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

[mongo]

For all the *sugar* ya'll specifically throw at the BE-4 development schedule, the BE-4-to-orbit timeline sure looks a lot like the Raptor-to-orbit timeline...

....
Raptor was capable of putting a rocket into orbit in 2019, over 3 years ago. 2 years ago for Starship test flight.
Raptor is waiting on Starship.
Vulcan is waiting on BE-4.

 

[bxr140]

Raptor was capable of putting a rocket into orbit in 2019, over 3 years ago. 2 years ago for Starship test flight.
Raptor is waiting on Starship.
Vulcan is waiting on BE-4.

So shoulda-coulda-woulda counts when its SX but not Blue?

 

[mongo]

So shoulda-coulda-woulda counts when its SX but not Blue?

You were comparing engines, not companies.

For all the *sugar* ya'll specifically throw at the BE-4 development schedule

Comparison is not:
Which held up Blue: BE-4 or New Glenn?
In which case "to orbit" is still way off for BE-4...

Which held up ULA: BE-4 or Vulcan?
Which held up SpaceX: Raptor or Starship?
Saying Raptor is the long pole of Starship is, I feel, somewhere between incorrect and disingenuous.

 

[bxr140]

Saying Raptor is the long pole of Starship is, I feel, somewhere between incorrect and disingenuous.

Of course, I never said or in any way intimated that.

Bottom line, Raptor and BE 4 are orbital engines.
Bottom line, Raptors timeline to orbit is going to be the ~same as BE4.

I appreciate there are plenty of ways to dance around that.

 

[mongo]

Of course, I never said or in any way intimated that.

Bottom line, Raptor and BE 4 are orbital engines.
Bottom line, Raptors timeline to orbit is going to be the ~same as BE4.

I appreciate there are plenty of ways to dance around that.

Then what significance is there in that comparison?

 

[bxr140]

Then what significance is there in that comparison?

The same significance there is in repeatedly complaining about and dunking on non SX timelines.

 

[mongo]

The same significance there is in repeatedly complaining about and dunking on non SX timelines.

Oh, so I was right, none at all.

And just so we are clear, my post "Ok, ULA now has a pair of engines" was in reference to my earlier error of claiming those engines had been delivered to ULA. Not a chain-pull of BO.

 

[Grendal]

Now now. Let's not get too cranky. The reality is that Raptor has been in development for many years. If it was used on a more traditional rocket needing to get to orbit then, IMO, it could have made it last year. But that is very speculative. In comparison, I'd say that the challenges facing Super Heavy and Starship are much much more complex than either Vulcan or New Glenn. SpaceX and Elon are shooting for the Holy Grail of rocketry. Vulcan is basically a traditional rocket using a newer fuel. New Glenn is shooting for some reuse. So that going to be a big learning curve for BO. All of them will hopefully succeed and there is room for all of them for the next ten years at least. Who launches first is not that important since they will all launch and hopefully succeed in the near future. SLS is getting vast amounts of taxpayer money and taking up NASA resources - so that's a rocket we can all complain about...

 

[scaesare]

Of course, I never said or in any way intimated that.

Bottom line, Raptor and BE 4 are orbital engines.
Bottom line, Raptors timeline to orbit is going to be the ~same as BE4.

I appreciate there are plenty of ways to dance around that.

That kinda feels like saying Ford's new engine that was finished in 2019 is late because it was slated to be mated to a new chassis/transmission combo that got pushed back to 2023...

 

[scaesare]

Yeah, in NASA report, SpaceX is making a Raptor a day.

New term "Hardware Filthy Rich" environment...

 

[scaesare]

Of course, I never said or in any way intimated that.

Bottom line, Raptor and BE 4 are orbital engines.
Bottom line, Raptors timeline to orbit is going to be the ~same as BE4.

I appreciate there are plenty of ways to dance around that.

Let's not forget Raptor is already on Gen 2..

And the changes are not subtle... they'd be an entire 10+ yr development program for most other companies.

 

[scaesare]

So shoulda-coulda-woulda counts when its SX but not Blue?

Sure. Elon is famous for "optimistic" timing projections. But that doesn't negate the rapid pace of development, nonetheless.

But again... the point was being made about how long it's taken for Blue to deliver the BE. Nobody was making it a "versus" comparison until....

 

[ecarfan]

Reuters: Boeing Starliner crewed missions slips again

Boeing's first Starliner capsule mission carrying humans has slipped from February to April 2023 as the company works with NASA to fix lingering technical issues from the spacecraft's last uncrewed test flight, the U.S. space agency said Thursday. NASA said "the date adjustment deconflicts visiting spacecraft traffic at the space station as NASA and Boeing work together to achieve flight readiness." The company and NASA are "working on a variety of verification efforts across several critical systems that will be used for Starliner's crew flight certification," the agency said.

That is pretty vague. The subtext may be that Starliner still has problems that need to be resolved.

 

[bxr140]

Nobody was making it a "versus" comparison until....

...until it literally became a versus comparison? Seriously, I can't make this up!

I know it's an SX forum, and this is of course the versus thread after all, but folks here sure do take a seriously Trumparian approach to making any Blue news All About SpaceX. I guess I don't expect that to change, and certainly I'm not going to stop pointing it out when it happens...so...I guess sorry in advance for any hurt feelings as a result of my future meanness.

Slightly more seriously, from a "The whole world could benefit from stepping in the other person's shoes once in a while" perspective, I'd encourage folks to consider that SX and non-SX companies measure their goals and achievements in different ways. Your Ford example is perfect--from Blue's perspective, why would they design an engine that was 4 years ahead of its chassis? From their perspective what good is an orbital motor that hasn't been to orbit, and so why waste resources completely mis-aligning supply and demand for such a major element? Your Raptor 2 comment is likewise applicable--from Blue's perspective, why not get the paper design closer to right and minimize wasted resources on development iterations?

As a corollary thought experiment, perhaps just stepping back from the binary approach of "any explanation of delay from Blue is an excuse" and "any explanation of delay from SX is a reason" will enlighten perspective.

Anyway, parting food for thought, consider that Falcon 9 took ~10 years to get a FT launch and a successful landing. (It's pretty fair to dismiss V1/1.1 as development iterations and not the final product--there's a reason few people bought them). Now contrast that extraordinary 10 year cycle to the embarrassing 11 years that New Glenn is currently advertising to get a NG launch + landing. Of course that's going to blow out to 12 or 13, but given the juxtaposition of SX's well lauded hyper iterative approach vs Blue's well criticized snail's pace approach plus NG's larger and more complex technical solution plus the Merlin head start from F1, an unbiased perspective would still have a hard time finding too much fault with Blue's timeline...

 

[scaesare]

...until it literally became a versus comparison? Seriously, I can't make this up!

Well , if you hadn't truncated my quote, you'd see that it was specifically speaking to the original engine delivery timeline being spoken to, and then you introduced the issue of when they'd reach orbit, which has a lot of other dependencies, that just engine development does not:

I know it's an SX forum, and this is of course the versus thread after all, but folks here sure do take a seriously Trumparian approach to making any Blue news All About SpaceX. I guess I don't expect that to change, and certainly I'm not going to stop pointing it out when it happens...so...I guess sorry in advance for any hurt feelings as a result of my future meanness.

As long as it's not considered argumentative to point things out from the opposite perspective.. . no hurt feelings here.

Slightly more seriously, from a "The whole world could benefit from stepping in the other person's shoes once in a while" perspective, I'd encourage folks to consider that SX and non-SX companies measure their goals and achievements in different ways. Your Ford example is perfect--from Blue's perspective, why would they design an engine that was 4 years ahead of its chassis? From their perspective what good is an orbital motor that hasn't been to orbit, and so why waste resources completely mis-aligning supply and demand for such a major element? Your Raptor 2 comment is likewise applicable--from Blue's perspective, why not get the paper design closer to right and minimize wasted resources on development iterations?

Sure, goals and measurement thereof vary. As do methods. SpaceX's "fail fast" approach benefits from a hardware rich environment. And arguably, a 2nd iteration that's cheaper/easier/faster to produce meets a number of goals that Blue may not even have (although it's hard to believe that those aren't desirable for a commercial enterprise).

But when delivery timetables so late likely start impacting when your customers can deliver on their plans, it's hard to say that it's just a "differrnt company goal" issue. And we here are not the only ones to comment on them being late,, many have including:

“I’m not going to kid you: the engines are late,"

-Tony Bruno

Lots of other articles commentary on it as well...

As a corollary thought experiment, perhaps just stepping back from the binary approach of "any explanation of delay from Blue is an excuse" and "any explanation of delay from SX is a reason" will enlighten perspective.

Anyway, parting food for thought, consider that Falcon 9 took ~10 years to get a FT launch and a successful landing. (It's pretty fair to dismiss V1/1.1 as development iterations and not the final product--there's a reason few people bought them). Now contrast that extraordinary 10 year cycle to the embarrassing 11 years that New Glenn is currently advertising to get a NG launch + landing. Of course that's going to blow out to 12 or 13, but given the juxtaposition of SX's well lauded hyper iterative approach vs Blue's well criticized snail's pace approach plus NG's larger and more complex technical solution plus the Merlin head start from F1, an unbiased perspective would still have a hard time finding too much fault with Blue's timeline...

Again,, talking about launch... I'm not sure where anybody was predicting the margin by which one company would be first, but rather commenting on what has already been accomplished thus far. That having been said. I'd be impressed if New Glenn does it in 12-13,

 

[Grendal]

Hand us a bunch of cash up front and we'll give you a good deal. Read the comments in the article....

Tory Bruno: DoD should ‘block buy’ heavy launch services as supply is tight - SpaceNews

United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno is advising the U.S. Space Force to preemptively buy heavy launch services as rockets could be in short supply over the next several years.

spacenews.com

 

[ecarfan]

Seems like aerospace industry blackmail…

 

[bxr140]

Hand us a bunch of cash up front and we'll give you a good deal.

It does make sense. As someone actively trying to buy rockets I can confirm that for many years to come the launch industry is going to be very production constrained, and remember that this is an industry where contracts are inked two years out at the latest. Any aspirational constellation is going to have an extremely hard time deploying a materially useful service on anything remotely close to an acceptable timeline. Even onesie twosie vehicles aren't exactly easy to secure.

SX is of course the most flexible/accomodating; for obvious (and perhaps some not so obvious) reasons not everyone wants to work with them and/or put all their eggs in one basket.

 

[Grendal]

It does make sense. As someone actively trying to buy rockets I can confirm that for many years to come the launch industry is going to be very production constrained, and remember that this is an industry where contracts are inked two years out at the latest. Any aspirational constellation is going to have an extremely hard time deploying a materially useful service on anything remotely close to an acceptable timeline. Even onesie twosie vehicles aren't exactly easy to secure.

SX is of course the most flexible/accomodating; for obvious (and perhaps some not so obvious) reasons not everyone wants to work with them and/or put all their eggs in one basket.

I suppose if you take the Amazon-ULA deal into account then asking the military for a block buy deal is reasonable. Unless there is a problem with Vulcan then I'm pretty sure that ULA is definitely going to be a major player for NASA and Military launch purposes. It has the feeling of a political maneuver over anything about savings though.

 

[bxr140]

It has the feeling of a political maneuver over anything about savings though.

It’s much less about savings and basically all about securing launch capacity. It is what’s happening on the demands side of the industry already. Put another way why wouldn’t we all want the national security procurement strategy to evolve with the times rather than do the same thing they’ve done in the past?