Back to Space

In article 1ede0c8c-276f-4322-9207-4114c5b79232
@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 28, 12:51*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

Greg, the bobbert, in his fantasy world, would rather have NASA doing all of
its HSF missions with Space X's equipment. Anything not putting dinero into
Musk's bank account is "in the way." His political naivety is
amazing-there's only ONE Congresscritter in favor of a commercially-based
exploration track (Rohrabacher), and ZERO senators. Not to mention there's a
total lack of support in NASA for that strategy.

Well I guess its NO PROBLEM if it cost 10 times or a 100 times more to
use NASA than space X or another rivate company......

ultimtely its still nasa, rather than build launchers they would
contract them out.......

The point here Bob is that with SLS, no commercial company in their
right mind would develop a launch vehicle as big as SLS. There simply
is no market for it outside of NASA. So, NASA has to foot the bill for
its development, no matter what. But, because of politics, the SLS
program is farmed out to many contractors in many states in order to
gain enough political support to get it funded. That's life. I don't
like it either, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Eventually, things will change. Eventually, technologies like in orbit
refueling will be developed and the "need" for such a large launch
vehicle will be lessened.

But we're not there yet. Companies are working on refueling
technologies for GEO comsats, but they aren't there yet. Same thing for
reusable launch vehicles, they just aren't there yet.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Mar 28, 5:43*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1ede0c8c-276f-4322-9207-4114c5b79232
@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...



On Mar 28, 12:51*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

Greg, the bobbert, in his fantasy world, would rather have NASA doing all of
its HSF missions with Space X's equipment. Anything not putting dinero into
Musk's bank account is "in the way." His political naivety is
amazing-there's only ONE Congresscritter in favor of a commercially-based
exploration track (Rohrabacher), and ZERO senators. Not to mention there's a
total lack of support in NASA for that strategy.

Well I guess its NO PROBLEM if it cost 10 times or a 100 times more to
use NASA than space X or another rivate company......

ultimtely its still nasa, rather than build launchers they would
contract them out.......

The point here Bob is that with SLS, no commercial company in their
right mind would develop a launch vehicle as big as SLS. *There simply
is no market for it outside of NASA. *So, NASA has to foot the bill for
its development, no matter what. *But, because of politics, the SLS
program is farmed out to many contractors in many states in order to
gain enough political support to get it funded. *That's life. *I don't
like it either, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Eventually, things will change. *Eventually, technologies like in orbit
refueling will be developed and the "need" for such a large launch
vehicle will be lessened.

But we're not there yet. *Companies are working on refueling
technologies for GEO comsats, but they aren't there yet. *Same thing for
reusable launch vehicles, they just aren't there yet.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

We've wasted decades and trillions of our hard earned loot on totally
bogus cold-wars and proxy war crap that you and others of your redneck
military industrial complex and oligarch butt-sucking kind see nothing
the least bit wrong with. At this negative rate, we'll never get
there.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 12:51 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in
messagenews:MZudnc7TxbNHic7MnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@earth link.com...



"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article aa7feb18-584a-4c24-9e7a-0dac3a654d18
, says...

just have nasa state its needs, say 20 heavy lift launches over 10
years, with a option of carrying astronauts..

NASA your cost per flight?

Space X your cost per flight?

OTHERS? cost per flight?

Pick the ones with the lowest cost

You're not being clear. If NASA needs 20 SLS flights, you can't compare
"cost per flight" to any other launcher since other launchers won't be
able to launch as much in a single launch.

To give Bob a real-world example:

The DOD decides they need to fly 300 troops overseas. Do they fly them
themselves or perhaps pay United?

Probably United.

Now the DOD decides it needs to fly 30 tanks overseas, does it call
FedEx
or call up their C-5s.

Bob, "it depends" and there's NO one right answer.

If you're talking flying 2 heavy lift, SLS class missions a year, it's
doubtful you'll get bidders.

If you're talking flying 20 heavy lift, SLS class missions a year for 10
years, I can see Musk having a bid on your table by the end of the week.

It all depends.

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore
http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net

Greg, the bobbert, in his fantasy world, would rather have NASA doing all
of
its HSF missions with Space X's equipment. Anything not putting dinero
into
Musk's bank account is "in the way." His political naivety is
amazing-there's only ONE Congresscritter in favor of a commercially-based
exploration track (Rohrabacher), and ZERO senators. Not to mention there's
a
total lack of support in NASA for that strategy.

Well I guess its NO PROBLEM if it cost 10 times or a 100 times more to
use NASA than space X or another rivate company......

ultimtely its still nasa, rather than build launchers they would
contract them out.......

In case you haven't noticed, Bobbert, Musk is developing Falcon 9 and 9
Heavy with his own money. Repeat: HIS OWN MONEY. NASA's not in his way, and
they don't want to be. They'd rather build their own heavy-lift vehicle,
which they control-not some pipsqueak contractor who has a big ego and a
bigger mouth. But then again, since NASA isn't spending its money they way
YOU want them to, they're somehow "in the way." If you tried telling
congress your fantasies, they'd laugh you out of the committee room, and
give you a kick in the ass on the way.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article 1ede0c8c-276f-4322-9207-4114c5b79232
@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 28, 12:51 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:

Greg, the bobbert, in his fantasy world, would rather have NASA doing
all of
its HSF missions with Space X's equipment. Anything not putting dinero
into
Musk's bank account is "in the way." His political naivety is
amazing-there's only ONE Congresscritter in favor of a
commercially-based
exploration track (Rohrabacher), and ZERO senators. Not to mention
there's a
total lack of support in NASA for that strategy.

Well I guess its NO PROBLEM if it cost 10 times or a 100 times more to
use NASA than space X or another rivate company......

ultimtely its still nasa, rather than build launchers they would
contract them out.......

The point here Bob is that with SLS, no commercial company in their
right mind would develop a launch vehicle as big as SLS. There simply
is no market for it outside of NASA. So, NASA has to foot the bill for
its development, no matter what. But, because of politics, the SLS
program is farmed out to many contractors in many states in order to
gain enough political support to get it funded. That's life. I don't
like it either, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Eventually, things will change. Eventually, technologies like in orbit
refueling will be developed and the "need" for such a large launch
vehicle will be lessened.

But we're not there yet. Companies are working on refueling
technologies for GEO comsats, but they aren't there yet. Same thing for
reusable launch vehicles, they just aren't there yet.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


And Jeff, even the ULA paper on a depot-based strategy admitted that a
70-ton HLV could be supported by a depot. A depot-if it's proven to work and
work safely-especially if a crewed vehicle is going to be refueled-cand
compliment a heavy-lifter. It won't replace it-much to the disappointment of
the SpaceX fanboys.

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
The point here Bob is that with SLS, no commercial company in their
right mind would develop a launch vehicle as big as SLS. There simply
is no market for it outside of NASA. So, NASA has to foot the bill for
its development, no matter what. But, because of politics, the SLS
program is farmed out to many contractors in many states in order to
gain enough political support to get it funded. That's life. I don't
like it either, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Eventually, things will change. Eventually, technologies like in orbit
refueling will be developed and the "need" for such a large launch
vehicle will be lessened.

But we're not there yet. Companies are working on refueling
technologies for GEO comsats, but they aren't there yet. Same thing for
reusable launch vehicles, they just aren't there yet.

And Jeff, even the ULA paper on a depot-based strategy admitted that a
70-ton HLV could be supported by a depot. A depot-if it's proven to work and
work safely-especially if a crewed vehicle is going to be refueled-cand
compliment a heavy-lifter. It won't replace it-much to the disappointment of
the SpaceX fanboys.

I don't understand why you have to be such a p.i.t.a. when you refer to
people who don't belittle and badmouth SpaceX as fanboys. I do wish
them well. They've accomplished far more than the nay-sayers said they
would on far less money than the "established players" would have spent
to accomplish the same goals. The same thing happened with Orbital and
Pegasus.

Sure, Musk dreams big, but that provides him with the motivation to
actually *do something* about the high cost of manned access to space
rather than sticking to the tried and true methods of the past.

No other private company has built and flown an orbital launch vehicle
as big as Falcon 9 on their own dime. No other private company has yet
to fly cargo to ISS. No other entity on the planet can currently return
relatively large amounts of cargo from ISS. No one to date has flown a
VTVL demonstrator as big as Grasshopper.

Their track record speaks for itself in a way that the established
players can't currently replicate. You simply cannot measure them with
the same yardstick used to measure the established players precisely
because they're still relatively new to the playing field.

