<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Yse, the launch has slipped to late July or August. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>I would think that even the more cheerleader types on these boards could put up with the delays (although future commercial customers of spacex may not be so kind about delays). This is a very important launch to spacex. While I don't think another failure is going to sink them, it is going to make things very difficult.</p><p>This is in particular as ULA has now announced that they have at least six unused Delta II rocket available for the same medium launch area as the future Falcon 9. Evidently as the Air Force will no longer need the Delta II for GPS launches ULA is going to be able to considerably reduce the price of a lunch with that already very reliable vehicle. </p><p>This has got to be somewhat bad news for the other possible future launch vehicles as they have not yet established such a good reliability record. Evidently from what I am reading the Delta II is somewhat expensive exactly because of governmental requirements. I really wonder exactly how low a price ULA is willing to go to capture most of the medium lift market? </p><p>I see where spacex is at least getting more realistic with their predictions of the costs of Falcon 9 launches. Now it would seem a Falcon 9 Heavy launch with about 10,000 lbs to LEO will cost in the $50 to $60 million dollar range. </p><p>As I now believe that ULA is also hitting for this price range the medium lift market is going to get more and more interesting. Of course there are also all the other countries also involved in this race also.</p><p>Some $5,000 per pound to LEO seems to be the current goal ($50 million per 10,000 lbs) and this is just a start, but it is still only about 50% of what was the going price only a decade or so ago!</p><p>As I said, it is going to get interesting! </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>" </p>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now it would seem a <strong>Falcon 9 Heavy</strong> launch with about <strong>10,000 lbs to LEO</strong> will cost in the $50 to $60 million dollar range.</DIV></p><p>Your numbers are way off. </p><p>Falcon 9 Heavy is listed as being able to loft 65,290 lbs (29,610 kg) to LEO</p><p>Falcon 9 is listed at 24,894 lbs (11,290 kg)</p><p>both at 28 .5 degrees.<br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now it would seem a <strong>Falcon 9 Heavy</strong> launch with about <strong>10,000 lbs to LEO</strong> will cost in the $50 to $60 million dollar range.</DIV></p><p>Your numbers are way off. </p><p>Falcon 9 Heavy is listed as being able to loft 65,290 lbs (29,610 kg) to LEO</p><p>Falcon 9 is listed at 24,894 lbs (11,290 kg)</p><p>both at 28 .5 degrees.<br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would think that even the more cheerleader types on these boards could put up with the delays (although future commercial customers of spacex may not be so kind about delays). This is a very important launch to spacex. While I don't think another failure is going to sink them, it is going to make things very difficult.This is in particular as ULA has now announced that they have at least six unused Delta II rocket available for the same medium launch area as the future Falcon 9. Evidently as the Air Force will no longer need the Delta II for GPS launches ULA is going to be able to considerably reduce the price of a lunch with that already very reliable vehicle. This has got to be somewhat bad news for the other possible future launch vehicles as they have not yet established such a good reliability record. Evidently from what I am reading the Delta II is somewhat expensive exactly because of governmental requirements. I really wonder exactly how low a price ULA is willing to go to capture most of the medium lift market? I see where spacex is at least getting more realistic with their predictions of the costs of Falcon 9 launches. Now it would seem a Falcon 9 Heavy launch with about 10,000 lbs to LEO will cost in the $50 to $60 million dollar range. As I now believe that ULA is also hitting for this price range the medium lift market is going to get more and more interesting. Of course there are also all the other countries also involved in this race also.Some $5,000 per pound to LEO seems to be the current goal ($50 million per 10,000 lbs) and this is just a start, but it is still only about 50% of what was the going price only a decade or so ago!As I said, it is going to get interesting! " <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Since the payloader needs to add the cost of insurance to the launch costs from the rocket guys, that is going to make it very difficult to beat the Delta II. Insurance costs are big, and are somewhat dependent on the reliability of the launcher.