Kistling a Different Tune: Commercial Space in an Alternate Key

[Brainbin]

...better question than ‘why are they building it on the ground’ is ‘why did they build it in Iowa?’

It’s been years since I saw that film and only now the question occurs to me. I mean, maybe it could be elsewhere on the American plains, but still...why?

Of course we can say in retrospect that building the Enterprise in small-town Iowa (particularly an Iowa that looks nothing like the real Iowa) certainly set the stage for the general... tone of the Kelvinverse.

Anyway, I’m liking how the pop-culture references date the posts.

Thanks! It was a lot of fun co-writing this with @e of pi and putting ourselves back in the mindset of what we were thinking about in 2008.

 

[TimothyC]

The idea of a communications satellite mission using a dual launch K-1 architecture does have a certain appeal. It can place roughly a three metric ton payload into a sub-GTO trajectory (similar to what SpaceX has used for some of their missions), and do so for a total cost of between 30 and 36 million USD. This is a payload that is between a third and half of what a Falcon 9FT can deliver, and at half of the price of a SpaceX flight. If the mission desired does not call for a very large package, this can be a very good deal - and it can eat into some of the secondary payload manifest of the Ariane V.

The problem with this architecture is that Kistler would have to design and build an orbital stage and all of the associated support equipment (both ground and aerospace), convinced satellite bus manufactures to buy into the concept of dual launch and design a bus that will fit into your payload envelope, and then get the satellite operators to buy into your architecture which includes a LEO loiter and a mandatory docking needed to put the payload into the proper orbit. This is all certainly possible, but does involve several 'if's and mission critical elements/events that other rockets don't have. What studying this architecture does probably do is force SpaceX to develop their Falcon Heavy and reusable second stage architectures to avoid having Kistler take over the small GTO market from them. It certainly puts a crimp on Musk's ITS/BFR concepts.

 

[ANTIcarrot]

Hmm. The Falcon-9's lower stage is by far superior, given it's propulsive landings use a technology that is directly applicable to landing on the moon and mars. The K-1's airbags are limited by square-cube principles. The K-1's reusable upper stage is interesting, but the limited payload volume is probably going to bite them in the rear. I'm also skeptical of their claims of 'gentle touch down' and rapid turnaround. K1 may have to use a disposable upper stage for a few launches.

Unless the F9 suffers a lot of failures, I'm not sure I can see any way for the K1 to be competitive.

 

[IncongruousGoat]

The problem with this architecture is that Kistler would have to design and build an orbital stage and all of the associated support equipment (both ground and aerospace), convinced satellite bus manufactures to buy into the concept of dual launch and design a bus that will fit into your payload envelope, and then get the satellite operators to buy into your architecture which includes a LEO loiter and a mandatory docking needed to put the payload into the proper orbit. This is all certainly possible, but does involve several 'if's and mission critical elements/events that other rockets don't have. What studying this architecture does probably do is force SpaceX to develop their Falcon Heavy and reusable second stage architectures to avoid having Kistler take over the small GTO market from them.

I'd say that the need for a new satellite bus kills this plan, especially since SpaceX can launch any communications satellite bus in the world to GTO (or will be able to, once Falcon 1.1 or equivalent gets developed). Developing new hardware is expensive, and not something satellite manufacturers would be willing to do unless Kistler can drum up a ton of support for the plan. Kistler at this point aren't exactly swimming in cash, and much of what they're going to get for the CRS-1 contract is going to go to CRS. It's not like they can adjust the market to meet their new launch vehicle. They're going to have to adjust their launch vehicle to the market, and its need for large GTO satellites, or die. Also remember that, for most satellites, the cost of the payload is more than the cost of launch. Lower launch prices don't meant much if you have to redesign all of your satellite hardware to take advantage of them. I think Kistler's best bet is going to be filling the niche that PSLV occupies OTL, cheaply launching satellites to polar and sun-synchronous orbits. Kistler might need to stretch their payload bay to match that of PSLV, but otherwise they should have no trouble with those sorts of payloads.

 

[e of pi]

Hmm. The Falcon-9's lower stage is by far superior, given it's propulsive landings use a technology that is directly applicable to landing on the moon and mars. The K-1's airbags are limited by square-cube principles. The K-1's reusable upper stage is interesting, but the limited payload volume is probably going to bite them in the rear. I'm also skeptical of their claims of 'gentle touch down' and rapid turnaround. K1 may have to use a disposable upper stage for a few launches.

Unless the F9 suffers a lot of failures, I'm not sure I can see any way for the K1 to be competitive.

Very solid points comparing the K-1 to the F9R as we know it today, @ANTIcarrot . However, it's worth noting that as of 2008, when we currently are in the TL, Falcon 9's first stage is actually inferior--the landing method planned until after the first several missions failed to carry it out was a full-speed entry into the atmosphere (no retroburn), passively-stabilized attitude control (no fins or thrusters, just whatever leftover momentum from staging and aerodynamic forces act on the rocket body), and parachute-based oceanic recovery (no barge, just hitting the water and toppling over to be retrieved by a boat from the water). Compared to this, it's actually Kistler's landing system--controlled entry to a relatively high-precision landing on land--which looks more advanced. It took SpaceX a while to change their approach IOTL. Granted, once they do, it's likely they still look at propulsive landing...but that still leaves them landing in something like 2014-2015. Will that be soon enough after Kistler? What does this mean for SpaceX's other priorities?

And once both are flying, Kistler isn't necessarily a stationary target either--Kistler has time to start off rough and improve their flight rates, turnaround time, and the K1 might not be their last vehicle, either. Much the same as people competing with SpaceX have to think today about FH or BFR, not just F9, SpaceX needs to be aiming for where Kistler might be by the time they can catch up. And we'll have to see if they can even fly, first...

 

[IncongruousGoat]

@e of pi On the other hand, SpaceX is going to be able to move a lot faster than Kistler on projects like launch vehicle development. As has been pointed out earlier, Kistler are in many ways another old-fashioned aerospace manufacturer, with all the inefficiencies and costs associated with that. They're buying their engines from Aerojet, which means they're going to have to pay a ton of money for any development work necessary for whatever their K1 successor is. Additionally, since the K1's reusability model won't scale well, Kistler's going to have to do an expensive clean-sheet design using a reuse method they have no experience with for their next generation LV. Not impossible, but not fast or easy either.

Let's make some estimates. SpaceX was able to design Falcon 9 1.0 in 4 years (2006 to 2010), so let's take that as a baseline for how long it'll take Kistler to develop a new vehicle (it would probably be more like 6 years, going off of how long Vulcan development is taking OTL). Given that they're still building hardware and launch facilities, best-case gives them first launch of K1 in early to mid 2009. Assuming nothing goes wrong with that first launch, they can start launching for CRS proper in 2010. If they start on a new vehicle in 2010, it'll, best-case, be ready for flight in 2014. Add a year's worth of delays to account for bureaucracy, old-space inefficiency, and stuff going wrong, and their new vehicle will be ready sometime in 2015. At that point, SpaceX will be starting to hit their stride with Falcon 9 v1.2 launches and will finally get stage recovery to work. Not a guaranteed victory for either side, and this is with me being very generous in terms of how fast Kistler can move.

 

[fasquardon]

It may be that Kistler don't need to compete with the Falcon.

For example, they could, rather than scaling their throw-weight up, instead focus on aggressively cutting the costs associated with their rockets. For example, making the satellite bus more compatable with the standard, making different capsule/shroud stages, making for more volume or reducing the cost of re-use.

Of course, they'd be in a niche where they are competing against repurposed ICBMs, which won't make it easy. But I don't think they have to be SpaceX to succeed in establishing some sort of business viable launcher.

fasquardon

 

[e of pi]

ARN Forums: Other American Vehicles: SpaceX Falcon 1 Flight 3 : Page ....(8)...

Webcast is back, still waiting to come out of the hold.

You'd think for their third time, they'd be better at keeping the webcast synchronized and working.

You'd think for their third time, they'd be better at keeping the webcast synchronized and working.

Give them a break, it's from the middle of the Pacific.

Let's just hope for their third launch they're better at keeping the rocket flying!

Polling to come out of the hold…

GO, T-55 and counting.

Sequence seems more automated, has Elon done everything with computers? Seems pretty advanced

Just like everyone else

And HOLD at T-16. Helium problem, I thought I heard?

HOLD! Helium pressurant not loading well, holding at T-16.

Recycling to T-55, detanking. Still time left in the window…

Lost the webcast and they scrubbed again. What is this, the third time today?

Lost the webcast and they scrubbed again.

That wasn't a scrub.

What else do you expect from them? They can't blow up if they don't make it off the pad…Just like all new-space.

Lost the webcast and they scrubbed again.

That wasn't a scrub.

...They stopped the count?

Lost the webcast and they scrubbed again.

That wasn't a scrub.

...They stopped the count?

A scrub ends the day.

Sounds like they worked it, we're counting at T-55. SpaceX says loading fuel, I think they mean LOX?

Fuel loading.

Topping LOX!

Fuel loaded, T-33 and counting!

Wind looks like it's picking up, do we know the limits? Also, that seemed like a really fast fuel load! Any new technology there?

Wind looks like it's picking up, do we know the limits? Also, that seemed like a really fast fuel load! Any new technology there?

No

GNC: Weather is green, a little more clouds, GO to continue at T-28 and counting!

T-25 minutes, hosts are back

More footage with Elon, showing off the plant.

HAH! Quicktime crashed again, getting a stream of their desktop!

Now, now, Downton--Steve Jobs isn't exactly a rocket scientist.

Are they still counting!?

GO at T-16, while they fix the webcast

No hold, propellant load is complete! Ready for 10-minute autosequence. Step 110 complete, reported as good to launch.

Strongback retract…

All right, T-5. Please try to control the chatter until after the launch. We've got good text updates, post pictures if you get screenshots.

Helium topping ended, fuel bleed endings, T-4.

Ignition enabled.

LOX topping closed out.

T-2 minutes. Range is GO, SpaceX is GO.

T-1 minute. Go Falcon 1!

ABORT!

Some kind of ignition, ABORT at T-0. Vehicle safing.

I like this rocket, it's exciting!

Strong back back up. SpaceX says "we've had an abort and are looking at the data. The Vehicle and pad systems are fine. Please stay tuned, liftoff could still occur tonight."

Clock reset to T-11 minutes and we are still holding.

One parameter 1% out of range. Countdown restart from T-10 minutes instead of T-55 possible.

Anyone here think they know a curse when they see one? NewSpace strikes again…

Apparently turobopump purge pressure 0.5 psi off, adjusting the limits. Countdown resuming in 15 minutes from T-10 minutes.

T-11 minutes and COUNTING!

Terminal count starting…

Strongback retract (again)…

This is exciting. Second ground firing in such a short time, a launch, or a scrub. A bunch of steely-eyed missile men out of Kwaj right now!

T-5 minutes…still GO. Fuel bleed on.

Battery heating ending.

Cheering on the SpaceX mics. Ignition enabled, LOX top ending.

T-2 minutes and counting. Battery charge complete.

LD --SpaceX is GO
RCO-- Range is green.

Vehicle on internal power...

T-30, everything is go.

LIFOTFF

Ignition and liftoff! Into first stage…

Look at it go…

Everything nominal, Mach 1

Max-Q, still going…

A little bit of roll, coming up on staging…

Tipping over, working on downrange velocity…

Lost the feed!?

FAILED!!!!

Anomaly in vehicle, they cut the feed.

Oh no…

0 for 3, how're New Space looking now? COTS is history.

Unprofessional to hide their failures like that. Take your lumps in realtime…

Oh, that's trashy! Detect a vehicle anomaly and just pull the video feed and cut to adverts? REALLY BAD FORM from Space-X. With coverage that poor, I don't think they're going to keep their current levels of public support for long.

Everyone else cuts failures, too. SeaLaunch, Russia…

Bummer…was it to roll occilations?

I didn't see those roll occilations last time. Cause of failure? EDIT: Beter luck next time.

Working on the video now.

God, three times now. How much longer can they keep this up? And just think about F-9...

SpaceX blogger from the island saying anomaly in vehicle, but they have two more launches right behind this one, no matter what happened.

Can we chill with the comments? Speculation is all well and good, but if I have to prune comments about "the day alt.space died" from one more thread I'm not going to stop with two beers today…cut them some slack.

Elon's saying it was a stage separation issue. Not roll, something didn't separate correctly. We're going to see what else we can find out. I didn't want to write this article again...

No, I won't give them slack. They bring this on themselves when they, and all of New Space, spin on cost and reliability. First perform, then pound your chest.

Okay, that's it, this thread is getting locked until morning...[/quote

My thanks to the NSF forum for helping archive these events. Some posts are lightly fictionalized versions of real posts. It was remarkable reading this and getting excited, even knowing what was coming.

 

[e of pi]

Year in Review: New-Space Rockets Aim for Space
--by Arnold Holmes (American Rocket News, December 23, 2008)

If 2008, in the future, is not seen as the Year of Commercial Spaceflight, then it must certainly be the year which laid the groundwork for the Year of Commercial Spaceflight. From suborbital to orbit, “newspace” rockets proved their mettle and took important steps on the road to new commercial spaceflight applications. The headline news certainly was the long-anticipated success of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Falcon 1 rocket, the first privately developed liquid-propelled launch vehicle to reach orbit. After a failed launch in August, SpaceX placed a demonstration payload into orbit just a month later. A fifth flight of the small launcher is anticipated next year. Moreover, the company made important strides in the preparation of their Falcon 9 launch vehicle for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transport Services contract, demonstrating multiple engine firings and building up to a full 9-engine. They plan to erect a full Falcon 9 stack at the Cape over the coming weeks to help inform the process of readying the launch site at LC-40 for orbital missions of the new medium-lift vehicle, and work on the Dragon capsule they plan to use to service the station is ongoing (go for Stage 2 for exclusive interviews with Elon Musk!).

If the theme for commercial spaceflight in 2008 was fulfilling promises and making progress on more, even SpaceX’s achievements must bow before the progress made by Rocketplane Kistler, the other major player in commercial spaceflight this year. After more than a decade of efforts, the Kistler K-1 vehicle has begun to come together, with progress reported regularly on the integration of both the “Launch Assist Platform” first stage and the Orbital Vehicle. Their integration partner, ATK, has begun work to secure long-lead items for all three payload modules they will require, beginning with the Pressurized Payload Module which will be used to transfer upmass cargo for the station’s interior and then proceeding with the Unpressurized Payload Module which will allow transfer of International Space Station external payloads up and down which previously could be carried only by the Space Shuttle (see our article on this year’s four exciting space station assembly missions!). Another promise of even older vintage is on the verge of coming together with the long-delayed maiden flight of the NK-33 and NK-43 engines originally developed in the Soviet Union for their answer to Apollo. Demonstration firings of the first flight set of rebranded “AJ-26” engines has been concluded by Kistler’s subcontractor Aerojet, and the flight engines are on-site at Michoud according to sources of American Rocket News (see images on Stage 2!). Rocketplane has also issued statements surrounding the recent advances in their suborbital RocketPlane XP spaceplane, with integration of the first airframe of their revised design beginning at their headquarters at the Oklahoma Air & Space Port. Engine testing is anticipated next year, and Rocketplane believes they are well on their way to a maiden flight of the Rocketplane XP early in 2010, joining their operational fleet at roughly the same time as they begin orbital missions to the space station with the K-1.

They face competition not only in orbit, of course, but in the suborbital sector. Oklahoma’s Air & Space Port will vie with Mojave Air and Space Port to be home to the first suborbital commercial flights, with both Virgin Galactic and XCOR making progress on their own suborbital vehicles. XCOR, with their engine and vehicle experience from the Rocket Racing League, has announced their Lynx spaceplane, consisting of a higher-performance derivative of their Rocket Racing League design, and Virgin Galactic has made significant progress on their Tier Two system. Only a week ago, their first White Knight Two carrier aircraft, named “Eve” for Richard Branson’s mother, took to the skies to begin its flight test process. During the ceremony, Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites announced that the first SpaceShipTwo vehicle is “75% complete,” putting them on target for beginning test flights of the inert spaceplane by the end of next year. Their rocket development efforts continue, with Scaled and Spacedev having recovered from the tragic test stand explosion last summer with a series of subscale tests over the course of 2008. The first firing of the full scale engine is anticipated shortly, with the companies aiming to have the fully developed engine ready for Virgin Galactic’s test flights by the end of 2009.

 

[IncongruousGoat]

Wait, so did Falcon 1 Flight 4 get bumped up substantially from OTL? Or by "a month later" do you mean "during the next month"?

 

[e of pi]

Wait, so did Falcon 1 Flight 4 get bumped up substantially from OTL? Or by "a month later" do you mean "during the next month"?

"During the next month," or in other words basically as OTL. Despite the fact that ARN is sort of TTL NasaSpaceFlight, Arnie Holmes is nothing like as good of a journalist as Chris Bergin. That's my excuse for when I make rookie writing mistakes while writing quickly, anyway.

 

[Usili]

As the developments on Kistler proceeding, I wonder what ULA and Arianespace would be looking like in terms of developing reusable hardware.

 

[Bahamut-255]

As the developments on Kistler proceeding, I wonder what ULA and Arianespace would be looking like in terms of developing reusable hardware.

IMHO, it's possible with more than one Launch Service Provider (in this instance, Kistler & SpaceX) they might become worried enough to seriously put effort into reusable hardware (if not full stage reuse) to keep some advantage over the newcomers.

After all for the time being, their biggest advantage is their respective histories, which for the time being they can count on to maintain their customer base since said newspace are still relative unknowns without a significant flight heritage.

Naturally, should they establish themselves here as well as SpaceX has IOTL, then they really should start picking up customers fast.

So I suppose the question is, how does a second viable commercial launch service operator (as this TL is suggesting strongly to me) affect things here? Especially concerning both companies ambitions, and what it means for more established players.

 

[scretchy]

Nice, just found this thread. The new writing style really gives a different perspective. Really like the typical online pessimistic poster.

Its always fascinating to see how good the old russian engines were.

Is there a reason kistler went with different diameter for first and second stage? I would think same diameter would be easier to build. And how many did they even plan to build?

I could see a earlier swing to reusability from arianespace/esa. Maybe a change in the designe of the Ariane5 development planned in the 2005+. Or a scrap of that development a lot earlier with the faster start of Ariane6.
Ariane6 development had some interesting plans. A full on solid rocket for first stage. Lots of side boosters a well.
I dont think a reusable first stage for Ariane6 is that feasable at first. What i could see is going for the reusable engine pod thats currently in development. I think that would be easier to sell than going for landing the big first stage.

How good is the k-1 to gto?

 

[e of pi]

So I suppose the question is, how does a second viable commercial launch service operator (as this TL is suggesting strongly to me) affect things here? Especially concerning both companies ambitions, and what it means for more established players.

That's going to be where things get interesting, and it's why this timeline is "Commercial Spaceflight in a Different Key".

Nice, just found this thread. The new writing style really gives a different perspective. Really like the typical online pessimistic poster.

Thank you. It's been an experiment, trying to figure out how to make as much of the content as possible actually be in-timeline writing while still clearly conveying information. I wnted to use social media and the internet a lot in telling this story instead of the usual "textbook" style to help stress that while all this is "a long time ago" in the sense of being almost a decade ago now, it's also really not all that long. And yet a lot of what we currently assume has changed--at the present moment of the timeline, the Shuttle is still very active, the Space Station still doesn't even have its full truss or lab module suite, and Ares V is the program of record to replace it. We haven't even had Augustine! It's going to be a lot of fun to get to that material, and part of what I need to cover during 2009 as RPK and SpaceX work their way to the pad in the background.

Is there a reason kistler went with different diameter for first and second stage? I would think same diameter would be easier to build. And how many did they even plan to build?

They planned to build two lower stage LAPs and three OVs. Given that, optimizing for manufacturing wasn't as key as it's been for someone like SpaceX. Freed from that requirement, there's a few reasons for them to have the stages lower diameters: the first stage needs at least three NK-33...er, AJ-26 engines, with one in the center for boostback. That means a really wide diameter, 6.7m is about the smallest they could have fit it into. It leaves a lot of dead space on the bottom on either side of the line of engines and makes the tanks rather stumpy, but what can you do? (Note that the tanks are almost spherical, and the lower tank is wrapped around a "header tank" for RTLS propellant like in the current SpaceX BFR. The OV could be slightly wider without its tanks becoming a problem, which would help the diameter of the payload fairing ("Payload Module" in Kistler-speak, since the fairing section is detachable from the main OV) but anything more than about 5.2 meters and it rapidly starts trying to have tanks as long as they are wide. The sloping "interstage" isn't wasted, either--it's carried to space with the OV and used during entry as a "flare," acting like a badminton shuttlecock to pull the center of pressure aft and help stabilize the stage from turning engines-front. If the OV was closer in diameter to the LAP, the flare might need to be augmented with deployable aerosurfaces (flaps or fins) to help ensure it would keep the heatshield facing forward through the hottest parts of entry.

In short, once you're reusing everything and if you're building in small enough quantities, there's less need to optimize for construction. Instead, they optimized for a very particular set of idiosyncractic solutions. It's part of what makes the K-1 such an interesting, if compromised, vehicle to compare to the Falcon 9 or the BFR.

I could see a earlier swing to reusability from arianespace/esa. Maybe a change in the designe of the Ariane5 development planned in the 2005+. Or a scrap of that development a lot earlier with the faster start of Ariane6. Ariane6 development had some interesting plans. A full on solid rocket for first stage. Lots of side boosters a well.

We'll have to see! Ariane 6 underwent a lot of design variation until about 2014 (ironically just before SpaceX proved they were making some really conservative assumptions about if reuse was worth bothering with), so they may have some time to change their mind ITTL.

How good is the k-1 to gto?

Not great. Less than a ton as a single launch with an expendable hypergol kick stage. We've discussed on this thread some options for a dual-launch mission, which performs better (essentially F9 Block III performance for something like 30 to 40% lower cost), but the satellites would need to be custom-built for the Kistler payload module envelope and the operators would need to be sold on the larger complexity of the mission. Kistler was sized for LEO comsats, and it's thus a little small for anything else--which is why it makes an interesting companion to Falcon in the early period of SpaceX's development of re-usability.

 

[scretchy]

thanks for the long answer.

Hm, building only two lower stages sounds really risky. And if they ttl really plan to fly from the US and AUS two really look to be to few. But it really depens on how fast they can turn the craft around.

Dual launches always look nice on paper but I dont think to many companys would jump on it. To much complexity and im sure the insurance would be a lot than for a single flight. But if it works on a few showcases I could see them going to the classical dream of a fuel depot in orbit and a transfer stage.

Im not sure how long the price for dual launches would even be competitive when a few years later reused F9 comes along. And if spaceX sees a competition on reuseable flight hardware i could see an earlier push to try and reuse a F9 for the third time. Which hasnt even happend yet in otl. I'm still not sure why they havent even tried to fly a test or expendable payload on a refurbished reused first stage.

 

[IncongruousGoat]

Hm, building only two lower stages sounds really risky. And if they ttl really plan to fly from the US and AUS two really look to be to few. But it really depens on how fast they can turn the craft around.

It's worse than that. There are good odds that one of those stages will explode within its first few launches. Remember that the AJ-26 engines used on the K-1 are the same (and by the same, I mean literally the same physical hardware) as the engines used on the early Antares flights OTL. The same engines that caused the Orb-3 launch failure. Needless to say, sitting in a warehouse in Siberia for several decades is not good for engine hardware. Which begs the question: What are the odds that, given a launch failure involving an NK-33, Kistler will try and switch to using RD-181s? They've got better thrust and a deeper throttle than the NK-33, and buying engines from Russia won't become politically inconvenient until 2014.

Speaking of the RD-181, what's going to happen to Angara? As of 2008 the engine is developed and the hardware and facilities are under construction, although they won't be ready until 2014. Are we going to see a bigger push from Roscosmos to compete with not one, but two new foreign launch providers? Or are they going to be content to just roll over and die? Going by OTL the latter seems more likely, unfortunately.

 

[e of pi]

It's worse than that. There are good odds that one of those stages will explode within its first few launches. Remember that the AJ-26 engines used on the K-1 are the same (and by the same, I mean literally the same physical hardware) as the engines used on the early Antares flights OTL. The same engines that caused the Orb-3 launch failure. Needless to say, sitting in a warehouse in Siberia for several decades is not good for engine hardware. Which begs the question: What are the odds that, given a launch failure involving an NK-33, Kistler will try and switch to using RD-181s? They've got better thrust and a deeper throttle than the NK-33, and buying engines from Russia won't become politically inconvenient until 2014.

I've actually rolled those dice and know the answer to if, when, and how they might encounter issues with the engines. Their reaction, obviously, depends on when that happens, but the RD-181 is obviously one option.

I think the interest in the speculation is saying that I need to get 2009 written up so we can cover some of the threads like Augustine, Ares, DIRECT, Russia, ESA, and how Kistler effects them all. I'm aiming to have a post up today or tomorrow to start that, we'll see how much it ends up covering.

 

[fasquardon]

Im not sure how long the price for dual launches would even be competitive when a few years later reused F9 comes along.

This assumes that Kistler haven't moved on themselves by the time SpaceX have reuseable F9s.

An orbital depot would be a pretty interesting way to go.

One of the things Kistler might do is push down the profit margin on Falcon launches. So far as I am aware, SpaceX doesn't charge the minimum they're able to. They've had the margin to undercut competitors while still having significant margins of profit. That may mean SpaceX has less in the way of R&D funds and develops the Falcon series more slowly...

Then again, SpaceX aren't terribly transparent about what their real costs are (which isn't anything particularly new in the launch market), so it isn't clear if they could push prices down as far as they say they could, especially in the early days.

fasquardon

 

[Kloka]

How long will the US space gap,if any,be?