Congress, Lobbying, NASA

SpaceX says thanks

Last month, when it appeared the full House would vote on its version of a NASA authorization bill, SpaceX sounded the alarm with an email blast, asking readers to contact their representatives and ask them to instead support the Senate version of the bill. Late today, SpaceX sent out a followup message, thanking readers and reminding them the battle isn’t done yet:

Thank You for Supporting the Future of Human Spaceflight

We recently asked for your help to protect the future of human spaceflight – and the response was impressive. Your phone calls and the efforts of supportive members of Congress helped stop the NASA Authorization bill from being pushed through the House of Representatives before important improvements could be made.

This bill would have authorized over five times more taxpayer dollars to fly NASA astronauts on the Russian Soyuz than to develop an American-made commercial alternative that would energize our economy and create jobs right here at home.

We still have a tough fight ahead of us, but many in Congress are starting to recognize that commercial vehicles like Dragon and Falcon 9 are the nation’s best option for ending our reliance on Russia to transport astronauts to the International Space Station and preserving America’s leadership role in space.

It’s not over yet. When the House returns from its summer recess in September, NASA Authorization bill H.R. 5781 will be up for vote again.

We hope you will continue to fight for the opportunity to show how a true public/private partnership can transform America’s space program.

We thank you for your support and look forward to working together to ensure an exciting future for American spaceflight.

–Elon–

229 comments to SpaceX says thanks

  • DCSCA

    “We still have a tough fight ahead of us, but many in Congress are starting to recognize that commercial vehicles like Dragon and Falcon 9 are the nation’s best option for ending our reliance on Russia to transport astronauts to the International Space Station and preserving America’s leadership role in space.”

    You mean a tough fight to squeeze government subsidies for ‘private’ space ventures instead of sourcing investment in the private capital markets, eh Elon. Pretty arrogant stuff. Put your money where your mouth is– if you have any left. Sell all of Tesla. Sell everything.

    Emperor Elon, it’s a pretty bogus pitch to compare nothing to something.

    You have flown nobody. You have not orbited a crewed, man-rated, operational manned Dragon/Falcon9 stack and returned anyone safely to Earth whereas the Russian Soyuz has been flying crews and cargo up to space stations for decades years.

    The United States government through the efforts of our civilian space agency, NASA, will lead the nation in space exploration as it has for half a century. Not SpaceX. Best you source investment in the private sector like a good little free market capitalist should. And the quickest way to do that is to stop talking and start flying. The world– and investors await.

  • amightywind

    Wow! What delusions of grandeur. Senator Shelby will crush him like a bug. The 50 year cycle of America’s daliance with crony capitalism is coming to a close.

  • Mr. Mark

    Thank you Elon, you are truly showing the way to the future of spaceflight! I’m looking forward to Spacex’s first fully functional Dragon flight in about a month and a half. It’s good news that the first fully functional cargo Dragon is now completed and that integration for the second flight will begin in a few weeks as reported by Aviation Week. The future belongs to both commercial and NASA. I’m looking to that future.

  • Mr. Mark

    DCSCA and amightwind, Just what is your deal. How can Spacex fly anyone at this point. Cargo Dragon has just been completed. NASA has not even made the requirements needed for human ratings public. So please tell me how Spacex can build a human rated spacecraft or anyone else for that matter? I don’t understand logic or lack of. Spacex is ahead of every other new space commercial provider and have even stated that they are concentrating on the here and now which is CARGO. Once again, they can’t build a human rated spacecraft without the human rating standards in place.

  • GaryChurch

    Falcon XX or SDHLV?

    I think my space agency is better than his spaceX. And I think NASA can do a NEO mission within 10 years and Musk may not even get an astronaut into orbit by then.

  • I don’t understand logic or lack of.

    Logic isn’t their bag.

  • In the world of things that fly and we that fly them we respect one thing- demonstrated ability. Musk has flown a Falcon 9 the most powerful liquid fueled rocket since AS210 and the first 9 engine liquid fueled cluster ever launched in the USA and orbited a boilerplate… I respect that.

    As for the rest of it…

    well… let’s see it. Other than that, shut yer’ pie hole until you put it in the sky. Demonstrated ability speaks louder than any PR in this business plus it earns respect. Elon’s team is working they’re collective butts off to get the next bird off, he needs to shut up and let them work. He has great people, now he needs to take a lesson from Jim Webb on program management.

  • Max, they can’t work if they’re starved.. and that’s what the big aerospace corps are trying to do to him.

    As for flying conferring respect, try to get that through to windy sometime.

  • DCSCA

    Max Peck wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 10:20 pm <-Well said, Max Peck.

    SpaceX's team earned kudos for getting a Falcon9 up.

    "Now he needs to take a lesson from Jim Webb on program management." Precisely. But Webb was dedicated to his assigned task, and wasn't an egocentric entrapreneur dabbling in distractions. Movies, actresses and such. He has flown nobody. He has zero experience in manned spaceflight operations and as such hardly in a position to present himself to Congress a the viable alternative to, of all things, Soyuz operations. He's a legend in his own mind.

    @Trent Waddington wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 10:25 pm – Welcome to the world of free market capitalism. Something the inventor of PayPal should be all too familiar with. If he's being 'starved' of capital, it's because he hasn't pitched a convincing plan that investors will buy into. The smartest thing he can do is to stick Bowersox in an operational, manned Dragon and orbit him like Glenn in '62 and land him safely. Nothing else hes says really matters now.

  • Bennett

    DCSCA is a tiresome troll, but at least he’s abandoned the whole “this writer” shtick in favor of =yawning= and composing stupid poetry that (no doubt) fills him with some sort of sick creative pride. His envy of Elon Musk is apparent with every comment.

    Poor him.

  • DCSCA

    Bennett wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 11:49 pm <- Don't be so hard on yourself. The only thing tiresome besides musketeer press releases is the tick-tock, tick-tock, of Elon's countdown clock. He flies nobody. But the day we read the following headlines, the loudest clapping you'll hear is from 'this writer': "MUSK ORBITS EARTH THREE TIMES; LANDS SAFELY; Dragon Capsule Recovered Off Hawaii; First Commerical Manned Space Flight Hailed A Success." The world awaits– as do investors.

  • Bennett, “troll” implies he’s just playing dumb, I think there’s ample evidence that he’s not playing.

  • DCSCA

    @MrMark – Apparently you missed the first sentence of the Emperor’s decree.. “We recently asked for your help to protect the future of human spaceflight….” He’s talking out the aft end of his service module, of course. As to ‘the here and now’ of cargo flights– something he has yet to accomplish– the Russians have been lofting Progress ‘cargo’ flights for decades to space stations. When he flies one it rates a yawn. Repeating what’s been done for years is nothing new. And if the fella who has anointed himself as the champion of the ‘future of human spaceflight’ needs NASA to tell him how to man-rate an operational spacecraft, that makes him a follower– not a leader. The Emperor has no clothes.

  • DCSCA, what have you done? nevermind.

  • Spaceboy

    “This bill would have authorized over five times more taxpayer dollars to fly NASA astronauts on the Russian Soyuz than to develop an American-made commercial alternative that would energize our economy and create jobs right here at home.”

    Um, no matter what bill gets approved, it is going to include funding to send astronauts to the ISS aboard the Russian Soyuz. Definitely for the 3 years covered by this bill and beyond that too. Regardless of whatever Elon whines, we will be paying the Russians a lot of money for rides to orbit for the next 3 years definitely, most likely 5 years. Stupid, stupid statement above, but than what can you expect from Mr. Press Release.

    For the record Mr. Musk, you did not create jobs, by stopping the bill, the House has ensured that there will be a continuing resolution. Because of this continuing resolution, Constellation and Orion and Ares and Ground Operations are going to be decimated on September 30. Hundreds more jobs will be lost in addition to the ~thousand jobs that were lost 2 months ago. Not to mention the 1400 job losses USA just announced (which doesnt even count Boeing’s numbers). But dont worry, the civil servants are all safe, its all of us contractors on Orion and CxP who are losing our jobs now in 7 weeks because of Elon’s self declared victory of causing a continuing resolution. A CR was the worst option out of any scenario. This is not myth, this is not rumor, this is fact. We have already been told, our jobs are gone. Hmmm…. has Elon hired around 3000 engineers/technicians while I wasnt looking? Must have missed that and all of the “creating jobs here at home”.

  • Spaceboy, a continuing resolution helps Cx.. which has been a dead dog for nearly 2 years now. That has nothing to do with SpaceX.

  • Spaceboy

    @Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 12:32 am

    “Spaceboy, a continuing resolution helps Cx.. which has been a dead dog for nearly 2 years now. That has nothing to do with SpaceX.”

    How exactly does a CR help Cx or anybody? It means a lot of people are going to lose their jobs in just a few weeks now. It also means no meaningful work will be accomplished over the next 3 months or more as the budget battles continue. Cx has almost 0 budget in the CR. When Elon claims that he caused the derailing of a House bill, that is what it has to do with SpaceX. Especially when he claims “creating jobs” as literally thousands of Aerospace employees are losing their jobs.

  • Spaceboy, Cx hasn’t had budget for its entirety. What are you talking about?

  • Spaceboy, perhaps this will help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution

    Do you see, Cx was funded in 2010, so a continuing resolution for 2011 will fund Cx, whereas neither the Senate and House bills fund the same as the 2010 appropriations bill did.

    Cx wins from a continuing resolution, that’s why people are scrambling to “compromise”.

  • Spaceboy

    Sorry Trent, but the President’s *proposed* budget had no funding for Cx. That proposed budget was resoundingly rejected by both the Senate and the House. Constellation had funding through previous authorization bills. The Senate bill effectively ended CxP, but kept Orion and a heavy lift vehicle alive. The House bill kept Cx alive with both Orion and Ares. I actually favored the Senate bill, because it was more of a compromise with the President’s bill, and thus I thought had a better chance of passage. Under a CR, everything limps along, but everything limps along at a pathetic rate. So under a CR, Cx continues, but continues with very little money and few people. Orion continues, with half the budget it was supposed to have in FY11. Ares continues with less than half the budget it was supposed to have in FY11. This means hundreds of people lose their jobs.

  • Spaceboy, what don’t you understand? Under CR Cx continues at 2010 funding.. that’s more than either bill provides.

    What would be more interesting is if the CR was blocked and NASA ended up with no budget at all for a year. Now that’d be the trainwreck you’re trying to sell.

    The reason people are being laid off now is because of Shuttle retirement and the fact that they have been breaking the law on the Cx side for years by not setting aside cancellation costs.

    Oh, and btw, it’s a space program, not a jobs program, go get a real job slackers.

  • Spaceboy

    Trent you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am at JSC. I have seen the budget marks for FY11 under a Continuing Resolution. It is bad, it is really really grim bad. Yes, the NASA budget continues at FY10 levels, but that does not mean they divied it up the same way. Cx is getting almost nothing under the CR. Ground Operations is getting a little it more than nothing. Orion and Ares are getting less than half of what the Fy10 budget showed their FY11 budgets needed to be.

    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and get a real job? So everybody who works for the government or works for a contractor for the government does not have a real job? Gee sorry that working our asses off for years didnt meet your standard.

    This is pointless, you are obvioulsy a complete idiot.

  • Spaceboy, if you have a job where you’re no longer needed you should get laid off.. not supported because your congressman has received donations from your employer. That’s the real world.

    As for calling me an idiot, wow, you have such a high level of discourse.

    “Gee sorry that working our asses off for years didnt meet your standard.”

    It’s not how much work you do, it’s how little you achieve for the billions of dollars that get allocated.

    Finally, you don’t work for JSC, you’re an anonymous voice on the Internet. If you want to claim you work for JSC, stop being anonymous.

  • Spaceboy, Obama’s original proposal gave commercial space in the United States 4 times what this budget gives to Russia, to build CCDev. Simple. The original $6 billion for CCDev would’ve paid for, oh, I dunno, two or three potential flight providers. Including the potential of having private space build a super heavy rocket for a fraction of the cost of the Nelson Rocket (using an MSFC/RocketDyne designed RP-1 engine). This is what SpaceX is effectively lamenting, that the Russians are getting paid more than American’s to build our own human-rated rocket.