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would think that even the more cheerleader types on these boards could put up with the delays (although future commercial customers of spacex may not be so kind about delays). This is a very important launch to spacex. While I don't think another failure is going to sink them, it is going to make things very difficult.This is in particular as ULA has now announced that they have at least six unused Delta II rocket available for the same medium launch area as the future Falcon 9. Evidently as the Air Force will no longer need the Delta II for GPS launches ULA is going to be able to considerably reduce the price of a lunch with that already very reliable vehicle. This has got to be somewhat bad news for the other possible future launch vehicles as they have not yet established such a good reliability record. Evidently from what I am reading the Delta II is somewhat expensive exactly because of governmental requirements. I really wonder exactly how low a price ULA is willing to go to capture most of the medium lift market? I see where spacex is at least getting more realistic with their predictions of the costs of Falcon 9 launches. Now it would seem a Falcon 9 Heavy launch with about 10,000 lbs to LEO will cost in the $50 to $60 million dollar range. As I now believe that ULA is also hitting for this price range the medium lift market is going to get more and more interesting. Of course there are also all the other countries also involved in this race also.Some $5,000 per pound to LEO seems to be the current goal ($50 million per 10,000 lbs) and this is just a start, but it is still only about 50% of what was the going price only a decade or so ago!As I said, it is going to get interesting! " <br />Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>Since the payloader needs to add the cost of insurance to the launch costs from the rocket guys, that is going to make it very difficult to beat the Delta II. Insurance costs are big, and are somewhat dependent on the reliability of the launcher.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your numbers are way off. Falcon 9 Heavy is listed as being able to loft 65,290 lbs (29,610 kg) to LEOFalcon 9 is listed at 24,894 lbs (11,290 kg)both at 28 .5 degrees. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>If I am that far off, then the people at spacex are smoking something really heavy if they think that they are going to put that kind of weight into LEO at those costs! What they are talking about is not competition with the Delta II, but competition with the Delta IV or the Atlas V. At that size of rocket even the handling equipment for just the rocket engine(s) is quite expensive (I have knowledge of this as I worked on almost every large rocket engine that Rocketdyne has ever built; from the F-1 and J-2, to the RS-27 and RS-27A for the Delta II, all of the Atlas Engines, and the SSME to the RS-68), just the equipment to build and handle such engines costs millions in itself. And the rest of the rocket isn't any cheaper either. </p><p>Don't misunderstand me, I do wish spacex all the success in the world. But they are a long way from launching such large rockets at this time. I would think that rockets of even the Delta II size would be a challenge to somebody just starting out in this very exacting and expensive business.</p><p>Believe me, nobody is going to put a $300 million dollar satellite on a relatively unproven rocket. It just isn't going to happen. And that is just the average cost of satellites (some go upwards of $500 million, and US Spy satellites are in the $1 billion or more category). By the way, the Air Force EELV program from which the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets were developed was only to bring the over all cost of a launch down from the $10,000 per pound to LEO (like for the older Titan IV) to the $3000 to $5000 range. Both the Delta IV and the Atlas V of ULA do indeed make this range of costs for the US government. Whether they can also do this for commercial launches has yet to be totally determined, but they do have lots of experience with previous commercial vehicles, so it certainly isn't out of the question. Remember, we are talking Boeing and LM, both very large aerospace companies with a whole lot of equipment and very experienced people that already have very reliable rockets in almost all categories. Stiff competition for anybody! </p><p>This is going to be some very stiff competition for anybody to come up against as the US government spent some $2 to $3 billion to do this with the EELV program (I worked on the RS-68, which cost less for the entire engine than even just the trubopumps of the SSME).</p><p>I retired in 2000, so I don't know the current pricing for an RS-68, but it was originally designed to cost less than $7 million per engine for an engine that developed some 665K pounds of thrust (about 50% more than the SSME). I would think that this cost is still probably less than $10 million. Not too bad for that kind of thrust!! </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your numbers are way off. Falcon 9 Heavy is listed as being able to loft 65,290 lbs (29,610 kg) to LEOFalcon 9 is listed at 24,894 lbs (11,290 kg)both at 28 .5 degrees. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>If I am that far off, then the people at spacex are smoking something really heavy if they think that they are going to put that kind of weight into LEO at those costs! What they are talking about is not competition with the Delta II, but competition with the Delta IV or the Atlas V. At that size of rocket even the handling equipment for just the rocket engine(s) is quite expensive (I have knowledge of this as I worked on almost every large rocket engine that Rocketdyne has ever built; from the F-1 and J-2, to the RS-27 and RS-27A for the Delta II, all of the Atlas Engines, and the SSME to the RS-68), just the equipment to build and handle such engines costs millions in itself. And the rest of the rocket isn't any cheaper either. </p><p>Don't misunderstand me, I do wish spacex all the success in the world. But they are a long way from launching such large rockets at this time. I would think that rockets of even the Delta II size would be a challenge to somebody just starting out in this very exacting and expensive business.</p><p>Believe me, nobody is going to put a $300 million dollar satellite on a relatively unproven rocket. It just isn't going to happen. And that is just the average cost of satellites (some go upwards of $500 million, and US Spy satellites are in the $1 billion or more category). By the way, the Air Force EELV program from which the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets were developed was only to bring the over all cost of a launch down from the $10,000 per pound to LEO (like for the older Titan IV) to the $3000 to $5000 range. Both the Delta IV and the Atlas V of ULA do indeed make this range of costs for the US government. Whether they can also do this for commercial launches has yet to be totally determined, but they do have lots of experience with previous commercial vehicles, so it certainly isn't out of the question. Remember, we are talking Boeing and LM, both very large aerospace companies with a whole lot of equipment and very experienced people that already have very reliable rockets in almost all categories. Stiff competition for anybody! </p><p>This is going to be some very stiff competition for anybody to come up against as the US government spent some $2 to $3 billion to do this with the EELV program (I worked on the RS-68, which cost less for the entire engine than even just the trubopumps of the SSME).</p><p>I retired in 2000, so I don't know the current pricing for an RS-68, but it was originally designed to cost less than $7 million per engine for an engine that developed some 665K pounds of thrust (about 50% more than the SSME). I would think that this cost is still probably less than $10 million. Not too bad for that kind of thrust!! </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I am that far off, then the people at spacex are smoking something really heavy if they think that they are going to put that kind of weight into LEO at those costs! What they are talking about is not competition with the Delta II, but competition with the Delta IV or the Atlas V. At that size of rocket even the handling equipment for just the rocket engine(s) is quite expensive (I have knowledge of this as I worked on almost every large rocket engine that Rocketdyne has ever built; from the F-1 and J-2, to the RS-27 and RS-27A for the Delta II, all of the Atlas Engines, and the SSME to the RS-68), just the equipment to build and handle such engines costs millions in itself. And the rest of the rocket isn't any cheaper either. Don't misunderstand me, I do wish spacex all the success in the world. But they are a long way from launching such large rockets at this time. I would think that rockets of even the Delta II size would be a challenge to somebody just starting out in this very exacting and expensive business.Believe me, nobody is going to put a $300 million dollar satellite on a relatively unproven rocket. It just isn't going to happen. And that is just the average cost of satellites (some go upwards of $500 million, and US Spy satellites are in the $1 billion or more category). By the way, the Air Force EELV program from which the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets were developed was only to bring the over all cost of a launch down from the $10,000 per pound to LEO (like for the older Titan IV) to the $3000 to $5000 range. Both the Delta IV and the Atlas V of ULA do indeed make this range of costs for the US government. Whether they can also do this for commercial launches has yet to be totally determined, but they do have lots of experience with previous commercial vehicles, so it certainly isn't out of the question. Remember, we are talking Boeing and LM, both very large aerospace companies with a whole lot of equipment and very experienced people that already have very reliable rockets in almost all categories. Stiff competition for anybody! This is going to be some very stiff competition for anybody to come up against as the US government spent some $2 to $3 billion to do this with the EELV program (I worked on the RS-68, which cost less for the entire engine than even just the trubopumps of the SSME).I retired in 2000, so I don't know the current pricing for an RS-68, but it was originally designed to cost less than $7 million per engine for an engine that developed some 665K pounds of thrust (about 50% more than the SSME). I would think that this cost is still probably less than $10 million. Not too bad for that kind of thrust!! <br /> Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Well, that's interesting about to cost of the engines. Perhaps that's why SpaceX is going with the smaller Merlin 1C for all of its first stage rockets. That is to bring down cost. </p><p>Merlin engine info</p><p> </p><p>And putting 9 of them on the first stage of the Falcon 9 and 27 of them on the first stage of Falcon 9 Heavy. </p><p> </p><p>You gotta love the SpaceX quote:</p><p>"With a vacuum specific impulse of 304s, Merlin is the highest performance gas generator cycle kerosene engine ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine and the Saturn V F-1." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I am that far off, then the people at spacex are smoking something really heavy if they think that they are going to put that kind of weight into LEO at those costs! What they are talking about is not competition with the Delta II, but competition with the Delta IV or the Atlas V. At that size of rocket even the handling equipment for just the rocket engine(s) is quite expensive (I have knowledge of this as I worked on almost every large rocket engine that Rocketdyne has ever built; from the F-1 and J-2, to the RS-27 and RS-27A for the Delta II, all of the Atlas Engines, and the SSME to the RS-68), just the equipment to build and handle such engines costs millions in itself. And the rest of the rocket isn't any cheaper either. Don't misunderstand me, I do wish spacex all the success in the world. But they are a long way from launching such large rockets at this time. I would think that rockets of even the Delta II size would be a challenge to somebody just starting out in this very exacting and expensive business.Believe me, nobody is going to put a $300 million dollar satellite on a relatively unproven rocket. It just isn't going to happen. And that is just the average cost of satellites (some go upwards of $500 million, and US Spy satellites are in the $1 billion or more category). By the way, the Air Force EELV program from which the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets were developed was only to bring the over all cost of a launch down from the $10,000 per pound to LEO (like for the older Titan IV) to the $3000 to $5000 range. Both the Delta IV and the Atlas V of ULA do indeed make this range of costs for the US government. Whether they can also do this for commercial launches has yet to be totally determined, but they do have lots of experience with previous commercial vehicles, so it certainly isn't out of the question. Remember, we are talking Boeing and LM, both very large aerospace companies with a whole lot of equipment and very experienced people that already have very reliable rockets in almost all categories. Stiff competition for anybody! This is going to be some very stiff competition for anybody to come up against as the US government spent some $2 to $3 billion to do this with the EELV program (I worked on the RS-68, which cost less for the entire engine than even just the trubopumps of the SSME).I retired in 2000, so I don't know the current pricing for an RS-68, but it was originally designed to cost less than $7 million per engine for an engine that developed some 665K pounds of thrust (about 50% more than the SSME). I would think that this cost is still probably less than $10 million. Not too bad for that kind of thrust!! <br /> Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Well, that's interesting about to cost of the engines. Perhaps that's why SpaceX is going with the smaller Merlin 1C for all of its first stage rockets. That is to bring down cost. </p><p>Merlin engine info</p><p> </p><p>And putting 9 of them on the first stage of the Falcon 9 and 27 of them on the first stage of Falcon 9 Heavy. </p><p> </p><p>You gotta love the SpaceX quote:</p><p>"With a vacuum specific impulse of 304s, Merlin is the highest performance gas generator cycle kerosene engine ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine and the Saturn V F-1." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
FAA now showing 28th of July for SpaceX launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
FAA now showing 28th of July for SpaceX launch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FAA now showing 28th of July for SpaceX launch. <br /> Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p>Of course it'd have to be the exact day that I am too busy to watch it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FAA now showing 28th of July for SpaceX launch. <br /> Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p>Of course it'd have to be the exact day that I am too busy to watch it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course it'd have to be the exact day that I am too busy to watch it. <br />Posted by PistolPete</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I should be back from a business trip the day before. I only hope they don't delay it until the next weekend, I'll be out of town again. <br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course it'd have to be the exact day that I am too busy to watch it. <br />Posted by PistolPete</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I should be back from a business trip the day before. I only hope they don't delay it until the next weekend, I'll be out of town again. <br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FAA now showing 28th of July for SpaceX launch. <br />Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p><font size="2">It looks as though they've moved the launch up two days to Saturday. I won't be able to watch the web cast as I'll be in Chandler working that whole weekend.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br /></font><br /> </p><h1 class="pageTitle"><font size="2"><h1 class="pageTitle"><font size="2">Licensed Upcoming Launch Data</font></h1></font></h1> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>FAA now showing 28th of July for SpaceX launch. <br />Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p><font size="2">It looks as though they've moved the launch up two days to Saturday. I won't be able to watch the web cast as I'll be in Chandler working that whole weekend.</font></p><p><font size="2"><br /></font><br /> </p><h1 class="pageTitle"><font size="2"><h1 class="pageTitle"><font size="2">Licensed Upcoming Launch Data</font></h1></font></h1> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It looks as though they've moved the launch up two days to Saturday. I won't be able to watch the web cast as I'll be in Chandler working that whole weekend. Licensed Upcoming Launch Data <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>SpaceFlightNow.com still shows July 29 but that may be due to the international date line launch site<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It looks as though they've moved the launch up two days to Saturday. I won't be able to watch the web cast as I'll be in Chandler working that whole weekend. Licensed Upcoming Launch Data <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>SpaceFlightNow.com still shows July 29 but that may be due to the international date line launch site<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It looks as though they've moved the launch up two days to Saturday. I won't be able to watch the web cast as I'll be in Chandler working that whole weekend. Licensed Upcoming Launch Data <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p> </p><p>You must be looking at a June calendar. The July 28th is a Monday<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It looks as though they've moved the launch up two days to Saturday. I won't be able to watch the web cast as I'll be in Chandler working that whole weekend. Licensed Upcoming Launch Data <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p> </p><p>You must be looking at a June calendar. The July 28th is a Monday<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You must be looking at a June calendar. The July 28th is a Monday <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I just checked the FAA link in the other post & it still says:</font></p><p><br /><table border="2" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" width="100%" class="has-bottom" summary="Upcoming Launch dates and information"><thead><tr><th scope="col">Date</th><th scope="col">Payload</th><th scope="col">Vehicle</th><th scope="col">Company</th><th scope="col">Site</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7/26/2008
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You must be looking at a June calendar. The July 28th is a Monday <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">I just checked the FAA link in the other post & it still says:</font></p><p><br /><table border="2" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4" width="100%" class="has-bottom" summary="Upcoming Launch dates and information"><thead><tr><th scope="col">Date</th><th scope="col">Payload</th><th scope="col">Vehicle</th><th scope="col">Company</th><th scope="col">Site</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7/26/2008
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just checked the FAA link in the other post & it still says
atePayloadVehicleCompanySite7/26/2008TrailblazerFalcon 1SpaceXKwaj MRDo you have another source? <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />Any updates??</p><p>Anyone??</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>
atePayloadVehicleCompanySite7/26/2008TrailblazerFalcon 1SpaceXKwaj MRDo you have another source? <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />Any updates??</p><p>Anyone??</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just checked the FAA link in the other post & it still saysatePayloadVehicleCompanySite7/26/2008TrailblazerFalcon 1SpaceXKwaj MRDo you have another source? <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />Any updates??</p><p>Anyone??</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>
atePayloadVehicleCompanySite7/26/2008TrailblazerFalcon 1SpaceXKwaj MRDo you have another source? <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />Any updates??</p><p>Anyone??</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram