The real issue is: Should the government and NASA be paying for SpaceX's alpha and beta products?
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 96
Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
cLutZ
United States19553 Posts
The real issue is: Should the government and NASA be paying for SpaceX's alpha and beta products? | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15581 Posts
| ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4621 Posts
On September 03 2016 05:52 cLutZ wrote: IMO this is expected. F9 is intentionally made to cut costs when compared to other options. We know how to make a rocket that does what it does, just not for the price. Failure at the outset is an expected cost of trying to reduce cost of cargo transport, like when you bought a knockoff tablet in 2011 because Ipads were hella expensive. The real issue is: Should the government and NASA be paying for SpaceX's alpha and beta products? Why would NASA get free rockets when nobody else does? | ||
cLutZ
United States19553 Posts
| ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4621 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:10 cLutZ wrote: They shouldn't. What I am saying is that they probably shouldn't be, essentially, a venture capital angel investor for startup rocket companies. They're not, they're customers. Investors risk capital for a return. If you buy an Audi you haven't invested in Audi. | ||
cLutZ
United States19553 Posts
| ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15581 Posts
On September 03 2016 05:52 cLutZ wrote: The real issue is: Should the government and NASA be paying for SpaceX's alpha and beta products? Musk owes a substantial portion of his success to billions in government subsidies. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html On September 03 2016 06:23 oBlade wrote: They're not, they're customers. Investors risk capital for a return. If you buy an Audi you haven't invested in Audi. let's not pretend Musk is a 21st century henry ford with these automobile analogies. you'll notice in clutz's comment he said "the government and NASA". | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
oBlade
Korea (South)4621 Posts
The only thing that's peculiar about SpaceX which might be befuddling is the fact that orbital rockets are their only business, unlike other aerospace companies and partnerships of same, for example Boeing, which also makes planes and got a bigger reward in their commercial crew contract, and Orbital ATK, who make exploding rockets under NASA contract. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force said Sept. 1 that it would be a part of SpaceX’s investigation into a test failure that led to the loss of a Falcon 9 rocket and the Amos-6 communications satellite. Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, the head of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center, said in a statement that he is “is poised and prepared to support SpaceX recovery and return to flight efforts.” An explosion Sept. 1 destroyed a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and the Amos-6 satellite that workers were preparing for an upcoming launch at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. While the mission did not include national security payloads, the Defense Department relies on SpaceX as one of two certified providers to carry a majority of military and spy satellites to orbit. As such, the Air Force monitors all SpaceX and United Launch Alliance launches carefully. SpaceX previously helped equip SMC to display the same launch screens and data that company officials see at mission control. “The U.S. Air Force will continue working with SpaceX to ensure confidence in the safe and reliable launch of critical national security space satellites,” Greaves said. “The U.S. Air Force will not speculate on the cause of the anomaly; however, SpaceX has invited the U.S. Air Force to observe and be a part of the anomaly investigation process.” The Air Force’s involvement is not unusual. The Air Force certified the Falcon 9 to carry national security payloads in June 2015. SpaceX was not expected to lift a military or intelligence satellite until spring of next year at the earliest when it was set to carry a payload for the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the country’s spy satellites. Source | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15581 Posts
On September 03 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote: The government, the Air Force, NASA, are launching things whether or not SpaceX offers a competitive product. And I believe more than half of SpaceX launches are private/commercial. according to this 85% of their money comes from NASA. NASA is far and away SpaceX's #1 customer. the # of launches is not as important as how much money each launch generates in revenue. if 4 launches generate $1 million from ABC private company and 1 launch generates $30 million from NASA it does not matter that ABC company is the customer for 80% of SpaceX launches. Revenue is what matters. So even if more than half of SpaceX launches are "private" it does not matter. What matters is how much revenue is generated. the final line in the article i posted pretty much sums up my thoughts.. “Sending thousands to colonize Mars may just have to be put on the back burner until he can send three people to ISS.” | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
A more sane program would seek to return to the moon first. Something perhaps like Constellation, which actually had a real plan for getting to Mars rather than just vague dream language and showboating of cosmetic technological improvements to rockets. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On September 03 2016 14:47 LegalLord wrote: Mars in general is just a great diversion people use to be able to not have results for a long time without being pressed too strongly on it "cuz its hard." A more sane program would seek to return to the moon first. Something perhaps like Constellation, which actually had a real plan for getting to Mars rather than just vague dream language and showboating of cosmetic technological improvements to rockets. There really isn't that much value in going to the moon again, though. We already know it's possible, and while there is some scientific merit there, it doesn't have nearly the implications that Mars does. More or less, going to the moon is saying "look, our space program still functions!" Going to Mars is about achieving the next major goal in space travel. | ||
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
Though I'm still waiting for them to admit there's likely Oil on Mars, which could hilariously mess up everyone's desire to go there, even the general bent of the people that are big on colonizing off planet. As for Musk & SpaceX, you have to give Musk a lot of credit. He's managed to make being a Defense Contractor into something the Silicon Valley set can get behind. Most of the governments of modern economies want to spend large amounts of money to specific ends, he's simply using that to further his own personal goals. And he's also managed to make some decent cars as well. (Let's ignore the fact that you can't actually scale the production of current Battery technology to change any sizable amount of car fleets in the world, but that's a separate issue.) That a Falcon 9 blew up is neither surprising nor unexpected. It's just really rare to lose one on the ground, and I'm curious what will come of the post-explosion analysis. The video looked a lot like it was the 2nd Stage section that caused the "anomaly", so what actually happened will be interesting. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 03 2016 16:09 WolfintheSheep wrote: There really isn't that much value in going to the moon again, though. We already know it's possible, and while there is some scientific merit there, it doesn't have nearly the implications that Mars does. More or less, going to the moon is saying "look, our space program still functions!" Going to Mars is about achieving the next major goal in space travel. Returning to the moon is a perfectly good goal. There is still scientific merit in actually going to the moon and possibly establishing infrastructure there - they did find water on the moon, along with useful metals - and besides that it's a reasonable goal that is highly feasible and that validates progress as a milestone. It makes a lot more sense than setting up a, erm, moonshot goal of going straight to Mars without first showing that progress is being made in that direction. If the goal is "Mars by 2026" then what progress do you really expect to be made by 2021? Going to the moon at least validates that progress in that direction is being made. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15581 Posts
On September 03 2016 14:47 LegalLord wrote: Mars in general is just a great diversion people use to be able to not have results for a long time without being pressed too strongly on it "cuz its hard." true, meanwhile billions in government money continues to flow into the coffers of Musk's corporations. On September 03 2016 23:46 LegalLord wrote: If the goal is "Mars by 2026" then what progress do you really expect to be made by 2021? Going to the moon at least validates that progress in that direction is being made. Musk has created several milestones towards Mars that have already failed. At the start he claimed 100% re-usability was necessary to keep costs down. That's been abandoned. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 03 2016 23:11 Taf the Ghost wrote: As for Musk & SpaceX, you have to give Musk a lot of credit. He's managed to make being a Defense Contractor into something the Silicon Valley set can get behind. Most of the governments of modern economies want to spend large amounts of money to specific ends, he's simply using that to further his own personal goals. And he's also managed to make some decent cars as well. (Let's ignore the fact that you can't actually scale the production of current Battery technology to change any sizable amount of car fleets in the world, but that's a separate issue.) If you didn't know, Silicon Valley started from government investment in defense contracts. There is literally nothing surprising about moneyed people being interested in making more money off of government subsidy and government contracts. And in the end, unless his companies actually become self-sufficient and profitable, all he did was take a lot of people's money and waste it while making himself wealthy in the process. Like a true robber baron. On September 04 2016 00:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote: true, meanwhile billions in government money continues to flow into the coffers of Musk's corporations. Musk has created several milestones towards Mars that have already failed. At the start he claimed 100% re-usability was necessary to keep costs down. That's been abandoned. As someone mentioned far upthread, the reason NASA probably didn't use the "module recovery" procedure that Musk is using is... because it isn't profitable and you waste more on fuel than you save on reusing damaged parts. I have yet to see SpaceX show that they have made their module recovery profitable or even that they have any progress towards that end. Politicians in general are always too easily fooled by hype trains like the one Musk made. They aren't scientists, but they have the need to look fashionable and "create jobs" and Musk is one of the world's best talents at abusing that hype train for the purpose of obtaining government and investor money without making substantial progress and just mostly rehashing old technologies that are not really as new as they look, but that have good optics. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The recent Falcon 9 rocket explosion badly damaged SpaceX's Florida launch pad at Cape Canaveral, meaning the company’s primary launch site is out of commission for the foreseeable future. But while that pad undergoes repairs, SpaceX says it can continue launching vehicles from its two other launch sites — one in California and another one in Cape Canaveral. That doesn’t mean the company will be getting back to its regular flight schedule just yet, though. SpaceX’s California launch pad can only be used for certain types of missions to space, and the second Florida pad isn’t quite ready to support launches just yet. The pad damaged in Thursday’s explosion is located at Launch Complex 40 — a site at the Cape that SpaceX leases from the US Air Force. It’s the pad that SpaceX uses for most of its launches: of the eight Falcon 9s the company has launched this year, seven took off from Launch Complex 40. Not being able to use the pad is going to significantly throw off SpaceX’s busy launch schedule for the rest of the year. The company is currently trying to figure out how long it’s going to take to get the site back to normal. "The pad clearly incurred damage, but the scope has yet to be fully determined," said SpaceX in an update on Friday. "We will share more data as it becomes available." SpaceX’s only other operational launch pad right now is at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But the pad’s location on the West Coast limits the types of rockets that can launch from there. The Vandenberg site can really only be used for Falcon 9s going to polar orbits — a path that takes satellites over the north and south poles. To get into such an orbit from Vandenberg, rockets typically launch toward the south. That’s fine, because it means the rocket travels over the ocean as it gains altitude and doesn’t pose a threat to anyone on the Earth below. Source | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
The explosion of a SpaceX rocket last Thursday will have an impact across the space industry, far beyond the losses on the launchpad at Cape Canaveral, Fla. An Israeli satellite operator’s deal to sell itself to a Chinese company is imperiled. Planned launches of communications satellites that support international mobile phone service and digital television are delayed and put in doubt. NASA’s cargo deliveries to the International Space Station will probably be disrupted. All of them are customers of the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX, whose rocket exploded in Florida. The private space launch company, led by the entrepreneur Elon Musk, has a generally solid safety record. But last week’s setback and a failed launch last year, when its rocket carrying a NASA cargo fell apart in flight, are raising questions about SpaceX, a company that has risen rapidly by offering lower costs and promising accelerated launch schedules. At this stage, there are more questions than answers. The key for SpaceX will be how quickly it can satisfy federal investigators, rebuild the damaged launchpad at Cape Canaveral and resume sending satellites into space. For commercial telecommunications customers, getting a satellite manufactured is time-consuming and expensive, taking two years or more and costing $200 million to $400 million each. The launch itself is a high-risk step, but once in orbit the satellites are money spinners. The upfront investment is paid back in a few years, and they then generate hefty profits for the remainder of their useful life, which could be as much as a decade. So once a satellite is ready to go, time on the ground — and delay — are financially painful. Among the commercial satellite operators lined up for SpaceX launches later this year are Iridium Communications, SES of Luxembourg, EchoStar and KT Corporation of South Korea. “No doubt SpaceX will fix the problems, but if you’re a customer time is money,” said Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University and a former NASA administrator. “This will get customers looking at alternatives. It may give competitors an opening and slow down SpaceX.” The large communications customers have the most money at stake in space. Revenue for satellite services last year was $127.4 billion, according to a report by the Tauri Group, a research firm, for the Satellite Industry Association. The launch business, though the gateway to space, is small by comparison — $5.4 billion in revenue last year. In the market for launching large, geostationary communications satellites, the main SpaceX rival is Arianespace, a French multinational company. And there are others, notably International Launch Services, an American-Russian joint venture, which launches Russian-designed Proton rockets from Kazakhstan. But Arianespace, which has an excellent safety record, is considerably more expensive than SpaceX. And the safety and performance record of the Proton rockets lags behind that of the SpaceX workhorse, the Falcon 9. If the SpaceX launch timetable is delayed by a few months, industry analysts say, its customers will probably wait. If the delays stretch out further, other launch providers will look increasingly appealing. Recovering from delays to its aggressive launch schedule — while losing momentum — is the challenge for SpaceX, not a financial squeeze. In a statement on Friday, the company said its business was “robust, with approximately 70 missions on our manifest worth over $10 billion.” The company said it was too early to predict when its launches might resume. In addition to the damaged launchpad, SpaceX has two others under construction. One is in Florida, which the company says should be ready in November. The other is at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, which SpaceX said was in “the final stages of an operational upgrade.” A longer-term issue for SpaceX is whether the rocket explosion and its aftermath raise concerns about its plans to move into the field of manned spaceflights for NASA and for launching military and national security satellites for the Department of Defense. Its competitor for that business is the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The list price for the SpaceX Falcon 9 is $62 million while the larger, more powerful Falcon Heavy is $90 million. There are further costs beyond the rocket itself, but analysts say SpaceX launches cost at least 50 percent less than what its main competitors charge. It has achieved that efficiency by streamlining production techniques, designing a stripped-down launchpad and stepping up the pace of launches. Each innovation adds risk, said Phil Smith, an analyst for the Tauri Group. But SpaceX, he added, has been approved by NASA for cargo missions and certified by the Air Force, both of which have high safety and performance standards. The explosion investigation and launchpad repair seem sure to scuttle SpaceX’s aggressive launch plans this year. The company had hoped for as many as 18 rocket launches this year. It has had eight so far; last week’s would have made nine. Over all, SpaceX has had 27 successful launches of Falcon 9 rockets. The Florida accident is also rippling through the insurance market. Insuring the risk of getting a satellite into space comes in two stages. The preflight insurance is intended to mainly cover the risk of damage to the rocket and satellite on their way to the launchpad. Premiums are a fraction of a percent. Launch policies, which take effect when the rocket is fired up, are costly, ranging from 5 to 15 percent historically. But the Falcon 9 exploded during a prelaunch test. So launch policies did not kick in. And the insurance payout will fall on the roughly two dozen preflight insurers. Richard Parker, managing director of Assure Space, an underwriting agency, is waiting to see the cause of the explosion. If it is a design or manufacturing flaw or an operational error, launch rates for SpaceX flights may well go up. His firm had underwritten a launch policy on last week’s flight at 6 percent, he said. One business casualty of the explosion is the $285 million sale of Space Communications, an Israeli satellite operator, to a unit of a Chinese company, Xinwei Technology Group. That deal hinged on the launch of Spacecom’s Amos-6 satellite, an Israeli design. The satellite was insured, but because of the explosion, Spacecom’s five-year contract with Facebook and Eutelsat Communications of France to supply internet access to people in sub-Saharan Africa was canceled. Spacecom’s stock price fell 9 percent on Thursday, and another 34 percent on Sunday. In a news conference on Sunday, Spacecom executives said they were trying to renegotiate the deal with Xinwei and exploring other options. Source | ||
| ||