Author Topic: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)  (Read 756697 times)

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2280 on: 02/09/2012 11:58 am »
Not too many chefs standing around any more arguing about which oven is better.
Wanna bet? ;)

Hah!  Funny.

Kabloona is right though.  I think all these companies have their own role to take in the big book of space travel.  There is no reason for an us. vs them mentality.  Space is hard enough as it is.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4518
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2281 on: 02/09/2012 01:31 pm »
Not too many chefs standing around any more arguing about which oven is better.
Wanna bet? ;)
Wanna come down here and discuss how a true asado barbecue is made? We get discussion upto the type of wood to make the coals. Trust me, don't mess with the cook (or the waiters, for that matter).

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4339
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2282 on: 02/09/2012 08:09 pm »
Not too many chefs standing around any more arguing about which oven is better.
Wanna bet? ;)
Wanna come down here and discuss how a true asado barbecue is made? We get discussion upto the type of wood to make the coals. Trust me, don't mess with the cook (or the waiters, for that matter).

Well, I'm a Yankee from up north, but I do hear tell they take their 'cue seriously down south.  ;)

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2283 on: 02/09/2012 09:03 pm »
We can't afford two ovens and we've been planning the kitchen renovation too long.  The microwavers feed lots of people and have been making new microwaves fairly often.  The conventional oven folks haven't built a new oven since 1979, though they've designed a lot of them on paper that never got built or installed.  Their oven that was recently decommissioned only fed one family during that time.  Everyone else knew the microwave was more cost effective.

But whatever.  I've been making this point on NSF for 5 years, and most minds are made up one way or the other.

The CS mentality to hide behind job security is foreign to me.  There's no space launch or HSF company that can do anything in the market without the government.  Commercial believers who give up government positions likely will not be replaced by other commercial believers.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2284 on: 02/09/2012 09:17 pm »
The above seems contradictory to me. 

The "microwavers" feed a lot of people supposedly.  But further down you say nobody can do *anything* without the government.

Which is it going to be?

Because if there is no market and nobody "can do anything" without the government, as you suggest, then what makes this any different?  Why should this be called anything but another government procurement funded by the government?

And if that is to be the case, the CS mentality means nothing anyway because if the government is behind it all, the government, like it or not, would seem to have the right to call the shots (massive requirements, etc) because it is all their funding. 

So, basically, as I read this (and I have read it several times to make sure I didn't miss anything as far as I know) you are proposing turning the microwave into an oven.  It will be just a less capable oven, a toaster perhaps, then we have had in the past. 

What happens then after that? 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2285 on: 02/09/2012 09:53 pm »
Cook more food with the same amount of money.

Government as anchor tenant using rockets (metaphors must die) that are supported by multiple customers.  There was one customer for Shuttle, one for Ares, one for SLS.  That is insanity.  More launches mean lower average cost as fixed costs are spread over a larger base - even if it is all government launches.

We build a sustainable industry.  Nothing Shuttle-derived is sustainable because no one else wants to use it.  And don't cite the DOD and SMD PR junk about flying on SLS.  It's not real.

This is the same argument that's been going on since ESAS.  I'll have it again, but I don't see why.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2286 on: 02/09/2012 10:12 pm »
Doesn't this discussion of SLS versus alternatives belong in another thread, perhaps in the Space Policy section?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2287 on: 02/09/2012 10:15 pm »
Cook more food with the same amount of money.

Government as anchor tenant using rockets (metaphors must die) that are supported by multiple customers.  There was one customer for Shuttle, one for Ares, one for SLS.  That is insanity.  More launches mean lower average cost as fixed costs are spread over a larger base - even if it is all government launches.

We build a sustainable industry.  Nothing Shuttle-derived is sustainable because no one else wants to use it.  And don't cite the DOD and SMD PR junk about flying on SLS.  It's not real.

This is the same argument that's been going on since ESAS.  I'll have it again, but I don't see why.

But if it is "government food", you can only cook so much.  You still haven't addressed the central question that it seems you believe nobody can do anything without the government.  So again, if government is buying "commercial" for what it can, what about what it can't?  Advanced systems and spacecraft for beyond LEO missions?  Aren't you right back to the "oven"?  It's still the same people afterall, so what has changed if you have no faith in them and they are your co-workers?

You know shuttle was not just a rocket.  You probably know that there could have been more than one customer too.  In theory, it could be the same for SLS and I refuse to just cry that it is impossible and stupid to think otherwise (though I readily acknowledge, those few customers would be few for something that is just a large rocket)

Where government has completely failed, and you did not address, is to not define a strategy and mission scopes.  Without that, screaming one tactical solution is absolutely better than the other is largely meaningless.  Because depending on said scopes and mission requirements I can see the possibility that a HLV could be useful in the mix and lower the total integrated mission costs.  Just because there is an HLV does not have to preclude the use of other rockets, that exist today, for certain launches when and where it makes sense. 

If all that held out to be true, which again we do not know, why not build it out of things we have flown for some time and understand and therefore protect "the market" where it exists now so one company that provides complete launch vehicles is not subsidized over another for something derived from one of theirs. 

Without any of the above that I was talking about, you have to admit that your post is also just buzzwords.  They sound good, and I don't have some ideological slant that prevents me from agreeing and accepting the above (unlike the "other side") it just simply cannot be answered definitively.

Again, another failure of the government thus far. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: SpaceX: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #2288 on: 02/09/2012 10:59 pm »
I believe that the cost of American rockets (since SpaceX skipped over F1 and F5 and didn't build that market) exceeds that which can be sustained by a market that is even half private customers, as it was in the 1990s.

I don't view commercial as a tactical solution.  I view it as the first cornerstone of an industry that may someday be viable without government customers.  We don't need another rocket, especially one designed by the government, to further dilute the customer base.  We have to get to a launch rate that decreases cost and brings customers back to the domestic launch market.

I don't believe HLV and BEO exploration is a good use of taxpayer dollars when ( http://usdebtclock.org ).  We can't afford big government inspiration.  I am against any effort that requires a new government-only rocket.  Period.  I don't care who builds it or what its lineage is.  I agree that exploration beyond the Moon requires an HLV.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Online Chris Bergin

Locked due to going off topic. Will be dealt with later.

Online Chris Bergin

Actually, this is a good point to start thread 5, so I'll add the link in a moment.

EDIT - here you go:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28006.0
« Last Edit: 02/10/2012 01:56 am by Chris Bergin »

Tags: