From: mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com   
      
   wrote in message   
   news:f6ce17e8-3012-4880-ab89-e0f77c8d2494o@googlegroups.com...   
   >   
   >Greetings all,   
   >   
   >SpaceX has clearly demonstrated that their methods and procedures are   
   >working. They're the most reliable launch service currently on Planet   
   >Earth, and the only people recycling hardware (AFAIK - I'd love to hear   
   >about it if someone else is doing it).   
   >   
      
   Technically the Atlas V is slight more reliable. BUT, both rockets still   
   have low enough flight numbers (though the Falcon 9 is quickly increasing)   
   that a single accident has a notable impact on the reliability numbers.   
      
   >As some very bright person once said: "Sooner or later the Physics are the   
   >same for Everybody." That means the only things that is stopping someone   
   >else from copying SpaceX road to success are: Capital to Invest, Actual   
   >Industrial Secrets, Patent Laws or what?   
   >   
      
   I think it's in part the willingness to take risks. Musk has deep pockets,   
   but quite honestly, if the final Falcon 1 flight had failed, there's a good   
   chance they'd have shut down.   
   But once they started flying the Falcon 9, they were able to quickly iterate   
   and improve.   
   And contrary to what some claim, I think the Space Shuttle DID show the   
   value of reusability. The problem was, the Shuttle was designed to have low   
   development costs at the risk of higher operational costs. SpaceX focused   
   more on ensuring operational costs were low, but managed to keep the   
   development costs low enough that they could move forward. NASA had to make   
   the Shuttle reusable on day 1. SpaceX could afford to start with   
   non-reusable and build their way there.   
      
   >SpaceX is a very public company, public in the sense that they're open and   
   >on display, and don't seem to want to keep anything secret. The fabrication   
   >techniques they are using are well known and understood, and widely used.   
   >   
   >Their engines are a sensible evolution on technology that has existed since   
   >the 60s. Their choice of fuel and oxidizer mix is different but hardly   
   >revolutionary, and it has been studied and even tested on a small scale   
   >before.   
      
   Actually their current engines, the Merlins are fueled by RP-1. That's quite   
   common. You may be thinking the Raptor engines which will use methane.   
   So in other words, they're flying NOW with a standard fuel.   
   The real difference is the design and cost of their engines. One key think   
   is the deep throttling that help with the landing process.   
      
   And, they're apparently cheap enough to build that even if they tossed them   
   away after every flight they'd probably compete well with ULA.   
      
   >   
   >They likelihood that SpaceX has stumbled upon some wonderful mysterious new   
   >process or science that makes their rockets fly better is extremely   
   >unlikely. So no Actual Industrial Secrets, right?   
   >   
   >Is the rest of the world so broke that NO ONE is willing to try catch up. I   
   >can't believe that neither the Russians or Chinese are not at least looking   
   >at the possibility of building their own SpaceX-like system. Of cause   
   >neither of those countries have the best record with recognizing or   
   >respecting patents held by foreign companies or countries. So SpaceX's   
   >patents (if they hold any) are not going to protect them from espionage and   
   >copying.   
      
   I think Russia is still caught up slightly in a command-driven economy and   
   don't fully realize their full costs. Also, much like NASA has lived in the   
   shadow of its glory days of Apollo and for the longest time acted like, "any   
   day now the spigot will flow again" I think Russia is acting like, "someday   
   the money will flow again." In reality, when the US stops buying seats, I   
   think Roskosmos will have quite the wake-up call.   
      
   >   
   >I understand that building a new rocket system is a long-winded affair.   
   >SpaceX was in business for 8 (?) before it managed its first launch. But   
   >they have demonstrated that reduced costs and reusing hardware can be done   
   >profitably. So why no imitators? Or are all the imitators hiding in the   
   >shadows, waiting to announce their SpaceX beater when they are ready to   
   >make their debut flight?   
   >   
   >Any thoughts? What am I missing?   
      
   I think for ULA, they're still caught in the "this is the way we've always   
   done it, these new kids don't get it. Space is hard and you can't reliably   
   fly reused rockets" despite the evidence in their face. And their proposed   
   solution for Vulcan is what I'd expect from them. Yeah, they're right,   
   engines are the most expensive parts and the tanks are cheap, so if you   
   recover the engines, you've recovered like 80-90% of your 1st stage costs.   
   But... catching it in mid-air, then attaching new tanks and all seems like   
   the hard way of doing it. It's NOT a great solution from a operational POV.   
   Compare that to the Falcon 9 setup: fly, land, tip over, retract legs, roll   
   over to your assembly building, do some quick look-see, put on the next   
   payload, roll out and launch.  It's geared and designed from the start to   
   operationally be cheaper.  Even if you land on one of the drone ships, I've   
   got to imagine that's far cheaper than trying to catch a set off falling   
   engines in mid-air (have we ever caught anything that big?), return them to   
   land, inspect them, attach new tanks, and roll it back out to the pad.   
      
   I think the next step honestly is what SpaceX claims it will do with   
   Starship and I suspect Blue Origin will do, land the 1st stage at the pad   
   and eliminate a bunch of steps.   
      
   >   
   >Regards   
   >Frank   
      
   --   
   Greg D. Moore                   http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/   
   CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net   
   IT Disaster Response -   
   https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)