Quote from: ugordan on 03/31/2011 08:59 amHmm, interesting "trailer" for the Falcon Heavy:showed this too my highschool kids..they find the poliitcs interesting....but......lets just say they need to change the title... a murmur in the back of the class was ..."and that is what she said" ****sigh****jb
Hmm, interesting "trailer" for the Falcon Heavy:
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/31/2011 12:39 pmQuote from: MP99 on 03/31/2011 10:24 amAt 0:27/0:28 it has the a three-core outline, and at 0:29 it has an "FH" logo and the stylised Falcon. What else could it be than Falcon Heavy?Falcon 1e Heavy Now isn't that a thought? Wonder how much one of those could take to LEO ...
Quote from: MP99 on 03/31/2011 10:24 amAt 0:27/0:28 it has the a three-core outline, and at 0:29 it has an "FH" logo and the stylised Falcon. What else could it be than Falcon Heavy?Falcon 1e Heavy
At 0:27/0:28 it has the a three-core outline, and at 0:29 it has an "FH" logo and the stylised Falcon. What else could it be than Falcon Heavy?
QuoteQuoteFalcon 1e Heavy Now isn't that a thought? Wonder how much one of those could take to LEO ... I don't know, bit it would be a cheap way to validate cross feeding.
QuoteFalcon 1e Heavy Now isn't that a thought? Wonder how much one of those could take to LEO ...
Falcon 1e Heavy
Quote from: baldusi on 03/31/2011 03:56 pmQuoteQuoteFalcon 1e Heavy Now isn't that a thought? Wonder how much one of those could take to LEO ... I don't know, bit it would be a cheap way to validate cross feeding.How, you develop a product that will never find a market and still have to do all the same work again to get it to work on Falcon Heavy?
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/31/2011 05:32 pmQuote from: baldusi on 03/31/2011 03:56 pmQuoteQuoteFalcon 1e Heavy Now isn't that a thought? Wonder how much one of those could take to LEO ... I don't know, bit it would be a cheap way to validate cross feeding.How, you develop a product that will never find a market and still have to do all the same work again to get it to work on Falcon Heavy?Nobody has made a cross feeding heavy that I'm aware of. In other words, you'd need a technology demonstrator to do it piece wise. A falcon 9 has a very complicated manifold and it's very expensive. Ideally I would actually try to get a special price on Armadillo's Sting and try to crossfeed those. I'm sure there are lot's of lessons to be learned before attempting a FH with XF. In fact, I would probably just use F1, not F1e. I don't know what the cost of launch and testing is for a Heavy, but I'd guess around 70M. If you can save a single Heavy launch with F1 as a testing platform, I'm sure it would make a lot of sense.
I'm sure there are lot's of lessons to be learned before attempting a FH with XF. In fact, I would probably just use F1, not F1e.
I'm taking the gloves off. I'm bleeping sick of SpaceX marketing stuff. How about coming up with a vehicle that works consistently and standing on your own merits? I really wonder if there is something going on in the background. Are they trying to drum up business because they are having financial problems?
Nobody has made a cross feeding heavy that I'm aware of. In other words, you'd need a technology demonstrator to do it piece wise.
Quote from: Antares on 03/31/2011 08:24 pmI'm taking the gloves off. I'm bleeping sick of SpaceX marketing stuff. How about coming up with a vehicle that works consistently and standing on your own merits? I really wonder if there is something going on in the background. Are they trying to drum up business because they are having financial problems?I'd much rather see real flights (more of them) than marketing fluff. SpaceX really hasn't done that much marketing fluff since the last launch, now they're back to their "normal." I wonder if their director of marketing was on maternity leave or something?As far as marketing goes, I thought this latest promo was well done. SpaceX needs to prove they can enter sustainable operations mode. They have done a pretty good job IMO of proving they can design, build, and fly a rocket.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/31/2011 08:39 pmQuote from: Antares on 03/31/2011 08:24 pmI'm taking the gloves off. I'm bleeping sick of SpaceX marketing stuff. How about coming up with a vehicle that works consistently and standing on your own merits? I really wonder if there is something going on in the background. Are they trying to drum up business because they are having financial problems?I'd much rather see real flights (more of them) than marketing fluff. SpaceX really hasn't done that much marketing fluff since the last launch, now they're back to their "normal." I wonder if their director of marketing was on maternity leave or something?As far as marketing goes, I thought this latest promo was well done. SpaceX needs to prove they can enter sustainable operations mode. They have done a pretty good job IMO of proving they can design, build, and fly a rocket.Agreed. The industry and consumers don’t need the flashily marketing. The target audience is probability outside of the industry, the beltway and new investors.
2 different vehicles. And, launch customers like few changes from mission to mission. I just wonder how the company can manage so many different development projects at once while continuing production and sustaining.It's not about making videos. It's about whether anything is actually going on, and creating false hopes and expectations. I'm amazed at how many people believe ridiculous development schedules put out by all companies, not just SpaceX.
Quote from: Antares on 03/31/2011 09:30 pm2 different vehicles. And, launch customers like few changes from mission to mission. I just wonder how the company can manage so many different development projects at once while continuing production and sustaining.It's not about making videos. It's about whether anything is actually going on, and creating false hopes and expectations. I'm amazed at how many people believe ridiculous development schedules put out by all companies, not just SpaceX.Your post reminds me of something: What is the "SpaceX multiplier"? Isn't it 2.4x or something?
Wait, you would rather SpaceX get that amount of money? And spend it on what? And manage it how? How is a company of 1000-2000 people going to do that much and do it any more efficiently than the competitors?
They would have to grow so fast, it couldn't be managed well without waste. I can't stand cost-plus government-owned rockets, but you fail to make a realistic argument.
BTW, RS327, calling F1-F1 $8M is dubious. It's really how ever much SpaceX spent to that point on F1.
Close Marshall and reroute the Tennessee River through buildings 4200 - 4203 to ensure it never came back.