Quote from: simonbp on 03/29/2012 06:01 amKistler had arguably a better designThe Kistler design was full of unobtainium. It was a bunch of usual suspect, former NASA and contractor managers. That was the only reason it survived as long as it did.Quote from: beancounter on 03/29/2012 08:12 amSorry, clarification, how much in your opinion has been NASA funds? "Bulk?"SpaceX also has a flight manifest that extends for a number of years and includes around 50% non-NASA so how does that translate to an 'anchor' customer. Would I be correct in assuming that you believe that without the NASA contracts, SpaceX would not have attracted those other launches? Cost had nothing to do with it? Just a few questions.I for one believe precisely that. Without NASA, SpaceX is either nothing or, actually, MORE viable. Until being rerouted by COTS, SpaceX would have gone the Falcon 1-Falcon 5-Falcon 9 route and really could have revolutionized space launch. NASA's siren call led SpaceX into space capsule development. I firmly believe that the rhetoric would be far less and the results far greater, but everyone believes their estimate of an alternate reality is the accurate one.
Kistler had arguably a better design
Sorry, clarification, how much in your opinion has been NASA funds? "Bulk?"SpaceX also has a flight manifest that extends for a number of years and includes around 50% non-NASA so how does that translate to an 'anchor' customer. Would I be correct in assuming that you believe that without the NASA contracts, SpaceX would not have attracted those other launches? Cost had nothing to do with it? Just a few questions.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/29/2012 02:35 amIf there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.Have you been listening to the hearings? Congress can't stand commercial. Better said, Congress's donors can't stand commercial.
If there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.
There are 3 viable, but unproven, crew options in the commercial channel. Each provides different and diverse capability and combined provide the safest most reliable framework to provide crew capability to the ISS in the shortest time possible.
I'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.
Quote from: cuddihy on 03/30/2012 04:16 amI'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.Nope. SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going. It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed. The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market. Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years. It is his ultimate aim after all.
Quote from: Blackjax on 03/29/2012 02:58 pmI think there is probably an early market for tourists to a LEO Bigelow station in addition to the market for sovereign clients and commercial human tended research,Really? Bigelow doesn't think so anymore.
I think there is probably an early market for tourists to a LEO Bigelow station in addition to the market for sovereign clients and commercial human tended research,
Quote from: Blackjax on 03/29/2012 02:58 pmThe next major project I'd like to see some billionaire announce is the development of a cycler for cislunar space that more or less permanently runs back and forth between the earth and moon Why? Why set up a transportation system for destination that has no business case.
The next major project I'd like to see some billionaire announce is the development of a cycler for cislunar space that more or less permanently runs back and forth between the earth and moon
And LEO market isn't going to be low cost as you think?Markets costs moving towards ULA's vs Spacex's
Quote from: Blackjax on 03/29/2012 02:58 pmULA via its partnership with XCOR is showing flickers of recognition that reducing costs might be the key to the future. Huh? ULA has always recognized reducing costs (combined launch teams, combined factory, fairing version reduction initiatives, etc).
ULA via its partnership with XCOR is showing flickers of recognition that reducing costs might be the key to the future.
We know that launch can be much cheaper,
Quote from: Blackjax on 03/30/2012 03:26 pmWe know that launch can be much cheaper, That is not true
Have you taken into account the devaluation of the USD as it relates to their costs, especially as it concerns non-US sourced parts and commodities?
Quote from: beancounter on 03/30/2012 08:27 amQuote from: cuddihy on 03/30/2012 04:16 amI'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.Nope. SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going. It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed. The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market. Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years. It is his ultimate aim after all.On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS. I do not recall anything about an instability. In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.
Quote from: Comga on 03/30/2012 03:05 pmQuote from: beancounter on 03/30/2012 08:27 amQuote from: cuddihy on 03/30/2012 04:16 amI'm very skeptical of any argument that SpaceX would have been 'better off' if they'd stayed with F1. In reality, they had no market for F1 that was any bigger than Orbital's market for Pegasus.Based on the 60 Minutes interview, I'd say it's clear that without F9 / COTS NASA money, SpaceX would currently be either another Beal Aerospace, or a boutique NewSpace project on the verge of collapse somewhat like Bigelow.Nope. SpaceX had enough money from investors and so forth to keep going. It was Musk who said he would have pulled the pin if F1 #4 had failed. The plan was then to go to F5 but it proved unstable so they went to the F9 which provided a bigger market. Got sidetracked on the way by NASA HSF but HSF was something Musk had been thinking about and modelling for a number of years. It is his ultimate aim after all.On what basis do you say that "F5 .. proved unstable so they went to the F9"?As I recall, and I can still remember the photo, the F9 was announced shortly after Musk was pictured shaking hands with some guy from NASA after discussing delivering hardware to the ISS as in COTS. I do not recall anything about an instability. In fact, Musk made a big deal about why five engines was the magic number.F9 was actually driven by an AF customer. The first public mention of F9 was an AF guy accidentally mentioning it on his personal blog. I stumbled on his blog while following the website links left by commenters on Selenian Boondocks, and linked to it. Poor guy was mortified that what he had linked-to had gone public like that, but that's how Falcon 9 came to light. The AF wanted to know if they could increase the performance a bit higher than the Falcon 5 could do, and asked if they could stick a few more engines on the core.Or at least that's my understanding of the origin of F9.~Jon
If the "commercial" route was sustainable, they would be continuing F1. There's no reason to quit F1 if it had any possibility of making money. 1. There was plenty of real estate on the factory floor.2. Still lots in common between F1 and F9.3. It didn't interfere with F9 pads.If it was self sustaining it would still be being built!
Are we really going to do the thing where I point out SpaceXs' listed launch prices, then you point out that they aren't proven yet, then we argue over the extent to which that matters in the context of this discussion? I'm going to propose we skip that as much fun as it might be.I couldn't find out what Orbital expects to charge for a non-COTS Antares, but I expect that would fall under the same 'not yet proven' category anyway regardless of what price they ask. I could cite the Zenit and Proton options, but no doubt the non-US labor costs will be what you cite on that one and it is a worthwhile point.Have I missed any aspects of the argument or can we consider the compressed summary above as a single post transcript and agree to disagree on the SpaceX thing?