Discussion Private Sector vs. Governmental Agencies spaceflight (Megathread)

[FADEC]

So I am reconsidering whether the private sector can do it better than governmental agencies. They might do it better in terms of costs, but obviously not in terms of time.

 

[tl8]

So I am reconsidering whether the private sector can do it better than governmental agencies. They might do it better in terms of costs, but obviously not in terms of time.

Remember they are hooking up to a multi billion dollar investment. You can't just rock up unexpected.

We also need to remember that spaceflight is hard and SpaceX is still quite young. They need to slowly build up their workers and skills lest they have more repeats of the Falcon 1.

 

[FADEC]

Remember they are hooking up to a multi billion dollar investment. You can't just rock up unexpected.

We also need to remember that spaceflight is hard and SpaceX is still quite young. They need to slowly build up their workers and skills lest they have more repeats of the Falcon 1.

They can't rock up just like governmental agencies also can't. Elon Musk dreams about launch rates which are very unlikely to happen. There won't be enough customers anyway.

Private space flight won't do it better than NASA I think, except cheaper. But it's not even private or commercial. IMHO the current situation is proof enough that it was the wrong way to retire all Space Shuttle Orbiters.

 

[RisingFury]

Shuttles served their purpose. We need to move on.

 

[T.Neo]

They might do it better in terms of costs, but obviously not in terms of time.

They still do it better in terms of time. Look at the comparison between Falcon 9 and Ares I- both were announced very close together in 2005. F9 flew first in 2010, Ares I was, just before cancellation, destined to fly only in the 2016-2017 timeframe. Despite the fact that it started out as a "simple, soon" vehicle using existing components.

Maybe that is just certain people causing inefficiencies within NASA, but it's still a good example. And it isn't like NASA is immune to launch delays either- wasn't STS-132 originally set for September 2010, and launched in March? It happens to the best.

 

[RisingFury]

They still do it better in terms of time. Look at the comparison between Falcon 9 and Ares I- both were announced very close together in 2005. F9 flew first in 2010, Ares I was, just before cancellation, destined to fly only in the 2016-2017 timeframe. Despite the fact that it started out as a "simple, soon" vehicle using existing components.

Falcon 9 and Ares I aren't the same vehicles and can't be compared. A lot of the work for F9 had already been done, because a lot of components are scaled up versions of F1. Also, the engines were done already and flying. The J2X ain't anywhere near completion.

 

[T.Neo]

Falcon 9 and Ares I aren't the same vehicles and can't be compared. A lot of the work for F9 had already been done, because a lot of components are scaled up versions of F1. Also, the engines were done already and flying. The J2X ain't anywhere near completion.

You talk of J-2X, but there was no J-2X when Ares I started. It was meant to use a 4-segment (STS) SRB and an SSME, shuttle-derived components. It had design heritage, just like F9- and design heritage with a long, successful history (unlike F9).

 

[FADEC]

Shuttles served their purpose. We need to move on.

Keeping at least one orbiter in operation would have helped to move on. Currently they move on on the ground only, with tests in a pool, drawings and animated movie clips. Another bitter taste is the missing capabilities of the Space Shuttle. Beside building Apollo reloaded and squabbling about a viable launch vehicle for it, I don't really see them moving on. It's even a step backwards. All they will gain is access to LEO, again, after a huge gap, with lots of missing capabilities. What? Moon? Even Mars? It's a joke for now.

They still do it better in terms of time. Look at the comparison between Falcon 9 and Ares I-

Falcon 9 ≠ Ares I

And it isn't like NASA is immune to launch delays either- wasn't STS-132 originally set for September 2010, and launched in March? It happens to the best.

Like I said: SpaceX does not do it really better for now. All hopes that the commercial stuff would be way more efficient comes to reality now. Especially regarding manned missions. I doubt they will be able to launch a crew before NASA does do so with the MPCV, followed by the question: "why using and founding Dragon for manned missions then?". My 2 cents: Dragon is likely to remain a reliable and cheap but unmanned cargo vehicle.

 

[NovaSilisko]

Yeah, it feels like they didn't plan ahead too well.

"Right. We've retired the shuttle. Let's hop aboard the commercial vehicles!"
"Sir...there aren't any. And there won't be any for several years."
"..."

 

[T.Neo]

Keeping at least one orbiter in operation would have helped to move on.

It would have done exactly the opposite, sapping funds for its operation that could be used to pay for development of a successor.

Remember, it isn't just keeping an orbiter in operation- it's keeping the entire huge infrastructure in operation to actually fly it. The workforce, the facilities, etc.

Falcon 9 ≠ Ares I

Stop trying to totally indemnify Ares I by saying that it's different. They are both launch vehicles, announced relatively close together. Ares I had several advantages going towards its development. Falcon 9 was announced by a company that had not yet even flown a ~400 kilogram vehicle to orbit.

Yet Falcon 9 exists right now and Ares I would only be existing in the 2016-2017 timeframe.

Like I said: SpaceX does not do it really better for now. All hopes that the commercial stuff would be way more efficient comes to reality now.

Well, SpaceX sure seems to do development for less. Whether it can perform in the operations side of things remains to be seen, but: not all commercial is SpaceX. ULA and OSC seem to have been operating well for the many years that they have been in operation.

I doubt they will be able to launch a crew before NASA does do so with the MPCV, followed by the question: "why using and founding Dragon for manned missions then?".

Because there are far more factors to choosing a manned vehicle than which one flies first. Dragon offers many advantages over the Orion, especially if the latter is tied to a launch vehicle that really isn't optimal for servicing LEO.

 

[FADEC]

It would have done exactly the opposite, sapping funds for its operation that could be used to pay for development of a successor.

Whilst NASA would still have access to space with a vehicle that had capabilities like no other, and like no other will have for many decades, maybe even never again.

I don't think NASA needs a new vehicle that can do way less, or actually nothing except launching humans. There won't be any successor. What takes place right now is a loss, not a gain.

Stop trying to totally indemnify Ares I by saying that it's different. They are both launch vehicles, announced relatively close together.

And they have nothing more in common. SpaceX + Falcon vs. NASA + Ares = David vs. Goliath.

Yet Falcon 9 exists right now and Ares I would only be existing in the 2016-2017 timeframe.

The interesting question is: will SpaceX carry humans into space before 2016-2017, and for what costs?

Dragon offers many advantages over the Orion

That Dragon can do everything which Orion can do is not really "many" advantages, aside from the launch vehicle.

 

[T.Neo]

Whilst NASA would still have access to space with a vehicle that had capabilities like no other, and like no other will have for many decades, maybe even never again.

Capabilities that you don't need anymore. Construction of the ISS is over. Vehicles like the ATV, HTV, and Dragon and Cygnus can take care of the logistical needs of the ISS now.

SpaceX + Falcon vs. NASA + Ares = David vs. Goliath.

Exactly. NASA, with all of the resources it can call to its disposal, its decades-long base of experience, plus developing a vehicle from hardware that has been in use for hundreds, makes it the Goliath.

Now, NASA had all of that, and it still had a huge amount of trouble trying to develop a new set of launch vehicles.

The interesting question is: will SpaceX carry humans into space before 2016-2017, and for what costs?

The LV exists, the capsule exists. All that is left is the addition of a LAS and the human-rating certification for the launch vehicle. Are you really skeptical that SpaceX can perform those tasks by a 2015 timeframe?

It would take some extremely odd miracle for SpaceX total development costs for a manned F9/Dragon to reach the same level as the development costs to flight of Ares/Orion.

That Dragon can do everything which Orion can do is not really "many" advantages, aside from the launch vehicle.

It has plenty of advantages. It can seat more people than Orion can. It is bound to be cheaper, even if SpaceX hardware prices increase significantly, because it is a physically simpler spacecraft. Since it doubles as a cargo spacecraft, there is a good chance that a large part of the system will have flown multiple times before it ever flies people- which will increase safety.

The launch vehicle is also a large part of it. Things would be a lot less biased against Orion if NASA were studying Atlas V as a CLV for it, but sadly there doesn't seem to be much interest in this.

 

[anemazoso]

T.Neo, you forgot propulsive landing and reuse of the Dragon as well. Check and mate over Orion.

 

[N_Molson]

SpaceX, I liked you but I'm getting annoyed. Launch or I'll support SLS as sole role cargo delivery vehicle to the ISS.

TNeo, don't take it personally, but the day you do that, I'll make a banana dance ! :rofl:

:bananadance:

 

[FADEC]

Are you really skeptical that SpaceX can perform those tasks by a 2015 timeframe?

Well, they did launch two times within the last one and a half year. They did not yet dock to the ISS. So talking about manned missions "soon" is too optimistic. There are several scheduled flights for this year, but the first launch already skipped to March/April... yes, I am skeptical.

And who does train and prepare the astronauts and the required facilities? Is there any serious program or plan yet?

 

[T.Neo]

Well, they did launch two times within the last one and a half year. They did not yet dock to the ISS. So talking about manned missions "soon" is too optimistic. There are several scheduled flights for this year, but the first launch already skipped to March/April... yes, I am skeptical.

What is your definition of "soon"? 2015 is still three years away.

Delays in operations don't directly correlate to delays in development. It isn't like SpaceX needs to develop a whole new set of vehicles. Technically, besides LAS development, most alterations are relatively minor.

And who does train and prepare the astronauts and the required facilities? Is there any serious program or plan yet?

That remains to be seen. There are almost certainly plans floating around inside SpaceX right now, just because we don't hear about them does not mean they're nonexistent.

 

[FADEC]

What is your definition of "soon"? 2015 is still three years away.

If things continue that slowly, I doubt they will get the chance to launch NASA astronauts until 2015. Time can go by quite fast. They did three launches within the past 3 years. And the last launch was more than one year ago already. Sure, once things work like they should launches might take place more often. But I remain sceptical for now.

We'll see...

 

[T.Neo]

If things continue that slowly, I doubt they will get the chance to launch NASA astronauts until 2015. Time can go by quite fast. They did three launches within the past 3 years. And the last launch was more than one year ago already. Sure, once things work like they should launches might take place more often. But I remain sceptical for now.

Flight operations delays do not equate to development delays. There are many things being developed at SpaceX as we speak. The fact that there are teething issues in getting F9 Flight 3 to launch doesn't stop those developments (nor does it mean that every future flight will encounter similar delays).