LockMart F%#@S SpaceX

[spacefire]

or some who will. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

While I didn't write history, I did get to do something that I think was even better. I got to be a part of it! For the first eight years of my career at Rocketdyne I was very privaledged to be able to get to work on almost all of the engine types that powered the great Saturn V. This was not just paperwork, but the actual hardware! To a snot nosed kid more or less just out of high school, that had read science fiction since he was in the 4th grade, it WAS a dream come true!<br /><br />While I was never anything more than a very small frog in a very large puddle, I WAS a part of the puddle of some 400,000 of us that put men on the moon in the greatest adventure of the last century!! From there I also went on to work on Altlas , Delta II, the mighty SSME's, the RS68, and the linear aerospike engines for the X33, as well as a great host of other such projects! I retired from Boeing in April of 2000. I do still keep up with what is going on in the space industry. I admit then that small talk, and internet sophistication just aren't my thing. THIS is to some extent why I am still not only hopelessly in love with the space program, but perhaps somewhat more serious about this particular forum!! <br /><br />I do have a sense of humor (I always read the LA Times Comics last, when reading the paper. it helps to make up for all the death, doom and depare in the regular news), but I am not as amuzed about human space development, as I consider this to be far to important for the future of mankind. It is far to important for either small talk, or small "sound bite" types of posts! <br /><br />At Any Rate, Have A Great Day!!

 

[starfhury]

Great post frodo. Space is going to be very serious business one day. Imagine if we establish a colony on Mars. Before long we'd have interplanetary trade. We'd have an expansion of the economy to a two world economy with lots of opportunities for people. Hell if you are amongst the first you could even have cities named in your honour. SpaceX unlike BoLock at least recognize this and as part of there mission are directly looking at expanding us all to a two world civilization. For the Air Force or the BoLock conglamorates to try and stiff them is no less than trying to stiff the future. Sure national security is important, but placing it above all else and thus disrupting innovation in the end is not secure at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dwightlooi]

We are a long way from a Mars Colony. And, I think there will never be cities on mars, not even villages. The environment on mars -- no breathable atmosphere, horrible climate, huge dust storms -- simply isn't human friendly enough to encourage even moderate sized human settlements. There is also nothing on mars that is worth exporting via a year long, very expensive, rocket voyage. The value of going to and staying on mars is, and will remain, that of a scientific curiosity and national prestige. It will be a huge money losing venture, there will never be a decent population and there will most certainly never be trade -- just resupply missions.

 

[dragon04]

You bring up a great point starfhury. That's why we should be spending our dollars on Mars and our dimes on the ISS. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"As neither Boeing nor LM has any launchers in the class of the Falcon I, I don't really think that they are overly worried yet. Perhaps it would be useful to find out EXACLY what it is that LM is worried about"</font><br /><br />You have to step back a couple more paces, Frodo. You're missing the bigger picture because you're focusing on payload sizes. Indeed, the Falcon I currently has no commercial competitors (although a couple are being developed, which shows the market is seen as viable). Neither Boeing nor Lockheed have any intentions of entering the market though, I'm sure.<br /><br />Payload aside, Lockmart and Boeing are in <b>extreme</b> danger from SpaceX if the Falcon I works and SpaceX can actually make a profit from it. The reason why this is the case is because small launchers are inherently <i>harder</i> to make a profit on that large launchers -- even Elon has said this. If the Falcon I is profitable, then it sends a nuclear-tipped torpedo into the Atlas and Delta EELV cost structure. The Air Force is having to heavily subsidize the EELV launchers in large part because those launchers are so costly that they can't get many commercial customers. LockMart and Boeing essentially are claiming they can't make the EELVs any cheaper and still make a profit. A lot of people think this is BS, but there's no <b>proof</b> that it is. SpaceX might just provide the smoking gun.<br /><br />If the Falcon I is successful, then Elon will have a great deal more support in developing the Falcon V. If he can then make<b>that</b> succeed, then the Air Force will essentially hand him a blank check for the development of launchers to compete with the EELVs. Lockmart and Boeing cannot be unaware of this. They want him to fail, and to fail from the outset.

 

[lampblack]

This is slightly off-topic. But...<br /><br />It's conceivable -- through the use of domed cities and hydroponics -- that a Mars settlement one day might just reach critical mass and become self-sustaining. It wouldn't take a huge population -- just a few dozen, or a couple of hundred people. Using technology that is *not* state of the art, it could happen.<br /><br />And if it *can* happen, then it probably will.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

You do indeed have a legitimate point. However, as the entire thrust of the EELV program was to bring down the cost of placing a pound to LEO from $10,000 to $2,000 to $3,000 per pound. And as the Air Force seems to be satisfied that Boeing and LM have indeed done this, then it might just be somewhat difficult for spacex to follow. Also, the flight rate of ANY launch system will to a very great extent determine the eventual cost of each launch. <br /><br />Just as an example, the Delta IV Heavy is capable of placing some 50,000 pounds into LEO. At $2,000 per pound this comes out to some $100 million. Now, as any satellite that is that heavy is going to cost at least $1 billion, this would bring the cost down to only 10% at most for the launch itself. <br /><br />Remember, just building the facilities and handling rockets of this size IS a considerable expense. Something that spacex has yet to encounter. Note that I am all for spacex myself, it is just that a small bit of reality is sometimes needed by the more enthusistic of such supporters.<br /><br />Also, the chief competition for all of these American companies is going to be entire countries such as Russia and China that can quite afford to build such systems at any cost they wish. They are supported by the economies of these countries, and could even take lossses if necessary to penetrate markets!!<br /><br />Then there is the significant current problem of a large over supply of launch system makers compared to the need for such systems. This will be a problem for spacex as well as all the rest for some time to come. And don't go telling me that far cheaper launches will automatically improve the situation. The costs of the launches themselves ARE NOT what is driving the market at this time. It IS the costs of the satellites themselves, and even more the costs of the supporting systems for the distribution of the products of those satellites that is driveing the current satellite market!<br /><br />However

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"And as the Air Force seems to be satisfied that Boeing and LM have indeed done this, then it might just be somewhat difficult for spacex to follow."</font><br /><br />The Air Force is paying for EELVs -- that's not the same thing as being satisfied. They wouldn't be pushing their Falcon program (i.e. the unrelated program of the same name as SpaceX's rockets) if they were <b>satisfied</b> with their launch services providers.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Also, the flight rate of ANY launch system will to a very great extent determine the eventual cost of each launch."</font><br /><br />I don't see how this statement has any content. Flight rate and cost applies across all launch providers. It just means your fixed costs get spread among however many launches made in a given time. However, starting with a significantly lower fixed cost is still a really really good thing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Now, as any satellite that is that heavy is going to cost at least $1 billion, this would bring the cost down to only 10% at most for the launch itself."</font><br /><br />This gets into circular arguments. Satellites cost so much because launches cost so much. It costs so incredibly much to <b>launch</b> a satellite that they must be hugely overengineered, massively redundant and tested nearly to destruction in order to ensure that they function for enough years to make that cost worthwhile. If the cost of launchers were to be cut 50%, you'd find that the cost of the satellites they put up would drop comparably.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Remember, just building the facilities and handling rockets of this size IS a considerable expense. Something that spacex has yet to encounter."</font><br /><br />Yesss.. and I already mentioned this in the post you're replying to:<br /><br /><i>"If the Falcon I is successful, then Elon will have a great deal more support in developing the Falcon V. If he can then</i>

 

[formulaterp]

A few points mrmorris:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">They wouldn't be pushing their Falcon program (i.e. the unrelated program of the same name as SpaceX's rockets) if they were satisfied with their launch services providers. </font><br /><br />The goals of the USAF/DARPA Falcon program are very different from those of the EELV's. The initial phase of Falcon is to launch a mere 1,000lbs to LEO on short notice. The ultimate goal is to put 12,000lbs on a target 9,000 miles from the continental US within a 2 hour period. This is straight from the DARPA website. It is a weapons program, not a low-cost satellite launcher.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Satellites cost so much because launches cost so much ... If the cost of launchers were to be cut 50%, you'd find that the cost of the satellites they put up would drop comparably. </font><br /><br />I'm not so sure about that. Now I might be cherry-picking here, feel free to call me on it if you have contrary data. But let's look at SeaLaunch. It's a dedicated commercial GTO launch system, so I feel it is safe to use as a baseline. Excluding it's initial demo launch, here are the average payload weights by year:<br /><br />1999: 7,600lbs<br />2000: 8,453lbs<br />2001: 10,290lbs<br />2002: 10,692lbs<br />2003: 10,261lbs<br />2004: 10,881lbs<br />2005: 11,956lbs<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that:<br /><br />1) Increased weights correspond to an increase in costs <br />2) There is a trend developing. <br /><br />Now during the 7 year period, did anything change with the Zenit-3SL? Other than normal inflation, did the launch costs go up? <br /><br />Here we have a case where the cost/mass of the payload has continually increased, while the launch costs have apparently stayed the same. In April of this year, SeaLaunch put up what was possibly the most expensive commercial payload in history, SPACEWAY F1. Hughes and DirecTV have spent in excess of $1.5Billion on that bird, just in R&D alone. The la

 

[formulaterp]

<font color="yellow">aunch costs will drop drastically once more humans are in orbit and there are facilities there that can capture and repair satilites. Companies can design a satilite to last a year or two and if the time comes and their is nothing better on the market they can just pay to have it refueled instead of launching a new one. Likewise, if they feel they need to upgrade they can launch a new one. </font><br /><br />Do you seriously think this is going to happen? Think about what this entails. You would have to launch a spacecraft/tug which can pluck a satellite from a 200km polar orbit, or a 500km LEO, or 45,000km GEO; perform the mother of all plane change maneuvers to drag it to an orbital repair/service facility; upgrade it's systems or refuel the sat; and then return it to it's original orbit. All for a disposable 1-2 year piece of junk? <br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

launch costs will drop drastically once more humans are in orbit and there are facilities there that can capture and repair satilites. Companies can design a satilite to last a year or two and if the time comes and their is nothing better on the market they can just pay to have it refueled instead of launching a new one. Likewise, if they feel they need to upgrade they can launch a new one. <br /><br />I think you are not quite aware of what you are saying here. Almost ALL satelites are placed in a GEO orbit, so that their various services can be used above the same point on the Earth at all times. If a particular service provider can place three such satellites in equal distance from each other at GEO, then they can provide service for the entire Earth. However, GEO is at some 22,500 miles altitude abov the Earth! It IS going to be quite some while before there is any human space stations at that altitude! I don't say it will not happen, as the very idea of having platforms where all of these satellites are gathered together to be repaired and serviced is indeed a very good one. However, this IS not going to be the goal of NASA, they wish to go on to the moon. This would have to be a goal of the satellite industry itself, and they are in no despirite need to do this anytime soon. <br /><br />This is by the way one of the answers to mcmorris when he states that satellites will become less engineered for longer stay in orbit if the launch costs come down. The satellite industry itself is in NO hurry to do this. As the satellites themselves become larger (hense the Ariane V as opposed to the Ariane IV, with its far greater capacity) they last longer, and do far more as time goes by. Other than needing larger launch vehicles the launch costs are not a factor in this.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

Thanks! I just don't have all the time to do such a detailed rebuttal as mcmorris does. <br /><br />I just wish that these people would realize that I am NOT in any way against spacex. But when people make statements that such a new company is going to be placing human beings on Mars, my skepticism meter begins to go "Briiing, Briiing!" <br /><br />As I am 62, I fully realize that sadly I don't think I will be even around long enough to see human beings walk on the surface of Mars! I just hope that I can be around to see humanity go back to the moon to actually stay and work!! <br /><br />I was indeed a far more idealistic cheerleader for the space program back in the 1960's when I actually worked on the rocket engines that would put men on the moon! However, as that effort did not lead (and I don't blame NASA for this) to where I wanted to see humanity go in the last 30 years or so, I will not be a cheerleader anymore. This does NOT mean that I am not supportive, just that I am much more realistic now.

 

[frodo1008]

Wow, now that doesn't happen very often on these boards. We were basically thinking the same thing at the same time!!

 

[frodo1008]

Oops! Sorry, I called you mcmorris in some of my posts to others, it should have been mrmorris, sorry!<br /><br />I am not going to spend so much time fighting with you people. It just isn't worth it. But you do have a problem. If Boeing and LM are really as evil as you seem to think, then they WILL stop spacex. They have lots and lots of money, and literally millions of investors, they also have very good contacts in both the military and congress. So IF they do become worried about spacex they will do whatever is necessary to stop them. So if anyone needs to be more discrete on these boards it is the cheerleaders of spacex. I would suspect that both Boeing and LM are indeed monitoring these boards. I was trying to be nice here, and all I get is detailed rationalizations. Some of these points I am perfectly willing to admit are very good. But if the situation is what some on these boards are making it out to be then the reality is going to NOT go to spacex. I just hope that Boeing and LM, who are evidently going to join in a Space Alliance of ALL their considerable space assets will play fair.<br /><br />Then there is the even larger problem of other countries almost total support for their own space industries. These people do not care if the playing field is level at all. They want the business, and they can even take losses if necessary!<br /><br />What I have been doing here is to try to inject a little realism in these threads. If you want to know the truth, I will be more than happy if spacex can actually do all that its supporters say it can (although, saying that they are going to put human beings on Mars IS a bit much), Either they WILL build a fire under the more traditional aerospace companies (not a bad thing in itself), ot they will be totally successful. And that would be more than fine with me. But I have been around too long, and disappointed too often in various efforts to just stand by and cheer! <br /><br />If they can't actually produce

