeed a “stupid” thing to say.

 

[Electroman]

I find this ULA-baby analogy laughable. Pretty silly.

Even before SpaceX could crawl, ULA was walking swiftly, aka launching satellites to LEO and GEO. Since then SpaceX has learnt to walk, run and now sprinting, while your old ULA baby is still today walking with Govt crutches.

If SpaceX had not shown us how to build massive powerful rockets for the cheap, we would still be swindled by your babies in ULA, and at the mercy of Russians to give us rockets for a hefty sum. And we would not have been any wiser, believing this is how much it takes to build and launch rockets.

ULA deserves every scorn thrown at them. I would dismantle them and instead give that money to SpaceX. That would serve America better.

 

[bxr140]

My comment had nothing to do with your observation of the criticism of other rocket companies.

I realize that was your intent. My response was an attempt to realign your misinterpretation with actual context.

The 'pursuit of reusability' quote you're misunderstanding isn't about waste that is only a specific result of developing reusable technology. Reusability has been SpaceX's core technological pursuit for a long time; in that time SpaceX has creating plenty of waste, dumped plenty of rocket parts into the ocean, etc., and they still do on a recurring basis.

Nobody's perfect, and there's little value in chastising someone for being less perfect than someone else, especially when that's the sum content of a post. That's the whole point.


The extreme irony in all of this is that reusability has nothing to do with waste for SpaceX, beyond some freebie PR for the communications team. It is 100% about money, and I'd even go so far to say that its almost entirely about cost (as opposed to price or profit). As we've no doubt discussed previously, Elon's plans are way bigger than a rocket company. Launchers are simply a means to an end, and the cheaper the means, the more achievable the end. Conversely, an entity like ULA is almost entirely focused on price; the bigger number on the tag hanging off the bottom of the rocket, the more people ULA can put to work, the longer they can keep those people employed and, more importantly, the more political power they have.

It may come across to you that way, but I wasn’t yelling, I was not engaging in punctuation abuse, and I find your comparison of ULA to a “baby” to be inaccurate.

I applaud the high road; I look forward to seeing content that shifts intent away from from-the-gut dismissals and toward honest, objective, fact based criticisms.

Here's another analogy: SpaceX is the prodigy that graduates from Harvard in three years at age 12. ULA is the "dumb" older sibling that went through state school. You can't blame the latter for never being able to keep up with the former.

 

[bxr140]

I find this ULA-baby analogy laughable.

I find it funny what people latch onto on the internets.

 

[Nikxice]

Some interesting points made by bxr140 and others. The Vulcan rocket build doesn't look all bad, seems almost analogous to a hybrid vehicle versus pure EV. Could there be such a thing as a compliance rocket? Anyhow, for now ULA will get their share of launches, especially when lead Space squanderer Shelby and friends can strong-arm government agencies. The Air Force contract shows there is always a willingness to pony up a little extra (from taxpayers) for another reliable launch vehicle.

The Vulcan is designed to be the upgraded replacement for Atlas/Delta, so it's going to be in the ULA arsenal for many years. Vulcan might be an evolutionary, partially reusable rocket for ULA. If true, that's good. If it's only meant to be a quicker, cheaper, risk averse alternative, hope to see ULA eventually drown along with most of their first stage booster and spent SRBs. Minus the parasail chopper catch, here's a 23 second video of ULA's proposed hypercone heatshield protecting the module containing the two BE-4 engines.
ULA's Vulcan rocket SMART system for reusable engines (animation) - Create, Discover and Share Awesome GIFs on Gfycat

 

[bxr140]

The Air Force contract shows there is always a willingness to pony up a little extra (from taxpayers) for another reliable launch vehicle.

Taking this thread in a slightly different direction though still on topic and somewhat relevant to the recent flurry, an interesting thought experiment is to consider why an entity such as ULA exists in the first place. IMHO, it really starts with how we (the US) have chosen to run our country. Throughout the last century and certainly since WW2, a pillar of the US has been maintaining global leadership in pretty much all areas of technological progress. There's countless examples where we've invented or appropriated technology, developed and proliferated the use case, and self-appointed ourselves as global leader.

The interesting twist is that in many if not most cases the front end activity for innovation has been state funded, because in many if not most of those cases entry has been too high/risky for any private entity to take on. Typically, as the financial opportunity of that tech becomes more clear (after maybe a few years or a decade?), some entity within the private sector more or less takes over ownership and whatever government funded entity was driving that innovation moves on to the next thing. Some times, like within the space industry and especially with rockets, the risk/reward ratio has been consistently unfavorable to the point where for decades it was basically impossible to find a champion from the private sector.

Where it gets really self-evident (at least once you noodle on it), despite the relative unprofitability of rockets and disinterest from capitalists, for various reasons--many of them obvious--the US has always wanted to remain the global leader in Space. So in order to continue progress and innovation, continually develop new talent, and generally maintain leadership in Space, it has been imperative to continue state funding rockets. Among others, ULA has simply been one of the more recent manifestations of that approach.

Obviously a huge downside of government funded progress is that it immediately gets political (and there's plenty of criticism to go around on that front), but its hard to deny that for decades and decades that formula has worked to keep the US on top in the space industry. We could wax for a while about the Russian advantage in materials and rocketry that more or less existed until SpaceX, but I digress... Anyway, there's a constant stream of kids with Aerospace degrees coming out of school; you have to put them to work somewhere. There's specialists with years and years of experience in Space; you need to keep that competency alive by creating work for them. It really is more than just rockets and technology, it truly is a nationalistic thing. For instance, why did Wyler pick Florida to build the main OneWeb production lines? Because Florida gave him ton of money to put Space Coast people to work.

Back to rambling, Enter SpaceX, enter the singularity of Elon Musk, enter a vision that is so far beyond just rockets that even to this day it is extremely difficult for The Establishment to comprehend. In a [mostly] private funded venture, one genius was able to show that focus and persistence could step function over a lot of what has come before. It basically came out of nowhere, because for ~50 years the space industry more or less was run the same way, and there was a general assumption that it would keep going that way until some revolutionary technology in propulsion (or whatever) came along. Certainly nobody thought it would all get blown up by some guy willing to implement generally existing industrialization concepts behind a few clever tweaks to existing technological concepts (like reusability). And you can't blame that Establishment thought process either--unlike other state seeded innovations that are picked up by the private sector after a short period of time, it kinda makes sense that if something hasn't taken off after 50 years its probably not going to anytime soon.

Great. Now we have a true private sector entity as a major player in Space. The problem is that there's 50 years of state funded infrastructure in place and, not only its completely naive to expect that infrastructure to crumble quickly, it is completely short sighted to want that infrastructure to crumble quickly. SpaceX is actually a small company. They can't employ everyone and they can't do everything required to launch rockets right now. There are of course players like BO who are inevitably going to help shape the future, but playing off @Nikxice's quote above, The Man isn't going to ever settle for one rocket built by one company. Among other reasons, that's terrible for national security.

So the real question becomes, what does the future look like? Despite not aligning with the narrative some would prefer, I actually do NOT think ULA should remain state funded forever. Rockets are the boring and easy part of space, and in the next few years as folks like BO and the smaller launchers come online there's going to be little need for government funding in rocketry as capitalism is going to fully drive innovation. If I were King, at some point in the future any public funds earmarked for Space would be 100% directed toward launched payloads and associated systems, like science missions within and outside earth's gravitational influence, civil/secure observation (weather and spy sats), habitats (orbiting and extra terrestrial), secure comms, etc. Leave the yawner nothing-new-here part of the mission to the for-profit companies and focus state funds on innovations that have value measured in metrics other than money.

How do we get there? Short term, suck it up. Like the GOP complaining about ACA but not being able to effectively replace it, arguing that we should dump ULA [and SLS] simply doesn't hold water. They have to go on, short term. Its the way the country works. Concurrently, continue state funding SpaceX innovation in areas like human spaceflight--SpaceX obviously has it under control, but throwing The Man a bone of [the perception of] control isn't a bad thing. Next step, transition rocket funding toward the un-launched rocket companies so The Man actually has access to a real quiver of options and so The Country can sleep easy because spreading technology across a number of companies correlates to resiliency. As far s ULA goes I think you kind of have to keep Vulcan going and let the capitalist market determine ULA's fate. There's a lot of downside to defunding now and really minimal upside, though certainly I wouldn't increase funding. Let them be the masters of their own desting--they're either going to figure out how to be relevant or they will fold. Same goes with SLS. Its ridiculous to suggest defunding now 'because Starship'; it will be self-evident to defund at some point in the future...because Starship (and NG)

Do all that and you maintain leadership in rocketry, maintain your labor base, transition the boring part of space to the private sector, and focus taxpayer dollars on pure innovation.

How hard could it be?

 

[mongo]

They can't employ everyone and they can't do everything required to launch rockets right now.

They should not employ everyone. Not sure what they can't do currently.

