Falcon9/Dragon launch purchases

wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:44 am, kT wrote:
wrote:

1. Hydrogen is more efficient than kerosene. I thought you knew
that.

2. . America and indeed NASA is nearing collapse. You'll just have
to trust
me that your job is on the line.


3, I could easily build a SSME powered SSTO with that money.


1. Not for first stages. very inefficient
2. Wrong on many points.
3. See, this is where you need help. You are delusional with this
and the previous statement.

Cuz you said so, on the usenet, right? You argue here as well as you do
over at NSF, not at all. Your vanity is why NASA has gotten into so much
trouble. I, on the other, do not suffer from vanity, as I am committed
to cryogenic human space flight, and I know of no theoretical or
engineering barriers to cryogenic spaceflight, and a very fine vehicle
and another very fine engine already exists for me to accomplish it.

a. SSME is too expensive to be expendable

I'm not expending them, I'm delivering them to orbit.

b. SSTO won't have any payload capacity

Sure it will, the vehicle weighs 15,000 kilos alone.

It is a fools folly, so I guess that is why you are going after it

I know, everyone already knows that rockets can't work in a vacuum.

On Nov 24, 2:04 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:44 am, kT wrote:
wrote:

..1. Your vanity is why NASA has gotten into so much
trouble. I, on the other, do not suffer from vanity, as I am committed
to cryogenic human space flight, and

2. I know of no theoretical or
engineering barriers to cryogenic spaceflight, and a very fine vehicle
and another very fine engine already exists for me to accomplish it.

1. Vanity? Look in the mirror. You reek of it. You are more full
of yourself to think you have the answer to everything. Your "know it
all" attitude is indicative of those who know nothing about what they
preach

2. You aren't proposing "cryogenic spaceflight" for one, it already
exists. Using an SSME as upperstage engine shows that you know
nothing about what you are talking about

On Nov 24, 2:04 pm, kT wrote:

You argue here as well as you do
over at NSF, not at all.

I guess you are too afraid to put your ideas on NSF because
1. they won't hold up to scrutiny
2. your abusive and classless attitude won't be tolerated
So you rather hang around in usenet where you don't have to conduct
yourself in a respectful manner and where you can make baseless claims
without backing them up

In article
,
wrote:

I strongly support SpaceX but I see a lot of support here for what is
still vaporware at SpaceX while denigrating NASA.

It appears to me to be a clear case of favoring SpaceX's vaporware over
NASA's vaporware. And that seems sensible to me, despite SpaceX's short
track record; I'm quite confident that Falcon 9 will be flying
successfully well before Ares.

SpaceX still has
not successfully placed an unmanned satellite in orbit and people seem
to think they have manned rocket problems solved, I'd like to sell you
some Florida swampland.

No, people seem to think they will solve the manned rocket problems
before NASA will do so.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

wrote:

On Nov 24, 2:04 pm, kT wrote:

You argue here as well as you do
over at NSF, not at all.

I guess you are too afraid to put your ideas on NSF because

My NSF account has been banned for life, or until the year 2237,
whichever comes first? That's how the NSF treats dissent over there.

1. they won't hold up to scrutiny
2. your abusive and classless attitude won't be tolerated
So you rather hang around in usenet where you don't have to conduct
yourself in a respectful manner and where you can make baseless claims
without backing them up

So you claim an SSME can't propel a 15 Mg vehicle to orbit loaded with
160 Mg of propellants? Not only do I claim it can be done, but I intend
to attempt it. I'm not worried a bit, because I have a viable 'Plan B'.

wrote:
On Nov 24, 2:04 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:44 am, kT wrote:
wrote:
.1. Your vanity is why NASA has gotten into so much
trouble. I, on the other, do not suffer from vanity, as I am committed
to cryogenic human space flight, and

2. I know of no theoretical or
engineering barriers to cryogenic spaceflight, and a very fine vehicle
and another very fine engine already exists for me to accomplish it.

1. Vanity? Look in the mirror. You reek of it. You are more full
of yourself to think you have the answer to everything.

No, but I know where to find them.

Your "know it
all" attitude is indicative of those who know nothing about what they
preach

It doesn't matter, I've already committed to cryogenic space flight, it
exists, it works and now that I've written this COTS proposal, I own it.

2. You aren't proposing "cryogenic spaceflight" for one, it already
exists.

That's the whole point, we're all ready to go.

Using an SSME as upperstage engine shows that you know
nothing about what you are talking about

But as anyone can plainly see, I'm not proposing that. That's all ESAS.
I'm proposing using SSMEs in ground started core stage applications.

wrote:

:On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
: Has NASA purchased any Falcon9/Dragon manned launches yet? It now looks like
: Falcon9/Dragon will be operational far before Ares/Orion so why not fill the
: space gap with Dragon?
:
:
:Where does it say it will be operational. Spacex can't even launch a
:Falcon 1 successfully. Spacex will have to demonstrate a capability
whether it is ISS cargo, spacecraft delivery or manned capsule)
:before NASA buys a service
:

Well, not so much, no.

SpaceX got a contract last year to demonstrate cargo supply and return
to ISS with Falcon 9. The contract is for 3 cargo flights in 2009,
with an option to extend the contract to crew replacement.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

wrote:

:On Nov 21, 6:29 pm, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:21:09 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
: Alex Terrell made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
:
: On 21 Nov, 22:37, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:28:52 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
: as to indicate that:
:
: On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
: Has NASA purchased any Falcon9/Dragon manned launches yet? It now looks like
: Falcon9/Dragon will be operational far before Ares/Orion so why not fill the
: space gap with Dragon?
:
: --
: Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
:
: Where does it say it will be operational. Spacex can't even launch a
: Falcon 1 successfully. Spacex will have to demonstrate a capability
: (whether it is ISS cargo, spacecraft delivery or manned capsule)
: before NASA buys a service
:
: Their plan is to do so, long before Ares/Orion is ready. SpaceX has a
: plan, NASA has a plan.
:
: SpaceX seems some what ahead of Ares / Orion. More real hardware. They
: also have a better concept. And their track record for cost management
: is not as bad as NASA's.
:
: Right.
:
:Hmm, 9 engines is a better concept? Maybe it is but I am skeptical.
:Technically, How is Dragon a better concept?
:

It doesn't strap the space vehicle to big sticks of explosives for
liftoff. It uses all liquid engines, which means it is more fault
tolerant, less prone to near-instantaneous catastrophic failure, and
has a gentler and more controllable thrust profile.

So why are you skeptical, again?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Nov 25, 12:19 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:On Nov 21, 6:29 pm, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:21:09 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
: Alex Terrell made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
:
: On 21 Nov, 22:37, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:28:52 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
: as to indicate that:
:
: On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
: Has NASA purchased any Falcon9/Dragon manned launches yet? It now looks like
: Falcon9/Dragon will be operational far before Ares/Orion so why not fill the
: space gap with Dragon?
:
: --
: Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
:
: Where does it say it will be operational. Spacex can't even launch a
: Falcon 1 successfully. Spacex will have to demonstrate a capability
: (whether it is ISS cargo, spacecraft delivery or manned capsule)
: before NASA buys a service
:
: Their plan is to do so, long before Ares/Orion is ready. SpaceX has a
: plan, NASA has a plan.
:
: SpaceX seems some what ahead of Ares / Orion. More real hardware. They
: also have a better concept. And their track record for cost management
: is not as bad as NASA's.
:
: Right.
:
:Hmm, 9 engines is a better concept? Maybe it is but I am skeptical.
:Technically, How is Dragon a better concept?
:

It doesn't strap the space vehicle to big sticks of explosives for
liftoff. It uses all liquid engines, which means it is more fault
tolerant, less prone to near-instantaneous catastrophic failure, and
has a gentler and more controllable thrust profile.

Now here is a point I can agree with you
100 percent, Fred.

Len

So why are you skeptical, again?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Nov 25, 12:00 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, "Jim Relsh" wrote:
: Has NASA purchased any Falcon9/Dragon manned launches yet? It now looks like
: Falcon9/Dragon will be operational far before Ares/Orion so why not fill the
: space gap with Dragon?
:
:
:Where does it say it will be operational. Spacex can't even launch a
:Falcon 1 successfully. Spacex will have to demonstrate a capability
whether it is ISS cargo, spacecraft delivery or manned capsule)
:before NASA buys a service
:

Well, not so much, no.

SpaceX got a contract last year to demonstrate cargo supply and return
to ISS with Falcon 9. The contract is for 3 cargo flights in 2009,
with an option to extend the contract to crew replacement.


No, Spacex receive no "contract" for ISS logistics They have a Space
Act agreement with NASA to demonstrate the ability to deliver cargo to
the ISS. The first two flights don't even go to the ISS. Spacex is
paid incrementally for each milestone it achieves. As for the crew
replacement, again, it is only for demonstrations and it is highly
unlikely the option will be exercised
The real contract for ISS logistics will be competed next year