More Good SpaceX News (Dragon)

[themanwithoutapast]

"That is there price structure. You aren't buying a rocket, you are buying a launch service. If you don't use the full capability, then Spacex is going to try to comanifest some with you"<br /><br />That does not answer the difference between a rocket at total capacity for LEO for 35 million and a rocket at total capacity for GTO for 55 million. If there is no difference in both rockets, they will have some explaining to do to their customers, why GTO costs 20 million more, however there is no added cost for SpaceX in comparison to LEO launches.

 

[MeteorWayne]

"comanifest"<br /><br />??<br /><br />Can you explain this term for we mere mortals? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Putting more than one payload on a launcher; CO-manifest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Thanx, did not recognize the term in that form. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I was talking about being commercially successful. I do not think NASA uncrewed (and maybe even crewed) flights to the ISS ... Falcon 9 to other destinations than the ISS are wild speculation,... not be worth more than 100-150 million at the most (that is a couple of millionaires/billionaires at a per flight price of 10 million). </i><br /><br />I'm talking about commercial success, too. It is definitely not wild speculation, read or listen to any interview with Elon and he says SpaceX is pursuing exactly that market. The big indicator is that Bigelow's demonstration station (SunDancer plus several BA-330s?) will need 16 flights per year for crew exchange and supplies. That's a lot more than $150M for SpaceX if they are the launch provider. <br /><br />On top of that, if Bigelow is successful (almost a given considering their current craft onorbit), they want to build space stations for many different operators. This is creating a market for dozens of flights per year above and beyond the current paradigm. On top of this, the current Bigelow plan is to create an "international astronaut corp", so it's not just "billionaires" but many different customers. It's not wild speculation, it's their business plans.<br /><br /><i>> Yes of course governmental agencies could see Falcon 9 as an option for their payloads, </i><br /><br />This has nothing to do with DoD or other government launches, but with commercial launch. Do you know what ITAR is? ITAR limits what US companies can export. The government reviews and sometimes restricts items that are dual-use or military in nature. This includes almost all aspects of spaceflight hardware. SeaLaunch, for instance, has separate on-ship facilities for payload processing (US) and rocket(Russian) crews because of ITAR. These rules were tightened in the late 90s between Loral and China. ITAR severely limits the actions of US aerospace companies wanting access to cheaper launches abroad. <br /><br />"Until 1996–1997, ITAR classi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Yes of course governmental agencies could see Falcon 9 as an option for their payloads, actually I am convinced that if SpaceX is successful with its rocket (even with failures at the beginning) it will get business from the US government respectively its agencies. "<br /><br />Not the DOD (USAF and NRO) The point was emphasized over and over ("No new rockets" on each USAF chart) at the recent AIAA Mission Integration symposium

 

[jimfromnsf]

Too many sequential "if's" required for spacex

 

[j05h]

<i>> Too many sequential "if's" required for spacex</i><br /><br />Success for SpaceX will revolutionize US spacelaunch. Simple.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Spacex will end up no different than any other US launch provider. <br /><br />They will find it is hard to maintain continuous success and keep costs down.<br /><br />They don't bring anything special to the table and they choose to ignore proven processes.<br /><br />Some examples:<br /><br />1. Enclosing the engine section and providing AC. Even after the first launch, they are doing it halfa$$ by using a "blanket' and using a GN2 purge. A higher AC flowrate is better and safer<br /><br />2. Use of QA inspectors. Duh!<br />3. Close out photos Duh!. First thing the accident board asked for.<br />4. slosh baffles<br /><br />What others have they chosen to ignore? And BTW what prompted #2? Hmmmmmm...... a disclosed issue on the 1st launch that wasn't directly related to the fire?

 

[windnwar]

They are new at it and they are learning rapidly. New companies tend to make mistakes that existing companies look at and go duh... we learned that with this launch. The thing is, they are learning rapidly and unlike alot of thier powerpoint only brethren, they are actually building things and getting closer to successful flight, while finding cheaper and more efficient ways to build it. <br /><br />They did bring something special to the table, ambition, something you don't seem to see alot of today. Most others go with tried and true and tend to stay very conservative. Well being conservative may make you more reliable but you don't tend to make huge advances that way. Not being risk averse they are bound to screw up some, but the key thing is, they learn, apply the knowledge and there is little chance they'll make the same mistake twice. They have also shown, they'd rather take thier time if need be to do it right, that was one of the very first things they learned after the first falcon launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>IMHO, SpaceX will succeed because it will be cheaper, native US launch. It will succeed on the ease of doing business. If successful, it will enable several new spaceflight markets. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And exactly this is where many people see the difference. As I said above, there is no evidence or reason that SpaceX will have a cheaper launcher, they just claim that is cheaper. No one, including SpaceX, could up to now state why this should be the case (they fastly approaching a large staff structure, they are located in the US, which is a high-cost country etc.).<br /><br />That it will succeed 'on the ease of doing business' is contrary to what we have seen in the last years with SpaceX struggling a lot. <br /><br />Finally, SpaceX would basically be the first company in history of the world that "creates a new market" without that market at least in principle exist beforehand. To be more precise, the question is, how could there be a need for 16 flights per year for crew exchange and supplies to a yet to be built space stations at prices maybe half (or more) of what is currently charged for seats by Roskosmos, if currently there is no such demand at all. Where are the market studies that prove this claim, where are the customers lining up right now and going to public that they want to use SpaceX's and Bigelow's human launch services? <br /><br />To sum up, I think that it is right to be sceptical and it is also right to ask the above questions. And as long as nobody can answer them in detail backed up by logic and/or facts, I will not be convinced. I and many others are not convinced by simple pep-talk that says SpaceX just is more "ambitious" or "creative" or has a "different corporate atmosphere".

 

[thereiwas]

SpaceX claims their launcher will be cheaper to operate. For example, the Falcon-1 launches were handled by a crew of 12 people. The Merlin engine is also cheaper to manufacture because it has one single-shaft turbopump performing multiple tasks. The avionics modules communicate over a simple ethernet backbone.<br /><br />Whether this results in real savings in practice remains to be seen.

 

[rocketscientist327]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> And exactly this is where many people see the difference. As I said above, there is no evidence or reason that SpaceX will have a cheaper launcher, they just claim that is cheaper. No one, including SpaceX, could up to now state why this should be the case (they fastly approaching a large staff structure, they are located in the US, which is a high-cost country etc.). <br /><br />That it will succeed 'on the ease of doing business' is contrary to what we have seen in the last years with SpaceX struggling a lot. <br /><br />Finally, SpaceX would basically be the first company in history of the world that "creates a new market" without that market at least in principle exist beforehand. To be more precise, the question is, how could there be a need for 16 flights per year for crew exchange and supplies to a yet to be built space stations at prices maybe half (or more) of what is currently charged for seats by Roskosmos, if currently there is no such demand at all. Where are the market studies that prove this claim, where are the customers lining up right now and going to public that they want to use SpaceX's and Bigelow's human launch services? <br /><br />To sum up, I think that it is right to be sceptical and it is also right to ask the above questions. And as long as nobody can answer them in detail backed up by logic and/or facts, I will not be convinced. I and many others are not convinced by simple pep-talk that says SpaceX just is more "ambitious" or "creative" or has a "different corporate atmosphere".<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is exactly why I pull for alt.space companies like SpaceX. The condescending arrogance I get from merely speaking with “insiders†makes me sick. I have always been told to be credible, approachable, and humble.<br /><br />With the exception of shuttle_guy, I never feel comfortable with any of the “high, mighty, influential, and those in the knowâ€. I don’t think ther

 

[jimfromnsf]

This is exactly why I pull for old guard companies like ULA. The condescending arrogance I get from merely speaking with Alt.spacers makes me sick.<br /><br />They think everything to do with the old guard is bad and they companies like spacex can do no wrong and are the "saviors" of the industry. They automatically assume projects like Dragon are a given.<br /><br />I know what will put the dagger in “alt.space†and it doesn’t take a “rocket scientist†to figure it out. History tells us this. All we have to do is go back and read it. Amroc, Conestoga, ORTAG, Beal and soon to be RPK. the path is littered with corspes.<br /><br />Alt.space tends to run out of money, cannot seem to complete anything on time and have nothing to show for the efforts<br /><br />Somebody has to stick up for the old guard and provide balance to forums like this, especially to old guard flamers. And I am not just talking about NASA. <br />Also having a little more insight into the Alt.space companies tends to take the gloss off them and shows their warts

 

[j05h]

<i>> They think everything to do with the old guard is bad and they companies like spacex can do no wrong and are the "saviors" of the industry. They automatically assume projects like Dragon are a given. </i><br /><br />Some people around here diss on different companies/agencies with abandon. No company, person or agency is above reproach, but many on these boards have axes to grind. I've gotten in some digs in the past, but try to respect anyone who is actually doing it. <br /><br />Personally, I'm not looking for an industry "savior", but a suite of tools that will get me to Mars in retirement (or sooner). This is something that Big Aero and (some of) new.space can only do together. <br /><br />In discussion, I assume that there will be a native US commercial capsule within 10 years because there is an obvious, trade-study shown, market for crew space access. While it would be great for SpaceX to succeed, there will be someone that provides that service, because there is customer demand. Look at Bigelow's plans, it can't be done with just Soyuz, it requires something simpler, cheaper, and flying from the US. <br /><br /><i>> Also having a little more insight into the Alt.space companies tends to take the gloss off them and shows their warts</i><br /><br />Alternately, having even a vague sense of modern business immediately shows the potential of the current crop, especially Bigelow and SpaceX. <br /><br />You're opinion about rocket technology and other engineering is greatly appreciated. Sometimes your lack of understanding of the how and why of business leaves me scratching my head. The big players in new.space aren't building widgets just to build better widgets (that is NASA and academia). They are building and aggregating to go places, build pressurized destinations and make money at it.<br /><br />Ergo, the next crop of new.space companies will be leveraging the products of successful previous companies. The products, capsules & modules, etc. will be known fa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

thedream: I admire your positive vision of the future. However, Musk - like everybody else - can have his dreams for the future but still needs to cope with the reality today. He, in his lifetime, will not be able to colonize Mars, sorry, that is a given fact. And the reason why people talk about the next 5 years is that within that time period it is necessary for SpaceX to show at least part of the results they claim they can reach. If not SpaceX will go down, even if Musk would put in all his private money - if creditors cut their support, SpaceX is done.<br /><br />P.S. as mentioned above, you can't create your own market, if you are not offering something different than other people are offering right now. Markets are objective, if the demand is not there for Soyuz human spaceflights to the ISS right now, there is no demand for Falcon 9 even if he cuts the price by half. That is just how markets function. I hope SpaceX succeeds in their business, but as mentioned countless times by many, many people, there is yet to be a logical argument brought forward to the table why their business entry should fundamentally change the market or why they will not hit the same "walls of reality" (that by the way they have been hitting since the last 3-4 years already) that other space companies are up against.

 

[frodo1008]

Is there ANY balance anymore on ANY subject in this country anymore? Where are the people such as the much revered founding fathers of our great country? Oh, they were quite passionate on whichever side of a debate that they were on, thats is for sure. But they were also quite ready to see a debate from the other persons perspective, admit there could be problems with their point of view, and then COMPROMISE!<br /><br />In doing this they created the greatest democratic republic the world had EVER seen!<br /><br />Now, I do fully believe that the things we are debating (not arguing people, debating) are of vital importance not only to this country, they are also of vital importance to the entire secular future of mankind. But, to my limited knowledge NONE of us (unlike those people of the founding of our county) are going to have to lay our very lives on the line for what we are debating about here! <br /><br />So, it should be far easier for us to take a position of compromise in all the things we discuss here. <br /><br />One of the reasons that you will find my posts being of greater length than almost anybody else's is that I do try to generate this feeling of compromise, and that sometimes takes more words than just taking a straight up stand on these vital but complex subjects.<br /><br />As a youth my spirit was truly on fire for this field! I actually got to work on, and handle rocket engines that were going to take men to the moon! Can you imagine what that meant to a young man that had read SC-FI since the fourth grade? And then we actually did it, we put men on the moon. WOW! We were well on our way to building a space-faring civilization and a far better and expansive future for mankind!<br /><br />Then the "Been there, done that!" crowd shows up, along with a war that at some $10 per pound for bombs blew craters in rice paddies in south east asia. And just as suddenly the greatest and richest country on Earth could no longer afford the dream of a space fa

 

[jimfromnsf]

"SpaceX has yet to have a 100% successful launch. How many tries did Mercury take to get off the pad. I just remember watching the right stuff with all the explosions of rockets on the pad, or just off the pad."<br /><br />Spacex has the benefit of 50 years of eperience. It shouldn't have problems. But it does and still chooses to ignore the lessons learned.<br /><br />Another issue is the chest thumping and trash talking that alt.space does.<br /><br />AND finally, the following reminds me of a Who song. "New boss, same as the old boss"<br /><br />from a March 28, 2004 Aviation Week article:<br /><br />SpaceX wants to fly up to three Falcon I missions in 2004 at a $5.9-million list price per flight to compete directly against Orbital Sciences Corp. (OSC) in the small-payload market as it develops the heavier capability to take on Boeing. As the Falcon I moves into service, the first launch of the initial Falcon V, with oxygen/kerosene engines in both stages (below), is set for 2005, followed in 2006 by the geosynchronous transfer version of the RL10 upper stage. "Falcon I is something we can get to the market fast.....", Musk said."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Another issue is the chest thumping and trash talking that alt.space does.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'd wouldn't worry about that. Its just the nature of the commercial beast. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This is exactly why I pull for old guard companies like ULA.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />To me ULA represents an answer of the 'old guard' to the space tourism industry. Which is a definite change from the traditional Space industry. Decades before my father criticized the US space industry for not trying to get people (as in the public) into space. It was the same sentiment that Rutan expresses from time to time.<br /><br />ULA seems to be a response to those criticisms. I just hope its in earnest.<br /><br />And it seems that such a criticism or similar would fuel the optimism for SpaceX's efforts. <br /><br />Shoot, I'd love to see an Atlas taking people into space again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A tug doesn't help. It reduces payload mass or eliminate a second spacecraft. Or conversely, it requires a larger launch vehicle to accomodate the orginal spacecraft and its tug.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed. A tug already in orbit to place satellites would make more sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I admire your positive vision of the future. .... If not SpaceX will go down, even if Musk would put in all his private money - if creditors cut their support, SpaceX is done. </i><br /><br />A positive attitude is the only way to positively affect the future. According to all press reports, SpaceX's only sources of funding are Elon Musk's checkbook and the COTS contract. They have no creditors. <br /><br /><i>> as mentioned above, you can't create your own market, if you are not offering something different than other people are offering right now. Markets are objective, if the demand is not there for Soyuz human spaceflights to the ISS right now, there is no demand for Falcon 9 even if he cuts the price by half. That is just how markets function.</i><br /><br />Whoever said you can't create a new market simply does not understand business. New markets are created every day. Markets are indeed objective, but ease-of-business is almost as important as cost and returns. "there is no demand for Falcon 9 even if he cuts the price by half." makes absolutely no sense. If a product is half the price of a competitor's, it typically opens far more than twice the opportunities - because there are more applications and more likely participants (be they individuals or organizations). The Apple II, for instance "created" a market for education computers, and made them relatively affordable. <br /><br />Aerospace is incredibly tough and unforgiving, both as an environment and business. Not understanding market realities will cloud the judgement needed to make the best decisions.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Whoever said you can't create a new market simply does not understand business. New markets are created every day. Markets are indeed objective, but ease-of-business is almost as important as cost and returns. "there is no demand for Falcon 9 even if he cuts the price by half." makes absolutely no sense.</font><br /><br />A fact those who have spent years in government agencies, or suckling on their teats, often have not a clue about. Not to mention cloistered markets like the US auto industry. Look what it got them <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>> Whoever said you can't create a new market simply does not understand business. New markets are created every day. Markets are indeed objective, but ease-of-business is almost as important as cost and returns. "there is no demand for Falcon 9 even if he cuts the price by half." makes absolutely no sense. <br /><br /> /> A fact those who have spent years in government agencies, or suckling on their teats, often have not a clue about. Not to mention cloistered markets like the US auto industry. Look what it got them</i><br /><br />Jim might be right about SpaceX making amateur mistakes, but is being harsher than might be appropriate. There is a vast field of knowledge to be tapped in building Falcon, but there is no guarantee that any particular engineering team can cover all the bases on such a project. Rocketry is hard, cut them some slack. Same for Armadillo, at least they are flying, unlike certain other new.space projects.<br /><br />Business is accelerating, it is more fluid and more international with every passing quarter and purchase. This is the 3rd age of globalisation. (The others would be a conjectural time from around 1500BCE to AD1200, the other is pre-WW1) Markets are 24/7/365, worldwide. This has very far-reaching implications for aerospace development. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A positive attitude is the only way to positively affect the future. According to all press reports, SpaceX's only sources of funding are Elon Musk's checkbook and the COTS contract. They have no creditors. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is not correct. If you had read the COTS contract you would have know that there are several milestones that depend on SpaceX completing financing rounds. For each such financing round, SpaceX is awarded another 10 million through COTS. Due to SpaceX annual cash burn rate of approximately 100 million, they need cash - more than Musk and COTS together can provide or are willing to provide. RpK already lost the battle against its second financing milestone which required them to show a total of 500 million in new financing.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Whoever said you can't create a new market simply does not understand business. New markets are created every day. Markets are indeed objective, but ease-of-business is almost as important as cost and returns. "there is no demand for Falcon 9 even if he cuts the price by half." makes absolutely no sense. If a product is half the price of a competitor's, it typically opens far more than twice the opportunities - because there are more applications and more likely participants (be they individuals or organizations). The Apple II, for instance "created" a market for education computers, and made them relatively affordable. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think you did not read what I wrote. I said, you cannot create a market UNLESS you offer something different. Currently the market that Musk is targeting for LEO flights consists of the following: 1-2 tourists to the ISS and 1-2 governmental astronauts to the ISS (from ESA, NASA and other space agencies (Brazil, Korea etc.)) and 0 astronauts from the private industry (that is the industry that according to Bigelow and Musk should be interes