SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[ChefPat]

The point is that Space X is moving space flight into the private sector and the day the dragon carries its first crew to orbit it will break the government monopoly on manned space flight. That is a day I will celibate. 

I sure as hell won't!!!

[mr. mark]

Hey it was me who wished that they were painted white and look, they did it LOL. Kidding aside Falcon 9 is one classy looking ride. Let's hope it flies as good as it looks.

[Antares]

Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

[pathfinder_01]

Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

360M is a heck of a bargin compared to Ares 1. Billions were put into the project yet even NASA'S expertise could not keep  CXP on a sane schedule.

[Antares]

I'll assume you're being sarcastic about NASA's expertise at architecting CxP.

[cuddihy]

Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

360M is a heck of a bargin compared to Ares 1. Billions were put into the project yet even NASA'S expertise could not keep  CXP on a sane schedule.

Yes, and for an encore we'll see how Congress' expertise compares...

[SpacexULA]

Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/15/222995/picture-uk-built-spacex-capsule-revealed.html

Ummm they where a little further along than that on a capsule for Falcon 5.

Your major point stands, but I think they would have been a little further along than a OML on paper.

If they had not won COTS, they would have likely put off Merlin 1C (originally it was to be a down the road upgrade), likely meaning the Falcon 1 Flight 3 would not have been as delayed (Flight 3 was delayed for Merlin 1C dev), and considering the trust transient of the Merlin 1C was the culprit of the Flight 3 failure, they might have got to orbit on Flight 3 instead of 4.

I don't think anyone could really say where SpaceX would be if they had not got COTS funding.  But I would wager that Falcon 1 would be launching regularly to generate the revenue for Falcon 5 instead of focusing so much on the MLV.

BTW the rest of your post I agree with 100%

[Nate_Trost]

But I would wager that Falcon 1 would be launching regularly to generate the revenue for Falcon 5 instead of focusing so much on the MLV.

How? It's not like there are dozens of customers coming out of the woodwork for Falcon 1. Lets be generous and give them a flight rate of 3 a year at an average mission cost of $10 million, which is well over the listed Falcon 1 prices from years past.  On $30 million a year, it will take them years to pay off the development investment for the Falcon 1, much less generating revenue to fund a Falcon 5, much less fund Dragon.

Somebody would have had to sink several hundred million dollars of investment in to make it happen, it wasn't going to bootstrap from Falcon 1.

That UK capsule was a interesting piece of capsule prototyping. It also isn't a Dragon. I'd wager the cost of developing the flight software alone for Dragon is 20x-30x the cost of that prototype.

[pathfinder_01]

How? It's not like there are dozens of customers coming out of the woodwork for Falcon 1. Lets be generous and give them a flight rate of 3 a year at an average mission cost of $10 million, which is well over the listed Falcon 1 prices from years past.  On $30 million a year, it will take them years to pay off the development investment for the Falcon 1, much less generating revenue to fund a Falcon 5, much less fund Dragon.

Somebody would have had to sink several hundred million dollars of investment in to make it happen, it wasn't going to bootstrap from Falcon 1.

That UK capsule was a interesting piece of capsule prototyping. It also isn't a Dragon. I'd wager the cost of developing the flight software alone for Dragon is 20x-30x the cost of that prototype.

Faclon 1 was for two reasons to get legitimate so that you can attract investors. In addition Falcon 9 and Falcon 1 share as many systems as possible.  What NASA money did was allow them to skip falcon 5.

[mr. mark]

Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975. Apollo also started out as unmanned capsules with Apollo missions 4,5 and 6. That a company of 1,100 people is doing this is an outstanding accomplishment! Congrats' Spacex.

[david1971]

Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

With the return of X-37, I was wondering what was the last thing that went up on an Atlas that was designed to come back down.  Could it really be a Mercury capsule?

[vt_hokie]

Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

Can't say I'm too enthused about us regressing back to capsules myself. 

[mr. mark]

Growing up with capsules, I have no problem with them. It really is a falsehood to think that they are any less safe than a space plane. In fact capsules have been flying since the beginning of the space program and I think that only one manned vehicle's chutes failed to open and that was a early soyuz vehicle. They have a good safety record considering all of the launches using them.

[e of pi]

Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

Can't say I'm too enthused about us regressing back to capsules myself. 

Personally I find capsules much cooler than space planes. It may be because I've never had one fly in my lifetime, but I think it's more because capsules are supposed to go places. Space planes go to space stations, or someplace else in LEO. Capsules are a bit more go-anywhere in my mind, especially Dragon with the speculation that it's capable of direct entry from lunar return or whatever. And yeah, it's pretty. The shuttles look...worn out, and they have in every image I've seen of them thats been taken since I was born.

[Jim]

Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

With the return of X-37, I was wondering what was the last thing that went up on an Atlas that was designed to come back down.  Could it really be a Mercury capsule?

Gambit SRV

[SpacexULA]

Just had a WOW moment when I realized that this will be the first US based capsule in space since Apollo/Soyuz in 1975.

Can't say I'm too enthused about us regressing back to capsules myself. 

Can't say that I see it as a regression, you just can't get much more fail safe than a capsule with an LAS on the way up and a ballistic capsule with redundant parachutes on the way down.

In an environment where 1 LOC event can mean the end of a program I would rather go for the reliability of survival over cost savings/performance.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Do we have a T-0 for Tuesday? and a window perhaps?

[Antares]

Space planes aren't meant to go places.  They're meant for entry cross-range.  Period.  Engineering is about requirements.  Form follows function.  Anything else is suboptimized.  Engineers prefer the most elegant solution, not the best looking one.

[NotGncDude]

Yes, I know that Space X is getting both financial and technical help from NASA but it’s secondary not primary. Space X was going to do this with or with out NASA.

That last sentence is, thanks to the option of hiding the posts of other habitual offenders, the least correct thing I've ever read on NSF.  The first sentence is not much better.  NASA has paid ~$360M so far and helped SpaceX on all of its design reviews.  Without NASA, SpaceX wouldn't have flown a F9 (since their original plan was incremental build up F1-F5-F9) and wouldn't have more than a Dragon OML on paper.

"Help" ? What "help" ?

[vt_hokie]

Space planes aren't meant to go places. 

Oh, I'd be more excited about Dragon if it was going to send humans beyond LEO anytime soon, rather than just ferrying supplies to ISS!

Still, there's nothing as beautiful as a spaceplane landing on a runway to me!  The X-37B landing images represent what 21st century spaceflight should look like, imo.