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

[scaesare]

I doubt Jeff bothers with envy. He's a competitor, and he doesn't like being #2. In his mind, he may well assume that he's #1, and that if anyone else is claiming to be #1 then they're somehow cheating or doing something reprehensible. Like polluting the environment. From what I've seen, people as motivated as Musk and Bezos are a pretty weird bunch.

I wonder how the CO2 emissions work out per kg of payload. Large rockets are supposed to be more efficient, but that probably only applies when used at their maximum payload. Launching 10 tons with Starship is probably much worse than launching 10 tons with New Glenn. We need to be packing every kg of payload into these rockets if we want to have minimal impact on the environment. That amortizes the mass of the rockets themselves.

Perhaps SpaceX should suggest to the government that dumping rocket hardware in the ocean after each launch is bad for the environment.

I suspect that however he deludes himself, in moments of honest clarity he knows he's behind. I'll give you the "weird" though...

All of that having been said, apparently the folks within the potential blast radius would have to vacate whenever Starship tanks up, which would seem to affect ULA moreso. At the cadence SX could be running at, I could see where that would get to be a pain...

 

[bxr140]

Any reasonable mind would agree this is a case of ‘multiple things can be true’.

• Is it dubious for BO and ULA to try and impede SS through regulatory/authoritative mechanisms? Yes.
• Is it exactly what one would expect from a competitor? Yes.
• Is it appropriate to challenge the upside value of SS against what will be unprecedented operational impact to The Cape (including competitors) and environmental impact to The Cape and beyond? Yes.

Interestingly this very much like SX trying to leverage regulatory elements to essentially gain priority control over Echostar and (more pertinently) Global Star's MSS spectrum. For sure SX has a kumbaya point on "we should all get along", but their real motivation is to trigger a change to The Rules so SX can dominate the D2D space. And their real motivation is to change the rules in order to eliminate SX's only legitimate competitor in the D2D space (Apple).

 

[JB47394]

NASA Selects International Space Station US Deorbit Vehicle - NASA

NASA is fostering continued scientific, educational, and technological developments in low Earth orbit to benefit humanity, while also supporting deep space

www.nasa.gov

NASA announced SpaceX has been selected to develop and deliver the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle that will provide the capability to deorbit the space station and ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas.

While the company will develop the deorbit spacecraft, NASA will take ownership after development and operate it throughout its mission. Along with the space station, it is expected to destructively breakup as part of the re-entry process.

The single-award contract has a total potential value of $843 million. The launch service for the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle will be a future procurement.

 

[ecarfan]

While the company will develop the deorbit spacecraft, NASA will take ownership after development and operate it throughout its mission. Along with the space station, it is expected to destructively breakup as part of the re-entry process.

Glad SpaceX won’t be responsible for safely deorbiting the ISS, that is going to be a very tricky thing to do safely. Try to accurately predict the trajectory and the area the debris will hit seems extremely difficult.

The launch service for the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle will be a future procurement.

I guess that is just a formality; I expect SpaceX will get the contract to launch the vehicle they design and build. Even 4-5 years from now I can’t imagine who could underbid the cost of an F9 launch. And I expect it will still be active and launching missions by then.

 

[JB47394]

Even 4-5 years from now I can’t imagine who could underbid the cost of an F9 launch.

Remember that NASA spreads out the money in order to keep multiple launch providers solvent. After giving SpaceX up to $843 million, lining up ULA or Blue Origin for a single launch contract would be consistent with past government expenditures. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the contract called for the ability to mate the deorbit vehicle to a standard adapter.

 

[mspohr]

Remember that NASA spreads out the money in order to keep multiple launch providers solvent. After giving SpaceX up to $843 million, lining up ULA or Blue Origin for a single launch contract would be consistent with past government expenditures. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the contract called for the ability to mate the deorbit vehicle to a standard adapter.

Would that be CCS or NACS?

 

[scaesare]

Would that be CCS or NACS?

SADS (Spacecraft Active Deorbit System)

 

[scaesare]

Any reasonable mind would agree this is a case of ‘multiple things can be true’.

• Is it dubious for BO and ULA to try and impede SS through regulatory/authoritative mechanisms? Yes.
• Is it exactly what one would expect from a competitor? Yes.
• Is it appropriate to challenge the upside value of SS against what will be unprecedented operational impact to The Cape (including competitors) and environmental impact to The Cape and beyond? Yes.

I agree it has impact... however I think Jeffry and B.O. being so "concerned" about the environmental impact all of the sudden is more likely "lawfare", as Elon put it.

I give more credence to Bruno and ULA's filings because of the potential operational impact, as you mention and I said above.

Interestingly this very much like SX trying to leverage regulatory elements to essentially gain priority control over Echostar and (more pertinently) Global Star's MSS spectrum. For sure SX has a kumbaya point on "we should all get along", but their real motivation is to trigger a change to The Rules so SX can dominate the D2D space. And their real motivation is to change the rules in order to eliminate SX's only legitimate competitor in the D2D space (Apple).

I think the difference was the spectrum in question was potentially demonstrable to not interfere... if you are referring to the recent situation I'm thinking of.

 

[JB47394]

Dream Chaser won't go up in September. The Vulcan rocket will launch with a dummy payload to get the rocket qualified for operational flights. The article also mentions that Amazon won't be ready with Kuiper satellites either.

ULA will launch its second Vulcan rocket without a real payload

"This is certification at our own expense."

arstechnica.com

Random factoid: "There are 34 rockets in production at ULA's factory in Decatur, Alabama, Bruno said, most of them Vulcans."

 

[bxr140]

..."lawfare", as Elon put it.

Questioning the impact of SS is 100% legitimate, period. Elon solely focusing on the dubious motivation of those asking the question is, IMO, an intentional effort to distract away from the real conversation...and thus, Elon is being far more disingenuous than Blue here.

I think the difference was the spectrum in question was potentially demonstrable to not interfere... if you are referring to the recent situation I'm thinking of.

Hence the "there's a kumbaya in there". But...that logic doesn't hold much water considering SX is specifically targeting Echostar (from a retaliatory perspective) and Globalstar (who is enabling Apple's service). What about Iridium? What about SiriusXM? What about Inmarsat?

It also doesn't hold water because non-interference is already an existing concept in most (and probably all) spectrum allocations...at least for commercial use.

 

[scaesare]

Questioning the impact of SS is 100% legitimate, period. Elon solely focusing on the dubious motivation of those asking the question is, IMO, an intentional effort to distract away from the real conversation...and thus,

Sure. But Jeffrey and the boys to all of the sudden be environmental conservationists seems a tad intereting, given they are getting whooped in the rocket biz, and they used simialr tactics in the past. Like I said, I see ULA's concern as more genuine.

Elon is being far more disingenuous than Blue here.

Hard disagree. Elon's not a saint, I'm sure... but far more disingenuous... don't think so.

Hence the "there's a kumbaya in there". But...that logic doesn't hold much water considering SX is specifically targeting Echostar (from a retaliatory perspective) and Globalstar (who is enabling Apple's service). What about Iridium? What about SiriusXM? What about Inmarsat?

It also doesn't hold water because non-interference is already an existing concept in most (and probably all) spectrum allocations...at least for commercial use.

What are they retaliating against Echostar for?

 

[bxr140]

Sure. But Jeffrey and the boys to all of the sudden be environmental conservationists...

Maybe leave the disingenuous commentary-ing to Elon.

Conservation and sustainability type initiatives have long been part of Blue's charter. There's clearly nothing all of the sudden going on, regardless how convenient that false narrative is to perpetuate here.

Hell, even Jeff personally has a tax write-off climate focused philanthropy fund that's pledged $10B over 10 years, not to mentioned he's signaled that much of his wealth will be given to charity. Nobody will argue he's the beacon of environmentalism of course, but nobody can deny that he puts Big Money into climate based (and other) causes.

What are they retaliating against Echostar for?

In no particular order:

• Charlie is a royal knob
• Echostar/Dish are often party to the "SX is being mean to everyone" dogpiles in filing commentaries and such

 

[scaesare]

Maybe leave the disingenuous commentary-ing to Elon.


Conservation and sustainability type initiatives have long been part of Blue's charter. There's clearly nothing all of the sudden going on, regardless how convenient that false narrative is to perpetuate here.

Hell, even Jeff personally has a tax write-off climate focused philanthropy fund that's pledged $10B over 10 years, not to mentioned he's signaled that much of his wealth will be given to charity. Nobody will argue he's the beacon of environmentalism of course, but nobody can deny that he puts Big Money into climate based (and other) causes.

Fair enough... I should have looked up his other philanthropic efforts I was unaware of. So more hyperbole than anything... so while he mayhave environmental concerns, he's also not above using "lawfare" tactics... as he's seemed to use in the past.

In no particular order:

• Charlie is a royal knob
• Echostar/Dish are often party to the "SX is being mean to everyone" dogpiles in filing commentaries and such

He may be and have done.. but even so, your "retaliation" comment is making a pretty big assumption that the motivation by SpaceX for spectrum use is punitive as opposed to legit...

 

[SO16]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806750512978522224

 

[ecarfan]

Ars: Mere days before its debut, the Ariane 6 rocket loses a key customer to SpaceX

Why did this happen?

Most probably, there were some timing and reliability concerns. The MTG-S1 satellite was due to launch on the third flight of the Ariane 6 rocket, a mission nominally scheduled for early 2025… However, because this 4-ton satellite is going to geostationary orbit, it would have been the first mission to require the use of a more powerful version of the Ariane 6 rocket. Instead of using two solid-rocket boosters, this "64" version of the rocket uses four solid-rocket boosters. It seems likely that Eumetsat officials had concerns that the timeline for this launch would drag out and perhaps some mission assurance concerns about being the first launch of an Ariane 64 rocket.

Hilariously, Berger closes with this:

Whatever their reasons, the European satellite officials have thrown a massive turd into the punchbowl at festivities for the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket.