Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Moonwalker on August 23, 2010, 07:11:53 PM
-
SpaceX is going to prepare the first fully operational Dragon spacecraft, which is currently scheduled to be launched in late September / early October:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/08/10/02.xml
And here we go for the first and successful Dragon high altitude drop test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1ZuxjvfSM
It's just amazing to finally see the USA returning to capsule design. And with all of the trouble inside and outside NASA, and with the amazing and flawless progress of SpaceX regarding Falcon 9 and Dragon, it is the most likeliest option for the USA to maintain manned acces to low earth orbit and to the ISS (and this inexpensive). By the way: the rate of descent at splash down is quite comfortable, i.e. about half as much as for the Apollo Command Module 8) On the other hand, it rather hurts to see a private company being more successful on its plans than big old NASA these days...
SpaceX Updates:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
-
Interesting. Thanks for poinitng this out. I agree the capsule looks great.
-
Interesting. Thanks for poinitng this out. I agree the capsule looks great.
Yeah. Let's hope it also works great ;D But it seems that those people from SpaceX know what they're doing. Considering that SpaceX has less than 1000 employees, this company is rather productive and successful for now, whilst the Falcon 9/Dragon program also is rather affordable.
I can't wait to see Dragon returning from space and splash down in the pacific ocean. It will be the first time since 1975 that a US space capsule would return from orbit and splash down 8)
PS: If you wouldn't know that it's SpaceX, you would think it's NASA footage when watching the drop test.
-
I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle. The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet. Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere. Just my 2C.
-
I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle. The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet. Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere. Just my 2C.
As a result, the Shuttle today is 80% (that's EIGHTY FRACKING PERCENT) cheaper to operate than during its early days, and much lighter too, allowing for more cargo.
/Admin
-
I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle. The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet. Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere. Just my 2C.
If one reads the post columbia accident investigation report, the Pomp and Circumstance on the program begins to blur. NASA's commitment to assemble the ISS by using the Shuttle really is the one and only reason that keeps the Shuttle still operational. Safety issues (with the OBSS, backflip maneuver, STS-400 etc. being an emergency solution) and operating costs gives a clear message.
I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle. The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet. Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere. Just my 2C.
As a result, the Shuttle today is 80% (that's EIGHTY FRACKING PERCENT) cheaper to operate than during its early days, and much lighter too, allowing for more cargo.
And accidentally the costs per kilogram still is eighty times the initially intended costs per kilogram (~16.000 USD instead of ~200 USD) ;D The real costs of the Shuttle program never lowered only nearly to the expected costs, although it became cheaper by the time. But the average launch cost is an awesome 1.3 to 1.5 billion USD (which corresponds to about 20 Soyuz launches).
-
To be back on topic: SpaceX successfully has performed a wet dress rehearsal at the cape in September, to prepare for Falcon 9 Demonstration Flight 2 which is scheduled for October 23:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_wetdress.jpg)
The fully operational Dragon Spacecraft:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_dragonc1.jpg)
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_rotating.jpg)
SpaceX Mission Control:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_operation.jpg)
And how serious the business of SpaceX has become, can be seen by NASA astronauts visiting and discussing the SpaceX hardware, especially the new Dragon spacecraft.
Cady Coleman and Scott Kelly inside Dragon:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101001_scott.jpg)
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
-
Hmm...
That MCC looks very similar to our labs ;)
/Admin
-
Hmm...
That MCC looks very similar to our labs ;)
/Admin
Do you also use beamers/such big screens for running SSM? ;D
Just kidding. I really like that mission control room. If your labs look the same way, one could become envious :)
-
I was kidding of course. What I meant that we also use several networked Windows PCs and have a projector - LOL!
Frpm this point of view, there is no difference. AMOF, I suspect that some of our PCs are actually more powerful than what they have there, but then they don't need very powerful PCs anyway.
/Admin
-
I was kidding of course. What I meant that we also use several networked Windows PCs and have a projector - LOL!
LOL ;D
Frpm this point of view, there is no difference. AMOF, I suspect that some of our PCs are actually more powerful than what they have there, but then they don't need very powerful PCs anyway.
Indeed. Not to mention the computers and laptops at MCC Houston. They also use Windows btw. :) From what I have seen so far is Windows XP at Mission Control (you can see the taskbar on the big screens sometimes) and even Windows 2000 (or at least the standard Windows look), mostly on Laptops (on the IBM Thinkpads aboard the ISS as well I think). What makes NASA's mission control look more professional actually just is the big consoles which house the flat screens these days (and not that much electronics anymore). And of course they do need much more flat screens since they have much more complex systems to control, including the ISS.
The ISS control room which is the old Apollo control room (note the Windows XP tasbar on the center screen):
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-128/hires/jsc2009e156744.jpg
Windows 2000 aboard the ISS?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-124/hires/s124e005916.jpg
-
Indeed Windows 2000. If ain't broken don't fix it. It would cost a huge amount of time and money to re-certify, debug and test any new software.
And they'll never use Windows Vista of course (or Android LOL). Maybe they will go for Unix/Linux.
/Admin
-
I still don't know why we didn't just extend the shuttle thru 2015, one flight per year per Shuttle. The whole shuttle stack is safer now than it's ever been, SRB's=redesigned, ET=redesigned, Shuttle=inspected, upgraded, and maintained better than any other piece of technology on the planet. Only downside is the capes infrastructure, it needs some heavy cash poured in to upgrade it and keep pace with the corrosion that comes from being on the coast, not to mention 50+ years of rocket propellants, solvents, etc used everywhere. Just my 2C.
Atlantis is a gamble everytime it is launched. Her OMDP expires in Jan 2011. Unlike Discovery, Atlantis is showing its age more. 104 had major thrust structure corrosion, stingers separating, and propellant/storage tanks showing cracks. In fact Atlantis tanks are not fully filled until just before launch.
Discovery is violating the 5.5 year/8 mission OMDP regulation, however she has not shown any of the issues that Atlantis has.
All in all, should the program get an extension, 104 will likely be retired, 103 will go into OMDP in 2011, and 105 will fly though 2015 with an OMDP waiver. But as 105 is 19 years old and 103 is 24, the risk of extending is minimal.
Course this would be easier if we still had 102 and 099.
SpaceX is nothing more than a shot in the dark. I wish them the best, and hope they actually get the vehicle manned, but I really do not think it will ever happen.
-
SpaceX is nothing more than a shot in the dark. I wish them the best, and hope they actually get the vehicle manned, but I really do not think it will ever happen.
Well, people thought that SpaceX won't ever get off the ground (I was thinking this as well two years ago). Next, people thought that Falcon9 won't reach low earth orbit. Now, people think they won't send cargo and humans to the ISS... ;)
To me it seems that people aren't just pessimistic, they actually don't want to see somebody else than NASA doing more progress right now in terms of developing a new system. Especially because it's a small company with less propaganda. To be honest: it's NASA right now which is a shot in the dark without any bright future. Constellation was an epic fail in almost all directions, and it was even predicted by many people from the beginning. The thing is that once SpaceX manages to get cargo and crews off the ground and back, NASA isn't really needed anymore to do this by employing the entire USA. Times change. And we are experiencing such a change. I seriously think that the big days of NASA are numbered already, and partly justifiably so.
-
This person thinks that SpaceX might some day become a great space transportation company, but no manned exploration from them any time soon!
/Admin
-
Exploration also doesn't come from NASA and Roscosmos anymore. For NASA exploration ended with Apollo and for Roscomos it ended with the N1 Moon program. The Shuttle actually is nothing more than a transporter, although the most advanced one, capable to put things together (and being reusable). Soyuz also just is a transporter and Dragon will be just that as well. Those things don't explore, they just transport men and equipment into earth orbit for decades.
Building space flight and exploration stuff isn't something that is bound to big agencies. It's build by companies (NASA actually doesn't build anything). And I personally don't care if there is a big blue NASA logo on it or a different one :)
-
Wrong Moonwalker! The fact that NASA outsources is irrelevant to the argument. Big explorations are done and financed by governments. NASA is a gov, NATIONAL agency, enjoying a huge budget just for Space Exploration and R&D related to Aeronautics and Space. NASA has been created with the mandate to manage the resources to promote Space-related activities - especially exploration - on a national level - just as Roscosmos and ESA. Don't forget that the "A" in NASA's acronym stands fir "Administration", not for "Manufacturing".
Comparing these national agencies with private companies like SpaceX is completely irrelevant. They have different goals, budgets, purposes and mandates.
/Admin
-
Eisenhower first and foremost created NASA to counteract the Sowjet "threat". It was a product of the cold war in the first place (just like the others). Today it is a big job machine. And it is a collection of institutes and facilities which, under the term of "NASA", do science.
NASA is not a private company of course. But SpaceX has become important already at its current state. It wasn't NASA who got the biggest contract in space flight history to carry a satellite system into low earth orbit. And NASA might have to rely on SpaceX in future for carry men into orbit. Think about it ;)
Elon Musk dreams about more than just launching Dragon to the ISS (Mars). And by now he should be taken seriously, especially if SpaceX potentially gets more money and even assignments from Congress/The White House in future. Most importantly: why building Ares I for countless billions of USD's if somebody like SpaceX manages to carry crews to LEO way more cost efficient? That's exactly why Constellation has been scrapped.
Yes, governments do support exploration. But governments also do realize when somebody else can do it quicker and more cost efficient than a big bloated bureaucracy.
-
private companies does not and never will have the funding for non commercial missions. filghts to mars would not be commercial in the next 50 years. they are purely space exploration.. so does un-manned probes.
there is no need for NASA to do all the ISS resupply missions with it's own budget if they can pay someone less money to the the same thing. hence FalconX.
But no private company will send a probe to Pluto, will not develop new flight systems (FBW), will not work on new airfoils (X29), push the envelope on thrust vectoring (X31), go and explore hyper-sonic limit (X47) or explore our solar system. these all must be done by a government agency. and of the USA want to maintain it's technological edge. it must be the one putting in the money. If you pay a commercial company to run a project like this it will gain an un-even advantage over rival companies. For example. if Rockwell were given the contract to develop and explore thrust vectoring instead of just building the X31 we might have seen a whole different F22 (if at all).
Think about it.
-
You probably mean SpaceX. Not FalconX ;)
Yes, NASA as well as companies, have developed some great stuff. But that something happened in the past in certain ways, does not mean that it will always continue to happen the same ways in the future. If you would have told people, back in the 1930s, that some day a (European) company will build an aircraft that can carry 800 people over more than 10,000 kilometers of distance, almost nobody would have believed this. Same for Falcon9 and SpaceX. A small company that is going to launch rockets into space frequently. The future, i.e. commercialization of space, will look different than what people were used to in the past 50 years. Yes, NASA does not need to carry equipment and men to the ISS. And if SpaceX might build Falcon9 heavy in future, NASA also does not need to carry something bigger into space like the Orion spacecraft, since SpaceX might be able to do so more cost efficient.
Commercilisation of space does not mean to close NASA and stop exploration. It means a different distribution of money, more innovation and space tourism. The monopoly situation of NASA has prevented this in the past. Constellation just is one another example.
-
Eisenhower first and foremost created NASA to counteract the Sowjet "threat". It was a product of the cold war in the first place (just like the others). Today it is a big job machine. And it is a collection of institutes and facilities which, under the term of "NASA", do science.
NASA is not a private company of course. But SpaceX has become important already at its current state. It wasn't NASA who got the biggest contract in space flight history to carry a satellite system into low earth orbit. And NASA might have to rely on SpaceX in future for carry men into orbit. Think about it ;)
Elon Musk dreams about more than just launching Dragon to the ISS (Mars). And by now he should be taken seriously, especially if SpaceX potentially gets more money and even assignments from Congress/The White House in future. Most importantly: why building Ares I for countless billions of USD's if somebody like SpaceX manages to carry crews to LEO way more cost efficient? That's exactly why Constellation has been scrapped.
Yes, governments do support exploration. But governments also do realize when somebody else can do it quicker and more cost efficient than a big bloated bureaucracy.
Yes, NASA may partially rely on SpaceX in the future just as it's been relying on Boeing and thousands other contractors, so whats so new about that?
And why does it matter if NASA was created as a result of competition from the Russians? Almost every major exploration - definitely those mandated by governments - was a result of some form of competition - political, scientific, or both. That doesn't change the mandate and purpose of NASA, which is Space Exploration, Administration and related R&D.
As for the last paragraph, you're not explaining how and why private companies will be able to independently perform cutting edge manned space exploration, let's say for the sake of the argument, to Mars, within our lifetimes.
/Admin
-
Yes, NASA may partially rely on SpaceX in the future just as it's been relying on Boeing and thousands other contractors, so whats so new about that?
You actually know what's so new about it I think ;) SpaceX by far isn't something like Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc. who work for the government anyway (designing and building war machinery in the first hand). NASA will have to rely on something that is "not invented here" - Falcon9 + Dragon. This is somehow historic. All earlier programs depended on hardware which was developed hugely under the pencil of NASA engineers and scientists. But not so Falcon9 and Dragon. It's not designed by NASA and not build by many huge companies but by a small private company which intenions is, and already became alive, to push commercial space flight forward. SpaceX even operates its own mission control. Not so Boeing, nor Lockheed Martin or others. We have a completely new situation here. We have two different bodies which perform space flight - a huge governmental body and a small company. I.e. SpaceX is not just a subcontractor like Boeing or the others.
And why does it matter if NASA was created as a result of competition from the Russians? Almost every major exploration - definitely those mandated by governments - was a result of some form of competition - political, scientific, or both. That doesn't change the mandate and purpose of NASA, which is Space Exploration, Administration and related R&D.
Yes, these days the true mandate of NASA is R&D luckily, and NASA does it in a way and scale like no other space agency. No doubt. But back in the late 1950's and early 1960's R&D was just a kind of smoke screen, just like it was the case in Russia as well of course. The first and foremost intention was arms race/saber-rattling but nothing more. That is what I wanted to say. Wernher von Braun did invent and revolutionize rocket technology, but he sadly did so as a war criminal. Also something people should never forget (or some even don't know). There is a Pomp and Circumstance, but also shadows. And if NASA wouldn't be that much important politically (it keeps a lot of jobs and important votes), it would not exist anymore in the way it exists.
The thing is that in fact something like NASA is not mandatory overall to explore space. It is just one way how it can be done and how it was done in the past. In in this way it's done in some kind of a monopoly, even preventing innovation and something like a market. But NASA also could be handled differently and much more efficiently. Having talked about it to a lot of space flight enthusiasts and even people inside the business, this is what I hear all the time for almost 10 years. And those people were right. They even were right about Constellation and Ares from the beginning.
When Apollo was being cut by Nixon (another reason why space flight should not overall depend on 4 year periods) a lot of people left NASA disappointedly and went into private businesses (both aviation and space flight subcontractors). From these days on a lot of former NASA people and astronauts talk about commercial space flight, with good reasons. Because commercial space flight industries would enable much more sustainable stuff than a big bloated agency, which always depends on clueless minds who change office and seats every few years. Space flight needs to be available to a much wider range of people and companies. Just like it happened to aviation. Do we always want to sit in front of our PC's and watch NASA launching tax money into space? I rather would take a seat as well ;D
Well, and I wouldn't say that no company would fly to Mars within our lifetime. I expect to live for at least another 60 years. And when one looks back 60 years, one can expect amazing things to happen within the remaining lifetime, well depending on ones age of course ;)
Something like SpaceX was unthinkable in the 1960's. Sure, they get money from the gov. as well. But they need less to do almost the same as NASA (launching cargo and men into space soon), and they don't do it with design and logistical help basically from NASA. They are able to contribute to space exploration in future, by less tax money, and even by making money. This is "why" private companies will be able to perform cutting edge manned space exploration.
The current situation in Washington and inside NASA and SpaceX, is a perfect real life example/proof of how things can be done in a different way without spending 50 billion tax dollars for something like Ares that carries 50% less than the Shuttle by being as twice as expensive operational (and this just to reach LEO i.e. the ISS).
-
It doesn't matter how new SpaceX is: the argument was that NASA doesn't manufacture rockets and Boeing is only obe example.
And I agree that sometimes in the future commercial aircraft will eventually fly to Mars, but, like LEO, that will happen only AFTER NASA and other governmental Space Agencies will open the gate, EXPLORE first, and make it "routine". Only AFTER the big boys spend some time doing that, will the commercial companies have the balls, resources and maybe commercial interest to reach for Mars.
But before that, I haven't seen any commercial company explore the Moon, and the Moon is far easier to reach than Mars.
So my argument stands no matter how you turn it: commercial companies are for profit, not for cutting edge Space Exploration with uncertain results, uncertain future and uncertain budget and even more uncertain ROI.
Commercial companies will always follow, not lead, space flights to new frontiers.
/Admin
-
The gate already is open for many years. It's not only "big boys" anymore who can create the technology to fly into space. SpaceX is "small boys" compared to NASA (just like Scaled Composits), but the results are almost the same by less money. That's where space flight is heading to.
There is a saying which still is valid: a state is not a good businessman. And NASA is one very good example. The big days and big boys aren't anymore. As amazing as it was, but something like Apollo/Constellation or STS won't ever get any serious funding again, if there won't be another Cold War. Things will be managed differently in future, because justifiably politicians are not willing anymore to spend billions of dollars to create a few footsteps on the Moon again just for a big TV show.
Nothing is certain, especially not the future. And governmental programs by far are not more certain than commercial programs/intentions. The only thing which made governmental space flight look something like "certain" in the past (in fact it never was certain), just was the Cold War but nothing more.
Arianespace by the way is a good example how to create and operate cutting edge technology with a relatively small number of employees and making a lot of profit (more than 1 B. € a year). SpaceX will become another example and even perform manned launches. Politicians already have realized that NASA needs to be restructured and that programs have to be coordinated differently to make them more innovative and less expensive. Constellation was not canceled out of no reason and I'm sure NASA won't ever be able to do something like this again on its own. Commercial space flight is needed if we want to see big things happen again...
-
Moonwalker, nice speech but it is only speculation, wishful thinking and no explanation. Space Exploration will always be done by governments, while thousands of private companies will support it.
When exploration is done and it becomes routine, private companies will deal with transportation and eventually, resources exploitation, expansion etc. but never before governments open up the door. And as frontiers are more ambitious, the costs, risks and other resources needed for exploring those frontiers will farther the possibility from the hands of companies and into the responsibility of governments, nations and international cooperation.
/Admin
-
Yes, governments will always fund exploration. But what I say is that they'll do so in a different way in future. NASA will participate logistically and support the manned part of a certain exploration proposal for sure. But the technology might not come from the pencil and hangars of NASA anymore, like it was the case in earlier days.
Just imagine Falcon9 heavy and a different, even bigger version of Dragon, capable to leave earth orbit. Of course it's still speculation, but one should be careful these days to downplay the role of something like SpaceX. They already get money from the gov. because of good reasons (which is why they also got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history).
http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/
-
I don't care about the size of Falcon, either. It's irrelevant, because if it will ever be used for exploration, it will be as part of a gov-funded program, not of a commercial space exploration program, going where NASA has never gone before.
SpaceX will most probably sell stuff to NASA (or maybe ESA, etc) and make money from the sale and service, exactly like thousands of other contractors do today. NASA will not be replaced by SpaceX (or similar) or become irrelevant, as you tried to claim before.
SpaceX will also do transportation, well after the Exploration deemed it safe.
But not more, and definitely, not within 60 years. Sorry ;)
/Admin
-
Remember that in the 1930's the New York Times titled that no rocket will ever leave the earth's atmosphere. 60 years later: supersonic passenger flight, space flight, satellite television etc.
What might happen within the next 60 years is not foreseeable at all. And never use the word "definitely" ;) There is no reason why a company should not be able to fly to Mars within the next 60 years "definitely". Only because the US government does so (unmanned), does not at all mean that nobody else can do so as well in future. Right now, nobody can do so. And it is by far not sure at all that NASA or another governmental agency will be the first to leave the earths orbit once again...
-
By the way, this is an interesting interview which also shows why and how commercial space flight can be innovative and be able to perform exploration indeed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3RlCVtQ6mA
-
Irrelevant to the subject again, Moonwalker. We are talking about why space exploration cannot be commercial, but only governmental/national endeavor, not when it will happen.
I claim it won't, you claim it will, and even within 60 years. Let's wait and see if the first human landing on Mars will be a commercial endeavor led by a company, or a national endeavor, led by a gov agency, riding a platform commissioned by a gov agency.
My claim is NASA is needed and is here to stay, you claim that there is no need for NASA anymore and that SpaceX or similar, make NASA obsolete.
Let's stay with visible reality and leave Avatar to the box office.
/Admin
-
Well, they (those commercial companies) even use the term "exploration". And they offer prices for innovation (build lunar rovers, probes, etc.) ;)
I respect that you still are bonded to believe that only governments and "big boys" can do big things like space flight and exploration. I believed this still as well, not too long ago (because NASA is that much amazing still). But this is not entirely valid anymore in the 21st century. We have to realize that NASA lost its big moon landing proposal program and that it does not have any other program yet for the first time. One can not be sure if this would have been the case without the possibilites that SpaceX is going to offer for way less money, which even lead Obama to rely on companies like SpaceX rather than to waste 50 billion USD for another unsustainable NASA show-stopper. While NASA will be grounded, others like SpaceX will leave the ground. I know it's sad. But this is exactly why a lot of people almost "want" Elon Musk and its small company to fail or at least say that it's just a nothing, just irrelevant, which is not at all the case anymore of course ;D
PS: Concorde also is something of which people believed could only be done by big boy governments. In fact, without the initial interests of several airlines, Concorde would have never left the drawing table (when all airlines resigned due to high operating costs, the governments had no other choice anymore because Concorde already was leaving the hangar). Today it's a company which will build the next civil supersonic jet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_SBJ
-
Moonwalker, wake me up when ANY commercial company (not necessarily SpaceX) does its first, non-gov sponsored/commissioned manned Space Exploration flight to Mars, or beyond - even on an Asteroid ;D
Until then, let's concentrate on non-fiction: hopefully, we have a Space Shuttle launch on Nov 30th :P
/Admin
-
Well, a Shuttle launch on Nov. 30th for now also remains fiction :P :D
;)
-
I really hope not, because I'll be there, waiting...
/Admin
-
I'll be waiting as well. But still 2 weeks to go :D
-
SpaceX today is going to webcast its static fire test of the Falcon 9 at 11 am eastern time with the actual static fire targeted for 12 noon eastern time.
http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20101202
-
December 8, 2010
Today, SpaceX became the first commercial company in history to re-enter a spacecraft from low-Earth orbit.
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Falcon 9 just seems to work like a charm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFeYUZ0yF04
-
I wonder what was that explosion on the support arm at T+8 seconds?
/Armin
-
I wonder what was that explosion on the support arm at T+8 seconds?
/Armin
I think it's the separation of the connection between the launch vehicle and the tower. It looked similar during the Falcon 9 flight 1 launch, just seen from a different angle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah2NPfGR4dA&feature=fvwk
-
Yes, it looks as if one of the hoses spill out some flammable material that is ignited by the launching rocket.
It looks weird and I guess this will not be accepted for human launches.
/Armin
-
Yes, it looks as if one of the hoses spill out some flammable material that is ignited by the launching rocket.
It looks weird and I guess this will not be accepted for human launches.
/Armin
Yes, probably not. Elon Musk and his employees anway will be rather annoyed in future due to tons of NASA requirements, causing increased costs and delays once NASA interferes...
-
Yeah, government bureaucracy always makes everything miserable <_< Elon is trying to make NASA agree to combine the 2nd and 3rd Dragon test launches but I doubt they'll do it.
-
Yeah, government bureaucracy always makes everything miserable <_< Elon is trying to make NASA agree to combine the 2nd and 3rd Dragon test launches but I doubt they'll do it.
Let's see. I anyway would love to see Falcon 9 man-rated instead of just performing unmanned supply missions... :) But by now: that only big governmental agencies do have the power and resources to launch rockets into space and return capsules from space has been disproved by Elon Musk / SpaceX almost easily 8)
By the way, a few photos of the successful first complete Dragon test flight (it looks way less burned than I expected):
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_03.jpg)
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_04.jpg)
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_09.jpg)
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_10.jpg)
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20101215_11.jpg)
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
-
Yeah, government bureaucracy always makes everything miserable <_< Elon is trying to make NASA agree to combine the 2nd and 3rd Dragon test launches but I doubt they'll do it.
Let's see. I anyway would love to see Falcon 9 man-rated instead of just performing unmanned supply missions... :) But by now: that only big governmental agencies do have the power and resources to launch rockets into space and return capsules from space has been disproved by Elon Musk / SpaceX almost easily 8)
By the way, a few photos of the successful first complete Dragon test flight (it looks way less burned than I expected):
Don't be naive Moonwalker: SpaceX received government money and resources through NASA as part of the outsourcing program that's always been there ever since Apollo. As for KNOWING how to do it, it's just like with a Nuclear weapon: today everybody knows how to build one, but not everybody has governmental resources and money backing to actually do it.
NASA know-how made it "easy" for highly advanced and ambitious companies to build rockets, but they still don't have the resources and commercial interest to finance a full space program by themselves. So SpaceX and now Boeing are receiving money from NASA to build the next transportation system to the ISS, just as Thyokol etc. got money to build and refurbish the SRBs. It's the same concept on a slightly grander scale.
The only fully privately funded companies reaching for space today are those participating in the X-prize contest (like Scaled Composites), and those are quite far from actually DOING something in REAL space. They mostly learn how to send humans in ballistic, sub-orbital flights, for space tourism, for profit. Quite far from space EXPLORATION or even transportation.
Dragon is a nice achievement, built for NASA with taxpayers' money, just like thousands other contractors have been building things and providing service for NASA for decades. You are happy for the "wrong" reasons. Before bashing and dismissing NASA, remember that SpaceX wouldn't even exist without the backing of decades of space technology researched by NASA engineers and government money.
/Admin
-
Yeah, government bureaucracy always makes everything miserable <_< Elon is trying to make NASA agree to combine the 2nd and 3rd Dragon test launches but I doubt they'll do it.
I wouldn't irresponsibly and automatically apply the blanket slogan that NASA or the gov are bureaucracies with the sole purpose of making everybody's lives miserable, to each and every problem people face on the globe.
There are also very good reasons behind bureaucracy. Would you prefer anarchy and lawlessness instead? Would you prefer not having certification processes for drivers, contractors, engineers, etc? Would you want your house to be built by non-certified workers and designed by non-certified architects?
Specifically in the case of manned space missions, safety and caution are paramount and cutting corners by non-selectively dismissing bureaucracy can be regarded as reckelessness. If another disaster happens, everybody will be getting their knives out, cutting at those who ignored countless reports warning against such an event (as in "ignoring bureaucracy and cutting corners"). Now, everybody is eager to see Dragon man-rated, while forgetting that there are certain conditions to be met for that to happen and that there literally are lives at stake.
Dragon has to undergo rigurous tests and certification paths that should NOT be cut short just to make some gov and NASA bashers happy, because there will be the same people who will invariably be first to moan and point an accusing finger at NASA and the gov if a disaster happens. It's the same old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Losing Astronaut lives is just not worth the satisfaction of recklessly bashing NASA!
/Admin
-
SpaceX received government money and resources through NASA as part of the outsourcing program that's always been there ever since Apollo.
Nope. SpaceX did not get resources from NASA yet and is not the usual part of NASA's outsourcing program.
SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, before there was any talk of the COTS program, and even before STS-107 which introduced the foreseeable end of the Shuttle program. The goal of Elon Musk was to lower the costs for space launches by doing it without unnecessary bureaucracy. He succeeded. And very important in this context: SpaceX is a small company (especially founded for efficient space flight systems) with ~1000 employees, vs. 15000 employees for the ATK Launch Systems Group and 160000 employees for Boeing for example. There are huge differences.
Beside its own launch complex and buildings in Hawthorne California, SpaceX got SLC-40 at the Cape from the Air Force for opearting Falcon 9 from the Cape. But they demolished the old tower and buildings due to build and use their own hardware and buildings. Also, Falcon and Dragon are independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX, tested by SpaceX (by using their own facilities and hardware) and operated by SpaceX, and not by NASA. The development costs for both, Falcon 9 and Dragon, were less than 300 million dollars by the way (vs. 9 billion USD for an unfinsihed, second-stage-less NASA rocket - Ares 1). SpaceX gets money from NASA for ISS support missions. No more, no less. NASA did not design and does not operate SpaceX's hardware like they did with the Space Shuttle, Apollo hardware etc. That's something totally different. It's a complete outsourcing this time and for now. SpaceX designed, built and now operates its hardware for NASA but also for other commercial usage. Remember that SpaceX got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history for carrying the Iridium satellites into orbit (nearly 500 million USD).
SpaceX is a vivid example of how to do space flight by less costs due to unnecessary bureaucracy and big expensive structures. NASA wouldn't ever perform 12 ISS supply missions to the ISS on their own by such low costs SpaceX can offer. One can get about 17 Falcon 9 launches for the costs of one Shuttle launch, whilst one Ares 1 launch would have been more expensive than one Shuttle launch by carrying 50% less payload.
As for knowledge: NASA succeeded based on the knowledge of Wernher von Braun and his team as well as other American engineers and scientists back then in the late 1950's and 1960's. Just like Russia succeeded even before the USA because of German and Russian engineers and scientists back then. These days knowledge is widely available indeed. But rocket science is not just there because NASA is just there. Without NASA, Russia would be the leading space country. But the future of space flight is going to look different than in the past anyway. It was for sure that one day space flight is being more and more commercialized. And it's still just the very beginning.
A good example for bureaucracy also is the chinese space program by the way. They launch rockets for 50 years and satellites into orbit for 40 years now. They intend to do manned space flight for more than 40 years and now test flying their system for more than 10 years. SpaceX did reach orbit within only 6 years after foundation (without money and resources from NASA as Falcon 1 is not part of the COTS program), and returning a capsule from space only 8 years after foundation.
Specifically in the case of manned space missions, safety and caution are paramount and cutting corners by non-selectively dismissing bureaucracy can be regarded as reckelessness.
The problem is that increasing bureaucracy does not increase safety endlessly. Just like NASA people and observers of that "business" already say, NASA's bureaucracy i.e. requirements exceeds the optimal point of safety. But that's not all. There are also structural issues. NASA wastes a lot of money for their manned program which actually is assigned for science and research. It's basically mismanagement and wrong political decisions, and it's not because I say so but because those issues are well known, and which have caused the end of Constellation just as one example.
Losing Astronaut lives is just not worth the satisfaction of recklessly bashing NASA!
Space Flight can be as safe as commercial aviation, and even a little safer, without too much bureaucracy involved. Guess why things like vaccination, but also flight security etc. has been already outsourced, at least in Germany (the densely used German airspace qualifies as one of the safest). A state never is a good businessman.
-
Doesn't it dawn on you guys that you won't get together? ;D
ping... pong... ping... pong...
Happy holidays!
-
Doesn't it dawn on you guys that you won't get together? ;D
ping... pong... ping... pong...
Happy holidays!
Yes, well, at least not on SpaceX / NASA ;D Whilst it's not SpaceX but NASA who is in deep s...t these days.
Happy holidays!
-
Hmm, I wonder what sources you have Moonwwalker, SpaceX received A LOT of gov grants for this purpose. Don't base your entire theory on false information.
And with all due respect, I'll ignore the rants about "bureaucracy" and the glorification of cutting corners leading to anarchy.
Fortunately for everybody SpaceX will have to go through all the trials and tribulations necessary for making Dragon as safe as possible for human flight. And if some inefficiant, no-good bureaucrats will have a free meal in the process, that's a small price I gladly pay just to see those astronauts back safely home.
Regardless, after the Columbia and Challenger disasters which were largely a result of ignoring said bureaucracy, nobody in his right mind will even suggest taking a faster and more reckless route.
/Admin
-
Doesn't it dawn on you guys that you won't get together? ;D
ping... pong... ping... pong...
Happy holidays!
Yes, we should have a "users meeting" of sorts as we discussed in the past, but considering the current economy, I don't see many taking transatlantic flights and booking hotels to meet over a simulator for PC.
Even the famous AVSIM conference has dwindled due to these sad facts.
It's also becoming harder and harder to convince the "better half" of the "vital need" for such a travel "only" for a hobby.
Maybe when the EUR and US$ return to their better selves, this might again become a possibility.
/Admin
-
We could meet on teamspeak. No need for planes and hotels.
