NASA, Other

The fierce urgency of now for American space industry

The president of Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne had a blunt warning this week for policymakers: get a plan in place for NASA’s future now or industry will suffer the consequences.

“NASA has a very short period of time to work with Congress and come up with a unified position and get their act together, and let industry know what’s going on,” Jim Maser told reporters in a roundtable Monday in Washington. “We’ve got to pick something, we’ve got to move on.”

Maser said he was concerned about the effect of extended uncertainty about NASA’s future plans on an industry already challenged by low flight rates and an unstable supplier base. He described one specific supplier of a component for the RL-10 rocket engine that still does business with him because the owner “wants to be part of the space business”. That owner, he added, is in his 80s, and his heirs don’t share that passion.

“With this uncertainty I would think there’s a fair number of second- and third-tier suppliers” who are rethinking their commitment to the industry, he warned. “In the absence of a decision in the next four to eight months, I think companies will be making decisions about space.”

Any future architecture needs to be aligned with the prospects for flat—at best—budgets in the future. “Constellation had a plan that was more than the budget that was going to be allocated,” he said, and backers assumed there would be a “future Hail Mary” from Congress that would provide that additional funding. “Ultimately, I believe that’s why it was canceled, because it couldn’t be achieved on what was likely to be the realistic budgets provided.”

“We have to recognize that the budget is the budget, and we have to pick an architecture that’s aligned with it, a timeline that’s aligned with it, and a mission that’s aligned with it. We do that in business all the time,” Maser said. “My point over the next four to eight months is that we need to pick that now. We’re running out of time.”

“To me, the shuttle ending is a huge scenario that this industry has never faced,” he said. “I don’t think people understand what we in business will have to do to accommodate that without a follow-on… To me it’s all very predictable and, at this point, very avoidable. But we have to change the uncertainty, and right now there’s just arguing.”

Maser came to the media roundtable after he and other industry executives met with NASA administrator Charles Bolden and deputy administrator Lori Garver. Maser said he communicated that same message in that meeting. “Pick something, run a competition, pick winners and losers, and let’s move on, that was basically my message, because we’re out of time.”

104 comments to The fierce urgency of now for American space industry

  • Mark R. Whittington

    This is what happens when paltroons are allowed to run wild with space policy, casually blowing up programs when they should have supported them, throwing money at crony capitalism schemes, and generally failing to lead.

  • “To me, the shuttle ending is a huge scenario that this industry has never faced,” he said. “I don’t think people understand what we in business will have to do to accommodate that without a follow-on…

    That’s because people live in a state of denial most of the time and have selective memories, especially when it comes to political issues (and make no mistake, this is a political issue).

    Folks conveniently forget Bush II canceled the STS in 2003/04, but blame Obama for it’s demise, simply because it’s happening on his watch and he canceled its successor due to severe cost over-runs.

    People and politicians wouldn’t have cared in the NASA districts if the CxP schedule slipped into the 2050s, as long as the money flowed and voters employed.

  • Scott Bass

    You would think that message had already been delivered……probably every CEO in the industry should be making a point of reiterating it, I for one agree, stop the arguing and move forward one way or another. I try not to be to critical of President Obama because I do realize many of the policy decisions he makes are complex and take thought and time to make. However there does seem to be a pattern of indecision emerging……. This occured to me yesterday with the discussion of the no fly zone being implemented in Libya, by the time they get around to deciding what to do it may be to late to do any good. Sometimes you have to just go with your gut and standby your decisions whether they are right or wrong……it’s part of the job in my opinion.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 8:40 am
    ” This occured to me yesterday with the discussion of the no fly zone being implemented in Libya, by the time they get around to deciding what to do it may be to late to do any good. Sometimes you have to just go with your gut and standby your decisions whether they are right or wrong”

    we had eight years of “going with the gut…right or wrong…rah rah” and look where it got us…a failing economy, two wars that cost trillions and a legacy in the mideast where people dont trust the US.

    “going with your gut” is another word for “guessing”, or acting without sound facts…and it ignores the maxium “first do no harm”.

    Cx is a project that was “go with the gut” and 10 billion later we have nothing to show for it.

    (as is BTW a Libya no fly…if you check my facebook page I have pictures posted of “me” on the ground in “Northern Africa”.. (with smoke from burning devices in the background….a no fly zone is about the nuttiest idea that can be thought of…it is a “gut reaction” from people who have no clue what they are talking about.)

    we dont have to do something just to do something….thats nuts

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    However there does seem to be a pattern of indecision emerging…

    Ya think? What do you expect from a state senator who voted ‘present’ 100 times. Obama and his Bolsheviks are doing profound damage to America.

    Thank you Mark Whittington. No further comments are necessary on this topic.

  • Gregori

    You may not like his space policy…… but turning over LEO transport to the private sector is not being a Bolshevik. The Cognitive Dissonance of that statement should cause your head to explode.

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 7:30 am

    …throwing money at crony capitalism schemes…

    Which of course perfectly describes the Senate Launch System (SLS).

    What P/W wants is an industry solution, not one designed by back-room politics.

    Congress should cancel the SLS frankenlauncher, and create an open competition to provide the best solution.

    And let’s not forget what Congress has forgotten, which is money in the budget for a mission for an HLV. What will it be used for? How many launches will it be funded for? What are the requirements?

    Anyone got an answer?

  • Justin Kugler

    Saying the same things over and over again doesn’t make them true, Mr. Whittington. There was nothing casual about canceling a program that every metric showed was not sustainable on any sort of realistic budget or schedule, which Maser himself acknowledged.

    Nor is there “crony capitalism” going on in the commercial crew development arena. Private developers, including Boeing and United Launch Alliance, are competing for NASA grants with pay-for-performance milestones. SpaceX hasn’t won anything yet under the Obama Administration. All of its awards and contracts to date were won under his predecessor’s tenure.

    While I agree that the White House could and should put more weight behind setting space policy and moving forward, let’s not forget that Congress failed to both remove the Shelby CR language that prohibits new work from proceeding and pass a budget that would have allowed the 2010 Authorization Act to proceed. Now that NASA is replanning for expected budget constraints that make the assumptions in the Authorization Act moot, Congress pretends the changes for FY2012 come as a shock.

    Your polemics have done nothing to elevate the space policy debate, sir.

  • guest

    I think it is too late now.

    For the last twenty years we saw the ISS management ‘manage’ by trading away development of most ISS hardware to our international ‘partners’. Our partners now have a relatively by comparison, robust industry. The Shuttle delivered a ‘US’ logistics module this week, of sort of-it was built by the Italians.

    The future of Shuttle or its replacement should have been actively discussed and proactively decided with the plight of American industry a significant part of the discussion, but it needed to be done 2, 3 and 4 years ago as the handwriting was on the wall that Constellation was having severe problems. The discussion should have been led by NASA with the industry lending support. Afterall, isn’t NASA supposed to be the nation’s leader in civil space???? Instead, NASA said nearly nothing, and industry was no better. We did not need the Augustine commission to tell us we were on an unsustainable path; anyone watching could have told you that a year before. Augustine was just a messenger.

    We have had a leadership vacuum for a long time. Now we are going to see what that means.

    Only in the last month or two have I seen the beginnings of discussion, like Mr. Maser’s talk at the Roundtable.

    I am afraid it is too late now.

    Maybe newspace can begin to develop a replacement industry and maybe it will even have a robustness based on support by a cross section of customers that the old industry, supported only by the federal government, lacked.

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 8:40 am

    However there does seem to be a pattern of indecision emerging…

    What decision is lacking, and what form would it take?

    I ask because the President has stated his desires in his budget (like every President does), with specific amount by year to back it up. What is lacking? Is it a program you think should be in the budget, but isn’t? You’re lacking details…

  • Egad

    > This is what happens when paltroons [sic]

    What does cowardice have to do with it? And who are the poltroons you’re talking about? Griffin? Bolden? To quote Butch Cassidy, “Who are those guys?”

    > are allowed to run wild with space policy

    Allowed by whom? Bush? Obama? The voters?

    > casually blowing up programs when they should have supported them

    What programs, and how do you think they should have been supported?

  • amightywind

    Folks conveniently forget Bush II canceled the STS in 2003/04, but blame Obama for it’s demise

    That is because Bush had a plan to replace it that was generally popular, and befitting of a superpower. Unfortunately the minority of liberals with whom the plan was unpopular came to power, so they wrecked it. It is 2011 now. You break it you bought it. That might be said for many of the actions of the poltroons in this administration.

  • Bennett

    If I didn’t believe that ALL of the folks involved in this debate are bought and paid for by ATK and the like, I’d wonder why Bolden doesn’t ask the REAL questions during his SLV testimony:

    “Mr. Shelby (or whoever), could you please tell me WHY you want NASA to build a 130 ton LV?”

    “If we build it per your specs by 2016, what do you expect us to DO with it?”

    “Where are the billions of dollars in funding to develop payloads for this monster rocket supposed to come from?”

    “If we don’t have plans or enough money for this SLV, let alone a clear need, why do you want to spend billions of dollars on it?”

    I’d pay to watch that kind of NASA TV.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 11:19 am

    That is because Bush had a plan to replace it that was generally popular..

    Yep, Constellation was so popular that no one complained when the Republicans voted to cancel it.

    Half the U.S. population didn’t even know we had a plan to go back to the Moon 20 years from now, and the other half didn’t care.

    I doubt you marched on the street in protest…

  • Coastal Ron

    guest wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    …but it needed to be done 2, 3 and 4 years ago as the handwriting was on the wall that Constellation was having severe problems.

    Constellation was a lunar exploration program, and not a replacement for the Shuttle, so the problem goes back even further.

    The Orion was not built for routine travel to LEO, and the Bush/Griffin administration knew that they were ending LEO support in favor of the Moon. That was their decision, and it was based on how much money Constellation needed to keep going.

