Angry Astronauts Write Letter

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:47:01 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Ignoring the collective knowledge of the people at SpaceX, there is still
the issue of how much of Falcon 1 was new hardware versus hardware derived
from existing hardware (not a whole heck of a lot). Look at Falcon 1 as a
relatively inexpensive way to gain experience with actual flight hardware.

No, they put expensive (at least to the owner) payloads on top of
them, until no one would risk it anymore. Falcon 1 was not a private
X-vehicle.

I'd say from that point of view, it's been a successful program.

That's the sort of history re-writing that really annoys me. NASA,
ULA, Orbital, and Arianespace don't get away with that crap, but we're
talking about SpaceX, so they get a free pass, because they're the
good guys going after the big evil conglomerates.

It has
allowed SpaceX to go from zero flown hardware to hardware which has proven
itself from launch to orbit insertion with a vehicle about an order of
magnitude smaller (and quite a bit cheaper) than Falcon 9.

I'm sure DARPA, NASA, and Celestis are thrilled to learn they were
guinea pigs for SpaceX learning how (not) to launch rockets.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:47:01 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Ignoring the collective knowledge of the people at SpaceX, there is still
the issue of how much of Falcon 1 was new hardware versus hardware derived
from existing hardware (not a whole heck of a lot). Look at Falcon 1 as a
relatively inexpensive way to gain experience with actual flight hardware.

No, they put expensive (at least to the owner) payloads on top of
them, until no one would risk it anymore. Falcon 1 was not a private
X-vehicle.

That was possibly a mistake. But that mistake is not unique to Falcon 1.
There have been payloads lost on the first flights of other launch vehicles.
From what I understand, these first flights are often heavily discounted
because even the customers know that the odds of success aren't as good as
they would be further down the flight schedule.

I'd say from that point of view, it's been a successful program.

That's the sort of history re-writing that really annoys me. NASA,
ULA, Orbital, and Arianespace don't get away with that crap, but we're
talking about SpaceX, so they get a free pass, because they're the
good guys going after the big evil conglomerates.

This is b.s. I've consistently had lower expectations of SpaceX because
they're a startup. I'm not rewriting history in any way shape or form.

You'd rather complain from the very beginning that SpaceX is a failure
because they're not immediately as successful as ULA or Arianespace with
their multiple previous generations of launch vehicles to draw upon when
designing the next one. Note that Orbital went through *a lot* of initial
growing pains and suffered many failures before it was accepted into the
"big boy's club" that you refer to. Orbital's launch vehicles were unique
in many ways and therefore failed in unique ways. That's to be expected.

SpaceX is currently paying its dues and obviously isn't fully accepted into
the club yet. But if it keeps making progress and keeps its costs low, it
will make it into the club. If SpaceX built and flew its vehicles just like
the existing "big boys", then its costs would be just as high and they
wouldn't have a chance of selling launches given the current glut of launch
vehicles in the same class as Falcon 9. Their business plan is to undercut
the costs of the compeition, which requires them do to operate differently.
Those differences are largely proprietary, but some can be seen if you look
closely enough.

It has
allowed SpaceX to go from zero flown hardware to hardware which has proven
itself from launch to orbit insertion with a vehicle about an order of
magnitude smaller (and quite a bit cheaper) than Falcon 9.

I'm sure DARPA, NASA, and Celestis are thrilled to learn they were
guinea pigs for SpaceX learning how (not) to launch rockets.

If they claim they didn't know they were guinea pigs, they're either lying
or incompetent. The statistics of first flights of any new launch vehicle
are public knowledge. It truly doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at
that data and realize that you're taking a gamble on a first flight of any
launch vehicle, especially one which is the first launch vehicle for a
startup.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Brian Thorn wrote:

I'm sure DARPA, NASA, and Celestis are thrilled to learn they were
guinea pigs for SpaceX learning how (not) to launch rockets.

Same as Columbus. At times the government funds exploration but at some
point the lessons are transferred to private industry.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:34:24 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


No, they put expensive (at least to the owner) payloads on top of
them, until no one would risk it anymore. Falcon 1 was not a private
X-vehicle.

That was possibly a mistake. But that mistake is not unique to Falcon 1.
There have been payloads lost on the first flights of other launch vehicles.

That's what I meant about not learning. SpaceX dumped payloads into
the ocean ten years after Arianespace sent Cluster into a million
pieces on A501, and eight years after Delta III dealt Galaxy X a
similar hand, and these were launched by companies with decades of
space launch experience.

Being the new kids on the block and trying to do things on the cheap
is not an excuse to be foolish. A decade after the Cluster fiasco,
SpaceX had to learn that error again? What mistakes and lessons
ignored will SpaceX present us with Falcon 9?

All this to save a few bucks?

That's the sort of history re-writing that really annoys me. NASA,
ULA, Orbital, and Arianespace don't get away with that crap, but we're
talking about SpaceX, so they get a free pass, because they're the
good guys going after the big evil conglomerates.

This is b.s. I've consistently had lower expectations of SpaceX because
they're a startup. I'm not rewriting history in any way shape or form.

I was too harsh with that. I apologize.

You'd rather complain from the very beginning that SpaceX is a failure
because they're not immediately as successful as ULA or Arianespace with
their multiple previous generations of launch vehicles to draw upon when
designing the next one.

I wouldn't have if they had treated their first flights as test
flights. They didn't. They carried an expensive satellite on top (just
because it was cheap for a satellite doesn't mean it was cheap) and
therefore demanded they be judged relative to ULA (well, LockMart and
Boeing then) or Arianespace. They don't get to have it both ways just
because they're cheaper.

Note that Orbital went through *a lot* of initial
growing pains and suffered many failures before it was accepted into the
"big boy's club" that you refer to. Orbital's launch vehicles were unique
in many ways and therefore failed in unique ways. That's to be expected.

But after the first Pegasus XL, the first Ariane 5, and the first two
Delta IIIs went kablooey, SpaceX felt it right to put our tax dollars
and years of hard work by some rather unfortunate guinea pigs on top
of the first Falcon 1. And we let them get away with it. And then they
did it again.

SpaceX is currently paying its dues and obviously isn't fully accepted into
the club yet.

Possibly because SpaceX hasn't paid its dues and seems to ignore
history in the name of saving a few bucks. The NASAs, ULAs and
Arianespaces of the world had to go through years of pain, and they
were called on the carpet when things didn't work out (remember the
criticsim heaped on Space Shuttle, Atlas I, Titan 34D and Titan IV
during their myriad and varied failures?) But not SpaceX. SpaceX dumps
an expensive satellite in the lagoon when the maiden flight fails, and
critics are chided for calling them out on it. Then SpaceX calls
Flight 2 a success despite failing in stage 2 and dumping another
assortment of payloads in the sea, and that is met with disgustingly
little challenge from the fanboys. Now we're being told to shut up and
color when we point out that Falcon 9 is an order of magnitude more
complicated for a company with a dubious success record to date and
maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be depending on them to keep ISS alive
for the next 10 years.

But if it keeps making progress and keeps its costs low, it
will make it into the club.

Which is as it should be. The problem is that we are being asked to
admit them into the club YESTERDAY, before they've demonstrated said
progress. We're basically betting the ISS farm on them, with very
little justification for doing so.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
Which is as it should be. The problem is that we are being asked to
admit them into the club YESTERDAY, before they've demonstrated said
progress. We're basically betting the ISS farm on them, with very
little justification for doing so.

We're not betting the farm just yet. Orbital has one of the contracts and
they've got a lot of practical experience building and flying satellite
busses. Admittedly Orbital's design does not return anything to Earth, so
it's very unlikely to evolve into a crewed vehicle. Also, the latest
proposal from the Administration brings back Orion as a CEV sort of vehicle
for ISS. A crewed capsule isn't an easy thing to do and I don't object to
having multiple backup plans (paying or trading for Soyuz, Progress, ATV,
and HTV flights are always options too).

But what I want out of NASA (or Congress/Senate) is a clear policy (or law)
which states that when the commercial providers finally do mature their
vehicles that NASA will cease and desist their government designed (Orion)
vehicle flights to ISS and let the commercial providers take over that
market. One of the biggest challenges for the startups is raising enough
money in an environment where they are seen as competing with the
government. When the government threatens to step in and wipe out your
market at the blink of an eye, it's kind of hard to convince investors that
you've got the "right stuff" and will eventually turn a profit and provide a
return on their investment.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Administration brings back Orion as a CEV sort of vehicle for ISS.

I sure wish folks would stop naming spaceship projects "Orion". I
can't
stop thinking of the coke-machine lobbing out nukes every 10 seconds.

Nils King Hammer