SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
On 08/01/2010 09:35 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 2/08/2010 11:44 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


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.

You obviously haven't heard that Constellation has been cancelled. It's
in NASA's budget proposal for 2011.

You obviously don't know how the US government works, or what a
"proposal" means.

The president's FY11 NASA budget *proposes* to cancel Constellation. But
Constellation is funded through the end of FY10, and Congress decides
what federal agencies are authorized to do and how much money is to be
appropriated for them to do it.

The House NASA Authorization bill continues Constellation in all but
name. The Senate bill also dumps the Constellation name but retains
Orion and authorizes a new shuttle-derived HLV to replace Ares.

The administration has endorsed the Senate bill. SpaceX has endorsed it
as well. The most likely outcome in the end is a compromise that
strongly resembles the Senate bill.

Quite true, Jorge. The Commercial advocates just don't have the votes to get
what they want. Alan forgot the old adage in D.C.: "The President proposes,
but Congress disposes." ObamaSpace is going to be disposed of. If need be,
buy an EELV like Atlas V, stick Orion on it, and fly to ISS until these
commercial providers live up to their promises. Have Pads 39-A and -B for
HLV and BEO. If the commercial provider has the booster, but NASA has the
capsule in the intirim, fine. Only when commercial providers prove they can
do the job should the ISS and other LEO trips be handed over to them. Even
then, NASA should have a very strong oversight program in place, so that
safety doesn't take a back seat to a company's bottom line.

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...
Matt Wiser writes:

You're quite right on that. Reality will bite Space X and the other
Commercial Space providers in the ass when the House and Senate
reconcile their NASA budget bills.

SpaceX seems to have quite a few customers outside NASA. Most of them,
actually.


Jochem

--
But Space X hasn't flown people yet. They've only had one Falcon 9 test
flight. Once they start flying people on a regular basis, whether to ISS or
just plain orbital flights, they'll start to convince the skeptics (myself
included). There's a Space News article (I don't have the URL) where some
commercial advocates point this out. They were saying that the only way
they'll get Congress to support their efforts is to fly, and fly regularly.
I'd be more comfortable with an outfit like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, or ULA
than with a startup, anyway. They've been around the block with EELVs, have
capsules in advanced development (Boeing's CST, Lockheed-Martin's Orion or
Orion derivative), and get the job done for NASA and DOD launching science
and national security payloads. But they still have to show that the job can
be done.

In sci.space.history Matt Wiser wrote:
Quite true, Jorge. The Commercial advocates just don't have the
votes to get what they want. Alan forgot the old adage in D.C.: "The
President proposes, but Congress disposes." ObamaSpace is going to
be disposed of. If need be, buy an EELV like Atlas V, stick Orion on
it, and fly to ISS until these commercial providers live up to their
promises. Have Pads 39-A and -B for HLV and BEO. If the commercial
provider has the booster, but NASA has the capsule in the intirim,
fine. Only when commercial providers prove they can do the job
should the ISS and other LEO trips be handed over to them. Even
then, NASA should have a very strong oversight program in place, so
that safety doesn't take a back seat to a company's bottom line.

And yet, even then, the congresscritters defending the flow of funds
to their districts will still seek some reason why the commercial
types just are right for the task. I suspect that 99.9% of the
reasons given by Congress presently has everything to do with where
the work will be done, not what work will be done. That the present
COTS contenders haven't flown people is merely cover.

rick jones
--
It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 7/31/2010 5:08 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

And, of course, with Zubrin's plan, a Saturn V is all you need to get
to Mars. Yes, this is quite significant.

NASA looked at Zubrin's proposal, and said the math in regards to weight
on it didn't add up:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/677/1
This doesn't surprise me, as he was a proponent of the Black Horse
orbital launch vehicle also...and the math on it was highly suspect too.
The airframe's mass fraction was overly optimistic, the specific impulse
claimed for the engine was too high, and the onboard propellant tankage
too small in relation to the overall size of the vehicle:
http://www.risacher.org/bh/analog.html

Pat

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.history Matt Wiser wrote:
Quite true, Jorge. The Commercial advocates just don't have the
votes to get what they want. Alan forgot the old adage in D.C.: "The
President proposes, but Congress disposes." ObamaSpace is going to
be disposed of. If need be, buy an EELV like Atlas V, stick Orion on
it, and fly to ISS until these commercial providers live up to their
promises. Have Pads 39-A and -B for HLV and BEO. If the commercial
provider has the booster, but NASA has the capsule in the intirim,
fine. Only when commercial providers prove they can do the job
should the ISS and other LEO trips be handed over to them. Even
then, NASA should have a very strong oversight program in place, so
that safety doesn't take a back seat to a company's bottom line.

And yet, even then, the congresscritters defending the flow of funds
to their districts will still seek some reason why the commercial
types just are right for the task. I suspect that 99.9% of the
reasons given by Congress presently has everything to do with where
the work will be done, not what work will be done. That the present
COTS contenders haven't flown people is merely cover.

rick jones


Maybe, but the commercial advocates have made some promises in the past few
years that they haven't kept yet. Like Tip O'Neil used to say, "All politics
is local." Or what Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told a bunch of commercial
advocates trying to restore the original funding level for commercial
crew/cargo services: "This isn't rocket science, it's political science."
The Congresscritters whose constitutents work on NASA's existing exploration
programs want their voters to keep working, even if it's on a program that's
derived from the POR. Promises of more jobs in 5-7 years look good in the
media, but they don't pay the mortgage or put food on the table for those
employees facing pink slips. The commercial space community needs to stop
talking (or wailing) and start flying-with people, and do it often. Only
then will those skeptical of commercial space (and count me as one) be
satisfied.

On 8/1/2010 8:04 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Even then, NASA should have a very strong oversight program in place, so that
safety doesn't take a back seat to a company's bottom line.

Yeah; look how well they did with the Shuttle in regards to strong
safety oversight. ;-)

Pat

On Aug 2, 12:30*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

NASA looked at Zubrin's proposal, and said the math in regards to weight
on it didn't add up:

Interesting. I wouldn't have expected _that_ kind of mistake, so I
didn't try and re-do the math on converting hydrogen into carbon
monoxide fuel on Mars.

The flaws I noticed in "The Case for Mars" were his optimism regarding
recycling in the life-support, his cavalier attitude towards back
contamination, and his handwaving about radiation hazards. Those
weren't insuperable, simply the understandable failings of an
enthusiast. I was a little disappointed to see them, but none of those
points were fatal to the idea.

Myself, I would think that it _is_ obviously better if you can
transport *energy* to Mars for making the return journey instead of
both energy _and_ reaction mass. So even if a specific mission profile
submitted by Robert Zubrin doesn't have the numbers right, his
_technique_ is valid.

Now, maybe you would do *even better* if you just brought a nuclear
reactor with you to Mars, and used the energy from that to make fuel.
Particularly if there's lots of water on Mars in the form of
permafrost from which to electrolyze hydrogen.

Or bring solar mirrors with you.

Or equipment to make shiny iron mirrors on Mars.

But for a first trip, one doesn't want to require the astronauts to
achieve too much that is complicated to get home. While colonization
of Mars is the real goal, I don't think one can jump straight from
automated probes to colonization. People will first have to land on
Mars to study it in much greater detail, and to test out the processes
needed for colonization, before colonization can be started.

And even the first wave of colonists will need a return option.

John Savard

"Matt Wiser" writes:

I'd be more comfortable with an outfit like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, or ULA
than with a startup, anyway. They've been around the block with EELVs, have
capsules in advanced development (Boeing's CST, Lockheed-Martin's Orion or
Orion derivative), and get the job done for NASA and DOD launching science
and national security payloads. But they still have to show that the job can
be done.

I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann wrote:
I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.

Isn't that overstating it a bit? The Dragon that sat on top of F9
Flight 1 wasn't all that far removed from boiler-plate - I don't think
it had much in the way of any systems in it, it was mostly just mass
and shape. Perhaps "instrumented mock-up."

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Aug 2, 9:48*am, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I think Dragon is in a more advanced state of development than CST or
Orion... at least they already have a prototype in orbit.

Isn't that overstating it a bit? *The Dragon that sat on top of F9
Flight 1 wasn't all that far removed from boiler-plate - I don't think
it had much in the way of any systems in it, it was mostly just mass
and shape. *Perhaps "instrumented mock-up."

rick jones
--
That's probably the case.