New Falcon 9 update w/pics

[jimfromnsf]

It just changed. Kwaj is not listed anymore for the F9.

 

[jimfromnsf]

They provide more information than your stove and pot and pans

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Come on boys. It was amusing, all the squabbling at first. Now it's getting boring and disruptive.<br />Lets try to keep it on topic eh? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I imagine the complexity of shipping something as big as an F9 to Omelek is a factor. And from the pictures it is not really big enough.<br /><br />Dropping Vandenburg makes sense. For one thing they lost their pad there and for the other the market for polar orbits is much smaller. Remember Elon's big goal is Mars, and LC40 at Canaveral is perfect for that. (Orbit inclinations, etc)

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Come on boys. It was amusing, all the squabbling at first. Now it's getting boring and disruptive. Lets try to keep it on topic eh?</font><br /><br />A very good observation, e_b_m.<br /><br />[Mod Hat: ON]<br /><br />Stop the bickering and potshots - now. <br /><br />Enough.<br /><br />Stay on topic.<br /><br />[Mod Hat: OFF] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[holmec]

Noticed the "flight 3" for falcon 1. Hmmm....another test run? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[crix]

Seems like it. I wouldn't trust my payload (if I had one) on a Falcon 1 yet.

 

[PistolPete]

I think someone stated earlier that TacSat-1 was dropped from the launch manifest because TacSat-2 has already been launched making TacSat-1 redundant. According to Wikipedia (which has not been updated with the new launch schedule) TacSat-1 was supposed to be launched in January '08. This fits in with the Q1 '08 Flight 3 launch listed in the new schedule. If this is the case then it appears that there is an unfilled Falcon 1 launch for sale if anyone has the cajones to take them up on the offer. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Notice that there is no longer a "US Gov't" F9

 

[PistolPete]

Unless you consider the three COTS demo flights Gov't flights. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Those always were "COTS" flight. The flight I was referring to was an unnamed US Gov't user

 

[docm]

That flight was scheduled for Q2 2008, and now COTS 1 has that period cinched. If NASA wants COTS 1 to go Q4 then moving that payload elsewhere is just common sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"moving that payload elsewhere "<br /><br />It moved off the manifest, which is worse than TACSAT 1 not flying. Spacex lost a customer

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Those always were "COTS" flight. The flight I was referring to was an unnamed US Gov't user<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That unnamed user was US NAVY! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The "Navy" does not buy rockets, much less the F9

 

[jimfromnsf]

No F9 in 2008. Mark my words. The vehicle won't be even delivered to the launch site

 

[j05h]

I thought the Navy had a couple of communication satellites? And maybe a demo sat in the early 00s?<br /><br />Jim, you've got to admit that the F9 test article is impressive, considering the size of their team and how quickly the Falcon line has come together. On a modest budget and with 5+ years they have gone from nothing to a new engine, (mostly) working light-launch and are on the doorstep to medium lift. And Elon has a solid business record. I can definitely see Navy or another non-traditional service/agency using them for a test satellite.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Navy doesn't procure launch services, that is the USAF's job. Navy has the USAF or the spacecraft contractor do it.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The "Navy" does not buy rockets, much less the F9<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I guess they must catapult their satellites then. <br /><br />Deny this article then. <br /><br />and this one<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The TacSat-1 effort is funded by the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation, with the Naval Research Laboratory managing the program.<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>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Navy doesn't procure launch services, that is the USAF's job. Navy has the USAF or the spacecraft contractor do it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Proof??? no? <br /><br />Anyway logic dictates that if the manager (NRL in this case) gets another entity to purchase stuff for the manager....the manager is the purchaser and the other entity is the attorney in effect or "lackey".<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I guess they must catapult their satellites then.<br /><br />Deny this article then.<br /><br />and this one "<br /><br />You should read your references before using them. You proved my point not yours. I never said that they didn't build spacecraft.<br /><br />Per the second link "Musk said in a May 23 e-mail that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is the customer for the October launch, but declined to identify the payload. "<br /><br />DARPA bought the F1 for TACSAT. The Spacex manifest listed DARPA as the customer.<br /><br />The customer is who buys the rockets, not who flys on it. Just as NASA does, KSC buys all the launch vehicles, even thought JPL, APL and GSFC fly spacecraft on them. <br /><br />Industry standard practice

 

[jimfromnsf]

"the manager is the purchaser and the other entity is the attorney in effect or "lackey""<br /><br />Wrong, see my other post. The purchaser is the manager. I take it you are an "outsider' and not in the industry, so first know something before posting.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Wrong, see my other post. The purchaser is the manager. I take it you are an "outsider' and not in the industry, so first know something before posting.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />NRL is the manager, so they are the responsible party. To say they are not the customer is illogical.<br /><br />You may have some knowledge in the government rocket business but that does not make you all knowing and the rest of us stupid.<br /><br />Words have more meaning than you give them credit. I don't deny that the party you say that does the purchasing did the purchasing. But you deny that the Navy is even involved. They are, their the managers and they are the customer. I couldn't care less what it said on the P.O.. <br /><br />And your not in DOD so how can you speak for them?<br /><br />I hate to bust your bubble but many of us on this forum are not in the rocket industry, we just care about space.<br /><br />And as far as "knowing something" this is why I posted the links to the articles. The article your discrediting was written by Mr. JEREMY SINGER. This is where I got the idea that NRL was the manager of the project.<br /><br />And Jim you give me no reason to believe you. You don't back up your points, and you have no credentials in your profile.<br /><br />It would probably be to your benefit to take some college level communication classes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"NRL is the manager, so they are the responsible party. To say they are not the customer is illogical."<br /><br />Wrong again. The name on the contract controls the launch. The NRL spacecraft on F1 are there, courtesy of DARPA, who is managing the launch, therefore the NRL is not the manager. NRL is DARPA's customer<br /><br />Manager of the spacecraft is NOT manager of the launch vehicle, unless they bought it. That's industry practice.<br /><br />The article is about the spacecraft not the launch vehicle<br /><br />This all started with the "missing" F9 being designated US Navy. My point is the US Navy does not buy rockets and it was anothe US Gov't org<br /><br />I was in the USAF earlier in my career, working spacelaunch manifesting<br /><br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> No F9 in 2008. Mark my words. The vehicle won't be even delivered to the launch site </font><br /><br />"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." [Last words]<br />- Civil War General Sedgwick<br /><br />"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad, a passing fancy."<br />· President of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry Ford's lawyer<br /><br />"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."<br />· Albert Einstein, 1932<br /><br /> <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>