Author Topic: Space X Falcon I interim latest  (Read 72100 times)

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Space X Falcon I interim latest
« Reply #240 on: 04/11/2008 11:37 am »
Quote
Comga - 11/4/2008  6:49 AM

1) That only makes sense, but I am coming more to your perspective that little of this matters.  Mislabeled Excel graphs, rocket cartoons, ever "improving" engines that never get to the launch pad, whatever!  
2) All that really matters is that they work through their launch manifest in some small multiple of the time projected with a decent rate of success, with success defined as getting to the target orbits.

You are right in general. But to predict if and when 2) will happen you can use 1) as a proxy of how they work in general. While there are companies with good products and lousy accounting, marketing etc., much more often companies with good products also have the other qualities (or they don't have both). So if I look at their claimed performances, the contratictions in their information etc., I wonder if their product has this lousy quality too or not.

Analyst

Offline aero313

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space X Falcon I interim latest
« Reply #241 on: 04/11/2008 02:33 pm »
Quote
iamlucky13 - 10/4/2008  4:36 PM

Speaking of which, I'm impressed with the stated degree of improvement between the 1 and the 1e. 140% increase in LEO mass from a 70% increase in launch mass.

You impress easily.  DEMONSTRATED improvement would be impressive.  Right now it's just paper with no understanding of the assumptions in the numbers.  Just like their ad in this week's AvWeek where they show their supposed launch manifest.  Note that the first three dates all have an asterisk that notes the dates are delivery to the launch site, not actual launch date.

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Space X Falcon I interim latest
« Reply #242 on: 04/11/2008 03:00 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 11/4/2008  5:37 AM
Quote
Comga - 11/4/2008  6:49 AM
1) That only makes sense, but I am coming more to your perspective that little of this matters.  Mislabeled Excel graphs, rocket cartoons, ever "improving" engines that never get to the launch pad, whatever!  
2) All that really matters is that they work through their launch manifest in some small multiple of the time projected with a decent rate of success, with success defined as getting to the target orbits.
You are right in general. But to predict if and when 2) will happen you can use 1) as a proxy of how they work in general.  (snip) Analyst
No That's what I was arguing against.  We have been doing that for five years now. Their lack of maturation in either their presentation or performance makes extrapolation futile.

And I aagree with aero313 that iamlucky13 is too easily impressed by SpaceX's claimed growth version of the Merlin 1-C, the 1-E.  SpaceX claims to be going into serial production, "... the largest number of rocket enginess produced...". yada yada yada, but they haven't  stabilized the design.  It is always THE ENGINE THAT IS TO COME!  (Apologies to Douglas Adams.)

I will believe that they can achieve their goals only when they achieve their goals.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Space X Falcon I interim latest
« Reply #243 on: 04/11/2008 10:20 pm »
Quote
aero313 - 11/4/2008  7:33 AM

Quote
iamlucky13 - 10/4/2008  4:36 PM

Speaking of which, I'm impressed with the stated degree of improvement between the 1 and the 1e. 140% increase in LEO mass from a 70% increase in launch mass.

You impress easily.  DEMONSTRATED improvement would be impressive.  Right now it's just paper with no understanding of the assumptions in the numbers.  Just like their ad in this week's AvWeek where they show their supposed launch manifest.  Note that the first three dates all have an asterisk that notes the dates are delivery to the launch site, not actual launch date.
Fair point, and the phrase "stated degree of improvement" was very deliberate in my post.

I'm presuming that having launched related hardware and more or less established the major system details for the 1e design, those numbers should not jump around too much. Even 20% reduction of LEO capacity still gives a substantial growth. The basic physics are pretty well-established and the engine development is underway, so the things that can be expected to reduce that the most is mass-growth of the structures or limited performance shortfalls of the engine. I'm not going to toot their horn for them, but neither am I going to discount their numbers without good reason.

I'm more skeptical of their cost numbers and schedule than performance estimates. More of the variables assumed in those projections are beyond their control.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0