Quote from: sghill on 10/14/2015 07:38 pm"We can basically say now we are riding first-class," said Garrett Skrobot, the Launch Services Program's mission lead for the Educational Launch of Nanosatellites, or ELaNa, program.In other words, paying more to get to the same place.
"We can basically say now we are riding first-class," said Garrett Skrobot, the Launch Services Program's mission lead for the Educational Launch of Nanosatellites, or ELaNa, program.
Firefly the uber of spacehttp://finance.yahoo.com/video/firefly-co-founder-firefly-uber-121820241.html
Quote from: Prober on 10/19/2015 01:23 pmFirefly the uber of spacehttp://finance.yahoo.com/video/firefly-co-founder-firefly-uber-121820241.htmlInteresting comparison, but for me it falls apart when you realize that Uber has transported people and Firefly still hasn't "transported" anything...
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/14/2015 08:02 pmQuote from: sghill on 10/14/2015 07:38 pm"We can basically say now we are riding first-class," said Garrett Skrobot, the Launch Services Program's mission lead for the Educational Launch of Nanosatellites, or ELaNa, program.In other words, paying more to get to the same place.Ride share is like catching a bus while dedicated LV is like a taxi. The taxi costs more but delivers you door to door when you want. The bus doesn't care if you are on board when it leaves. Once dropped off you will need to walk (propulsion) to your destination.
Small satellites don't generally all have their own individual houses they need to go to. There are a small number of orbits that cover the vast majority of places small satellites need to end up.And the bus/taxi analogy also breaks down when you consider that the cost of either is a small portion of what most people spend each year. For most small satellite makers $5 million is a huge portion of their budget, if not more than the budget.The promise of small satellites is that they can cost far less then $1 million each. That makes no sense if they have to pay $5 million for a launch.
I've been trying to confirm this, but I think Firefly is moving faster from startup to bench test than SpaceX. I cannot find any info on the first SpaceX bench test of an engine. Obviously SpaceX had a lot going on in the early days that was not really in the news (or on NSF). Thought they were testing in Mojave before they made it to Kwajalein.
There was a horizontal test stand and I recall seeing pictures of Merlin B (ablative) being tested on it. I can't find it on the SpaceX website any more. No Falcon 1 pictures either.
My notes say that SpaceX was formed in June 2002 and that the first Merlin testing took place at McGregor in March 2003. I'm not sure what that testing entailed exactly.
I've been trying to confirm this, but I think Firefly is moving faster from startup to bench test than SpaceX.
Yea it is pretty hard to find any news about SpaceX in the early days (2003). Their website was scanned on the wayback machine. Not a lot of content back then, just a single graphic and no public releases of news. Simply think at the early stages of a new business, Firefly SS is moving at a good clip. Comparatively SpaceX must have been really going fast early on. I wish the NSF website had a way to search for the first SpaceX thread just for historical news sake. I'd be interested if anything was being posted about bench tests and try to see more about the pace of development. I certainly remember watching the first Falcon I launch.
