- Status
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=727<br /><br />Gwynne Shotwell the Vice President for Business Development of Space Exploration Technologies said that SpaceX would be more than happy to sale the Dragon Capsule to a third party and allow them to launch it on a Atlas or any other launcher.<br />
nuaetius;<br /><br />Nice one, beat me to it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Jim;<br /><br />Time to start listening to The Space Show. I highly recommend the shows with Bigelow, Benson and Musk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Don't see any third parties stepping out. That is just a off the cuff answer. Why would anyone want to fly Dragon on something other than a Falcon? This would imply that the Falcon is lacking something. If Dragon is successful, it means it was launched on a Falcon. Why would some one pay the extra expense to integrate Falcon on another vehicle when there is a "perfectly" good one that was flight proven with it.
<i>Time to start listening to The Space Show. I highly recommend the shows with Bigelow, Benson and Musk.</i><br /><br />All people with something to sell. It is yet to determined whether what they produce will match the sales pitch.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
Perhaps, perhaps not. Everyone has "something to sell" and a "sales pitch", particularly NASA....it's a distinction without a difference.<br /><br />At least <i>listening</i> to the interviews might prevent a case or two of foot-in-mouth disease when prostylizing about what someone will or won't do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"What's wrong with a centrally located, slightly wider window with the displays on either side (one for each flight crew member) or below it? If you need a view for docking that seems the most logical location, not what they have. That and/or a Soyuz (analog) or Erik's CCD periscope. Some CCD's even have night vision as with PixelVision's NV652 Night Video, which I would think is a plus. Odd that this page about it is on NASA's site."<br /><br /><br />Even the PixelVision camera on the NASA web page is overkill, although a few extra thousand dollars for a backside illuminated detector is peanuts in a multi-billion dollar program. However, low light television would not be necessary. A couple of high powered LEDs and they would have lots of light. I recently did calculations for space based CCDs with small lenses, little retroreflectors, low powered LEDs, and tens of meters distance and got sufficient signal to be clearly visible against sunlight clouds. All of this is pretty simple. <br /><br />And redundant CCD cameras would have much higher reliability than a mechanically extending periscope, not to mention being lighter and doing away with a penetration of the pressure vessel.<br /><br />
<i>> Don't see any third parties stepping out. That is just a off the cuff answer. Why would anyone want to fly Dragon on something other than a Falcon? This would imply that the Falcon is lacking something.</i><br /><br />Elon isn't going to sell SpaceX over commoditizing the product that is close at hand. Remember, he cut his teeth and made two fortunes in the hectic and failure-prone Internet Bubble. Jim, you are looking at this as an engineer, he is seeing it as a businessman and adventurer. Selling Dragons is early cash for the company - and he never said he was stopping after just building a launcher. He has said he wants to personally go to Mars and help others do the same. <br /><br />Dragon could be the "DC-3" of capsules in 5 years. Once finished development, SpaceX will be able to build Dragons much faster than Falcon rockets - they are less expensive per unit in materials and labor. Dragon development is in some ways further along than getting to Falcon 9. Ms. Shotwell is their biz-dev, whatever she says is probably The Law (after Elon). If the COTS flights are successful, they can build a production line to build large numbers of capsules. This will easily overwhelm SpaceX's rocket manufacturing capacity. Another reason to sell capsules include simple availability. If Falcon 9 isn't ready in 2008 or 09, flying COTS Dragon tests on Atlas would be a logical alternative, esp. in light of the Lockheed-Bigelow study. Atlas is available today. Mission requirements might require a different launcher- perhaps ATV, SunDancer or transfer stage is needed so you fly on something other than Falcon. If SpaceX can corner an early market as the "standard" 7-seat capsule, they will have a niche to exploit while perfecting Falcon.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
"paceX will be able to build Dragons much faster than Falcon rockets - they are less expensive per unit in materials and labor. .'<br /><br />Not so. Spacecraft are always more expensive than launch vehicles. More parts and more labor. also rockets are easier to produce. If falcon isn't ready, Atlas won't be for at least 2 years from the start of integration<br />
<i>>> "SpaceX will be able to build Dragons much faster than Falcon rockets - they are <b>less expensive per unit in materials and labor</b>. .'<br /><br /> />Not so. Spacecraft are always more expensive than launch vehicles. More parts and more labor. also rockets are easier to produce. If falcon isn't ready, Atlas won't be for at least 2 years from the start of integration</i><br /><br />SpaceX is building almost everything in-house. A Dragon capsule does not have a dozen high-performance rockets on-board, it is actually a fairly simple craft. In mass production, on a 1-1 comparison with Falcon 9, how can it not be cheaper for the company? This is going to be different from remote satellites, especially as they get into a second generation design: think of an assembly line. Iridium experience massive economies of scale by building the plant that built the satellites. I think that these crew capsules will follow a similar metric to comm-sats, in that the payload is 1-2X more expensive than the launcher at sale - even then you are talking a reusable capsule in the $30-80M range. And on the assembly line, I really do think the SpaceX will be able to produce more capsules than rockets, especially in the next 5-10 years - it's just a smaller, simpler object from the "we build it all ourselves" standpoint. They will have every incentive to lower production costs of both vehicles, and sell both to all customers. It's just good business. <br /><br />I'm not going to argue anymore on production costs, it's a company secret for them so we'll have to wait and see. What I do wonder, and this is why I think Atlas is interesting, is if they can make money producing and selling Dragons soon? <br /><br />Two years of integration time seems about right, which would put Dragon on Atlas in the 2010-2011 timeframe. They are saying Falcon 9 launch of "NASA Demo 1" on the manifest for Q3 '08, but that is almost guaranteed to slip. If they can perfect Dragon quickly with the infusion of <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
I would say there is a greater chance for reusability of the Dragon capsule than of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and reusability could influence average mission costs.
Presuming "mass production", at least in spacecraft terms, would you call it the "VolksDragon? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I agree; SpaceX could start a nice revenue stream by flying on Atlas. Might be fun watching a competition between it and the Dream Chaser. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
1. you have a false assuption, that they are going to sell more Dragons than F9's. It is the other way around. <br /><br />2. "Iridium experience"? That doesn't apply, they won't be anywhere near that flight rate, much less the flight rate of the Deltas that launched them.<br /><br />3. It is not a simpler object. It have more systems, parts and testing than a launch vehicle<br /><br />4. Atlas can't be used for COTS and spacex can't use all of the COTS money for dragon. That invalidates the space act agreement. F9 was part of the reason for spacex to be selected. Remember COTS is not about station resupply, otherwise there would have been different winners. Winners that could make it to the ISS<br />
If Elon starts slipping F9 dates he won't be meeting the Space Act dates and therefore, not getting the money<br /><br />Milestone 1: Project Management Plan Review Amount:$23,133,333<br />Milestone 2: Demo 1 System Requirements Review Amount$5,000,000<br />Milestone 3: Demo 1 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Amount:$18,133,333<br />Milestone 4: Financing Round 1 Amount:$10,000,000<br />Milestone 5: Demo 2 System Requirements Review Amount$31,133,333 <br />Milestone 6: Demo 1 System Critical Design Review Amount$8,133,333<br />Milestone 7: Demo 3 System Requirements Review Amount$22,333,333<br />Milestone 8: Demo 2 Preliminary Design Review Amount$21,133,333<br />Milestone 9: Demo 1 Readiness Review Amount$5,633,333<br />Milestone 10: Financing Round 2 Amount:$I0,000,000<br />Milestone 11: Demo 3 Preliminary Design Review Amount:$22,333,333<br />Milestone 12: Demo 2 System Critical Design Review Amount$21,133,333<br />Milestone 13: Demo 1 Mission Amount$5,633,333<br />Milestone 14: Demo 2 Readiness Review Amount$16,133,333<br />Milestone 15: Demo 3 System Critical Design Review Amount:$22,333,333<br />Milestone 16: Financing Round 3 Amount:$I0,000,000<br />Milestone 17: Demo 2 Mission Amount$6,133,333<br />Milestone 18: Demo 3 Readiness Review Amount$12,133,333<br />Milestone 19
emo 3 Mission Amount $7,333,333<br />
emo 3 Mission Amount $7,333,333<br /><font color="yellow">If Elon starts slipping F9 dates he won't be meeting the Space Act dates and therefore, not getting the money </font><br /><br />NASA's behavior re: RpK would indicate otherwise.<br /><br />IMO there are things working in favor of NASA bending over backwards for COTS, one being the cooling relations with Russia.<br /><br />I don't think either NASA or the politicians in either party want to see headlines that Russia has spanked the US by cutting off our post-shuttle ISS/LEO access because we've blown the reactor they're building for Iran or some other "infraction"; real, perceived or imaginary.<br /><br />You can't depend on Russian good will based on their behavior of late, period.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Comga said;<br /><br />I recently did calculations for space based CCDs with small lenses, little retroreflectors, low powered LEDs, and tens of meters distance and got sufficient signal to be clearly visible against sunlight clouds. All of this is pretty simple.<br /><br />And redundant CCD cameras would have much higher reliability than a mechanically extending periscope, not to mention being lighter and doing away with a penetration of the pressure vessel. </font><br /><br />Thank you! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Remember COTS is not about station resupply, otherwise there would have been different winners. Winners that could make it to the ISS <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So you're saying NASA is lying???<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA is making an unprecedented investment in commercial space transportation services with the hope of creating a competitive market for supply flights to the International Space Station (ISS).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If Elon starts slipping F9 dates<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It would seem a real possibility since F1 has slipped. Musk must ride a fine line of schedule and performance/mission success. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
"hope of creating a competitive market"<br /><br />That is COTS, <br />but more like a prayer but not of the "competitive market" but of whether a COTS entrant will be successful <br /><br />If NASA wanted COTS to guarantee that there will be will be capable contractor, then neither RPK or Spacex would have been selected. <br />It looks like this decision is going to bite NASA in the ass. Exploration Directorate didn't really consider the ISS needs. Just their needs to exclude Ares I competitors.<br />Who runs COTS II is up for contention
Neither you nor I know how many rockets or capsules SpaceX is planning to sell. I do know that as a business they have to plan to sell as many as they can build, as fast as possible after development, while iteratively driving down unit costs. The question is what kinds of economy of scale can they achieve, in production, ops or resale? How does this affect world launch rates and assumptions about payloads? <br /><br />Obviously SpaceX needs to develop the Falcon 9, both internally and for COTS. That in no way predicates them not flying on Atlas as well - and from a business perspective it's a no-brainer. They already know there's a market coming up for it.<br /><br />What in the world is COTS for if not station resupply?<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
Where does it say spacex is working with Atlas? <br /><br />"wo years of integration time seems about right, which would put Dragon on Atlas in the 2010-2011 timeframe"<br /><br />That timeline is for a comsat or NASA spacecraft not a manned spacecraft needing new GSE and manrating
Musk has stated that Atlas <i>is</i> an option for Dragon and that it is set up for both ISS and Bigelow. Makes one wonder if a troika is in the works. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I doubt he has even contacted ULA. He is too worried about F1 and F9 <br />"<br /> <br />Re: 4.5 meter Orion? [re: jimfromnsf][link to this post] <br />Reply to this postReply <br /><br />"Neither you nor I know how many rockets or capsules SpaceX is planning to sell."<br /><br />Doesn't matter what they plan, it is if they can. The market isn't that big.
"Musk has stated that Atlas is an option for Dragon and that it is set up for both ISS and Bigelow. Makes one wonder if a troika is in the works."<br /><br />He is only giving lip service. He HASN'T contacted Atlas. <br /><br />As for bigelow, things aren't that cozy either. <br /><br />So no troika<br />
<i>> He is only giving lip service. He HASN'T contacted Atlas. </i><br /><br />How can you possibly know who Elon has and has not talked to? Also, if you are refering to a non-cozy Bigelow-SpaceX relationship, please note the F9 for Bigelow on SpaceX's manifest. If you mean Bigelow-Lockheed, they have funded a study for access, nothing more or less. Do you know something factual, or is it all opinion? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
"I doubt he has even contacted ULA. He is too worried about F1 and F9"<br /><br />I really doubt that SpaceX will be a competitor for ULA either. Even if SpaceX hits every launch from here through the end of the decade they are only going to have 5-6 successful launches on each rocket. From what I can tell companies internationally use ULA rockets for high value loads, and Soyuz/Dnepr rockets for the lower cost items. SpaceX, if successful, will be the only discount carrier in the US, and would allow US companies to have access to low cost transport without having to deal with US laws restricting technology transfer. A successful SpaceX will probably not carry a James Webb Telescope to space any time in the next 20 years, but I think they could keep a full manifest with the American and European launches that are currently going international, and allow for some business models that just don’t make sense, like the refueling that Boeing wants to do.<br />
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Stars get ripped open like Christmas presents to create strange 'JuMBO' worlds
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram