Is anyone playing catch-up to SpaceX?

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).

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 a Capital to Invest, Actual Industrial Secrets, Patent Laws or what?

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..

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 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?

Regards
Frank

In article ,
says...
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 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?


Both the Europeans and the Chinese are dabbling with creating their own
vertical landing launch vehicle first stages.

Here in the US, Blue Origin seems to be the only real contender that's
building a large launch vehicle that's designed to land and reuse its
first stage.

Russia is doing absolutely nothing with regards to reuse that I can see.
Same for India and Japan, as far as I can tell.

That covers all the "big players" in the global launch industry.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

wrote in message
...

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 a 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-Resp...dp/1484221834/

On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 5:12:05 AM UTC+2, Greg (Strider) Moore

stuff snipped

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

Let see, what is the success rate on mid-air intercepts of things heavier and more bulky that film cartridges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval

Better than I thought, but still way too many failures being reported to consider the tech (or technique) to be any more than a Hollywood stunt.

It would probably be safer (and cheaper) to just leave the engines attached to the booster and make the parachutes deploy in such a fashion that the fuel tanks get to act as a crumple zone.

Retrieving hundreds of kilograms of fast moving metal in mid-air can not be the best solution. I suspect it can't even BE A SOLUTION.


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

Wikipedia article mentions target drones from the early Cold War era. Empty mass of 680 kgs. Sounds big. But it is a whole aircraft with all its wings and fuel tanks and stuff slowing its fall down. An rocket engine or a block of them is just heavy machinery going terminal velocity.

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.

I'm interested to see what Starship turns out like. I suspect there might still be a lot of feature-slippage as the reality of the difficult of the task becomes apparent.



more snipped
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

Regards
Frank