Comments on: It’s commercial space week

By: great idea

great idea — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:30:43 +0000

Tommy,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575124772932031294.html

Below is a clip from today’s WSJ (linked above), pretty much what yesterday’s article said too. I think the words push launch and delays qualifies as a “DELAY”.

Mr. Musk himself conceded in an email that most likely “some set of unexpected things will happen that push launch to May or June.” Other SpaceX officials say delays could end up lasting longer.

Don’t make things up that a delay was not mentioned Tommy…

By: googaw

googaw — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:23:51 +0000

A real commercial order for Falcon 9 is a good sign. About the only thing that SpaceX was racking up recently until this Loral order was NASA “milestone” payments. SpaceX still has a shot at avoiding the road taking by Orbital Sciences to government contractor zombiehood, but they will have to eschew Commercial Crew and focus on real commerce like this order in order to avoid that fate. It’s not likely, given the dominating nature of NASA financial incentives, but it could be done.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:35:19 +0000

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100315

SpaceX keeps racking up the orders…

Robert G. Oler

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:55:38 +0000

“Looks like SpaceX April launch may be delayed. Seems like they are not as ready as people thought and need NASA experts to help them out.”

There’s nothing in the WSJ article summary about a delay. SpaceX is still targeting April 12, per Musk’s test-fire postgame. And the launch is pending USAF clearance, not NASA.

Don’t make things up…

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:53:14 +0000

Bolden’s speech is available here:

spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33707

FWIW…

By: Trent Waddington

Trent Waddington — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:51:14 +0000

great idea, Andy Pasztor has lost all credibility.

By: googaw

googaw — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:36:40 +0000

John:
The real problem with Ares is just too much bureaucracy.

This is quite right. The problem cannot be solved by simply putting this bureaucracy on a “better” project (DIRECT, etc.). The Exploration Directorate needs a reboot.

By: great idea

great idea — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:39:37 +0000

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575124772932031294.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews

Looks like SpaceX April launch may be delayed. Seems like they are not as ready as people thought and need NASA experts to help them out.

By: John

John — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:49:22 +0000

The real problem with Ares is just too much bureaucracy. This was a simple application of existing technology. If this was done right that is no way it would cost all those billions and take 12 or more years.

By: Jim Hillhouse

Jim Hillhouse — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:34:00 +0000

Sen. Nelson: “…to look at the commercial rocket competitors and whether they need the $6 billion the President has recommended over the next 5 years in order for them to get humans to and from the International Space Station.” Well, that sort of tells you where he’s going, and it doesn’t sound like he believes the number is just $6B.

I don’t think anyone that has ever worked on a space program believes these guys can get by with the paltry sum the Administration is budgeting. It’s not like the darling of alt-space, SpaceX, has a good record of on-time (4 years over) and on-budget (needed an extra $100M) performance or is without launch issues (2/5 launch attempts). Of course, once Shuttle and Constellation are gone, Boeing, Orbital, and SpaceX will be able to demand whatever they want and we’ll have to pay it.

Anyway, without this money, the “commercial” can’t get into the human space business. But…doesn’t that make them…well, “subsidized” launchers?