Quote from: cuddihy on 02/10/2009 08:45 pmQuote from: SteveOliver on 02/10/2009 06:32 pm3) Beal pulls the plug, citing EELV as the cause. His company did not qualify to bid on EELV payloads. SpaceX ends up with some Beal assets from the fire sale.Umm, is there any actual evidence of this?It looked more like Beal couldn't close his business case even after development specifically because of a combination of the commercial GlobalstartTeledesicIridiumWhatever LEO market meltdown and the recurring production cost of his ablative engines and composite bodies, but he publicly blamed it on EELV, and if I remember correctly, NASA unfairness.It's a habit of those who haven't had a successful launch of their prospective vehicle yet.If you'll remember Musk pulled the same schtick just a few years ago, claiming SpaceX should have been able to compete for Falcon V launches from 2006 going forward. Hmm, that looks like a dumb lawsuit from this vantage point.Maybe it paved the way for COTS A-C, though?I thought the spacex complaint was due to ULA impeding Spacex operations at Vandenberg?
Quote from: SteveOliver on 02/10/2009 06:32 pm3) Beal pulls the plug, citing EELV as the cause. His company did not qualify to bid on EELV payloads. SpaceX ends up with some Beal assets from the fire sale.Umm, is there any actual evidence of this?It looked more like Beal couldn't close his business case even after development specifically because of a combination of the commercial GlobalstartTeledesicIridiumWhatever LEO market meltdown and the recurring production cost of his ablative engines and composite bodies, but he publicly blamed it on EELV, and if I remember correctly, NASA unfairness.It's a habit of those who haven't had a successful launch of their prospective vehicle yet.If you'll remember Musk pulled the same schtick just a few years ago, claiming SpaceX should have been able to compete for Falcon V launches from 2006 going forward. Hmm, that looks like a dumb lawsuit from this vantage point.Maybe it paved the way for COTS A-C, though?
3) Beal pulls the plug, citing EELV as the cause. His company did not qualify to bid on EELV payloads. SpaceX ends up with some Beal assets from the fire sale.
Quote from: Comga on 02/11/2009 03:35 amSo after an intense (and appreciated) stream of news and photos, and a big rush to get the F9 to the Cape by year's end and upright within weeks, SpaceX has gone extremely quiet. Not even a word on F1 Flight 5 which should be coming up in a few weeks.There's a lot of people on this forum that seem to prefer a 'quiet progress' strategy, so I guess you cannot please all. It's clear that work is progressing at LC40 with the infrastructure, at least. I'm sure the SpaceX 'hype machine' will be back in the near future when a new milestone has been reached.
So after an intense (and appreciated) stream of news and photos, and a big rush to get the F9 to the Cape by year's end and upright within weeks, SpaceX has gone extremely quiet. Not even a word on F1 Flight 5 which should be coming up in a few weeks.
according to file:///C:/DOCUME~1/TRJOHN~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/NOAA-NMFS-2008-0332-0001.htm
NUAETIUS,SpaceX weren't the first to come up with a 'truncated cone' capsule - I seem to recall some early OSP/CEV proposals that had the same outline, and probably earlier examples as well. The shape is an efficient volume/mass trade-off.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/11/2009 04:13 amaccording to file:///C:/DOCUME~1/TRJOHN~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/NOAA-NMFS-2008-0332-0001.htmEd, isn't that file on your local harddrive? Just pointing out a linking error...
Could someone perhaps enlighten the conversation with what the primary drivers are for the diameter height ratio on a crew "capsule" I am sure there are thousands but what are the primaries? heating, aero-loads,..etc?
Quote from: SteveOliver on 02/07/2009 10:04 pmQuestions (probably for Jim) wrt horizontal->vertical:What arrives from the payload processing guys? I'm shooting in the dark that it is a fully encapsulated payload with the fairing and mounting bracket ready to be bolted to the vehicle. Umbilicals and interfaces attached to something temporary for transportation. That would leave little to be done with the payload at the pad? Since the Delta-IV is integrated horizontally, why do they take it vertical without the payload? They have a huge MST that allows them to stack the payload after the rocket is vertical. Why? They must have a good reason, but it doesn't seem to apply to Falcon-9. Or does it?The payload comes to the pad mount on a payload adapter, inside the fairing with the inflight disconnects mated. The adapter is mated to the upperstage and cables are connected from the upperstage to the adapter.There is work done at the pad such as removal of sensor covers, arming plug removal, battery enable plugs installed, and on rare occasions, RTGs installedThe good reason is that is was customer requirements in the EELV procurement, something Spacex hasn't considered in their conops and will have trouble with the NEEP
Questions (probably for Jim) wrt horizontal->vertical:What arrives from the payload processing guys? I'm shooting in the dark that it is a fully encapsulated payload with the fairing and mounting bracket ready to be bolted to the vehicle. Umbilicals and interfaces attached to something temporary for transportation. That would leave little to be done with the payload at the pad? Since the Delta-IV is integrated horizontally, why do they take it vertical without the payload? They have a huge MST that allows them to stack the payload after the rocket is vertical. Why? They must have a good reason, but it doesn't seem to apply to Falcon-9. Or does it?
Great video of Falcon 9/Dragon. Elon Musk is right, America can not only save money and close the gap by funding COTS D, but it can create American jobs and a back-up system to whatever rocket system NASA goes with.
Quote from: R.Simko on 02/11/2009 02:57 pmGreat video of Falcon 9/Dragon. Elon Musk is right, America can not only save money and close the gap by funding COTS D, but it can create American jobs and a back-up system to whatever rocket system NASA goes with. That is just plain silly. Falcon 9 is not a given. Cargo Dragon is not a given. Again, this is like expecting an expansion NFL franchise to win a Super Bowl their first year in the league