 

[frodo1008]

Sorry, I wan't really trying to be that negative on your post. I did say that I thought it would eventually be done (human beings to repair and service satellites at GEO). As a matter of fact in the far distant future if we are ever going to possibly build actual space elevators GEO will become the most important orbit there is!! As such elevators would have to remain over one spot on the Earth's surface the destination point of such elevators would HAVE to be GEO! At that point there would have to be very large facilities at GEO!!<br /><br />I am not very good at dragging outside information back from other sites to these threads. So if you are really interested in seeing what the plans of spacex are then I would suggest that you go to spacex.com and see for yourself! I have, and I do think that they are on a very good track here!

 

[spacester]

frodo, you keep insisting that "those on these boards" or "some posters" or "people" are saying things they are not saying! It's driving me crazy! I keep going back into threads to see what the heck you are talking about, and most of the time I cannot find it. I've written you some PMs on this to no avail, so I am taking this very rare step of chastising someone openly.<br /><br />It looks like I'm going to have to start ignoring your posts because you are not only acting like a broken record, but you're making stuff up about other people's posts. That's just wrong!<br /><br />For example:<br /><font color="yellow">But when people make statements that such a new company is going to be placing human beings on Mars . . .</font><br /><br />Who said that? No one did! You made it up, and then you refute it. You are wasting everyone's time with this silliness. See, I quoted part of your post just now, and fellow posters can easily confirm the quote, and we can all move forward with the discussion.<br /><br />Look frodo, you can't have it both ways. You cannot pontificate on space development if you do not inform yourself. You cannot tell other posters that they are being overly optimistic when you totally misinterpret what they say. Well you can do most anything you want, but your credibility is going to approach zero if you keep it up.<br /><br />I would recommend that you respond to what people <b>actually say</b> instead of what you <b>suppose they might be saying.</b> It's just common courtesy, and you've always been courteous.<br /><br />Look, for the record, we all know that space flight is hard. Saying that something is possible is not the same thing as saying it is easy!<br /><br />BTW, the NASA Administrator's name is Griffin, not Griffen . . .<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[formulaterp]

<font color="yellow">you are not only acting like a broken record, but you're making stuff up about other people's posts ... Who said that? No one did! You made it up ... I would recommend that you respond to what people actually say instead of what you suppose they might be saying.</font><br /><br />This is really getting silly. I actually feel embarrassed that I have to post this. Are you aware this message board has a search function? From the first page of results:<br /><br />(Note: the authors may not have supported the idea, but they did make the post)<br /><br /><b>starfhury:</b> Imagine if we establish a colony on Mars. Before long we'd have interplanetary trade. We'd have an expansion of the economy to a two world economy with lots of opportunities for people. Hell if you are amongst the first you could even have cities named in your honour. SpaceX unlike BoLock at least recognize this and as part of there mission are directly looking at expanding us all to a two world civilization.<br /><br /><b>mikejz:</b> Elon's ultimate vision is to make mankind a multi-planet species. Part of that vision is a self-sustaining colony on Mars. That's the kind of rhetoric that gets me excited. <br /><br /><b>spaceter:</b> What is Musk going to do with Heavy lift? You mean besides all the stuff we're going to need to Settle Mars?<br /><br /><b>spaceter:</b> What do you think should be the very first piece of equipment our group lands on Mars? I am totally figuring on inflatables. For a truly viable settlement, IMO we need not only a BFR, but a BFH. Bigelow’s team will develop their Falcon-V sized hab, and then should move on to a Big Effing Habitat to be launched on SpaceX’s Big Effing Rocket. Basketball on the Moon! A huge farm on Mars! <br /><br /><b>spaceter:</b> Primarily, my plans figure on SpaceX building a BFR sooner rather than later. Yeah, landing on Mars is not easy. We're talking some seriously large pieces of equipment we need to plunk down.<br /><br /><b>spaceter</b>

 

[spacester]

Hey, well done, formulaterp! I gave up on the search function here a while back.<br /><br />(For starters, you're mis-spelling my user_id, but that's OK, I'm used to it.)<br /><br />I see a big difference between those quotes and frodo's characterization of unspecified statements.<br /><br />Allow me to lift some key words from each of those quotes:<br />Imagine . . .<br />. . . ultimate vision . . .<br />. . . going to need . . .<br />. . . we need . . . should move on to . . .<br />. . . reason to believe . . . could have . . <br /><br />These are statement of possibilities, hopes for the future, descriptions of the way things <b>might</b> turn out. Surely you are not saying it is wrong to make such statements of possibilities?<br /><br />Yet frodo said that "others" said "that such a new company is going to be placing humans on Mars"<br /><br />Who said that SpaceX is going to be doing it all by themselves? Who said that it was a certainty? That's what frodo's statement implies, and no one said that.<br /><br />If the actual statements are used, we can have a conversation about just how crazy thoses possibilities appear to be. If an innacurate characterization of unspecified statements is given, how can that further the discussion? You and I could be spending our time on other things.<br /><br />The statements were made that the capabilities provided by SpaceX in terms of payloads and costs can be supposed to play a major part in getting stuff to Mars. Those statements stand.<br /><br />No statements were made that SpaceX will be fielding their own Astronaut corps any time soon. I'd remember that; that's crazy talk even for this optimist.<br /><br />If I really wanted to pick on frodo, I guarantee you that I could come up with plenty of examples of a vague characterization of unspecified posts that just does not ring true. This is far from an isolated case; that's what happens when you can't be bothered to quote the actual post. <br /><br />If boards such as this are to explore the futur <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I really don't like being called a lier!! I don't know of many who do, but rather than continue here in this kind of flame war, I will withdraw!!!<br /><br />Good bye, it has been nice to debate with some on these forums, but like a lot of others I really don't need this kind of antagonism!!

 

[frodo1008]

Just as one final parting shot, and not against spaseter himself. Has anyone else noticed the titles of some of the threads over here lately. Such as the one for this thread itself? Or how about "Unholy union to save the space shuttle". These are the kind of titles that I would EXPECT over on free space. So if this is the kind of discussions that are now going to be held on this forum then space.com has truly degenerated into one giant free space??<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

frodo, where did I call you a liar?<br /><br />You're just proving my point if you can read my words and draw that conclusion!<br /><br />I have to go out for a couple of hours, could I respectfully request that you chill out and read what I wrote, not what you suppose I wrote? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

OK, if you're here, I'll stick around for a bit . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

"It looks like I'm going to have to start ignoring your posts because you are not only acting like a broken record, but you're making stuff up about other people's posts. That's just wrong!"<br /><br />I WAS going to leave, but this is getting to be too much fun!<br /><br />You make the statement above, then fomulaterp goes and draws out your very words! I noticed that thedream got the message! I actually didn't realize that it WAS you that made these staements! All right, you did not actually come right out and directly say that spacex was going to take us to Mars. But your implications would be clear to anyone reading them. And while I am not sure how to actually use the search function here, I AM sure that somebody actually did come right out and state that spacex was going to take us to Mars! I do NOT lie! Why would I even try to make up such a thing? <br /><br />I am well aware that these discussions are just that, discussions! I do have a great deal of respect for even my honest debators here, such as mrmorris. I am also perfectly willing to admit that I could be perfectly and happily wrong! (And that alone would be asking for some kind of cyberspace death sentence over on free space!)<br /><br />As I pointed out the type of threads and even their titles have become so acrimonious here that honest debate is becomming more and more difficult even on this forum! I do not doubt that eventually we will see the same kind of extreme flame wars that are common over on free space, and other sites in cyberspace. I am NOT angry about this so much as saddened!!<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

If by what you mean as an evolving of these threads away from the bashing of such as NASA, the ISS, the space shuttle, or even Boeing and LM, then I am more than happy to evolve! <br /><br />THAT is what I grow tired of, NOT cheerleading for either spacex, or t-space. I am far more than happy to be a positive cheerleader for them myself! <br /><br />I guess I took a wrong approach in thinking that if I showed that they too, have problems then some of the bashing would stop. What has evidently happened instead is the bashing has turned on me. Which would be fine if it were positive and productive (such as your own) instead of negative!<br /><br />Yes, I HAVE been to the spacex site, and I do like what Elon Musk is saying there. I do wish him and his company all the good fortune that they can handle. More time will be needed to actually discover if that fortune is really his and spacex's!