Oh No! Bye -Bye Ares 1

[frodo1008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. Keep it private as long as possible. <br /> Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>Your post has a legitimate point.&nbsp; And I do hope that the new Falcon 9 is successful even on its first flight.&nbsp; But even one failure of such a large rocket (and the larger the rocket the more expensive the failure, even for such as Elon Musk and spacex) is going to put the financing of spacex in somewhat of a bind. &nbsp; Eventually, even if successful that company is going to need far more capital.&nbsp; Unless some truly rich billionaire such as Bill Gates can get behind it!!</p><p>And going public is not necessarily a bad thing in itself.&nbsp; It is limiting in that you then must unusually make a profit, but I thought that was what the alt.space efforts were supposed to be about anyway!&nbsp; Heck, I would think that by now a whole lot of investors would be quite ready to support a company that made ANY kind of profits! </p><p>Besides, I do hope that IF (and that is still a big if) spacex can truly bring launch costs down significantly, it will force even the more experienced companies into following in the path that spacex has blazed! </p><p>There is indeed hope..... </p>

 

[ThereIWas2]

<p>Except that high tech small companies hardly ever pay dividends.&nbsp; In their early years they can't be profitable - there is too much development to fund.&nbsp; Without dividends, not a penny of company income goes to the stockholders.&nbsp; (Shareholders make money off each other;&nbsp; not off the company operations.) &nbsp; But the stockmarket <em>behaves </em>as though corporate profits <em>did</em> go to stockholders, and that can put downward pressure on the stock price if the company is not wildly profitable.&nbsp; Look at the stock price of the always-profitable Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) over the past 24 months for an example.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Downward pressure on the stock price makes shareholders nervous, the board votes in new management, (which would be a really stupid idea in this case), and all because the shareholders thought that somehow the value of the stock and company operations had anything to do with each other.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>NASA signed on the dotted line with Space X. A few qualifying flights, and the same capsule will be transporting humans to the ISS. The Ares 1 is dead. Seriously. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Furthermore, the F9 is launching at least 6 months before the first Ares 1. They are assembling now, and it looks like a January launch.&nbsp; The third flight this year will include a rendevous ( but no docking ) with the ISS. Of course, this is a new space craft, but the more I read about Elon Musk, the more I believe. They will get it done.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Now, they will NOT get it done at $1000 a pound, at least at first. The current CRS contract is at $24000 a pound. But well, that is less expensive than any other US carrier. Of note, the Falcon 9 has the same payload as the Progress space craft.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>On to the moon.&nbsp; </p>

 

[docm]

<td width="85%" height="100%" valign="top">&nbsp;

 

[windnwar]

That is hilarious! <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]

<strong>Even though I'm a fan of Ares 1, I guess it is his rocket.&nbsp; So he deserves it.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/10/3fd01c7c-b5f3-41d8-8a67-7450c8d8b3a5.Medium.gif" alt="" /><br /><br /></strong><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[ThereIWas2]

<p>I would be very surprised if F9 launched in January.&nbsp; They still have to install those big mounting brackets (which just arrived this month), then put the whole thing together horizontally, and there will be some static tests as well.&nbsp; And I don't think the vacuum Merlin has been tested yet.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>Back when the 5 engine test of the F9 first stage was announced&nbsp;they made the following statement;</p><p>"Testing continues on the Falcon 9's second stage, which will be powered by a single vacuum-rated Merlin 1C engine."</p><p>Take that FWIW, but it sounds to me like it's very likely been fired by now.</p><p>Also: these recent pics (posted to Flickr Dec. 27, 2008) show the engine cluster has been mounted to the tank, so things are moving fast.</p><div id="photoImgDiv3136716977" class="photoImgDiv" style="width:502px"><img style="width:500px;height:334px" class="reflect" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/3136716977_9d13310432.jpg?v=0" alt="ksc_ccafs-5 by hansepe." width="500" height="334" /></div><p>&nbsp;</p><div id="photoImgDiv3136716767" class="photoImgDiv" style="width:502px"><img style="width:500px;height:334px" class="reflect" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3136716767_6f49a2bff6.jpg?v=0" alt="ksc_ccafs-4 by hansepe." width="500" height="334" /></div><p>&nbsp;</p><div id="photoImgDiv3141874248" class="photoImgDiv" style="width:359px"><img style="width:357px;height:500px" class="reflect" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3141874248_910097ec8c.jpg?v=0" alt="spacex-2 by hansepe." width="357" height="500" /></div><p>&nbsp;</p><div id="photoImgDiv3141873912" class="photoImgDiv" style="width:502px"><img style="width:500px;height:334px" class="reflect" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/3141873912_de09e40916.jpg?v=0" alt="spacex-1 by hansepe." width="500" height="334" /></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ThereIWas2]

Ah, they are doing it outside.&nbsp; I suppose their horizontal assembly hangar isn't finished yet.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>Nope, not done but they <em><strong>are</strong></em> integrating on its slab. That is made clear by the top pic on their updates page.</p><p>On pic 2's left you can see the erector, but the angle prevents me from seeing if the iron and aluminum halves have been joined.</p><p>EDIT: I take that last sentence back. I ran that part of the pic through PhotoImpact and cropped, enlarged then&nbsp;applied&nbsp;an unsharp mask filter, and the result looks <strong><em>very</em></strong> much like the iron and aluminum are aligned but not yet joined. Link to processed&nbsp;pic below</p><p>Image.....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nope, not done but they are integrating on its slab. That is made clear by the top pic on their updates page.On pic 2's left you can see the erector, but the angle prevents me from seeing if the iron and aluminum halves have been joined.EDIT: I take that last sentence back. I ran that part of the pic through PhotoImpact and cropped, enlarged then&nbsp;applied&nbsp;an unsharp mask filter, and the result looks very much like the iron and aluminum are aligned but not yet joined. Link to processed&nbsp;pic belowImage..... <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>Hey, those are really cool picks, including the cropped image and your explanations.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thanks.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I know politically Delta lost a lot when Boeing got their spank-down for ITAR violations followed closely by the tanker bidding scandal.&nbsp; (So they leaked stuff to the Chinese and then tried to hide it, and followed that up by making use of proprietary Lockheed pricing information when bidding Delta.&nbsp; Naughty, naughty.)&nbsp; Real engineering reasons?&nbsp; No idea.&nbsp; As far as I can tell, they're pretty similar -- and in my opinion, Delta's farther ahead than Atlas, because Delta IV Heavy has actually flown.&nbsp; The comparable Atlas configuration still exists only on paper. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>One would think that "proven reliability" would be high on anyone's list of requirements when using a vehicle to put human's into space.&nbsp; You'd think the fact that Delta IV heavy has already flown would weigh into the debate somewhere in the process.&nbsp; I'm a big fan of innovation, but when it comes to human space travel, I'm also a big fan of proven reliability. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[ariesr]

<p>As has been stated repeatedly, NASA's budget is miniscule compared to other areas.</p><p>How about decommissioning 90% of the Nuclear Weapons in the US? You only need less than 10% for the white elephant deterrant. Save a few pennies by doing that.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finally, a reality check on NASA's plans. &nbsp; Returning to the moon is hardly a top priority when facing a depression, climate change, and international instability.&nbsp; <br />Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV><br /></p>

 

[docm]

<p>The&nbsp;US is already&nbsp;down to ~4,200 active weapons from a high of 32,040, and that is expected to decline another 25% which should put the US at your magical 10% +/-.&nbsp;</p><p>We've also turned 4 of our Ohio Class Trident&nbsp;nuclear missile subs into cruise missile/UAV&nbsp;etc.&nbsp;platforms (the Ohio, the Michigan, the Florida and the Georgia).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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.</DIV> </p><p>However the F-1 engine was quite robust and could have certainly have been upgraded to a higher thrust if it had been needed, or as von Braun once proposed, the booster could have used eight engines rather than five. The Boeing-proposed growth derivatives of the Delta IV up to 100 MT payload simply used more or larger liquid-fueled stages, except for occasional use of "small" nonsegmented SRBs. Large segemented SRBs were not proposed, nor were they to be used on the heavy version of the Atlas. I believe this was primarily due to their higher operational cost. SpaceX is also relying entirely on liquid propulsion, as do the Soyuz, Proton, Long March, and Sea Launch and one wonders if Rutan would have gone with liquids instead of the the hybrid system for the SpaceShip had NASA not cancelled the X-34. </p><p>Essentially any payload can be launched with either liquid or solid propulsion, if cost is no object. Solids tend to cost less to develop but more to operate. Liquid fueled launch vehicles are much lighter and less hazardous to work with during servicing, since they are unfueled untill just before launch. When one considers the facilities, personnel, infrastructure, and support costs, the Delta IV is launched with a small fraction of the resources required for the Ares.&nbsp; </p>

 

[job1207]

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php<p>&nbsp;</p><p>I just checked in at the spacex web site. The rocket is pretty much put together.&nbsp; They seem to work quite a bit faster than reports I've heard on other rockets and what not. </p><p>At any rate, the pics are great.&nbsp; </p><p>I would not be surprised if they meet their Dec 31st date. Certainly, it will not take much more than that to put the rocket together.&nbsp; </p>

 

[vulture4]

<p>The SpaceX site says "Whether measured by weight or by cost, <strong>the majority of the Falcon 9 being assembled is actual flight hardware"</strong></p><p>Apparently at least some significant componentents are not flight hardware, so this is more of an integration test than preparation for a launch. Also, it would be pretty unusual to integrate an actual launch vehicle outside where the components could be damaged by severe weather. Still, I agree that they are moving much faster than any organization I've seen here before.&nbsp; Maybe they can even win back some of the commercial satelite launch business that has completely disappeared from the US over the past ten years. </p>

 

[ThereIWas2]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so this is more of an integration test than preparation for a launch</DIV></p><p>Among the things I think are missing are at least the 2nd stage engine expansion nozzle, and the dummy cargo.&nbsp; It would be interesting to know if they did things like hook up the 1st stage engine cluster to the tank, etc.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[windnwar]

<p>If it flies well, is as responsive to launch times as the falcon 1 is, and they keep the prices close to normal it'd have to pick up business based on cost and how quick it can be readied for launch. It actually would be close to Zenit pricing at that point, only without the red tape of using a foriegn launcher for US payloads, and without the issue of dealing with the new restrictions Khazakstan has put in place, or future restrictions. </p><p>It just has to prove itself reliable. That won't be easy but they seem to on the right track. I can't wait to see it launch. </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>

 

[job1207]

<p>regarding the comment, flight hardware, I am thinking that refers to the nature of this flight. Dragon will not be on this flight. The top will just be ballast, of some sort. </p><p>And doing things backward, I just went to the site and confirmed that Falcon 9 is now put together, one day ahead of schedule.&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.spacex.com/updates.php</p><p>Yes, you read that correctly, they are one day ahead of schedule. Next they will be welding together the launch mount, and erector.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[job1207]

<p>http://www.spacex.com/updates.php</p><p>The launch strongback and the rocket base are welded and in place. Next comes the lifting of the rocket. The strongback cradle looks like a sailboat lift. ( more or less )&nbsp; </p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.spacex.com/updates.phpThe launch strongback and the rocket base are welded and in place. Next comes the lifting of the rocket. The strongback cradle looks like a sailboat lift. ( more or less )&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV><br /><br />Instead of posting in this Ares thread, I've started one dedicated to the SpaceX launch. Le's take that discsussion there, and leave this one for Ares 1.</p><p>Thanx</p><p>Wayne</p> <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>

 

[vulture4]

Delta IV also completely eliminates the severe vibration problem with the Ares which is requiring development of a new damper system and will be a rough ride even with it. DIV-H is all liquids so almost no vibration.<br />