> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
> Kelly, you must of had a boring work life.
> SpaceX is the only rocket manufacturer that builds virtually
> their entire product in-house. ==

Yawn. Boeing L/M does everything from Mission control, to shuttle and KSC support, to cutting edge hypersonics, RLV research, etc.

SpaceX is just do ‘50’s-‘60’s style boosters and capsules.

>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm

>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
>> “so far they [Boeing, L/M, etc big areo] can’t convince investors its worth
>> investing much to go after [the commercial space market]

Hence my comment that if the alt.space firms actually prove there is a real market – major firms can show investors its worth developing something for. If they do develop, they are capable of doing it to a far more advanced and economical design then the current offerings.

“There were more viable, cheaper and quicker alternatives that used existing launch vehicles. Which could have solved the ISS support issue sooner.”

If you have knowledge, then why don’t you share it? Educating with facts is far better than debating with opinions. I assume you have sources you can identify?

“Falcon 9 Block I GTO capability is around 8000lbs

Versus their advertised Block 2 capacity of 10,320 lbs for $56M. Considering that they are selling the Block 2 capacities, your beef seems to be that you don’t believe that they can improve that amount from Block 1 to Block 2? Is that the issue here?

While you’re at it, maybe you could venture a guess why a savvy businessman like Musk would publicly advertise a capacity that they could have easily de-rated? Is there something in the launch business that would drive them to, according to your assertion, overstate their abilities publicly.

I did no assuming, I know. Falcon 9 Block I GTO capability is around 8000lbs

“You don’t seem to understand what their customers alternatives were ”

yes, I do and hence my comments. I have served in a launch vehicle selection process and know what is out there.

“Take away CRS (Tang, t shirts and toilet paper) which is not performance critical and was “fixed” competition due to COTS being fixed. Take away the Iridium contract, since the spacecraft have yet to obtain financing and what does Spacex have left? They haven’t won any NASA spacecraft contracts or any major comsats.”

I think this quote is relevant here:
“Did you ever observe to whom the accidents happen? Chance favors only the prepared mind.” – Louis Pasteur

You see the SpaceX win of COTS as some sort of conspiracy? Weird.

Did you ever think that maybe they were in the best position to win the contract? Think about it. They had a medium lift launcher that was in development, and would be available in the timeframe needed. They financial backing and seemed on solid financial footing. And they had already started developing their own capsule to make the deliveries. For NASA, that seemed pretty good, especially when you consider that no one else had a capsule being designed, much less in development like SpaceX.

You don’t seem to understand what their customers alternatives were when they placed their orders with SpaceX. SpaceX offers a lot more for the money than the closest competitor, and really there are no close competitors with regards to price. You think the price will go up over time, and most likely it will, but so will their competitors, and SpaceX will not need to raise prices by much, so they will still be the clear price leader. Don’t worry, they’ll be fine…

“So none of the numbers you quoted are applicable to the vehicle that just flew or the ones that are going to fly in the near term.”

Let’s examine that statement. If you had read the Falcon 9 User’s Guide, then you would have read this:

“The initial flights of the Falcon 9, currently planned in 2009 and 2010, use the Falcon 9 Block 1. Beginning in late 2010/early 2011, SpaceX will begin launching the Falcon 9 Block 2. Block 2 features increased engine thrust, decreased launch vehicle dry mass, and increased propellant load ‐ combined with lessons learned from the flights of the Falcon 9 Block 1. This results in increased mass‐to‐orbit performance for the Falcon 9 Block 2 when compared with Block 1 performance.”

Having come from a manufacturing background, what this tells me is that their test unit was probably one of their first production runs of everything, which usually means they are heavier and have slightly less performance. Follow-on production is optimized as they build more, so their weights come down (less rework and over-building) and the performance can be tweaked up to design specs.

Since they don’t specify what the Block 1 specs were, you have assumed that they were dramatically different, whereas I think they were probably on the order of 5% or less.

If you read the User’s Guide, you would have also seen this statement concerning performance:

“The performance shown is the maximum capability of the Falcon 9 Block 2 with margin withheld by SpaceX to ensure mission success.”

So like any good manufacturer, they are not presenting the maximum capabilities of their vehicle, but the maximum guaranteed capabilities.

And again, since they publish their specs and prices for the world to see, their customers will be the ultimate judge of whether they do what they say – and SpaceX only gets paid for performing a job as contracted, so it is not in their interest to fail on a contract, because they won’t get paid.

Not true. Take away CRS (Tang, t shirts and toilet paper) which is not performance critical and was “fixed” competition due to COTS being fixed. Take away the Iridium contract, since the spacecraft have yet to obtain financing and what does Spacex have left? They haven’t won any NASA spacecraft contracts or any major comsats.

“I know of no other major upgrades they have announced.”

You didn’t read the fine print on the Spacex F9 website

“Data reflects the Falcon 9 Block 2 design. ”

So none of the numbers you quoted are applicable to the vehicle that just flew or the ones that are going to fly in the near term.

So I guess you’re wrong about the “unflown” part and many other points in your posts.

So, SpaceX is not competitive in payload, and not way more competitive in price and as thing are going, Spacex costs are going to increase.

Know something more than quoting websites.

The great thing about lowering the cost to access space, is that it becomes easier to test out technologies, no matter how far fetched they may seem on Earth…

Last line should has said “Even then, …”.