Comments on: ULA deal nearly done http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ula-deal-nearly-done Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Nemo http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7496 Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:23:39 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7496
It is worth noting that we wouldn’t be in this boat even now if NASA had decided to use the EELVs for the VSE, expanding the market and lowering costs for everyone.

This is an overreach; the VSE would have expanded the EELV market by – at most – six LEO launches per year starting in 2010, then ramping up mid-decade as lunar exploration resumes. That’s neither large enough nor timely enough to result in significant price reductions for other EELV customers.

I have little doubt the DoD decided not to block NASA’s decision because they understood this, quite well.

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7495 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:19:18 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7495 Oops, of course that should be Falcon-IX flights!

— Donald

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7494 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:15:49 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7494 Rand, you may well be correct (I sincerely hope you are) but until somebody actually does develop a cheaper rocket that regularly flies, we would be fools to let the EELVs go away (unless they are replaced by the VSE vehicles). As SpaceX has been demonstrating, that is neither as easy or as soon as the alt.space crowd would like. Realistically, even if SpaceX does demonstrate their vehicle in the next six months, I’m not selling my Orbital Science stock until they’ve achieved at least a hald-full of flights without a failure. Likewise, the nation should not sell her EELV “stock” until there have been many Falcon-IV flights without a failure. Realistically, that is probably the better part of a decade in the future.

— Donald

]]> By: Rand Simberg http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7493 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:42:41 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7493 In the long term — a decade or so — there probably is room for both rockets.

In the long term — a decade or so — it’s unlikely that either one will be competitive with the new private vehicles being developed for other purposes. It’s basically a subsidy for the buggy manufacturers.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7492 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 06:51:19 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7492 “It is worth noting that we wouldn’t be in this boat even now if NASA had decided to use the EELVs for the VSE, expanding the market and lowering costs for everyone.”

Yes, and DOD were to take that decision with NASA.

DOD had the power to prevent it; they had the power to shape a forward-looking NASA space launch strategy, as opposed to Marshall’s present multi-billion dollar trip down memory lane.

But for whatever reason DOD didn’t act, and now may both will end up with space launch architectures that cannot sustain their missions and long term objectives.

]]> By: Donald F. Robertson http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7491 Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:22:31 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7491 I still think this is a bad idea. Probably a very bad idea. The government is subsidizing them anyway, and will continue to do so, so we should pay the small amount extra to keep both in business as separate, competing companies. After all, competition is supposed to be the American Way, and, in the long term, is likely to result in lower costs than a monopoly.

In the long term — a decade or so — there probably is room for both rockets. The current drought won’t last forever, as comsats and applications satellites continue to slowly expand, the Delta-II is phased out, and as new markets appear.

It is worth noting that we wouldn’t be in this boat even now if NASA had decided to use the EELVs for the VSE, expanding the market and lowering costs for everyone.

— Donald

]]> By: Ryan Zelnio http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7490 Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:56:54 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7490 I’m split on this one. For US companies that want to compete against Bomart, this stinks. However, the international market for commercial launching is cutthroat right now and Bomart can’t compete in it effectively. So they are unable to spread their costs between us gov business and commercial like their original business plans suggested. The delta in fact is the worse of the two failures as far as business plans go. Boeing as much as admitted so when it took the delta off the commercial market entirely. One of the rockets has to go and this makes the decision easier to swallow.

As for spaceX, I think that some day they will compete, but until they successfully launch the falcon 9 about 4-5 times, they are not real competitors in this class of rockets.

]]> By: Bill http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/03/30/ula-deal-nearly-done/#comment-7489 Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:31:32 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=913#comment-7489 I think this is another government welfare systems designed specifically for Lockheed and Boeing. Remember, both use Other Peoples Money (OPM) to their fullest advantage and never keep their promises when it come to SPACE (FIA, SBIRS HIGH, SBSS Pathfinder, GPS IIF/R/M).

Bunch of crooks who have the government decision makers in their pockets, and if not in their pockets, at least sleeping with them on weekends.

]]>