Falcon9/Dragon launch purchases

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 from http://www.teranews.com

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

On Nov 21, 7:16 pm, 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?

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

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:16:02 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


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?

Well, for one thing, they have a reasonable aspect ratio, and don't
have a first stage that may have a resonant frequency that may render
it completely unusable...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:23:42 -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, 7:16 pm, 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?

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

But NASA's concept isn't "vaporware"?

Why the double standard? The Falcon I and Falcon 9 are both much less
"vaporware" than Ares 1.

On Nov 21, 7:16 pm, 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?

Saturn I had 8 engines. I understand one flight even
completed its mission successfully after losing an
engine.

If you insist on VTO, then I prefer 8 or more engines.
However, I am more comfortable with HTO, where
two engines are adequate for safe, engine-out abort
at liftoff.

Len