Author Topic: SCRUB: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 19 (Read 178699 times)

Jim · « **Reply #60 on:** 11/21/2006 11:42 am »

Beal did the same wrong thing. Went for the big one first, instead of a proof of concept

imfan · « **Reply #61 on:** 11/21/2006 12:53 pm »

I have been paging through some popular science magazine(more popular than science) in local store and there was an article about bigelow and that he will be pottentially launching on falcon and there was a note that Falcon5 is canceled. is it? or was it just meant that F9 will fly sooner. since spacexs website still have F5 in its family(which is reasonable, it is good to have a launcher with capabilityto launch payloads lihgter than F9 capacity with using 4 less engines)

Jim · « **Reply #62 on:** 11/21/2006 01:03 pm »

No falcon 5

nacnud · « **Reply #63 on:** 11/21/2006 01:30 pm »

Dead as in we'll build it if someone pays for a launch or dead as in dead?

Jim · « **Reply #64 on:** 11/21/2006 01:45 pm »

he is not marketing it

aero313 · « **Reply #65 on:** 11/21/2006 03:01 pm »

Quote

jongoff - 21/11/2006 1:52 AM

I'm just theorizing here, but it may very well be that there is such a thing as "too much money" when it comes to starting an alt.space company

No, Jon, the real problem is too much ego.

You are exactly correct, however, about the EELV envy. The only commercially viable market for space launch (and thus the only place where the business model closes) remains the GEO comm bird market. Unfortunately, at that point you're not competing with Orbital, you're competing with countries that have a vested interest in supporting their national launch systems (France, China, Russia, Japan). More importantly, the GEO customer cares less about launch cost and much more about reliable revenue stream. Saving $30-50M on the launch of a large GEO bird is of little interest if it greatly increases the risk of failure and the cost of insurance - not to mention that there's already significant overcapacity in that launch market. Of course, one could argue that both EELV contractors (and their Air Force customer) fell into the same trap. They recognized that the GEO launch market was the only one that made money and fabricated unrealistic mission models to justify their ludicrous launch cost predictions. To maintain the myth, Boeing even built the albatross Decatur facility, since if you needed 40 common core boosters in a year for your mission model, then you also needed a facility in which to build them. I still maintain that if the Air Force had taken all the money they will end up putting into EELV (and ignoring the not inconsiderable contractor investments) and had simply done a block buy of Titan IV vehicles, they would have come out ahead financially.

I still fail to see why all the alt.space launch companies think the Pegasus market is the place to be. There is no commercial market in that class - at any price. We keep hearing about all the small sats sitting on the shelf waiting for an affordable ride, but I have yet to see one stand up. The small student sats can't afford a $600K launch, let alone a $6M launch.

NASA has invested significant effort in getting Pegasus up to their level of flight assurance and is happy to pay the extra cost to 1) increase chances of mission success and 2) keep an army of NASA flight assurance people employed. They will not switch to an unproven launch vehicle at any price. Similarly, the Air Force has invested in the development of Minotaur and (as evidenced by TacSats 2, 3, and 4) is happy to pay for that vehicle. It's probably noteworthy that the cost of a Falcon 1 under the Responsive Small Spacelift IDIQ contract isn't very different from the cost of a Minotaur 1. Funny how when you do an apples-to-apples scope comparison, the mission cost is also comparable. It's also instructive to note that exactly no launches have been exercised under that "$100M" contract yet.

Falcon 5 is dead because when they finally did some design work they found out the performance sucked. I predict that if and when Falcon 9 finally flies, it will have the Delta II-class performance that Falcon 5 was supposed to have... and probably at Delta II prices.

Jim · « **Reply #66 on:** 11/21/2006 03:18 pm »

" keep an army of NASA flight assurance people employed."

I take issue with that statement, since this very army is cheaper than any commercial insurance and has allowed NASA to have a better success rate than the DOD or commercial missions.

We are looking into "alternative launch providers" to fly those very same smallsats. One of the things that will be required is a change to NASA policy wrt mission assurance for those "class D" payloads (ie. category 4 launch vehicles)

the original Falcon 5 had a diameter in between the 1 and 9

CentEur · « **Reply #67 on:** 11/24/2006 10:03 am »

Quote

aero313 - 21/11/2006 4:44 PM

I still fail to see why all the alt.space launch companies think the Pegasus market is the place to be. There is no commercial market in that class - at any price. We keep hearing about all the small sats sitting on the shelf waiting for an affordable ride, but I have yet to see one stand up.

Ain't SpaceDev's and SSC' payloads on Falcon 1 manifest exactly the sats you're talking about?

marsavian · « **Reply #68 on:** 12/06/2006 05:52 pm »

Next Falcon 1 Launch Could Slip to February

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/061206_spacex_update.html

Avron · « **Reply #69 on:** 12/07/2006 03:36 am »

It really has been a long delay... as long as we have a good flight, I guess it will be worth the wait.. as I would love to see them have success..

Comga · « **Reply #70 on:** 12/07/2006 04:20 am »

What is as important is that Musk is paying scant attention to Falcon 1. He has moved on, changed his goal, and raised the bar significantly. He is concentrating on a design review for NASA. Quite a shift in priorities.

halkey · « **Reply #71 on:** 12/07/2006 05:44 am »

Quote

Falcon 5 is dead because when they finally did some design work they found out the performance sucked. I predict that if and when Falcon 9 finally flies, it will have the Delta II-class performance that Falcon 5 was supposed to have... and probably at Delta II prices.

It's amazing how cynical, and sometimes hostile, people get regarding SpaceX and other alt-space companies as though they have no chance in hell of ever succeeding. Sure, SpaceX hasn't successfully launched anything yet, but I see nothing productive about prematurely signing their death warrant either. I think it's best to reserve judgement and give 'em a chance. What happens will happen.

JWag · « **Reply #72 on:** 12/07/2006 05:01 pm »

I hope SpaceX succeeds. Heck, I hope all the private launchers (especially the to-orbit ones) succeed. It's hard to keep my enthusiasm about SpaceX though, since they've totally clammed up.

How are preps for the next Falcon1 going? Any new pictures of anything? Status on the LOX situation on the island?

Jim · « **Reply #73 on:** 12/07/2006 05:16 pm »

Quote

halkey - 7/12/2006 1:27 AM
It's amazing how cynical, and sometimes hostile, people get regarding SpaceX and other alt-space companies as though they have no chance in hell of ever succeeding.

it is because they think they are owed respect. they talk, the talk, yet none of them have walked the walked

aero313 · « **Reply #74 on:** 12/07/2006 05:42 pm »

Quote

halkey - 7/12/2006 1:27 AM

Quote
Falcon 5 is dead because when they finally did some design work they found out the performance sucked. I predict that if and when Falcon 9 finally flies, it will have the Delta II-class performance that Falcon 5 was supposed to have... and probably at Delta II prices.

It's amazing how cynical, and sometimes hostile, people get regarding SpaceX and other alt-space companies as though they have no chance in hell of ever succeeding. Sure, SpaceX hasn't successfully launched anything yet, but I see nothing productive about prematurely signing their death warrant either. I think it's best to reserve judgement and give 'em a chance. What happens will happen.

It isn't cynicism or a death warrant, it's reality. The math doesn't add up, be it performance or cost. Falcon 5 is dead because the low engine performance and mass penalty of their cluster design resulted in excessively low performance. They have not yet even begun learning about the problems their nine-engine cluster will have. And before anyone points to the Soyuz booster, keep in mind that Soyuz only has FIVE engines, each with multiple nozzles. That vehicle has also had half a century of development.

It's a little annoying when the press (the industry press as well as the uninformed general press) fawns all over SpaceX and others as the saviours of space launch when, in fact, they have demonstrated nothing but the ability to generate publicity. SpaceX has managed to recreate the Thor and Scaled the X-15. Neither system has yet demonstrated the ability to match the performance and reliability of the originals at any price. SpaceX, on the other hand, has the hubris to take out a full page ad in Space News that touts how their ill fated first launch was "...successful in characterizing the payload environment and flight testing the majority of vehicle systems...", despite the fact that they didn't even make it to MaxQ.

Now, according to Space News, SpaceX has hired the retired AF Colonel who served as program director for EELV to be the Falcon 9 program manager. I guess that's because EELV was such a financial success...

kevin-rf · « **Reply #75 on:** 12/07/2006 05:57 pm »

The one bright spot in my book is that Elon has put a good sum of his personal pay pal acquired money where his mouth is. Though he has of recent received a fair amount of $$$ from good 'ole uncle sam. :-(

Jim · « **Reply #76 on:** 12/07/2006 06:17 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 7/12/2006 1:25 PM

Now, according to Space News, SpaceX has hired the retired AF Colonel who served as program director for EELV to be the Falcon 9 program manager. I guess that's because EELV was such a financial success...

He is actually the USAF/NRO interface.

aero313 · « **Reply #77 on:** 12/07/2006 08:06 pm »

Quote

Jim - 7/12/2006 2:00 PM

Quote
aero313 - 7/12/2006 1:25 PM

Now, according to Space News, SpaceX has hired the retired AF Colonel who served as program director for EELV to be the Falcon 9 program manager. I guess that's because EELV was such a financial success...

He is actually the USAF/NRO interface.

I'm just repeating what I read. I've had no involvement with the program and don't really know the people. On the other hand, that does make me wonder about his experience in relation to what it takes to run a launch vehicle program. A "gov't interface" job is a lot different from being the PM at the contractor.

just-nick · « **Reply #78 on:** 12/07/2006 08:18 pm »

Quote

It's amazing how cynical, and sometimes hostile, people get regarding SpaceX and other alt-space companies as though they have no chance in hell of ever succeeding. Sure, SpaceX hasn't successfully launched anything yet, but I see nothing productive about prematurely signing their death warrant either. I think it's best to reserve judgement and give 'em a chance. What happens will happen.

The German language has this amazing word: Schadenfreude.

It means "taking pleasure in the suffering of others." Yeah, I know, leave it to usGermans to come up with a word for something like that. It goes along with the Sturm und Drang.

But I think that is what's gonig on here. A sort of fascination at seeing people struggle. It lets us feel that the existing structure, which some folks here have quite a bit of a professional, personal, and emotional investment in, isn't quite so wrong as all that. If Elon (Bezos, Rutan/Allen, Beal, Kistler, etc.) struggle to radically transform the business, then all that effort that's already been spent hasn't been so much barking up the wrong tree. If the revolution fails, then perhaps there was no need to have one and life was never that bad after all.

And that is what happens when an English major drinks to much coffee and then reads space newsgroups, but its my two cents.

That said, I wonder why SpaceX gets all the fuss (good and bad!) these days. I've got an interested eye on AirLaunch. Perhaps it because they're a local company for me, perhaps its because they actually seem to be trying some innovative solutions that really target the DARPA needs.

--Nick

Jim · « **Reply #79 on:** 12/07/2006 10:31 pm »

Airlaunch is not so much a launch vehicle but a delivery vehicle