SpaceX Delay No Big Deal

[spacelifejunkie]

I love reading the opinions on this site, even if they get nasty sometimes. I definitely have learned a lot. I certainly only have an amateur's opinion but does it seem like the latest Falcon launch delay was nothing to be worried about? A bonehead maneuver leaving a vent open during fueling and a fluke piece of ice falling and interupting the power to an engine computer. These problems sound very easy to fix. We are all patiently awaiting this launch and it is frustrating. But look at how far SpaceX has come in just a few years. I can wait another couple of weeks. Ever increasing human space travel is inevitable for our species anyway so I'm not worried. I would just like it to start now.<br /><br />SLJ

 

[kdavis007]

I think that people just want to complain no matter what....

 

[stephentracey]

I agree, I am looking forward to the Falcon 1 launch.<br />I have also reviewed the future Falcon 9 launch vehicle and it is very impressive both in terms of payload capacity and cost!<br />I have seen many startup's come and go over the years but Space X looks like it will be a serious player in the future mainly due to its skill base(staff) and more importantly lots of funding by its CEO <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Regards<br />steve

 

[mikejz]

Its not that this event is a big deal, its just the SpaceX is over a year delayed already. <br /><br />Add to this the business aspects of the cashflow, etc. and it makes things difficult.

 

[dragon04]

I think I'd prove that I could fly my Falcon 1 before I even worried about my Falcon 2 let alone my Falcon 9. But that's just me. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, some of us are just anxious to see the thing fly. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> The frustrations you're seeing are born out of that suspense. I think everybody here would love to see a successful Falcon launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Except for boeing, lockmart and orbital sciences that is. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[stephentracey]

Dragon,<br />I was merely observing data from their website.<br />Of course it is logical to flight test the Falcon 1 first.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

I really get a kick out of you guys who knock Boeing and LM! They together have an almost complete lock on all govermental work in space over the next five years at least. <br /><br />Further Boeing is FAR more worried about Airbus and their core business of commercial airliners. However it would seem that they have now decisively taken back the lead in orders, and as Airbus if somewhat over commited to the A380 (which will need at least twice its current orders to break even for its costs). And now Boeing is going to increase the size of a new 747, and build the even newer 7E7, they look very good in their ocre business. Boeing stock is gettin gvery close to its five year high at the present time.<br /><br />Do you really think that with such a hugh business load that the largest aerospace company in the world is really worried about spacex?<br /><br />LM stock is also at a high, and I don't think tha they are even concerned at all either! <br /><br />On the other hand Orbital Sciences itself is relatively small, and the Falcon I should possibly be in direct competition with its Pegasus launch system, so they may actually have something to worry about.<br /><br />And yes, I too do fully support the efforts of Elon Musk and spacex, and wish them a great launch. But such chopping away at Boeing and LM isn't productive here!!<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

What I find amusing is the assumption that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are complete idiots. Even if SpaceX is a success does anyone think LockMart and Boeing are going to set around and do nothing? They will quickly adopt parts of SpaceX's business model to their operations and could easily wind up crushing SpaceX with the very plan it created. Other car companies copied Ford's assembly line, other computer companies copied Compaq's model of selling IBM compatible machines at a lower cost than IBM. Successful business models always quickly spread through an industry and there is no logical reason to think that it won't happen with Rockets.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> They will quickly adopt parts of SpaceX's business model to their operations and could easily wind up crushing SpaceX with the very plan it created. ... Successful business models always quickly spread through an industry and there is no logical reason to think that it won't happen with Rockets. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Large legacy corporations are just not that mobile. There are a multitude of structural reasons why Boeing and Lockheed cannot copy the SpaceX business module, just as similar reasons prevent AA or United from copying the SouthWest business module.<br /><br />Frankly I don't think any of the majors care about SpaceX and the Falcon 1. They'll only take an interest if there is a serious attempt to build and launch a Falcon V or 9. Look at the way that Boeing treats Bombardier and Embraer. Both either built or plan to build aircraft in the 110 seat range, encroaching on the 737-600/700 segment. Boeing doesn't care, but it will care if they actually build a 175 seat aircraft.

 

[najab]

><i>Further Boeing is FAR more worried about Airbus and their core business of commercial airliners.</i><p>Boeing's core business is as a defence contractor. The airliner division is a side affair these days.</p>

 

[josh_simonson]

Just because rocketry is a small part of their buisness, don't mean the manager in charge of that division isn't concerned about upstarts developing competing products that undercut them. <br /><br />SpaceX's quotes are so low, that 6 Falcon 9's can orbit a similar tonnage of cargo as the proposed HLV, for only the cost of the 6 SSMEs that the HLV uses.

 

[yurkin]

In 2004<br />IDS (Integrated Defense Systems) Generated 30.5 Billion in Sales<br />BCA (Boeing Commercial Airplanes) Generated 21.0 Billion in Sales<br /><br />So defense is the larger market and set to grow more but I wouldn’t say Commercial Airplanes is a side affair. <br />With 50 Billion in sales I’m sure Boeing is very concerned by the couple million that Space Explorations will make.

 

[najab]

Yeah, I wasn't been totally serious there. Commercial Airliners are still a major part of Boeing's business, but since their merger with MD they have increasingly been more and more of a defense contractor and less and less of a innovator in the airliner business.

 

[erauskydiver]

Boeing's feelings about the launch business (from a Dow Jones article about ULA troubles):<br /><br />"If the alliance were blocked, Boeing would take a hard look at whether it can afford to stay in the launch business, said Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems unit. "It's just a business. I'm not in love with rockets," Albaugh said in a telephone interview. "If we can't provide good returns over the long haul, we're not going to be in it." <br /><br />

 

[erauskydiver]

Boeing's feelings about the launch business (from a Dow Jones article about ULA troubles):<br /><br />"If the alliance were blocked, Boeing would take a hard look at whether it can afford to stay in the launch business, said Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems unit. "It's just a business. I'm not in love with rockets," Albaugh said in a telephone interview. "If we can't provide good returns over the long haul, we're not going to be in it." <br /><br />

 

[yurkin]

They already sold Rocketdyne to UTC. That’s means that all they really do is final assembly and launch. And they are breaking even on a good day. My guess is that if the deal falls apart Boeings going to try and sell DeltaIV, in whole or in parts. <br /><br />But I wouldn’t say their about to back out of the launch business altogether.<br />Sea Launch unlike DeltaIV is bringing solid money.

 

[rocketman5000]

Don't forget due to Europe subsidazation of Airbus if they don't make any money on the A380 they don't have to pay back their loans. However I believe that Boeing made the right decision with a smaller plane that uses less fuel. <br /><br /> In an article in a tech publication stated that the Airbus can't land on but a few runways because of their weight. Sounded strange to me, but it wouldn't surprise me<br /><br /><br />Lastly, do you have anymore information about an enlarged 747? With all of the development work given to the 747 over the years it would probably be beneficial to continue to develop the airframe. My compressible fluids teacher in college showed an illustration of the original airfoil crossection and the current crossection. The current being much more overcambered to improve transsonic airflow and drag. Consequently the bubble up front was because there was little additional drag penality for adding it due to the area rule in applicable in the transsonic region. I think we have all seen the illustration of the delta dart with the hourglass shape over the bloated cigar orginal. Considering the area rule it wouldn't seem that you would want to strech the second floor farther aft. <br /><br />It is nice to not hear the praises being sung to Airbus anymore though. Their assembly of the plane it absolutly ********. Having to build new ships just to ship peices around Europe to assemble them to keep the politicians happy and have components built all over Europe.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Don't forget due to Europe subsidazation of Airbus if they don't make any money on the A380 they don't have to pay back their loans.<br /><br /><font color="white">Boeing get just as many benifits from its goverment work and the A380 can land anywhere a B747 can and as for shipping parts the B787 fusialage is build in Japan both companies ship very large parts from all over.<br /><br />Its pretty much a level playing feild between the two companies and both produce great aircraft don't sink into think one is better then the other, they are both great.</font></font>

 

[scottb50]

The 767 starts in Japan. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gawin]

The problem with the A380 is not the weight eaven though it is 40% heavyer then the 747-400 it fixes this by having more wheels in the gear to distibute the weight.<br /><br />its that the outer-most engines will hang just beyond the standard 150-foot runway width, requiring upgrades at many airports. you cant have thouse engins sucking up loose dirt and grass.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"There is also a new 747 freighter in work, with a CL-44 style swing-tail for loading and an enlarged cabin profile."<br /><br />Yes, it's being built for the airlifting of 787 sections.

 

[yurkin]

The 787’s wing is built in Japan. The fuselage is built in Japan, Italy, Charleston, and Wichita, and the fuselage assembly is in Charleston and then finally Everett.

 

[subzero788]

Without a doubt a successful launch of Falcon 1 will promote competition between the various aerospace companies, big and small. This can only be a good thing for the future of both unmanned and manned spaceflight alike, with reduced costs and increased participation by private industries and other countries around the world. So dont knock the biggies such as LM and Boeing--they just might come out with the next cheap, reliable launch system to beat Space X and draw the space industry closer to increasingly "cheap" spaceflight.