History keeps repeating itself when new players try to take on "the big
boys". Most fail, but a few succeed in creating something new and
unique that "the big boys" didn't, or couldn't attempt. SpaceX has
already demonstrated their ability to do this.


I'll agree that none of the above means "the big boys" will go away.
There is still a place for them to continue to do what they do best (one
off launches of expensive government payloads as well as building those
payloads). But what the new players who succeed do is to create new
markets for new products. Established players, and the governments who
fund them, have become far too risk averse to attempt this sort of
thing. Today's NASA isn't anything like the NASA of the 50's and 60's.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
The point here Bob is that with SLS, no commercial company in their
right mind would develop a launch vehicle as big as SLS. There simply
is no market for it outside of NASA. So, NASA has to foot the bill for
its development, no matter what. But, because of politics, the SLS
program is farmed out to many contractors in many states in order to
gain enough political support to get it funded. That's life. I don't
like it either, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Eventually, things will change. Eventually, technologies like in orbit
refueling will be developed and the "need" for such a large launch
vehicle will be lessened.

But we're not there yet. Companies are working on refueling
technologies for GEO comsats, but they aren't there yet. Same thing
for
reusable launch vehicles, they just aren't there yet.

And Jeff, even the ULA paper on a depot-based strategy admitted that a
70-ton HLV could be supported by a depot. A depot-if it's proven to work
and
work safely-especially if a crewed vehicle is going to be refueled-cand
compliment a heavy-lifter. It won't replace it-much to the disappointment
of
the SpaceX fanboys.

I don't understand why you have to be such a p.i.t.a. when you refer to
people who don't belittle and badmouth SpaceX as fanboys. I do wish
them well. They've accomplished far more than the nay-sayers said they
would on far less money than the "established players" would have spent
to accomplish the same goals. The same thing happened with Orbital and
Pegasus.

Sure, Musk dreams big, but that provides him with the motivation to
actually *do something* about the high cost of manned access to space
rather than sticking to the tried and true methods of the past.

No other private company has built and flown an orbital launch vehicle
as big as Falcon 9 on their own dime. No other private company has yet
to fly cargo to ISS. No other entity on the planet can currently return
relatively large amounts of cargo from ISS. No one to date has flown a
VTVL demonstrator as big as Grasshopper.

Their track record speaks for itself in a way that the established
players can't currently replicate. You simply cannot measure them with
the same yardstick used to measure the established players precisely
because they're still relatively new to the playing field.

History keeps repeating itself when new players try to take on "the big
boys". Most fail, but a few succeed in creating something new and
unique that "the big boys" didn't, or couldn't attempt. SpaceX has
already demonstrated their ability to do this.


I'll agree that none of the above means "the big boys" will go away.
There is still a place for them to continue to do what they do best (one
off launches of expensive government payloads as well as building those
payloads). But what the new players who succeed do is to create new
markets for new products. Established players, and the governments who
fund them, have become far too risk averse to attempt this sort of
thing. Today's NASA isn't anything like the NASA of the 50's and 60's.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Tell that to the lunkheads over on spacepolitics.com: unless you're 150% in
support of commecial space in general (and SpaceX in particular), your views
are not worthy of attention. At best, you're considered to be naive, a fool,
or mentally off. At worst, they think you're a paid shill for either NASA,
an Orion/SLS contractor, or worse, both NASA and a contractor.

Contrary to what the SpaceX fans think, Musk is not the Messiah when it
comes to HSF, and that current politics do not enable an exploration
strategy based on commercially derived vehicles/propellant depot. Again, I
have no problem with him dreaming big-but he's his own worst enemy, and he
needs to keep letting his rockets do the talking. I do give credit where
it's due: his firm has done what only governments have done before, and
he'll likely do it with crew. Only when he's done that-and not just once,
but repeatedly, will he be worthy of the accolades that he will have earned.
Not until then.

I've said it before and I'll repeat: I have no problems with the commercial
sector taking over the LEO mission for ISS cargo/crew delivery. Doing so
enables NASA to devote more resources to human missions to BEO destinations.
But assuming that the commercial sector should handle all of NASA's HSF
needs (LEO and BEO)is naive, and very unrealistic. Though it's technically
possible, it's not politically possible.

