Register here

Author Topic: SpaceX (general discussion)  (Read 211957 times)

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2014, 06:51:21 pm »
1.  Once SpaceX gets the details worked out for their first stage recovery process and starts to do it on land no one will be able to touch them on cost. I am looking forward to SpaceX's next evolution.


2. Private space is showing it is the way to go.

3.  And it is made in America to boot.

1.  Not a given, and highly unlikely

2.  SpaceX is no different than ULA.  More than 1/2 of the development cost of the Dragon and Falcon 9 was funded by NASA.  Conversely, Boeing and Lockheed internally funded higher percentages of the Delta IV and Atlas V development.

3.  So is Delta IV



Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2014, 06:52:47 pm »

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.

Who said they are resting

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11073
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2014, 07:10:02 pm »

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.

Who said they are resting

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2014, 08:24:25 pm »

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.

Who said they are resting

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)


Scott,


You are in fact right they are resting and talking down the competition making all kinds of excuses, from what I've observed.  Additionally, they are (IMO) overconfident that if the competition has to meet their requirements that their costs will be the same.  When that starts to look iffy the excuse is that they're a privately held company and don't have to make a profit. 


FWIW once upon a time I worked said program and even reviewed some new entrant criteria.  Suffices to say quite a bit of the establishment (blue suits included) don't believe the boys from Hawthorne can do what they're claiming they can.  Caveat, my experience is a few years dated, but recent convos with some folks indicate things haven't changed much.  Guess we'll know more by the end of the year.


Cheers

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2014, 05:49:52 am »

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)


Common avionics, common processes, common factory, common payload adapters, common upperstage engine, and eventually common upperstage.

The above post is also wrong, the info is dated. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11073
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2014, 08:11:17 am »

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)


Common avionics, common processes, common factory, common payload adapters, common upperstage engine, and eventually common upperstage.

Nothing groundbreaking about that.  In fact I'd argue that they're incurring needless expense by keeping both the Delta and Atlas lines running. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2014, 01:31:41 pm »
Video from Spacex Channel Youtube website.
 
 

 
 

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2014, 01:48:33 pm »
Interesting.  Are they pulsing the main engines to produce low controlled thrust?
Bill Walker

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2014, 11:20:02 am »
No, they are not.

Next attempt at landing will happen on a barge.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 677
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2014, 11:36:05 am »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is strange to think that if they had just re-calibrated expectations on the delta clipper and made it a "first stage", we would have been here long ago....

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2037
  • I am not actually here.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2014, 12:05:17 pm »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is strange to think that if they had just re-calibrated expectations on the delta clipper and made it a "first stage", we would have been here long ago....


Delta Clipper was originally funded by SDIO (through the SSRT program) to be a technology demonstrator for a reusable first stage for launching ballistic missile targets.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7133
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2014, 12:06:47 pm »
Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

Not really. SpaceX success features a few things that work *against* it being newsworthy:
1) It's an example of American exceptionalism/ingenuity
B ) It's an example of private enterprise succeeding where government has not
iii) It's a success for the One Percent
Δ) It's not a success for the likes of Gubmint-Entrenched MegaBloatCorps
∞) No Kardashian involvement
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Online sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 677
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2014, 12:10:56 pm »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is strange to think that if they had just re-calibrated expectations on the delta clipper and made it a "first stage", we would have been here long ago....


Delta Clipper was originally funded by SDIO (through the SSRT program) to be a technology demonstrator for a reusable first stage for launching ballistic missile targets.

Jerry Pournelle said his original idea for the Delta Clipper was a low cost  Single-Stage-To-Orbit spacecraft.

Offline Machdiamond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2014, 01:27:17 pm »
In my opinion these sea landing trials don't make the news yet because the unspecialized media fails to grasp the historical significance and engineering feat that they represent.
This will change when the first landings will occur at Cape Canaveral (or some other place).

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2014, 09:01:41 pm »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this.

Minor correction here, but this is now the second time they've successfully done a soft landing; the only issue is that last time the video was so terrible (either an error with the camera / recording, or a poor feed back to base) that if SpaceX hadn't said it worked, you wouldn't have been able to tell. The new video isn't that great either due to frost (which might be part of why the media hasn't covered the story), but it was still far better than the last video and will get better later in time.

Expect the barge landing to get far more exposure.