spacester, I think you're taking my words a lot farther than I intend them to go. I know SpaceX has customers; that's my whole point in saying that yes, Musk is legit in calling it operational.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well that's sensible, but your original statement implied that he is currently actively seeking funding. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ah, now I see where you've misunderstood me. That was not what I meant at all. The intent of my post was to justify Musk's claim that the system is operational. My basic point was that *because* he's got paying customers, it's operational.<br /><br />I hope that clarifies my position for you, because you do seem to have a perplexing interpretation of my post. <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>
- Status
<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />What's so perplexing? You made statements which are in direct conflict with what Mr. Musk has been saying from the beginning, and he's not revised them since.<br /><br />I took your words literally. Is there now some alternate procedure of which I should be aware? I am not in a position to judge your intent. All I know about what you think is what you write. And what you wrote was dis-information that could conceivably affect Mr. Musk's ability to achieve his goals.<br /><br />I just sent you a PM . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Wow. I really seem to have offended you. I'm sorry. Obviously I have done a very poor job of expressing myself in this thread, and attempting to clarify seems to be making it worse. You are obviously convinced that I am trying to bash SpaceX. All I can say is that this is NOT my intent. I am simply trying to explain why Elon Musk's definition of "operational" is valid.<br /><br />I've said all I have to say on the subject, and I do not know how I can make it clearer, so I will leave it to better voices than mine. Yours included, since I really am not your enemy in this. <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>
You made statements which are in direct conflict with what Mr. Musk has said and continues to say.<br /><br />You can claim to not be my enemy but if you are going to make statements that effectively ignore, and in effect refute, what Elon Musk says, then your claim is invalid.<br /><br />That cannot possibly be beyond your ability to comprehend.<br /><br />You can make it clearer by admitting you were wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"I must be doing a very poor job of expressing myself if you've misunderstood me that badly."<br /><br />I don't get it either. From my point of view you seem to be expressing yourself perfectly clearly as a defender of SpaceX!
I am not questioning Calli's intent. Her intent is what she says it is, AFAIC.<br /><br />I am objecting to the mis-characterization of the financial situation and strategy of Elon Musk's company.<br /><br />Incorrect statements do not become true just because the intent is for them to be in support. They are still incorrect statements.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">He needs to recoup the financial investment as soon as possible</font><br />False. He has said that he has the ability to wait until things are running smoothly before he issues the IPO. That is NOT 'as soon as possible', and in fact it implies 'go-fever' when their number one priority is reliability.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">. . . so getting a paying customer is a priority</font><br />False. He has all the paying customers he needs at this point in time and more will be knocking at his door very soon. The implication made is that he is desperate for customers.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It won't matter whether it's totally functional if he can't get funding. </font><br />False. This is exactly opposite to the plan, see above. When it is totally functional, he gets his recompense and the funding for the future. He also loses a certain measure of control, as he becomes beholden to stockholders.<br /><br />edited for clarity. And to note that InfoPoop stinks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
False. "He has all the paying customers he needs at this point in time and more will be knocking at his door very soon. The implication made is that he is desperate for customers."<br /><br />Other than COTS, he has only received some small progress payments. The bulk of launch service payments are made closer to launch
"Other than COTS, [SpaceX] has only received some small progress payments."<br /><br />Hmmm...how about the 100 million dollar contract awarded to SpaceX in 2005 for it's part in project FALCON?<br /><br />http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16791<br /><br />
The supposed "$100 million " contract is an IDIQ contract, which is pay as you go. The $100M is a max amount. The only money guaranteed is around $30k for a planner's guide. Until the USAF orders a launch, which it has yet to, Spacex doesn't realize a penny beyond the $30k. Many companies have had IDIQ contracts and don't see any monies. NASA had Coleman Aerospace on their NLS IDIQ contract and they only saw a small study that qualified for the minimum amount. <br /><br />Press Releases are not good sources of real info
> <i><font color="yellow">The supposed "$100 million " contract is an IDIQ contract</font>/i><br /><br />IDIQ = Indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity.<br /><br />They are nice if you can get them.</i>
"So, does anyone agree that this system is operational? "<br /><br />Not only is Elon saying it, he is shouting it. Check out the full page ad on the inside of the back cover of the April 16 Aviation Week and Space Technology.<br /><br />That's a pretty expensive ad. It thoroughly whitewashes the flight "anomalies" and makes it look like they had an uneventful flight to orbit.
Have you ever read in a ad for Windows anything about crashes, viruses, malware and security holes ?<br />Sorta like "we made this new Windows Shiny, it crashes even less that previous versions, and there should be no security holes left" ?<br />What do you think, how much would it sell with ads like that ? 
Right. I'll be waiting to see what SpaceX does the rest of this year. They are supposed to have some more launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
SpaceX are dead serious about achieving their stated goals and they obviously believe they've past a MAJOR milestone and are good enough to proceed with their launch manifest. Good for them.
no_way hit the nail on the head.<br /><br />SpaceX, while being mostly open and honest and very accessible to us enthusiasts, is NOT a charitable organization. They do NOT exist solely for the benefit of mankind. They are a BUSINESS. As such, they need to promote themselves and acquire customers. There's nothing unusual or bad about what they're doing.<br /><br />If you want an organization that solely exists to push the boundaries and develop systems "for the good of the people", go root for NASA. <br /><br /><br />For my money, I'm happy to see all these new companies making a serious play at being profitable businesses. Competition and entreprenurial spirit has always tended to encourage growth and efficiency / lower-cost solutions. <br /><br />--Noel
<br /><br />For my money, I'm happy to see all these new companies making a serious play at being profitable businesses. Competition and entreprenurial spirit has always tended to encourage growth and efficiency / lower-cost solutions. <br /><br />--Noel> <i><font color="yellow">If you want an organization that solely exists to push the boundaries and develop systems "for the good of the people", go root for NASA.</font>/i><br /><br />To be a cynic, those "people" in "for the good of the people" would be the employees of NASA, the primary contractors, and the Congress people who buy votes by demanding NASA spend money in their districts.</i>
Really, cool. Presumably this is 'as is' with the current thrust termination system.<br /><br />Edit: Ah found the story, U.S. Air Force, SpaceX Strike Deal for Cape Canaveral Launches
"Presumably this is 'as is' with the current thrust termination system. " <br /><br />Doubt that. Launching from an isolated island is one thing.
"(on the AirForce side of the KSC area). "<br /><br />So is LC-39 on the NASA side of the Cape area?
Yeah I'm doubting it too, but there is no mention of such a change... Perhaps the F5 is to have an active system, it would explain why there are no plans to launch the F1 there. Then again I expect the cost of using the range at the cape is considerably more than using Kwajalien so it might just be economics.<br /><br />Speculation, speculation.....
Yow, two LOX and electrical disconnects didn't work at launch. A LOX cover plate and 2" of pipe ripped out. Luckily there was a check valve further in.
Well this is why it was still a test launch. I am curious if they had any similiar issues with the disconnects on the first falcon launch? All in all, not bad, seems they have everything identified and enough redundancy to keep things working properly next launch. <br /><br />One question though, what differences exist in the merlin 1c from the one used on this launch, I see in the report all future flights will be on the 1c and it's performance is better, but there is no info on it via thier website or anywhere else that i can see. <br /><br /> <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>
"One question though, what differences exist in the merlin 1c from the one used on this launch?"<br /><br />The main difference is that the 1C is regeneratively cooled rather than ablatively cooled.
I am relatively amazed here. All of the apologists on these boards for the recent failures of Elon Musk’s venture are incorrect. NASA’s definition of operational is correct!<br /><br />In the space launch industry reliability isn’t just anything it IS everything! Until Falcon I (and I do wish spacex all the success in the world, but that does not change things here) has a totally successful launch, it ISNâ€T operational! What many here don’t seem to understand is that for most satellite launches to LEO and beyond to GEO the launch vehicle is only a relatively small part of the investment. The satellite itself is usually many time more expensive than the launch itself. And with the ground support needed for most such satellite systems the launch itself becomes even lees of the overall cost of such systems. <br /><br />When you get up to the extreme of this equation in government spy satellites (some of which are worth well over $1 billion), then a launch cost of some $100 to $250 million isn’t the problem for the government at all. <br /><br />But, losing a launch of such a satellite IS a financial disaster, even for the taxpayer supported military satellites! As for NASA, the possible loss of a robotic explorer hundreds of millions of miles away always hangs over every such project, so losing a project just to get it into LEO is an even greater disaster. This is why NASA still uses the old Delta II, (which costs about $100 million per launch), even though this is not cheap, as the Delta II has what is quite probably one of the best reliability records (if not the best record) in the space launch industry!<br /><br />At this time, as UAL has inherited all of the hard won expertise of both LM and Boeing (I really wish I had a whole lot of that Dinosaur Boeings stock!) in this reliability area, spacex has a very long way to go to even think about challenging such expertise in this area. Whether the proponents of such companies as spacex like it or not tha
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram