NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

In article 8f174af5-19c8-4b9f-81f2-
,
says...

On Dec 16, 1:12*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"Matt Wiser" *wrote in message

...



When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.
Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and
bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be
richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put
someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a
crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust
that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space
Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start
Flying."

Let's see. *How many flights has Falcon 9 had? *2.
How many has SLS had? 0.

When's the next Falcon 9 flight scheduled? *Next Feb.

When is SLS scheduled? "Err, sometime in the future."

I'd say Musk is flying and NASA is talking.



--
Greg D. Moore * President * * * * * * * * * Green Mountain Softwarehttp://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans:http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

For now. When Musk flies people and returns them safely as part of his
flight test program, then you can say that he has a capability that he
can offer paying customers. Until then.....

Until then SpaceX flies unmanned payloads on Falcon 9 at prices even the
Chinese say they can't match.

Until recently, the nay-sayers were saying that Falcon 9 couldn't
possibly be made to work. They snickered loudly at the *9* engines on
the first stage and at how inefficient and unproven the LOX/kerosene
Merlin engines were.

Congress has more confidence in NASA than it does Musk.

Congress has a desire to maintain the status-quo in terms of jobs in
their congressional districts. They'll keep funding SLS out of that
desire. That doesn't mean it's a sane thing to do in today's world of
budget deficits.

Why do you
think they fully funded SLS and Orion and gave the Commercial Crew
side only 45% of the funds requested-and $100 Mil of that is held up
until NASA ID's the destinations BEO that they intend to fly to. Not
"study" or "workshop presentations. Actually come out and say where
NASA is going to fly exploration missions. And personally, I'm more
comfortable with an established firm like Boeing or Orbital Science
handling the crew side than I am Space X.

I remember when Orbital Science was the "new kid on the block" and the
nay-sayers back then were saying the exact same things you're saying
about SpaceX. But they kept on fixing problems and trying again.
Eventually Pegasus proved itself. It will be very interesting to see
who's flying what in 10 years. We live in exciting times.

Those firms have been around
the block and know what they're doing. As Capt. Gene Cernan said in
Congressional testimony regarding the startups: "They don't know what
they don't know." Translation: they will learn things the hard way,
just as NASA did back in the early days.

Of course they don't know what they don't know. They'll learn the hard
way, by flying. The next SpaceX/Dragon launch should be in February, if
the schedule doesn't slip due to an unknown-unknown.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
...

*Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el...


Some great points were made in this article such as this:

Quote
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.
/Quote

And then there's this:

Quote
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.
/Quote

The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

Links to hear the show live are he

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/


Bob Clark

On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:

*...

*Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el...

*Some great points were made in this article such as this:

Quote
Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.
/Quote

*And then there's this:

Quote
Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.
/Quote

*The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

*Links to hear the show live are he

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

*It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

* Bob Clark

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

the alternattives are a big budget bloated pork filled program that
wouldnt get built because its not affordable

or a smaller commercial launch system thats affordable......

when your home in in foreclosure you might buy a used vehicle.......

but be unable to afford a spiffy new porsche with all the bells and
whistles/

In article 5067fb16-7956-4d13-a0cd-593b905cd369
@h11g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

*Links to hear the show live are he

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

*It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/

* Bob Clark

Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

True, there are many shades of gray. This is not a black and white
issue. That said, I still think SLS is a huge waste of money.

Military transport via aircraft isn't 100% private or 100% military. I
have no idea what the mix is, because it depends on how you define the
rules. Outside of combat zones, it's not unusual to see commercial
aircraft being used to transport troops. Also, it's not unusual for the
military to buy slightly modified versions of commercial aircraft and
operate them. Neither of these examples are of military aircraft
developed, owned, and operated solely by the military.

SLS is an example of a purely NASA specific launch vehicle. It will be
developed, owned, and operated solely by NASA. At least NASA isn't
trying to sell SLS to the politicians like it did STS. The shuttle
failed to meet commercial and military launch needs. Both of those
external (to NASA) customers returned to expendable launch vehicles to
meet their requirements.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Why?

On Dec 20, 3:16*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:



Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
way out.

Why?

Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who
want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and
neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr.
Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO
to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11
Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a
lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA
would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it.

The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are
not completely pu Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or
ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in
SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got
constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been
Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to
push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's
that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from
"Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the
Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got
45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen
pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions,
destinations, etc.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...


For now. When Musk flies people and returns them safely as part of his
flight test program, then you can say that he has a capability that he
can offer paying customers. Until then.....

And until then NASA has... umm.. nothing even close to flying.



Congress has more confidence in NASA than it does Musk.

That's nice. But few of us have any confidence in Congress.

Why do you
think they fully funded SLS and Orion and gave the Commercial Crew
side only 45% of the funds requested-and $100 Mil of that is held up
until NASA ID's the destinations BEO that they intend to fly to. Not
"study" or "workshop presentations. Actually come out and say where
NASA is going to fly exploration missions. And personally, I'm more
comfortable with an established firm like Boeing or Orbital Science
handling the crew side than I am Space X. Those firms have been around
the block and know what they're doing. As Capt. Gene Cernan said in
Congressional testimony regarding the startups: "They don't know what
they don't know." Translation: they will learn things the hard way,
just as NASA did back in the early days.



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On 21/12/2011 2:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
total privatization of HSF.

Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they
_don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue?

There a lot been written on this thread I have little to add.

But here is a prediction. In five years you can go back and fact check me as
this post will be in the archive.

I predict SLS funding will continue. The project will plod along, there will
be a few static rocket tests.

I predict Dragon will launch successful cargo flights to the ISS within the
year (2012).

I predict SpaceX will continue on the path to getting a man rating and flying
a crew (timeframe still a little hazy here, but I think 5 years is a safe bet).

At the end of 5 years SpaceX will have flown a crew to the ISS and returned
them safely. In the meantime SLS will still be largely on the drawing board,
all the money spent to keep contractors in various Congressional districts
busy and THIS KEY LITTLE ITEM: "0 dollars spent to upgrade existing KSC
infrastructure to support SLS". People will want to spread the dollars not
concentrate them. And without this up-front work SLS remains purely
pie-in-the-sky regardless of how much $$$ Congress pours down this rat-hole.

At the end? SpaceX launches from their own facilities whilst VAB and complex
39 sit largely empty and/or rusting away in the Atlantic sea-breezes. When the
money spent on SLS could have been going to useful ground support upgrades.

(LC-39 a&b should be made dual-fuel capable NOW, Mobile Launch Platform &
Crawler vehicle should be updated immediately for using Falcons and the
current generation of EELVs) why on Earth should we wait on this?

Dave