Like the GOP complaining about ACA but not being able to effectively replace it, arguing that we should dump ULA [and SLS] simply doesn't hold water. They have to go on, short term. Its the way the country works.

Saying they have to go on does not hold water either, if you are basing it on 'how the country works'.
Currently, Starship, ULA, and SLS are the super-lift rockets in development so the risk is lower. If multiple are completed, there is still risk mitigation in having multiple, but that doesn't mean they are all is a good ideas or sustainable (esp since SLS is going to work through the supply of engines),

So yeah, no need to put all the eggs in one basket, but that doesn't mean the flock is the right size.

 

[miimura]

Obviously, you cannot leave today's SpaceX as the only American lunch provider. SpaceX will mature and BO will develop in parallel. Until you have two viable and sufficiently mature commercial launch providers, ULA still needs to exist as a viable launch provider, at least for national security launches.

 

[bxr140]

Saying they have to go on does not hold water either...

So then your position is that we should immediately stop all state funding to ULA.

Please elaborate how that makes sense.

 

[ecarfan]

in the next few years as folks like BO and the smaller launchers come online there's going to be little need for government funding in rocketry as capitalism is going to fully drive innovation

The reasons SpaceX and BO were founded actually have little to do with “capitalism”. They were founded on the idea that humanity must/should exist off Earth to reduce the likelihood of an existential event destroying human civilization and because existing off Earth will be a long term benefit for human civilization. SpaceX and BO will innovate to achieve their long term goals and that innovation won’t be driven by capitalism.

Yes, the various small sat launch companies will continue to innovate because that will help them become profitable and survive, at least for awhile.

 

[mongo]

So then your position is that we should immediately stop all state funding to ULA.

Please elaborate how that makes sense.

That was not at all my point at all. I said diversity was a good thing. But that does not mean the thing you are diverse with is worthwhile beyond providing diversity.

So yeah, no need to put all the eggs in one basket, but that doesn't mean the flock is the right size.

And the full sentence was:

Saying they have to go on does not hold water either, if you are basing it on 'how the country works'.

Jobs for jobs sake does not impart upon a rocket company a validation of its worth as a rocket company,

Strawman, by analogy, absurtum point for illustration:
If a 40 year old non-emissions diesel truck is your only backup transportation, it provides utility and diversity, but that doesn't mean it's a good car. Or that you should replace it with another if it dies.

 

[bxr140]

The reasons SpaceX and BO were founded actually have little to do with “capitalism”.

Yes, agree, never suggested otherwise.

SpaceX and BO will innovate to achieve their long term goals and that innovation won’t be driven by capitalism.

That sure would be great, but unfortunately while ideology is the seed of innovation, money is the engine that actually drives progress. To analogize, once someone finds the cure for cancer you can guarantee it will be proliferated by someone else who maybe cares just a little bit less about the lives being saved than the zeros in their bank account.

Obviously there's some philanthropic investment along the way (one could argue everything that Bezos has put in to BO, for instance), but Other People's Money is a massive piece of the investment pie. Once you get beyond state funding that may have other motivation, most of the time Other People want a financial ROI on their investment.

Of course, the major recurring source of funding comes from revenue. No company can survive on fundraising. Quite simply, SpaceX and BO wouldn't be launching anyone's stuff but their own if they didn't need the revenue. They need to sell their products on the open market; they need that money to continue funding innovation. That's not going to stop once BO starts sending stuff to the moon or SpaceX starts sending stuff to Mars (or whatever).

That was not at all my point at all.

You specifically quoted my opinion that ULA funding should dry up as Vulcan matures, then disagreed with it.

So, when and how should we stop funding ULA?

 

[mongo]

You specifically quoted my opinion that ULA funding should dry up as Vulcan matures, then disagreed with it.

So, when and how should we stop funding ULA?

I think there is a misunderstanding. We are talking about this line:

Like the GOP complaining about ACA but not being able to effectively replace it, arguing that we should dump ULA [and SLS] simply doesn't hold water. They have to go on, short term. Its the way the country works.

I agree that dumping them now does not make sense. But not for the reason of 'its the way the country works'. Which I read as 'keep people employed' which ties into the other line I quoted. So I was saying, keeping ULA doesn't hold water, if jobs/ inertia/ status quo is the primary reason. Keeping ULA makes sense from a diversity POV.

 

[bxr140]

Keeping ULA makes sense from a diversity POV..