    Sadly, congress doesn’t care one iota about a robust space industry, but rather short term jobs. It’s not about America, it’s about getting reelected.

  • Matt Wiser

    Since the Senate Bill is the likely NASA authorization bill that passes Congress, Musk should be thankful the Senate funded any commercial crew or cargo at all. There was a Space News article a few days back where NASA and Commercial providers were gathered to discuss future commercial spaceflight, and at least two industry representatives said the best way that skeptics can be convinced that the commercial industry can deliver is to fly. The sooner they fly with cargo and then crew, the skeptics (and I’m one of them) will be satisfied. Still, any commercial spacecraft with a NASA crew or NASA sponsored crew (contractors, foreign space agency astronauts with NASA) should have NASA oversight, NASA safety certification prelaunch, and NASA running Mission Control and handling recovery. You can expect Congress to get involved in this one way or another-namely by writing such requirements into law.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    My, the level of discourse on this blog is facinating.

    Spaceboy clearly hasn’t had a real job in his life. Guess that’s about to change ’cause who’d hire you with your ‘attitude’ Perhaps you might make it as a rap artist. Plenty of scope for swearing and hyperbole there. Can’t say you’re going to get much in the way of sympathy though -but hey, that’s life!

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    DCSCA et al continue to spout rubbish LOL

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Could Space Politics have discovered a new universal constant – rubbish from DCSCA et al. LOL

  • GaryChurch

    “Including the potential of having private space build a super heavy rocket for a fraction of the cost of the Nelson Rocket (using an MSFC/RocketDyne designed RP-1 engine).”

    Super Heavy? 5 segment SRB’s and RS-68’s, with a J-2X upper stage, will lift far more than that lesser faux F-1. A fraction of the cost? For SpaceX after NASA designs, builds and tests it for him all on the taxpayers dime- so he can make more money with it. What a deal!

  • GaryChurch

    Spaceboy is right- Musk put him and alot of other people out of a job. So he can take the money going in their pockets and put it in his. That’s what this is all about- redistributing tax dollars into investor pockets instead of into a government agency. It is a rip-off that will end with a bunch cheap and nasty rockets and failed companies. But a few people will make plenty of money before it is all over. But the public will lose their space agencies HSF and HLV infrastructure.

  • mr. mark

    I woul still like my question answered. Why? because, I know neither DSCA or amightywnd can anwer it without showing they know nothing about US commercial space policy. Question: How can anyone build a human rated spacecraft when NASA or any regulatory board has not given guildlines for commercial human spaceflight standards? The answer is you can’t. So asking for Elon to fly at this time is completely NUTS.

  • mark, flying NASA astronauts, sure. But flying humans in general, they could do that. Thing is, it wouldn’t “prove” anything to NASA. DSCA is just being nonsensical, as usual.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Agreed Trent. I’d lay a fairly large wager that SpaceX are eyeing off the Bigalow inflateables and are banking on being able to outbid well, Boeing is the only one at the moment with another potential crew vehicle, for provision of a STS. They’re slated to launch the first Sundancer in 2014.
    And I don’t mean tourists. Bigalow has apparently been drumming up potential business customers all over the world for research and potential manufacturing. He’s even got prices out for partial as well as full module leasing.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Trent / Mark.
    SpaceX has consistently stated on the public record that their F9 and Dragon vehicles have been designed to meet all NASA published human-rating standards. Now there’s literally thousands of pages of standards of one sort or another that NASA requires of it’s contractors when delivering vehicles for NASA payloads – could SpaceX mean these or are there documents specific to human rating out there that we don’t know about?

  • I’m sure there’s lots of documents out there that we don’t know about. But, specifically, NASA has failed to deliver specifications for human rating of vehicles that ANY vehicle has ever or will ever meet, for decades now. These are the requirements that SpaceX would have to meet before NASA would put astronauts on their vehicle. But most likely what will happen is they’ll go through some pretend process of setting standards but actually just sign off on every objection they can think of, like they do for Shuttle.

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 12:23 am Paid into the U.S Treasury to support America’s civilian space program and pointed out to you that the Emperor has no clothes.

  • DCSCA

    MrMark- Golly, Markie, how did Wilbur and Orville build an aeroplane w/o any ‘regulatory board’ or ‘guildlines’ [guidelines] or ‘standards?’ Good Lord. For a fella who has set himself up as the ‘future of human spaceflight’ mere regulations, guidelines and standards are the things he creates as a pathfinder into the future- not follow. You just don’t get it. If Musk wants credibility; particularly as a viable option to NASA manned space activities- he best just get somebody up, around and down. That’s a standard of measure the most important group he needs to impress are waiting to see– private capital investors.

  • DCSCA, why don’t you front him the $300M he needs to do that then?

  • DCSCA

    Spaceboy wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 1:05 am <- If you're at JSC you don't have to justify your efforts, particularly to commerical space advocates. It's a bogus comparison as they've not launched, orbited and returned safely anybody on a spaceflight. NASA has- for half a century. If and when they do, then they merit some credibility. Otherwise, it's just talk.

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 3:25 am <- Gee, Trent, the US of A already operates a few space programs already– civilian and DoD– and that's proving to be more than enough for the Age of Austerity. Emperor Musk can sell off his assets and raise capital in the private sector like the free market, private enterprised entrapreneur that he is. If he pitches a good plan to investors, shouldn't be a problem for him. Of course, if he actually launched a manned commercial spacecraft, orbited a crew and returned them safely, he'd have a lot more credibility.

  • DCSCA, ya know that governments buy stuff from the free market too right? including human carrying spacecraft?

    So which is it, does he need to orbit a crew and return them safely before he can get investors or does he need to get investors before he can orbit a crew and return them safely? Cause you’ve said both now.

    Cognitive dissonance must be so enjoyable.

  • DCSCA

    @Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 3:48 am Are you high? You said he needed $300 mil. Several avenues suggested for this ‘pathfinder’ to follow.. How he gets his means to an end is up to him but securing investors before a manned flight would help- afterwards would be easier make him flush for years. If he didn’t need capital denied by the private sector he wouldn’t be soliciting government subsidies. The smartest thing he can do is get somebody up and down. And he knows that– so does the space community. Try and keep up. No go think about with your inflatable space hotels, space elevators and lassoing asteroids.

  • So DCSCA, does this apply to everyone or just SpaceX? Should Boeing have to foot the bill of the CST-100 entirely out of their own pocket, and fly some humans before NASA is allowed to give them a dime?

  • DCSCA

    @MattWiser “…at least two industry representatives said the best way that skeptics can be convinced that the commercial industry can deliver is to fly.” Golly gee-whiz. Imagine that! The nerve of ‘the industry’ asking Professor Harold Hill to deliver on those band uniforms and instruments he keeps promising! ;-) Lofting cargo/payload isn’t that impressive, though. The Russians have been doing that for years and years with Progress. Getting a crew up and down safely a few times is the closer for commercial space’s credibility gap. Even NASA flew four shuttle ‘test flights’ before dubiously declaring it ‘operational’ for STS-5.

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 4:19 am Earth to Trent; Earth to Trent, Boeing has a long, successful and historied record in the aerospace industry- SpaceX does not.

  • DCSCA, so it *is* just for SpaceX eh?

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 4:30 am TrentAerospace would be denied as a well. But you’d have something in common w/SpaceX: you’ve flown nobody either. Comparing SpaceX and TrentAerospace to Boeing is just… bogus. See MattWiser’s post above. The general consensus is it just time to get flying and stop whining.

  • DCSCA, but you said Boeing had never flown anyone to orbit either. What’s the criteria exactly?

  • DCSCA

    And Trenton– SpaceX is touting itself as a private enterprised venture for commercial space. The place to access financing is the private capital markets, not panhandling for government subsidies which already has a civilian space program and military space program, both operating successfully for half a century.

  • DCSCA, so is Boeing’s CST-100, but you say it’s ok for them to get “government subsidies”, as you call them. They’ve specifically said they’re developing the CST-100 to go to Bigelow stations, why not demand he pay for it?

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 4:37 am
    DCSCA, but you said Boeing had never flown anyone to orbit either. <- Totally inaccuate, Trenton. Go do some homework. Time to sleep.

  • someguy

    To back up a little bit, the reason people are talking about the first years of aviation is because in those 50 years air travel went from nothing to being pretty essential to our economy.

    The equivalent has never happened for human spaceflight.

    It has never transitioned to being just another form of transportation for the general population being run by private companies. Unless that happens, all we will ever have is token efforts by a government agency that are constantly changed every new political cycle. In other words, what we have now.

    You could stop all human spaceflight tomorrow and nothing really bad would happen except for some hurt national pride. The economy would still go on just fine.

    But if you stopped air travel, a lot of businesses start to lose millions of dollars a day and the economy starts to take big hits.

    That is the relevance of the point made about the early aviation years vs current human spaceflight.

    This is also why no one knows what to do with space policy regarding NASA human spaceflight. Human spaceflight is not currently essential to our economy, so no one in charge really supports raising NASA’s budget to any meaningful value that would send just a few people somewhere every couple of years until we got bored again.

    Here’s a question to ponder: Should we spend $10 billion a year to send a few people to space or spend it on things more important to the country, like supporting our troops in a combat zone?

    Considering our debt situation, questions like that are certainly valid.

    If all human spaceflight remains is some government effort, all we will have is the mess we will have now. The next “big thing” will always be 20 years away because no one will want to spend the hundreds of billions it will take to make that trip with a few people possible.

  • DCSCA

    someguy wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 4:49 am
    “To back up a little bit, the reason people are talking about the first years of aviation is because in those 50 years air travel went from nothing to being pretty essential to our economy.”

    But it’s a somewhat bogus comparison. You might as well compare aviation progress to the evolution of the auto industry as it surplanted the horse and buggy era.

    You’re trying to equate the invention of another form of ‘earthly’ transportation- the aeroplane- crafted in a native environment for civilization built over several thousands of years, set to provide the resources for it, with the evolutionary movement of human beings off of their native planet and out into a non native environment– the space frontier, out on the edge, where there’s nothing in the empty void. The scaling is just different, and grander– and requires thinking much longer term. In time frames, costs, technologies and perspective. Frankly, using your thinking, you could ask why it took the human civilization thousands of years to learn to fly– especially when the birds were demonstrating it all around them for eons. By that standard, aviation progress was pretty slow. No birds were soaring back and forth into space hinting how to do it. In the grand scale of time, space travel is quite new- two or three generations– and with a harsh set of environmental extremes– completely alien to the human species. So reaching the moon the inhabitants of that same civilization has been staring at for centuries just 66 years after Kitty Hawk isn’t too bad at all. We’ve been lucky to live in an era when space travel got off the ground. But to expect it to grow at the same rate it has as it started– or at the pace of aviation, isn’t really valid. Essentially, commercial aviation exists in a shell of gas about 10 miles deep above our planet. Space is a lot bigger.

  • DCSCA, you’re still awake? So how about it, shouldn’t Bigelow be paying for CST-100?

  • DCSCA

    Why does it matter, Trent… that’s a contractor/subcontractor arrangement between Boeing and Bigelow but Boeing does give Bigelow the gravitas of a historied aerospace contractor. Musk’s SpaceX has shunned any partnering.

  • DCSCA

    @Trent- Boeing’s rationale for partnering w/Bigelow makes good business sense, if you’re convinced inflatable orbiting habitats are a smart strategy for expanding human presence in space. Not convinced of that myself, although as partially buried lunar facilities they may have morepromise. But the partnership seems a reasonable move. SpaceX had its reasons for balking at a similar arrangement.

  • DCSCA, but you’re saying that NASA should be paying for Boeing commercial capsule… I thought you said private enterprise should go get investment from the free market. I’m confused, can you explain why Boeing should get government subsidies and not SpaceX? Cause it kinda sounds like you’re saying it’s just that Boeing has more lobbyists.

    Oh, and when did Boeing fly humans to orbit.. I must have missed that, please educate us.

  • DCSCA

    “I thought you said private enterprise should go get investment from the free market. It should. I’m confused, can you explain why Boeing should get government subsidies and not SpaceX?” Are you high? Boeing was awarded a contract from NASA with oversight and timetable constraints and most importantly, has a proven and historied experience in aerospace. SpaceX does not.

    “Oh, and when did Boeing fly humans to orbit.. I must have missed that, please educate us.” You must have missed alot cuz this writer never said that. <- Inaccuate, Trenton. But the S IC was built by Boeing and managed to get several Apollo crews on their way to the moon. Which is more than SpaceX has done.

  • DCSCA, wow, now I’m *really* confused. You said that private enterprise should get capital from the free market, but that only applies to SpaceX not Boeing. You said that commercial companies should fly humans before getting a dime from NASA but you say that only applies to SpaceX not Boeing. You understand that Boeing will be operating the CST-100 right? They’ve never done that before. So they have exactly the same amount of experience as SpaceX. In fact, the Boeing CST-100 division is barely a year old. SpaceX has had years more to learn. Do you work for Boeing or something?

  • DCSCA

    @Trenton- Of course, Boeing can claim itself as the ‘builder’ of the space shuttle although the orbiter was a Rockwell design but they’ve been absorbed into Boeing. Still, Boeing serves as a major subcontractor to United Space Alliance, and provides overall shuttle systems integration and payload integration services. Boeing also maintains primary technical responsibility for support of the shuttle fleet and production of the space shuttle main engines. The company provides launch and mission support and orbiter turnaround servicing between flights. SpaceX has no experience or history along these lines, Trenton. You surely know that. Time for sleep.

  • DCSCA

    I’m not surprised you’re ‘confused’ at all.

  • DCSCA, but that’s a different division of Boeing. You understand that Boeing is a really big company right? And experience from one department doesn’t instantly transfer to another department? In fact, experience in the industry is predominately in the form of employees, and SpaceX has managed to acquire a lot of great talent. Also, cost-plus constracting companies like Boeing tend to breed 9-to-5-ers who just cover their own ass. Such people would never be hired at SpaceX but they get promoted to management at big companies like Boeing. It’s that kind of management that killed the crew of Challenger.

  • DCSCA

    @Trenton- “You understand that Boeing is a really big company right?” <– Do you??? And one with a strong history and high degree of experience in aerospace. SpaceX has no such depth of experience, competence or largess and your attempts to draw a comparison between the two is just bogus. And Boeing's CEO hasn't been publishing egocentric press releases proclaiming himself as the protector/savior of the 'future of human spaceflight' either. Matt Wiser's comment above fairly sums up the industry's position on commerical space operations as of now. SpaceX best get just get flying and that's meant with the highest level of encouragement for success.

    "It’s that kind of management that killed the crew of Challenger." That's a strawman for any commercial space advocate to play to. We know the hows and why of Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 1, the Soyuz accidents and so on. Over a half century of manned spaceflight, space accidents, either during operations or training for spaceflights, have killed 22 astronauts and cosmonauts. Commercial space has killed nobody because they've flown nobody.

  • Derrick

    @DCSCA

    Do you always need to have had the job to get the job?

    If your talking results, NASA hasn’t produced anything new except for the sub-orbital test of a dummy second stage, while SpaceX has orbited their freaking rocket. Why not tell the constellation supporters to “stop talking, start flying”?

  • Dennis Berube

    I truly hope that all you Space X fans, and I am one as well, will not be let down by this company. I still see the need for NASA to press on however with an alternate route, as SpaceX still has to prove itself. I totally agree with Musk that it would be far better for our civilian program with regards to producing jobs, then to give the money to the Soviets. I agree hands down. But, Musk has aways to go to prove his ship has automated docking ability, plus launch a manned mission. I wonder how many test pilots will fly the his first mission in Dragon, and when it might take place? NASA still needs Orion, and an HLV, with the HLV, being either shuttle derived, or Delta or Atlas. We must move forward, and the talk presently is for an asteroid mission. Push the envelope.

  • Justin Kugler

    I do work at JSC and I am a supporter of public-private partnerships. The Space Act obligates NASA to foster the development of commercial industry to the fullest extent possible. It actually doesn’t say anything about NASA flying people into space.

    If the Senate and the House are able to successfully pre-coordinate during the recess, agree on amendments in conference, and put the bill on the President’s desk by 1 October (as is the current plan), we will avoid a CR. Right now, that’s what we should all be hoping for and calling our elected representatives to encourage.

    Backbiting and sniping about SpaceX doesn’t help anyone.

  • Dennis Berube

    Even if NASA had accomplished the impossible by not having any fatalities during its space missions, you guys who are anti NASA would still find something to cry about. Getting to space is very difficult, and one thing NASA has indeed done, is make it look simple and routine. So when an accident happens everyone calls foul. Give it a rest. What wil happen when a fatality takes place aboard Dragon, or the Dreamliner? Then what will you guys yell about. Future space fatalities will continue to happen, like it or not! Give it a rest.

  • Justin, thanks for having the balls to drop the anonymity, please tell your more paranoid coworkers that it is safe.

    Dennis, I think those who are anti-NASA are so because of how little they’ve achieved with so much money.. and, like a battered wife, they keep going back to the abusive big aerospace corps.

  • amightywind

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 7:39 am

    I truly hope that all you Space X fans, and I am one as well, will not be let down by this company.

    Why the preoccupation with Musk when proven competitors like Lockmart, Boeing, Orbital already have more compelling and capable platforms? Is it because Musk wears a black tee shirt instead of a suit and tie?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/GWB-Tan-rested-and-ready-to-greet-the-troops-100478784.html

  • Bennett

    For what it’s worth, Justin Kugler has always posted comments under his real name. As for any others who have claimed to work at JSC, who knows?

  • byeman

    “Falcon 9 the most powerful liquid fueled rocket since AS210 ”

    Not true, Atlas V and Delta V are more powerful

  • byeman

    As usual, DCSCA is clueless and using false logic. Stating that Boeing can do a spacecraft because it has “experience” vs the perceived lack of Spacex experience.

    1. Lockheed has no manned spacecraft experience, it is ok for them to build Orion

    2. JSC hasn’t managed a new spacecraft development in more than 30 years

    3. Boeing is a large company, what one division does, is not applicable to others. The Boeing shuttle support and experience moved from Huntington beach to Houston. CST-100 is being worked on by new blood in Huntington beach and not the more experienced Houston people

    4. Companies is no more than a collection of people. People move between companies and take their experience. Spacex’s management have previous spaceflight experience including manned.

    5. Also MDAC had no manned spaceflight experience before Mercury and neither did NASA.

    6. Finally, Spacex can draw upon the last 50 years that you keep bringing up

    So basically, DCSCA, your points do not hold water.

  • Yes, people have experience, not companies.

  • Paul D.

    Even if NASA had accomplished the impossible by not having any fatalities during its space missions, you guys who are anti NASA would still find something to cry about.

    We’d be complaining about what we always complain about: the extreme cost of getting to space the NASA way. Compared to that, a small number of dead astronauts is a secondary problem. Indeed, a big problem with NASA is that their expensive, dead-end human spaceflight program can support so little activity in space that we’ve *only* had a handful of fatalities.

  • Space Cadet

    Casting this as SpaceX vs Boeing misses the more important difference: between cost-plus contracting and milestone-based contracting. When we pay a company more money if they exceed the budget and fail to meet the schedule (cost-plus) we incentivise failure and put all the financial risk on the taxpayer. In contrast, milestone-based contracting rewards budget and schedule success and has no financial risk to the taxpayer.

    It doesn’t matter which company wins, it matters which contracting approach wins. If NASA continues with cost-plus, we the taxpayers lose. If Congress allows NASA to switch to milestone-based contracts for LEO transportation, then it doesn’t matter which company gets the most business from NASA (Boeing, Orbital, Lockheed, SpaceX …); we’ll have multiple redundant systems, lower cost, and earlier capability.

  • Space Cadet

    DCSCA <- The government buys a lot of airline tickets for gov't employees to fly to meetings. Would you call that a government subsidy?

    Are you in favor of a budget that spends 5x more $ on Soyuz than would go to American suppliers of LEO transportation services? Do you think Soyuz was not government subsidized ??

  • amightywind

    byeman wrote:

    At some point someone has to say Emperor Musk has no clothes.

    Compare the manned spacecraft proposals of Lockmart, Boeing, and SpaceX.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_spacecraft
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon

    You must admit the SpaceX design is by far the least impressive of the group. This is America people! We must have the best human space transportation in the world. Anything less is intolerable. Griffin was on the right path with Ares I/Orion. We should stick to it. Hopefully that result will come soon from congress.

  • Wow.

    Elon-envy is really running rampant in the crowd today.

    If the guy can illicit this much hate from saying a few words, I’d say he’s on the right track.

  • byeman

    “You must admit the SpaceX design is by far the least impressive of the group. ”

    By what measure? Through your skewed view of of reality? The Dragon can carry more people. Dragon can carry unpressurized cargo in its trunk, none of the others can.

    “We must have the best human space transportation in the world.”

    Why? What is the justification?
    We don’t have the largest cargo, passenger, or tanker ship. We don’t have the largest passenger or cargo plane.

    “Griffin was on the right path with Ares I/Orion.”
    Wrong. Ares I is one of the worse launch vehicle designs. It is compromising Orion’s capabilities

  • common sense

    @byeman wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 9:56 am

    “3. Boeing is a large company, what one division does, is not applicable to others. The Boeing shuttle support and experience moved from Huntington beach to Houston. CST-100 is being worked on by new blood in Huntington beach and not the more experienced Houston people”

    Yes and no. A lot of the smarts still reside in Huntigton Beach. Depends what smarts you need. So I may be wrong but I doubt the people working CST-100 are the young blood you say. A lot of experienced people are (still) in HB. And I am sure they are being helped by the relevant Houston people…

  • common sense

    We must not but we should have the smartest human space transportation in the world. And today the smartest one probably is the russian one followed closely by the chinese one. Whether we like it or not.

  • amightywind

    byeman wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 3:05 pm:

    The Dragon can carry more people.

    Well, at least the power point presentation does. Can’t imagine an emergency egress would be pleasant.

    Ares I is one of the worse launch vehicle designs.

    Such a poor design that it has already flown successfully.

    We don’t have the largest cargo, passenger, or tanker ship. We don’t have the largest passenger or cargo plane.

    I said the best not largest, numbnuts. The US builds the best cargo plane (C-17), the best passenger aircraft (787), the best fighter (F-22), the space shuttle and endless other examples of the best aerospace technology. Whatever comes after STS it needs to be the best, and preferably largest. Why? Because we are America, baby!

  • amightywind

    And today the smartest one probably is the russian one followed closely by the chinese one.

    The Soyuz spacecraft is to small, and always has been. The Soyuz rocket design is grotesque, but proof that that excrement will shine if you rub long enough. Shenzhu must mean Soyuz in Mandarin. Ares I/Orion is a launch system America can be proud of.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Such a poor design that it has already flown successfully.

    No, a modified 4 seg booster with a dummy upper stage and Atlas avionics flew on a suborbital trajectory. Falcon 9 on the other hand has put the Dragon test article into orbit. Your are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    LOL Testosterone attacks did nothing but get the US in trouble under Bush…a lot of wimps in power masquerading as tough guys….the “we are number 1″ stuff is something most people get over in High School…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Aggelos

    “No, a modified 4 seg booster with a dummy upper stage and Atlas avionics flew on a suborbital trajectory. Falcon 9 on the other hand has put the Dragon test article into orbit. Your are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

    yes,,Ares 1-x rocket was a joke ..and the test..was just an attempt for Nasa to show that they can fly a rocket..

    Falcon 9 is a full rocket,,,

  • Bennett

    Your are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    That’s a really great line, Martijn.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I stole it from someone on the net. It turns out it came from the late and great senator Byrd, though he too may have stolen it from someone else. Not a great fan of Byrd, but you’re right, it’s a great line.

  • It’s a very old line, and I doubt if Byrd originated it.

  • red

    DCSCA: “Boeing has a long, successful and historied record in the aerospace industry- SpaceX does not.”

    That’s fine. Let’s have a fixed price, milestone-based commercial crew competition funded like Augustine and NASA think it needs to be funded. Let’s let everybody compete: Boeing, SpaceX, Orbital, Sierra Nevada, ULA, Blue Origin, and everybody else. Let them form partnerships to make the best commercial crew competition teams they can make as they see fit. NASA will consider Boeing’s long, successful and historied record in the aerospace industry along with everything else for all of the competitors (ISS cargo transport record, knowledge of the ISS, credible business plan, skin in the game, safety, credible design, development cost to NASA, operational ticket price, etc). NASA will also have safety oversight for their astronauts and the ISS interaction.

    It’s working for ISS cargo. Let’s do it for crew, too.

  • SpaceTek

    Aggelos, was the Dragon test article intact when it reached orbit? Maybe thats the question that should be asked.

  • Bennett

    It’s a very old line,

    I don’t doubt it Rand, probably from Roman times. But think of the millions who have never heard it, or the generations down the line who will hear it for the first time and realize that using it in public debate could be devastating for the opposition.

  • Bennett

    was the Dragon test article intact when it reached orbit?

    Did you watch the video of the launch? The one taken by the on board camera? The on board camera that made it intact to orbit?

    Duh.

  • SpaceTek

    Yea right Bennett. Let that be your little secret.

  • But think of the millions who have never heard it, or the generations down the line who will hear it for the first time and realize that using it in public debate could be devastating for the opposition.

    I in no way meant to imply that it’s not worth repeating in debate. Just pointing out that there’s nothing new about it.

  • amightywind

    Bennet wrote:

    Did you watch the video of the launch? The one taken by the on board camera? The on board camera that made it intact to orbit?

    When the video cuts out the second stage is spinning out of control and is still thrusting. All we have is SpaceX’s word that it was a ‘good day’. The North Koreans were more open with their rocket tests. Hopefully, SpaceX will be more open in providing information on the next launch.

  • DCSCA

    dad2059 wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 2:35 pm No, but when somebody keeps issuing press releases setting himself and his firm up as the protector/savior of ‘the future of human spaceflight’ and yet has never flown anybody it tends to draw attention- if not chuckles. The general consensus is it’s time for him to get flying crews and earn some credibility before standing on a mountain top pointing someplace and proclaiming, ‘Follow me.’

  • amightywind, you haven’t been open about your launches…. oh wait, you haven’t done any!

  • Martijn Meijering

    All we have is SpaceX’s word that it was a ‘good day’.

    As Rand pointed out to you last week, we don’t only have SpaceX’s word as you claim, but also confirmation by NORAD that Falcon 9 reached orbit.

  • DCSCA

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 7:44 am <- Dennis, NASA doesn't have to defend its record, achievements and history compared to SpaceX or to the musketeers. It's a strawman. There's simply no comparison. For starts, NASA has been lofting prople into space for half a century– SpaceX has flown nobody.

  • Bennett

    When the video cuts out the second stage is spinning out of control and is still thrusting.

    Here’s the video, at 8:49 into the launch SECO has been achieved.

    As per Martijn’s quote, you don’t get your own set of facts. Why would someone who labels himself an “American Patriot”, make up outrageous lies about a successful American company?

    Why do you have to crawl in the slime of intentional deception to help bolster you opinion?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Dennis, NASA doesn’t have to defend its record, achievements and history compared to SpaceX or to the musketeers.

    And DCSCA too is repeating arguments that were shown to be invalid as recently as last week. Quoting Byeman:

    1. All NASA unmanned launches are performed by commercial services
    2. NASA most used commercial payload processing services
    3. ISS logistics will be handled by commercial services
    4, The bulk of the shuttle workers (90%) are from a commercial company.
    5. Gov’t managed spaceflight has killed 7 people in the last 10 years
    6. The bulk of launch vehicle expertise is in industry vs NASA
    7. The bulk of spaceflight expertise is in industry vs NASA

    NASA is no longer the center of the spaceflight universe.

    Which of these numbered statements is false?

  • Byeman

    “SpaceX will be more open in providing information on the next launch.”

    It has already. NASA has all the data it needs.

    “For starts, NASA has been lofting prople into space for half a century

    Wrong, NASA has been paying contractors to put people in space. It would be no different using ULA, Boeing, Spacex, SNC, etc, except for the contracting mechanism.

  • “For starts, NASA has been lofting prople into space for half a century

    Wrong, NASA has been paying contractors to put people in space. It would be no different using ULA, Boeing, Spacex, SNC, etc, except for the contracting mechanism.

    There’s no way anybody is going to convince the design bureau supporters of this fact, they’re still going to spew venom at Elon Musk and SpaceX because people like them have thrown down the gauntlet at him and he actually had the audacity to pick it up.

    And that pi$$ed them off.

  • mr. mark

    Ok, Some of you must be “we didn’t land on the moon types” . To say that after watching the live feed and the taped feed many times over that that Falcon 9 test vehicle broke up is CRAZY. In fact some of you here are constantly bending the facts to suit such slanted perceptions. Independent radar tracking indicated that the vehicle remained intact and reentered intact along it’s stated path. So now we are at the point where conspiracy junkies are entering the fold to show that Spacex is right up there with the their vision of faked moon landings.

  • amightywind

    Bennett wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Here’s the video, at 8:49 into the launch SECO has been achieved.

    That’s for the post, and contradicting your own assertion. The video cuts out at 8:41 with the stage clearly still thrusting and corkscrewing in an uncontrolled fashion. I don’t dispute the stage made it to some kind of orbit. I do dispute that it ‘nominal’ in any sense. I also doubt that the ‘Dragon simulator’ was a full mass payload. Nobody but SpaceX knows for sure. All in all ‘a dubious day’.

  • Aggelos

    I am not against government Hsf..I believe that governments of the world must do beyond earth space exploration and

    leave the Low earth orbit and stations to the privates..

    governments cannot do at the same time,leo taxi service and manned Beo exploration..
    not enough money..

    and thats the reason Ares1 was a failure.

  • Aggelos

    I hope the senate bill about the Jupiter like shuttle derived Heavy rocket ,gets approved also by the White house..

    Lets explore..

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind,
    If there was anything seriously wrong with the Falcon 9 first flight, the upcoming COTS Demo flight would not be on-track like it is. NASA would have put it on hold until the anomalies were resolved. You’re looking for conspiracies again where there are none.

  • amightywind

    and thats the reason Ares1 was a failure.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1932959,00.html

    Babbling the party line doesn’t change the facts. America could do with more of these ‘failures’. Obama has planned nothing and accomplished nothing except sowing chaos within NASA.

  • Bennett

    The video cuts out at 8:41 with the stage clearly still thrusting and corkscrewing in an uncontrolled fashion

    That is a baldfaced lie. The video does not cut out at 8:41, as anyone who watches it can see. Are you so retarded that you can’t tell the difference between “roll” and “corkscrewing” ? I’m not even sure corkscrewing is possible given the physics involved.

    You have no credibility. You lie with almost every post.

  • Brian Paine

    Fifty years almost since Glenn and regardless of the cost debate I would like to know WHY a 1960s system is being touted as the answer to LEO? Regardless of who builds and opperates the system it has an inherent lower cost limit that denies the claims of its proponents that it is “the future.”
    What is dissmaying me is the almost hysterical
    support for Space X and the now very political claptrap emanating from the Musk mutt. I respect his efforts to date but since when has one launch using technology that has been around for years given him the right to the moral high ground?
    Now lets see enterprise and initiative in design as well as opperation and please a little less nievity. After all if it had been a NASA rocket with a spin problem there would have been less spin.

  • Aggelos

    Ares 1 may was not capable of launching the full lunar orion,,because of mass problems..

    With ares 1 we make a expensive leo vehicle,but a poor vehicle for beo..
    I am with Direct style Senate proposes..one big rocket with a full beo Orion on top..

    Thats the reason is almost sure I think that from Constellation Ares1 will not survive,while 5seg srbs,J-2x will ..

    Is anybody believe thats Ares 1 will get ever built ?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Brian Paine wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Fifty years almost since Glenn and regardless of the cost debate I would like to know WHY a 1960s system is being touted as the answer to LEO?..

    that is easy and it illustrates the failure of human spaceflight over the last 50 years

    The vehicle you want (I guess some equivelent to the Pan Am shuttle in 2001) can only be developed through years of flight experience and incremental hardware development.

    That process only starts when there is a market which is constantly maturing which drives such an effort.

    Go look at any established industry (microcomputers, aviation, the list is endless) and you find that the “routine” of today only developed in steps not really leaps and that was only because the consumer drove it.

    As it stands right now, what the market (a combination of government and possible private users) will support is a cheaper version of the technology we have today. But that could be what starts it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Bennett wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 9:57 am

    That is a baldfaced lie. The video does not cut out at 8:41, as anyone who watches it can see.

    That diffuse gas plume and the glowing engine nozzle at 8:41 are signs that the engine is thrusting. I invite anyone to verify that observation.

    Are you so retarded that you can’t tell the difference between “roll” and “corkscrewing” ? I’m not even sure corkscrewing is possible given the physics involved.

    I am not surprised, given you limited understanding of rotational physics. I say corkscrewing because the engine nozzle boresight vector does not appear fixed on the horizon, but moves in a circle. From this perspective the vehicle exhaust would form a helix. Got it?

    Aggelos wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Ares 1 may was not capable of launching the full lunar orion,,because of mass problems.

    A crock. Weight management is a normal part of the development process. It was an issue for Apollo, and issue for the Space Shuttle and will be an issue in any spacecraft development.

    With ares 1 we make a expensive leo vehicle,but a poor vehicle for beo.

    Which is why we have the Ares V earth departure stage. Given Ares reliance on mature STS components it is quite economical. The 3 million pound thrust first stage is a steal compared to the alternatives. Oh, I forgot, there are none!

  • I respect his efforts to date but since when has one launch using technology that has been around for years given him the right to the moral high ground?

    Since he managed to do it for about one percent of the amount of money that NASA was expected to spend, and about five percent of the money that NASA had spent so far, with little to show.

  • amightywind

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    The vehicle you want (I guess some equivelent to the Pan Am shuttle in 2001) can only be developed through years of flight experience and incremental hardware development.

    Stanly Kubrick’s Pan Am Shuttle used nuclear thermal propulsion. It drove a superheated fluid out the back end at high velocity. There will never be a nuclear reactor powered booster given the politic. (I personally have no problem launching a big reactor over Europe!) We are lucky small RTG’s can be launched, given the stink that the tree huggers make about it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am

    I did not take it that the technology was the issue, rather the notion of access and cost.

    Robert G. Oler

  • GaryChurch

    I was thinking about one of the main criticisms of the SRB- not being able to turn it off. What about a one shot airliner type thrust reverser? Or one that neutralizes most or all of the thrust for a second or two?

    It would make the escapes system more effective. Could possibly allow operating SRB/SRB strapons to be emergency jettisonned in flight successfully.

    More risk than advantage?
    Too heavy?

  • byeman

    “Given Ares reliance on mature STS components ”

    Incorrect, there is not one mature STS component that it uses.

    “A crock Weight management is a normal part of the development process. It was an issue for Apollo, and issue for the Space Shuttle ”

    Your responses are a crock and shows that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    It is not normal weight and performance management, Ares I has a problem and it is directly affecting Orion.. Because of its bad architecture, Ares I is performance constrained. This wasn’t the case for Apollo or shuttle. For Apollo, a fifth F-1 was added to increase performance, and add margin. The shuttle performance shortfalls were partially mitigated by reducing the ET’s weight in two separate mod programs and SSME to to 104.5% power. 3 other performance enhancements were canceled due to safety and cost, 109% SSME, FWC SRB and ASRM.

    The SRB for Ares I is fixed and more impulse can not be added. A proper first stage would burn longer, which the SRB can not. The upperstage is almost as large as it can be. Also, Ares I had inadequate margins in the first place to absorb Orion weight increases.

  • amightywind

    byeman wrote:

    For Apollo, a fifth F-1 was added to increase performance, and add margin.

    You don’t know what you are talking about. The switch from the C-4 configuration was made in 1963. The final configuration Saturn V performance risks were almost entirely mitigated in the S-II stage. A decrease of 1lb in the S-II was equivalent to 11lb in the S-IC. The lightweight common tank bulkhead and internal tank insulation saved the day. Indeed North American engineers in Long Beach were miffed because the German engineers at Huntville structurally over-engineered the S-IC. The S-IC also shutdown the center F-1 1 min early to manage structural loads, dragging its inert weight. Read NASA publication ‘Stages to Saturn’ for an excellent account of the program management and engineering.

    The SRB for Ares I is fixed and more impulse can not be added.

    You can say this for any rocket, genius. the SRB has been stretched and fuel added for performance. It could also be widened, the fuel formulation changed etc. It is a marvel.

  • Brian Paine

    I have been around quite long enough to know about incremental development, and Holywood versions of reality while interesting do not guide my minds eye.
    One big chunk of development has been flying allready and represents an “airframe solution,” namely the space shuttle. Even the military have recognised that! 
    The reason I prefer the concept of a space plane is that it offers the greatest promise for dramatically reducing the cost to LEO, which is after all what the debate has been about.
    Why pour billions into a solution with a limited bottom line? It rather makes a mockery of opening up the new frontier at least to the degree that Musk implies. 
    If honesty is the name of the game then what Space X and Boeing etc. are offering is a cheeper solution, but not in my mind the best.
    Regarding the moral high ground that comment was NOT cost sensitive, it was “honesty sensitive.” The day when cheepest defines morality we are all impoverished.

  • One big chunk of development has been flying allready and represents an “airframe solution,” namely the space shuttle. Even the military have recognised that!

    They have? Then why don’t they use it?

    Regarding the moral high ground that comment was NOT cost sensitive, it was “honesty sensitive.” The day when cheepest defines morality we are all impoverished.

    Was this supposed to make sense? When you’re spending other peoples’ money, minimizing costs is in fact more moral.

  • amightywind

    They have? Then why don’t they use it?

    Check out the X-37B whose aerodynamic design and operational concept were clearly influenced by the Space Shuttle. My guess is the Air Force is sneaking up to Chinese satellites as we speak.

  • GaryChurch

    “You can say this for any rocket, genius. the SRB has been stretched and fuel added for performance. It could also be widened, the fuel formulation changed etc. It is a marvel.”

    You are correct. Another moronic Byeman comment.

    Aug 31 at Promontory Utah (where they drove the golden spike) they will again test fire the five segment SRB.

    3.6 million pounds of thrust, and the motor cases from the last test were flight proven hardware used on shuttle launches for more than three decades. The cases used in that test had collectively flown on 48 previous missions, including STS-1, the first shuttle flight.

  • Brian Paine

    Rand, it was a comment aimed at Musk’s politic.
    The military by the way have a shuttle derived craft…that is the point…not the use of the shuttle.

  • DCSCA

    @theGreatWaldoOler “Fifty years almost since Glenn and regardless of the cost debate I would like to know WHY a 1960s system is being touted as the answer to LEO?…that is easy and it illustrates the failure of human spaceflight over the last 50 years”

    Your beloved and 70 year old DC-3- a propeller driven aircraft– still works, still flies, and it gets you there. Yes, a vivid illustration of the “‘failure’ of ‘human aviation over the last 70 years.” We know your distain for the half century of value, history and progress demonstrated by manned spaceflight. THe rest is just self-serving fodder.

  • byeman

    “You can say this for any rocket, genius. the SRB has been stretched and fuel added for performance. It could also be widened, the fuel formulation changed etc. It is a marvel.”

    Wrong. It is not a marvel, it is just a run of the mill dumb solid motor. It can’t be lengthened anymore for Ares I, that only increases the thrust and not duration. Ares I needs longer duration and the vehicle can’t handle more thrust.

    It can not be widened. It would no longer be a shuttle SRB and then no longer be able to use shuttle heritage as a safety and reliability. Also, wider solids would not be able to use the shuttle infrastructure, from the facilities in Utah, to the trains, to the inspection and refurb buildings at KSC, to the VAB, crawlers and pads.

    New propellant would also negate its shuttle heritage.

    So no, there is no way to increase the performance of the Ares I first stage without negating the prime selling feature of shuttle heritage.
    Generically, solid motors are not safe for manned flight, only those with a extensive flight history. A new solid motor would not be used in a manned launch vehicle

    As for the Saturn V, I do know what I am talking about and your point proves mine. The Saturn V had margins that gave it the ability to mitigate performance losses and spacecraft weight gain. Ares I does not and can not. Ares I is a bad design, period.

  • DCSCA

    amightywind wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am Windy-This writer personally asked Von Braun years ago about the potential/feasibility of ‘nuclear propulsion’ for Earth-launched space vehicles such as the ‘Orion’ from 2001 you reference and LVs and his position was that given the state of the technology, exhaust residue contaminating the atmosphere made their use in this era prohibitive.

  • Dennis Berube

    Better watch it guys, they will add SRBs, to the SRBs!

  • amightywind

    Wrong. It is not a marvel, it is just a run of the mill dumb solid motor.

    Well argued.

    It can’t be lengthened anymore for Ares I, that only increases the thrust and not duration.

    Wrong again. The propellant core casting pattern moderates burn duration and thrust. Different segments have different core casting patterns. A different fuel mixture can change burn time. These are very sophisticated devices. The space shuttle SRB’s are tuned so that thrust levels decline around MaxQ. Read Sutton’s rocket engine book.

    It can not be widened. It would no longer be a shuttle SRB and then no longer be able to use shuttle heritage as a safety and reliability. Also, wider solids would not be able to use the shuttle infrastructure, from the facilities in Utah, to the trains, to the inspection and refurb buildings at KSC, to the VAB, crawlers and pads.

    Technological history of SRBs did not end in 1981. I am sure NASA and ATK will make any changes that make sense.

    New propellant would also negate its shuttle heritage.

    I would be very surprised if the solid fuel recipie hasn’t changed over the life of the shuttle. You should learn to love the SRB!

  • amightywind

    exhaust residue contaminating the atmosphere made their use in this era prohibitive.

    The exhaust from a nuclear rocket engine is no more radioactive than the cooling water your local nuclear power plant dumps in the river, which is not at all. It is contamination of water or steam with core reactor materials that are the hazard. The state of technology is another matter, and at that the Great Man is correct. It is too bad nuclear engineering has been so deemphasized in the last 40 years.

  • Rand, it was a comment aimed at Musk’s politic.

    What is that supposed to mean?

    The military by the way have a shuttle derived craft

    They do?

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 9:43 pm <- which has nothing to do with launching humans into space- the focus of this discourse and the lead line in Emperor Musk's email 'plea' setting himself up as the savior/protector of the 'future of human spaceflight'… something he and his firm have never attempted nor accomplished and something the Russians and NASA have been doing for half a century. Both you and Byeman know that but are desperate to present a position that is a total strawman, which discredits yourselves. This very item on your list says it all: 5. Gov’t managed spaceflight has killed 7 people in the last 10 years. It's a bogus bullet point. Commerical space has killed nobody because it has FLOWN NOBODY. Space accidents, either during operations or training for spaceflights, have killed 22 astronauts and cosmonauts over the history of manned space operations. A larger number of support staff/technicians people on the ground over the history of rocket development have been lost as well. The smartest and most respected way for Musketeers to generate 'respect' is simply to stop talking and start flying– get somebody up, around and down. Musk clearly is reticent to ride his own rocket– but Bowersox is ready to go. So suit up and go fly. The world- and investors- await a success.

  • DCSCA

    amightywind wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:18 pm If you want to disagree with the professional position of Wernher Von Braun on it, feel free to do so. But he seemed quite direct and decisive on the question, circa 1974.

  • DCSCA

    @BrianPaine “What is dissmaying me is the almost hysterical
    support for Space X and the now very political claptrap emanating from the Musk mutt. I respect his efforts to date but since when has one launch using technology that has been around for years given him the right to the moral high ground?” <- It doesn't. But you're dealing with Professor Harold Hill– or an egocentric entrapreneur– not a 'steely-eyed-missileman.' Best he just deliver the band uniforms and instruments– or in his case, get somebody up, around and down safely. The rest is just self-serving hype. Always keep in mind- he and his firm have orbited nobody.

  • Always keep in mind- he and his firm have orbited nobody.

    More importantly, keep in mind that neither has the team developing Ares I/Orion. They haven’t even gotten their rocket to orbit, let alone a payload, after spending twenty times as much as SpaceX.

  • GaryChurch

    “The exhaust from a nuclear rocket engine is no more radioactive than the cooling water your local nuclear power plant dumps in the river, which is not at all.”

    Well you both are wrong; you are confusing NERVA with Orion, two completely different types of propulsion. And NERVA nuclear thermal rocket exhaust is highly radioactive- it flows propellant around a core and it comes out hot and dirty. It was never intended to operate in the atmosphere. Orion was originally intended to loft a huge load with the penalty of fallout but was later amended to orbital assembly and ignition but this still violated a treaty so no go.

    “This writer” should perhaps know what his subject is talking about before quoting out of context about it.

  • DCSCA

    @Windy- Why ‘guess’– you can monitor the orbital parameters of the X-37B at:

    http://www.heavens-above.com

    Go out and wave some night as it passes over head– if somebody waves back, let us know.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:36 pm <–Most importantly, of course, NASA and Russia have flown crews in space for half a century– SpaceX has not launched, orbited nor landed anybody. The world– the aerospace community- the investors- await a success.

  • SpaceX has not launched, orbited nor landed anybody.

    Neither has the team developing Constellation.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman “Ares I is a bad design, period.” <– Agreed. Again, brings to mind the ol'WKRP Thanksgiving episode with the Carlson punchline: 'As God in my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

  • Martijn Meijering

    which has nothing to do with launching humans into space- the focus of this discourse and the lead line in Emperor Musk’s email ‘plea’ setting himself up as the savior/protector of the ‘future of human spaceflight’

    I said this in reply to your claim:

    Such a poor design that it has already flown successfully.

    This is quite simply false.

  • DCSCA

    @MrMark-“How can Spacex fly anyone at this point.” <,- Golly, Markie, for a fella who starts off his emails w/ "We recently asked for your help to protect the future of human spaceflight…" actually performing and accomplishin 'human spaceflight' should be, or have been by now, no problemo. Cernan was correct- "They don't know what they don't know yet."

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm Such a poor design that it has already flown successfully. ?? Specify. Don’t follow that reference. Don’t think this writer ever criticized SpaceX design specs.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm <- of course, no operational, crewed manned spacecraft, Dragon or otherwise, has ever been successfully launched, orbited and safely landed by SpaceX.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm Such a poor design that it has already flown successfully. ?? Specify. Don’t follow that reference. Don’t think this writer ever criticized SpaceX design specs.

    Ah, I got you confused with amightywind. In any event, the claim of a superior Ares I design was what I was replying to.

  • Ah, I got you confused with amightywind.

    Easy to do. Trolls are trolls.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:51 pm <– Seems 'the team' at 'NASA' has flown plenty'o'people; so to the Russians and even China has lofted crew… but then you know that. Simply stop talking and start flying. What's the hold-up… get a crew up. Bowersox is eager to go. It's not like this is a 'new' thing to do– after all, the hard part, the ground-breaking development of manned spaceflight operations, has been done by government funded manned space programs for half a century. Should be a piece of cake for commerical to follow along and cash-in, as history has shown they usually do. Get a crew up around and down safely. The world- the aerospace community- the private capital markets await your success.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 5:25 pm <- You'll get no arguement on Ares from this writer. It was a poor design.

  • The world- the aerospace community- the private capital markets await your success.

    My success?

    I don’t work for SpaceX, you moron.

  • DCSCA

    GaryChurch wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 4:42 pm <- You're talking out the aft end of your service module. This writer referenced a response source of the highest expertise in rocketry, from a face to face Q@A on nuclear propulsion for earth-launched space vehicles: von Braun himself. But if you want to to challenge Von Braun's professional perspective and response, please do. Should be amusing.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 7:07 pm <- but you are a musketeer you silly little man. Yes, your success. Tick-tock; tick-tock…

  • Coastal Ron

    Just back from a 4-day camping trip with the family at one of our great national parks – no cell service, and internet at only one park store. Truly immersed in nature. And did I mention the beautiful view of the stars!

    In trying to catch up on the current happenings in the space-o-spere, some trends pop out at me:

    Windy – Not only is he a SpaceX mud slinger, but he loves ATK so much that I’m sure he thinks their NH4ClO4+Al don’t stink. It’s funny that his love of Ares I is the same type that he & others accuse of people that support the work of SpaceX. He also has no idea how to interpret video from an off-center camera mount on a payload that is spinning. Weird.

    DCSCA – The man from the past continues to confuse the support for SpaceX as support for only SpaceX, when in fact it is support for any company that is actually making progress on lowering the cost to access space. He also continues to be clueless about how the capital markets operate – I think that comes from being burned by his bad investment in the Conestoga I rocket company. In any case, even though he claims he doesn’t like Ares I, he still has no idea why moving forward with a COT-D like program would save NASA Billions of dollars, which it could then use to actually build payloads and do stuff in space. Both weird and sad.

    Dennis Berube – Definitely a space enthusiast, but he still refuses to read up on the facts before he posts his thoughts. Too bad, because he actually agrees with some of the efforts going on to lower the costs to access space – even though he has no idea he does…

    Two Topic Gary – Sidemount. Nuclear. Rinse, repeat, and repeat, and repeat…

    Kelly Stark – still tpyes wtih a nut losoe no hsi kybeord.

    The Many Whom I Generally Agree With – I learn a lot from many people, including some that I don’t always agree with. In catching up with all the blog posts, I can see that there were lots of good points & counter-points made in support of many of the things I too support. These would include lowering the cost to access space (cargo & crew), saving NASA money so it can do more (which is not anti-NASA Dennis), and generally doing something in small incremental steps now, instead of planning big leaps next decade (and always next decade). All in all a quiet week to have gone away, so I’ll join back in on the next topic. Thanks for the entertainment!

  • DCSCA

    @Windy “… the SRB has been stretched and fuel added for performance. It could also be widened, the fuel formulation changed etc. It is a marvel. <- It may be a marvel of brute force for launch assist but it's a bad idea to strap crews on top of them as history has shown.

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind,
    You would get laughed out of the room if you told my friends that work Orion that Ares I is a “marvel.” They hate the damn thing and believe it dragged Constellation down.

  • someguy

    DCSCA, you keep saying “start flying”. Well, that’s exactly what they are doing. First cargo which matures the launcher, and then crew. So, what’s your point?

    The point is that if NASA wants it faster, guess who pays? NASA. Just like in the private sector. The alternative is to pay Russia.

    What isn’t successful is exactly what is happening now. Here I am defining success as widening space travel to the general population so that it actually is part of our economy.

    It’s a waste of money to do what we are doing now, spending hundreds of billions of dollars sending a few people “somewhere”, whether that be ISS or the moon or an asteroid or Mars.

    It doesn’t “explore”. Robots are already exploring today more than humans ever have in space. It doesn’t expand humanity’s presence in the system; to do that you need colonization-level efforts which requires that people can buy their own tickets because the government doesn’t have enough money to run a true colonization effort, moving hundreds or thousands of people to Mars. During the colonial times, a family could sell everything they had and buy tickets to the New World and start a new life.

    So, the current efforts in human spaceflight are basically masturbation. Makes you feel good, but doesn’t really do a whole lot.

    But, if it starts to be an actual part of our economy, like air transport and ship transport and road transport and rail transport …, then it starts to be worthwhile instead of just sucking tax dollars.

    So, NASA can help make this happen sooner and then use the market created for its own exploration purposes as well. Or we can keep building NASA-only stuff and basically get nothing lasting done. Maybe a couple stupidly expensive stunts to the moon or an asteroid, but that’s about it.

  • DCSCA

    Justin Kugler wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 7:25 pm <- Agreed. It's a lousy rocket. It has the stink of being designed by politics as opposed to being engineered for performance.

  • DCSCA

    someguy wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 7:28 pm <- flying 'cargo' is nothing new. Russian Progress' have been lofting 'cargo' for years and years. Emperor Musk's first sentence in his patronizing email sets himself and his firm up as as protector/savior of the 'future of human spaceflight'.. yet he and his firm have flown nobody. Nobody. Pretty amusing and quite egocentric. Best Professor Harold Hill just deliver those uniforms and instruments and get his band playing- or flying, as it were. That's what the aerospace community, skeptics, investors and the world awaits. Although Musk is reticent to ride his own rocket, Bowersox is eager to go. So suit up, fly somebody up around and get them down safely. After all, the hard part has already been done- invented and proved by government funded and managed manned space programs for half a century. Cernan is right: they don't know what they don't know yet. But they're learing. The world awaits commerical to follow suit- just as it has done over the 80 year history of rocket developement.

  • GaryChurch

    “But if you want to to challenge Von Braun’s professional perspective and response, please do. Should be amusing.”

    Not me, You are the one quoting him out of context. Windy was talking about NERVA and you gave a quote concerning Orion.

  • GaryChurch

    “amightywind,
    You would get laughed out of the room if you told my friends that work Orion that Ares I is a “marvel.”

    He was talking about SRB’s, not Aresl you moron.

  • GaryChurch

    “Two Topic Gary – Sidemount. Nuclear. Rinse, repeat, and repeat, and repeat…”

    At least I have two, all you do is parrot ULA lunar plan
    ULA plan, ULA plan.
    We posted alot about Propellant Depots while you were gone. Kind of a joke after Musk let his FalconXX cat out of the bag.

  • GaryChurch

    Five segment SRB.

    3.6 million pounds of thrust, and the motor cases from the last test were flight proven hardware used on shuttle launches for more than three decades. The cases used in that test had collectively flown on 48 previous missions, including STS-1, the first shuttle flight.

    Makes SpaceX look like a joke. A resuable first stage- where is that first stage Musk said was going to be recovered and reused. More false advertising.

  • GaryChurch

    Given Ares reliance on mature STS components
    Incorrect, there is not one mature STS component that it uses. ”

    The casings on that 5 segment test were all from past flights. Which makes you the one full of it Byeman.

  • GaryChurch

    “It may be a marvel of brute force for launch assist but it’s a bad idea to strap crews on top of them as history has shown.”

    SRB’s on the shuttle have launched the majority of astronauts into space. History has shown the opposite of what you are intimating.
    More nasa hating propaganda.

  • DCSCA

    GaryChurch wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 7:40 pm You’re simply wrong. It was a direct response to a direct question in a Q&A session circa 1974.

  • DCSCA

    GaryChurch wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 8:40 pm <- They're a rough if not lousy ride and the source of a previous disaster. JustinKugler's comment most likely has merit within the program- it was Ares that weakened Constellation.

  • Justin Kugler

    Gary,
    While we may disagree, I have always been respectful towards you. I have never resorted to ad hominem or name-calling in our discussions and I am disappointed that you thought it necessary to treat me with disrespect.

    amightywind’s “marvel” comment was in direct response to a comment about the Ares I SRB. Given his history of staunch advocacy for said rocket, my retort – which comes from people who work on the very vehicle Ares I was supposed to loft – was not out of place.

  • GaryChurch

    I get so tired of people saying I am talking out my rear end when they are the ones doing it.

    Windy:
    Stanly Kubrick’s Pan Am Shuttle used nuclear thermal propulsion. It drove a superheated fluid out the back end at high velocity. There will never be a nuclear reactor powered booster given the politic. (I personally have no problem launching a big reactor over Europe!) We are lucky small RTG’s can be launched, given the stink that the tree huggers make about it.

    This writer:
    This writer personally asked Von Braun years ago about the potential/feasibility of ‘nuclear propulsion’ for Earth-launched space vehicles such as the ‘Orion’ from 2001 you reference and LVs and his position was that given the state of the technology, exhaust residue contaminating the atmosphere made their use in this era prohibitive.

    Windy:
    The exhaust from a nuclear rocket engine is no more radioactive than the cooling water your local nuclear power plant dumps in the river, which is not at all. It is contamination of water or steam with core reactor materials that are the hazard.

    GaryChurch:
    Well you both are wrong; you are confusing NERVA with Orion, two completely different types of propulsion. And NERVA nuclear thermal rocket exhaust is highly radioactive- it flows propellant around a core and it comes out hot and dirty. It was never intended to operate in the atmosphere.

    Windy was talking about a NERVA- a nuclear thermal rocket. Not the spaceship that HAL controlled. Kubrick was going to use Orion Nuclear Pulse as the model for his spaceship but was so sick of bombs after Dr. Strangelove that he left out any reference or depiction of Orion.

    This Writer is talking about Orion Nuclear Pulse which VonBraun endorsed as feasible and early models of which were designed for earth launch- not a NERVA.

    So like I said, you are both wong. “This writer” is commenting on the wrong propulsion system and Windy is posting that it has a clean exhaust which is also false.
    From Wiki:
    NERVA rockets would be used for nuclear “tugs” designed to take payloads from Low Earth Orbit to larger orbits as a component of the later-named Space Transportation System, resupply several space stations in various orbits around the Earth and Moon, and support a permanent lunar base. The NERVA rocket would also be a nuclear-powered upper stage for the Saturn rocket (the Saturn S-N), which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch much larger payloads of up to 340,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit.

    Do I have to keep arguing with you about this DCSCA?

  • GaryChurch

    “my retort – which comes from people who work on the very vehicle Ares I was supposed to loft – was not out of place.”

    It was out of place for a NASA employee. That is not professional conduct and can bite people in the ass- as gossip always does eventually.

    I am not for or against Ares I, buy I am so sick of credential boasting and insults on this site that I am not really concerned about you being disappointed. If only ex-aerospace workers should be allowed to post here then Jeff should make everyone register and check their creds.

  • GaryChurch

    They’re a rough if not lousy ride and the source of a previous disaster.

    It’s all a rough ride and it was one disaster. Like dozens of similar events in aerospace the problem was corrected and the program continued without a repeat.

    You might want to consider how much a 6 million+ pound thrust first stage would cost using that proposed one million pound thrust kerosene engine. You think that will be a smooth cheap ride? I can tell you one thing, they won’t be reusing parts from a quarter century ago like they did on the 5 segment test. Unless they are super expensive like the SSME liquid motors are junk after one flight.

  • vulture4

    “4, The bulk of the shuttle workers (90%) are from a commercial company.”
    To my knowledge there are no civil servants other than the crew who put their hands on the Shuttle.

    Regarding the SRB, the Ares I booster is still lying on its side dented in because of a parachute failure. The SRBs can be operated fairly safely. The reason they are a dead end is that despite being reusable they vastly increase operating costs. Their reprocessing cost, while slightly lower than their manufacturing cost, is higher than the cost of an expendable solid and much higher than the cost of a reusable liquid. They are extremely heavy and require the VAB, mobile launcher platforms and crawlers to launch. They must be integrated vertically with tedious and hazardous crane lifts. In contrast the Delta IV and Falcon are far lighter and nonhazardous during assembly, and are integrated horizontally in relatively simple hangar-like assembly buildings and carried to the pad on a rubber-tired transporter (Delta) or ordinary railroad track (Falcon.)