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
I'll agree that none of the above means "the big boys" will go away.
There is still a place for them to continue to do what they do best (one
off launches of expensive government payloads as well as building those
payloads). But what the new players who succeed do is to create new
markets for new products. Established players, and the governments who
fund them, have become far too risk averse to attempt this sort of
thing. Today's NASA isn't anything like the NASA of the 50's and 60's.

Tell that to the lunkheads over on spacepolitics.com: unless you're 150% in
support of commecial space in general (and SpaceX in particular), your views
are not worthy of attention. At best, you're considered to be naive, a fool,
or mentally off. At worst, they think you're a paid shill for either NASA,
an Orion/SLS contractor, or worse, both NASA and a contractor.

This isn't spacepolitics.com, this is sci.space (post-split). I've been
in these groups since about 1988 or 1989 when I was an undergraduate
Aerospace Engineering student at Purdue. These forums have largely been
reasonable over the years. Unfortunately, few "regulars" still post to
these groups and have long since left for other online forums.

Contrary to what the SpaceX fans think, Musk is not the Messiah when it
comes to HSF, and that current politics do not enable an exploration
strategy based on commercially derived vehicles/propellant depot. Again, I
have no problem with him dreaming big-but he's his own worst enemy, and he
needs to keep letting his rockets do the talking. I do give credit where
it's due: his firm has done what only governments have done before, and
he'll likely do it with crew. Only when he's done that-and not just once,
but repeatedly, will he be worthy of the accolades that he will have earned.
Not until then.

I'm quite familiar with nay-sayers and their ever moving goalposts.
SpaceX nay-sayers poked fun at the failures of Falcon 1 when it was
unsuccessful. After Falcon 1 proved it could launch into orbit, they
started saying Falcon 9 will never work due to too many engines, often
pointing (for the wrong reasons) at the Soviet era N-1 for "evidence".
Falcon 9 was also criticized for its "inefficient" LOX/kerosene engines,
despite the fact that those "inefficient" engines were cheap to
manufacture and got the job done, resulting in a lower cost to orbit
than any of the existing players in the LEO launch market. When Falcon
9 was successful, they said Dragon would never work, because spacecraft
were much harder to design, build, and fly than launch vehicles. Now
that Dragon has been successful several times in a row, SpaceX now has
to prove it can successfully fly and recover Dragon with people inside.

I've seen this all before. First it was in sci.space with regards to
the DC-X. Rocket engines aren't reusable, VTVL is *hard*, it will cook
itself on landing, etc. Once DC-X proved all of those assertions false,
the nay-sayers attacked it for not having the dry mass ratio necessary
for SSTO (despite the fact that it was never intended nor designed to
prove that). Strange enough, today we see SpaceX doing much the same
thing with Grasshopper as was done with DC-X and the nay-sayers are
still at it saying VTVL won't work for stage recovery.

I've said it before and I'll repeat: I have no problems with the commercial
sector taking over the LEO mission for ISS cargo/crew delivery. Doing so
enables NASA to devote more resources to human missions to BEO destinations.

Agreed.

But assuming that the commercial sector should handle all of NASA's
HSF needs (LEO and BEO)is naive, and very unrealistic. Though it's
technically possible, it's not politically possible.

Agreed that it is not politically possible at this time. This is
especially true now that Falcon 9 has flown for the last time. Falcon 9
version 1.1 will now need to "prove itself", along with Falcon Heavy.
Right now, SpaceX is far too busy innovating to be considered
"established". When viewed through the eyes of the "established
players", this must appear to be insanity, as they would never do such a
thing.

Perhaps if they had chosen to only to fly Falcon 9 for the next several
years they could "establish a track record" for that launch vehicle and
they might gain a few more customers for it. But, as we've seen time
and time again, Musk has bigger aspirations than simply competing with
the established payers on their own playing field. He's out to create
an entirely new game and that requires SpaceX to keep innovating and
pushing the envelope while largely ignoring what the "established
players" are saying about SpaceX.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Apr 1, 7:23*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...



"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
I'll agree that none of the above means "the big boys" will go away.
There is still a place for them to continue to do what they do best (one
off launches of expensive government payloads as well as building those
payloads). *But what the new players who succeed do is to create new
markets for new products. *Established players, and the governments who
fund them, have become far too risk averse to attempt this sort of
thing. *Today's NASA isn't anything like the NASA of the 50's and 60's.

Tell that to the lunkheads over on spacepolitics.com: unless you're 150% in
support of commecial space in general (and SpaceX in particular), your views
are not worthy of attention. At best, you're considered to be naive, a fool,
or mentally off. At worst, they think you're a paid shill for either NASA,
an Orion/SLS contractor, or worse, both NASA and a contractor.

This isn't spacepolitics.com, this is sci.space (post-split). *I've been
in these groups since about 1988 or 1989 when I was an undergraduate
Aerospace Engineering student at Purdue. *These forums have largely been
reasonable over the years. *Unfortunately, few "regulars" still post to
these groups and have long since left for other online forums.

Contrary to what the SpaceX fans think, Musk is not the Messiah when it
comes to HSF, and that current politics do not enable an exploration
strategy based on commercially derived vehicles/propellant depot. Again, I
have no problem with him dreaming big-but he's his own worst enemy, and he
needs to keep letting his rockets do the talking. I do give credit where
it's due: his firm has done what only governments have done before, and
he'll likely do it with crew. Only when he's done that-and not just once,
but repeatedly, will he be worthy of the accolades that he will have earned.
Not until then.

I'm quite familiar with nay-sayers and their ever moving goalposts.
SpaceX nay-sayers poked fun at the failures of Falcon 1 when it was
unsuccessful. *After Falcon 1 proved it could launch into orbit, they
started saying Falcon 9 will never work due to too many engines, often
pointing (for the wrong reasons) at the Soviet era N-1 for "evidence".
Falcon 9 was also criticized for its "inefficient" LOX/kerosene engines,
despite the fact that those "inefficient" engines were cheap to
manufacture and got the job done, resulting in a lower cost to orbit
than any of the existing players in the LEO launch market. *When Falcon
9 was successful, they said Dragon would never work, because spacecraft
were much harder to design, build, and fly than launch vehicles. *Now
that Dragon has been successful several times in a row, SpaceX now has
to prove it can successfully fly and recover Dragon with people inside.

I've seen this all before. *First it was in sci.space with regards to
the DC-X. *Rocket engines aren't reusable, VTVL is *hard*, it will cook
itself on landing, etc. *Once DC-X proved all of those assertions false,
the nay-sayers attacked it for not having the dry mass ratio necessary
for SSTO (despite the fact that it was never intended nor designed to
prove that). *Strange enough, today we see SpaceX doing much the same
thing with Grasshopper as was done with DC-X and the nay-sayers are
still at it saying VTVL won't work for stage recovery.

I've said it before and I'll repeat: I have no problems with the commercial
sector taking over the LEO mission for ISS cargo/crew delivery. Doing so
enables NASA to devote more resources to human missions to BEO destinations.

Agreed.

But assuming that the commercial sector should handle all of NASA's
HSF needs (LEO and BEO)is naive, and very unrealistic. Though it's
technically possible, it's not politically possible.

Agreed that it is not politically possible at this time. *This is
especially true now that Falcon 9 has flown for the last time. *Falcon 9
version 1.1 will now need to "prove itself", along with Falcon Heavy.
Right now, SpaceX is far too busy innovating to be considered
"established". *When viewed through the eyes of the "established
players", this must appear to be insanity, as they would never do such a
thing.

Perhaps if they had chosen to only to fly Falcon 9 for the next several
years they could "establish a track record" for that launch vehicle and
they might gain a few more customers for it. *But, as we've seen time
and time again, Musk has bigger aspirations than simply competing with
the established payers on their own playing field. *He's out to create
an entirely new game and that requires SpaceX to keep innovating and
pushing the envelope while largely ignoring what the "established
players" are saying about SpaceX.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Indeed, SpaceX is doing just fine and dandy by making their own
mistakes and learning from them, as opposed to our mostly public
funded MASA making the same mistakes over and over even though
spending at least twice as much per mistake, and not to mention their
delays in between. NASA w/o their Paperclip Nazis became an
innovative lost cause as of the Apollo era.


Once SpaceX develops their fully reusable first stage and packing 50+
tonnes of payload past GSO, is when those serious per kg cost
reductions will start taking place. Of course a failsafe fly-by-
rocket lander for exploiting our moon would also add considerable
value to their team efforts.