A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SpaceX has plans--BIG plans



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 10, 01:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Damon Hill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 566
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...20Propulsion%2
0small.pptx



Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.


--Damon
  #2  
Old July 31st 10, 02:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On Jul 30, 6:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote, in
part:

Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,


And, of course, with Zubrin's plan, a Saturn V is all you need to get
to Mars. Yes, this is quite significant.

John Savard
  #3  
Old July 31st 10, 06:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On Jul 30, 5:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi...
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon


Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.
  #4  
Old August 1st 10, 01:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Damon Hill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 566
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

Matt Wiser wrote in news:865fe799-5cf0-4026-80fa-
:

On Jul 30, 5:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi...
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon


Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.


I'm sure that's exactly what they're trying to do: demonstrate a clear
growth path that will be most cost-effective. Doesn't mean the most
rational plan will be the winner, alas.

First time I've seen engine flow diagrams with temps, pressures and mass
rates.

--Damon
  #5  
Old August 1st 10, 02:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On Jul 31, 5:59*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote in news:865fe799-5cf0-4026-80fa-
:





On Jul 30, 5:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:


http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx


http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi....
0small.pptx


Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.


--Damon


Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.


I'm sure that's exactly what they're trying to do: demonstrate a clear
growth path that will be most cost-effective. *Doesn't mean the most
rational plan will be the winner, alas.

First time I've seen engine flow diagrams with temps, pressures and mass
rates.

--Damon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


You're quite right on that. Reality will bite Space X and the other
Commercial Space providers in the ass when the House and Senate
reconcile their NASA budget bills. They need to realize that they just
don't have the votes to do what they want, and many of those on the
relevant House/Senate committees are very skeptical of Commercial
Providers, some of whom have made some extravagant promises and
haven't yet delivered. Space X was promising back in '05-'06 when COTS
got going that they'd have cargo runs to ISS by 2009. They've only
flown one test flight so far, and haven't even begun work on the crew
side. Tip O'Neil said "All politics is local." That's why all the
congresscritters who have NASA and contractor facilities which were
working on Constellation are fighting to preserve the work that's been
done so that the $9 Billion that's been spent has something tangible
to show for it. And they probably will: a full-up version of Orion,
and either Ares V light or a Direct (shuttle derived) vehicle. Not to
mention that the Commercial providers have to stop talking and start
flying, or they're in deep do-doo with Congress.
  #6  
Old August 1st 10, 03:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On 1/08/2010 3:15 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:54 pm, Damon wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi...
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon


Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.


Where they'll be in 20 years? Have a look at what they've achieved in
just eight years. They've developed two launch vehicles, complete with
all the engines; all with about 1,000 people - how many did NASA need to
develop the Saturn I/1b? And how long did it take.

SpaceX will probably be launching people to ISS in three years or so;
and then they can plan on other things (Moon, Mars etc). Not bad for an
entire national effort, let alone a 'start-up' (some would say
'up-start') company.
  #7  
Old August 1st 10, 09:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jochem Huhmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

Matt Wiser writes:

You're quite right on that. Reality will bite Space X and the other
Commercial Space providers in the ass when the House and Senate
reconcile their NASA budget bills.


SpaceX seems to have quite a few customers outside NASA. Most of them,
actually.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  #8  
Old August 2nd 10, 02:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On Aug 1, 7:41*am, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 1/08/2010 3:15 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Jul 30, 5:54 pm, Damon *wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:


http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx


http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi....
0small.pptx


Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.


--Damon


Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.


Where they'll be in 20 years? *Have a look at what they've achieved in
just eight years. *They've developed two launch vehicles, complete with
all the engines; all with about 1,000 people - how many did NASA need to
develop the Saturn I/1b? *And how long did it take.

SpaceX will probably be launching people to ISS in three years or so;
and then they can plan on other things (Moon, Mars etc). *Not bad for an
entire national effort, let alone a 'start-up' (some would say
'up-start') company.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The proof is in flying- and not just the single Falcon 9 test flight.
They need to fly repeatedly to silence the skeptics, and I'm one of
them. There's some folks out there who think Musk is some sort of god,
but they need to realize that right now, there just isn't enough
support in either the House or Senate to get what they want. The
Senate bill is the best option that preserves a government launch
vehicle to LEO and BEO, along with Orion, JIC these commercial
providers fail to deliver on their promises-and that is the main
concern of Congress that I got from watching the hearings on C-Span.
They kept pressing Bolden and the Presidential Science Advisor about
what Plan B is in case the commercial side can't deliver, and weren't
getting any satisfactory answer. I've seen commercial advocates asking
why there's so much opposition, and it boils down to Tip O'Neil's
adage that "All Politics is Local." Meaning that Senators and
Congresscritters who have contractors in their districts doing
Constellation work want those companies and people still doing
business with NASA, even if it's a "Son of Constellation" program.
Promises of more jobs in 5-7 years if commercial works is fine, but it
doesn't put food on the table or pay the mortgage. They want to keep
working. Maybe if the economy was in better shape, there wouldn't be
as much opposition, or maybe not.
  #9  
Old August 2nd 10, 03:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Alan Erskine[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,026
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On 2/08/2010 11:44 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


The proof is in flying- and not just the single Falcon 9 test flight.
They need to fly repeatedly to silence the skeptics, and I'm one of
them. There's some folks out there who think Musk is some sort of god,
but they need to realize that right now, there just isn't enough
support in either the House or Senate to get what they want. The
Senate bill is the best option that preserves a government launch
vehicle to LEO and BEO, along with Orion, JIC these commercial
providers fail to deliver on their promises-and that is the main
concern of Congress that I got from watching the hearings on C-Span.
They kept pressing Bolden and the Presidential Science Advisor about
what Plan B is in case the commercial side can't deliver, and weren't
getting any satisfactory answer. I've seen commercial advocates asking
why there's so much opposition, and it boils down to Tip O'Neil's
adage that "All Politics is Local." Meaning that Senators and
Congresscritters who have contractors in their districts doing
Constellation work want those companies and people still doing
business with NASA, even if it's a "Son of Constellation" program.
Promises of more jobs in 5-7 years if commercial works is fine, but it
doesn't put food on the table or pay the mortgage. They want to keep
working. Maybe if the economy was in better shape, there wouldn't be
as much opposition, or maybe not.


You obviously haven't heard that Constellation has been cancelled. It's
in NASA's budget proposal for 2011. Also, why would the government want
a program like Constellation when the privateers are doing just as well
without any government funding and for a lot less money?

It's called "Commercialisation" and it works. Why would the government
want to preserve a launch vehicle when private company's can provide the
same, if not better, service for less money and with no government funding?

Where does the taxpayer benefit from having a "government launch
vehicle"? Also, what opposition is there? It's been noticably quiet in
that area since the announcement of Constellation's cancellation.
  #10  
Old August 2nd 10, 03:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On 08/01/2010 09:35 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 2/08/2010 11:44 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


The proof is in flying- and not just the single Falcon 9 test flight.
They need to fly repeatedly to silence the skeptics, and I'm one of
them. There's some folks out there who think Musk is some sort of god,
but they need to realize that right now, there just isn't enough
support in either the House or Senate to get what they want. The
Senate bill is the best option that preserves a government launch
vehicle to LEO and BEO, along with Orion, JIC these commercial
providers fail to deliver on their promises-and that is the main
concern of Congress that I got from watching the hearings on C-Span.
They kept pressing Bolden and the Presidential Science Advisor about
what Plan B is in case the commercial side can't deliver, and weren't
getting any satisfactory answer. I've seen commercial advocates asking
why there's so much opposition, and it boils down to Tip O'Neil's
adage that "All Politics is Local." Meaning that Senators and
Congresscritters who have contractors in their districts doing
Constellation work want those companies and people still doing
business with NASA, even if it's a "Son of Constellation" program.
Promises of more jobs in 5-7 years if commercial works is fine, but it
doesn't put food on the table or pay the mortgage. They want to keep
working. Maybe if the economy was in better shape, there wouldn't be
as much opposition, or maybe not.


You obviously haven't heard that Constellation has been cancelled. It's
in NASA's budget proposal for 2011.


You obviously don't know how the US government works, or what a
"proposal" means.

The president's FY11 NASA budget *proposes* to cancel Constellation. But
Constellation is funded through the end of FY10, and Congress decides
what federal agencies are authorized to do and how much money is to be
appropriated for them to do it.

The House NASA Authorization bill continues Constellation in all but
name. The Senate bill also dumps the Constellation name but retains
Orion and authorizes a new shuttle-derived HLV to replace Ares.

The administration has endorsed the Senate bill. SpaceX has endorsed it
as well. The most likely outcome in the end is a compromise that
strongly resembles the Senate bill.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Next plans for AMSAT: P3E and P5A Jim Kingdon Space Science Misc 2 October 5th 04 07:20 AM
New plans not too dissimilar to SEI? Steen Eiler Jørgensen Policy 10 January 21st 04 07:38 PM
Moon plans Jim Kingdon Space Science Misc 0 January 15th 04 12:03 AM
MIR plans Nicolas Deault Space Station 6 November 26th 03 06:50 AM
New vehicle from old plans? gene Space Shuttle 19 September 12th 03 03:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.