/Armin
-
We could meet on teamspeak. No need for planes and hotels.
/Armin
Yes, but there is nothing like having dinner, shaking hands and talking face to face.
/Admin
-
Well, what bureaucracy and the program structure of NASA causes is clearly visible. They won't be back in space manned any time soon sadly. Especially not the way they did in the past, by passing big monster programs through in Washington, based on wrong hopes and assessments.
No matter if NASA is a customer of SpaceX, one simply can't disagree that SpaceX works more efficient than any space flight agency right now if it's about launching new hardware into orbit and especially returning a capsule home (remember that SpaceX does not only design and build but also completey operate their hardware). What NASA delivers at the moment is requirements and money to buy the supply missions. Without the existence of SpaceX, it would be very silent in the sky above the Cape for many years once the Shuttle is grounded. Combined with the enthusiasm which SpaceX causes to many people, SpaceX get's criticised of course, especially because it paints the picture of NASA even more dark. But it's a NASA issue. Not a SpaceX issue.
NASA has to change. Otherwise it will become what former Shuttle Flight Director Wayne Hale tends to call it: a train wreck. One who looks at NASA can't say that everything is fine as it is and it's just bad politics if at all. It's more than just that.
Faster, more efficient and still safe does not mean anarchy by the way. Just like the way NASA was doing with Constellation also didn't mean safety. The safety concerns and issues regarding Ares 1 were huge all along and not at all less than it was the case for the Shuttle (beside causing Orion to shrink in capacity although you first design the spacecraft and then chose/design a proper launch vehicle). For now, neither Falcon 9 and Dragon, nor Ares 1 and Orion is safer or less safe than the other one. At least Dragon did fly and return as planned with only ~10 km offset. By proper requirements, Falcon 9 can be as safe as Soyuz for example whilst the operation will be much more efficient than Ares 1 supplying the ISS. There are solid reasons why NASA is approaching a big gap and chosed SpaceX to supply the ISS. And those reasons are not telling that NASA is in a good shape.
-
We could meet on teamspeak. No need for planes and hotels.
/Armin
Yes, but there is nothing like having dinner, shaking hands and talking face to face.
/Admin
Additionally my spoken English is bad I guess ;D
-
No, Moonwalker - this time we are not arguing about SpaceX "efficiency". Don't try to change the subject and escape the fact that you goofed.
Suddenly it's not important that SpaceX has been receiving gov money, eh?
But that was your whole point!
You were hopping up and down gleeing and claiming that SpaceX did everything without gov money! Make up your mind!
So now we have actually been arguing about your claim that NASA is not needed anymore and that companies like SpaceX can do everything alone, only with private money.
Here is one of many open sources discussing SpaceX funding by NASA and Obama Administration (again, THROUGH NASA and under NASA's mandate and supervision).
You will find quite a few claims there that you will certainly like, but don't miss the fact that SpaceX has been and will be funded by gov money through NASA (in excess of 1.6Billion US$ and counting ) so the whole hysteria about SpaceX doing everything with 100% private money proving that NASA can go home, is completely incorrect and unfounded, because it was founded on an incorrect assumption.
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/elon-musk-spacex-are-the-future-of-space-exploration/3224/
Note that the article is from February 2010 - plenty of time for you to find it - if you only care to research before you post.
Anyway, regardless of what you say, NASA is here to stay, SpaceX is also here to stay. NASA will do Space Exploration and SpaceX/Boeing etc. will cover "routine" space transportation and be partially funded by the gov (until it makes commercial sense to become 100% self-funded).
And thankfully - "bureaucracy" is here to stay, at least taking care that private companies natural greediness will not tempt them to cutting corners which will ultimately cost lives.
So now that we all know for a fact that SpaceX has been receiving and will be receiving (a quite a substantial slice of) taxpayers' money for its space transportation program, let's move to other matters.
/Admin
-
We could meet on teamspeak. No need for planes and hotels.
Yes, but there is nothing like having dinner, shaking hands and talking face to face.
OK, you are right.
That leads to the interesting question, where on earth does Admin live?
Maybe some of us are near enough.
/Armin
-
We could meet on teamspeak. No need for planes and hotels.
Yes, but there is nothing like having dinner, shaking hands and talking face to face.
OK, you are right.
That leads to the interesting question, where on earth does Admin live?
Maybe some of us are near enough.
/Armin
"...eternally on orbit..." of course!
But that's irrelevant since before that even happens, we might be running a statistics to find out where most of our customers live and accomodate them first.
/Admin
-
That leads to the interesting question, where on earth does Admin live?
Maybe some of us are near enough.
His real name is Santa Claus. Now guess... ;D :D
-
So now that we all know for a fact that SpaceX has been receiving and will be receiving (a quite a substantial slice of) taxpayers' money for its space transportation program, let's move to other matters.
It's a funny sentence. Because I already wrote that SpaceX has been receiving money from NASA for the ISS support missions just on top of this page ;) I don't believe that you or anybody else seriously expects SpaceX to privately fund a free service for NASA? ;D You just didn't read my posts carefully enough I guess.
What I was saying right from the beginning, is that SpaceX launches rockets into space without having such enormous resources NASA has, and this more efficiently. It's not deniable. Falcon 1 was the first fully privately funded rocket that ever launched into Space and carried a commercial satellite into Orbit (and again only 6 years after the foundation of spaceX). And again also, Falcon 9 and Dragon are independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX, not by NASA. What NASA does is buying the service of SpaceX as already mentioned several times. And that's just what SpaceX was founded for. Offering cost efficient transportation into space. Did you really thought SpaceX would do it for free as a gift to NASA?
For 1.6 billion USD NASA gets 12 support missions to the ISS. And I've already mentioned, also on this page, that NASA wouldn't ever perform 12 ISS supply missions to the ISS on their own by such low costs SpaceX can offer. And did you know that NASA might even buy more missions for a value of up to 3.1 billion USD all in all? ;)
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223
But nice that now "you all" know what almost everybody already knew and what I was mentioning before ;D
-
PS: not even 10 years ago, almost nobody would have dreamed that NASA would completely buy a non-NASA service for supplying NASA's space station. And this for low costs. What's next? Never say "never" or "impossible" ;)
-
OK, now that it is clear that your previous hopping that SpaceX did it all alone was not based on reality, let's talk about numbers:
The same article provides other numbers. Let's assume that they are real.
First, it is clear that the article is evidently and quite blatantly biased against NASA and for SpaceX-like alternatives. Why do I claim that? Because the way the article presents the numbers:
They point out that SpaceX *CLAIMS* that they can transport a human for 20 Million per seat. OK, let's assume that they will be able to prove that (they only claim and are yet to PROVE that).
Now the article compares that with NASA's own numbers that an STS mission costs today 450 Million. OK, let's analyze that number and NORMALIZE the comparison: 450 Million divided by 7 (the number of seats), gives us roughly 62 Million per seat. So it means that SpaceX claims that it can bring an Astronaut to LEO for three time less than NASA (not +20 times as the article hopes that superficial readers will understand). Now let's continue analizing: SpaceX talks about cost "per seat" while NASA's numbers talk about "per mission" which is different. Basically NASA's numbers cover the entire mission, not only the transportation part, which the article tries to compare.
So basically I assume that SpaceX will be cheaper by about 30-50% per seat than the STS, which is still impressive, but not as devastating as the irresponsible journalist tries to imply (while glorifying the fact that SpaceX will be getting 6 Billion dolar in funding from the current Administration in 2011).
HOWEVER that is also irrelevant (together with a cost for building a Shuttle)because the article compares the SpaceX cost per seat with the STS program which is already finished (so no point in building a new Shuttle anyway, so why is that 1.7Billion even there?). What about comparing the SpaceX claim with what Constellation would have costed - and not the entire program, only the Ares part, dealing with LEO?
I assume that there would still be in the SpaceX favour but not as dramatically as the NASA bashers and the mainstream (largely clueless) media tries to imply, which leaves everything to only one argument: POLITICS!
I am sure that if this would have happened during the previous Administration, the mainstream media would argue that part of the gov funding goes to SpaceX because the previous Administration supposedly favored blood-sucking Capitalists over tens of thousands of laid-off families, but in this case, they actually glorify the layoff, while distorting facts and forcing them fit their ulterior political motives.
Now let it be clear: I think that NASA does need a certain streamlining, but what's been done to it is far from re-organization - it is rather a serious castration which hurts the future of the American manned Space Exploration.
Last, it is totally irrelevant if any of you think that America does not "deserve" a national Space Exploration program at all, and push for and "internationalization" of Space Exploration.
I also don't care to analyze why any of you might really want to see the US less of a Space Exploration leader that has been for so long, or claim that NASA's achievements belong to a specific person coming from a specific country. Don't forget that America has been, and will be a country of immigrants, so everybody deserves credit!
What is important ultimately is what the American people want for America, and not what somebody living in a foreign country wants for America to be. If the mid-term elections are a sign, it seems that the American people - especially in Florida which has traditionally been a bastion of the Democrats - do not really like what the Administration has been doing (especially to Space Exploration, but not only) during its first two years.
/Admin
-
OK, now that it is clear that your previous hopping that SpaceX did it all alone was not based on reality, let's talk about numbers:
I don't think that anything is clear here. Once Again: the entire concept of Falcon and Dragon, it's design, its fabrication, testing and final operation comes from SpaceX. NASA chosed SpaceX for ISS support flights and pays the costs. Simply because SpaceX is the only company right now which can do so that quick and by such low costs.
They point out that SpaceX *CLAIMS* that they can transport a human for 20 Million per seat. OK, let's assume that they will be able to prove that (they only claim and are yet to PROVE that).
Well, a seat on Soyuz costs about 50 million USD for a NASA astronaut (and about 20 million USD for a tourist if I remember correctly). NASA will train the astronauts, medically check and prepare them etc. (which for Soyuz flights is done by Roskosmos). SpaceX will bring them up and back. 20 million per seat sounds quite realistical.
Now the article compares that with NASA's own numbers that an STS mission costs today 450 Million. OK, let's analyze that number and NORMALIZE the comparison: 450 Million divided by 7 (the number of seats), gives us roughly 62 Million per seat. So it means that SpaceX claims that it can bring an Astronaut to LEO for three time less than NASA (not +20 times as the article hopes that superficial readers will understand). Now let's continue analizing: SpaceX talks about cost "per seat" while NASA's numbers talk about "per mission" which is different. Basically NASA's numbers cover the entire mission, not only the transportation part, which the article tries to compare.
And the 450 million are even beautified by NASA and old I guess. In fact, a Shuttle launch costs about one billion per launch: http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html
SpaceX should be, and will be way less expensive than STS because in comparison STS is a real monster program. It is not hard at all to undercut the STS program costs by something like Falcon 9. So there you are right that a comparison is useless in terms of payload mass and efforts. But in terms of carrying astronauts to the ISS including costs, the comparison makes sense because the Shuttle is the only thing NASA has right now and Falcon 9 / Dragon is the soonest option for NASA to get astronauts to the ISS and back. You can only compare what you have to offer, and that's just the Shuttle vs. Falcon 9 / Dragon if its about sending astronauts to the ISS ;)
So basically I assume that SpaceX will be cheaper by about 30-50% per seat than the STS, which is still impressive, but not as devastating as the irresponsible journalist tries to imply (while glorifying the fact that SpaceX will be getting 6 Billion dolar in funding from the current Administration in 2011).
As the Shuttle costs roughly a billion per launch, SpaceX is going to be even cheaper than 30-50%.
As for the 6 billion USD: as far as I know, 6 billion is the total amount for the entire commercial sector, not just for SpaceX, over a period of 5 years.
What about comparing the SpaceX claim with what Constellation would have costed - and not the entire program, only the Ares part, dealing with LEO?
I assume that there would still be in the SpaceX favour but not as dramatically as the NASA bashers and the mainstream (largely clueless) media tries to imply, which leaves everything to only one argument: POLITICS!
I'm not quite sure if I understand you correct, but Musk already did compare Constellation, based on NASA estimations which we all know and which have been pointed out by the Augustine Commission. About 9 billion have been spend for Ares 1 and Orion. Result? Almost none which would bring anything even close to a launch pad and functioning. Required money to put a fully functional Ares 1 including Orion on the launch pad? Awesome 50 billion USD which is about 1/3 of the entire STS program costs just to carry a shrinked LEO version of Orion into LEO. SpaceX can't even nearly be that much expensive, because SpaceX doesn't even have such a wasting program structure and job machine to cause that much costs.
I think that I am mistaken regarding what the USA deserves and what not. Indeed it doesn't matter what me or somebody else thinks the USA "deserves" or not. But I think what many Americans think who are deeply interested in space flight and who look at it more carefully: that the taxpayer needs politicians and managers who take a greater care of reasonable space programs (which you can read across the web and in several space flight communites; my comments are even friendly in comparison). "Because it is expensive" is quite an irrational reasoning. It did work for STS only by luck as we know and for sure for the last time. Apollo sadly was wedged in a political race. Therefore Apollo 17 was not only the final but almost the only true scientific mission with Jack Schmitt as the only "civilian" and only scientist on the Moon. STS did offer way more scientific capabilities than Apollo (first of all Hubble and ISS) but was anything as intended in terms of costs and resources. It has eaten up a lot of money which was reserved for other scientific programs. It is for sure to any sane person that NASA can not just continue that way (and Constellation would have been nothing more than a rerun of Apollo). I think that not only Obama but also anybody else wouldn't spent 50 billion USD for something that costs more than the Shuttle but carries less and especially does less.
What NASA needs first is a reliable and efficient system for the future before planning for the Moon and especially "beyond". And I personally don't care if that system is designed by NASA or somebody else as long as the costs stay on the carpet in relation to the results (and I don't mean Falcon 9 / Dragon of course). I'm not suffering from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here
-
Well, a Soyuz seat is 50M now, but the Russians already announced at the beginning of 2010 that it will go up to 75M since there wil be no bilateral usage of space transportation - i.e. no Russian astronauts going up in a Shuttle anymore, and I suspect also because they realized that the Americans won't be having an alternative of their own and the Soyuz may well become the only alternative.
That must have been a terrible wake up call for those in the Administration who were more than happy to recklessly kill NASA on the altar of political correctness and irresponsible, Bolshevik-style re-distribution of funds. They have been scrambling ever since with reviving parts of Constellation more and more, while funding commercial space transportation such as SpaceX and now Boeing.
And on the contrary Moonwalker, the SpaceX funding subject is very clear: you gloated that SpaceX proved that a commercial entity can do it 100% self-funded, while one of the NASA bashing journalists proved you wrong, with numbers.
SpaceX became a serious contender only when it received gov money and resources (both through NASA budget) to finish and launch the prototype. Moreover, it will continue to be funded for the foreseeable future. That subject is closed and there is no amount of dilution and diversion that can change that.
The only open subject is how cheap they will be able to pull this off without an impact on safety and reliability. For now, that is still questionable so the burden of proof, not speculation, lies on SpaceX. Let's move to other subjects now. For the record, I think they will manage to pull it off, that's inevitable, but when that happens, the cost will not be that far from NASAs or other space agencies. While technology can lead to better efficiency (like the Shuttle costing less than 20% to operate today than at the beginning), the present situation is not that dramatic yet.
Last, if you are not so sure about things, why argue? Call back when you are sure and backed by facts, not by speculation. Again, research before you post.
/Admin
-
you gloated that SpaceX proved that a commercial entity can do it 100% self-funded, while one of the NASA bashing journalists proved you wrong, with numbers.
I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.
Last, if you are not so sure about things, why argue? Call back when you are sure and backed by facts, not by speculation. Again, research before you post.
SpaceX is the first non-governmental body that has and does offer access to space. That's not a specualtion. It's reality ;)
And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians.
NASA can be happy that SpaceX does exist and is capable to carry something into LEO and return it home. Because, this is another fact, NASA does not yet have a system to carry anything to the ISS by such low costs once the Shuttle is retired. That SpaceX gets 1.6 billion USD for 12 support flights does not at all contradict those facts. If you want something, you have to buy it. No matter if it's NASA, Iridium Communications Inc. or other future customers. Theoretically speaking, SpaceX could also offer tourist flights to the ISS in future (once Dragon is certified for manned flights) just like Russia already does.
As for Soyuz: I'm glad that Russia likely is going to increase their prices per seat. Because it will certainly help boosting the commercial sector in the USA. And if somebody else than NASA can do it by less costs but still safe, be sure the government would chose commercial systems for carrying humans into space for exploration rather than to fund uncertain monster programs.
-
Moonwalker,
Your later post is full of contradictions (you're contradicting yourself) that I see no point in answering it anymore.
/Admin
-
I find the back and forth interesting. This article is also interesting. Read the last paragraph.
http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html (http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html)
-
I find the back and forth interesting. This article is also interesting. Read the last paragraph.
http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html (http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html)
The article doesn't tell any news actually. The 248 million SpaceX got from NASA was a price which SpaceX won. Rocketplane Kistler got about 200 million USD by the way. The Orbital Sciences Corporation also won money. But we haven't seen anything from them yet regarding ISS support (and less than ever returning a capsule from space).
500 million USD for getting access to space, i.e establishing facilities, building and testing rockets and a recoverable, pressurized capsule, is pretty cheap. SpaceX got about 350 million from NASA and will get roughly 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. for carrying the Iridium satellites into orbit. SpaceX is profitable already, and as I said, works quite efficient with only about 1000 employees. They got the right people with the right amount of know how to do what no other small privately founded company did before: establishing access to space with a relatively low amount of money within only a very few years after starting at "0" experience. That's an awesome achievement.
Multiply 500 million USD by an awful factor of 100 and you would help NASA to at least finish the development of Orion and Ares 1 on time (excluding operating costs of course). Nuff said.
-
To return to the actual topic:
Falcon 9 did not only carry Dragon into Orbit by the way, but also nanosatellites and CubeSat payloads (as the Air Force and Army will buy SpaceX flights in future as well) at an altitude of 11,000 kilometers, by reigniting the second stage after Dragon separation. And I have to correct myself: Dragon did splash down only 800 metres offset, and not 10 kilometers 8)
More information of COTS Demo Flight 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COTS_Demo_Flight_1
-
And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians
Read the last paragraph again.
Your topic. Not mine. :)
-
And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians
Read the last paragraph again.
Your topic. Not mine. :)
That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon ;) SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.
-
It is very interesting what one sentence like "that not only big governmental agencies do have the power and resources to launch rockets into space" does cause to some people. Neither Falcon 1, nor Falcon 9 and Dragon is designed, manufactured, tested and operated by NASA or one of its usual long-term partners like Boeing. It seems that many people can't deal with the fact that NASA is politically forced to completely buy efficient engineering capabilities, know how and operation from a small privately founded Californian company.
Not to imagine what would happen if SpaceX will man-rate Falcon 9 and Dragon. Oh dear, I can smell big NASA program fans going to "explode" literally ;D
-
And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians
Read the last paragraph again.
Your topic. Not mine. :)
That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon ;) SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.
I think this is where the issue comes into play. You are contradicting yourself. Read your post above and the one below with the bold sections
I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.
-
And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians
Read the last paragraph again.
Your topic. Not mine. :)
That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon ;) SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.
I think this is where the issue comes into play. You are contradicting yourself. Read your post above and the one below with the bold sections
I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.
What's so hard to understand? Falcon 1 is the first private rocket that launched into Space. And it's an independent proprietary concept and development by SpaceX, just like Falcon 9 as well. That NASA funds the required expenditures to test and operate Falcon 9 and Dragon, because NASA simply is the customer, is not a contradiction in my point of view.
I think the main issue is, like I've already mentioned one post before, that many people can't deal with the fact that NASA is forced to completely buy the engineering capabilities and access to space from a small privately founded Californian company, which does offer what no other small company did offer before in history. And I think this is because many people are victims of the old fallacy that only something like NASA can launch rockets, paylaods and men into space / to the ISS. But SpaceX already proved otherwise. They do so as well by just a few hundred million USD and with only 1000 employees. No speculation, no wishful thinking. Just current facts.
-
Moonwalker,
The subject has lost its interest to me because it is clear that you are more interested in bashing NASA (and sometimes the US) at any cost, than promoting a healthy discussion about the future of Space Exploration.
I hope that other people reading your posts actually take the time to research your claims and see them in the correct context.
/Admin
-
And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians
Read the last paragraph again.
Your topic. Not mine. :)
That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon ;) SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.
I think this is where the issue comes into play. You are contradicting yourself. Read your post above and the one below with the bold sections
I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.
What's so hard to understand? Falcon 1 is the first private rocket that launched into Space. And it's an independent proprietary concept and development by SpaceX, just like Falcon 9 as well. That NASA funds the required expenditures to test and operate Falcon 9 and Dragon, because NASA simply is the customer, is not a contradiction in my point of view.
I think the main issue is, like I've already mentioned one post before, that many people can't deal with the fact that NASA is forced to completely buy the engineering capabilities and access to space from a small privately founded Californian company, which does offer what no other small company did offer before in history. And I think this is because many people are victims of the old fallacy that only something like NASA can launch rockets, paylaods and men into space / to the ISS. But SpaceX already proved otherwise. They do so as well by just a few hundred million USD and with only 1000 employees. No speculation, no wishful thinking. Just current facts.
They aren't being forced. You really need to do your research. It is just one of there options. They are still working on a HLV. NASA isn't over like you are making it sound. I am with Admin, you are more interested in saying NASA is over and isn't good at what it does. I am done with this discussion as well.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/orion-forefront-test-flight-manned-debut-evaluations/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/heft-sls-hlv-design-decision-april-2011/
-
Well, I'm aware of what's going on at NASA ;)
But people really have to get rid of that thinking that everything NASA does is based on NASA's own decisions. The reality is that almost everything NASA does is decided in Wahsington, based on politics, and not decided by wise scientists and managers. They are puppets, even including the NASA admin. One may call it bashing NASA. But that's the sad truth.
Since NASA does not get the money which would have been required for Constellation, they are forced to rely on something else instead. Or as one might call, they have "options". A HLV and a potential future operation of Orion being more than just a lifeboat for the ISS still is talk and will remain basically theory and plans for years still. There is no flying hardware yet (just like there never was on Constellation; no, Ares 1-X was modified Shuttle hardware and mockups).
Of course NASA doesn't need to buy SpaceX flights. But the result would be: no US support of the ISS for years. But if one doesn't like to call it "forced", I am willing to call it "option" beside the other "option" of buying seats on the Russian launcher if it sounds nicer ;D
And yes, I guess it's not a secret that I'm not at all confident of how NASA is forced to rely on politics for the matter of fact .
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/21nasacr/
-
I think somebody has to have the final say and everything else is said I guess.
And before Moonwalker is talking to himself it might be better to close this thread. But I'll wait some time for it... in case somebody needs another "venting". ;)
-
Well, so much for how much you are aware of what's going on at NASA - LOL!
But that's not important. As I said, this conversation is over for me since it has degraded into an out-of-context NASA bashing fest, without too much substance behind it.
/Admin
-
Beside potentially closing this thread, it might not be a good idea to post a non-Space Shuttle mission related thread in a Space Shuttle based froum in which one probably will meet > 90% almost uncritically NASA proponents. The discussion actually makes no sense at all on this place. So it was my fault that I did post it. Especially if one consideres what happens when mentioning the fact within just one sentence that now somebody else than NASA (a small company) has cheap access to space for the first time in history.
Don't worry, I won't bother you with SpaceX's progress anymore ;)
-
I will leave it open.
But I don't know why you think that here are >90% uncritically NASA proponents. Where is this number from?
The hard discussion was mainly between you and Admin. Towards the end two more guys were chiming in. So better don't blame the majority here of having a certain position without knowing it exactly. Even saying "probably" is inappropriate here.
-
I will leave it open.
But I don't know why you think that here are >90% uncritically NASA proponents. Where is this number from?
The hard discussion was mainly between you and Admin. Towards the end two more guys were chiming in. So better don't blame the majority here of having a certain position without knowing it exactly. Even saying "probably" is inappropriate here.
Yes, again using numbers without actually knowing facts.
FYI, nobody can accuse me of not being critical of NASA, or being against SpaceX, but there is a difference between being "critical" and being negative about everything that NASA does and positive about everything SpaceX does, or vice-versa. I mean seriously, don't you think that NASA has been doing a pretty good job most of the time for the last 30 years, while SpaceX has probably made (and will be making) quite a few mistakes too?
