What is the chance SpaceX will be flying crew to station on Dragon before CEV IOC?

[Danderman]

Nate_Trost - 22/6/2007  7:53 AM  SpaceX will be soliciting private investment next year. Elon doesn't have $350-$400 million lying around, and that's SpaceX's share of the COTS investment (re: Gwynne Shotwell's comments on the funding percentages).

Do the COTS milestones require that SpaceX generate certain private investments by next year? I thought that the investment milestones had already been met earlier this year.

 

[Svetoslav]

I think that Elon doesn't have much chance ( technically ). The new Falcon 9 has not yet concluded a test flight and we don't know yet whether it will prove itself to be stable. We already saw how difficult was to launch Falcon 1 ( you remember the first sttage engine issue with the pressure ), but Falcon 9 will be much more complex. As for Ares 1, I'm pretty sure there won't be problems during test flights ( they have enough experience with segmented SRBs and we can be confident they'll make the new SRB as expected ).

[coach]

The year 2009 is big for aerospace.  This seems to be the year when lots of "promises" from alt.space are to follow through.  Also, 2009 is the year that a new president could be a hurdle to NASA's funding.  I am more confident in the ambitions of entrepeneurs than the ebb and flow of the political winds and money from congress.  I voted for Dragon even if they encounter many delays, simply because I don't trust our government to follow through with the necessary funding to make the CEV work in time.


Coach

[Jim]

coach - 22/6/2007  11:45 AM

 I voted for Dragon even if they encounter many delays, simply because I don't trust our government to follow through with the necessary funding to make the CEV work in time.

Coach

Then what makes you think Dragon is going to get its gov't funding?

[William Barton]

I think this goes exactly to the heart of my earlier comments. What insurmountable technical challenges does SpaceX face? I think the second "demo launch" shows how relatively easy it is to launch Falcon 1. They pulled the trigger, the engine lit, the health monitoring system did its job, they fixed the issue, recycled the count, and launched. The fact that other issues came up that caused LOM, doesn't alter the fact that it was a fairly close thing. In the end, they're just tackling technical challenges that were solved 50 years ago. Falcon 1 is analogous to Juno II (Jupiter IRBM + upper stage) and Falcon 9 is analogous to Saturn 1 (cluster of eight Jupter engines in the first stage). I think the real dangers to the success of SpaceX are political (the govt could pull the rug out from under COTS by directing its supercontractor ULA/BoLockMart to build an "Orion, Jr." and launch it on an EELV), financial (Musk may run ouit of cash before he succeeds), and even from a COTS competitor (what if, against all odds, K-1 makes it to the pad and succeeds brilliantly on the first try?).

Svetoslav - 22/6/2007  11:32 AM

I think that Elon doesn't have much chance ( technically ). The new Falcon 9 has not yet concluded a test flight and we don't know yet whether it will prove itself to be stable. We already saw how difficult was to launch Falcon 1 ( you remember the first sttage engine issue with the pressure ), but Falcon 9 will be much more complex. As for Ares 1, I'm pretty sure there won't be problems during test flights ( they have enough experience with segmented SRBs and we can be confident they'll make the new SRB as expected ).

[Danderman]

Jim - 22/6/2007  9:01 AM  

coach - 22/6/2007  11:45 AM   I voted for Dragon even if they encounter many delays, simply because I don't trust our government to follow through with the necessary funding to make the CEV work in time.  Coach

 Then what makes you think Dragon is going to get its gov't funding?

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that Dragon is already funded by COTS. If the assertion is that operational flights of Dragon may not be funded, I find it unlikely that successful flights of Dragon under COTS in 2008-09 would be followed by no operational contracts, and with the prospect of a multi-year "gap" in US spaceflight after 2010, that Dragon would be left to sit in a hangar.

Not that I am saying that Dragon WILL work, mind you. 

[Danderman]

coach - 22/6/2007  8:45 AM  The year 2009 is big for aerospace.  This seems to be the year when lots of "promises" from alt.space are to follow through.

 

What promises?

 

[Antares]

Danderman - 22/6/2007  11:26 AM
Do the COTS milestones require that SpaceX generate certain private investments by next year? I thought that the investment milestones had already been met earlier this year.

The SpaceX SAA has a financial milestone each March.

[NotGncDude]

William Barton - 22/6/2007 12:15 PM

I think this goes exactly to the heart of my earlier comments. What insurmountable technical challenges does SpaceX face? I think the second "demo launch" shows how relatively easy it is to launch Falcon 1. They pulled the trigger, the engine lit, the health monitoring system did its job, they fixed the issue, recycled the count, and launched. The fact that other issues came up that caused LOM, doesn't alter the fact that it was a fairly close thing. In the end, they're just tackling technical challenges that were solved 50 years ago. Falcon 1 is analogous to Juno II (Jupiter IRBM + upper stage) and Falcon 9 is analogous to Saturn 1 (cluster of eight Jupter engines in the first stage). I think the real dangers to the success of SpaceX are political (the govt could pull the rug out from under COTS by directing its supercontractor ULA/BoLockMart to build an "Orion, Jr." and launch it on an EELV), financial (Musk may run ouit of cash before he succeeds), and even from a COTS competitor (what if, against all odds, K-1 makes it to the pad and succeeds brilliantly on the first try?).

Svetoslav - 22/6/2007 11:32 AM

. . .

YES!

_{(Although, ... real quiet here where nobody can hear... those nine engines might be a bit tricky. I hope they learned from the slosh mishap to be more careful modeling the dynamics)}

 

[William Barton]

GncDude - 22/6/2007  2:32 PM

William Barton - 22/6/2007 12:15 PM

I think this goes exactly to the heart of my earlier comments. What insurmountable technical challenges does SpaceX face? I think the second "demo launch" shows how relatively easy it is to launch Falcon 1. They pulled the trigger, the engine lit, the health monitoring system did its job, they fixed the issue, recycled the count, and launched. The fact that other issues came up that caused LOM, doesn't alter the fact that it was a fairly close thing. In the end, they're just tackling technical challenges that were solved 50 years ago. Falcon 1 is analogous to Juno II (Jupiter IRBM + upper stage) and Falcon 9 is analogous to Saturn 1 (cluster of eight Jupter engines in the first stage). I think the real dangers to the success of SpaceX are political (the govt could pull the rug out from under COTS by directing its supercontractor ULA/BoLockMart to build an "Orion, Jr." and launch it on an EELV), financial (Musk may run ouit of cash before he succeeds), and even from a COTS competitor (what if, against all odds, K-1 makes it to the pad and succeeds brilliantly on the first try?).

Svetoslav - 22/6/2007 11:32 AM

. . .

YES!

_{(Although, ... real quiet here where nobody can hear... those nine engines might be a bit tricky. I hope they learned from the slosh mishap to be more careful modeling the dynamics)}

 

One hopes. I'm not a superstar like the PayPal guy, but in my software design practice, the most common thing I say after running a test is, "Oops."

[mars.is.wet]

William Barton - 22/6/2007  3:00 PM

one hopes. I'm not a superstar like the PayPal guy, but in my software design practice, the most common thing I say after running a test is, "Oops."

My point exactly.  Your oops costs you an hour or a day or maybe a week.

Hardware "oops" and you lose a rocket, a payload, a test stand, something physical.  Maybe a one of a kind item.  

That's why powerpoint engineers don't make good testers or operators.

[spacedreams]

SpaceX's probability of success may increase over the next year as people from Delta go job hunting

[Antares]

spacedreams - 22/6/2007  3:28 PM
SpaceX's probability of success may increase over the next year as people from Delta go job hunting

You're right: several already have.  The first to leave a sinking ship aren't the rats.  It's the ones that can swim to another ship.

[spacedreams]

Actually, if Musk wouldn't have been as condecending as he was towards the "competition" in the first place he would be a lot better off today. I know some of those guys took his insults very personally and as a result would rather work satellite jobs and such than take a crack at an emerging vehicle that could really use some experience base. That is saying a lot too because pretty much every engineer likes new toys but they also don't take kindly to insults.

[mars.is.wet]

Antares - 22/6/2007  3:31 PM

spacedreams - 22/6/2007  3:28 PM
SpaceX's probability of success may increase over the next year as people from Delta go job hunting

You're right: several already have.  The first to leave a sinking ship aren't the rats.  It's the ones that can swim to another ship.

nothing to do with rats, but ...

March 2006, Jim Maser joins SpaceX as COO
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19291

November 2006, Maser leaves SpaceX for top job at Rocketdyne
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/Maser_112806.html

sounds like insider selling

[coach]

Jim, you may be right.  COTS may get cut as well, but maybe not.  Who knows?  That's my whole point.  I voted for Dragon by default.  I just don't believe that Ares 1 and the CEV will be developed anywhere near on schedule due to politics and budgets.  I hope it does, however.  Dragon's ace in the hole may be Bigelow Aerospace's future contracts to their stations.  We can't forget that BA has as much long term potential financial reward for SpaceX as does NASA and the ISS.  SpaceX has an incentive to develop Dragon with or without COTS.


Coach

[coach]

Danderman,

Some of those promises are off topic for this thread such as the operation of Virgin Galactic's Spaceship Two.  There are many space tourism companies making such promises for the 2009/2010 time frame.  The Falcon 9 is scheduled for 3 NASA demo flights in '08/'09.  With a track record of delays, this very well could turn into '09/'10.  

Notice I quoted the word "promises."  I'm not making such claims but it does seem that Armadillo, Masten, Blue Origin and maybe others that have some working hardware could meet their deadlines.  We'll see.  We also cannot forget about SpaceDev and Benson Aerospace.  Jim B. claims he will have a working sub - orbital craft before Branson and Rutan.  Again, lots of promises.  It would be very cool to see the majority of these "promises" come to fruition essentially on time and in competition.  


Coach

[gladiator1332]

I think a lot of it comes down to who wins the election in 2008. Hell, maybe even who is nominated in the primaries. Right now Musk is doing a lot with very little. He is trying to get the F1 up and running, the F9 going, as well as build a manned spacecraft. Two rockets and a spacecraft by 2009 on a small budget is not easy.
The reason I say the winner of the election is this. If the Dems win, many of Bush's appointees (including Griffin) will go, as well as many of the programs Bush put into place. Now I don't think all of the Dems will kill the VSE, but it will surely change. If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards wins, say goodbye to the Moon for another 30 years or so.
What Musk has to hope for is Richardson to be nominated by the Dems and win. The guy supports private space industry...he's building a spaceport in New Mexico. By the way he supports private spaceflight in his home state, I think COTS will become more of a priority, and not some small program in the background. The VSE will change completely and with Richardson in the White House, say goodbye to Ares and hello to Atlas.

[Antares]

mars.is.wet - 22/6/2007  3:48 PM
March 2006, Jim Maser joins SpaceX as COO
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19291

November 2006, Maser leaves SpaceX for top job at Rocketdyne
http://dev.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/Maser_112806.html

sounds like insider selling

That could best be described, in this forum, as new.space vs old.space philosophical differences.

[simonbp]

josh_simonson - 21/6/2007  6:14 PM

Dragon isn't suspiciously slightly over-sized unlike some other vehicles...

That's because Dragon isn't suspiciously going to the moon, and thus doesn't have a suspiciously large service module, in order to do a suspicious Trans-Earth Injection burn. Suspiciously.

Simon