What if SpaceX went bankrupt in 2006?
- Thread starter 3rdplanetfromsun
- Start date
-
- Tags
- space
Well, no not really. There was going to be an 'alternative' ISS cargo provider it just depended on who that would be. We have ULA, we have Antares, we had Kistler (sort-of) and Minitour and likely some others in the background if SpaceX does not exist. And that was (at the time) very much less about being 'beholden' to Russia as Administrator Griffin looking to divest NASA from having to directly support the ISS as he was aiming for Mars. It's less likely we'd see a manned vehicle (Orion was supposed to be that no matter what vehicle it flew on) but not out of the question as the cargo mission morphed into ISS crew support.
With SpaceX focused on "manned" flight we got a "cargo" capsule that was easily (in overall context) converted to a manned vehicle which was where SpaceX had been headed in the first place. Everyone else focused on the "letter of the law" instead of the general intent which was to eventually replace NASA having to support either crew or cargo to the ISS and had SpaceX failed that likely would have been more heavily emphasized as what was wanted. I suspect Boeing and LM would not have actually forwarded proposals in such a case since they would have more focused on what NASA wanted for its program.
So the door would have been open a bit wider for "other" suggestions which is why I noted we'd probably have a cargo/manned Dream Chaser instead of Dragon. (I did say that here didn't I? Can't find it so maybe not...)
Randy
Idk if kistler would succeed no matter how much money is thrown at them, either way they’ve gone bankrupt by Falcon 1 flight 4
Dream chaser just seems an intrinsically more complicated design even in its cargo form and wouldn’t get ready until the second half of the 2010s again not matter the funding they get, and it seems more complicated to use as a base for a crewed spacecraft.
Either way SpaceX already ate through $200 million of its CCdev funding by late 2008( vs $32 millions for Kistler at the time of its bankruptcy), funding which Is lost to any new competitor , and considering NASA’s funding issues at the time I’m not sure any second option could get serious funding going until ~2011
Dream chaser just seems an intrinsically more complicated design even in its cargo form and wouldn’t get ready until the second half of the 2010s again not matter the funding they get, and it seems more complicated to use as a base for a crewed spacecraft.
Either way SpaceX already ate through $200 million of its CCdev funding by late 2008( vs $32 millions for Kistler at the time of its bankruptcy), funding which Is lost to any new competitor , and considering NASA’s funding issues at the time I’m not sure any second option could get serious funding going until ~2011
Kistler needed a lot better management, (which got worse once Rocketplane got into the mix not better as was hoped) but it was the fact that a significant majority of NASA management wanted them to succeed that I see moving things forward if SpaceX were to fail. As for Dream Chaser yes it's more complicated but it is also very much what NASA said they wanted rather than a 'capsule' design. There's a reason its hung around as long as it has even though it keeps "losing" selection rounds.
In context if SpaceX had failed then NASA is pretty much stuck with Kistler (at least initially) and a LOT of incentive to make it work and there was probably enough industry support for COTS to keep it funded. Yes it's going to impact Constellation but that was actually Ok with Congress since it kept NASA limited. Congress didn't actually mind that we were paying for seats on Soyuz until about 2014 or that NASA didn't have it's own launcher anymore.
I'm probably being too optimistic really since the most likely outcome is that COTS is considered a failure with SpaceX going under and a 'different' program being proposed that ends up paying LM and/or Boeing to deliver cargo to the ISS with no manned component in the wings until after 2014.
Randy
In context if SpaceX had failed then NASA is pretty much stuck with Kistler (at least initially) and a LOT of incentive to make it work and there was probably enough industry support for COTS to keep it funded. Yes it's going to impact Constellation but that was actually Ok with Congress since it kept NASA limited. Congress didn't actually mind that we were paying for seats on Soyuz until about 2014 or that NASA didn't have it's own launcher anymore.
I'm probably being too optimistic really since the most likely outcome is that COTS is considered a failure with SpaceX going under and a 'different' program being proposed that ends up paying LM and/or Boeing to deliver cargo to the ISS with no manned component in the wings until after 2014.
Randy