NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

On Dec 17, 7:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

some people here may talk down the new commercial firms because they
can cost the old established companies like boeing with their costs
plus contracts.......

But sane people know that there IS NO SUCH THING AS A COST PLUS
CONTRACT.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
*your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Mark Twain

Only in the Bobbert's universe does such a thing exist.

In article 5a495677-c29b-4015-a7e2-f275021b9a59
@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 17, 7:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

some people here may talk down the new commercial firms because they
can cost the old established companies like boeing with their costs
plus contracts.......

But sane people know that there IS NO SUCH THING AS A COST PLUS
CONTRACT.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
*your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Mark Twain

Only in the Bobbert's universe does such a thing exist.

Maybe not today but we had CPIF contracts at UTC in the late '70s.

On Dec 17, 10:59*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:08*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

some people here may talk down the new commercial firms because they
can cost the old established companies like boeing with their costs
plus contracts.......

But sane people know that there IS NO SUCH THING AS A COST PLUS
CONTRACT.

Only in the Bobbert's universe does such a thing exist.

I should clarify that to the point of explaining that yes, there are
'cost plus' contracts, but not the way Bobbert imagines them to work.
The type he imagines (Cost Plus Percentage of Cost) is specifically
illegal under the FARs.

--
"It's always different. *It's always complex. *But at some point,
*somebody has to draw the line. *And that somebody is always me....
*I am the law."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

To the Bobbert, that's a minor technicality. In his world, such things
don't matter.

On 18/12/2011 5:35 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Dec 17, 4:02 am, Alan wrote:
On 17/12/2011 7:46 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:



When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.

You mean like Constellation had political support?

Yes, it did. Remember the fight over Obama's original FY 11 budget?
Most of the opposition came from CxP supporters-both out of Congress
and in both Houses. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchinson (R-TX), Sen Mary Landreau (D-LA), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA),
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL); the only member of Congress who's a former
Astronaut all led the fight-along with just about every other Senator
or House member who had CxP work going on in his or her district. And
even Rep. Gabby Giffords, before she nearly fell victim to an
assassination attempt, led the fight in the House to save CxP. Heavy
industry lobbying, lots of Congrescritters in affected districts
coming out against it, you name it. SLS and Orion is the result: SLS
is essentially the light variant of Ares V that the Augustine
Committee recommended as their preferred HLV option.

But there's just no need for it. With orbital rendezvous/docking
techniques, it is quite possible to use a smaller LV like Falcon Heavy
(or similar) and get the same results as SLS would achieve, but with a
much smaller budget.

I came up with a design for a 55 tonne LEO LV for my idea, but it was
based on Delta IV core stages. Cost would have been about three times
that of Falcon Heavy. Imagine how much SLS will cost; kg/kg it will be
about three times that of Delta IV-based vehicles because there will
only be two launches per year. Even with Delta IV, they get a couple up
every year, so a 'new' LV would simply add to production runs and make
both vehicles less expensive.

Now, imagine a Falcon Heavy stage with one engine (the proposed/rumoured
Merlin 2), but combining several FH core stages with a New Core Stage
with several engines and the same burn time as a Falcon Heavy core - 100
tonnes LEO isn't even a challenge and it would be just under twice as
expensive as a Falcon heavy launch. Same stages, but more of them.

It's not Musk we 'worship', it's the potential of what SpaceX is doing
and what that frame of mind can do - it's like the NASA of old -
something that simply can't happen with that agency any more.

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
d.com...
On 18/12/2011 5:35 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Dec 17, 4:02 am, Alan wrote:
On 17/12/2011 7:46 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:



When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.

You mean like Constellation had political support?

Yes, it did. Remember the fight over Obama's original FY 11 budget?
Most of the opposition came from CxP supporters-both out of Congress
and in both Houses. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchinson (R-TX), Sen Mary Landreau (D-LA), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA),
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL); the only member of Congress who's a former
Astronaut all led the fight-along with just about every other Senator
or House member who had CxP work going on in his or her district. And
even Rep. Gabby Giffords, before she nearly fell victim to an
assassination attempt, led the fight in the House to save CxP. Heavy
industry lobbying, lots of Congrescritters in affected districts
coming out against it, you name it. SLS and Orion is the result: SLS
is essentially the light variant of Ares V that the Augustine
Committee recommended as their preferred HLV option.

But there's just no need for it. With orbital rendezvous/docking
techniques, it is quite possible to use a smaller LV like Falcon Heavy
(or similar) and get the same results as SLS would achieve, but with a
much smaller budget.

I came up with a design for a 55 tonne LEO LV for my idea, but it was
based on Delta IV core stages. Cost would have been about three times
that of Falcon Heavy. Imagine how much SLS will cost; kg/kg it will be
about three times that of Delta IV-based vehicles because there will
only be two launches per year. Even with Delta IV, they get a couple up
every year, so a 'new' LV would simply add to production runs and make
both vehicles less expensive.

Now, imagine a Falcon Heavy stage with one engine (the proposed/rumoured
Merlin 2), but combining several FH core stages with a New Core Stage
with several engines and the same burn time as a Falcon Heavy core - 100
tonnes LEO isn't even a challenge and it would be just under twice as
expensive as a Falcon heavy launch. Same stages, but more of them.

It's not Musk we 'worship', it's the potential of what SpaceX is doing
and what that frame of mind can do - it's like the NASA of old -
something that simply can't happen with that agency any more.

Congress and NASA plainly disagree.

There's a difference between what's technically possible and what's
politically possible. If you took your proposal to Congress, many of those
who lined up to get SLS and Orion would line up against you as well. About
the only Congresscritter who's in favor of EELVs (and depots for that
matter) is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). And he's not being altruistic:
several CommercialSpace outfits have facilities in SoCal, and if they don't
have facilities in his district (Hawthorne is part of it), then it's very
likely that there's employees of those outfits who do live in his district.
He's looking out for his constitutents, just as those who tried to save CxP
and who then pushed for and got SLS/Orion.

Alan, at least you're a polite advocate for your position, and it's a
position worthy of respect, even though I politely disagree. Unlike the
zealots over on spacepolitics.com, where any disagreement with an EELV/Depot
based program is considered heresy and treason. When it's pointed out that
what they advocate isn't politically possible, they either spin it to suit
their zeal, or worse, ignore political reality.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 1:20 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in
messagenews:n9ele750mt3jtvn2eh1ii8oj4o86gbq2t0@4ax .com... bob haller
wrote:

so you believe that while cutting medicare and social security for
the
masses congress will increase or even not cut space spending?

When did they "cut Medicare and social security for the masses".
Reality doesn't even begin to intrude into your delusional little
world, does it?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/12/...ity-is-still-f...

-apart/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D120433



read and attempt to understand the part where benefits are forcibly
reduced

I'll just note that it doesn't support what you've claimed. Nobody
has cut Medicare or Social Security. Perhaps you could quote the part
of the article you think supports that claim and tell us just who
"they" are?

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Fred, "they" exist in the bobbert's head and nowhere else. Like Clueless
Cobb over on rec.aviation.military, the bobbert lives in his fantasy
world,
and when reality intrudes upon it, it's either ignored, casually
dismissed,
or spun to fit the fantasy of the day.

fantasy is believing fiancial things will continue as usual for our
country...... if spending isnt slashed dramatically our country will
eventually collapse. bankrupt belly up, unable to do anything, space
included

all spending will be cut, including the entitlements and things that
lack national voter support will be cut more.....

when your cutting the average joes social security and medicare
benefits spending on space anything will take a big hit too.

now fred can continue to live in a dreamworld, since he lives in
fantasy land anyway

Like I said earlier: if you tried to take your "ideas" to Congress, they'd
laugh you out of the hearing, hold the door open for you, and give you a
kick in the ass on the way out. You've got a grand total of ONE Congressman
who's in favor of EELV/Depots-and ZERO who want to end HSF-except for Ron
Paul, because spaceflight isn't in the Constitution. Space support is
bipartisian. Got that?

Like I said earlier: if you tried to take your "ideas" to Congress, they'd
laugh you out of the hearing, hold the door open for you, and give you a
kick in the ass on the way out. You've got a grand total of ONE Congressman
who's in favor of EELV/Depots-and ZERO who want to end HSF-except for Ron
Paul, because spaceflight isn't in the Constitution. Space support is
bipartisian. Got that?- \

the most by partisian support area is no doubt the entitlements, SS
medicare etc....

its not me that will demand cuts to entitlements, its the reality of
our economic situation

anyone can ignore it by sticking head in sand, but that does not make
it go away.........

even the military budget must be cut... it has doubled since 9/11

did you know the US largely defeated USSR during cold war by
bankrupting them, by forccing USSR into overspending on military....

if the structural isnt addressed our money will be worthless

On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
...

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."

I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_L...#Program_costs

So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

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...forgotten-word

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...tml?c=y&page=4


Bob Clark

On Dec 18, 6:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

...

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."

*I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
*The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
*Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
*Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs

*So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
*If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
*Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

*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...

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl...

* Bob Clark

Ariane's clearly serious, but not getting on the HSF bandwagon.

Clearly, Musk has big things in mind and has the dinero to see if they
work. But, at his most recent National Press Club event about HSF, he
admitted that a fully reusable Falcon may not work out, but he wants
to try anyway. If he pulls it off, he's changed the whole equation
launch vehicles. But if he doesn't, and there are very serious
technical obstacles to that, that's $500 mil of his own money out the
door with nothing to show for it (other than possiblity of a reusable
1st stage). I do wish him luck, and best of luck when it comes to HSF.
But he's not the Messiah when it comes to HSF, and he's not a god
spaceflight in general.

On Dec 18, 6:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

...

*I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
*The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
*Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
*Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs

*So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
*If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
*Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

*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...

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl...

* Bob Clark

Bob, he's most often described as an amateur when HSF is being
discussed. Then his "retiring on Mars" nonsense (he won't, but his
grandkids probably will), and daring NASA to buy his stuff only back
when Augustine was holding its hearings rubbed a lot of people the
wrong way.