Air Force to serve as first SpaceX customer

It never fails to amaze me that NASA doesn't actively seek out new
launch vehicles for its payloads. Under current NASA regs, I believe
that SpaceX would have to launch its Falcon rocket 14 times
successfully before NASA could put a payload on it.

What is the benefit to the US taxpayer for NASA to not support new,
cheaper launch vehicles? The satellite companies, conversely, used to
award block contracts to untested launch vehicles in the hopes that
some of these would emerge as cheaper launchers for GEO satellites. In
the case of SeaLaunch this policy worked very well.

On 23 Oct 2003 10:08:15 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It never fails to amaze me that NASA doesn't actively seek out new
launch vehicles for its payloads. Under current NASA regs, I believe
that SpaceX would have to launch its Falcon rocket 14 times
successfully before NASA could put a payload on it.

That's not an irrational position, given the early failure rates of
new vehicles.

What is the benefit to the US taxpayer for NASA to not support new,
cheaper launch vehicles? The satellite companies, conversely, used to
award block contracts to untested launch vehicles in the hopes that
some of these would emerge as cheaper launchers for GEO satellites. In
the case of SeaLaunch this policy worked very well.

I think that it would actually behoove launch companies to build test
flights into their business plan, instead of alway expecting the
government to pay for them. If they don't have a design that allows
an affordable flight-test phase, then they probably don't have a
design that will significantly reduce launch costs.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
It never fails to amaze me that NASA doesn't actively seek out new
launch vehicles for its payloads. Under current NASA regs, I believe
that SpaceX would have to launch its Falcon rocket 14 times
successfully before NASA could put a payload on it.

Actually, that's not true. A NASA payload could ride the first launch of a
new design, once it had been subjected to a thorough certification process.
The document at
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/procurement/...aunvehcert.pdf will
explain the process. It is true that NASA does reserve the right to require
that a Category 3 payload (e.g. Cassini) be launched on an LV configuration
that has demonstrated 14 successful launches in a row. However, this is not
true of category 1 or 2 payloads. One of the projects that I'm working on
now is an examination of the Delta IV M+4,2 for use in orbiting a GOES
satellite (a category 2 bird). By the manifested launch date, Delta IV will
have flown 5 times, only one of which is the same as the configuration
selected for the GOES launch.

What is the benefit to the US taxpayer for NASA to not support new,
cheaper launch vehicles?

NASA is not the only agency that can support new vehicles, as the DOD is
proving. Given its budget, I think you can understand why NASA might be more
willing to let some other customer be the pioneer. Still, I believe you'll
see NASA payloads on SpaceX at some time in the future.

The satellite companies, conversely, used to
award block contracts to untested launch vehicles in the hopes that
some of these would emerge as cheaper launchers for GEO satellites. In
the case of SeaLaunch this policy worked very well.

Was Zenit, a proven booster, modified that much for the SeaLaunch
enterprise? Or was the only thing new the launch concept?

-Kim-

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I think that it would actually behoove launch companies to build test
flights into their business plan, instead of alway expecting the
government to pay for them. If they don't have a design that allows
an affordable flight-test phase, then they probably don't have a
design that will significantly reduce launch costs.

The industry practice seems to be one of offering first flight to a
commercial customer for a very reduced price. This has been true of Atlas
II, IIAS, III & V, Delta III & IV. The last time the government paid for a
first flight may have been the first Titan IV launch back in '89.

-Kim-

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:11:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
I think that it would actually behoove launch companies to build test
flights into their business plan, instead of alway expecting the
government to pay for them. If they don't have a design that allows
an affordable flight-test phase, then they probably don't have a
design that will significantly reduce launch costs.

The industry practice seems to be one of offering first flight to a
commercial customer for a very reduced price. This has been true of Atlas
II, IIAS, III & V, Delta III & IV. The last time the government paid for a
first flight may have been the first Titan IV launch back in '89.

Perhaps I should have written "...expecting some customer to pay for
them."

The industry practice, to date, also seems to be to offer very
expensive, unreliable launch systems...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

The industry practice, to date, also seems to be to offer very
expensive, unreliable launch systems...

That's not unique to the space industry. The mantra among software
customers is "never buy a dot-zero version of anything." The cynical among
us suspect that's the main reason why Microsoft started getting cute with
their version numbers starting with Windows 95.

Personally, I am skeptical of buying first-model-year cars, as well.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:11:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..


I think that it would actually behoove launch companies to build test
flights into their business plan, instead of alway expecting the
government to pay for them. If they don't have a design that allows
an affordable flight-test phase, then they probably don't have a
design that will significantly reduce launch costs.


The industry practice seems to be one of offering first flight to a
commercial customer for a very reduced price. This has been true of Atlas
II, IIAS, III & V, Delta III & IV. The last time the government paid for a
first flight may have been the first Titan IV launch back in '89.



Perhaps I should have written "...expecting some customer to pay for
them."


I like the idea of offering the first flights of a new launcher at a
deep discount.
Sending sand bags to orbit serves no purpose. Of course you don't put
expensive
satellites on an untested launch vehicle. But if you are in the business of
building satellites on the cheap, launching them on the cheap makes sense,
even if you might lose the thing on the way up.

Alain Fournier

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

That's not unique to the space industry. The mantra among software
customers is "never buy a dot-zero version of anything." The cynical among
us suspect that's the main reason why Microsoft started getting cute with
their version numbers starting with Windows 95.

I stuck with Windows 3.1 then made the jump to Win 98SE, which I'm
still using at home. I've considered jumping to Win2k (to avoid
WinXP), but have yet to find a compelling reason to "upgrade".

Personally, I am skeptical of buying first-model-year cars, as well.

Me too, but that won't stop you from getting a "lemon". I skipped the
first year Escape bought an '02 Escape with the 4WD, V6, auto, and
etc. and got burned because the ZF transmission in the thing wasn't
"beefed up" enough from the previous version (used in previous cars).
The torque converter started to shudder, and I came to find that this
was a design defect that Ford (and ZF) couldn't fix. They glossed
over the issue by changing the transmission fluid, and later coming
out with a different program for the transmission (don't lock the
torque converter until a higher RPM).

By then it was too late. We traded the thing for an '04 Pontiac Vibe
(a Toyota Corola Matrix in Pontiac drag). Pity, the Escape was very
fun to drive. The Vibe just doesn't have the torque (especially at
low RPM's) or the horsepower to make feel as responsive as the Escape.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.