SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 2)

[Jim]

I'm afraid that those in your place of work that are capable of actually taking risk and moving forward have indeed moved forward already...

I am afraid you are wrong, again.

And where are you at?  Have you ever worked a space mission?  Have you worked for one of the first commercial space companies?  Do you help in determining the course of the US space program?  Do you engage with commercial space companies?  Have you had the opportunity to work with Spacex, Astrotech, OSC, etc.  Do you really know what is going on outside of what is on the internet?

Have you had these opportunities?

[Jim]

1.   the Zenith/Soyuz examples in the F9 first stage reliability argument.

2. Last case in point - bringing up Boeing's capsule as an argument that SpaceX is not "the only one building a capsule" - from the same people that keep referring to anything SpaceX as "paper engine/rocket/capsule."

1.  Which were valid examples in proving that modern day engines still experience RUD.  That was the only point they were used in proving.  You were one that said that they weren't valid for EOC, which I never claimed they were.

You need to read more carefully.

2.  It is a legitimate point.  Boeing is the only US company that has ever built a manned spacecraft.

You have yet to disprove anything I said.

[Jim]

 "proven" tag line. 

As a custodian of the taxpayer's money, that is a requirement.

Yes.  Cost+ contractors as custodians of the taxpayer's money.  I had to read this twice to make sure you actually said that.

No, I am a NASA civil servant.  I help procure launch services on fixed price contracts.  I had some role in getting Spacex on the NLS I contract.

And when I was contractor, it was on fixed price contracts.

[ChefPat]

This thread is suposed to be about SpaceX, not who has the bigger Shlong.

[Jason1701]

It was a treat to look at those pictures!

[nooneofconsequence]

Jim's post with pictures is exactly what its all about. Feels so good.

Now, back to an example. Want to prove RUD - then you on purpose detonate an engine in a 9 engine test stand with them all running. And you keep the others going well past detonation. Do this multiple times with certain changes.

So why doesn't SpaceX do this? Simple - cost. It drives up costs w/o direct benefit to them. When it doesn't and they need it, then they might.

Then they might find they have the capability - cheaply. Or find it is a galloping expense that never comes in for a landing.

High stakes poker - they attempt a test. Win the bet with a single run, and it would shut up naysayers yet still not prove a capability. Because they would be threatening one. Downside risk is it doesn't work, and they carry that albatross along.

But this is the reality.

[Jim]

It was a treat to look at those pictures!

I need to start a new thread on photos.  There use to be an album option.

[baldusi]

 "proven" tag line. 

As a custodian of the taxpayer's money, that is a requirement.

Yes.  Cost+ contractors as custodians of the taxpayer's money.  I had to read this twice to make sure you actually said that.

Have you ever worked on a big corporation? They require proven technologies. And the gov't is the biggest corporation. So the require the most proofs, which imply the biggest price, and most commonly, only the really big can compete for the level of bureaucracy that the public servant needs. As an economist, I hate bureaucracy with a passion. And yet, I understand that's a necessity. Specially in government.
As of now, the core advantage of SpaceX is Elon and his managers, apparently they can keep a steady ship with a very small core group. I'm amazed because the average human brain is wired for groups of about 150. SpaceX is what, 800, 1000? I don't see how will they keep that focused without their own bureaucracy. You either keep it small and nimble or big and strong.

[meekGee]

And where are you at?  Have you ever worked a space mission?

Have you worked for one of the first commercial space companies?

Do you help in determining the course of the US space program?

Do you engage with commercial space companies?  Have you had the opportunity to work with Spacex, Astrotech, OSC, etc.

Do you really know what is going on outside of what is on the internet?

Answering in order:

Private engineering company, did aerospace (science payload) work, but not currently.

No, too young.

I wish I was able to determine that, but don't have nearly the amount of juice needed....  But I think that the people who determined this course in the last 20 years were NOT worth my taxpayer money.

To some degree.

Yes.

[Chris Bergin]

Everyone take a breather, way too much keyboard bashing - and the thread title isn't "meekGee Q&A".

Thread three now on line:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24179.0

Locking this thread.


PS Cool images from Jim - looks like he's posting more here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24176.msg693484;boardseen#new