|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:38 PM |
Moon plans | Jim Kingdon | Space Science Misc | 0 | January 14th 04 11:03 PM |
MIR plans | Nicolas Deault | Space Station | 6 | November 26th 03 05:50 AM |
New vehicle from old plans? | gene | Space Shuttle | 19 | September 12th 03 03:50 PM |