On Aug 1, 7:41*am, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 1/08/2010 3:15 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Jul 30, 5:54 pm, Damon *wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi....
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon

Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.

Where they'll be in 20 years? *Have a look at what they've achieved in
just eight years. *They've developed two launch vehicles, complete with
all the engines; all with about 1,000 people - how many did NASA need to
develop the Saturn I/1b? *And how long did it take.

SpaceX will probably be launching people to ISS in three years or so;
and then they can plan on other things (Moon, Mars etc). *Not bad for an
entire national effort, let alone a 'start-up' (some would say
'up-start') company.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The proof is in flying- and not just the single Falcon 9 test flight.
They need to fly repeatedly to silence the skeptics, and I'm one of
them. There's some folks out there who think Musk is some sort of god,
but they need to realize that right now, there just isn't enough
support in either the House or Senate to get what they want. The
Senate bill is the best option that preserves a government launch
vehicle to LEO and BEO, along with Orion, JIC these commercial
providers fail to deliver on their promises-and that is the main
concern of Congress that I got from watching the hearings on C-Span.
They kept pressing Bolden and the Presidential Science Advisor about
what Plan B is in case the commercial side can't deliver, and weren't
getting any satisfactory answer. I've seen commercial advocates asking
why there's so much opposition, and it boils down to Tip O'Neil's
adage that "All Politics is Local." Meaning that Senators and
Congresscritters who have contractors in their districts doing
Constellation work want those companies and people still doing
business with NASA, even if it's a "Son of Constellation" program.
Promises of more jobs in 5-7 years if commercial works is fine, but it
doesn't put food on the table or pay the mortgage. They want to keep
working. Maybe if the economy was in better shape, there wouldn't be
as much opposition, or maybe not.