TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

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

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by Bgarret, Apr 25, 2014.

Tags:
  1. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #521 bxr140, Aug 12, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
    This may come as a shock to many :cool:, but its a bit of an outdated requirement.

    It is, unfortunately, based more in "that's the way we've always done it" and "we're 'murica, we know better than those Reds" than any particular hard logic. (And then most other launchers just copied what the Americans did) There are a few barely plausible reasons one might go that route but, lets face it, to date there's been hundreds of heavy launchers including like close to 100 Falcon 9s that have gone horizontal with payloads of all types, shapes, sizes, and propellants. (To say nothing of smaller launchers--Soyuz has launched like 1500 times or something...)

    The math checks out. Horizontal is ok...and makes for a way more cost/schedule/resource efficient program.

    Ironically SpaceX may change the math back with Starship, mostly because it is SOOO big. I can't tell whether the upper/payload section is a separate unit from the rocket or if the not-a-fairing-but-with-a-big-ass-cockpit-canopy-door-thing is all just part of one big starship--Intuitively it seems more efficient to be separate as they'd otherwise need an environmental chamber to transport and install the payload (eventually out at sea?), but maybe that trade closes in SpaceX land? Either way, Starship will likely always remain vertical, if for no other reason than the fact that SpaceX would otherwise have to build some massive verticalizer...which given that they're building a mega highbay in BC strongly suggests all vertical all the time. And...even if there is a separate payload unit it would almost certainly remain vertical as well--the main reason encapsulated payloads go horizontal now is for integration onto the launcher and then launcher transport.
     
    • Like x 2
  2. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Seems like it would be a lot easier and lighter to build a satellite/ sensor system that only need to support itself in one axis.Especially when that is the long axis. Cantilevered loads in a tight fairing are not trivial.

    Somewhat related: SpaceX is talking of moving to vertical testing of Raptor due the resulting simplification of the engine.
     
    • Informative x 2
  3. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #523 bxr140, Aug 12, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
    Logic goes back to launch loads enveloping ground loads.

    upload_2020-8-12_11-57-40.png


    Testing of a liquid engine makes a lot of sense when vertical, if you have the facility for it. Gravity is acting in the right direction, just a bit less than during flight.
     
    • Helpful x 1
    • Like x 1
  4. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    Good point.
    Yeah, that is what they call out, but I'm not sure payloads really experience that. Seems sort of hard to pull -2Gs axially (or laterally) on a rocket. Unless they are including processing the payload.
    The +/- 0.5 lateral values at the axial extremes seem more in line with real operation (vibration is higher than that though). Though the gravity turn is an interesting aspect in terms of loading.
     
  5. bxr140

    bxr140 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Yeah agree on actual launch loads. They do get up there during vibe test though. Either way, they have to be designed within that launch envelope, and most satellites are designed within an aggregate envelope made up of a number of launchers. (Though launch loads are all more or less close to each other--its the frequency responses that are different)

    My guess is some crusty old safety officer way back when decided it wasn't even worth the risk of going horizontal while fueled, and that approach basically became scripture. There's probably some way-beyond corner case scenario where a horizontal satellite could possibly exceed a launch envelope, and then the "if that happens people die" element of hypergols takes over...
     
    • Informative x 1
  6. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
  7. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Comparison of fairing sizes. A "header tank" is for fuel storage.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like x 1
  8. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    More on Loverro's resignation in the wake of giving Boeing a heads up they were going to lose the lunar lander bid: WSJ News Exclusive | U.S. Criminal Probe Looks at Former NASA Official’s Contacts With Boeing Executive

    Key bit: "Mr. Loverro, who wasn’t part of NASA’s official contracting staff, informed Mr. Chilton [of Boeing] that the Chicago aerospace giant was about to be eliminated from the competition based on cost and technical evaluations, according to some of the people. Within days, Boeing submitted a revised proposal, they said. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration formally determined the bid changes came too late to be considered, and three other companies won contracts in April totaling nearly $1 billion."

    At the end of the day, NASA's commercial, competitive, bidding process is working. Boeing's bid just cost too much. Boeing now can't get away with that kind of taxpayer $$ extraction that they were used to.
     
    • Informative x 3
  9. Nikxice

    Nikxice Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,054
    Location:
    Hudson, NH
    Looks like Doug Loverro better lawyer up. If this revelation turns out to be accurate then Boeing and Chilton are also culpable. First they failed to report Loverro's disclosure, then they acted on insider information in an attempt to salvage their lander bid. What will happen next? Loverro will certainly lose out on a future lucrative job working for Boeing as a lobbyist. Fines, future bid penalties, who knows, but Boeing should also be held accountable.
    This story further weakens Boeing. If Bridenstine isn't already fed up with SLS and Starliner, incidents like this can only add to his distrust.
     
    • Like x 2
  10. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    • Informative x 1
  11. dkemme

    dkemme Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    • Funny x 1
  12. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    #532 ecarfan, Aug 17, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
    Very interesting article to be sure. In my opinion it won’t happen that way because even if Shelby loses his committee chair status next January, the massive inertia of the SLS program will continue for years and continue to suck up money.

    The idea of a “Gray Dragon” capsule appears to be that it would journey to the Moon docked with a lunar landing module, which would be boosted to LEO with a separate Falcon launch and would rendezvous with the Gray Dragon in LEO. So two FH launches to get those two vehicles to LEO. The Gray Dragon would require a special “return stage” which would take the Gray Dragon out of lunar orbit (after the lunar lander had returned the astronauts from the surface of the Moon) and back to Earth.

    So what would need to be developed would be the lunar lander, the return stage, and all the modifications needed to turn a Crew Dragon into a Gray Dragon.

    Obviously much less expensive than an SLS-driven mission, but still requiring several billion to develop those new components and fly just one mission to the Moon.

    My prediction is that none of that will ever get funded, the SLS will eventually fly once or twice but never get anything to the Moon because Congress won’t want to pay the additional billions required, given the huge amount of new debt the US government has incurred this year (please do not divert this thread with discussion of whether that is good or bad; it exists and it will have a huge impact on Congressional appropriations).

    In the meantime, SpaceX will continue to fly cargo and crew Dragons to the ISS, work towards the Dear Moon mission, take tourists to LEO as a profitable (or at least not money-losing) sideline, and focus on building Starships to go to Mars. Elon will make sure of that.
     
    • Like x 2
    • Informative x 1
  13. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
  14. mongo

    mongo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    12,857
    Location:
    Michigan
    That is a continuation of the protest from the LSA awards of Oct 2018. It is claimed to have impacted Phase 2 awards, but is not a direct challenge to Phase 2.

     
  15. dkemme

    dkemme Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    319
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
  16. Cosmacelf

    Cosmacelf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    Messages:
    8,229
    Location:
    San Diego
    Here's a fun one. And for once, ULA has a point.

    Seems that some Congress critters (at the "suggestion" of ULA) are worried about Chinese involvement in US space. (see Elon Musk's SpaceX NASA contracts threatened over Tesla China ties) And while SpaceX has zero dealings with China, Elon's other company, Tesla, has a $1.4B line of credit with Chinese state banks.

    Tesla has very real exposure to China. Not only for the loans (which Tesla could easily pay off), but for their factory and a significant percentage of Tesla's overall revenue. And if China wanted to, they absolutely could put pressure on Elon given this. In such a scenario, I believe Elon would call their bluff and tell them to pound sand (at a potentially catastrophic medium term hit to Tesla's share price). But as one of the aides quoted in the article above, that requires you to believe in the good faith of one man, Elon. This isn't how national security concerns are addressed. The US Government forces companies to divest based on national security concerns. Look no further than what's happening right now with TikTok for an example.

    This is more of a SpaceX problem than it is a Tesla problem. Tesla is joined at the hip with China, for better or worse. I don't think there are going to be too many national security concerns about car manufacturing. SpaceX, however, is different as the difference between a commercial rocket and a ballistic missile is slim indeed.

    Given the mood of the current administration towards China, I could see this significantly affecting SpaceX's NASA and military contracts. At the very, very least, this is yet another argument for the US to continue overpaying for ULA's services.
     
  17. JohnSnowNW

    JohnSnowNW Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2015
    Messages:
    2,623
    Location:
    Minnesota
    So, ULA's reliance on RD-180 engines for going on two decades wasn't an issue of national security, but Elon's dealing with China through an entirely different company/sector is now concerning?

    Certainly, ULA playing off the paranoia that seems pervasive among the current administration is probably a smart move on their part.
     
    • Like x 8
  18. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,181
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    I don’t think ULA has a valid point, they are just trying everything they can think of to damage SpaceX, throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

    It’s laughable to think that any Chinese government action against Tesla’s operations there could have any influence on what SpaceX does.
     
    • Like x 7
  19. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    • Like x 3
    • Informative x 1
  20. Nikxice

    Nikxice Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    1,054
    Location:
    Hudson, NH
    This does make a lot of sense. Developing US Space Force around a culture of disposable rockets isn't sustainable. Applying Elon's single-use airplane analogy, any 'Force' would soon run out of backing and bucks.
     
    • Like x 2

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC