Oh No! Bye -Bye Ares 1

[windnwar]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I assume a passive system is less complex and less heavy than an active system? &nbsp;If so, that's good news then. &nbsp;Assuming the new admin doesn't toss the whole thing out.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV><br /><br />I'd bet it still comes with a pretty hefty wieght penalty, on a rocket that has no margins already. I wonder what they'll have to gut from Orion now to make up for it. Of course the other question is, will the five segment booster experience more vibration then the 4 segment boosters and how much of the vibration is dampened by the shuttles external tank, something that won't be there to dampen it on Ares-1. </p><p>My guess is this is being glossed over like the rest of the Ares project due to the recent scrutiny the new administration has subjected NASA too. I don't trust anything coming out of that group at all based on recent actions. </p> <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>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd bet it still comes with a pretty hefty wieght penalty, on a rocket that has no margins already. I wonder what they'll have to gut from Orion now to make up for it. Of course the other question is, will the five segment booster experience more vibration then the 4 segment boosters and how much of the vibration is dampened by the shuttles external tank, something that won't be there to dampen it on Ares-1. My guess is this is being glossed over like the rest of the Ares project due to the recent scrutiny the new administration has subjected NASA too. I don't trust anything coming out of that group at all based on recent actions. <br />Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The flight data from the Shuttle flights allow the math model of the single stick Ares 1 to be refined. The damping effect of the ET, Orbiter and the other SRB can be well understood from the data.</p><p>The static test of the 5 segment Ares 1 booster is set for the spring of 2009 which will refine the data further.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The flight data from the Shuttle flights allow the math model of the single stick Ares 1 to be refined. The damping effect of the ET, Orbiter and the other SRB can be well understood from the data.The static test of the 5 segment Ares 1 booster is set for the spring of 2009 which will refine the data further.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>Also, from what I have heard the first flights of the Ares I will be heavily instrumented non human being carrying flights.</p><p>So actual flight data and fine tuning should be ready to dampon the affects long before astronauts lives are at risk!</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[windnwar]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, from what I have heard the first flights of the Ares I will be heavily instrumented non human being carrying flights.So actual flight data and fine tuning should be ready to dampon the affects long before astronauts lives are at risk!&nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV><br /><br />While that is true, I still can't see any of it helping the payload to orbit issues Ares-1 has already. Sure the passive system will probably weigh less then an active system, but that's still more wieght on a rocket that has no extra payload room as it is. So then what else gets cut from Orion? And does that end up having to be moved to the Ares V instead? In the rush to get Ares-1X launched they are even reconsidering rolling out the backup shuttle to the same pad the primary shuttle takes off from for the Hubble mission, even though they had previously said it was not possible to do. If your having to second guess because of a schedule crunch, your right back where they were prior to Columbia. <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>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd bet it still comes with a pretty hefty wieght penalty, on a rocket that has no margins already. I wonder what they'll have to gut from Orion now to make up for it.&nbsp; <br />Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p><strong>IIRC, Nasa has an 8.000 lb. reserve set aside for the 1st stage.&nbsp; These mitigation solutions will cost about 2,000 lbs.&nbsp; I believe Nasa came up with this 8,000 lb reserve by off loading 10,000 lbs. of propellent from the service module.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that will affect the Lunar Orion's mission.&nbsp; If someone knows for sure, please correct me.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[wubblie]

<p>As someone mentioned earlier, NASA seems surprisingly (and uncharactoristically) worried about the possible one-month delay of the&nbsp; Ares 1 demo flight from July to August. This makes me wonder what Spacex's schedule for their demo flight of Falcon 9 from the cape is? My bet- they have it set for July, NASA knows this, and wants to launch first and on-time, to avoid unflattering comparisons with a private launch company. </p><p>This is not to say that I don't support what NASA is doing. They are the only entity that can push the boundaries right now. Let them build Ares 1 and V, and if alt space can replace Ares 1 down the line, then great. NASA will be able to focus on building more Ares V's, and everything will work out well. I am not a fan of Ares I, it could have been done differently, but cutting the program now makes no sense to me. The prize is a true heavy lift vehicle. Ares I will be a means to that end. If someone wants to cut Ares I, in the same line of argument, they need to explain where the heavy lift vehicle will come from in this scenario.&nbsp;</p><p>And also, some are making the argument that no other countries use large SRB's. One thing I wonder about, is if at some point, you just can't scale up liquid propellant vehicles any further. I know that Wikipedia has the payload of Ares V at 188,000 versus 118,000 of for Saturn V. So, it looks like we are in uncharted territory now, and arguing by analogy to smaller vehicles may not be valid. Perhaps augmenting with large solids becomes a more efficient solution for larger lifting rockets.In this case, the development of Ares I is justified just in that it gives the new SRB's a reason to be made. </p>

 

[MarkStanaway]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Perhaps augmenting with large solids becomes a more efficient solution for larger lifting rockets.In this case, the development of Ares I is justified just in that it gives the new SRB's a reason to be made. <br /> Posted by wubblie</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Has any consideration been given to augmenting Ares 1's percieved shortfall in performance by using by using the latest GEM-60 (Graphite-Epoxy Motor) solids as used on Delta 2? These have been used in combinations of 3, 6, and 9 to augment Delta's capabilities. I don't know how to do the maths but if they are only looking at a shortfall of 1 or 2000 Kgs these might be a possible short term solution.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

IIRC that would likely cause too high a G load on the crew, among other problems like even more vibration - a characteristic of solids which is why the thrust oscillation problem to begin with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IIRC that would likely cause too high a G load on the crew, among other problems like even more vibration - a characteristic of solids which is why the thrust oscillation problem to begin with. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Not to mention I'd hate to see what strap on solids like the GEM's would do to LOC/LOM numbers. The only upside is if one failed, I doubt you'd get the explosion that occurred on the Delta II flight, with them strapped to an SRB, but I'd hate to see what it would do. </p><p>One thing I will disagree with though is that Ares-1 is a means to Ares-V. Ares-V could be built entirely in the background without ever needing to build Ares-1 and without needing to go through all the hell to mitigate the payload issues, vibration issues etc of Ares-1. All the time and funding wasted on fixing its problems would be moot as they wouldn't exist in Ares-V. Meanwhile they could have got a EELV manrated and launched for far less. Ares-1 is being looked at as a way to make sure that Ares-V gets built when in reality its causing the cost overruns, and schedule slips that have a far greater chance of getting Ares-V cancelled. Never make the mistake of putting all your eggs in one basket, yet that is what has happened. </p> <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>

 

[MarkStanaway]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IIRC that would likely cause too high a G load on the crew, among other problems like even more vibration - a characteristic of solids which is why the thrust oscillation problem to begin with. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>What if they were ignited sequentially to reduce the G force. That way the nozzle sizes could be 'tuned' for maximum performance at altitude.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>Air igniging GEM's? Don't think that's in the spec sheet, and my main&nbsp;concern with a staggered air start would be the GEM's still burning during first stage sep. That could get ugly fast.</p><p>Bottom line is it borders on&nbsp;a Rube Goldberg machine&nbsp;with increased expense when the real solution is to just give&nbsp;Lockmart/Boeing what funding is necessary to man rate an appropriate Atlas or Delta. IIRC they quoted about $3 billion, a bargain compared to what's being spend on Ares I.&nbsp; Want&nbsp;a heavy lifter too? Fund it separately.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Air igniging GEM's? Don't think that's in the spec sheet, and my main&nbsp;concern with a staggered air start would be the GEM's still burning during first stage sep. That could get ugly fast.Bottom line is it borders on&nbsp;a Rube Goldberg machine&nbsp;with increased expense when the real solution is to just give&nbsp;Lockmart/Boeing what funding is necessary to man rate an appropriate Atlas or Delta. IIRC they quoted about $3 billion, a bargain compared to what's being spend on Ares I.&nbsp; Want&nbsp;a heavy lifter too? Fund it separately. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>While we don't always agree on the more political forum (who does?), I can tell you that we are in 100% agreement here (and anybody that knows my posts, also knows that I do consider this to be by far the more important of the forums)!!</p><p>By the way just out of curiosity, do you have a link to that figure from UAL? </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While we don't always agree on the more political forum (who does?), I can tell you that we are in 100% agreement here (and anybody that knows my posts, also knows that I do consider this to be by far the more important of the forums)!!By the way just out of curiosity, do you have a link to that figure from UAL? &nbsp; <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Air starts with GEMs are standard practice. They burn our before core stage MECO.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MarkStanaway]

<p>Well thanks for setting me straight on that score.</p><p>I find these forums stimulating and educational. Thanks guys.</p><p>By the way what does 'IIRC' stand for ?</p><p>Bear with me I am fairly new to these discussions!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well thanks for setting me straight on that score.I find these forums stimulating and educational. Thanks guys.By the way what does 'IIRC' stand for ?Bear with me I am fairly new to these discussions!&nbsp; <br />Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If I Recall Correctly<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Air starts with GEMs are standard practice. They burn our before core stage MECO. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>I appreciate your information as always, but but I am somewhat confused as none of my posts had any questions about air starts with GEMS. </p>

 

[ThereIWas2]

Rendesvous is pretty reliable and automated these day.&nbsp; Maybe we don't need such a big heavy lift vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Air igniging GEM's? Don't think that's in the spec sheet, and my main&nbsp;concern with a staggered air start would be the GEM's still burning during first stage sep. That could get ugly fast.Bottom line is it borders on&nbsp;a Rube Goldberg machine&nbsp;with increased expense when the real solution is to just give&nbsp;Lockmart/Boeing what funding is necessary to man rate an appropriate Atlas or Delta. IIRC they quoted about $3 billion, a bargain compared to what's being spend on Ares I.&nbsp; Want&nbsp;a heavy lifter too? Fund it separately. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>Then the development of a Delta IV Heavy for the same job of the Ares I would only cost about $3 billion, instead of the $15 to $20 billion for the Ares I.&nbsp; I would think that the new administration would be looking at this option VERY seriously.&nbsp; And if Mike Griffin wants to get in the way, then they would be looking for a more cooperative administrator just as seriously!</p><p>Someone here stated that the long term costs of using the EELV's would be more.&nbsp; That is also totally incorrect.&nbsp; While it is true that the Ares I will have the same recoverability and reusability as the SRB's for the Space Shuttle (which have not turned out to be nearly as inexpensive as they were originally supposed to be anyway), there are also some cost advantages with the Delta IV Heavy that will be availably in the long run.</p><p>By the way, I don't think that congress would be too happy with the Atlas V, as the engines are Russian, and our relations with them are not too good now, and may even be worse in the future.&nbsp; As a contrast, all the engines of the Delta are American designed and made!</p><p>What would happen in the long run on costs for the Delta IV Heavy is that they would start relatively high (at about $300 million per launch.&nbsp; This is still far below the costs of the space shuttle per launch.&nbsp; However, with such items as the Common Booster Core being designed as a true production line type of item, the more that are made the less expensive the individual cost per CBC.&nbsp; This means that the more launches that are made with this vehicle, the less expensive each launch becomes. &nbsp; </p><p>Also, it may very well be possible to have a parachute recovery system for each CBC which may very well give at least 90% of the engines reusability also.&nbsp; Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne is already very seriously looking at an upgrade of the inexpensive RS-68 engines to the level of a million pound thrust engine.&nbsp; This would give the Delta IV Heavy, a far greater lift to LEO than any of the Ares I variants.&nbsp; Thus totally eliminating any weight problems for the Orion capsule and the Constellation project.</p><p>Do to the very poor present economy, and also to the excessive costs of the development of the Ares I, I think that the new administration is going to be faced with two choices.&nbsp; Either cancel the Constellation project and going back to the moon for at least another decade (a choice that I, and just about everybody here would not like at all), or investigate these other options for getting the Orion into LEO. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[frodo1008]

<p>[Posted by frodo1008[/QUOTE]</p><p>By the way, another reason for taking up UAL's (Boeing + LM's) offer is that if this is done, the useful information thus obtained for using the Delta IV Heavy could then also be used by spacex.&nbsp; IF they can make the Falcon 9 Heavy both reliable, and anywhere near as inexpensive as Elon Musk says they can, NASA will be almost forced to go to them for not only launching the Orion capsule, but even for the possible design and building of a far less expensive Very Heavy Lift Vehicle (instead of designing and building the Ares V, which would even be a far more expensive proposition than the Ares I has turned out to be).&nbsp; And this in turn could force UAL into reducing its prices for the DELTA also.&nbsp; Heck, this could in the long run make both NASA, and the US taxpayer that pays for all this, the recipients of a true price war for lifting the loads for going back to the moon, and even for going on to Mars, to LEO.&nbsp; Thus freeing up far more NASA funds for designing and building the space craft for such explorations!!&nbsp; More for less, I like that idea!! </p><p>Also, an all liquid engine booster is not fueled up until it is on the actual launch pad, and therefore is far lighter than a booster with large (and very heavy) solid boosters for the trip from the VAB to the launch pads.&nbsp; One of the problems that has been brought up on this forum is the incredibly heavy loads that will be placed on both the tractors and the crawlway with such very heavy solid boosters.</p><p>If NASA has to replace the venerable tractors, and redoes the crawlway, for the Ares V, it is going to be a VERY expensive proposition!!&nbsp; </p>

 

[wubblie]

You guys are kidding, right? Give the contract to ULA? What initiative have they shown? If they were interested in pushing the envelope and developing space, they would be kicking down NASA's door for ISS resupply, or orbiting an experimental capsule, etc. What do they do besides launching 1-2 heavy satellites per year. Not much. Look at spacex- they are funding an experimental capsule, and getting others on board. Why couldn't ULA have been doing this for like the last ten years? ULA is not really interested in space, they are just interested in getting government contracts, and then bloating them to increase their profit margin. The fact is, if we can sit here and say the Delta or Atlas "kind of, sort of maybe" could fulfill the mission. But to get the contract, they would need a lifter that was clearly overqualified. Which they could have, but they don't want to do any development on their own without a fat contract, so they don't have any demonstrated capability other than launching satellites. Give the contract to an entity that is enthusiastic about developing space, and has some passion. NASA, for all their faults, are at least enthusiastic and committed to space exploration. SpaceX is definately so as well. These are the only organizations that should be considered.

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You guys are kidding, right? Give the contract to ULA? What initiative have they shown? If they were interested in pushing the envelope and developing space, they would be kicking down NASA's door for ISS resupply, or orbiting an experimental capsule, etc. What do they do besides launching 1-2 heavy satellites per year. Not much. Look at spacex- they are funding an experimental capsule, and getting others on board. Why couldn't ULA have been doing this for like the last ten years? ULA is not really interested in space, they are just interested in getting government contracts, and then bloating them to increase their profit margin. The fact is, if we can sit here and say the Delta or Atlas "kind of, sort of maybe" could fulfill the mission. But to get the contract, they would need a lifter that was clearly overqualified. Which they could have, but they don't want to do any development on their own without a fat contract, so they don't have any demonstrated capability other than launching satellites. Give the contract to an entity that is enthusiastic about developing space, and has some passion. NASA, for all their faults, are at least enthusiastic and committed to space exploration. SpaceX is definately so as well. These are the only organizations that should be considered. <br /> Posted by wubblie</DIV></p><p>IN the first place ULA was (as an already established launch source, and NASA wanted somebody new, which didn't work out quite so well in at least one case) NOT allowed to even bid on COTS for the newest space capsule to get to the ISS, so your information&nbsp; there is without meaning!! &nbsp; </p><p>Who do you think has the contract for the Orion spacecraft that is to be the main vehicle for going to the moon?&nbsp; Oh yes, it just happens to be one of the halves of ULA, the LM half to be exact!</p><p>Both LM and Boeing are indeed profit motivated (so ULA which is a combination of the two, certainly is also profit oriented), they both are openly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and so they both have shareholders that want a return for their investments.&nbsp; So neither of them can really take chancy risks without the direct back up of governmental contracts!&nbsp; Is this system of capitalism too difficult for you to understand?</p><p>On the other hand while I also support the efforts of spacex, it is the plaything of a multi millionaire (who IS doing an admirable thing here) who can afford to do with his own money just exactly as he wants to do!&nbsp; However, in order to really take on more and larger space oriented projects even he is going to have to go public, and then he too will have to deal with shareholders.&nbsp; So you think that his operations will be the same after that?</p><p>Besides, the only real alternative to the Ares I is not yet the Falcon 9 Heavy, as it will not even exist for several years yet, and then will have to have at least several launches to establish the same kind of launch success reliability that ULA is NOW establishing! &nbsp;</p><p>Most of the entire history of NASA has been built upon such companies as Boeing, LM, and Rockwell International (which is no longer in the business), with such divisions as Rocketdyne, which has made just about 90% of the rocket engines for the US space program.&nbsp; If you want to come up against that kind of experience, you had better be prepared to expend $billions of dollars, and the only way to truly do that IS to make use of governmental contracts, as of now the ONLY game in town for human spaceflight in this country IS NASA. &nbsp;</p><p>So your information is both incorrect at best, and insulting and annoying at worst!</p><p>I don't know what your background is, but it might be best if you took a less belligerent attitude towards those of us that have actually worked in this industry!</p><p>If you can't play nice here, then I would suggest that you go play someplace else!! </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; </p>

 

[Swampcat]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IN the first place ULA was (as an already established launch source, and NASA wanted somebody new, which didn't work out quite so well in at least one case) NOT allowed to even bid on COTS for the <strong><em>newest space capsule</em></strong> to get to the ISS, so your information there is without meaning!!</DIV></p><p>Uh, I assume you mean for the launcher to get the "newest space capsule" to ISS. Otherwise, this sentence makes no sense.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Who do you think has the contract for the Orion spacecraft that is to be the main vehicle for going to the moon? Oh yes, it just happens to be one of the halves of ULA, the LM half to be exact!</DIV></p><p>And exactly what is your point, frodo? LM didn't design Orion. There was no initiative here, just another government contract for them.</p><p>OTOH, I will give LM credit for showing a little initiative in this area. LM was reported to be working on their own version of a manned spacecraft, though I've heard nothing about whether or not this has gone beyond PP studies.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both LM and Boeing are indeed profit motivated (so ULA which is a combination of the two, certainly is also profit oriented), they both are openly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and so they both have shareholders that want a return for their investments. So neither of them can really take chancy risks without the direct back up of governmental contracts! Is this system of capitalism too difficult for you to understand?</DIV></p><p>What's with the attitude? Someone attacking your beloved dinospace companies? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>But you're right that these dinospace companies won't take risks and need to feed on government contracts. That's just the kind of lack of initiative that wubblie was mentioning, so I guess you've made his/her point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>On the other hand while I also support the efforts of spacex, it is the plaything of a multi millionaire (who IS doing an admirable thing here) who can afford to do with his own money just exactly as he wants to do! However, in order to really take on more and larger space oriented projects even he is going to have to go public, and then he too will have to deal with shareholders. So you think that his operations will be the same after that?</DIV></p><p>There is a rumor that an IPO is imminent. I can't wait. I'm hoping to be one of those shareholders. Of course, Mr. Musk will then have shareholders to satisfy. But that, in and of itself, does not have to result in turning SpaceX into a company that lacks initiative. Sometimes shareholders buy into a company <strong><em>because</em></strong> they are dynamic and helping to create a different kind of future.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Besides, the only real alternative to the Ares I is not yet the Falcon 9 Heavy, as it will not even exist for several years yet, and then will have to have at least several launches to establish the same kind of launch success reliability that ULA is NOW establishing! Most of the entire history of NASA has been built upon such companies as Boeing, LM, and Rockwell International (which is no longer in the business), with such divisions as Rocketdyne, which has made just about 90% of the rocket engines for the US space program. If you want to come up against that kind of experience, you had better be prepared to expend $billions of dollars, and the only way to truly do that IS to make use of governmental contracts, as of now the ONLY game in town for human spaceflight in this country IS NASA.</DIV></p><p>Kudos to all those companies for their <strong><em>past</em></strong> history of success. I'm sure they've been fed well from the country's treasury over the years.</p><p>But these companies are no longer the only launch game in town and I would expect that over the next few years SpaceX is going to give them a run for their money. History is important, but I'm sure you've heard the old saying "what have you done for me lately?" Boeing and LM will continue to be an important part of this nation's aerospace industry for years to come, but it's time for some new blood.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So your information is both incorrect at best, and insulting and annoying at worst! I don't know what your background is, but it might be best if you took a less belligerent attitude towards those of us that have actually worked in this industry! If you can't play nice here, then I would suggest that you go play someplace else!!</DIV></p><p>What arrogant crap. Who's the one being belligerent here? Wubblie expressed an opinion. You seem to be taking it personally. Chill out. No one was attacking you personally. Sheesh. Wubblie is making, IMO, a useful point and has as much right to that opinion as you do to yours, irregardless of his/her background. Perhaps you're the one that should go play elsewhere if you can't deal with that.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>In this market I doubt SpaceX will do an IPO.&nbsp; Previously I thougth after a sucessful F9 flight, but now I don't think until after an F9+Dragon flight, or two.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In this market I doubt SpaceX will do an IPO.&nbsp; Previously I thougth after a sucessful F9 flight, but now I don't think until after an F9+Dragon flight, or two. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />While I'd love to own some SpaceX stock, I actually hope they stay private for awhile as the risk of going public, especially in the current market makes you far more vulnerable to a hostile takeover, especially if the market undervalues your stock. The last thing I want to see is LM or Boeing essentially end up buying out the competition. As a private entity they are far more free to go whichever direction they want to as long as they make enough profit to keep the doors open and the rockets flying and the designers producing new ideas. That is something you quickly lose as a publicly held company. This is why many companies have gone private lately, because the market didn't get them, undervalued them and in return practically ran them out of business. You've got to have longer term vision then most of wall street has to pull off truly innovative things. Classic example is Cosco, you have one of the lowest paid CEO's of any company, with a contract that fits on one page and includes the option to fire him for cause if he's bad for the company, well paid workers with one of the lowest employee turnover rates in retail anywhere, and what does wall street think? They think he pays his workers too much and could be more profitable if they were paid closer to what Walmart pays its employees, even though they bring in a great margin every year and never have to deal with the employer turn over issues that Walmart has too. </p><p>Keep it private as long as possible. </p> <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>

 

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Uh, I assume you mean for the launcher to get the "newest space capsule" to ISS. Otherwise, this sentence makes no sense.And exactly what is your point, frodo? LM didn't design Orion. There was no initiative here, just another government contract for them.OTOH, I will give LM credit for showing a little initiative in this area. LM was reported to be working on their own version of a manned spacecraft, though I've heard nothing about whether or not this has gone beyond PP studies.What's with the attitude? Someone attacking your beloved dinospace companies? But you're right that these dinospace companies won't take risks and need to feed on government contracts. That's just the kind of lack of initiative that wubblie was mentioning, so I guess you've made his/her point.There is a rumor that an IPO is imminent. I can't wait. I'm hoping to be one of those shareholders. Of course, Mr. Musk will then have shareholders to satisfy. But that, in and of itself, does not have to result in turning SpaceX into a company that lacks initiative. Sometimes shareholders buy into a company because they are dynamic and helping to create a different kind of future.Kudos to all those companies for their past history of success. I'm sure they've been fed well from the country's treasury over the years.But these companies are no longer the only launch game in town and I would expect that over the next few years SpaceX is going to give them a run for their money. History is important, but I'm sure you've heard the old saying "what have you done for me lately?" Boeing and LM will continue to be an important part of this nation's aerospace industry for years to come, but it's time for some new blood.What arrogant crap. Who's the one being belligerent here? Wubblie expressed an opinion. You seem to be taking it personally. Chill out. No one was attacking you personally. Sheesh. Wubblie is making, IMO, a useful point and has as much right to that opinion as you do to yours, irregardless of his/her background. Perhaps you're the one that should go play elsewhere if you can't deal with that. <br /> Posted by Swampcat</DIV></p><p>In the first place I would appreciate it if you would modify your language somewhat, as this site IS open to children.&nbsp; You could say arrogant baloney, and I would get your point just as well!&nbsp; </p><p>In the first place, when you post:</p><p>"Someone attacking your beloved dinospace companies? But you're right that these dinospace companies won't take risks and need to feed on government contracts. That's just the kind of lack of initiative that wubblie was mentioning, so I guess you've made his/her point."</p><p>I guess you can use the little emoticon trick to enable you to make untrue and sarcastic statements.&nbsp; But they still remain untrue and sarcastic anyway.&nbsp; I have supported both NASA, and the alt,space companies such as spacex here on this forum for some time now. I just do not appreciate the kind of sarcasm and other remarks against the experienced aerospace companies that are already showing that it is indeed possible to make a profit off of space activities, whether commercial satellites, or human space efforts.&nbsp; I grow very tired of THAT kind of attitude, especially as the more experienced companies by making such profits already have by far the largest employment of ANY companies in that particular area.&nbsp; And for the sakes of the good middle class working people of this country, I will oppose such attitudes as I like! &nbsp;</p><p>Further, the customer being the government, whether it is the military (such as the EELV effort, which was FAR less expensive than the Ares I is turning out to be), or NASA, does not make any difference to me.&nbsp; It has even become a somewhat conservative mantra (and from your posts over on the more political forums, you are usually a conservative) that private contractors should be replacing pure government efforts as much as possible, both for less expense to the taxpayer and more efficiency in government!&nbsp; Well, guess what, the more experienced aerospace companies have been doing this since the very beginning of the US space program!&nbsp; So just perhaps a little less sarcasm and supposed wit on the part of some posters here just might be a little less hypocritical?&nbsp; Just perhaps....</p><p>It IS that attitude that I find offensive, and if you don't like that, then so be it!</p><p>The arrogance has been on the other side of the point for quite sometime now, and I would just like to bite back a little.&nbsp; And I neither need sarcastic remarks nor emotocons to do it!</p><p>Perhaps I was a little hard on a relative newcomer here, and for that I will apologise (which I thought of doing even before your post), but that does not mean that my points are wrong when somebody suggests that those companies that have already been able to find ways of making profits off of space activities should be barred from further governmental activities in space!&nbsp; BECAUSE they happen to have found such ways to actually do what most here want to see happen anyway.&nbsp; Such a position would not even be helpful to the alt.space companies as NASA IS the only human LEO activity now going (at least for the US).&nbsp; Notice that I do NOT say that the alt.space companies should be excluded from NASA's contracts, that would just as ridiculous in the other direction!</p><p>I truly support ALL space activities, including those of other governments!</p><p>I am not being to obtuse for you here am I? </p><p>I do understand, and even share somewhat the frustration of a lot of the space enthusiasts here, when they see evidently no progress being made in going out further into space than LEO.&nbsp; But that does NOT mean that is the fault of the experienced aerospace companies.&nbsp; Heck, it isn't even the fault of NASA, which in many cases is by law forbidden to lobby for things that even NASA itself wants to do!&nbsp; That also is NOT NASA's fault either.&nbsp; Blame congress if you want.&nbsp; Heck, be my guest in blaming congress!!</p><p>And yes, the only total way out of this (aside from such as GWB, whom I have give some rare kudos to for his efforts in this very important area!) is to either set new goals and visions for such as NASA ro go out further, or hope for, and support, the efforts of alt.space companies in such areas as space tourism.&nbsp; I also fully support those efforts as well.&nbsp; But that does not mean that it then becomes OK to just bad mouth the efforts of the more experienced companies, such as some here want to do!&nbsp; That is NOT helping things!&nbsp; In fact negativity never helps such things as space effots, as we are indeed a minority effort!</p><p>So even though I was perhaps a little harsh, my points are still valid.</p><p>Sorry about that, but that is the way it is!</p><p>So STOP being sacastic as it does not become your usual intelligence!</p><p>And Have A Very Good Day!&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>