SpaceX Building Reusable Crew Capsule

[stargazer777]

Elon and Space X were laughed out of court with his "law suit."  Turns out you actually need to have accomplished something before you can claim to have been damaged by the Boeing LM military launcher integration.  Who knew?  But what about Elon's plans for a mission to Jupiter?

[Jim]

publiusr - 8/3/2006  1:46 PM

Dogsbd - 6/3/2006  10:53 AM

UK Shuttle Clan - 6/3/2006  8:33 AMCompare this to the Blackstar and you have to laugh.

Not in the least, each (if Blackstar is even real) serves a unique purpose.

Well said. I think more of Musk's craft than Blackstar myself. A pure, dedicated rocket is hard to beat.Musk's Dragon has a bit more bite to it than the t/Space vehicle which might wind up underpowered..IIRC Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 are to be similar with more engine placements on Falcon 9, which is to be Titan II-EELV strength.Musk might even have his own MOL--if he just gets Falcon I off. My guess is that he was waiting for a win against the primes before making this statement, so it wouldn't sound as lame--and for some of the lawsuit money to go into LV development.

He wasn't asking for money.  Just trying to prevent ULV.

[braddock]

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006  3:44 PM

Elon and Space X were laughed out of court with his "law suit."  Turns out you actually need to have accomplished something before you can claim to have been damaged by the Boeing LM military launcher integration.  Who knew?  But what about Elon's plans for a mission to Jupiter?

SpaceX won a big victory last fall with their legal tactics.  The Air Force formally backed off of their EELV contract language that was going to lock SpaceX out of the market until 2011.  

So I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss their lawsuit as just so much litigious hubris or gold digging.  They know what they are doing, and I dare say they even know they are unlikely to win.  But I don't see any ULA approval forthcoming yet either, six months later, and that buys them precious time.

[stargazer777]

They aren't unlikely to win -- they lost.  Whether the Boeing Lockheed venture is approved by DOD or simply abandoned is another issue.  The fact that SpaceX is gaining credit and public attention on a whole range of supposed space projects despite having zero actual accomplishments is simply stunning.

[Avron]

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006  5:42 PM

They aren't unlikely to win -- they lost.  Whether the Boeing Lockheed venture is approved by DOD or simply abandoned is another issue.  The fact that SpaceX is gaining credit and public attention on a whole range of supposed space projects despite having zero actual accomplishments is simply stunning.

Its because they are trying and its not costing you, me or any other tax payer a cent. Nor does it have any negitive impact on the science community and has the potential to open up space like we expected. If he gets moving, its will be his success and his team, but it will also be a new oppertunity for new high tech jobs in the west, instead of shipping that all out to the east .. To me its good news all around... I wish him and Spacex all the best...

[Dogsbd]

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006  3:44 PM

Elon and Space X were laughed out of court with his "law suit."  Turns out you actually need to have accomplished something before you can claim to have been damaged by the Boeing LM military launcher integration.  Who knew?  But what about Elon's plans for a mission to Jupiter?

I wouldn't be so quick to bad mouth Musk, Arianespace just failed it's third attempt to get a rocket off the ground and they have tons of exsperince at doing so. I would say Falcon is coming along just fine for a new comer to the business. They've accomplished a lot already, and the best is yet to come I believe.

[Avron]

EH.. should we not be hearing something from SpaceX viv.. March 20th attempt??

[meiza]

I was just browsing the Apollo picture archive, and found a good photo fitting to cheer up the SpaceX guys and their fans: Even the big boys started small.
That one has a Redstone and a Jupiter missile in front of a Saturn I. From 1961. What a leap in capability - and it worked.

[aero313]

Avron - 8/3/2006  11:23 PM

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006  5:42 PM

They aren't unlikely to win -- they lost.  Whether the Boeing Lockheed venture is approved by DOD or simply abandoned is another issue.  The fact that SpaceX is gaining credit and public attention on a whole range of supposed space projects despite having zero actual accomplishments is simply stunning.

Its because they are trying and its not costing you, me or any other tax payer a cent.

Actually, the failed launch cost the taxpayers $8M for the mission, $800K for the satellite, and some unknown amount for the range costs.  Not to mention the cost of flying the gov't customer team back and forth to Kwaj for each of the aborted launch attempts.

For those who have forgotten, this particular launch was paid for by DARPA under the FALCON Phase IIA contract that was awarded to SpaceX.  Their statement of work required them to modify their ground ops for responsive launch and to demonstrate that they could launch what was intended to be their second mission in half the time as their then-planned first mission.  I'd say they failed on all counts.

[josh_simonson]

That depends on how well insured the launch was.  Also the satelite itself was planned to be scrapped when it lost it's original ride to space.

DARPA got a large amount of useful information from the multiple test firings that spacex ran.  After all they did everything involved in launching short of allowing the rocket to leave the pad.  Perhaps this was part of the reason for so many test firings.  They did upgrade their pad hardware to speed up launches by avoiding wind delays too, which is important for rapid response launches.

[aero313]

josh_simonson - 19/4/2006  5:42 PM

That depends on how well insured the launch was.

The Gov't doesn't buy insurance.

Also the satelite itself was planned to be scrapped when it lost it's original ride to space.

Doubtful.  Usually projects like this sit on the shelf until a launch opportunity shows up.  On the other hand, the real mission of the satellite was the teaching experience it provided to the cadets, so I'll give you that one.

DARPA got a large amount of useful information from the multiple test firings that spacex ran.

I guess four decades of data on launching LOX/kerosene vehicles wasn't enought?

After all they did everything involved in launching short of allowing the rocket to leave the pad.  Perhaps this was part of the reason for so many test firings.

One could argue that without a successful orbital insertion, nothing was proven.  Now, I'm in no way implying that the following applies to SpaceX, but one could easily cut corners and "demonstrate" a responsive launch readiness capability, but that's meaningless if the process stops short of launch.  If the launch is unsuccessful, particularly if the failure was due to a prelaunch error, I'd argue that nothing was proven.

They did upgrade their pad hardware to speed up launches by avoiding wind delays too, which is important for rapid response launches.

Wow, the same pad modification that was done for Vanguard in 1958 - and pretty much every other launcher with the same aft end configuration since then.  A better question is why SpaceX couldn't figure out that they needed this in the first place.

Again, let's not loose sight of the original DARPA contract requirements.  The DARPA FALCON program (which originally stood for Force Application with Launch from CONus and was only coincidentally the same name as the SpaceX rocket) has a requirement for vehicle readiness within 24 hours of callup and once at readiness state, launch within 24 hours of authorization.  This launch demonstrated neither.

[josh_simonson]

Experiments don't have to go flawlessly to produce useful information.  That launch only cost you personally 2c, 6mil/300mil americans, so if you're feeling bad about that 2c you can probably break even by keeping an eye out for pennies in the parking lot on your way to the car this afternoon.  

[R&R]

Does anyone really buy the whole launch within 48 hours from call up?  You'd need to have many versions of flight software to cover a multitude of orbits and a spacecraft that could handle large orbit changes by itself if the orbit from the available software was not quite what was needed.  Plus you would have to put a lot of trust in not getting any pre launch testing that might show a problem and as such be willing to lose that spacecraft because of that.  Oh yeah and the launch company would need to have at least one rocket sitting around at the launch site.  A site like Kwaj would never do since it would take way more than 48 hours to get the spacecraft there.  My bet is that any launcher would need at best 2 weeks to get a launch off if it already had all the things I mentioned above.

[Jim]

R&R - 20/4/2006  7:46 PMDoes anyone really buy the whole launch within 48 hours from call up?  You'd need to have many versions of flight software to cover a multitude of orbits and a spacecraft that could handle large orbit changes by itself if the orbit from the available software was not quite what was needed.  Plus you would have to put a lot of trust in not getting any pre launch testing that might show a problem and as such be willing to lose that spacecraft because of that.  Oh yeah and the launch company would need to have at least one rocket sitting around at the launch site.  A site like Kwaj would never do since it would take way more than 48 hours to get the spacecraft there.  My bet is that any launcher would need at best 2 weeks to get a launch off if it already had all the things I mentioned above.

It is have everything on the shelve and call up in 48 hours for one predetermined spacecraft. 

[braddock]

R&R - 20/4/2006  7:46 PM
My bet is that any launcher would need at best 2 weeks to get a launch off if it already had all the things I mentioned above.

From the (very interesting) Nuclear Anti-Sat Program 437 document posted in this thread, it sounds like we had exactly this capability based on the RP1/LOX Thor rocket in active duty on a remote pacific island for over a decade.  Sub-orbital of course, but capable of intercepting a satellite with 6 to 12 hours of preparation, and a five second launch window.

Certain people on this site are extremely fond of saying that the Falcon-1 is nothing but an updated Thor rocket.  Sure seems possible to me to maintain a 48 hour turn-around.  The orbital mechanics are just a software problem.  A spare Falcon-1 is $6 million, which is only three cruise missiles worth of DoD cash, plus salary for <20 person launch crew on stand-by.

TacSat-1 is essentially a proof-of-concept of an on-demand reconnaisance satellite under direct control of tactical field commanders...I think the idea is that they could use it like a UAV, joystick in hand, with no NRO/NGA to meddle in the tasking.

[Jim]

braddock - 20/4/2006  8:20 PM I think the idea is that they could use it like a UAV, joystick in hand, with no NRO/NGA to meddle in the tasking.

There is still some naivety in this.  because unless the target is under the first pass, then Sir Issac Newton has the joystick.  I know they know this but.....