aero313 - 22/3/2007 12:43 PMQuotelbiderman - 22/3/2007 1:32 PMFrom your experience Jim, do you believe fixing this second stage problem is too costly? Of course it depends of the failure type, but I imagine you already have your theory on that.I'll jump in and offer that if the problem is simply gains in the control system, the fix is easy. The VALIDATION that the fix is correct is the hard part."...But it worked in the simulation..."
lbiderman - 22/3/2007 1:32 PMFrom your experience Jim, do you believe fixing this second stage problem is too costly? Of course it depends of the failure type, but I imagine you already have your theory on that.
hyper_snyper - 21/3/2007 10:22 PMI'd venture so far as to say F1 won't be flying nearly as much as soon as F9/Dragon gets up and running. Maybe the occasional small sat, but F9 is the meat and potatoes of what SpaceX is trying to do.
clongton - 22/3/2007 1:27 PM I think it's fair to speculate that F1 was never intended to be a satellite launcher; it's the test bed for Merlin, Kestrel and the avionics.
I am sure that Elon's Falcon I satellite customers are thrilled to read this.
Danderman - 22/3/2007 4:59 PMQuoteclongton - 22/3/2007 1:27 PM I think it's fair to speculate that F1 was never intended to be a satellite launcher; it's the test bed for Merlin, Kestrel and the avionics. I am sure that Elon's Falcon I satellite customers are thrilled to read this.
braddock - 20/3/2007 9:06 PMQ: What is your final thought for cost?A: I've always ultimately wanted to reduce the cost by a factor of 10. The next lowest cost US launch vehicle from a Falcon 1 is the Pegasus by Orbital sciences, which is about $35 million, while Falcon 1 is about $7 million, so we are 5 times cheaper than I nearest competitor.QUOTE]That statement is simply false.
Chris-A - 22/3/2007 4:00 PMCongrats for Mr. Musk and the team at SpaceX.What is really interesting is why are there no pictures of the maiden flight’s rocket when it was recovered. I really don’t know the development history but back in 2003 was the prototype’s design, was that might to be flown?
edkyle99 - 22/3/2007 5:26 PMQuoteChris-A - 22/3/2007 4:00 PMCongrats for Mr. Musk and the team at SpaceX.What is really interesting is why are there no pictures of the maiden flight’s rocket when it was recovered. I really don’t know the development history but back in 2003 was the prototype’s design, was that might to be flown?The protovehicle wasn't built to fly, and it didn't. The first flight vehicle didn't fly either, as it suffered structural failures during prelaunch testing on the pad. The second flight vehicle suffered the first launch failure, and post-failure photos (or even images of the failure itself) have not been released by SpaceX or DARPA or anyone else. For some reason, SpaceX hasn't even released images of the second launch except for the transmitted on-board video. And no word on booster recovery, which I would have expected by now if one had occurred. - Ed Kyle
josh_simonson - 22/3/2007 3:24 PMIt does look like they need to do a tethered hover test like armadillo has been. They're all over the controll systems and slosh over there. Last months photo of slosh baffles almost seem phophetic now.
Danderman - 22/3/2007 5:45 PMWe should remember that as a commercial concern, SpaceX is under no obligation to provide us with anything. Given that the government's civil space agency is giving us taxpayers very little about CEV, its not significant that Elon is close-lipped about SpaceX operations.
Jim - 22/3/2007 3:11 PMHaven't heard anything about the secondary experiments. Did the TDRSS xmitter work?
Exci - 22/3/2007 6:19 PMQuoteJim - 22/3/2007 3:11 PMHaven't heard anything about the secondary experiments. Did the TDRSS xmitter work?Not sure if that's a leading question or not. . but in any case I believe it was turned off prior to the first attempt that day. Something to do with interference.
antonioe - 22/3/2007 5:24 PMQuotebraddock - 20/3/2007 9:06 PMQ: What is your final thought for cost?A: I've always ultimately wanted to reduce the cost by a factor of 10. The next lowest cost US launch vehicle from a Falcon 1 is the Pegasus by Orbital sciences, which is about $35 million, while Falcon 1 is about $7 million, so we are 5 times cheaper than I nearest competitor.QUOTE]That statement is simply false.
ianmga - 22/3/2007 5:50 PMQuoteantonioe - 22/3/2007 5:24 PMQuotebraddock - 20/3/2007 9:06 PMQ: What is your final thought for cost?A: I've always ultimately wanted to reduce the cost by a factor of 10. The next lowest cost US launch vehicle from a Falcon 1 is the Pegasus by Orbital sciences, which is about $35 million, while Falcon 1 is about $7 million, so we are 5 times cheaper than I nearest competitor.QUOTE]That statement is simply false. Dr. Elias knows, obviously, but for the rest. Can somebody post some relevant public info on the Pegasus, or a link? That should make the speculative comparisons more objective.
Alas! Space launch is not a commodity yet - so, like buying a car, you must be very careful to call out what "accessories" are (or are not) included. Do you want Range Safety with that launch? How about telemetry all the way to spacecraft separation? (that can add quite a few $$$s...) Will you take care of FAA launch permits, or shall we do it for you? Is it the same orbit you flew to last month, or do you want us to calculate a new launch trajectory (inclusive of stage drop points, range safety lines, etc.) Do you want a coupled modes analysis with your spacecraft, or will you take your chances? Do you need any mods to the fairing, like access doors, RF transparent windows, or special "bumps" into the dynamic envelope? Venting for you solid hydrogen cooler? How about data passthroughs from the spacecraft to your ground support equipment while waiting for launch? Collision avoidance maneuver? Would you like a specific sun-relative spin at release (that depends on the exact time of launch, by the way...) And so on and so forth... each little thingy costs a few hundred K$'s but it soon adds up. Makes real launch vehicles look more expensive than paper ones. Like cars, you can buy a basic model, or you can buy a "loaded" one. Current real customers simply don't buy stripped-down launches. Apparently, when they spend $50M for a satellite bus, $50M for scientific instruments, and another $50M for the science mission, it simply does not seem balanced to skimp too much on the launch. Same logic applies to commercial comm sats (when it comes to mission assurance and the like, SES/Americom makes JPL look like a bunch of Vegas gamblers). Are there any Yugo customers? I don't think so. So before you compare dollars per pound, make sure you are including the same elements on both sides of the ledger. And you can't just say "well, the customer does not need all that useless stuff". They do. They want it. The customer is always right. If you don't offer them those "thingies", they will not buy a launch from you. At least not the customers with money. I've been there.
