Cygnus delivers

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts

How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX?

On Monday, September 30, 2013 5:27:38 PM UTC-7, Hop wrote:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts



How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX?

Arrgh, linking to a Google+ pic evidently doesn't work well.

Hope this link works better:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/crew-ope.../#.UkoYchYWajk

On 9/30/2013 8:27 PM, Hop wrote:
How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX?

Because we celebrate and remember "firsts, but "seconds" and "thirds"
quickly become old news.

Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop across the Atlantic. Who was the
second person to do that? ...and how much press did that person get
compared to Lindy?

Given the Cygnus docking and the SpaceX launch, Sunday was a notable day
in space history. But only us space geeks noticed.

In message
Vaughn wrote:

Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop across the Atlantic. Who was the
second person to do that? ...and how much press did that person get
compared to Lindy?

Actually Lindbergh was a way down the list of people flying the Atlantic
which was headed by Alcock and Brown. He was merely the first to fly the
route solo.

Anthony

In article ,
says...

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts

How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX?

Say what? I believe I posted a congrats message to these groups.
Orbital has achieved a significant goal for far less money than
"traditional" NASA programs could ever achieve.

One thing that Cygnus *can't* do is return cargo to earth. It will
destructively reenter earth's atmosphere just as Progress, ATV, and HTV
do.

That does make Dragon unique. It is the *only* spacecraft currently
flying which can return significant amounts of cargo to earth. This
also makes Dragon a candidate for launching and landing astronauts,
which is the "next step" for Dragon.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 4:36:08 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts



How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX?



Say what? I believe I posted a congrats message to these groups.

Don't see it in this forum.

In general, SpaceX gets a lot of publicity. In this forum and elsewhere.

It's easy to compare. If viewing this from Google Groups there's a search field at the top of the window. "SpaceX" or "Falcon" returns a bunch of hits. "Orbital Sciences" or "Cygnus" not so much.




Orbital has achieved a significant goal for far less money than

"traditional" NASA programs could ever achieve.



Just so. And the more vendors, the more competitive the market.

What Orbital Sciences did is very noteworthy. But they are aren't as skilled in the art of hype as Musk.



One thing that Cygnus *can't* do is return cargo to earth. It will

destructively reenter earth's atmosphere just as Progress, ATV, and HTV

do.



That does make Dragon unique. It is the *only* spacecraft currently

flying which can return significant amounts of cargo to earth. This

also makes Dragon a candidate for launching and landing astronauts,

which is the "next step" for Dragon.


Those are good points.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 4:36:08 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106505577291311813232/posts
How come Orbital Sciences doesn't get the same hoopla as SpaceX?

Say what? I believe I posted a congrats message to these groups.

Don't see it in this forum.

In general, SpaceX gets a lot of publicity. In this forum and elsewhere.

It's easy to compare. If viewing this from Google Groups there's a
search field at the top of the window. "SpaceX" or "Falcon" returns
a bunch of hits. "Orbital Sciences" or "Cygnus" not so much.

Well, they were the first commercial cargo vessel to dock with ISS and
they've performed subsequent "operational" cargo delivery missions to
ISS. So by this measure, they're clearly ahead of Orbital in terms of
time. "Firsts" are always notable in the history books. "Seconds", not
so much (depending on who is writing the history).

Orbital has achieved a significant goal for far less money than

"traditional" NASA programs could ever achieve.

Just so. And the more vendors, the more competitive the market.

What Orbital Sciences did is very noteworthy. But they are aren't
as skilled in the art of hype as Musk.

Being the first company to deliver commercial cargo to ISS isn't hype.
It's a fact.

One thing that Cygnus *can't* do is return cargo to earth. It will
destructively reenter earth's atmosphere just as Progress, ATV, and
HTV do.

That does make Dragon unique. It is the *only* spacecraft currently
flying which can return significant amounts of cargo to earth. This
also makes Dragon a candidate for launching and landing astronauts,
which is the "next step" for Dragon.

Those are good points.

With the demise of the shuttle, it is a much needed capability. How
else are scientists and engineers on earth supposed to get their hands
on experiments and equipment from ISS? When you note that this is
something *not* provided by Cygnus, Progress, ATV, or HTV, it's
literally a singularly unique capability.