    Because of Constellation, there was no money for a Shuttle replacement, either built and operated by NASA, or contracted from the commercial industry.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 11:19 am

    “That is because Bush had a plan to replace it that was generally popular, and befitting of a superpower.”

    it certainly was befitting of Bush’s vision of superpower…all muscle no brain.

    If the notion was to replace the shuttle then it should have at least been a program to do it during the period of time a shuttle replacement was “useful”…ie when ISS was flying. As it is the Cx program was so badly managed that the first flight “might” have occurred sometime after US participation in ISS was over…and the notion of going back to the Moon was something that was not going to happen for decades.

    Bush’s notion of a superpower was simply to act and not put much thought in it depending on deficit spending and American might to clean things up. Cx is a copy of almost everything he did…almost all the objections initially to the project turn out to be correct, nothing promised turns out to be accurate and the dollars are simply astronomical

    The person who “broke” the budget balanced surplus gathering at peace United States was Bush.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    The Orion was not built for routine travel to LEO

    The initial mission of Ares I/Orion (aka ‘the stick’) is to service those marooned on the ISS. Constellation is the the rough equivalent if the Saturn IB/Saturn V, but ‘on steroids’. That pair conducted the lunar mission and service Skylab with great success. Or have you forgotten?

  • common sense

    Hang on people the next 4 to 8 months are going to be fun to watch. Congress will finally show us all the way. The light at the end of the infamous tunnel will miraculously appear. Just hang on tight…

    Thanks Congress!

  • John Malkin

    The failure of Cx isn’t Bush’s or Obama’s fault. It is the continuous underfunding by Congress. But also NASA and its contractors need to be better at anticipating the impact of space policy on program budgets and propose the worst case scenario, no matter how bleak. COTS seems to adapt better since it isn’t solely dependent on government money.

    It seems to me currently the only indecisiveness is actually having an approved budget, period. The fact that the US doesn’t have a budget for 2011 and it is already March is embarrassing. It would seem both sides are more interested in hurting each other than really solving the problems going forward.

    BTW When a state senator or representative in IL votes “present: it means there is a conflict of interest (personally/politically) or a concern with part of the bill. It is basically a no vote but won’t stop a bill. Sometimes the ‘present’ vote is the party line, like the republican ‘no’ vote on the health care bill.

  • Halfwit

    So what if those third-party shops turn away from space programs? Don’t these small mom and pop shops contribute most for launch price, charging magnitude times more for simple nuts, bolts and seals because of sheer small scale and inefficiency of their operations? Does SpaceX use third-party shops? Maybe the whole concept of small-scale vendors must go away to make the business profitable (or less costly)? This moaning “do something or out business will die” seems like a cutthroat attack, a prime example of military-industrial complex domination in this country. They think that the country owes them. How so? I say let them die and let others like Elon Musk do the business in a more cost-efficient way.

  • The initial mission of Ares I/Orion (aka ‘the stick’) is to service those marooned on the ISS.

    Not to worry Windy, your ATK pals just might get some CCDev2 money to help with their “Franco-Stick” son of Ares 1 to make that happen.

    Only if you can talk your TEA Party buds into tossing it their way, lol.

  • Con Ed

    The failure of Cx isn’t Bush’s or Obama’s fault. It is the continuous underfunding by Congress.

    So another $10 billion and another five years should just about do it, right?

    Sure, Uh-huh.

  • amightywind

    Sometimes the ‘present’ vote is the party line, like the republican ‘no’ vote on the health care bill.

    I fail to see how the party is served by a ‘present’ vote, as it allows the opposition to gain ground. The unanimous GOP ‘no’ Obamacare vote served their constituents in a losing effort. I suppose they could have run away and hid in the countryside. Occam’s razor would suggest that a ‘present’ vote suggests a fear of political repercussions in making any decision. That is also consistent with the dithering we observe today.

    The person who “broke” the budget balanced surplus gathering at peace United States was Bush.

    Kind of hard to maintain when today’s deficit is an order of magnitude larger than in 2007. But keep on trying. It will only bolster GOP prospects in 2012. That is NASA’s only real hope anyway.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi CR –

    “The Orion was not built for routine travel to LEO, and the Bush/Griffin administration knew that they were ending LEO support in favor of the Moon.”

    Bush Jr’s goals were a return to the Moon and then on to Mars. Griffin’s focus was entirely on the Mars part of that, and his Moon architecture was little more than test flights for Mars.

    Griffin’s intent was to limit the options to the architecture he choose, and that architecture was not affordable. Griffin relied on Thiokol’s political clout to do this.

    The key problem with this strategy is that it did not take into account the problems of solid fuels, and Thiokol’s inability to deliver at reasonable costs.

    As far as the Obama administration goes, Thiokol has been remarkably adept at out-maneuvering them in the legislative process. And that is easy enough to do.

    While those here focus narrowly on space, the President does not have that option. Consider the situation in middle east, with terrorism, and the economy as a whole.

    I wonder what Bennett’s grammy thinks of sending me to Mars?
    Other than to give granpa the first seat?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Important Correction:
    “I wonder what Bennett’s grammy thinks of sending men to Mars?”
    (efing stroke)

  • DCSCA

    Nothing more amusing than witnessing a fat-cat contractor, grown wealthy on past government projects, woe and whine about the budgeting process- the source of their steady income and business cash flow for decades-not operating on the contractor’s schedule. Having bottom-line problems, Mr. Maser? Welcome to the Age of Austerity in America. At 80, you should know better than to be throwing a ‘I-want-my-Maypo-hissy-fit’ through lean times- if you can remember the Great Depression from your childhood. So you think nipping at the hand that has fed your firm for decades, kept a roof over your head, etc., is going to prod Congress to accomodate you because your kids might not want to participate in any new aerospace business in the future? Doubtful. The government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends so deliberating on how to allocate dwindling resources makes good sense.

    When a contract is put out for bids, Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne will get in line and make a pitch for the business. If not, others firms will take your place. Didn’t see your firm taking the risks of ‘free market’ private enterprised space operations before government space programs existed. Maybe you could bid to be a sub-contractor for ‘newsspace’ firms. Plenty of capital and cash-flow there, eh? Of course, if NASA was safely tucked under the wing of the DoD as a civilian division and had ‘national security’ as a protective shield, budgets and steady funding for nervous contractors may very well have been less of an issue- or at least the last area to face any scrutiny for cuts.

  • VirgilSamms

    It is going to be a disaster if the heavy lift infrastructure is dismantled.

    Sidemount cargo and falcon 9; fine- anything that will keep people happy- but this is going to be really bad for the space industry if they don’t do something NOW. Sidemount cargo is the cheapest and has the capability to grow to 90 tons of lift. Why not just say, “Yes, we can make sidemount lift 130 tons” by doing….something like strapping some delta CBCs on it or anything. Anything. I am writing letters today. Somebody please post the names of the science committee or whoever has the purse strings on this.

  • guest

    John Malkin wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    The failure of Cx isn’t Bush’s or Obama’s fault. It is the continuous underfunding by Congress.

    NOT TRUE. Constellation got the money that NASA had been promised for exploration. The Constellation architecture never met the planned funding profile. Griffin and his cohorts went off on a tangent thinking someone would come up with a lot more money for him to repeat the Apollo program.

    Irrespective, the slow progress on the replacement vehicle eventually selected, the Orion capsule, did not meet the funding it was provided. Requirements definition was ridiculously slow, with vehicle size and mass significantly changing multiple times over several years.

    The idea that Orion was to serve only for moon missions is also nonsense. The first job identified was as a replacement for Shuttle.

    The program was simply mismanaged at every level. If reasonable progress had been made in reasonable time, then NASA might have had a case for more funding at a faster rate, but given the poor performance, who believes that more money would have a meaningful effect?

  • Bennett

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Sorry E.P., my Grammy died back in the 70s. She was a nice lady from a small Hungarian village, and she knew how to make a very tasty goulash.

    I think you mush be referring to NASA Fan’s Grammy.

  • VirgilSamms

    Are these the right people to write?

    SPACE & AERONAUTICS
    Rep. Steven Palazzo, Mississippi, Chairman

    Republican Members (11) Democratic Members (8)
    Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
    Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Rep. Marcia Fudge, Ohio
    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Rep. Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
    Rep. Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma Rep. Terri Sewell, Alabama
    Rep. W. Todd Akin, Missouri Rep. David Wu, Oregon
    Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Rep. Donna F. Edwards, Maryland
    Rep. Sandy Adams, Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, Florida
    Rep. Scott Rigell, Virginia Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas (ex officio)
    Rep. Mo Brooks, Alabama
    Rep. Ralph M. Hall, Texas (ex officio)

  • VirgilSamms

    And………..

    Democratic Members (8)
    Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
    Rep. Marcia Fudge, Ohio
    Rep. Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
    Rep. Terri Sewell, Alabama
    Rep. David Wu, Oregon
    Rep. Donna F. Edwards, Maryland
    Rep. Frederica Wilson, Florida
    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas (ex officio)

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    The initial mission of Ares I/Orion (aka ‘the stick’) is to service those marooned on the ISS.

    Sure, and the Postal Service could buy Roll-Royce Phantom’s for mail delivery. They would work, but it’s cost prohibitive, just like using Orion for ISS crew duty would be.

    And that gets back to the point, which is that Congress wasn’t spending $30B to build a Shuttle successor – Orion was being built for BEO exploration (and MPCV too). The U.S. has never even had a lifeboat replacement for Soyuz, so apparently no one in Congress minds depending on the Russians for our routine access to the ISS and LEO.

    But that’s OK, because Congress thinks it’s better to build the world’s largest rocket display. Why do I say that? Because Congress hasn’t allocated any money for a mission that needs or would use the SLS or the MPCV, so the SLS is going to sit around doing nothing. Your tax dollars at work…

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi VS –

    I’d prefer DIRECT to sidemount for the time being, but then I’d prefer Dr. Aldrin’s flyback liquids to DIRECT for the longer run.

    The problem of course is ATK’s 5 segs, and the coalition supportting them.

    This situation has been with us for some 5 years now, and some of us have had to watch this slow-motion trainwreck for a long time.

    P&W just stated openly what everyone knows.

    Oh well. Don’t let it get your blood pressure up.

    G*d loves dogs, little children, and Americans, or at least he used to.

  • VirgilSamms

    I am going with Liberty and Sidemount cargo. They can be flying faster than anything else. With some DOD money for CAPS and support from the nuclear industry the space program will be able to do what it has always been created for- open up the solar system to manned exploration and colonization. That is what Americans (and Europeans) want. If the facts about the impact threat and the radiation and zeroG debilitation realities of BEO-HSF are understood by the public they will support HLV’s. If the public understands the places to go in solar system with oceans and possibly life, and the resources to establish offworld colonies- they will support the space program.

  • Coastal Ron

    guest wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    I agree with most of your post, but this part I had to comment on.

    The idea that Orion was to serve only for moon missions is also nonsense. The first job identified was as a replacement for Shuttle.

    The only “replacement for Shuttle” is a vehicle that is capable of the same tasks as Shuttle.

    That the media repeats the idea that a capsule is a replacement for a winged multipurpose spacecraft like the Shuttle Orbiter is representative of the dumbing down of information, not an accurate representation. It would be like replacing your F-450 King Ranch with a Volvo station wagon – downsizing, yes, but the Volvo is not a “replacement” in the true sense.

    The Shuttle has been a wonderfully capable machine, but I’m glad it’s retiring. But it is being replaced in pieces and parts, with cargo launchers like Delta IV Heavy, and crew launchers like CST-100 and Dragon.

    Orion could have done part of it’s crew portion, but not as much as CST-100 and Dragon, and it would have cost about the same $/person as Shuttle – an ignominious fact.

    There is no single vehicle that will replace Shuttle, and Orion/MPCV will likely mark the end of the idea that we want to go BEO exclusively in capsules – purpose-built spacecraft will be the preferred mode of transportation once a commercial crew transportation system is in place, and capsules will be relegated to CRV & lifeboat status.

    My $0.02

  • NASA Fan

    Folks, my Granny has spoken on her views of a mission to Mars. See earlier thread.

    I dare not ask her what she thinks of ‘whose to blame’ for the present lag in policy definition that Jeff’s post is articulating, as I can only take so much of her grumpy nature.

    Look, post Challenger I bet you dollars to doughnuts, that the idea of replacing the Shuttle came up many times in the ensuing years in the halls of NASA HQ.

    However, organizations do indeed follow the laws of physics; namely, a body in motion will stay in motion unless and until acted on by an outside force. Post Challenger, there wasn’t any outside force that would derail the love fest with Shuttle – no matter how expensive it was to operate. So on and on and on it continued, even with foam falling off.

    The 7 astronauts that lost their lives on Columbia provided the ‘outside force’ that finally got the WH/NASA/Congress off their butt to propose a replacement manned space flight vehicle.

    Also, with respect to commercializing routine human access to Space: I can’t remember the exact year, but in the 1990’s, during the Golden Dynasty, there was discussion and effort put forth the ‘commercialize’ the Shuttle. So even then folks at NASA saw the costs as being too much given the budget outlook (sound familiar?) and were attempting a cheaper commercialization approach. The best they got out of it was the USA contract arrangement, which we have today.

    So, all this talk about replacing the Shuttle, commercializing LEO routine human access to space has been discussed before; however, no one could make a strong enough case to act on it, w/o that outside force.

    So lets thank those 7 astronauts for the sacrifice of their lives, to act as the force that brings us where we are today

  • vulture

    I’ve been involved in space most of my life. The Constellation program is the biggest disaster in the history of the US space program. It has never had any practical value comparable to its cost. I ask people why we are repeating project Apollo. They don’t even know why we went to the moon the first time. Yet the Shuttle program and the entire RLV program were destroyed to fund Constellation. It will be decades before the damage done by George W. Bush, Mike Griffin, and Sean O’Keefe is fully appreciated. Orion, Ares and SDHLV have no meaningful mission and every day they are kept alive we are wasting millions.

  • amightywind

    Yet the Shuttle program and the entire RLV program were destroyed to fund Constellation.

    The shuttle program did it to itself by incinerating another 7 astronauts. The best decision would have been to cancel the shuttle and abandon the station immediately. The Ares I and V would be operational by now.

    George W. Bush, Mike Griffin, and Sean O’Keefe is fully appreciated. Orion, Ares and SDHLV have no meaningful mission…

    More liberal melodrama. Bush and Griffin left the Bolsheviks a solid plan and program. Ares I flew before Obama’s inauguration. All that was required was proper execution. Holdren, Garver, and Bolden had other, petty ideas.

  • Vladislaw

    I listened to every committee meeting Griffin attended, he said the absolute best time that could have ever been achieved for the first unmanned test flight of Ares I and Orion was Sept 2012. That was in 2006 and it would have cost 3 billion more per year or 16 billion. Every meeting after that he said the 2012 date was no longer valid no matter how much you threw at it and the first flight date was pushed back everytime after that.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi AW

    “More liberal melodrama. Bush and Griffin left the Bolsheviks a solid plan and program.”

    Clearly they did not.

    And you’re getting off message here, AW: the Utah delegation has been doing its best to kill manned spaceflight.

    Hi VS –

    You got “wants’, and then you have “needs”. Liberty is not going to make it either: price is too high compared with other commercial launchers.

    In my view, the process of turning NASA around starts with relieving Ed Weler. He’s a nice guy, loves his wife, feeds his dog, and all that, bu Scott Hubbard is another person that could do that job better than him.

    We need someone in there who has pretty good idea of the impact hazard.
    I’ve put out 3 names, anybody else have some suggestions?

  • Bennett

    Egads, don’t even bother folks. Windy is tossing out bait to get a reaction. Everyone here knows that what he writes is a lie, and his lies have been countered numerous times.

    Keep the conversation going without taking the energy to refute.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Ares I flew before Obama’s inauguration.

    Yes, and it’s payload tumbled out of control, and didn’t even make it to orbit. Oh, and it didn’t even test any parts for the eventual Ares I production version.

    What exactly did the American Taxpayer get out of that $445M bottle-rocket test that we didn’t already know? That the 4-segment Shuttle SRB burns out too quickly to be used on the real Ares I rocket? ATK already knew that.

    Talk about pork spending – that was $445M that the American Taxpayers would like ATK to refund!

  • mr. mark

    Spacex just reached an agreement today with the city of Mcgregor in Texas to greatly expand their testing and production facility in order to start LAS testing and development for manned spaceflight. Thought this might tie into the conversation. Think they may know something about CCDev 2 that we dont.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    “Bush and Griffin left the Bolsheviks a solid plan and program.”

    Well at least you are more fun to read than VirgilSamms and his morgue.

    “Ares I flew before Obama’s inauguration.”

    Not on your meds today I see. Do you get to hang with VirgilSamms too?

  • My daddy said, ‘The space program was closed till further notice’
    So pack your bags and skedaddle, get lost, scram, scoot, hasta mañana.
    Come back when you have people willing to fund a real space program.
    Please no impostors.

  • Martijn Meijering

    It will be decades before the damage done by George W. Bush, Mike Griffin, and Sean O’Keefe is fully appreciated.

    O’Keefe? What did he do wrong?

  • Byeman

    “Bush and Griffin left a Bolshevik plan and program.

    There, fixed it for you. You are being two faced about it. Obama’s plan is more Reagan like.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Martijn Meijering,

    AFAIK, commit political suicide by initially advocating an all-liquid EELV-heritage shuttle replacement rather than something that used ATK segmented solids. That pretty much finished him as NASA admin.

    Griffin was smart enough to know what the politicians wanted to hear – Build a next-gen rocket using the existing shuttle infrastructure. Unfortunately, he went further and allowed his ambition to overtake Von Braun and design the biggest rocket ever to cloud his mind. That ambition led to the Ares Launch System and five wasted years.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    ‘ mr. mark wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 12:10 am
    Spacex just reached an agreement today with the city of Mcgregor in Texas to greatly expand their testing and production facility in order to start LAS testing and development for manned spaceflight. Thought this might tie into the conversation. Think they may know something about CCDev 2 that we dont.’

    Unlikely but crew was already on their radar well and truly, Falcon 1e is on hold for the present and Falcon Heavy just got elevated and fast-tracked so who knows, priorities change!
    What I don’t want to see happen is a piece-meal approach where the available funding is insufficient to see at least 2 or 3 crew vehicles within the next 3 – 4 years. There’s 10 applicants now so it’s a possibility.

  • Obama’s plan is more Reagan like.

    Finally, yes, thank you!

    A little realism enters the conversation.

    Obama the “Bolshevik” channels St Ronny Raygun, not Josef Stalin for cryin’ out loud!

  • Martijn Meijering

    AFAIK, commit political suicide by initially advocating an all-liquid EELV-heritage shuttle replacement rather than something that used ATK segmented solids. That pretty much finished him as NASA admin.

    Vulture seemed to be suggesting the present mess was partly O’Keefe’s fault, not that he shot himself in the foot. And I thought O’Keefe wasn’t pushed out, but resigned to go back to the private sector after his hopes of being appointed Secretary of Defense were dashed. Maybe if he hadn’t he could have prevented a disaster on the scale of Constellation.

  • The article starts out describing an upcoming crisis–protecting the “industry”. But the “industry” is now the problem now that Apillo and the beat-the-USSR is over. Needed is a new paradigm not related ot protecting jpbs. Google “microlaunchers” for an answer.

    To explore space we need to create a new culture that can undertake to so so. It must start at a beginning, not with dreams of space stations, lunar bases etc without first developing the means to get there. The present Cold War derive technologies are not appropriate or capable of doing this. We must pick uo where Goddard left off.

  • mr. mark

    “Since starting operations in Texas in 2003, SpaceX has invested $50 million in McGregor and expects to have at least 140 employees by year’s end. Texas operations in McGregor will continue to expand to support dozens of upcoming launches already under contract, with more on the way. In addition, SpaceX is in negotiations with NASA to develop and test a launch abort system for the Dragon spacecraft. That development will begin in McGregor”.

    “that development will begin at McGregor”. – LAS

  • John Malkin

    Con Ed wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    The failure of Cx isn’t Bush’s or Obama’s fault. It is the continuous underfunding by Congress.

    So another $10 billion and another five years should just about do it, right?

    I didn’t say it was the right thing to do, only that underfunding had doomed it. Augustine said it was possible to complete Cx but it would need a lot more money. He said give up the money or kill it. Congress picked kill it. I’m sure $10 billion was just the tip of the iceberg for us to actually complete the mission of landing humans back on the moon.

    At the beginning Augustine was “anti-commercial” but by the end he realized they were much further ahead of the game. COTS had impressed him. This was the reason several options included the “commercial” option. The moon is closer without Cx.

  • Kelly Starks

    Folks, especially space advocate folks, don’t realize companies can’t afford to stay in the space business with no markets on the horizon. With cross the board market implosion, and more international competition, this industry could completely die – and the US doesn’t have enough industrial and engineering capacity in the US to rebuild it later.

    Space advocates sadly seem to be in the most denial, either assuming the widespread love of space (that’s not at all strong in the US) will sustain the industry – or thinking it will be old established firms that die, but new aggressive innovative start ups will take their place. Really it’s likely the opposite. Start ups are always stretched thin, especially financially. Most haven’t even gotten to the point of being in the market, and established folks are going to start to fight for even crumbs in this imploding market. Others like SpaceX have depended heavily on side contracts, for non critical services, from NASA and the DOD. But those side contracts will be first on the chopping block to free up funds for more critical programs. [Hell NASA saw the “COTS” contract that was so important for SpaceX, as really a sham program they never wanted – where they could store money to pay Orion cost overruns.] They won’t forgo the agencies futures – which isn’t looking bright – for these side project “gifts” to non critical vendors they really can do without. Nor with they feed they non-critical vendors, and allow critical suppliers collapse.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Charles Pooley wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 9:47 am

    >.. “industry”. But the “industry” is now the problem now that Apollo
    > and the beat-the-USSR is over.==

    Your confusing industry for NASA Charles.

    >.. Needed is a new paradigm not related ot protecting jpbs.

    Protecting, or rather generating, jobs is the primary product of NASA for the bulk of voters and hence congress. For NASA to develop “..a new paradigm..” ment ignoring the demands of their bosses and sponcers. Which is political suicide.

    The industries problem now is NASA adn DOD are pretty much the only markets out there and they seem to have fallen off a cliff. So weer in real danger of the US space industry (possibly aerospace industry) starving out.

    > Google “microlaunchers” for an answer.

    Unless your seeing sales on the scales that can feed a significant aerospace industry – its not a answer. Hobbiest scale operations are not going to give you the capacity to get people into space, much less to other worlds.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Folks, especially space advocate folks, don’t realize companies can’t afford to stay in the space business with no markets on the horizon.

    That’s precisely what they are doing. SDLV shills on the other hand are busy misrepresenting their views.

  • Kelly Starks

    > That’s precisely what they are doing…
    ?
    You lost me here. The markets are going away – expect the industry to go away with it.

  • Coastal Ron

    The more Congress cuts NASA’s budget, the more it will have to rely on the private sector by outsourcing. This will only accelerate the transition of routine LEO transportation to the private sector, as NASA will not be able to afford anything else.

    Those that think that government is the answer are in for a rude awakening, since Congress is not in the mood to INCREASE the amount of money that NASA gets, even though a small minority in Congress have grand visions of pork spending (i.e. the Senate Launch System).

    Also, what someone commercial space detractors don’t understand, is that there is a sustainable launch market today, and most of it is not with NASA. But NASA has defined needs for the ISS through 2020, and that will likely be extended through 2028.

    That small base of business the ISS provides is more than enough for one, and likely two crew transportation companies to start out. Boeing could build their CST-100 on it’s own, but would rather the ultimate customer (NASA) contribute to it’s development.

    SpaceX of course already has it’s Dragon cargo capsule, and the only expensive upgrade for crew is the Launch Escape System. Through their ISS CRS contract, they will be able to validate their launcher and capsule for crew far quicker than any commercial or government system, and SpaceX has made it one of their corporate goals to add a crew service. It’s not a matter of “if” they will offer crew LEO services, but “when”.

    And through all of this, the GAO says that it will take $20-29B (that’s BILLION) to finish the MPCV. At some point enough people in Congress will say “ENOUGH”, and end that program (plus the SLS) just like a bipartisan Congress cancelled Constellation.

    My $0.02

  • G-no

    The Space Program from the beginning has been a source of national pride and inspiration. The brainpower and logistics needed to assemble and launch rockets into space is a complex web of science & math that reaches deep into many disciplines. When John F Kennedy made a committement to go to the moon by the end of the 60’s, we accomplished this feat because a challenge had been put forth and there was no wavering.on this decision. Back in the day of “cost plus,” with the money spigot wide open ,companies weren’t overly concerned with being frugal. Those days are over and companies such as Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne are leaned out, dilligently working at being as efficient and as cost effective as possible The workforce of engineers, technicians, machinest that work for Rocketdyne have a wealth of experience and knowledge that would be difficult to recreate. If we had continued our moon exploration and had built a moon base , we probably would have made some amazing discoveries and been much farther along with space exploration. Without forward and true visionary thinking, and the committment to make it happen, we restrict our ability and hamper our creativity to build on our accomplishments. I’m certain in the future rockets will be looked at as a crude beginning in our quest to explore the cosmos, but it is a beginning and for the present, Rocketdyne rockets are an engineering marvel that surpase anything out there today. .Let the journey continue.

  • John Malkin

    It’s economy of scales. As the industry grows and the market expands, it will become more economical. We are close to the price to tip the balance for rapid expansion. Getting the price below the current Soyuz should be the goal. Once this occurs more governments, research originations, corporate R&D and universities can send researches to space. The new great speech is by the end of this decade to have ‘affordable’ spaceflight to LEO and maybe beyond.

    Like I’ve said before this is the early 80’s of computers and Elon Musk is either Steve Jobs, Philippe Kahn, Paul Allen (hmmm what’s he doing?) or Bill Gates.

    Have you ever wished you invested in GE 100 years ago?

    America and NASA are ready to get rid of its congressional gerontocracy and let new ideas move us forward. BTW age isn’t a number it’s a state of mind.

  • The markets are going away – expect the industry to go away with it.

    The monolithic design bureau markets might be dying a slow death, but recently the university research market is starting to take off before a single rocket has launched.

    “So what?” you’re thinking. Well, it’s a market people didn’t think would gain a foot-hold like it has, so I think some side markets will appear where some wouldn’t think to look.

  • Coastal Ron

    G-no wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    The workforce of engineers, technicians, machinest that work for Rocketdyne have a wealth of experience and knowledge that would be difficult to recreate.

    Maybe, but even though the SSME will no longer be in use, the RS-68 and RL10 are still in use, so it’s not like PWR is closing. Let’s keep perspective on the issue here, which is how much industrial base we need for our current space needs.

    PWR wasn’t producing SSME’s anymore, but they were maintaining them. That basis of experience does go away to a certain degree, but it’s not like they don’t have volumes of documentation and training manuals that couldn’t be resurrected if someone wanted to use an SSME some time in the future.

    Their production facilities are still going, since ULA has a steady business, and the Delta IV Heavy is now being used on a regular basis (3ea RS-68’s/launch). The RL10 is used on upper stages for both Delta IV and Atlas V – LH2/LOX rocket engine experience is not being lost.

    What they need to do, and what they should have been doing with all their talent is figuring out what new products they could bring to market.

    Even with the Constellation program they would have had the same problem as they do now, since the Constellation flight rate would have been low and spread out. So PWR carries some of the blame, since they could have developed an engine like the SpaceX Merlin, but instead they have been locked out of that customer, and may have to compete with them if SpaceX decides to sell Merlin for other rockets.

    Why haven’t they tried to replace the Russian RD-180 that is used on Atlas V? That’s a big market. Or provide engines for Orbital Sciences? This is classic Management 101, in that when one market is declining, you look at creating or expanding other markets.

    I’m not losing any sleep over PWR’s situation…

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    mr. mark wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 10:13 am
    “… In addition, SpaceX is in negotiations with NASA to develop and test a launch abort system for the Dragon spacecraft. That development will begin in McGregor”.

    “that development will begin at McGregor”. – LAS

    Negotiations is not necessarily about CCDev Rd2 or any guaranteed outcome. It could simply be guidance and/or agreement around milestones IF SpaceX got some of the money.

    There’s no evidence that SpaceX has any idea about the outcome of CCDev Rd2 funding. But because crew is on their critical pathway, they will continue to do things to facilitate it irrespective of CCDev Rd2 outcomes.
    Hence the expansion at McGregor, et al.

  • Monte Davis

    John Malkin: “It’s economy of scales. As the industry grows and the market expands, it will become more economical. We are close to the price to tip the balance for rapid expansion.”

    Have you any evidence to offer for that wishful thinking? Because there’s virtually none over the last 54 years — even in the launching of commsats, which has been a real live for-profit business for most of that time.

    For all the cars, planes, transistors and other widgets that space fans throw around as inspiring examples, nobody knows the scale at which a “virtuous circle” of declining cost and growing traffic might kick in.

  • Question

    I am confused and maybe someone here can answer this question for me. What makes SpaceX “commercial” vs. another company like Rocketdyne? I see that SpaceX is getting millions of dollars (contracts) from the US government and that is my tax dollars, right? So, how is that any different from Rocketdyne, Boeing, or the other NASA contractors? I guess I can’t see the “commercial” aspect of it? And when I see how much SpaceX is being paid – Wow! where is the cost savings and efficiency?

  • Martijn Meijering

    What makes SpaceX “commercial” vs. another company like Rocketdyne?

    Rocketdyne is a commercial entity as is SpaceX. They should be treated in exactly the same way. Well, PWR doesn’t sell launch services but indirectly through ULA they do contribute to the sale of launch services. The important change is the one from thirty years of single source, cost plus contracts to fair, competitive and redundant procurement. Then you’ll see your cost savings. Actually, compare how much NASA money went to SpaceX and what they did for that money (Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Dragon) and you can already see enormous savings.

    You weren’t trying to mislead people into believing SpaceX was “just the same” so NASA wouldn’t have to bother switching to a different supplier were you? Because if you were you would be pretending there was no difference because you had a secret preference. That would be easy enough when you’re hiding behind an anonymous user id. Naw, that couldn’t be it.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    > The more Congress cuts NASA’s budget, the more it will have to rely

    > on the private sector by outsourcing….

    Your forgeting the cheaper options. Shut down ISS, or continue relying on Soyuz for ISS access.

    No commercial could compete with those on a price basis, certainly commercial crew was far higher – over ten times more expensive then Soyuz. (I think commercial crew is projected at $10B total?)

    > That small base of business the ISS provides is more than enough for one,
    > and likely two crew transportation companies to start out.

    10 flights?? 2 companies splitting 10 flights is enough?

    > And through all of this, the GAO says that it will take $20-29B (that’s BILLION)
    > to finish the MPCV.

    But that program ios seen as a steping stone out to the moon or maybe Mars. CCDev is just a way to get folks to ISS without paying the Russians.

  • Kelly Starks

    > dad2059 wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    >> The markets are going away – expect the industry to go away with it.

    > The monolithic design bureau markets might be dying a slow death,
    > but recently the university research market is starting to take off
    > before a single rocket has launched.
    The “monolithic design bureau markets” spent billions to tens of billions a year. The university research market is crumbs in comparison, and universities are going broke and can’t even afford to replace staff as they retire. So its not enough to maintain the industry.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ March 10th, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    >.. There’s no evidence that SpaceX has any idea about the outcome
    > of CCDev Rd2 funding.

    Though Musk has made some comments that he thinks at best SpaceX could get a couple CC fights as a second source provider.

    Given how congress is using the image of SpaceX flying Astronauts to kill the whole idea of commercial crew, and the supporters are say “..well yeah but Boeing and L/M have tons of experience “ I think Musk might be to optimistic.

  • Coastal Ron

    Question wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    What makes SpaceX “commercial” vs. another company like Rocketdyne?

    Both are “commercial”, in that they sell products and services, and are not owned/run by the government.

    I see that SpaceX is getting millions of dollars (contracts) from the US government and that is my tax dollars, right?

    And Billions of dollars have gone to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK and many other commercial entities. So why are you only focused on SpaceX?

    So, how is that any different from Rocketdyne, Boeing, or the other NASA contractors?

    Good question, and one that shows what most people don’t understand.

    The core issue is NASA paying contractors for work, or for an actual product or service. For instance, United Space Alliance (Boeing/Lockheed Martin) was being paid $200M/month to process the Shuttle fleet, regardless if they flew. On the Constellation program, whenever there was a change of design on the Ares I, Lockheed Martin was paid to change the design of the Orion. The contractors were not invested in finishing anything, they were only being paid for work performed.

    For the COTS program, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are only being paid when they successfully complete pre-established milestones (i.e. contract line items). I assume this the “Wow!” comment you made, but consider that SpaceX was only paid $5M for the first COTS Demo Flight, which successfully orbited and returned the cargo Dragon capsule. If SpaceX did not meet the milestone definition of success for that mission, they would not have been paid.

    The COTS program is how NASA is making sure that the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program is done the way that NASA wants – remember only national space agencies have ever been allowed to dock at the ISS, so NASA needs to verify that commercial companies know what they’re doing, hence the COTS contract.

    The CRS program is more along the lines of a standard delivery contract, where most of the payment only happens when the cargo is successfully delivered. If the rocket blows up on launch, or the capsule fails to dock, then Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are out a lot of money. Shared risk, and shared reward – that is the key difference between the current status quo (i.e. cost plus contracting) and where New Space wants NASA to move to (Old Space prefers the status quo).

  • G-no

    If Rocketdyne were to build the kind of rocket motors the mysterious Space X is doing { who thought up that cheesy name anyway} they could produce them at a competive price I’m sure. Rocketdyne rocket engines are in a different class altogether & cheaper ain’t always better. Rocketdyne’s engines are built on 50+ years of experience and a track record that speaks for itself.Rocketdyne is the supreme builder of rocket engines with a rich and proud heritage. PWR guidelines are strict and detailed, their factory is clean, impressive, first class in every way. If the cost is a little higher that’s because they take no shortcuts, the entire process is designed to highest quality and standards.

  • common sense

    We had the ATK fanboy and now we have the Rocketdyne fanboy. We are making progress I suppose so long it is not SpaceX. Great.

    Whatever…

  • G-no

    You got that right.Space X rockets are yesterdays technology.

  • Coastal Ron

    G-no wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    If Rocketdyne were to build the kind of rocket motors the mysterious Space X is doing they could produce them at a competive price I’m sure.

    Great. Of course you’re missing part of the reason that the “mysterious” SpaceX (whatever that means) builds their own motors – they don’t have to pay PWR (or anyone else) for their profits.

    If you were to do any kind of simple research, you will see that SpaceX chose to build a simple yet dependable motor, and the side benefit of that is that it is within their abilities to manufacture. They pass on the savings to their customers, which is part of the reason Falcon 9 costs $56M and Atlas V costs $100M (both use RP-1/LOX engines too).

    Rocketdyne rocket engines are in a different class altogether & cheaper ain’t always better.

    True, but as long as two products perform the same service, then the less expensive one is a better deal. Other than the first Falcon 1 launch, SpaceX hasn’t suffered an engine failure in flight, so their strategy to build a simple engine in-house is working so far.

    But maybe you missed my earlier point, in which I said that PWR needs to be more aggressive with developing new markets. If that means making RP-1/LOX or lowering the costs of their current LH2/LOX motors, then maybe that’s what they need to do to create more business. PWR’s problems are of their own making, not anyone else’s.

    If the cost is a little higher that’s because they take no shortcuts, the entire process is designed to highest quality and standards.

    “We paint our factory floors three times per year, instead of just twice like our competition.”

    Would that be a good reason to pay more for a product? No.

    No one survives in business without taking care of their customer’s needs, so everyone has an incentive to build products that work. I’ve seen pictures of the SpaceX factory, and it looks just as clean as the Atlas factory that I toured years ago.

    What matters for launch provider customers is getting their payloads to the proper place in space. If they can do it as consistently as their competition, but for far less, then they will get more business. Economics 101.

  • common sense

    @ G-no wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    “You got that right.Space X rockets are yesterdays technology.”

    Are you going to tell us we should use gravity wave suppressing tech from Area-51 soon?

  • Coastal Ron

    G-no wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    You got that right.Space X rockets are yesterdays technology.

    What a juvenile statement.

    You drive to work in 1800’s era technology.

    You fly in airplanes that were developed in the 1900’s.

    You obviously are ignorant of how the proper use of technology can lower costs, regardless of when that technology was developed or invented. What SpaceX has done is called “disruptive technology”:

    A disruptive innovation is an innovation that disrupts an existing market. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers.

    Notice the prerequisite is not “cutting edge” or “latest” technologies. And in fact there is a lot of money to be saved by NOT reinventing the wheel, which is what SpaceX did with their Merlin engine, which was originally developed for the Apollo lunar lander.

    In the end, it only matters if it works, and how dependable it is. Which ironically is what ATK promoters say about the 4-segment Shuttle SRB’s, so I guess you would say that those are “yesterdays technology” too?

  • pathfinder_01

    Rocketdyne is still in good shape. At the moment the cst100 and dream chaser are planning to use the Atlas V with a dual engine centaur for the upper stage. The centaur uses the RL10. The only risk I can see is if cst100 or some other commercial capsules moves to Falcon 9.

    Bolden and company are still interested in the J2X, although what they plan to do with it is unclear. However a number of EELV derived heavy lift concepts use the J2X for a 2nd stage. The big issues for rocketdyne is that they need to broaden their customer base. For instance if they had a cheap enough engine for Orbital they would have quite some business.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I’d rather not see J2X since it’s 1) totally unnecessary and 2) geared towards HLVs, which I consider harmful at this stage and probably useless even at a later stage. RL-60 would be better, but it’s still not not urgent. But whatever happens, RS-68 will stick around so PWR will be needed for that. In fact PWR could do well under an enlightened space program that used fair, competitive and redundant procurement, especially if that program went on to do exploration based around propellant transfer.

  • Kelly Starks

    > == PWR needs to be more aggressive with developing new markets.==

    Though they were jerks about the jet engine market – pretty much going from owning all the military and civilian jet market, to being a also ran. In the rocket market they are still pretty much the kings of the market.

    So given they pretty much own all the market. Hows being more agressive going to help?

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 12th, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    So given they pretty much own all the market. Hows being more agressive going to help?

    Maybe you didn’t read the article at the top of the post – PWR is complaining about a lack of business.

    And my response is that it’s not governments job to provide work (i.e. business for PWR), it’s PWR’s job to create markets for their products, or create products that meet the needs of existing markets.

    They have specialized in LH2/LOX rocket engines, which is fine, but they can’t complain if that is a limited market. They have had 7 years to address the change in their backlog caused by the end of the Shuttle program, so whining about it now is kind of late. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. NO WHINING!

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 13th, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    >== PWR is complaining about a lack of business.

    Not surprising given the markets dieing. They are a big fish, supplying engines for the bulk of all launch vehicles in use — but launch vehicles are not getting used as much anymore. Its not that they are losing market share to others – everyone in the market – is losing market.

    >==it’s PWR’s job to create markets for their products, or create
    > products that meet the needs of existing markets.

    Well in this case they build rocket engines, and build (or in the case of the RD-180’s could build but just broker sales of) the vast bulk of all rocket engines sold.

    > They have specialized in LH2/LOX rocket engines,==

    No they do other engines, like the rd-180s on the base of the Atlas.

  • Paul D.

    their Merlin engine, which was originally developed for the Apollo lunar lander.

    The Merlin engine was not developed for the lunar lander. It uses an injector that is of the same general kind as the injector on the LMDE, but it’s a new engine, with a different cycle and different propellants.

  • Coastal Ron

    Paul D. wrote @ March 14th, 2011 at 6:11 am

    The Merlin engine was not developed for the lunar lander.

    I was writing too fast, and as you pointed out, I should have said “using technology originally developed for the lunar lander”.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 13th, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Its not that they are losing market share to others – everyone in the market – is losing market.

    You’re missing the point Kelly – it’s not up to the government to make sure PWR has enough business – PWR has to do that themselves. PWR should stop whining.

  • Kelly Starks

    > it’s not up to the government to make sure PWR has enough business =

    Yes and no.
    Given PWR pretty much builds all the engines anyone uses. The gov. does have some responsibility to see that the whole industry doesn’t go away if PWR goes under. Either to keep some development of space going as a vital national interest, or to keep the US in it if PWR’s death would make us completely dependent on other nations for launch services. uplie

    Also the US Gov is a MAJOR fraction of the market for launch services, including for launches of national security interest – so losing that domestic capacity is defiantly something the gov should work to prevent. Its like if P&W died and there was no source of F100 jet engines for the fighters and newer bombers.

    Again, were not talking about PWR being driven out of the market – were talking about the market dying out, so there’s really nothing PWR can do about it.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 14th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    were talking about the market dying out

    The market isn’t dying out. Demand rises and falls, customers come and go. This is nothing new in the business world. Competent management finds new markets or new customers.

    And let’s keep in mind the most important piece of information here – PWR has known about this for 7 years.

    so there’s really nothing PWR can do about it.

    PWR management can either adjust their business to the new market levels, or go out and create new markets/customers.

    They have a base of steady work with ULA, and if they need more, they need to go out and grab marketshare. Nothing mysterious about this.

    Here is an excerpt from Aviation Week about what Boeing does:

    By cutting costs, adopting more rigorous design for manufacturing assembly and test processes and a more disciplined supplier management program, and introducing the new bus, Boeing was able to “enable a better fit for [its] commercial and government customers’ needs,” notes Jim Simpson, vice president of business development at Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems. “Boeing went out and invested in more cost-effective satellites to offer to the commercial marketplace,” says Rachel Villain, the chief space and communications analyst at Paris-based Euroconsult. “And that investment is now paying off.”

    PWR needs to do the same.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 14th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    >> Kelly Starks wrote @ March 14th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    >> “were talking about the market dying out”

    > The market isn’t dying out. Demand rises and falls, customers
    > come and go. ==

    And sometimes – like now, the ones who go dramatically outnumber the ones coming into the market. In that case industries close. Same way most all of our military supliers got out of the busness, or just closed down.

    > And let’s keep in mind the most important piece of information
    > here – PWR has known about this for 7 years.

    Actually everyone thought NASA’s plans by now would be in work, and hence contracts out for engines. Its looking somewhat unlikely thats ever going to happen. I.E. certainly CCDev, and really likely Orion/HLV are going to get gutted out or canceled completly.

    >> “so there’s really nothing PWR can do about it.”

    > PWR management can either adjust their business to the
    > new market levels, or go out and create new markets/customers.

    Given there is no new market to be had (I.E. no one else seems to be developing anything that would need engines) adn it seems the current market level doesn’t offer them – or rather their investors – an acceptable return on investment. The more responcible management choice would be to shut down their rocket companies, at least al engineering development and manufacturing. Especialy if their suplier base is closing down adn the alternative would be developing a new inhouse or external suplier base.

    Why invest to stay in a dieing market, with no real ROI potential?

    >== They have a base of steady work with ULA, and if they need
    > more, they need to go out and grab marketshare. ==

    The ULA busness is also in major decline, adnd again – theres pretty much no other marketshare to get. The total market is in major decline. The suplier base is exiting the market. PWR is already structured to operate only producing a couple engines a year for its global (market dominating) customer base. What are they going to do – restructure to build everything inhouse and make the 1-2 sales a year carry it? How can they make any money that way? [They can’t do this as a hobby, and can’t wait forever hoping the market will turn around.]

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Same way most all of our military supliers got out of the busness, or just closed down.

    Now you’re an expert on the number of DoD suppliers their are? You are truly multi-talented. But I think you’re overlooking that the DoD is spending record amounts of money, and that someone is getting the contracts, so I think you’re making guessing, and guessing wrong. Provide a credible source if you think you can.

    Actually everyone thought NASA’s plans by now would be in work, and hence contracts out for engines.

    PWR has known about the Constellation timeframe slips, so they knew that the small amount of business that Constellation was going to bring them was moving further and further out into their revenue projections. Companies of that size have risk assessment committees to review division business assumptions, so they would have known NOT to expect Constellation work to backfill the end of the Shuttle program.

    You keep trying to give excuses for a $53B revenue company that has 35,000 employees – why?

    Given there is no new market to be had (I.E. no one else seems to be developing anything that would need engines) adn it seems the current market level doesn’t offer them – or rather their investors – an acceptable return on investment.

    You apparently missed the lesson in the Boeing example. Good companies don’t wait for markets to appear, they go out and create them. That’s how SpaceX has secured close to $3B in customer backlog, by creating a market for lower cost launch services. Or, who knew there was a need to communicate by text in less than 141 characters, or a need for an online daily coupon marketplace? If all you do is react to the marketplace, you’ll always be behind.

    The ULA busness is also in major decline…

    The facts don’t support your assertion. In looking at the Atlas V backlog for 2011, it’s the same number as 2010, and 2012 is WAY bigger. Delta is doing fine too. And ULA just announced a commercial contract for 2014, so they are starting to fill out their future backlog.

    In any case, customer backlogs go up and go down, and companies need to adjust. Good companies adjust well, bad companies go out of business or get bought. That’s life.

    If PWR can’t hack the business, maybe they should put themselves up for sale. Maybe Snecma Moteurs (Ariane 5 Vulcain manufacturer) would buy them, or maybe SpaceX? However I don’t share your pessimism of their market, so I don’t think it’s that dire. They’re just trying to get the American Taxpayer to throw them some work, but if not, they’ll adjust their prices and keep servicing customers.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 12:28 am
    >> Kelly Starks wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 10:59 am
    >> “Same way most all of our military supliers got out of
    >> the busness, or just closed down.”

    > Now you’re an expert on the number of DoD suppliers there are?==

    Not like the topic hasn’t come up in the trades over the decades. You should subscribe. Major top tier has seen about a 90% loss (remember the dozens of aero firms that used to be around to bid no fighters, bombers, et a couple decades back? Now there is 2-3. One tracked armored vehicle supplier left. etc. But the second tier suppliers got really decimated.

    Assuming you were at all involved in military procurement, engineering, aerospace, etc – this would be as obvious a fact as someone saying they heard Boeing does airliners.

    >> “Actually everyone thought NASA’s plans by now would be
    >> in work, and hence contracts out for engines.”

    > PWR has known about the Constellation timeframe slips, ==
    > == they would have known NOT to expect Constellation work
    > to backfill the end of the Shuttle program.

    Its the end of the shuttle program, No Constellation, a maybe on Orion/HLV, near certain no on CCDev.
    > You keep trying to give excuses for a $53B revenue
    > company that has 35,000 employees – why?

    PWR has 35,000 people and $53B a year?! What are you on! Boeing hardly has numbers like that.

    http://www.engr.uconn.edu/me/cms/prod/pdf/pwjob.pdf
    P&W in total only has 36K people, and lists revunue in ’09 of $12.58 billion, Operating Profit: $1.84 billion.

    >== You apparently missed the lesson in the Boeing example. Good
    > companies don’t wait for markets to appear, they go out and create them.==

    You apparently didn’t read the Boeing example you sited. They restructured adn downsized to fit the new smaller market, and the $ value of the sat markets a lot bigger then the rocket engine market.
    Oh PWR has developed other markets, unrelated to rocket engines. Which again, given they can’t sell engines if no ones building ships that need them, they may well drop that end of the busness adn focus on developing in growing markets. Rockwell adn others did that, adn sold out to PW, adn P&W has been consolidating that business down.
    That’s how SpaceX has secured close to $3B in customer backlog, by creating a market for lower cost launch services. Or, who knew there was a need to communicate by text in less than 141 characters, or a need for an online daily coupon marketplace? If all you do is react to the marketplace, you’ll always be behind.
    >> “The ULA busness is also in major decline…”
    > The facts don’t support your assertion. In looking at the Atlas V backlog for 2011==

    ULA itself is a consolidation of older bigger firms space business. I.E. they consolidated what was left all into one firm hoping it had enough market share to survive. The only reason they still have both Atlas and Delta is the go ordered them to stop their plan to drop one of them since there wasn’t enough market for both. They used to get a big fraction of their funds from servicing and launching shuttles, but that business is obviously dying. Not sure how many of their 3,800 employees will be getting laid-off. The don’t know how much they might get from HLV if there is a HLV program. (And NRO might be cutting back or delaying orders.)

    They are somewhat proud that their EELV craft have a high % of commercial investor money, and less gov grants, then SpaceX’s; and that they employ more rocket scientists then any other company in the world. Bottom line though is that of the several firms GD, Martin, McDac, L/M, etc that used to have thriving launch vehicles businesses – about al that’s left of them are ULA’s 3,800ish. Hell USA has 8,800 and $2B a year in revenue just handling operations and processing for Shuttle and ISS at JSC & KSC. (also likely to largely go away).
    Industry trend line for decades has been down for the industry, and the industry consolidated and downsized themselves to a token company. Now I don’t think DOD, NASA, or DC, are going to let them go out of busness. They need engnies adn launch services, etc – and these are the last trace in the US that can even bid for most of these. So they have to be kept alive.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Assuming you were at all involved in military procurement…

    Most of my career was spent working at companies that supplied systems, components, products and services for the Department of Defense, and most of that time I was in management. I know the industry pretty well.

    Major top tier has seen about a 90% loss…

    Now I see your confusion. You equate losing company names to losing work in the industry – they are not related. Market mergers are a natural part of business, and just because our military industrial industry has matured, you see it in decline. The DoD spending figures disprove that theory.

    But you also seem to ignore that the workforce needs as a whole have changed, since we don’t require as much touch labor as we did back in the good ole days. Times change Kelly – you’ve got to keep up.

    ULA itself is a consolidation of older bigger firms space business.

    ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and is a separate entity from USA, which is also a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. You like to confuse and connect the two, but they are completely different, both in what they do, and legally. Get a clue.

    So they have to be kept alive.

    Not necessarily. Those that can’t survive can be replaced. Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V can be replaced by the Falcon 9 family – not that I want a single supplier, but ULA knows that they face a strong competitive challenge from SpaceX.

    Innovate or die. It applies to everyone.

  • Kelly Starks

    >> Kelly Starks wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 10:59 am
    >> “Major top tier has seen about a 90% loss…”

    > Now I see your confusion. You equate losing company names to
    > losing work in the industry – they are not related. ==

    They are in this case. Yes you could consolidate all old work into fewer companies – but that didn’t happen. Also obviously when it comes to competition (say how many proposals you’ll get for a RFP) if there’s only one possible bidder, or two or three tightly teamed) you don’t really have competition.

    Specifically to what PWR could bid on, there is EELV business which they got locked up, and in 10 years there will be the RLV EELV replacements, nothing on the horizon from NASA.

    >== you see it in decline. The DoD spending figures disprove that theory.

    Check again – fewer programs, fewer types of planes/rockets/etc – and a slower replacement rate. So win the EELV contract and PWR has little else to bid for from the gov for decades. It’s hard to justify to stockholders to even keep a design staff on (and hard to keep bored engineers and designers on the payroll) if theres nothing for them to do. So we keep making RL-10s, market RD-180’s, no longer worry about SSME’s – maybe there will be J-2 business. So you just need a small manufacturing staff.

    “>> ULA itself is a consolidation of older bigger firms space business.”

    > ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, ==

    Who bought pretty much all the other old companies in the busness before.

    >> “So they have to be kept alive.”

    > = Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V can be replaced by the Falcon 9 family =

    No, SpaceX isn’t set up right to bid on major programs. Not enough layers of bureaucracy to support the (granted useless) legally required paperwork of a major bid, or distribution of suppliers across country in enough political districts. Also SpaceX lacks the expertise to consider complex projects.

    Hell Musk has pretty much written off his chances for CCDev. Now for a commercial nich player SpaceX is pretty well set up, but he’s not getting the scale of market he was assuming a few years back.

  • Hell Musk has pretty much written off his chances for CCDev.

    He has? When did that happen?

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 8:39 am

    It’s hard to justify to stockholders…

    Stockholders don’t get a vote on operational decisions, and what stockholders look for in general is a company that is trying to strengthen their competitive position by expanding existing markets, or creating new ones.

    No, SpaceX isn’t set up right to bid on major programs.

    Oh? The COTS/CRS program wasn’t major – $1.9B just isn’t what it used to be. Or being one of four winners of the 10-year IDIQ NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract was minor?

    But do tell us, why aren’t they set up to bid on major programs? What is it you see that tells you that, despite the fact that they are building a third launch facility (this one at Vandenberg), and planning a demo launch of their Falcon 9 Heavy (a direct competitor to Delta IV Heavy, at 1/4 the price)? Do tell.

    …but he’s not getting the scale of market he was assuming a few years back.

    Yep, I’m sure he’s crying all the way to the bank. :-)

    But please, since you are such a fountain of information, what were his market assumptions? Did he tell you them over tea & crumpets?

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    >> Kelly Starks wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 8:39 am

    >>“It’s hard to justify to stockholders…”

    > Stockholders don’t get a vote on operational decisions, ==

    Sure they do – if they object, they vote you out of control of your company.

    >> “No, SpaceX isn’t set up right to bid on major programs.”

    > Oh? The COTS/CRS program wasn’t major – $1.9B just isn’t
    > what it used to be. Or being one of four winners of the
    > 10-year IDIQ NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract was minor?

    Both minor token programs. $2B is something like the yearly electric bill for NORAD command centers. A fraction of a training contract for JSC. A fraction of the cost projected for one launch of a Ares/Orion.
    Compare that to say $20 billion for the Orion capsule development contract. $30B to develop each of the Ares designs.

    >== why aren’t they set up to bid on major programs?==

    Major programs must follow the big contract overhead, oversight, paperwork, etc rules. Rutan and some others tried to bid on Orion a few years back and found though they could do the ship, they’d need to bloat out their staffs several fold for all the paperwork and demanded organization changes (all that bureaucratic bloat new space fans laugh at old space companies for having).

    You can structure your org to be lean and efficient, but then it can’t do all the bureaucratic hoops of big gov contracts. Set up for the later – your not the lean efficient organization anymore.

    >> “…but he’s not getting the scale of market he was assuming a few years back.”

    > Yep, I’m sure he’s crying all the way to the bank. :-)

    He is since hes going to the bank with much smaller checks to deposit.

    ;)

    And he dose talk about this in interviews. Certainly he was not happy to realize he hasn’t a shot at being a main suplier for CC. Not a big market at only 10 flights, but a few years ago he really looked like a shoe in with Orion such a mess. Now – hes the poster child of why CCdev should canceled.

    [I just hope SpaceX and the Falcon/Dragons don’t wind up being as bad a set of turkeys as the Tesla cars!]

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 11:08 am

    > Stockholders don’t get a vote on operational decisions, ==

    Sure they do – if they object, they vote you out of control of your company.

    As a stockholder, and a major stockholder, and someone that knows a little about this subject, you appear to have a romantic view of what stockholders want, and what they do, but you don’t have any real knowledge about the subject.

    Both minor token programs. $2B is something…

    I don’t know of any company that doesn’t consider a potential $2B contract win “major”. You’d be an idiot to think otherwise.

    Major programs must follow the big contract overhead, oversight, paperwork, etc rules.

    Let’s just cut this short and say that you and I disagree. I’ve been on the winning end of major contract proposals, so I have some insight into this. From what I can tell, you have been a worker-bee, and have not had any program management responsibilities, so your insight is relegated to watercooler stories, and not any real knowledge of how many people are really involved.

    He is since hes going to the bank with much smaller checks to deposit.

    This is an odd statement. What makes you think that? He’s just about done with COTS, which means he’s getting ready for $133M payments for each CRS delivery. Plus he’s still taking in launch deposits. His annual revenue is getting ready to ramp up significantly, and has been growing quite a bit for the past couple of years, which have all been profitable.

    [I just hope SpaceX and the Falcon/Dragons don’t wind up being as bad a set of turkeys as the Tesla cars!]

    Yes, I’m sure that’s why Toyota is buying parts from Tesla, as well as other companies, because they are such turkeys. What a maroon!

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    >>> Stockholders don’t get a vote on operational decisions, ==

    >>Kelly Starks wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 11:08 am

    >>Sure they do – if they object, they vote you out of control of your company.”

    >== you appear to have a romantic view of what stockholders want,
    > and what they do,==

    Not really. They want return on investment, and if they don’t think your going to get it for them with their money, and they give a he goes our our money goes…

    CEO’s get replaced all the time.

    >> “Both minor token programs. $2B is something…”

    > I don’t know of any company that doesn’t consider a potential $2B
    > contract win “major”. ==

    When did the federal government become a company?

    >>“Major programs must follow the big contract overhead,
    >> oversight, paperwork, etc rules.”

    > Let’s just cut this short and say that you and I disagree. ==

    Fine, But the gov, and the bidders on these things don’t agree with you.

    >> He is, since hes going to the bank with much smaller checks to deposit.”

    >==What makes you think that?==

    Because he’s flying a lot less then previously suggesting he would, adn now talks about not having a real chance at big high visibility contracts like commercial crew or COT-D(?) that he thought he had areal chance at.

    >> [I just hope SpaceX and the Falcon/Dragons don’t wind up
    >> being as bad a set of turkeys as the Tesla cars!]”

    > Yes, I’m sure that’s why Toyota is buying parts from Tesla,
    >as well as other companies, because they are such turkeys. ==

    Parts aren’t cars. The Teslas aside from being insanely pricey, have a reputation for breaking whenever test drivers for car mags adn TV’ shows try to test them for articles. Times when they loaned one for use in a TV show or something, even when only on screen for a secoundthey weer a handfull — adn Musk has been fighting with Teslas management.

    These are not good signs. And of course given electric cars are expensive to operate, and don’t sell well. Tesla’s no different, so its not likely to make any money.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    CEO’s get replaced all the time.

    By Boards of Directors. Stockholders aren’t involved. You should read up on this in case you ever decide to buy stock in a company.

    Fine, But the gov, and the bidders on these things don’t agree with you.

    You don’t speak for either, so that’s not saying much.

    Because he’s flying a lot less then previously suggesting he would…

    When did he suggest anything to you? Unless you can provide some supporting info, I think you’re just making it up.

    And in any case, even if their development schedule has moved to the right, that doesn’t support your assertion that “he’s not getting the scale of market he was assuming” or “hes going to the bank with much smaller checks to deposit”. I think you’re taking various articles out of context.

    The Teslas aside from being insanely pricey…

    To you, sure, but you are not the target market. Remember, he is selling a high-end sports car – it’s not a mass-market product. Do you say the same about Maserati or Lamborghini? Maybe you are too susceptible to marketing hype, and since you can’t afford the products, you get disappointed?

    And of course given electric cars are expensive to operate, and don’t sell well.

    How are they expensive to operate? Based on the price for electricity (~ $0.75/kwh), electric vehicles (including the Tesla) cost about 1/4 the cost of gasoline vehicles. Do you have any facts to back up your assertions, or are you making this up too?

    As far as selling well, all cars are fungible forms of transportation. They compete with bicycles as well as public transportation. Just about every major car manufacturer thinks that electric or hybrid cars are going to be popular, and with gas prices climbing again, they likely will be. I know I’m waiting for plug-in hybrids, and then we’ll replace our short-distance car with one. The market is maturing, as well as the features and technologies, and they do address customer desires, which is who shells out the money.

    One things for certain, and that is that hybrid batteries are performing well even after 10 years of use. Consumer Reports just did a follow-up report on a Toyota Prius, and found that the battery had lost little of it’s original capacity. That kind of news bodes well for all electric car makers, including Tesla, which builds and sells electric car technology as well as cars.

    The technology part of their business, in which you said “Parts aren’t cars”, is part of Tesla’s revenue model. To you it may not make sense, but to Tesla investors it means that Tesla is positioned to ride the wave of electric car sales from not only Tesla branded cars, but Toyota and other car manufacturers too. It’s a brilliant strategy.

    Remember it’s not the number of cars sold that matters to investors, but the overall revenue and future market strength. That is where Musk is doing a great job in positioning the company to leverage both sides of the market, which is similar to how he has been positioning SpaceX, both as a launch provider (Falcon series), and as a service provider (Dragon cargo, DragonLab, Dragon crew).

    Times are good for Musk and his companies.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    >>Kelly Starks wrote @ March 20th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
    >>Because he’s flying a lot less then previously suggesting he would…”

    > When did he suggest anything to you?

    In interviews in print and on air.

    >> The Teslas aside from being insanely pricey…”

    > To you, sure, but you are not the target market. Remember,
    > he is selling a high-end sports car ==

    Not that high end! The Tesla is based on a Lotus Elise which costs less then half what the tesla costs. You can get a high end Vette, AND a pretty good Porshe 911 for that. And pretty much all the gas you’ld burn.

    >>And of course given electric cars are expensive to operate, and don’t sell well.”

    > How are they expensive to operate? Based on the price for electricity==

    Not the price of electricity – the price of the batteries! The GM EV1 using lead acid bats ate about $1.50worth of batteries per mile (The $50,000 bat pack dies after 30,000 miles or 3 average years of driving). The tesla and its ilk are projected to run well over twice that (though Musk assumes the types he uses will drop over a factor of 10 in costs by the time they burn out – but industry folks think thats ridiculous.

    >== Do you have any facts to back up your assertions, or are you making this up too?

    Lose the snide.

    >== Just about every major car manufacturer thinks that electric
    > or hybrid cars are going to be popular, ==

    Thats a bit of a stretch. Certainly they haven’t sold all that well up until now. With the exception of some of the big GM hybride SUV’s (that GM sells at a big discount – or did a year or two ago) you’ll never make back the higher cost and servicing costs, with gas savings.,

    >== Consumer Reports just did a follow-up report on a Toyota Prius,
    > and found that the battery had lost little of it’s original capacity. ==

    That’s unusually the bats generally don’t last that well. Certainly the bat manufacturers are dubious.

    Are you referring to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/02/200000-mile-toyota-prius-still-performs.html
    ?

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    The Tesla is based on a Lotus Elise…

    Kelly, it’s amazing that even though you’ve been a consumer for your whole life, you don’t understand the consumer market.

    Luxury goods are not purchased based solely on tangibles like size, function or cost, but based on emotional desires. It doesn’t matter that Tesla uses parts from other car makers, it only matters that what they make creates a desire in their target market. I know this confuses you, but if you looked around, you would see plenty of example of it, including in your own house.

    It’s the same thing that Virgin Galactic plays on to find customers. No normal person NEEDS to take a short trip to space, but Virgin Galactic has created a DESIRE for people to do so. You don’t NEED to watch movies or the TV, you have a DESIRE. It’s the same thing, but just on a different cost level.

    The GM EV1…

    Is that your sole justification for why electric cars will not succeed in the consumer marketplace? What a maroon!

    Not the price of electricity – the price of the batteries!

    You answered yourself at the end of your own post. Here is what Consumer Reports had to say:

    Our testers were also amazed how much the car drove like the new one we tested 10 years ago. It certainly didn’t seem like a car that had traveled nearly the distance to the Moon. We were also surprised to learn that the engine, transmission, and even shocks were all original.

    If the battery ever did need to be replaced, it would run between $2,200 and $2,600 from a Toyota dealer, but it’s doubtful that anyone would purchase a new battery for such an old car. Most will probably choose to buy a low-mileage unit from a salvage yard, just as they would with an engine or transmission. We found many units available for around $500.

    So is an old Prius a still a good value? We think so.

    $500 dollars for a used battery is nothing. I spent $800 replacing the radiator on my car a couple of years ago. And once you factor in how much gas has been saved (~40 mpg on the 10-year old car), then it more than makes up for it. And now that the Prius and it’s ilk have 10 years more experience under their hoods, I think the current generation hybrids will perform as good or better.

    Where are the facts that support your theories!

    Certainly they haven’t sold all that well up until now.

    You’re a riot! Tell that to Toyota or Honda. GM and Ford only recently got into this field, so it remains to be seen how quickly they’ll figure out the market, but the market is getting bigger every year. Maybe they don’t meet your expectation, but then again who are you? LOL

    …you’ll never make back the higher cost and servicing costs, with gas savings.

    You keep forgetting that the market is not purely driven by single factors, and certainly part of it is driven by emotional ones.

    You also have to keep in mind that consumers like to experiment, and it’s because of their desire to try out new and unproven products that we get some of our new consumer categories. Home computers were thought of as toys when first marketed, but some saw their ultimate promise and drove the market towards what we have today. Hybrid and electric vehicles are moving along the same track, and especially in a world of $4+ gas and falling alternative energy costs, they are looking better and better.

    But don’t worry about electric cars. The market will vote with their dollars, just like you will, and we’ll see who wins out. So far you’re wrong. What a surprise…

    Signing off of this thread (thanks for the off-topic leeway Jeff).

  • Coastal Ron

    Oh, and since it seemed apropos to this topic:

    XCOR and ULA Demonstrate Revolutionary Rocket Engine Nozzle Technology; Also Sign Contract for Liquid Hydrogen Engine Development

    …Based on the results of these successful technology demonstrations, ULA today announced a larger follow-on program with XCOR to develop a liquid oxygen (LOX)/LH2 engine.

    So while PWR is complaining about the lack of orders, smaller companies are working on taking away their future orders. As I said before, you either innovate or die – PWR better figure out what they want to do.

    Here’s the link:
    http://xcor.com/press-releases/2011/11-03-22_XCOR_and_ULA_demonstrate_rocket_engine_nozzle.html

  • Kelly Starks

    > So while PWR is complaining about the lack of orders, smaller
    > companies are working on taking away their future orders.

    No, if you think they are you are not talking about any market PWR or anyone else is intersted in.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    >>Kelly Starks wrote @ March 21st, 2011 at 9:34 pm
    >> “The Tesla is based on a Lotus Elise…”
    > Luxury goods are not purchased based solely on tangibles like size,
    > function or cost, but based on emotional desires==

    Obviously, but given its form factor, look etc are copies of the Elise, and it certainly can’t sell itself as being a better performing – or durable – or luxurious – sports car in capability, etc. Expecting folks to buy at 2-3 times the price just to be battery powered is a very questionable market plan.

    >>The GM EV1…”
    > Is that your sole justification for why electric cars will not succeed in the consumer marketplace?

    No I referred to it for cost per mile, but given it was the bigest effort at a fuel electric, hail by electric fans as the car that was going to make electric main srteam, its high powe adn performance (actually the same boasts as Tesla), it not a bad model to reference.

    > $500 dollars for a used battery is nothing.—

    That’s only enough battery for a hybride- I.E. maybe a couple dozen miles, not 100+ for electric – and apparently not one used in that Pries. Its not what even Toyotas talking about for durability.

    >> “Certainly they haven’t sold all that well up until now.”
    > You’re a riot! Tell that to Toyota or Honda. ==
    I’m using there numbers. The Pris has been almost half of all hybride sales, but in ten years of world sales they sold only about a million units, less then one years US sales of the Ford F-150, or the GM equivs.
    >> “…you’ll never make back the higher cost and servicing costs, with gas savings.”
    > You keep forgetting that the market is not purely driven by single factors, and
    > certainly part of it is driven by emotional ones.
    That’s true. The dominant reasons given for Pries owners buys were image. Fuel saving down a couple, saving money way down the list.

    > == electric cars. The market will vote with their dollars, ==

    They did, electrics and hybrids don’t sell.

    You right though this is way of topic. If your intersted ni continuing – email me.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    No, if you think they are you are not talking about any market PWR or anyone else is intersted in.

    According to Aviation Week:

    The joint effort [XCOR/ULA] is to develop a low-cost upper-stage engine in the same class as the venerable RL-10.

    ULA has seen the handwriting on the wall with SpaceX, and is attempting to lower the costs from their supply chain. I applaud their efforts – innovate or die!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>