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

[spacerfc]

Execept, like everything in this world, it's not anywhere near as binary as that.

Again, I have discussed the scenarios when cost plus is appropriate, you chose to ignore it. I also presented reason for why cost plus makes no sense in Artemis, you also chose to ignore it.

Make no mistake, literally everyone who's worked around the space industry would concur that there's a spectrum where there are both benefits and drawbacks to both cost+ and FFP. Literally everyone who's worked around the space Industry can cite examples of where both FFP and cost+ have proven their worth and proven to be problematic. That folks here simply refuse to accept that is quite disappointing.

Just because FFP has drawbacks and failed cases does not make FFP and cost plus equally appropriate for Artemis, that should be obvious. Anything in life has drawbacks and failures, but that doesn't mean there're no best things/solutions given a circumstance. For example EV has drawbacks and failures, but EV is an inherently better solution comparing to ICE for most applications, despite these drawbacks and failures.

Nope, that's exactly not what he's saying. Again, again, that you and others have drawn that conclusion from Berger's article is quite disappointing.

I find it strange that you keep saying we're wrong but refuse to point out the specifics.

And no, I don't get all my space news from Berger, far from it. Here's an article from SpaceNews written by Jeff Foust reporting the same meeting: NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3, just reading the title would show Foust has the same impression as me.

Honestly lay off the Berger hate, it's boring. He's actually pretty late on this particular controversy, notice his article was published about 9 days later than Foust. The online community is already on fire with Free's speech for quite a while, just look at the discussion under the Foust article. What Berger provided (as usual) is the quotes from his NASA sources, which are valuable, but it didn't shape our thinking, it merely confirmed it.

 

[scaesare]

That usual suspects like @mongo and @scaesare have resorted to disingenuous participation in this thread does the same.

Given that you've now made allegations about me (and @mongo), I think some evidence of our being disingenuous is in order.

dis·in·gen·u·ous
adjective
adjective: disingenuous
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

 

[scaesare]

My experience from complex projects in a different field is that if projects have a large degree of technical risk trying to contract using FFP may lead to the best providers declining to bid (and the company that does win the bid failing to deliver - a lose/lose situation).

FFP works best in areas where the deliverable has already been proven to be technically possible. CRS, commercial crew and launch services are good examples.

I can see that for things that have never been done before, hence the risk.

In which case it would seem to need a tightly written contract with guarantees/caveats, and to be managed very tightly.

Perhaps the issue might be best reframed as concern over cost-plus contracts as they seem to be administered today.

 

[scaesare]

What I see is Free is trying to blame the delay of Artemis III on SpaceX, which is utterly stupid, for multiple reasons.

Nope, that's exactly not what he's saying. Again, again, that you and others have drawn that conclusion from Berger's article is quite disappointing.

Here's the direct text from Spacenews (the title of which is literally "NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3", to which Berger referred:

Free said NASA’s concern is the number of launches of Starship that SpaceX has to carry out to be ready for Artemis 3. Each Starship lander mission requires launching the Starship lander itself as well as several “tanker” Starships to fuel the lander in Earth orbit before it goes to the moon. Before Artemis 3, SpaceX will carry out an uncrewed Starship lunar landing, and also must demonstrate cryogenic fluid transfer in Earth orbit.

“That’s a lot of launches to get those missions done,” Free said. “They have a significant number of launches to go, and that, of course, gives me concern about the December of 2025 date” for Artemis 3.

He reiterated those schedule concerns later in the meeting when asked about the schedule for Artemis 3. “With the difficulties that SpaceX has had, I think that’s really concerning,” he said. “You can think about that slipping probably into ’26.”

So how is that inconsistent with Berger's assertion that Free may be tying potential future delay to SpaceX?:

It's all well and good for Free to acknowledge the likelihood of a delay. But it was his assignation of blame for the delay that raised some eyebrows.

(ON EDIT: I just realized there was an additional page to this thread after I posted this, which re-states some stuff @spacerfc said, apologies for redundancy)

 

[mongo]

Make no mistake, literally everyone who's worked around the space industry would concur that there's a spectrum where there are both benefits and drawbacks to both cost+ and FFP. Literally everyone who's worked around the space Industry can cite examples of where both FFP and cost+ have proven their worth and proven to be problematic. That folks here simply refuse to accept that is quite disappointing.

Wait, so you agree that FFP has benefits over cost+? Doesn't that contradict Free's statement: "The fact is, if they’re not flying on the time they’ve said, it does us no good to have a firm, fixed-price contract other than we’re not paying more," which is what people have been disagreeing with?

 

[scaesare]

So, @bxr140, you stated such things as:

"No Berger fan wants to see him go soft on rubbing out All The Other Guys"

"Berger: “Look at this effing guy and his old school sky is blue BS. He’s so stupid, the sky is blue.” (Yes, I understand a deliberate exaggeration, but you are implying motive/viewpoint you don't necessarily have basis for)

"Just another SX rah-rah."

To which I ultimately said (responding to the offer to drop it):

Sure, if you're done making dubious allegations, you don't care to defend.

Then, after some additional discussion, you doubled down and not only made yet another baseless accusation, you opted to make it personal, calling out I and @mongo:

That usual suspects like @mongo and @scaesare have resorted to disingenuous participation in this thread does the same.

Given that you have now accused us of being disingenuous, which is yet another dubious allegation (how do you know if I'm not being sincere?), I asked you for what evidence you have for calling me disingenuous:

I think some evidence of our being disingenuous is in order.

Now you've gone silent.

I'd appreciate either an explanation, or an apology.

 

[ecarfan]

Boeing’s Starliner saga is actually a NASA policy success

The Hill reports that the ongoing disaster that is Starliner makes a point:

…despite the appearance of failure, the Starliner saga in fact reveals governmental policy success: NASA’s decision to simultaneously fund two distinct vehicles to bring astronauts to the ISS — SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner — via fixed-price contracts. In a competition for funding with multiple commercial entrants, awarding contracts to two companies provided redundancy and insured NASA against a single company’s failure; fixed-price contracts ensured controlled costs to NASA and to the taxpayer. And some non-selected entrants and concepts awarded initial funding in earlier rounds can still be developed if there is interest outside NASA. This strategy should be replicated moving forward as NASA refocuses on pursuing exploration outside of low-Earth orbit.

Starliner’s first test was planned for 2017. Delays and design issues pushed it back to late 2019, and problems with the spacecraft’s internal clock during launch led to an incorrect orbit. The second test, which was successful, did not occur until May 2022 due to problems with the propulsion system and a new ISS docking module. The crew flight test was pushed to summer 2023 after a busy ISS launch schedule and to address issues that arose during the second test. In May, the chair of a safety panel recommended against rushing the mission, and NASA acknowledged issues with the parachutes and wiring tape. The indefinite delay was announced days later.

For SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, however, it is a different story. SpaceX has been regularly transporting astronauts to orbit aboard the vessel for several years now, both for NASA and other private clients, such as Axiom Space.

Choosing both was crucial. Had NASA picked only Boeing to produce an ISS spacecraft, or chosen only SpaceX and its Crew Dragon had not been as successful — even in a competition to win a contract — the United States might still be relying on Russia to get astronauts to the ISS.

 

[JB47394]

The Hill reports that the ongoing disaster that is Starliner makes a point:

I think this argument would hold more water if Starliner was even in the hunt. Really, this whole thing underscores how poorly the contractor selection process works. The Starliner team was giving it the ol' college try, but something about their corporate culture ruined the effort. The contractor selection process didn't pick up on that. Perhaps because NASA maintains the same basic culture.

 

[adiggs]

I think this argument would hold more water if Starliner was even in the hunt. Really, this whole thing underscores how poorly the contractor selection process works. The Starliner team was giving it the ol' college try, but something about their corporate culture ruined the effort. The contractor selection process didn't pick up on that. Perhaps because NASA maintains the same basic culture.

I agree with the first poster and article's point of view. My take is that you're right about how badly ULA / old school processes worked, but we didn't really understand how different it could be back in 2017. So taking a "safe" contractor plus this new one is probably the only thing they could have done. They certainly couldn't take 2 unproven launch companies, and the redundancy of having 2 was also essential for exactly the reasons we've seen.

In retrospect, Starliner isn't even in the hunt. The next time there is a similar contract, ULA will have a bit bigger hill to climb due to their bad follow through on this contract. This is why this overall contract is a success - costs are contained, and NASA had 2 bites at getting this right. Who knows - maybe someday we'll also have 2 companies that can deliver this product.

 

[Grendal]

I agree with the first poster and article's point of view. My take is that you're right about how badly ULA / old school processes worked, but we didn't really understand how different it could be back in 2017. So taking a "safe" contractor plus this new one is probably the only thing they could have done. They certainly couldn't take 2 unproven launch companies, and the redundancy of having 2 was also essential for exactly the reasons we've seen.

In retrospect, Starliner isn't even in the hunt. The next time there is a similar contract, ULA will have a bit bigger hill to climb due to their bad follow through on this contract. This is why this overall contract is a success - costs are contained, and NASA had 2 bites at getting this right. Who knows - maybe someday we'll also have 2 companies that can deliver this product.

Starliner is Boeing, not ULA. Starliner will launch on ULA's Atlas and does own a piece of ULA, but Starliner is all Boeing.

 

[adiggs]

Starliner is Boeing, not ULA. Starliner will launch on ULA's Atlas and does own a piece of ULA, but Starliner is all Boeing.

My bad - thanks for the clarification.

 

[ecarfan]

The SpaceX F9 launch cost advantage over the competition looks set to keep growing, Ars Technica reports: SpaceX is stretching the lifetime of its reusable Falcon 9 boosters

The late-night liftoff of a Falcon 9 rocket with another batch of Starlink Internet satellites on Sunday set a new record for the most flights by a SpaceX launch vehicle, with a first-stage booster flying for a 16th time. SpaceX now aims to fly its reusable Falcon 9 boosters as many as 20 times, double the company’s original goal.

The flight followed several months of inspections and refurbishment of SpaceX’s most-flown rocket, a process that included a “recertification” of the booster to prove, at least on paper, that it could fly as many as five more times after completing its 15th launch and landing last December.

The company has around 16 flight-proven Falcon boosters in its fleet, with several more new-build rockets slated to fly by the end of the year. Each mission requires a brand new upper stage. Reusing the first stage and payload fairing not only cuts the company’s internal launch cost—a figure that is believed to be less than $30 million per Falcon 9 flight—it unlocks a higher flight rate without straining the factory.

 

[scaesare]

The SpaceX F9 launch cost advantage over the competition looks set to keep growing, Ars Technica reports: SpaceX is stretching the lifetime of its reusable Falcon 9 boosters

This, along with Merlin reaching much greater thrust levels over time, and Raptor being on gen 2+ and also reaching greater thrust levels (despite barely having flown), are telling example of SpaceX's iterative design process.

The advantages of less development lead time, experience gained via actual usage/testing, ability to fail fast, and iterate quickly have led to some pretty amazing advancement for a single product line. Combine that with the hardware-rich development environment they have, and it's a great example of applying rapid development (often a software thing) to hardware,

 

[JB47394]

This, along with Merlin reaching much greater thrust levels over time, and Raptor being on gen 2+ and also reaching greater thrust levels (despite barely having flown), are telling example of SpaceX's iterative design process.

I'm a believer in the iterative approach. I learned a huge number of lessons about software by constant refactoring and rebuilding. That said, I wonder how much money SpaceX has spent on engine and rocket development versus Blue Origin. Blue Origin seems to be following the Amazon playbook by obtaining real estate and building warehouses, but how much money have they spent on flight hardware development? Is their apparent slow pace a result of their design and development philosophy or just that they throw fewer resources at it?

 

[scaesare]

I'm a believer in the iterative approach. I learned a huge number of lessons about software by constant refactoring and rebuilding. That said, I wonder how much money SpaceX has spent on engine and rocket development versus Blue Origin. Blue Origin seems to be following the Amazon playbook by obtaining real estate and building warehouses, but how much money have they spent on flight hardware development? Is their apparent slow pace a result of their design and development philosophy or just that they throw fewer resources at it?

Good questions. They certainly aren't "hardware rich" it would seem. But then again I suspect the significant cost is development, then manufacturing process/labor, and lastly materials. So they may have spent a lot, despite our having seen only a handful of engines....

 

[mongo]

Reportedly, a BE-4 failed during testing June 30th. Cause is thought to be known and should not impact Vulcan Cert-1 flight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678844068703477762

 

[Cosmacelf]

Reportedly, a BE-4 failed during testing June 30th. Cause is thought to be known and should not impact Vulcan Cert-1 flight.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678844068703477762

Transparency of the highest order. Only took 12 days for people to undercover this. Sheesh.

 

[scaesare]

(Also posted this followup in the BE-4 thread)

An Engadget blurb about it: Blue Origin is investigating why a rocket engine exploded during testing | Engadget

References this CNBC piece: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/jef...lzxx0TgxyPWlM1HUUuIQxRUkFzmqTtyWNF0o0&irgwc=1

 

[Grendal]

As usual, the article tells you one thing but the comments get into the nitty gritty:

Space Force to select three providers of national security launch services

Space Force to select three providers of national security launch services

spacenews.com

 

[ecarfan]

As usual, the article tells you one thing but the comments get into the nitty gritty:

Yes, the BO lobbyists have been busy on Capitol Hill touting the capabilities of a rocket that has yet to even reach the launch pad, let alone orbital velocity.