If by 'diversity' you mean like having technology spread across companies, having access to similar solutions from multiple companies, etc, I fully agree. Which is why I made multiple mentions of the concept...like literally in both paragraphs of mine you've quoted.

 

[mongo]

If by 'diversity' you mean like having technology spread across companies, having access to similar solutions from multiple companies, etc, I fully agree. Which is why I made multiple mentions of the concept...like literally in both paragraphs of mine you've quoted.

Yah, we do. I was having a rough day yesterday and got nit picky on something that wasn't your main point (employment as a reason to keep a rocket company around). I apologize for that, thanks for bearing with me.

 

[bxr140]

Some interesting stuff on how ULA is transitioning to Vulcan production. They certainly seem to be doing the right things as a matter of normal product evolution, essentially merging Delta 5 and Atlas 5 tech. I'd guess the final product to be competitive with the price performance of Ariane 6, which itself is following a similar evolutionary path from Ariane 5.

https://spacenews.com/atlas-delta-rocket-factory-begins-transition-to-vulcan-centaur/

It remains to be seen whether ULA care that they're going to [continue to] be uncompetitive with SpaceX...

 

[mongo]

Regarding the diversity angle. If we take as a premise that a certain design is correct (reliable/ repeatable) and is also lowest cost does it make more sense to duplicate all the manufacturers (full redundancy at all steps) to produce that optimum design verses having two different versions of everything? Assuming the design does not rely on some base element with limited production sources.


Seems better since you can have two failures (of different steps) and still build.

 

[bxr140]

Seems better since you can have two failures (of different steps) and still build.

Generally, if its basically the same product built by the same people, it makes more sense to consolidate into one product flow with one set of manufacturers. The additional capital required to spin up additional players could instead be realized as savings or put back into the product development for the purpose of increased performance/reliability and/or lower cost. Or, it can be more or less earmarked for more efficient anomaly resolution of the single product. The A5/D4-->Vulcan evolution is a perfect example of singularizing two products. They're taking two undeniably amazing reliability records and combining them into a single product with undoubtedly similar reliability.

Of course, there are variables that work against that concept, sometimes material flow, sometimes political, sometimes strategic (basically, your point), and sometimes because you simply can't push out the volume from one shop. The A320 is a perfect example of these: even if you could get the volume out of a single shop (which they can't), at some point it doesn't make sense for your supply chain to all drive material to one side of the world, then send the completed product back around again, especially if local government is going to strike a deal with you to bring manufacturing jobs. That's why there's a huge plant in Alabama and another one in China, even though its a European company. There are two more, one in Toulouse and one in Hamburg, and that speaks more to the political inner workings of Airbus. Note that its no coincidence that this example is higher volume--something more aligned with potential volume of rocket launches in the future. It is also a case where the primary goal of production is consistency in product. All of the heavy design concepts have long been validated, so when you experience an anomaly on the production line you can [usually] safely keep the line going because you have strong confidence that the anomaly is not the result of some kind of design flaw but rather some production error that can be much more easily contained.

When you don't have identical products AND you have financial responsibility, the trade often results in diversification as the solution. This is perfectly illustrated in the commercial geocomm market, where all of the operators have relationships with all of the manufacturers, and most of the operators have purchased satellites from most of the manufacturers. The operators want to diversify so a fleet wide anomaly-- which would happen within a single manufacturer across multiple operator's satellites--doesn't completely shut down the operator's business. There's also a secondary element of "don't put your suppliers out of business". There's less than a handful of [western] manufacturers of large geocoms. If one of them goes out of business that puts a lot of pressure on the others to pick up the slack.


All that said, SpaceX is certainly changing the paradigm. While they will never be the sole source for the US government (and that's not a maybe never, that's a never never), at some point they're going to be launching with high enough volume that they may get into that 'its not a design problem' realm. At that point its going to be really interesting to see how the [more traditionally minded] industry reacts to SpaceX keeping their product moving, continuing launches, etc. IMHO, SpaceX has a huge advantage with Starlink when it comes to launch anomalies. Typically there are huge investigations to identify, resolve, and contain launch anomalies. Those investigations take months, and return to flight customers are always extremely diligent about being confident in a go-for-flight conclusion. With Starlink, SpaceX has the opportunity to--range safety willing, anyway--keep hucking *sugar* into space without pesky customers pumping the brakes: Ultimately, anomaly investigation will take weeks or even days, SpaceX will announce a conclusion, and they'll launch a bunch of Starlinks on the return-to-flight which both keeps their rocket product moving and also provides empirical data/evidence in support of the anomaly resolution.