Re:Splashdown NASA’s Orion Returns to Earth After Historic M...
by JumpCrisscross on Monday December 12, 2022 @05:28AM
(#33953089)
> SpaceX suddenly going out of business (as in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy) seems rather unlikely. The same is true of ULA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin
SpaceX is not critical to national security, and it—many times—came close to bankruptcy in its adolescence of the early 2010s. Aerospace, in the past, saw massive recessions where companies larger than SpaceX went poof. This will almost certainly happen again, once we’re done tooling up for China.
Re:Splashdown NASA’s Orion Returns to Earth After Historic M...
by areoform on Monday December 12, 2022 @01:31PM
(#33958273)
It didn't use to be. But as soon as they started launching national security payloads on the Falcon Heavy and the Delta IV Heavy retired, they became the only heavy-lift launch vehicle on the market capable of taking up national security payloads. Until Vulcan/Centaur enters the game.
Re:Splashdown NASA’s Orion Returns to Earth After Historic M...
by skissane on Monday December 12, 2022 @07:15PM
(#33962569)
> Aerospace, in the past, saw massive recessions where companies larger than SpaceX went poof
Which specific firms are you talking about going bankrupt here? Were those bankruptcies chapter 11 or chapter 7?
SpaceX suddenly going out of business (as in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy) seems rather unlikely. The same is true of ULA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. Absolute worse case scenario would be Chapter 11, in which the business continues to operate under new ownership, and the current owners lose everything – but even that doesn't seem that likely. Anyway, the chapter 11 scenario is still a risk with the cost-plus procurement SLS model – Boeing (or Aerojet Rocketdyne, or Lockheed Martin) going through chapter 11 might not have doomed SLS/Orion, but it likely would have caused delays. In fact, it is open to doubt whether SLS/Orion-style cost-plus contracting has any real advantage over commercial from a bankruptcy risk perspective, for two competing commercial providers must have less bankruptcy risk than a single non-commercial government contractor
> 2. having backup launch capability
Multiple commercial providers, like they've pursued for commercial cargo and crew to ISS, and are still planning to pursue for Artemis HLS, would meet that just as well as an SLS-style program could. Given they likely could have afforded at least two commercial systems for the cost of SLS+Orion, it seems this actually gives worse backup than commercial does.
> 3. maintaining more relevant talent in the US
This doesn't seem relevant, given that the most likely firms to have provided NASA with a commercial SLS alternative – SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Sierra Nevada, etc – are all US firms anyway. In fact, IIRC, the NASA procurement documents for commercial crew and cargo, and Artemis HLS, all said only US firms could respond. ITAR makes it a lot harder for US space firms to offshore jobs than most other industries.
> 4. maintaining institutional knowledge of cutting edge aerospace tech
While it is true that NASA doesn't own the engineering for the commercial programs, in the way they own SLS engineering, NASA engineers are still heavily involved in the commercial programs, for review/advice/consulting/sign-off/etc. This factor is the most plausible of all those you've mentioned, but it is unclear if having somewhat deeper engineering expertise among NASA employees (as opposed to US private sector space firms) is important enough to justify a procurement approach which costs billions over and above its commercial alternative
> 5. maintaining aerospace industrial capability in the US
This doesn't seem relevant for the same reasons as (3)