Next Space Shuttles

jimfromnsf · Aug 25, 2007

"success rate" at no less than .95 for 2." Use that line on a spacecraft customer. It is binary, no "partials" The same applies for the Delta-IV Heavy Demo, it is 0-1 and no partial credit "Better than NASA's at a similar point in their history." Bad comparsion. Spaces is not at a similar point in history (it is not NASA's history, it is just plain history) Let's see 50 years since the first orbital spacecraft and spacex can't put anything into orbiter. 50 years from the first aircraft flight. I bet I could find a startup aircraft company that had a successful first flight within a few years of 1953 (even earlier)

jimfromnsf · Aug 25, 2007

"What are you going to post once a Falcon payload does make it to orbit?" Looks like I have a lot of time to ponder that.

docm · Aug 25, 2007

OK, if we're going to compare apples and oranges when was the last time you saw pre-alpha software work the first time? You obviously think orbit was essential for demo 2 to be deemed successful and a whole lot of people think otherwise because it wasn't a primary mission goal. Guess we'll all have to just deal with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

frodo1008 · Aug 25, 2007

I would LOVE to see spacex totally successful. But in order to do that not only does Falcon I need to actually reach its proper orbit with a payloaf once, but many times! In the launch industry you need to establish a total record of reliability before anybody is truly interested in using your launch system to put payloads that are usually worth many, many times the cost of just the launch into orbit! For instance NASA has used Delta II for many years because Delta II has had some 68 totally successful launches in a row! They are only now changing to the ordinary Delta IV and Atlas V because these rockets have even now after more than a dozen launches established a good record with higher launch weights than Delta II. NASA does this because it is difficult enough for NASA to have a mission to the outer planets operate correctly without taking a chance on its blowing up in the first few minutes of the mission! And the people that launch regular satellites are just as fussy! When your satellite is worth 250 million or more the launch cost of some 50 to 100 million pales to insignificance next to the cost of the satellite itself. So, while it is indeed a good idea to reduce launch costs, by FAR the most important thing is reliability!! Now, both Boeing (with the Delta systems) and LM (with the Atlas systems) and now the new combination of those companies with ALS have more than amply demonstrated such reliability. And with the EELV the Air Force has shown that with enough launches these newer systems using production line methodology will reduce the pound to LEO cost by at least 50% and maybe upwards of 75%, while retaining the all important reliability. I would have to say that with this kind of competition that spacex certainly has its work cut out for it! Please try to recognize the realities of such, it does no good for spacex or even the so called alt.space industry in general to just go Rah! Rah!

Swampcat · Aug 26, 2007

"Please try to recognize the realities of such, it does no good for spacex or even the so called alt.space industry in general to just go Rah! Rah! all the time and not recognize the truth of the situation! I would hope that Elon Musk at least realizes this!" Frodo, I'm sure docm and all the other supporters of SpaceX, et al, are fully cognizant of the difficulties of putting a spacecraft into orbit. Also, Mr. Musk has stated publicly that it is tougher than he first thought. OTOH, it can be done and Mr. Musk apparently has the resources and people to get it done. There may be some in the lay public that are starry-eyed cheer leaders for SpaceX, but I believe Mr. Musk understands the market he's working in. It's a tough, risky market, but the rewards could be very high should he succeed. There are some on these boards who appear to have a strong bias against companies like SpaceX. I can't really understand this attitude from people who are supposedly advocates of any kind of spaceflight. It's one thing to be skeptical -- after all, many companies have come and gone with their newspace ideas -- it's another thing altogether to nit-pick at SpaceX's growing pains while at the same time expounding on the virtues of ULA products. What's the motivation here? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

docm · Aug 26, 2007

Speaking for myself, yes I am aware of the difficulties. Well aware. I just prefer to be optimistic instead of being a curmudgeon before my day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jimfromnsf · Aug 26, 2007

"There may be some in the lay public that are starry-eyed cheer leaders for SpaceX," Not just the lay public, but most of the posters on this site

Swampcat · Aug 26, 2007

"I just prefer to be optimistic instead of being a curmudgeon before my day." Well said, docm. I'd agree that SpaceX, et al, need to prove themselves, but the constant negativity toward what has been accomplished in such a short period of time is annoying and pointless. I can understand the "starry-eyed cheerleader" who wants to see more players in the game and perhaps faster progress than appears likely with the status quo. OTOH, the bottom-feeding curmudgeon, despite a perhaps well-intentioned attempt at presenting objective reality, is difficult to understand without speculating on the motivation for their negativity, especially as it comes with a concomitant praising of the wares of the status quo. SpaceX and other newspace entities will either succeed or not, our opinions notwithstanding, and crow can be a difficult thing to swallow <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

jimfromnsf · Aug 26, 2007

"I think there is a market! " The demise of Energia and Energia-M is proof that there is no market

jimfromnsf · Aug 26, 2007

"despite a perhaps well-intentioned attempt at presenting objective reality," Not an attempt, rather it is objective reality. I have nothing to lose if spacex makes it. In fact, just the opposite, I could be working with spacex

holmec · Aug 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The upperstage of a launcher makes it into orbit, otherwise the payload is not in orbit<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> That's not true for all launchers. In some launches the final burn comes from the ship's/payload thrusters, or a separate tug. That's too inconsistent to say launchers make it into orbit. In other words your statement is misguiding and false.</blockquote></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Not just the lay public, but most of the posters on this site<hr /></blockquote> OTOH there are plenty of posters here that have doubts about SpaceX like myself. This does not preclude me from cheering them on though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The demise of Energia and Energia-M is proof that there is no market<hr /></blockquote> Wrong market. Irrelevant context. The space tourist market is what I'm talking about. Energia and Energia-M was never for space tourists. In fact its market was juse for the Soviet Union which collapsed. So that's way out of context. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The ISS is not an example. It was a task specifically to give the shuttle something to do. There is no commercial HLLV market. Weight equates to cost. There aren't commerical users * willing to risk billions on a single launches Bigelow stations are not examples, he has the size he needs with current launchers * Name a commercial use of a payload (other than Bigelow) weighing more that 30 ton in LEO or 15 ton in GSO or escape. There isn't one right now. So there isn't a market<hr /></blockquote> Then why are people trying to put space hotels up? ISS is an example of providing consumables for. ESA's ATV will transport consumables for ISS for 3-7 astronauts/cosmonauts. And its coapacity doesn't come close to the capacity of a 40 foot cargo container. And its maxing out the limits of Ariane 5 launcher. That European hotel we read in an article about recently would take 6-8 people (approx). There is a market...space tourist market. And it has barely been tapped into. The thing that's going to preclude the exploitation of such a market is the price tag for launches. The price tag must come down. I wish you had more of a thought out argument than just denial in your posts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

frodo1008 · Aug 26, 2007

The problem is NOT the support for spacex that I see on these boards. I also fully support alt.space and spacex,and would be more than happy to see them fully successful! The more systems for getting humanity into space, the better, as far as I am concerned! The problem is the bias against both the government efforts (NASA) and its primary contractors. Some have gone so far as to act as though the older companies have some sort of conspiracy against such as spacex, which is just so much bull! UAl fpr instance already has as much work as it can handle at this time, although it would always want more I am sure (it can always handle more, but it must be remembered that the main competition for UAL is the same competition that spacex will have to face once they get to building larger rocket systems). And that is competition from the Russians, Chinese, and Europeans and others. All of whom have excellent systems already, that because of the far lower labor rates and monetary exchange rates can then charge far less for launches! It IS indeed a VERY tough market!! I am neither being cynical nor pessimistic here, just realistic!

jimfromnsf · Aug 26, 2007

"That's not true for all launchers. In some launches the final burn comes from the ship's/payload thrusters, or a separate tug. " Then that is counted as part of the launch vehicle. My statement is true.

jimfromnsf · Aug 26, 2007

"There is a market...space tourist market. And it has barely been tapped into." That is a laugh. The tourist market is not going to support a HLLV. Bigelow is the upper limit right now. The cost of development of a HLLV wouldn't be bought down by any tourist market Those other paper hotels don't have a bit of fiscal reality in them. There isn't a large enough market to support more than one tourist station. "And its coapacity doesn't come close to the capacity of a 40 foot cargo container. And its maxing out the limits of Ariane 5 launcher. " It doesn't need to be bigger. Cargo ships and container size is irrelevant wrt to orbital logisitics Any commercial station is going to be smaller than the ISS and would have less logistical requirements

j05h · Aug 26, 2007

SpaceX primary market appears to be delivery of crew and human spaceflight cargo, both as commercial provider and govt. contractor. In that context their only real competition is Soyuz/Progress, assuming SpaceX succeeds. They also appear to be developing a general-purpose planetary capsule (Dragon). Satellite launch is providing them early money, but isn't the "big market" they are looking at, per my analysis. They are looking toward the next big spaceflight market, which involves high flight frequency and largely serves an expanding human presence in space. Realism is definitely needed. SpaceX has a long way to go, but is pretty much out in front right now. That test-stage of the Falcon 9 is just impressive. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

j05h · Aug 26, 2007

> That is a laugh. The tourist market is not going to support a HLLV. Bigelow is the upper limit right now. The beauty of this situation is that Bigelow's design presents unlimited opportunities. It has an upper limit on individual modules but incredible flexibility in overall systems. Jim, do you have any idea of whether the Nautilus or SunDancer could be deflated? My understanding is that they use a foam in the walls, but repacking ability would increase mission flexibility for later interplanetary flights. > Those other paper hotels don't have a bit of fiscal reality in them... There isn't a large enough market to support more than one tourist station. Probably not for the next 2 decades, though a lot can change in 20 years. As pointed out recently, the European hotel concept probably violates some of Bigelow's patents. Bigelow has said they want to provide hardware, not operate facilities. New stations would be constructed by various parties, using Bigelow and other components. >> ... doesn't come close to the capacity of a 40 foot cargo container.... /> It doesn't need to be bigger A cargo container (of whatever size) has a huge advantage: standardization. Providers and users know what to expect. Progress, ATV, MPLM are all good starts. Something like the proposed Parom makes a lot of sense in this context of high-frequency cargo flights to commercial stations. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

frodo1008 · Aug 26, 2007

That is the kind of post that I am perfectly happy with! Indeed be positive about spacex (and even all the alt.space crew)! By all means without knocking either ULA or NASA in the meantime! AS a matter of fact NASA is working towards being a large customer for whoever can re-supply the ISS at a reduced cost. If that turns out to be spacex with its Dragon module (probably initially with ULA's Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V Heavy, but eventually even with something from spacex itself) is the least expensive alternative, they too then become a large NASA prime contractor! At this stage I think that Kistler may well be out of it, and that lets in either Boeing or LM as possible competition for spacex. Remember they do have the experience in building actual flying spacecraft. The tasks involved in placing human beings into the toughest environment that they can possibly be in are indeed formidable!

frodo1008 · Aug 26, 2007

Come on jimfromnsf let us not be too pessimistic here! In the current situation I certainly can agree with you here. But, as the prices for a stay in space for up to a week or two start to come down (they will always be the providence of the wealthy for decades to come, I would imagine) to a level that just the relatively wealthy can afford them instead of just the ultra rich, the number of customers will increase dramatically! Plus there are going to have to space stations for research well after the ISS. And I can't think of a better alternative than the relatively inexpensive but roomy Bigelow Modules, placed together in some kind of wheel arrangement for spinning up to a partial gravity at the wheel's rim. This is the only way of doing long duration partial gravity research short of actually going to the moon or Mars. Heck, I can still see NASA (or even one of the other partners) eventually buying Bigelow Modules to be placed on the ISS to give far more living space to that station (as NASA originally wanted to do). After all, NASA just originally gave the results of its own extensive research into inflatable habitats to Bigelow. I think it was a very good move on the part of NASA, as it guaranteed such research would continue without funding issues from congress! So, I do think the future looks very good for the alt.space groups. And that is going to even be good for everybody else in this business in the long run (including the government through NASA)!!

Swampcat · Aug 26, 2007

frodo, just so we understand each other, I was not suggesting that you were the one being cynical or pessimistic. I have read your posts and your realism is quite clear...wordy, but clear. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

PistolPete · Aug 26, 2007

I actually have to agree with you on this one, Jim. If you look at the history of rocket design over the past decade or so, the trend is not for rockets that can lift more, but rockets that can lift cheaper. Currently there are only a hand full of rockets that can lift more than 20 tons to LEO and this is mainly due to government specifications. The only reason that you would need to lift that much for a commercial launch is to lift a satellite to GEO. However, payloads are getting smaller because it is more economical for satellite operators to build lighter spacecraft and launch them on smaller, cheaper rockets. The trend is moving away from the 20 ton LEO LVs and moving towards rockets that lift 8-12 tons to LEO and 4-6 tons to GTO. It is interesting to note that the EELVs are modular and can easily switch between 20 ton government launches and lighter/cheaper commercial launches. As for LEO space tourism, five "spaceflight participants" over five years is barely an industry. Even if the cost is brought down by an order of magnitude, I doubt that there will be a big enough demand in the market to require more than one commercial space station. I doubt that over the next twenty years there will be more than a dozen commercial launches to LEO greater than 20 tons, and that is a very liberal estimate. The only reason for anything bigger would be space colonization, and if that happens within the next 50-75 years I'll be amazed. The vast majority of space tourism launches will be resupply and crew swap out missions on the aforementioned cheaper 8-12 ton LEO LVs. I think that in the end, companies like SpaceX, Bigelow, Scaled Composites, and perhaps a few others will make it. However, the only reason they will make it is because they have the fiscal backing and the business sense to actually put anything together. The rest are just paper tigers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

Huntster · Aug 26, 2007

>>...do you have any idea of whether the Nautilus or SunDancer could be deflated? My understanding is that they use a foam in the walls, but repacking ability would increase mission flexibility for later interplanetary flights. No, repacking is not currently possible, nor do I believe it is something being planned. Before inflation, I believe they use a series of straps and anchors to keep everything folded. While I'm uncertain as to exactly which system they used for the Genesis modules, I understand that the system to be used for Sundancer and BA 330 will be jettisoned after unlatch/inflation. />>the European hotel concept probably violates some of Bigelow's patents. And given the images that have been released, the design violates quite a bit of common sense as well! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

holmec · Aug 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Then that is counted as part of the launch vehicle. <hr /></blockquote> So your saying a small percent of the launcher make it into orbit so we in the English speaking countries should say that launch vehicle go to orbit. Nonsense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

Next Space Shuttles

jimfromnsf

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

docm

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

docm

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

j05h

Guest

j05h

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

Huntster

Guest

holmec

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page