New Falcon 9 photos

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:40:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:29:12 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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:

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.

Because of course SpaceX supporters just suddenly popped out of nowhere.

Is there some point to this comment?

Obviously. Perhaps if you think real hard, you can figure it out.



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? They're successful? They've got a long history of successful
launches?

Are you saying that their last launch wasn't successful? That it
should be ignored? Or what?

I'm saying a single launch doesn't make for a successful rocket program.

Who said it did?

I mean if a 75% failure rate is success, then I guess they're doing great.
But otherwise, right now I don't think you can point to it and call it a
successful program.

Who said I could?

Oh wait no, this is just hype on your part.

It's "hype" to simply point out the fact that their most recent launch
was completely successful?

No, it's hype to believe that a single success can somehow make an entire
program "successful".

Well, if I had done that, you might have a point, but so far, you have
failed to make one.


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.

If they don't go out of business first. Reality is they only have so much
money.

Reality is that they'll have no money raising what they need with
their new COTS contract in hand.

Somehow I suspect to get all the money, they'll actually have to have a
better than 25% success rate.

Of course they will. Who said otherwise? Are you out of straw yet?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
You're putting a lot of faith in a company that blew through three
Falcon 1's before finally finding one that worked, and seemed to put
more effort into its hype machine than in its rocketry.

I wish SpaceX success, but I have grave doubts that they'll have much
anytime soon.

You're ignoring the fact that their launch vehicles cost far less than the
competition. Their focus was on low cost, not "failure is not an option"
reliability on launch number one. As such, their development costs were
still very low compared to traditional launch vehicle development (which
still does not guarantee an error free first launch).

History will tell how successful Space-X will be, but from my point of view,
they're on the right track. In the long run, their lower costs will put
them ahead of the competition.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

wrote:

Please, Pat. Don't curse the poor rocket. The Zenits have an awful
reliability and safety record. ;-)
-Mike


It could be worse; I could have said it resembled a Bulava SLBM. ;-)

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:
You're ignoring the fact that their launch vehicles cost far less than the
competition. Their focus was on low cost, not "failure is not an option"
reliability on launch number one. As such, their development costs were
still very low compared to traditional launch vehicle development (which
still does not guarantee an error free first launch).

History will tell how successful Space-X will be, but from my point of view,
they're on the right track. In the long run, their lower costs will put
them ahead of the competition.


But reliability is also very important from the customer's point of
view; they aren't going to be sticking their satellites or spacecraft
atop a rocket that has much less than a 90% minimum success rate, and
that's why I think that SpaceX should've gotten some more successful
Falcon 1 launches under its belt before moving on to Falcon 9.

Pat

On Jan 5, 9:12*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

Please, Pat. Don't curse the poor rocket. The Zenits have an awful
reliability and safety record. ;-)
-Mike

It could be worse; I could have said it resembled a Bulava SLBM. ;-)

Or you could have cited the N-1. ;-)
-Mike

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:06:51 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I said it "seemed to". And I stand by that Falcon 1 has so far been a
lot more hype (SpaceX's or its fan clubs') than actual results.

And I think that remains nonsense. Hype is hype, results are results.
It's apples and eggs to even attempt to compare them.

I disagree. If a company promises a wonderful product and fails to
deliver, that is very relevant and not "nonsense".

I'd like all the hype to
be true and SpaceX to mop the floor with Boeing and LockMart, but
based on its track record so far, I think that's far-fetched, to say
the least.

Yes, because Boeing has such great sales of the Delta...

Boeing doesn't sell the Delta anymore, ULA does, and ULA is focusing
on Atlas, which is doing fairly well in a very soft market, mostly
government payloads, to be sure, but so are SpaceX's.

What do you expect will prevent them from having the vehicle at the
Cape on the pad in the next few months?

Historically speaking, something they're not expecting. In other
words, the same problems that kept it off the pad in 2008, when they
originally expected to fly it.

If/when they have another
consecutive successful launch, it will look quite foolish to claim
that they now have only a 25% reliability.

Why would I call a 2-for-5 record "25%"? They'll be at 40%. Getting
better, but hardly a world-beater.

Customers won't go near it.

They don't seem to agree with you.

I haven't seen any new Falcon 1 customers since the Flight 3 failure.
It doesn't help that that small satellite market has dried up, but
that hasn't stopped EADS from continuining with Vega development.

Has Falcon 1 signed up any new customers in the last two years?

Do you mean besides NASA?

Yes. Falcon 1 (the demonstrated turkey), not Falcon 9 (the untried
contender.)

Neither will I. But I also won't hyperbolically say that they're all
hype and no hardware.

I said more hype than hardware, not all and none. And I think I have a
case, although I'll admit the hype was more from the company's
supporters than the company itself. But the end result is the same:
the hype far exceeds any actual achievement.

Brian

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:33:01 -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 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:06:51 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I said it "seemed to". And I stand by that Falcon 1 has so far been a
lot more hype (SpaceX's or its fan clubs') than actual results.

And I think that remains nonsense. Hype is hype, results are results.
It's apples and eggs to even attempt to compare them.

I disagree. If a company promises a wonderful product and fails to
deliver, that is very relevant and not "nonsense".

It hasn't failed to deliver yet. In fact, it has delivered on the
first product, to a degree.

I'd like all the hype to
be true and SpaceX to mop the floor with Boeing and LockMart, but
based on its track record so far, I think that's far-fetched, to say
the least.

Yes, because Boeing has such great sales of the Delta...

Boeing doesn't sell the Delta anymore, ULA does, and ULA is focusing
on Atlas, which is doing fairly well in a very soft market, mostly
government payloads, to be sure, but so are SpaceX's.

Exactly. And Atlas is doing better than Delta because...?

What do you expect will prevent them from having the vehicle at the
Cape on the pad in the next few months?

Historically speaking, something they're not expecting. In other
words, the same problems that kept it off the pad in 2008, when they
originally expected to fly it.

A year ago?

Big whoop.

If/when they have another
consecutive successful launch, it will look quite foolish to claim
that they now have only a 25% reliability.

Why would I call a 2-for-5 record "25%"? They'll be at 40%. Getting
better, but hardly a world-beater.

I see you miss the point.

Customers won't go near it.

They don't seem to agree with you.

I haven't seen any new Falcon 1 customers since the Flight 3 failure.
It doesn't help that that small satellite market has dried up, but
that hasn't stopped EADS from continuining with Vega development.

Has Falcon 1 signed up any new customers in the last two years?

Do you mean besides NASA?

Yes. Falcon 1 (the demonstrated turkey), not Falcon 9 (the untried
contender.)

Why would SpaceX care about new Falcon 1 customers at this point? It
was their first entry, not their money maker.

Neither will I. But I also won't hyperbolically say that they're all
hype and no hardware.

I said more hype than hardware, not all and none.

Even that remains untrue.

And I think I have a
case, although I'll admit the hype was more from the company's
supporters than the company itself.

Which was the original point.

But the end result is the same: the hype far exceeds any actual
achievement.

And I continue to disagree. Any hardware is worth a lot more than any
amount of hype. It remains a nonsensical comparison.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
.. .
You're putting a lot of faith in a company that blew through three
Falcon 1's before finally finding one that worked, and seemed to put
more effort into its hype machine than in its rocketry.

I wish SpaceX success, but I have grave doubts that they'll have much
anytime soon.

You're ignoring the fact that their launch vehicles cost far less than the
competition.

Nobody is ignoring it Jeff - merely treating as what it is, utterly
irrelevant to the current discussion, which is of reliability.

Their focus was on low cost, not "failure is not an option"
reliability on launch number one. As such, their development costs were
still very low compared to traditional launch vehicle development (which
still does not guarantee an error free first launch).

A cheap program with a high failure rate is still a program with a
high failure rate.

History will tell how successful Space-X will be, but from my point of view,
they're on the right track. In the long run, their lower costs will put
them ahead of the competition.

Assuming that their reliability improves to the point where they start
getting paying customers and thus survive the long run.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

wrote:
Or you could have cited the N-1. ;-)


What's a "N-1"?
I assure you on behalf of the Soviet government that no 344.5 foot high
Moon rocket with 30 engines in its first stage ever existed, and that it
never blew up four times in a row.
By that, I of course mean that if a giant Moon rocket ever had existed,
and if such a theoretical rocket had ever been launched, it certainly
wouldn't have blown up four times in a row.
But such a thing never existed, so even discussion of such a
non-existing giant Moon rocket is pointless, and the work of revisionist
hooligans. :-)

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
A cheap program with a high failure rate is still a program with a
high failure rate.


And that's completely intolerable for a commercial space venture in
particular.
The insurance industry won't insure any commercial payloads going up on
the Falcons of any type without a proven track record of their reliability.
So next thing you know, the payloads will all be NASA or military...and
that will be done by a artificial selection process that favors SpaceX
over the competition, the way that the Shuttle was forced down the Air
Force's throat to replace the Titan III and IV.

Pat