That obvious attitude makes you sound biased and inflexible, and as such, almost incapable of conducting a constructive, evolving, involving and interesting dialogue.
Maybe that's the main reason why the rest of the "90%" didn't join in, even if at times, like me, they partly agree with you.
/Admin
-
Yes I echo Admin. This discussion was not about us being against SpaceX. I actually think it is quite awesome and think it would be a great PARTNER to NASA. I'm not against either of these programs. I am for both. The issue here was that you were giving false facts and were not backing yourself up with sources and you were contradicting yourself a lot. I think it would be great to leave this topic open for discussion, not bashing of either program.
-
As for the 90%: I think it is obvious that it's nothing more than my estimation since there is no poll or whatsoever ;) If you would visist a vegetarian forum for example and start talking about eating meat, you probably won't find a lot of proponents ;D
don't you think that NASA has been doing a pretty good job most of the time for the last 30 years,
Yes, I think so as I have mentioned a few times. STS did offer way more scientific capabilities than Apollo did. And away from that money/budegt talk, from the engineering point of view STS is an awesome achievement without any doubt (just as Apollo was). That's why we are here and why SSM does exist :)
But what makes me rather nervous and disappointed is that NASA is suffering from structual issues causing a huge amount of unnecessary bureaucracy and costs and also turn it into a big job machine and election campaign. Constellation really was a big mistake although I was quite amazed previously. I don't think, and the Augustine Commission and many others think, that this was the right path for a future sustainable program. All that was amazing was their advertising and computer animations. But the required costs and timeline was anything but acceptable.
Also, while some people literally demonize commerzialisation of space, I think what for example Aldrin and many others think, that it will benefit the national goals by lowering costs because of way less bureaucracy etc. As we can see, no matter if SpaceX gets money from NASA, that something like SpaceX in fact can perform space flight by relatively low costs, so far. I don't see a reason why commerzial companies should not do the transportation part just for the sake to see NASA doing it. Yes, transportation and exploration is not the same. But it's not rigorously separable. Remember that STS basically was meant to be a profitable space transportation system from the beginning.
while SpaceX has probably made (and will be making) quite a few mistakes too?
Yes. I've never said SpaceX will be flawless all the time. What I'm saying is that SpaceX is the first company with access to space and which can offer it relatively cheap without being a big expensive bureaucracy.
That obvious attitude makes you sound biased and inflexible, and as such, almost incapable of conducting a constructive, evolving, involving and interesting dialogue.
Maybe that's the main reason why the rest of the "90%" didn't join in, even if at times, like me, they partly agree with you.
I also think that this forum is quite calm anyway, but which is not meant as a criticism. What SpaceX does do at the moment, combined with my jabbering, might not even interest a lot of people as long as they don't send humans into space...
-
http://www.fastcompany.com/1711912/nasa-has-cash-to-spend-on-suborbital-flight-ideas-asks-commercial-biz-for-help
/Admin
-
NASA, why make a rocket?
Decades of experience shows a big-ticket space project developed wholly by the government will:
Take years longer than estimated to complete.
Cost taxpayers billions more dollars than advertised.
Fly with less capability than originally envisioned.
Unless, of course, the government changes the way it deals with contractors on those kinds of projects.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110102/COLUMNISTS0405/101020325/1007/news02/John+Kelly++NASA++why+make+a+rocket?
-
Moonwalker = Troll
Don't feed the Troll.
-
I'm not an American, So I do not really have a saying in this. but...
1. Private companies do things relatively cheap because they keep things simple. and economic. re-supplying the ISS would give them X launches a year, and they would be paid Y USD per launch. I'm sure that the contract say exactly what is the minimum amount of launches and what would be the cost of each. they do the math. they have Z USD they will get, and they must maximize their profit. they get some government funding for R&D. so they know what the budget limit is. and count on being as cheap as the Russians in that. same for manned flights. they need to be as cheap as the suyozes.
2. NO private company will make any ground shaking breakthroughs in technology. they WILL improve existing tech. but you would see nothing new. invention is the mother of all R&D Budgets. they can't afford it and be economical. if someone can give me one example of an original invention is aviation that didn't derive from existing military/government tech. I would love to be proven wrong..
3. NO private company will on it's own will go and explore. it just doesn't make any economic sense. if in the 60s the goverment would have asked spaceX to build something to go to the moon, then Kennedy would probably get a question saying "how much are we going to get paid?" and trust me. the costs would have been just the same as the apollo program cost back them. just because of R&D.
4. NO private company would go build a moon base. unless you would discover some "unobtenium" there, and they would get an exclusive mining right on it.. and then they will even travel across galaxies.. but someone else must discover it first...
5. Federal budgets going into Government agencies are "sum 0" play. No one get's rich (so no money "get's lost" - it's hardware and personal only), a lot of jobs are created, directly (i.e. NASA employees) and in directly (Aerospace industries, tourism, transportation, etc.). they pay taxes, so some comes back to the country, and they have jobs, so they have bigger buy force which drives the economy. like a modern age "new deal" if you can see the general concept.
6. Federal R&D money develops new technology, that in turn will roll into civilian aerospace industry and from there down to every other aspect that might use that technology (automotive industries, medical community, etc.). just look at who many technology leaps have been done in the cold war era now compare it to post cold war..
-
Nice post!
BTW I think it's spelled Unobtanium
-
Heh, great post Uri. I'm glad to see after a few months away, this thread is still alive and well. :D
-
Taurus 3:9 failure rate (three disasters against six successful launches) just proves that nothing is to be taken for granted - even in space transportation. This time it cost "only" +400 Million Dollars and noi human lives were lost. I surely hope that the fairing sep failure will not turn out as using componentes based on cost-saving corporate decisions at Orbital Sciences Corporation (the manufacturer of the Taurus platform)
I'd very much like to understand what hides behind their saying at the press conference that the system presented "an acceptable level of risk".
And I'd very much want to make darn sure that the "acceptable levels of risk" for SpaceX platforms does not become unancceptable when human life, and manufacturing costs and SpaceX corporate interests are put on the balance.
/Admin
-
Of even greater concern is that this same variant of the Taurus rocket suffered what seems to have been an identical failure on its last launch two years ago...an underperformance caused by failure of the payload fairing to separate. You would think they would have figured that part out by now.
-
Of even greater concern is that this same variant of the Taurus rocket suffered what seems to have been an identical failure on its last launch two years ago...an underperformance caused by failure of the payload fairing to separate. You would think they would have figured that part out by now.
They switched systems after the OCO failure to a cold-gas piston release mechanism, tested it, and it worked. There's a failure investigation team that's being (or has been) formed and will look into the data as to why it did not separate.
-
Obviously the problem was not in the Piston Pusher System but somewhere else.
Maybe the two halves did not separate, so the pusher pushed against the still closed fairing.
Maybe the two halves did separate and were pushed aside but the base stayed at the stage like in Gemini 9.
But this time the system was equipped with more telemetry, so hopefully they find the real cause this time.
/Armin
-
On the SpaceX vehicle, I would be worried about the risk analysis on using 9 engines on the Booster. 9 engines mean 9 sets of things to go boom.
-
On the SpaceX vehicle, I would be worried about the risk analysis on using 9 engines on the Booster. 9 engines mean 9 sets of things to go boom.
Count those from Sojus and tell me what you think... ;)
-
On the SpaceX vehicle, I would be worried about the risk analysis on using 9 engines on the Booster. 9 engines mean 9 sets of things to go boom.
Count those from Sojus and tell me what you think... ;)
Soyuz has only 5 engines in the first stages (i.e core stage + boosters). So, what is your point? ;)
-
I don't like that idea either! Why 4 chambers for one engine?
-
I don't like that idea either! Why 4 chambers for one engine?
As you may know, the heritage of the Soyuz family of launch vehicles goes way back to the R-7 ICBM, developed in the 1950s.
Back then, the Russians had problems with combustion instability in engines with large chambers. So, to avoid these problems they built engines with a single turbopump feeding four smaller chambers, instead of a big single one.
-
How it is to know that for 2020 Dragon is the only cargo spacecraft in the world that returns cargo from the ISS to Earth. Since 2010, the ship has been launched 22 times; In total, Dragon ships delivered about 43 tons of payload to the station and returned about 33 tons to Earth. So the supplies of ISS totally depends on SpaceX company, not even NASA.