It's worth noting that one of the most valuable contributions of the
shuttle during the shuttle/Mir program was the removal of trash and
broken equipment that had been accumulating on Mir for years. Returning
failed equipment from Mir to engineers on earth allowed them to confirm
why the equipment failed so that improvements could be made to the next
generation of equipment being built for ISS. It should come as no
surprise that ISS has similar issues with trash.

Musk isn't trying to make Dragon and Falcon 9 "just as good" as other
existing, and upcoming, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Musk is trying
to leapfrog them both in terms of cost and in terms of capabilities.
Many people who doubt SpaceX call that hype. The only way to prove the
doubters wrong is to "just do it" (like the Nike slogan).

I would say that based on empirical data, SpaceX certainly seems to be
headed in the right direction to achieve those goals. The best way to
learn what works and what doesn't is to test during flight. The nice
thing about the failed tests on the recent Falcon 9 flight is that such
tests did *not* in any way impact the payloads being flown since they
took place *after* the stage separation. So, from the customers' point
of view, SpaceX's "failed" attempts at a water "landing" of the first
stage and a restart of the second stage engine don't matter to them one
bit.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 10/2/2013 8:14 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
I would say that based on empirical data, SpaceX certainly seems to be
headed in the right direction to achieve those goals. The best way to
learn what works and what doesn't is to test during flight. The nice
thing about the failed tests on the recent Falcon 9 flight is that such
tests did *not* in any way impact the payloads being flown since they
took place *after* the stage separation. So, from the customers' point
of view, SpaceX's "failed" attempts at a water "landing" of the first
stage and a restart of the second stage engine don't matter to them one
bit.

Yes I picked up on this point in a different thread here.

There is a second-track development effort being piggybacked on the
operational component of each SpaceX flight. Assuming the paying
customers are aware of the situation, and as so far it hasn't caused a
"launch failure" in terms of failure to deliver payload to orbit for a
paying customer, no one has been scared off yet.

Dave

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 5:14:33 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
Musk isn't trying to make Dragon and Falcon 9 "just as good" as other

existing, and upcoming, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Musk is trying

to leapfrog them both in terms of cost and in terms of capabilities.

Yes, he's going to do stuff far beyond what's been done before. Make economic, reusable rockets. Establish a dot com billionaire retirement community on Mars.

And to demonstrate he's well on his way, what do his fan boys cite?

He delivered a satellite to orbit. He delivered supplies to the I.S.S. and brought them back.

Newflash: that's been done before.

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 5:14:33 AM UTC-7, Jeff Findley wrote:
Musk isn't trying to make Dragon and Falcon 9 "just as good" as other

existing, and upcoming, launch vehicles and spacecraft. Musk is trying

to leapfrog them both in terms of cost and in terms of capabilities.

Yes, he's going to do stuff far beyond what's been done before.
Make economic, reusable rockets.

This is a relatively short term goal being pursued while flying
otherwise expendable Falcon 9 launch vehicles. In relative terms, it's
not costing him much to try and his engineers are learning every time
they try.

Establish a dot com billionaire retirement community on Mars.

This is a long term goal which will never happen unless the goal of
creating an affordable, reusable, launch vehicle is achieved. Sure this
goal is "way out there", but Musk is only in his early 40's, so he still
has several decades to pursue this goal if he wants to see it achieved
during his lifetime.

And to demonstrate he's well on his way, what do his fan boys cite?

He delivered a satellite to orbit.

Not a small feat for a start-up. Over the years, many start-ups have
failed miserably when they attempted the same. Even the ones that
eventually succeeded (e.g. Orbital with Pegasus) had their share of
failures along the way. When you consider how (relatively) little money
Musk has spent in pursuit of this goal, it's doubly impressive.

He delivered supplies to the I.S.S. and brought them back.

Excepting the, hideously expensive, space shuttle, returning cargo from
ISS to earth is a feat that no other US vehicle has done to date.
Excepting the pitifully small payloads returned by Russian vehicles,
none of the "international partners" have any earth return capability
either.

Newflash: that's been done before.

But not at the relatively small funding level SpaceX had available to
them. In the past, much of what has "been done before" has been done by
large governments handing out huge "cost-plus" contracts.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer