Author Topic: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat  (Read 56470 times)

Offline Alyce Branigan

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Loyalton, California
    • KJL
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat
« Reply #180 on: 11/18/2009 04:40 PM »
So, it is back to money again...not to hard to get an undergraduate degree in physics, they actually offer classes at the high school level. Many of the new space adventurers are brilliant, all can buy engineers, that still does not give them a proven record of the very serious and safety concerns of strapping people and/or equipment to large sticks of dynamite, or that tax payer's should fund them. The bottom line is that that many of them are getting federal money and they need to attend to the rules of spending that money. We should all be concerned about how that money is spent and who gets it, not just billionaires with physics degrees. Let them prove themselves with their own multi-billions, then I'll be glad to kick in. The old companies have proven themselves, and at the same time are adjusting to new business realities. It is not an overnight process. I will get back to my original point, new is never good if you don't acknowledge that your new is built on the experience and hardwork of the old.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10885
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat
« Reply #181 on: 11/18/2009 04:52 PM »

The spacecraft for the EELV wasn't ready either.

So?  Most of the risk would be already retired and the EELV/spacecraft would be ready earlier.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat
« Reply #182 on: 11/18/2009 08:57 PM »
I was reminded of this today

<a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-07-07/" title="Dilbert.com"><img src="http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/60000/0000/300/60354/60354.strip.gif" border="0" alt="7 July 2009 Dilbert" />[/url]
« Last Edit: 11/18/2009 08:57 PM by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17801
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4071
Re: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat
« Reply #183 on: 11/18/2009 10:35 PM »
I was reminded of this today

<a href="http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-07-07/" title="Dilbert.com"><img src="http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/60000/0000/300/60354/60354.strip.gif" border="0" alt="7 July 2009 Dilbert" />[/url]

LOL...(while also seeing how disgusting that would be)...and still laughing...
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9161
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat
« Reply #184 on: 11/23/2009 12:04 AM »
If I were a billionaire, I might try to do what I always wanted to do, but could not afford it.  I suppose that I would think I knew something about making money, and could buy and maybe inspire success in another field.

"Instead it chose paper rockets under the guise of fostering new businesses to hide the policy of not undermining Ares"  That's a pretty sly observation.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Augustine HSF Review SpaceX and Commerical Chat
« Reply #185 on: 11/23/2009 01:16 AM »
NASA only had $500m for COTS, and they ended up funding two projects, for about half each.

I believe the T/Space proposal was for about $400m, I expect any EELV proposal was also close to the full amount, leaving no room for a second option. That may be part of why they weren't selected. Or the projected operational launch costs may have been higher.

The philosophy behind COTS was somewhat different to the current 'gap closing' commercial proposals being sought. Back then they were aiming to stimulate new, low-cost, development. Now they're pretty much looking for anything that will pull their bacon out of the Ares I fire.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2009 01:16 AM by kkattula »

Tags: