New Falcon 9 photos

In message
"Legato" wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
New shots of the whole assembled rocket at the Cape:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Nice looking rocket; bears some resemblance to a Zenit booster.


NASA will be extremely pleased if this thing actually flies. It will give
them extra options to shorten the gap between the remaining Shuttle flights
and Ares becoming operational. No need to book Soyuz tickets (with all the
complicated politics involved) if Falcon 9 + Dragon can do the job.

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?

Anthony

"Anthony Frost" wrote in message
...
In message
"Legato" wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
New shots of the whole assembled rocket at the Cape:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Nice looking rocket; bears some resemblance to a Zenit booster.


NASA will be extremely pleased if this thing actually flies. It will
give
them extra options to shorten the gap between the remaining Shuttle
flights
and Ares becoming operational. No need to book Soyuz tickets (with all
the
complicated politics involved) if Falcon 9 + Dragon can do the job.

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?


Because Dragon isn't designed to go to the Moon but for LEO.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:25:20 +0000, in a place far, far away, Anthony
Frost made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In message
"Legato" wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
New shots of the whole assembled rocket at the Cape:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Nice looking rocket; bears some resemblance to a Zenit booster.


NASA will be extremely pleased if this thing actually flies. It will give
them extra options to shorten the gap between the remaining Shuttle flights
and Ares becoming operational. No need to book Soyuz tickets (with all the
complicated politics involved) if Falcon 9 + Dragon can do the job.

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?

In theory, Ares 1 is required to get Orion to the moon. Falcon 9 and
Dragon are LEO vehicles.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:22:14 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


I'm pretty sure that they've put much more effort into their rocketry
than their "hype machine."

Of course. Its just that their hype was about three years ahead of
their rocketry.

This statement is nonsensical. If it
really "seemed" that way to you, you weren't paying much attention to
their rocketry.

I paid attention to the first three Falcon 1 failures after listening
to years of SpaceX supporters telling us all how SpaceX was going to
put everyone else out of business.

How many rockets did early military and NASA "blow
through" before finding one that worked?

No other U.S. rocket went 0-for-3 and went on to find success. Not
one. Even the belittled and berated Vanguard found success on its
second all-up launch.

They have a Falcon 9 assembled at the launch site.

They built three pretty Falcon 1's that went kablooey, too.

Brian

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:30:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:22:14 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


I'm pretty sure that they've put much more effort into their rocketry
than their "hype machine."

Of course. Its just that their hype was about three years ahead of
their rocketry.

So? Are you admitting that your original statement about them
emphasizing hype over rocketry was incorrect?

This statement is nonsensical. If it
really "seemed" that way to you, you weren't paying much attention to
their rocketry.

I paid attention to the first three Falcon 1 failures after listening
to years of SpaceX supporters telling us all how SpaceX was going to
put everyone else out of business.

Why would you confuse "SpaceX supporters" with SpaceX, or attribute it
to "their hype machine"? I think that it's natural that some would
look for hope after years of disappointment from NASA and its
contractors.

How many rockets did early military and NASA "blow
through" before finding one that worked?

No other U.S. rocket went 0-for-3 and went on to find success. Not
one. Even the belittled and berated Vanguard found success on its
second all-up launch.

Then SpaceX has made a significant achievement. One could admire
their persistance, but instead you denigrate them.

They have a Falcon 9 assembled at the launch site.

They built three pretty Falcon 1's that went kablooey, too.

Yes, and the first Falcon 9s may do so as well. But they go kablooey
a lot faster, and a lot cheaper, and eventually, I suspect they'll
work.

In message
"Legato" wrote:

"Anthony Frost" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?

Because Dragon isn't designed to go to the Moon but for LEO.

So you're agreeing there's no need for Ares 1 as Falcon 9 can handle
those missions, and no rush for Orion because it's not needed for LEO
operations and can wait for Ares 5.

Anthony

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:46:12 +0000, in a place far, far away, Anthony
Frost made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In message
"Legato" wrote:

"Anthony Frost" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?

Because Dragon isn't designed to go to the Moon but for LEO.

So you're agreeing there's no need for Ares 1 as Falcon 9 can handle
those missions, and no rush for Orion because it's not needed for LEO
operations and can wait for Ares 5.

It's not designed to go on Ares 5. It's designed to go on Ares 1
(sort of).

On Jan 4, 4:11*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:46:12 +0000, in a place far, far away, Anthony
Frost made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In message
* * * * *"Legato" wrote:

"Anthony Frost" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?

Because Dragon isn't designed to go to the Moon but for LEO.

So you're agreeing there's no need for Ares 1 as Falcon 9 can handle
those missions, and no rush for Orion because it's not needed for LEO
operations and can wait for Ares 5.

It's not designed to go on Ares 5. *It's designed to go on Ares 1
(sort of).


In theory the Ares 5 could be redesigned for Orion to fly on it as
well, but then that would mean restructuring away from the philosophy
of separating people and cargo that has been so highly touted. It
would also likely mean reducing the scope of the Constellation
missions as one the main reasons in the first place to fly Orion, the
Altair lander, and the departure stage separately was the size of the
Altair lander and the departure stage was too large to allow room for
the Orion spacecraft. Either that or now the Ares 5 has to been
massively upgraded in performance and right now it is _already_ a 188
metric ton to LEO rocket as is! Not to mention, the Ares 5 will have
to be reengineered to accomadate the Orion Launch Escape System (LAS).
-Mike
-Mike

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:22:14 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
This statement is nonsensical. If it really "seemed" that way to you,
you weren't paying much attention to their rocketry.

I paid attention to the first three Falcon 1 failures after listening
to years of SpaceX supporters telling us all how SpaceX was going to
put everyone else out of business.

And months of everyone explaining how the latest failure was an
anomoly and the *next* launch would prove everyone wrong - and how
equipment flying (not matter how short the trajectory) was all
important...

How many rockets did early military and NASA "blow
through" before finding one that worked?

No other U.S. rocket went 0-for-3 and went on to find success. Not
one. Even the belittled and berated Vanguard found success on its
second all-up launch.

Well, the Polaris AX did - but that was a "failure is not an option,
cost in no object" national security program.

They have a Falcon 9 assembled at the launch site.

They built three pretty Falcon 1's that went kablooey, too.

Come now - drink some Kool-Aid and realize how far we've come. No
longer are pretty powerpoints enough to intoxicate the Faithful, it
now requires hardware.

It doesn't however require a reasonable flight record.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jan 4, 10:25*am, Anthony Frost wrote:
In message
* * * * * "Legato" wrote:

*
* "Pat Flannery" wrote in message
thdakotatelephone...
* New shots of the whole assembled rocket at the Cape:
* http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
* Nice looking rocket; bears some resemblance to a Zenit booster.
*
*
* NASA will be extremely pleased if this thing actually flies. It will give
* them extra options to shorten the gap between the remaining Shuttle flights
* and Ares becoming operational. No need to book Soyuz tickets (with all the
* complicated politics involved) if Falcon 9 + Dragon can do the job.

On the other hand, if Falcon 9 and Dragon are operational why do you
need Ares 1 and is there any rush for Orion?


Don't count your chickens until they've hatched. Neither Falcon 9, nor
Dragon are "operational" in any sense of the word. Some hardware is
being put together and tested and that's about it right now; Falcon 9
more so right now than Dragon. But neither have been flown or proven
out yet.
-Mike