Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)  (Read 761284 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #600 on: 03/31/2011 03:22 pm »
Hmm, 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
Considering the name of the company, that may actually be intentional. Just sayin'. Nothing sells like Spa ceX.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #601 on: 03/31/2011 03:56 pm »

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?

Falcon 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.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #602 on: 03/31/2011 05:32 pm »
Quote
Quote
Falcon 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?
« Last Edit: 03/31/2011 05:32 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #603 on: 03/31/2011 06:57 pm »
Quote
Quote
Falcon 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.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #604 on: 03/31/2011 07:35 pm »
Quote
Quote
Falcon 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.

The fact that F9 has "a very complicated manifold" would mean that a crossfeed arrangement would be substantially different than on an F1. Crossfeed isn't a groundbreaking principle, it's simply a way to use your fuel more efficiently. The problems with it are all mechanical, which is why I think an F1/e demonstrator would not be very helpful.

Also, it's Stig, not Sting.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #605 on: 03/31/2011 08:06 pm »
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.

SpaceX said they won't do any type of F1 strap-on.  I don't have a link handy, but I remember it clearly.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #606 on: 03/31/2011 08:24 pm »
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?
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 Calorspace

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #607 on: 03/31/2011 08:29 pm »
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?

This is a post of madness. What is wrong with their marketing?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #608 on: 03/31/2011 08:30 pm »

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.

Not needed.  Most has already been done.  See Saturn I/IB first stage for propellant utilization from multiple tanks and old school Atlas booster package jettison for inflight propellant line disconnects.

Offline nblackwell

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Somewhere in Southern California
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #609 on: 03/31/2011 08:35 pm »
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?

I'm sorry, but how exactly is 4 consecutive successes not consistent?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #610 on: 03/31/2011 08:39 pm »
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?
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Chris-A

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #611 on: 03/31/2011 08:56 pm »
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?
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.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #612 on: 03/31/2011 09:05 pm »
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?
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.

It's not an either/or situation. The people who make the videos are certainly not the ones building and testing hardware. A video like this represents at most a few thousand dollars' worth of the marketing people's time. (If they did in house, which would fit their style.) Which would you rather see: few launches and some great videos, or few launches and no videos or updates of any kind? Those are the options for the first half of 2011.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #613 on: 03/31/2011 09:30 pm »
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.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #614 on: 03/31/2011 09:37 pm »
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.
Your post reminds me of something: What is the "SpaceX multiplier"? Isn't it 2.4x or something?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #615 on: 03/31/2011 10:04 pm »
This is just my personal opinion:

SpaceX found out pretty damn quickly that the market for Falcon 1 was small and not profitable.  This was a nice to have more than a real market.

Falcon 1 was a test bed for about 75 percent of "Falcon".

Brilliant business move.  Falcon 1 - Flight 1 was a scud missile.  The lessons learned were enormous and while the price tag was about eight million (million with an M) it was not 56 million.  Obviously I am not rolling in R&D into the serials.

The business model is perfect, brilliant, elegant - everything NASA is not.

By Falcon 1 - Flight 5 SpaceX had "most" procedures in place... not all.  Those lessons learned were then applied to the then, Falcon 9, program.

Long way to go and I totally see where Antares is going with this, and it is a fair criticism.  However, I would humbly ask who else is doing what SpaceX is doing for the money the US taxpayer is giving to SpaceX via COTS?

The answer is no one.  No one is even close.

This does not guarantee SpaceX will succeed but you are lying through your teeth if you do not think they are the closest to the finish line.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #616 on: 03/31/2011 10:04 pm »
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.
Your post reminds me of something: What is the "SpaceX multiplier"? Isn't it 2.4x or something?
Performance, price or delivery time? Price seems to be 15% + inflation correction. Delivery time is a comfortable 2.0. Performance, I would say 0.85, but it's true they still don't have Block 2 (which might imply a time correction of 2.5~3.0).

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #617 on: 03/31/2011 10:21 pm »
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?

I'm bleeping sick of SpaceX marketing stuff.  How about coming up with a vehicle that works consistently and standing on your own merits?

And then what? Watch congress give away contracts to your competitors, despite achieving for pennies on the dollar what they failed to do with the Ares I? SpaceX has to blow their own horn - Senator Shelby sure as hell won't.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #618 on: 03/31/2011 10:54 pm »
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.
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 RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #619 on: 03/31/2011 11:16 pm »
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?

Feed SpaceX money based on milestones.  SpaceX has proved and is continuing to prove that this model of commercial space acquisition for services WORKS.  And it works well.  You could use this model for say:

* Merlin 2
* Raptor
* Falcon X
* Falcon XX

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.

I am keenly aware of how difficult it is to hire the right people into an organization.  You just cannot hire an excellent "rocket scientist", no.  That "rocket scientist" must also fit the culture of SpaceX. 

SpaceX is growing, in my opinion at a "cautious" pace.

BTW, RS327, calling F1-F1 $8M is dubious.  It's really how ever much SpaceX spent to that point on F1.

In my post I did say I left off the R&D.

The point remains valid.  It is a hell of a lot cheaper to fail with an F1 than an F9.  The hardware itself was 8 million.  The intellectual property acquired during the development up until that point cost a lot more.

Finally, you asked if I would give ALL the money to SpaceX.  Let me respond by saying:

HELL NO!

Boeing gets to play with CST-100
Biglow gets to play with its modules
ULA gets to play with "man rating" Delta and Atlas
Orbital gets to play with Taurus and Cygnus
Masten gets to play with their vehicles
XCOR gets to play with their vehicles
Spacedev gets to play with Dream Chaser

You could fund all that with what we are wasting with this three ring circus that is SLS.

I am all about equal OPPORTUNITY!  Who ever makes it, makes it.  I have one more quote I want to add here from another thread:

Close Marshall and reroute the Tennessee River through buildings 4200 - 4203 to ensure it never came back.

+1

The sooner we enable the SpaceX's, Orbital's, ULA's, and others; the better we will be.

VR
RE327

edit: changed "is" to "has"
« Last Edit: 03/31/2011 11:21 pm by RocketScientist327 »
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1