Re: GRIFFIN'S DRIVE FOR SHUTTLE-DERIVED

Damon Hill <damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>gherbert@xxxxxxxxx (George William Herbert) wrote:
>> Either BoeMart's EELVs cost too much, in which case there is market
>> opportunity for vendors to undercut, or they don't cost too much,
>> in which case the government is not paying too much to use them.
>
>I sort of like Boelock as a contraction; sounds like bollock...
>which may kind of sum up the situation.
>
>SpaceX may have a ways to go to demonstrate that they can
>build a large enough vehicle that would be capable of undercutting
>anyone. I'm hoping they can put some heat on the Consortium
>to keep them semi-honest. I don't see any other American
>company that could challenge them, and I doubt we'd contract
>outside the USA for that kind of launch service.

There are five paid-for DARPA/USAF FALCON initial R&D programs
(well, three plus one side deal). SpaceX, whose vehicle was
already in development; Microcosm, who've been working on
the problem for a decade or more; SpaceDev, who have flown
satellites and own a large chunk of the hybrid rocket
intellectual property by having bought up the remnants
of AMROC; Airlaunch, Gary Hudson's latest trick; and
last but not least Lockmart, whose LOX/rubber hybrid
rocket is very much in contrast with the way they
normally do things, and is a scaled up version of the
sounding rocket they flew late last year.

Then there are the dozen or so other companies which
competed and didn't win the FALCON contracts;
those after the USAF responsive reusable launcher
demo program; Kistler; Orbital Sciences; ...

The only one of these companies ready to fly a
low cost vehicle is SpaceX. However, the number
of alternative space access companies credibly
able to step up to the plate is at least five
and arguably more than a dozen, plus a lot of
potential contenders who haven't demonstrated they
can build a business and bend metal successfully yet.

SpaceX by itself, and their growth plans, form a
credible undercutting risk to EELV's medium
capabilities and eventually to its high
end capabilities.


-george william herbert
gherbert@xxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: EELV Cost Almost Doubles
    ... >> They believe SpaceX must fail, because it's just too hard to ... >But other small companies such as Orbital have made rockets work. ... Orbital didn't fundamentally break new ground in either cost ... >additional hassle of coordinating two payloads will work against them. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: EELV Cost Almost Doubles
    ... >>What are these companies thinking?? ... > They believe SpaceX must fail, because it's just too hard to ... But other small companies such as Orbital have made rockets work. ... The Russians have been building relatively reliable, low cost rockets ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Its In-Line (Shuttle Derived)
    ... or SpaceX will cease to exist once Elon Musk's ... SpaceX believes in their cost figures ... enough to offer to sign fixed-price contracts for Falcon V flights; ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast