<p><font size="2"><font size="2">Low costs, high hopes for SpaceX</font></font></p><p><font size="2">SpaceX to delay launch, pleased with its place in competitive field</font></p><font size="2"><p>Rocket builder Elon Musk drew a crowd of several hundred aerospace executives and engineers Wednesday to hear his plan to revitalize the U.S. launch industry.</p><p>Seen by many as the new face of the rocket industry, Internet entrepreneur Musk began his rocket endeavor in 2002 and built a rocket, the Falcon 1, that was launched successfully last year. He plans to launch the first of a larger version of that rocket, the 188-foot Falcon 9, this summer from Cape Canaveral. That's a bit later than an earlier timetable, which had the launch set for spring.</p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
- Status
<p><strong>Launch vehicle selected by NASA to replace the cargo transportation function of the Space Shuttle conducts launch pad system checks in preparation for test flight later this year</strong></p><p>HAWTHORNE, CA – January 12, 2009 – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) announced its Falcon 9 launch vehicle was successfully raised to vertical on Saturday, January 10, 2009, at Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) in Cape Canaveral, Florida — two days ahead of schedule. This operation was a critical step in validating a variety of system interfaces and launch processes in preparation for the maiden flight of Falcon 9 later this year.</p><p>“Any engineered system has requirements that can only be recognized through actual assembly of real hardware,” stated Brian Mosdell, Director of Florida Launch Operations for SpaceX. “This rapid integration and stand-up provided our engineers and technicians with invaluable insights that will greatly streamline our effort towards the first Falcon 9 launch in 2009.”</p><p>SpaceX completed the Falcon 9 vehicle integration in a horizontal position on December 30, 2008. After integration, Falcon 9 was lifted and mated to a transporter erector system, designed and built by SpaceX, which carried the 17 foot diameter, 180 foot long rocket to the launch pad. On January 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM EST, SpaceX began the process of raising Falcon 9 and approximately 30 minutes later, Falcon 9 stood vertical at the Cape.</p><p>“This entire process has helped us validate key interfaces and operations prior to executing our launch campaign with the vehicle in its final flight configuration,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. “We encountered no show-stoppers or significant delays. I am highly confident that we will achieve our goal of being able to go from hangar to liftoff in under 60 minutes, which would be a big leap forward in capability compared with the days to weeks required of other launch vehicles.”</p><p>This latest accomplishment follows closely on a series of recent successes for SpaceX. In November 2008, SpaceX successfully conducted a full mission duration firing of Falcon 9, validating SpaceX's use of nine engines on the first stage, as well as the ability to shut down engines without affecting the remaining engines. In December 2008, NASA selected the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft as the primary means of transporting cargo to and from the International Space Station after the Space Shuttle retires in 2010.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>This is the most interesting quote from that article linked above. </p><p>" </p><p>John Insprucker, the Falcon 9 product manager, formerly worked in the Air Force overseeing Titan, Delta and Atlas rocket programs. The comparison is striking, he said. </p><p>"Changing a design can be measured, in the extreme, as taking hours at SpaceX and potentially years in the Air Force," Insprucker said. "SpaceX can control the pace and priorities of Falcon 9 development and can be more firmly in control of its destiny.""</p>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what I love most about SpaceX... I absolutely know the big boys in this game work on that principle and this is why all the "old skoolers" dispise SpaceX. I plan to fly out when they do give a launch date. I hope to see some people there.RocketScientist327 will bring and supply all "test articles"VRRS327 <br /> Posted by rocketscientist327</DIV><br />This is why I prefer prizes and competitions compared to the old way of doing things. NASA is simply buying a service just like when someone buys a seat on an airplane - since most jet airliners move at about the same speed it doesn't matter what jet the airline puts you on as so long as it gets you to your destination. Without the need for a literal act of Congress to make a change to the system, companies like SpaceX can be more responsive to new data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what I love most about SpaceX... I absolutely know the big boys in this game work on that principle and this is why all the "old skoolers" dispise SpaceX. I plan to fly out when they do give a launch date. I hope to see some people there.RocketScientist327 will bring and supply all "test articles"VRRS327 <br /> Posted by rocketscientist327</DIV></p><p>I agree. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is why I prefer prizes and competitions compared to the old way of doing things. NASA is simply buying a service just like when someone buys a seat on an airplane - since most jet airliners move at about the same speed it doesn't matter what jet the airline puts you on as so long as it gets you to your destination. Without the need for a literal act of Congress to make a change to the system, companies like SpaceX can be more responsive to new data. <br /> Posted by PistolPete</DIV></p><p>It is also far more risky, and NASA absolutely has an adverse relationship with risk. As witness that it took some 4 different launches of the Falcon I before spacex got it correct. Also, and even more, witness the more experienced (but far less experienced that either Boeing or LM, or even the combination in ULA) Orbital Sciences and their latest problem.</p><p>On the other hand to my knowledge there has been absolutely no failures of the Delta II used by NASA for launch after launch of its Mars and other probes. The last failure of such a launch (and that was non NASA) occurred before I retired in the year 2000. The Delta II system is either the most reliable or nearly the most reliable such launch system in the world. There have been no failures of the system in the last 75 launches!!</p><p>And that is why NASA uses the Delta II for such greatly important launches as almost every Mars vehicle launch that NASA has made. After all, it is difficult enough to get a working space craft to Mars without the launch system failing to even get the system into orbit in the first place!</p><p>I had actually worked in manufacturing Quality Assurance for Rocketdyne for most of my 37.5 years of working career, and I can tell you now that reliability of such systems as rocket engines IS far more important than ANY cost!! It makes no difference at all just how inexpensive such a system is, if it even fails even as little as 10% of the time!</p><p>And while I wish them all the luck in the world, NONE of the newer alt.space outfits comes even close to the kind of reliability that backs up such as ULA, NONE!</p><p>Even Elon Musk himself has had to admit that getting a working launch system off to a reliable start is far more difficult than he originally thought it was going to be. Such an admission does bode well for his efforts however, for realizing just what you are up against is the first step in overcoming what you are up against!</p><p>Unlike some of the people here, I am not against the newer alt.space companies. but unlike even more people here, neither am I against the more experienced companies either! Having been one of the some 400,000 workers that put men on the moon I can be idealistic and fully support ALL such launch efforts. I believe that I state an absolute truth when I say that for spacex to establish the kind of reliability records of the more experienced launch companies (including the Russians) spacex is going to have to have quite a few successful launches of their much larger Falcon 9 system. And this is going to have to be done while at the same time keeping far lower costs, a very large challenge!</p><p>Even if some people here do not seem to want to realize this! </p><p>And we have not even left earth orbit since Apollo, not because of NASA or ANY of its contractors, but because of the incredible stupidity of a government that would rather fight wars and blow holes in rice paddies in South Eastern Asia, or blow holes in the deserts of the Middle East, than develop a true space faring civilization! </p><p>If Von Braun had continued to get the kind of support that the greatest space program in history should have had, we would have colonies on both the moon AND Mars by now! It is NOT the fault of either NASA nor its contractors that we are now in the situation in space development that we are now in, but in the absolutely stupid human waste of war!! </p><p>And until that kind of stupidity changes mankind is eventually (and sooner than many are aware of) doomed!!</p><p>IF that particular problem was over come and NASA given even a budget of only half (1% average) of what we had back in the 1960's (2%), then there would be far more work for all companies, experienced and alt.space together, and we (the US) could then lead the entire world into a true space faring civilization before humanity totally uses up this spaceship Earth!</p><p>And THAT is THE real problem.............. </p><p>I really do not know just how to solve that, does anybody?</p><p>Oh, by the way, launch costs of even the ELV and EELV systems are already far less than 10% of an actual spacecraft, whether a commercial satellite, or a human launch to the ISS! And with so much competition for so few new launches, once again, reliability is absolute king over cost! </p><p>However, I still wish spacex all the success in the world, in particular as I live in Southern California myself, and their success (along with such as t-space and sealed composites) is vital to a long overdue revival in aerospace in this area! </p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p>Well, prizes DO infer a rush to launch. However, Musk is trying to start a tourism business, not an ISS supply business. So, to do that, he needs the MOST reliable rockets. </p><p>The money is in tourism.Otherwise, the market to LEO and what not is FLAT. </p><p>I have used the Delta II as an example many times. It is the Delta II, not the Delta I and so on and so forth. Delta II emerged in 1989, not 1969. I could go on. </p><p>Musk is doing very well for a build it from cold steel company. PLUS, his other companies, most notably Tesla cars show a great deal of insight. </p><p>Most importantly, Musk NOW has the Billion plus dollars needed to actually run the show, thanks to winning the CRS. I look for big things, in terms of dependable rockets, and BIGGER rockets from Elon Musk. </p><p>Here are ALL of the details on the Delta program. It gives the launches and failures for each type or Delta Rocket. </p><p> http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delta.htm</p><p>The series of interest are the Delta 6000 and 7000. I can find 2 early failures in the Delta 2 ( 7000 series ). That comes after THIRTY years of Delta rocket family development. NOW, they have had a spotless record that since those early Delta II failures. They actually have the dates and the details for ALL of the launches. </p>
<h2><font size="1">Wiki confirms the site noted above. It goes on to say that the Delta II is the second most reliable vehicle. </font></h2><p> </p><p><span class="mw-headline">Delta II launches</span></p> <table border="0" class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content"> <tbody><tr> <td class="mbox-image"> <div style="width:52px"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Ambox_outdated_serious.svg/40px-Ambox_outdated_serious.svg.png" border="0" alt="" width="40" height="40" /></div>
<p>http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/reliability2007.txt</p><p>Here is a nearly complete list of the reliability of ALL rockets. I see that Delta has only 134 launches on this list, so it is not quite up to date. It is very close though. </p>
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch
I think there is some confusion here as to what Elon Musk and Spacex is doing. Spacex is NOT in the space tourist business. That is Burt Rutan with Virgin Galactic. Spacex is developing private launch systems and their Dragon vehicle which is cargo and man rated. This vehicle is for business and serious scientific study not space tourism. Spacex is preparing Dragon to be a companion vehicle to Constellation giving the United States more abillity to deliver in the manned flight and cargo areas.
I think there is some confusion here as to what Elon Musk and Spacex is doing. Spacex is NOT in the space tourist business. That is Burt Rutan with Virgin Galactic. Spacex is developing private launch systems and their Dragon vehicle which is cargo and man rated. This vehicle is for business and serious scientific study not space tourism. Spacex is preparing Dragon to be a companion vehicle to Constellation giving the United States more abillity to deliver in the manned flight and cargo areas.
Re: SpaceX, Delta II, and historical aerospace development
I appreciate your strong opinions but I think you overstate your case and overlook some important evidence.
Is it fair to compare Delta II to the Falcon I? The Delta II is the legacy of the Thor rocket and Agena spacecraft. And Thor had an awful record of launch failures before all the bugs got worked out. So far the success of Falcon I is far exceeding the troubled Thor.
And SpaceX had better set a better record. They have the benefit of the knowledge of the pioneers of the rocket age plus all the tools of the information-technology revolution. SpaceX isn't trying to develop a difficult original technology, instead the goal is just duplicating existing capability but with a lower cost. So far SpaceX is succeeding at lower costs than the legacy competition.
I think you are most off when you blame warfare for impeding the expansion of mankind into space. In fact the horrible conflicts and military tensions of the 20th century is what has pushed aerospace so quickly from Kittyhawk in 1903 all the way to the Moon by 1969. That fact is why today so many space fans hopelessly pine away for a new space-race with China.
When "War of the Worlds" was first published, space travel was considered a hopeless fantasy by people of good judgement. Even the dreamers anticipated it might take hundreds of years before reaching the Moon. The push that the Great War gave to aviation followed so quickly by World War II which pushed rocketry and nuclear weapons is what set the stage for the Cold War, on which played the drama of Sputnik and the Moon Race. Without WWI, WWII and the Cold War, I doubt we would have achieved manned spaceflight by 2009, let alone reached the moon.
A world without the terrible history of the 20th century makes for interesting speculation and a great set-up for a novel of alternate history. I imagine the great empires of the late 19th century would still be intact in the 21st century, and advanced transportation would more likely focus on the oceans and underwater travel rather than space travel. Aviation would probably be dominated by airships instead of fixed and rotary winged aircraft. But we will never know.
frodo1008":3miqds9q said:
I appreciate your strong opinions but I think you overstate your case and overlook some important evidence.
Is it fair to compare Delta II to the Falcon I? The Delta II is the legacy of the Thor rocket and Agena spacecraft. And Thor had an awful record of launch failures before all the bugs got worked out. So far the success of Falcon I is far exceeding the troubled Thor.
And SpaceX had better set a better record. They have the benefit of the knowledge of the pioneers of the rocket age plus all the tools of the information-technology revolution. SpaceX isn't trying to develop a difficult original technology, instead the goal is just duplicating existing capability but with a lower cost. So far SpaceX is succeeding at lower costs than the legacy competition.
I think you are most off when you blame warfare for impeding the expansion of mankind into space. In fact the horrible conflicts and military tensions of the 20th century is what has pushed aerospace so quickly from Kittyhawk in 1903 all the way to the Moon by 1969. That fact is why today so many space fans hopelessly pine away for a new space-race with China.
When "War of the Worlds" was first published, space travel was considered a hopeless fantasy by people of good judgement. Even the dreamers anticipated it might take hundreds of years before reaching the Moon. The push that the Great War gave to aviation followed so quickly by World War II which pushed rocketry and nuclear weapons is what set the stage for the Cold War, on which played the drama of Sputnik and the Moon Race. Without WWI, WWII and the Cold War, I doubt we would have achieved manned spaceflight by 2009, let alone reached the moon.
A world without the terrible history of the 20th century makes for interesting speculation and a great set-up for a novel of alternate history. I imagine the great empires of the late 19th century would still be intact in the 21st century, and advanced transportation would more likely focus on the oceans and underwater travel rather than space travel. Aviation would probably be dominated by airships instead of fixed and rotary winged aircraft. But we will never know.
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
I just heard that they've grounded the shuttle. It's time to take advantage and step into the gap at least for cargo. Let's get Falcon 9 ready. ( to be honest I don't think that cutting corners is the answer but getting the first falcon 9 off the ground would show everyone spacex means business.)
I just heard that they've grounded the shuttle. It's time to take advantage and step into the gap at least for cargo. Let's get Falcon 9 ready. ( to be honest I don't think that cutting corners is the answer but getting the first falcon 9 off the ground would show everyone spacex means business.)
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
NASA's PR nightmare - on successive days;
Ares I-X shakes itself into oblivion or breaks in half at the interstage, or both
Falcon 9 flight 1 goes off perfectly, looking pretty all the way up
News at 6
NASA's PR nightmare - on successive days;
Ares I-X shakes itself into oblivion or breaks in half at the interstage, or both
Falcon 9 flight 1 goes off perfectly, looking pretty all the way up
News at 6
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
Personally I hope Ares I-X stays a hangar queen. Cut our losses now and put them into man-rating Atlas V or Delta IV.
Keep Shelby and ATK happy by using something akin to Shuttle C/Ares IV as a heavy lifter. Without a TPS to damage the foam shedding becomes a non issue.
If Dragon works let it be the LEO taxi, ISS escape and whatever other job SpaceX comes up with. The Checker Marathon of LEO
Personally I hope Ares I-X stays a hangar queen. Cut our losses now and put them into man-rating Atlas V or Delta IV.
Keep Shelby and ATK happy by using something akin to Shuttle C/Ares IV as a heavy lifter. Without a TPS to damage the foam shedding becomes a non issue.
If Dragon works let it be the LEO taxi, ISS escape and whatever other job SpaceX comes up with. The Checker Marathon of LEO
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
Scrapping Ares 1 would mean the managerial structure NASA admitting it was wrong. After so long of insisting Ares I is the decided cut-in-stone future, and after so much feuding with the DIRECT folks, I'm not sure they are willing to make that admission.
Scrapping Ares 1 would mean the managerial structure NASA admitting it was wrong. After so long of insisting Ares I is the decided cut-in-stone future, and after so much feuding with the DIRECT folks, I'm not sure they are willing to make that admission.
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
They may not have a choice if the Augustine Committee decides to report Ares I is a dud, and it's starting to sound like that's where they're heading.tanstaafl76":3azs7cax said:
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
If it is possible, I think the importance of this launch just increased again with the dim view of NASA budgets taken by the Augustine commission.
Could a successful launch of Falcon 9 be the death knell for NASA rockets putting humans into orbit?
If it is possible, I think the importance of this launch just increased again with the dim view of NASA budgets taken by the Augustine commission.
Could a successful launch of Falcon 9 be the death knell for NASA rockets putting humans into orbit?
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
Not right away, but that could be in the future. I can see NASA concentrating on a true Interplanetary Ship & leave LEO up to the commercial carriers.tanstaafl76":2gwnhmst said:
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
Only if they get the funding. Otherwise they'll be commissioning Falcon 9 flights to send little robotic rovers places but that's about it.
Boris_Badenov":21lqh164 said:
Only if they get the funding. Otherwise they'll be commissioning Falcon 9 flights to send little robotic rovers places but that's about it.
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
They can do both. The design of those interplanetary ships (fusion-powered VASIMR!) can be done cheap with computer simulations and a few bright people. Those "little robotic rovers" might just find something that gives us the Reason to Go, and when they do, the support will be there to build the ship.
They can do both. The design of those interplanetary ships (fusion-powered VASIMR!) can be done cheap with computer simulations and a few bright people. Those "little robotic rovers" might just find something that gives us the Reason to Go, and when they do, the support will be there to build the ship.
tanstaafl76":1y541ukp said:
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
Why? Every rocket NASA uses is built by a private company. Why should one more supplier be the death knell of NASA launches?
Jon
tanstaafl76":1ahlh9x1 said:
Why? Every rocket NASA uses is built by a private company. Why should one more supplier be the death knell of NASA launches?
Jon
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
The difference between the cost-plus design and manufacture of a custom car to put in your driveway and calling a taxi cab.
The difference between the cost-plus design and manufacture of a custom car to put in your driveway and calling a taxi cab.
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
However... remember how many failures the Ares I had, so be patient.
It may be the case that when the last Shuttle returns in about 18 months, that will be the last time a NASA designed rocket flies astronauts into space. The Augustine report has yet to be completed, and then the politicians will have their say, but from the discussions at the last meeting the Augustine Panel largely supported NASA getting out of taking humans to LEO once the Shuttle retires. If Ares I is cancelled, that will pretty much seal the deal.Boris_Badenov":3fh09t6b said:
However... remember how many failures the Ares I had, so be patient.
Re: Upcoming SpaceX Falcon 9 Flight 1 Launch
The difference is in the "buy" model. The Shuttle and especially the Ares I were substantially designed by NASA. Michael Griffin seemed to take great pride in the fact that NASA itself was going to largely lead the development of the new rockets. It reminds me of Apple designing and developing the iPhone but leaving the manufacturing to the Chinese.
The contract model also pretty much guarantees the contractors will not lose money. The government pays for pretty much everything, including, often, a guaranteed profit.
The new "buy" model has the private company doing the design, development, and manufacturing on their own, often with an eye towards a market larger than just NASA. The private company also pays for a much more significant amount of the design and development on their own (although, as with SBIR programs, the government has kicked in some money with COTS). The private companies take a huge financial risk if their venture fails.
I heard Elon Musk post and answer the question: "How does a person become a space millionaire? He starts as a space billionaire."
JonClarke":uwl7t7yo said:
The difference is in the "buy" model. The Shuttle and especially the Ares I were substantially designed by NASA. Michael Griffin seemed to take great pride in the fact that NASA itself was going to largely lead the development of the new rockets. It reminds me of Apple designing and developing the iPhone but leaving the manufacturing to the Chinese.
The contract model also pretty much guarantees the contractors will not lose money. The government pays for pretty much everything, including, often, a guaranteed profit.
The new "buy" model has the private company doing the design, development, and manufacturing on their own, often with an eye towards a market larger than just NASA. The private company also pays for a much more significant amount of the design and development on their own (although, as with SBIR programs, the government has kicked in some money with COTS). The private companies take a huge financial risk if their venture fails.
I heard Elon Musk post and answer the question: "How does a person become a space millionaire? He starts as a space billionaire."
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Latest posts
-
-
Question Recommendations for International Research Competitions- Latest: Andrii Dzygunenko
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram