Comments on: Briefly noted: JSC and Griffith

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:40:00 +0000

I asked someone at SpaceX about that:

“It’s an AF base, with good perimeter fence and armed security, and lots of cameras.”

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:57:25 +0000

“I hope Obamaspace and Space X goes down in flames tomorrow… I hope the damn thing blows up on the pad… Listen folks I am not opposed to commercial fligth [sic] only when they have prove3n [sic] themselves… Commercial boys when your ready and consistent then join the fray…”

So which is it? Do you want the “commercial boys” to become “consistent” or do you want their vehicles to go “down in flames” and blow up “on the pad”?

Go away, think hard about it for a while, and come back when you have a consistent position and argument.

“until then this country cannot afford to put all itâ€™s eggs in one basket”

NASA human space flight has four domestic, commercial baskets to turn to: Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, and Taurus II — on top of foreign systems including Soyuz, Progress, ATV, and HTV.

Don’t make things up.

“this world is too dangerous for such a venture”

Yes, we should ban commercial space flight because there are terrorists in the Middle East.

Sigh…

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:47:34 +0000

“They have already pissed away $300M of $1.2G in govenment funding.

No, they havn’t. Their COTS award is only $278 million, SpaceX doesn’t receive payment until it reaches predefined milestones, and the big flight milestones have yet to occur.

Don’t make ignorant, stupid statements.

“You donâ€™t know what you are talking about. As usualâ€¦”

Doctor, heal thyself.

Ugh…

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:41:24 +0000

“The launch facilities at CAFB were refurbished and reconfigured for SpaceX operations using ‘stimulus funding’ aka taxpayer dollars. This long-anticipated-long-overdue-slipped-scheduled launch is not a truly private enterprise funded venture.”

No, they weren’t. Only $50 million in stimulus funding went to commercial crew development (CCDev) and SpaceX wasn’t one of the awardees.

.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30135

Don’t make stuff up.

By: Bennett

Bennett — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:28:24 +0000

Curtis Quick wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 2:08 am

No Curtis, I’ve been thinking this too, for weeks. It’s not just the Cx gang or the Shuttle folks, but ULA and Boeing would love to have the seat price to the ISS stay at Russian levels.

Best wishes to SpaceX, Go on, change the world.

By: nasaengineer.com » Blog Archive » Labor Dept to Grant $15M to KSC Shuttle Workers, Texas Whines

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:20:38 +0000

[…] More whining here… […]

By: Josh Cryer

Josh Cryer — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:47:35 +0000

Vladislaw, I love those ESAS appendices... kept secret for years, until they were released to WikiLeaks, confirming every suspicion had about the architecture. A dud from the start.

By: Josh Cryer

Josh Cryer — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:34:52 +0000

DCSCA, any taxpayer money that SpaceX receives will be returned in spades by the factor of 5 cost reduction on future flights. Therefore your argument is specious at best, and downright dishonest at worst. The fact remains that the total monies given to SpaceX to date (over the past 4 years) are less than the total cost of the false Ares I-X “test” (first time in America’s history that we tested a vehicle that was not in any way representative of the final product; it’s true, not even Saturn I was dumbed down like Ares I-X was). We’re talking a factor of 5 cost reduction to NASA and a factor of 10 cost reduction to commercial space. It is absolutely ridiculous to bemoan one dime that SpaceX has received from the taxpayer. It will be paid back in spades. I for one am glad that taxpayer money brought us a low cost commercial provider at least a decade sooner than said provider would have been able to come about through general market interactions (SpaceX would have had to fly hundreds of Falcon 1’s if not thousands to get where they are today, it is non-trivial). Thank you American government for spending taxpayer money right and thank you Obama administration for trusting capitalism over public spending.

By: Rhyolite

Rhyolite — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:28:32 +0000

The Ares apologists have a peculiar need to obsess on SpaceX.

Suppose for the sake of argument that SpaceX did not exist, procuring commercial lift capabilities still makes more sense than completing Ares I. Preparing Atlas and Delta to launch astronauts still cost 1/10th the cost of completing Ares I and operating them would cost 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of operating Ares I. The development, cost and schedule risk are lower because Atlas and Delta are already flying. And they have established safety records.

If SpaceX proves out, so much the better. But it’s not necessary. It might be Plan C to Atlas and Delta’s Plan A and B.

I think the obsession Ares apologists about SpaceX come from the simple fact that they don’t have a rocket to stand on. Ares I is still 5 to 7 years – and many billions of dollars – away. Ares is the emperor with no clothes so its supporters have an acute need to direct attention away from its nakedness. SpaceX, while it is much further along than Ares I, makes a better target for Ares apologists because it is novel and still in development – therefore subject to risk. It is much easier to trumpet the development risks of Falcon 9 than admit the awful comparison of Ares I to any existing medium launch vehicle. It’s a poor strategy but it’s all they’ve got.

By: Curtis Quick

Curtis Quick — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:08:32 +0000

I hate to sound like a chicken-little, but alarming comments on this blog suggesting that some would enjoy seeing Falcon explode on the launch pad make me wonder if there is enough security surrounding the launch site. There is much to be lost by those who have benefited so much from the old system that they have a vested interested in making sure any new system won’t work.