Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?

was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

In article b12e1d69-1446-458b-892c-c95d5d4b94e4
@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

No big breakthroughs required. The biggest change was in the way the
company is managed. Musk runs the company like a hungry new start-up
(which it is), so it's full of younger people (seen cheering in the
videos on-line following the current Dragon mission). Younger workers
tend to have huge enthusiasm and will often put in very long hours when
the project they're working on excites them. Older workers often have
"lives outside of work" and can't commit nearly as much time (I fit that
description at this point in my life).

The biggest thing Must changed was to put the focus on low cost from the
very beginning. He never cared about the "performance uber alles"
mindset that Henry Spencer constantly referred to when talking about the
LH2/LOX proponents (Falcon 9 uses lower ISP LOX/kerosene). Avoiding LH2
makes life easier since it's a deep cryogenic.

Doing much of their work without constant NASA oversight also helped a
lot. Naturally, they've had more oversight with Dragon than Falcon 9,
since Dragon had to berth with ISS and Falcon 9 will never come close to
ISS. Fortunately, the oversight with Dragon seems to be quite
reasonable. Allowing SpaceX to combine the first two demonstration
flights into one (the one happening now) has paid off quite well.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article . com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

In article . com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

Q: What was different about working with a private
corporation compared to a government agency?

A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
requirements and expected the governments to work
with contractors to ensure they met the build to
requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
would tell us how they would accomplish the same
objectives.

So that's one reason why SpaceX can have lower costs. Letting SpaceX
design Dragon and having the NASA engineers talking directly to SpaceX
engineers is more efficient and allows for more innovation.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

In article b12e1d69-1446-458b-892c-c95d5d4b94e4
@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com, says...

was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

No big breakthroughs required. The biggest change was in the way the
company is managed. Musk runs the company like a hungry new start-up
(which it is), so it's full of younger people (seen cheering in the
videos on-line following the current Dragon mission). Younger workers
tend to have huge enthusiasm and will often put in very long hours when
the project they're working on excites them. Older workers often have
"lives outside of work" and can't commit nearly as much time (I fit that
description at this point in my life).

Quote from today's press conference:

Q: Who are you tapping to work for the company, where are they
coming from?

A: Average age is around 30. Have a good mixture of experience
and new college graduates.

Oh, and the nay-sayers can sulk over the congratulations being showered
on SpaceX by people in the space community:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...unity-leaders-
historic-berthing-dragon-international-space-station

:-P

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In ,
says...

In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

Q: What was different about working with a private
corporation compared to a government agency?

A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
requirements and expected the governments to work
with contractors to ensure they met the build to
requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
would tell us how they would accomplish the same
objectives.

Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart.

On May 25, 7:52*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:





In ,
says...

In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. *It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. *As far as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? *Given the proper focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

* * Q: What was different about working with a private
* * corporation compared to a government agency?

* * A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
* * requirements and expected the governments to work
* * with contractors to ensure they met the build to
* * requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
* * government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
* * to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
* * would tell us how they would accomplish the same
* * objectives.

Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart.

will this success defund the planned orion manned launcher?

In article . com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In ,
says...

In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

Q: What was different about working with a private
corporation compared to a government agency?

A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
requirements and expected the governments to work
with contractors to ensure they met the build to
requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
would tell us how they would accomplish the same
objectives.

Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart.

Sure it does. They traditionally built hardware to meet NASA specs and
designs, not to what was most cost efficient. When you let them build
hardware the way they want to build hardware, costs and schedules drop,
especially when there is competition breathing down their necks.

For an example, compare Boeing and its CST-100 (competing with Dragon)
versus what's been done with Orion (no competition). Costs for Orion
are far higher and the schedule has been far longer.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article b3f2f845-6048-4cff-850d-eeb067970110
@a10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On May 25, 7:52*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:





In ,
says...

In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. *It was a combination of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. *As far as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? *Given the proper focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

* * Q: What was different about working with a private
* * corporation compared to a government agency?

* * A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
* * requirements and expected the governments to work
* * with contractors to ensure they met the build to
* * requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
* * government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
* * to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
* * would tell us how they would accomplish the same
* * objectives.

Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart.

will this success defund the planned orion manned launcher?

Not necessarily. Different requirements. LEO mission requirements are
easier than Orion's deep space requirements.

Still, LEO should be "routine", so it's the perfect place for commercial
competition.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker