NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
...

When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.
Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and
bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be
richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put
someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a
crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust
that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space
Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start
Flying."

I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_L...#Program_costs

So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...forgotten-word

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...tml?c=y&page=4


Bob Clark

On Dec 18, 6:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

...

When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.
Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and
bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be
richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put
someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a
crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust
that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space
Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start
Flying."

*I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
*The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
*Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
*Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs

*So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
*If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
*Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

*Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el...

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl...

* Bob Clark

Ariane's clearly serious, but not getting on the HSF bandwagon.

Clearly, Musk has big things in mind and has the dinero to see if they
work. But, at his most recent National Press Club event about HSF, he
admitted that a fully reusable Falcon may not work out, but he wants
to try anyway. If he pulls it off, he's changed the whole equation
launch vehicles. But if he doesn't, and there are very serious
technical obstacles to that, that's $500 mil of his own money out the
door with nothing to show for it (other than possiblity of a reusable
1st stage). I do wish him luck, and best of luck when it comes to HSF.
But he's not the Messiah when it comes to HSF, and he's not a god
spaceflight in general.

On Dec 18, 6:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

...

*I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
*The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
*Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
*Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs

*So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
*If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
*Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

*Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el...

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl...

* Bob Clark

Bob, he's most often described as an amateur when HSF is being
discussed. Then his "retiring on Mars" nonsense (he won't, but his
grandkids probably will), and daring NASA to buy his stuff only back
when Augustine was holding its hearings rubbed a lot of people the
wrong way.

On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
...

*Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el...


Some great points were made in this article such as this:

Quote
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.
/Quote

And then there's this:

Quote
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.
/Quote

The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

Links to hear the show live are he

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/


Bob Clark

On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:

*...

*Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el...

*Some great points were made in this article such as this:

Quote
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.
/Quote

*And then there's this:

Quote
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.
/Quote

*The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

*Links to hear the show live are he

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

*It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

* Bob Clark

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

the alternattives are a big budget bloated pork filled program that
wouldnt get built because its not affordable

or a smaller commercial launch system thats affordable......

when your home in in foreclosure you might buy a used vehicle.......

but be unable to afford a spiffy new porsche with all the bells and
whistles/

In article 5067fb16-7956-4d13-a0cd-593b905cd369
@h11g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

*Links to hear the show live are he

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

*It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

* Bob Clark

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

True, there are many shades of gray. This is not a black and white
issue. That said, I still think SLS is a huge waste of money.

Military transport via aircraft isn't 100% private or 100% military. I
have no idea what the mix is, because it depends on how you define the
rules. Outside of combat zones, it's not unusual to see commercial
aircraft being used to transport troops. Also, it's not unusual for the
military to buy slightly modified versions of commercial aircraft and
operate them. Neither of these examples are of military aircraft
developed, owned, and operated solely by the military.

SLS is an example of a purely NASA specific launch vehicle. It will be
developed, owned, and operated solely by NASA. At least NASA isn't
trying to sell SLS to the politicians like it did STS. The shuttle
failed to meet commercial and military launch needs. Both of those
external (to NASA) customers returned to expendable launch vehicles to
meet their requirements.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Why?

On Dec 20, 3:16*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:



Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Why?

Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who
want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and
neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr.
Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO
to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11
Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a
lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA
would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it.

The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are
not completely pu Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or
ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in
SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got
constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been
Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to
push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's
that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from
"Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the
Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got
45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen
pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions,
destinations, etc.

On 21/12/2011 2:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
total privatization of HSF.

Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?