"The point is to get missions out the door as fast as possible. Two to three years is too slow."
See full article...
See full article...
Pentagon buyer: We’re happy with our launch industry, but payloads are lagging
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
First, platforms ("buses" in the vernacular) are not able to be a "one size fits all". Optical platforms need significantly greater stability than communications platforms thus the magnetic torque rods and reaction wheels for the former are different from the reaction control system and momentum wheels of the latter. (In LEO it is possible to use magnetic torque rods to help keep and optical platform stable while unloading the reaction wheels [those platforms have existed] while you can use the thrusters in the RCS to help off load the momentum wheels for communications platforms. Thruster unloading is less stable, but communication platforms don't need the stability optical platforms do.)
There are many, many trade offs like that when choosing a bus.
Could there be a few "standard" buses? Yes. Maybe a dozen or so. But will everyone build to that standard? I doubt it.
As an example in the computer technology world: Just look at the USB "Standard". Virtually everyone claims to build hardware to the USB Standards, but there are so many optional elements to that set of "standards" that every once in a while one piece of "USB Standards Compliant" hardware will absolutely NOT talk to another "USB Standards Compliant" hardware.
For a few years it looked like everyone was slowly gravitating to the 937 and 1194 adapters (with extended variants), but even that consolidation has been left in the dust.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
While your statement shows a profound ignorance of the U.S. military operations (e.g. USAF gets some Army stuff there quickly, whereas sealift gets a buttload there eventually), I have proposed the USSF buying 24 Falcon 9 boosters. They would be in 2 squadrons of 12 each on each coast, and available for either Conventional Prompt Strike missions or orbital launch with appropriate commercial second stages. Then people keep warning me that using F-9s for CPS would look a lot like an ICBM launch… And, commercial is always cheaper than gov’t, so maybe just leave the space trucking to the space trucking companies.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
That's pretty much how satellites are already built. Every major company has their standard satellite buses that uses common parts and you attach a payload to it. The major variance is in size class. It's the interplanetary stuff that tends to be more bespoke/built from scratch.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
In addition to the answers others have given you, I think you are also missing that K2 Space and Apex Space are likely to be the companies winning the contracts for mass produced payloads, not simply trying to sell to the winners. Having an in house satellite bus design already in hand will almost always give an advantage in bidding against people who would either have to buy or develop their own from scratch.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
But sovereign launch isn't about market dominance. ULA wasn't competitive in the worldwide launch market, but they helped ensure the US government could launch important payloads on its own terms, not another country's. For the great powers of the world, it makes sense to maintain a certain level of capability.
That said, investments for in-space products are also important. If the ESA invests as much into new tech like propulsion as NASA does into the SLS, that would really advance humanity's capabilities.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
It's not about manifest destiny. It's about China being, well, China. See this:
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
That plot device is still valid. We have (one company providing) copious launch capacity to LEO. The Martian required launch capacity to the Martian surface. Curiosity and Perseverance are 1t to the surface, for 4t to TMI, which is just barely in the capability of an expended Falcon 9. SpaceX could expend one in an emergency, but they only plan to replace a few every year. And you still need a cruise stage and lander.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Because you won’t have much autonomy if you can’t get those payloads to orbit.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
But for how much longer?
(And I bet they could launch a Falcon Heavy pretty quickly for a bit better numbers.)
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
That still only gets you halfway there. You need a cruise stage and a lander.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
One week? That’s cute. Only if you have payloads and busses sitting in inventory and you absolutely gut testing requirements.
Maybe you get a vehicle assembled and tested in a week if it’s a small vehicle and a week means 7 days and you work 3 shifts…but not if you require TVAC or 3-axis vibe. TVAC alone will cost you at least 24-36 hours between set up, pump down, a single hot/cold cycle, return to ambient, and break down.
Starlinks are simple by comparison to some of these vehicles, and SpaceX barely gives a crap about testing. They can do that when they are their own customer and own the rockets. Ever read the updated Falcon 9 User Guide? They require the very testing a one week timeline means removing or gutting.
Also, you’ll need to carry inventory of components. This stuff isn’t Amazon Prime eligible. You don’t order your thrusters or reaction wheels or avionics or comm gear and get it in two days. Those subcontractors generally make stuff to order rather than carry their own inventory, because inventory represents money tied up.
You order your thrusters? That’s going to need valves made, etc. That doesn’t happen overnight. It’s easily months between order and delivery.
If I were the owner of a space company I’d tell the general “sure, I can get close to a week - but you’re paying for me to hold inventory. You may not want to be my R&D arm anymore, but you’re going to be my logistics arm. I’m not holding tens of millions of dollars in inventory, hoping your pick my company instead of a competitor.”
Maybe you get a vehicle assembled and tested in a week if it’s a small vehicle and a week means 7 days and you work 3 shifts…but not if you require TVAC or 3-axis vibe. TVAC alone will cost you at least 24-36 hours between set up, pump down, a single hot/cold cycle, return to ambient, and break down.
Starlinks are simple by comparison to some of these vehicles, and SpaceX barely gives a crap about testing. They can do that when they are their own customer and own the rockets. Ever read the updated Falcon 9 User Guide? They require the very testing a one week timeline means removing or gutting.
Also, you’ll need to carry inventory of components. This stuff isn’t Amazon Prime eligible. You don’t order your thrusters or reaction wheels or avionics or comm gear and get it in two days. Those subcontractors generally make stuff to order rather than carry their own inventory, because inventory represents money tied up.
You order your thrusters? That’s going to need valves made, etc. That doesn’t happen overnight. It’s easily months between order and delivery.
If I were the owner of a space company I’d tell the general “sure, I can get close to a week - but you’re paying for me to hold inventory. You may not want to be my R&D arm anymore, but you’re going to be my logistics arm. I’m not holding tens of millions of dollars in inventory, hoping your pick my company instead of a competitor.”
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
This idiot - another powerful bald headed middle aged white man with the mind of a seven year old. You like Mickey Mouse and baby Yoda? Fine but you're going to hang those in your office where you control billions of dollars of military spending? What a tit.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
And all of that is what he is talking about changing.
Given the pace at which tech is moving in the Ukraine war, a week might be too late in a future conflict.
I recall when experts solemnly stated that stacking rocket took months and couldn’t be done faster.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Are you suggesting the pace of weapons development in Ukraine is faster than that seen in other major conflicts in the past few centuries? The only difference today is that all that minor tweaking and all those failed dead ends are livestreamed.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The reaction of certain NATO force commanders to exercises with the Ukranians - take their drones and Starlink access away so we can have a proper exercise.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
This makes me think that the other funding methods do not give the government an equity stake; they are more like grants.
It might be better to crow about funding rounds and valuations is the government actually had direct skin in the game. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about how much additional money other investors are willing to throw at them; at that point, I only care about results.
I would like to see my tax dollars either:
A) multiply, as the valuation of an invested company goes up, and then either goes IPO or is bought by another company, or
B) Produce something really cool that somehow advances technology as a whole; 20 kW hall effect thrusters are pretty cool, especially if they can provide >2N of thrust. Genericized bus platforms that expand/scale up the CubeSat concept to open up payload accessibility as much as has already been done for launch availability is also pretty cool; it reduces the cost (and thus risk) for experimenting with orbital manufacturing, for instance.
I have no problem with the fact that some of these ventures won't produce anything - that' just R&D in general. But unless the government has a stake, I don't care about valuations.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Well, maybe 2/3rds of the way there; If I recall correctly, he had to provide his own lander (well, launcher at least), and that probably would have been valid for a mission launched from Earth if time didn't permit.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
"One kind of payload Purdy identified was infrared sensors. Infrared sensors often come with cryocoolers to chill detectors to temperatures cold enough to provide sensitivity to faint targets, such as distant missile plumes, fires, explosions, or other objects in space. The technology isn’t as eye-catching as a rocket launch, but it will be key to many Space Force programs, including the Golden Dome missile defense shield backed by the Trump administration."
Did you catch that, kids? There's money to be made. Quit doomscrolling Insta, put that phone down, and get crackin!
Did you catch that, kids? There's money to be made. Quit doomscrolling Insta, put that phone down, and get crackin!
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Unless he does a wholesale rewrite of SMC-S-016/SSC-S-016, he can say whatever he wants and it won't matter because that document spells out what tests you must do at the unit, subsystem, and system levels. What he's talking about is blanket tailoring where every program tailors testing to "I put it together, ran functional tests to check connectivity, ran a single axis random vibe and another round of functional tests to verify the connectors were mated properly, and then shipped it."
That can be done if the Space Force orders 50/100/150+ of the same design with absolutely no changes. You make the first vehicle a "Pathfinder" and run a full qual campaign with functional tests, performance tests, and environmental tests. The others are just 'build to print' and the customer assumes the risk that manufacturing and assembly is good enough that any skipped tests would have passed anyways.
But you can't get around the supply chain issues. Thrusters, avionics, radios, etc., are complicated items that are made to order. So, sure, you can get payloads and busses built quickly, so long as companies carry inventory of piece parts. Which they won't unless they're paid to. Inventory = money that could be used for other things. Inventory = storage space that costs money to build, maintain, replace, staff, keep clean, keep at the right temperature, keep at the right humidity, etc. You don't just stash flight hardware in an Amazon warehouse. Inventory = risk that must be insured (i.e., you spend money insuring) because what happens if there's an earthquake or a fire or a flood or whatever? Inventory = money that might go to waste because some other company comes out with a new widget that's as good as yours, or better, and cheaper.
These are not cheap items. My avionics computers cost several hundred thousand dollars each. You don't just take a Raspberry Pi and put it in space. Why so expensive? Because they're used for nothing else but space flight. You have to use space-rated components to build them. Which means components that are built and tested to exacting standards, and which not many are built...so they're expensive. Then not many of the avionics are built, and they have to be tested to exacting standards, so you have to jack the price up to cover the cost of all the people and infrastructure involved, plus profit margin. There's no way my vendor is going to keep, conservatively, $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 of parts, labor, and overhead costs just sitting on the shelf unless they're paid for it.
There's an old saying that 9 women can't make a baby in a month. Even if you throw 3 shifts at space vehicle assembly you can't get to a one week cadence on any satellite bigger than a cubesat unless you have vendors keeping inventory and you gut testing requirements. Vendors are not going to keep inventory unless they're paid for it - without money it shifts all the risk to them, but gives them no reward/incentive.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Most countries don’t manufacture commercial aircraft.
Most don’t maintain domestic nuclear industries.
Many can’t build modern main battle tanks.
They made strategic choices.
Autonomy has a cost, and nations decide carefully which layers of the stack are worth owning.
The same logic applies to space.
A small number of mid-sized countries chose to invest early in drone technology and now derive disproportionate strategic and economic leverage from that decision. They didn’t build everything, they built something critical. With it and the underlying technologies, they can barter to jump the line and get a medium launch slot faster than countries that only have cash. That probably includes Iran.
Be a country spending cash nurturing a launch industry over the next ten years, and all you will have to show for it, is less cash and an industrial base disadvantaged by that choice.
Last edited:
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Wise words and exactly right. I wonder if the people in the room at the time realized this, and thought he was dreaming, or did it make sense somehow?
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Since they're in mass production, they can serialize testing as required and maintain WIP supply chain just fine. They don't need to do configuration changes within a week or even a month to launch in comms land. Of course there will be running changes and design iteration going on, but that's manufacturing. The volume on the comms side, however, does support a faster time-to-customization of Starshield payloads because they already have the bus with scaled back comms as the baseline. And integrating the secret squirrel subsystem(s) probably isn't a week from factory door delivery to racked, stacked, and waiting on a booster assignment.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
“Unless he does a wholesale rewrite of SMC-S-016/SSC-S-016, he can say whatever he wants and it won't matter because that document spells out what tests you must do at the unit, subsystem, and system levels.”
The process says no.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
SpaceX is building hundreds of Starlink satellites at a time of the exact same design, which is a criteria I said matters.
SpaceX also can follow whatever standards they want for much of their design and build - they own the satellites and the launch vehicle. Their own Falcon 9 User Guide requires customers to perform all manner of testing on their vehicles, and share the information with SpaceX for SpaceX to review and determine if it’s good enough, that make 1 week “order to stacking” infeasible.
SpaceX is only on the hook for complying with AFSPCMAN 91-710 and some other range safety stuff the Space Force requires to use Canaveral or Vandenberg when it comes to Starlink. I didn’t mention those standards, but range safety reviews take months because there are only so many people. But even if everyone was waiting to review your documents it would take days to chop through. Those artifacts can be hundreds of pages.
Their moment SpaceX gets handed a list of a few dozen compliance documents and an order for 12-24 satellites that require custom design, I guarantee you they won’t be rolling them off the line in a year, much less a week.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)