    Boeing is a partner in Ares/Orion, and as long as Constellation seemed viable they steadfastly denied any interest in man-rating the Delta. But as soon as Constellation looked like iot might be terminal they immediately proposed their own commercial capsule and launch vehicle, which they could fly much more cheaply since they didn;t have NASA telling them to add unnecessary layers of redundancy or use SRBs. When even a company making Orion/Ares is betting against it, it’s time to wonder why we’re still spending tax dollars on it.

  • GaryChurch

    Sorry, the proper terminology for liquid would be engine and for solid it would be motor. My mistake.

  • GaryChurch

    ” In contrast the Delta IV and Falcon are far lighter and nonhazardous during assembly, and are integrated horizontally in relatively simple hangar-like assembly buildings and carried to the pad on a rubber-tired transporter (Delta) or ordinary railroad track (Falcon.)”

    In contrast the SRB puts out over 3 million pounds of thrust. That is the salient point you are trying put up a smokescreen of technobabble to conceal.

    There is only one reusable liquid engine to date- the SSME. And it is far from cheap.

  • Justin Kugler

    Gary, I do not resort to name-calling. Even so, I find it difficult to take it seriously that you expect me to hold myself to a higher standard than you are willing to impose on yourself. Sometimes ridiculous statements are appropriately met with ridicule.

    You’re clearly not concerned about the insults on this site, though, because you engage in them freely yourself and, even, escalate without cause. With all due respect, sir, that makes you a hypocrite. If you are not willing to extend to me the same courtesy that I have always extended to you, I will thank you kindly to not reply to my posts in the future.

  • Justin, you are far too kind to moronic trolls.

  • Brian Paine

    My wife read a few of the comments on this blog for the first time and her jaw dropped.
    “A bunch of rude and insulting men discussing rocket science… with a lack of repect…”
    Now I warn you we are all in trouble!!!

  • GaryChurch

    ‘The reason they are a dead end is that despite being reusable they vastly increase operating costs. Their reprocessing cost, while slightly lower than their manufacturing cost, is higher than the cost of an expendable solid and much higher than the cost of a reusable liquid.”

    I am interested in your remark about being higher than the cost of a resuable liquid. I am thinking of throwing the B.S. flag on that one. What 3 million pound thrust reusable liquid engine are you talking about?

    While the solids are handful to stack and position, they do not require any of the hardware a liquid does. No turbopumps, myriad valves, pressure regulating devices, plumbing, seperate oxidizer and fuel tanks, etc. And you will notice they do not need the jungle of fueling, re-circulating and other umbilicals that liquids do, and they do not need a fueling crew because, well, they are simple- which is their biggest advantage.

    And while it has always been debated if reusing the SRB’s is economic, what is not debated is it allows the casings to be minutely inspected and after challenger this has been key in it’s perfect flight record and has generated a quarter century of data for evolving and improving the design which is now being manifested in the five segment.

  • DCSCA

    Brian Paine wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 11:09 pm <- She has a point- and good taste.

  • DCSCA

    GaryChurch wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 9:41 pm <- You're arguing with yourself. This writer personally posed the question to Von Braun all of five feet away and he responded as noted. You're tilting at windmills.

  • DCSCA

    Justin Kugler wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 9:38 pm <- You dont have to justify any questioning of SRB use for human spaceflight. It's a reasonable assertion given their history. It's a weak element to plan another 30 year program around and smacks of a rocket designed by politics as opposed to being engineered for performance.

  • DCSCA

    @Church- ” I am so sick of credential boasting and insults on this site that I am not really concerned about you being disappointed…” Every U.S. citizen has a stake in and deserves a say about their space program. Any and all discourse should be a welcomed sign of interest, regardless of you POV on specifics and no doubt ‘Jeff’ understands that. It’s good for spaceflight, which all of us clearly share an interest an advocacy and a passion. Churches often have pointy-headed crowns called steeples– stop showing yours off and just accept that some here can agree to disagree- and a few can simply be disagreeable.

  • GaryChurch

    ‘Churches often have pointy-headed crowns called steeples– stop showing yours off and just accept that some here can agree to disagree- and a few can simply be disagreeable.”

    Do not wag your finger at me. You are the last one to do that.

  • DCSCA

    “Stanl[e]y Kubrick’s Pan Am Shuttle used nuclear thermal propulsion. It drove a superheated fluid out the back end at high velocity.”<— Hmmm. Didn't catch that 'explained' in the all of four minutes of screen time Kubrick's Pan Am 'Orion' shuttle waltzed through the film– however there was a briefly seen but fairly straighforward set of directions for operating a zero-G toilet.

  • GaryChurch

    “You’re arguing with yourself.”

    Gee whiz, are you paying attention?
    Windy was talking about NERVA and you were talking about ORION.
    Are you just baiting me? Or are you really so arrogant you cannot admit you were talking about something different?

  • GaryChurch

    “It’s a reasonable assertion given their history. It’s a weak element to plan another 30 year program around and smacks of a rocket designed by politics as opposed to being engineered for performance.”

    It is not reasonable at all. They failed and the problem was corrected. They have not failed in over 200 firings since.

    It is the simplest, most powerful and fully developed 1st stage booster in existance, bar none. It is not weak- your reasoning is.

    It was designed to safely put a crew up. 1 motor in the first stage and 1 engine in the second stage and a capsule with a protected heat shield and escape tower. That smacks of simplicity and success to me. As for the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the cost; a half dozen DOD cold war toys that have proven useless and retired or will be retired early all cost more.

    The Ares1 is a good design and if it is successful will be around as long as Soyuz. But it does not look like it will ever get built. And of course it does have problems.

    But the 5 segment motor is the item I am defending here. It is not perfect but it is not a perfect world. It is the best heavy lift component we have or will have for a long time to come and it is ready- It has already been test fired;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEK1UgSpIk&feature=related

  • GaryChurch

    Sorry for that link, it is a pretty low quality video, the first one I watched was better but now I cannot find it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 12:22 am

    it was in the book Robert G. Oler

  • Byeman

    “The casings on that 5 segment test were all from past flights”

    SRM casings are not a Shuttle “component”, they are parts/pieces. No different than wheel, tires, piston, or an engine block, for which a car manufacturer would not advertise as a main selling point.

    Mature Shuttle components would be 4 segment SRB, ET, Orbiter, SSME. Ares I uses none of these. Hence my point is correct and your comment is asinine as usual

    Church, know something before posting.

  • Byeman

    Windy is wrong again.

    SRM length determines thrust and diameter determines duration. Propellant core casting pattern can adjust burn duration and thrust to a degree.
    SRM’s are not sophisticated devices, much less very. They can not adjust to day of launch conditions and therefore, limit launch probability.

    “Technological history of SRBs did not end in 1981″
    No, it ended earlier when they fixed the diameter of the SRM and hence there can be no changes.

    The propellant mix has not changed since pre Challenger.

    SRM’s are a dead end. No one is building new vehicles based on them except pork driven NASA. The DOD went away from them, ESA is, Russian never went to them,

  • Aggelos

    I think with a direct sdhlv the srb wil not be dangerous..
    with challenger explosion for example.
    If there was a capsule on top like Orion with escape tower the crew will survive.. I suppose

    with a capsule on top sbrs are not so much safety problem..liquids of course are still safer for manned launch..

    The capsule with a escape tower on top is a very robust system..

    and there is a reason why commercials Dragon,, and dreamchaser(will go with atlas 402) will not choose solids..and because is smoother the ride without solids,,not too much vibration..

    maybe boeing capsule will fly on top of delta iv with solids..

    but Esa will go with solids manned launch..

  • Aggelos

    commercials go with safer all liquids engine rocket but the same time less safe escape rocket,,hypergolic or hybrid..
    so there will a equilibrium..

  • Martijn Meijering

    Their reprocessing cost, while slightly lower than their manufacturing cost, is higher than the cost of an expendable solid and much higher than the cost of a reusable liquid.

    How do expendable solids compare to expendable liquids? You’ve already explained the high integration and handling costs, I’m curious about manufacturing costs, both fixed and variable.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The DOD went away from them, ESA is, Russian never went to them,

    Whether ESA will move away from them has yet to be determined. I’m getting the impression only France is really interested in an all-liquid Ariane 6, so I’m not expecting much there, unless France decides to go it alone and fund it as a national prestige project. Knowing the French that’s a serious possibility. In the short run ESA will be doing more not less with solids, having upgraded them substantially for Vega.

    I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just that I don’t yet see ESA moving away from solids. The main reason I’m interested in solids is that they make new markets available sooner with Ariane derived hardware and that having a mainly French Ariane and a mainly Italian Vega may be the germ of a competitive European launch industry.

  • Off topic, but here are photos from my house of this morning’s Atlas V launch:

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/08/atlas-v-launch-photos.html

  • GaryChurch

    “Church, know something before posting.”

    SRB casings from a quarter century ago being used on the 5 segment boosters are mature. Stop your phibbing and hissy fits. I have proven I at least read more than you do repeatedly. Try doing a little more research and a little less ranting.

  • amightywind

     Byeman wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 7:43 am:

    SRM length determines thrust and diameter determines duration.

    You really ought to crack a book like Sutton. An end burning solid willl have its diameter determine duration, among other things. A core burner roughly has the behavior relation you suggest. The Ariane V SRB has a tapered core so it is a combination of the 2. Again, there are many motor properties you can adjust to get the desired thrust profile.

    They can not adjust to day of launch conditions and therefore, limit launch probability.

    They are just as steerable as liquid fuel engines. They are ideal for lower atmospheric flight because they are more compact that liquids (less drag) and tend to be high thrust to counter air losses. You have only to look at your beloved Delta IV and Atlas V to see their utility.

    The DOD went away from them, ESA is, Russian never went to them

    All of the US nuclear ballistic missile inventory are solid rockets. The DOD uses Delta IV, Atlas V, Pegasus, Taurus… all of which use solids. The Russians are frantically trying to develop solid strategic missiles and making a mess of it.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/09/article-1234430-07887B10000005DC-48_634x421.jpg

    (Kinda reminds me of F9!)

    They don’t use solids because they have not mastered the technology. China doesn’t use them because they only have what they bought from the Russians and stole from the US.

  • GaryChurch

    http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/08/mission-to-asteroid-using-spacex.html

    I guess it might work. But you better double those launches for acquiring the very minimum of radiation protection for the crew. Solar Maximum is coming and a solar event could kill your crew. I would suggest a plastic “slug” assembled in orbit from that RXF1 material nasa has developed.

    And I would suggest using centaur for earth departure. Expensive but it will do a far better job than an kerosene booster. Maybe multiple centaurs pre-positioning your storable fuel return stages. But that is the problem with depots, if for some reason you cannot get to them you die.

  • GaryChurch

    Nice pics of that atlas on Stephen’s blog.

    From Wiki:
    “Each Atlas V rocket uses a Russian-built RD-180 engine burning kerosene and liquid oxygen to power its first stage and an American-built RL10 engine burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to power its Centaur upper stage. Some configurations also use strap-on booster rockets made by Aerojet.

    In its 22 launches, from its maiden launch in August 2002 to August 2010, Atlas V has had a near-perfect success rate. On one flight, NRO L-30 on June 15, 2007, an upper-stage anomaly occurred when the engine in the vehicle’s Centaur upper stage shut down early, leaving the payload—a pair of ocean surveillance satellites—in a lower than intended orbit.[4] However, the customer, the National Reconnaissance Office, categorized the mission as a success.[5][6] Atlas V has made 12 successful flights since the anomaly.”

    Centaur has failed a few times- hydrogen is touchy stuff in zero G and restarts are subject to alot of problems. This should give a clue as to the difficulties that will be encountered with any cryogenic depots. It looks good on the powerpoint but it will be anything but easy.

    And Byeman, I know you think you are an expert on atlas but please just stop trolling and leave this post alone.

  • GaryChurch

    The Atlas is a showcase for rocket technology, an economic russian first stage burning kerosene, multiple expendable solid rockets, some of them lit in flight to get it through the atmosphere, and a balloon tank hydrogen upper stage. It is a far more sophisticated design than the SpaceX kerosene cluster.

    But I guess it cannot be better than falcon because….well, we all know why.

  • Aggelos

    there is any possibility esa to go away of solids?

    thats insane..!
    now it starts the arv project..without ariane 5 solids its not possible..

    my opinion is esa must abandon the ariane 6 plans and just stick to manrate and improve with composite materials and new engines like vinci ariane5..

    for mid launchers,,Soyuz is more than enough..
    And can become manrated too..Soyuz spacecraft from Guiana ,,its possible,,but it needs thought..

  • Martijn Meijering

    now it starts the arv project..without ariane 5 solids its not possible..

    That’s not true, an all-liquid Ariane would use three cores, just like the heavy variants of Atlas and Delta.

    my opinion is esa must abandon the ariane 6 plans

    You would be well advised to build on something more solid than mere opinion.

    and just stick to manrate and improve with composite materials and new engines like vinci ariane5..

    Vinci would be part of any Ariane 6 plans.

  • Aggelos

    “That’s not true, an all-liquid Ariane would use three cores, just like the heavy variants of Atlas and Delta.”

    seems bulky and weak,,Vulcain engine has just the thrust of J-2x..not rs-68 monster..

    with the weak hydrogen core engine…the solids make sense,,

    come on,,because Usa had traumatic experience with old and multiseg solids ,doesnt mean that every other space agency have to abandon solids..
    Esa is not nasa ,and ariane srbs are not like shuttles

  • Byeman

    I know Sutton inside out. Windy, you don’t know is space launch engineering and operations.

    Solids used for space launch are core burners, there are no end burners. Since they all have cores, my points stands. Back to SDLV SRB’s they are constrained and Ares I even more. Ares I can not stray from the shuttle’s design (and make all the changes you list) or its reason for existing is no longer valid. The only solids “safe” for human flight are shuttle derived. A new solid would not be and hence, Ares I can not use it.

    I wasn’t referring to steering but throttling. They are not ‘idea” for lower atmospheric flight. They have drawbacks, hydrocarbon is better.

    You have only to look at your beloved Delta IV and Atlas V to see their utility.”

    Those are strapons, thrust augmentation, we are talking segmented SRM’s as a first stage like shuttle, Titan IV and Ares I, where the bulk of the impulse is provided by SRM’s

    Nuclear missiles are not launch vehicles which we are talking about, they have different requirements. Also, they are not segmented.
    For EELV, the DOD forbade SRM’s like Titan IV and shuttle in the requirements. The thrust augmentation was added by the contractors for the larger comsats, and the DOD satellites grew too.

    So don’t compare segment first stage SRM’s to nukes or strapons.

  • Martijn Meijering

    seems bulky and weak,,Vulcain engine has just the thrust of J-2x..not rs-68 monster..

    A new staged combustion first stage engine is part of the French proposals for Ariane 6.

  • DCSCA

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 1:03 pm <- Magnificent. Great pixx. Always a thrill to witness a launch, be it the kids lofting their model rockets or the real thing.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 1:31 am
    DCSCA wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 12:22 am

    it was in the book Robert G. Oler <- You mean the book written by Arthur C. Clarke, not Kubrick as referenced, where the voyage was to Saturn (Iapatus,) not Jupiter. It was a good read– even better than the film.

  • Martijn Meijering

    But that is the problem with depots, if for some reason you cannot get to them you die.

    What nonsense. First of all, if you are contemplating interplanetary travel you had better be able to stick it out for long enough to allow a rescue vehicle to come and get you. Secondly, with depots you could always bring your return propellant with you, even though that would not be the most efficient solution since it rules out using SEP to preposition it cheaply.

  • amightywind

    Byeman wrote:

    we are talking segmented SRM’s as a first stage like shuttle

    Kinda got it backwards don’t you? The SSME’s provide 1.4M out of 6.5M pounds of thrust at launch. The idea is it throw the LH2 to a sufficient altitude and speed where the high Isp can work its magic. The Ares I uses the same concept. The F9 upperstage blows chunks in comparison.

    I wasn’t referring to steering but throttling. They are not ‘idea” for lower atmospheric flight. They have drawbacks, hydrocarbon is better.

    HC/LOX is heavy, expensive, and performs poorly.

    For all of you that harp about the performance of a single SRB on the Ares I consider a triple body rocket consisting of 3 4 segment SRB’s with 2 lit at launch and 1 airstart. Instant manned launch capability. Griffin made the right decision. We should just go with it.

  • vulture4

    One-piece solids like the GEM-60 used on the Delta are reasonable choices for medium-lift launch vehicles like the EELVs that can be configured for a wide range of payload masses. They are not reusable nor do they have thrust vector control. Even the largest missiles like the Peacekeeper and Trident do not use segmented motors. The large segmented solids used on Shuttle and Ares are considerably more expensive to process and can only be stacked vertically. The Ariane V uses segmented expendable solids, but they are much smaller than those on the Shuttle. The Titan III and IV similarly used segmented boosters, which were also quite expensive.

    Solids are well suited for missiles, and small one-piece solids can be cost-effective as strap-ons on medium-lift expendable launch vehicles, but they are not practical for reusable launch vehicles and larger segmented solids with thrust vector control are almost as complex as liquids. For RLVs and larger expendables I do not believe they are cost-effective.

  • GaryChurch

    “The nonsense people come up with when they have an agenda…”

    Everything is nonsense to you it seems. Here is my response to your other nonsense accusation. I could respond to your depot post like this but you are not worth writing long posts about anymore. If everything is nonsense to you than you are uneducable and there is no point.

    You are a perfect example of that.
    The reason spaceflight has “stupidly” been done with expendable vehicles- like Soyuz- all these years is that you cannot build something lightweight that will survive the vibration, stresses, extremes of temperature, and working pressures and be in any condition to be used again. Not without spending more money tearing it apart, inspecting, and rebuilding it again for more money than it cost to make brand new.
    Like a soda can.
    Scratched, dented, the pop top popped, residue inside, thrown onto the road. You can recover the can, carefully (very carefully) repair the dents, completely scrape off the paint and repaint it, meticulously clean and sterilize the inside, replace the pop top by removing, brazing, and pressing a new one on, etc.
    Or you can just forget about it and continue to punch out new ones at the factory.

    You might not agree with this analogy but the weight factor is not debatable. The weight of recovery devices, even simple parachutes, eats into the payload. Making a capsule reusable may have advantages, but sticking wings, control systems, airframe and landing gear on it so it can land like an airplane has been proven to be a dead end. And unless some unobtainium is found in regards to propulsion or the laws of physics change, it will stay this way.
    The precise launch vehicle is all important, and your competitive procurement is inherently flawed because it does not choose the best, it accepts the cheapest.

  • GaryChurch

    “Solids are well suited for missiles, and small one-piece solids can be cost-effective as strap-ons on medium-lift expendable launch vehicles, but they are not practical for reusable launch vehicles and larger segmented solids with thrust vector control are almost as complex as liquids. For RLVs and larger expendables I do not believe they are cost-effective.”

    Have to throw the big B.S. flag on this post. You have a great imagination but not much reality in your post. There are no resuable launch vehicles except for the shuttle and it is a partially reusable heavy launch vehicle. The SRBs are nowhere near as complex as liquids.

    Your whole post seems to be about some imaginary reusable vehicle using liquid engines exclusively. There is no such vehicle.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Everything is nonsense to you it seems.

    Not, not everything is nonsense to me. Much of what you say is however. As I alluded to above I suspect it is because you have an agenda with set conclusions that are not to be challenged.

    The reason spaceflight has “stupidly” been done with expendable vehicles-

    I was talking about spacecraft, not launch vehicles. Reusable spacecraft are much easier than reusable launch vehicles. Ultimately I hope we’ll have RLVs, but ELVs are the right place to start.

    You might not agree with this analogy but the weight factor is not debatable. The weight of recovery devices, even simple parachutes, eats into the payload.

    This is only a problem if you want to launch everything on an HLV, no matter how big and if you want to launch it fully fueled. Once you off-load the propellant, spacecraft will fit easily on an EELV Medium. Even if you stick on wings, landing gear, air breathing engines and what not it will still comortably fit on an EELV Heavy. To first approximation nothing fueled ever fits comfortably on an HLV, no matter how big, and everything dry will fit comfortably on an EELV. And offloading propellant from a spacecraft is much easier than from an EDS, since the spacecraft could reasonably use noncryogenic propellant.

    The precise launch vehicle is all important, and your competitive procurement is inherently flawed because it does not choose the best, it accepts the cheapest.

    The cheapest vehicle is the best vehicle since cost is the strongest constraint on manned spaceflight.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I could respond to your depot post like this but you are not worth writing long posts about anymore.

    A short reply would do. But the real reason for your silence is that you have been caught in an indefensible position:

    But that is the problem with depots, if for some reason you cannot get to them you die.

    This statement is obviously and incontrovertibly false. Anything an HLV can do from LEO, a smaller vehicle can do in combination with orbital refueling. It is only the first leg of the journey, from the Earth to LEO that would be different. It is this kind of obvious falsehood that makes you hard to take seriously.

  • GaryChurch

    “Anything an HLV can do from LEO, a smaller vehicle can do in combination with orbital refueling.”

    That is incontrovertibly false. The laws of physics have not changed since Apollo and there were very good reasons not to use smaller vehicles and “orbital refueling.” No cryogenic propellants have ever been transfered in space because it is extremely difficult to store and handle them in zero gravity.

    No one has done it for a half a century because it is stupid. Like your comments. The bigger the vehicle, the greater the capability. Anyone who believes the opposite is a moron or has been conned.

  • GaryChurch

    “The cheapest vehicle is the best vehicle since cost is the strongest constraint on manned spaceflight”

    If that were true we wold all be driving yugo’s.

    Vast treasure is spent on everything from cosmetics to stealth bombers. Cost is not a constraint- it is politics. And here we are posting of Space Politics.

  • Aggelos

    “A new staged combustion first stage engine is part of the French proposals for Ariane 6.”
    yes,,in their dreams..

    Esa cannot even finish and have economical problems with Vinci engine..
    not a new first stage engine..

    all these seem like sci-fi ..

  • Byeman

    Windy just added more to the list of reasons why he doesn’t know what he is talking about

    “HC/LOX is heavy, expensive, and performs poorly.”

    Actually, the statement would true if solids was substituted for HC/LOX

    “consider a triple body rocket consisting of 3 4 segment SRB’s with 2 lit at launch and 1 airstart.”

    You just described the SRB-X, only the more worse launch vehicle than Ares I.

    Solids do not make for a good launch vehicle.

  • amightywind

    vulture4 wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    For RLVs and larger expendables I do not believe they are cost-effective

    The for the record an individual SRB is the least expensive component on the space shuttle stack. The first stage of the Ares I is also the cheapest component of that stack. The whole cost argument is completely unsubstantiated.

  • Martijn Meijering

    “A new staged combustion first stage engine is part of the French proposals for Ariane 6.”
    yes,,in their dreams..

    Esa cannot even finish and have economical problems with Vinci engine..
    not a new first stage engine..

    That’s the big problem with Ariane 6, it would cost a lot of money even though is probably the best solution technically. It’s what ESA calls a NG (Next Generation) configuration. There are other, more incremental upgrades using existing Ariane and Vega hardware and those are called the BB (Building Block) configurations, which would be available sooner and cost less money. The most promising one has a solid first stage (Ariane 5 SRB with upgrades developed for Vega) and Vinci-powered ESC-B upper stage. An advantage is that it would have substantial commonality with Vega, which saves costs. The drawback is that it’s a solid and that it gets rid of Vulcain and the 5m core. It would also give a much more prominent role to Italy, at the expense of France, which France won’t like.

    I think ESC-B + Vinci, perhaps with SRBs upgraded from Vega is the only thing that’s likely to happen. A slightly bigger version of Vega (Lyra) with a LOX/CH4 upper stage may happen too. I can see Italy funding a LOX/CH4 second stage too. The rest will probably have to wait.

  • Aggelos

    “I think ESC-B + Vinci, perhaps with SRBs upgraded from Vega is the only thing that’s likely to happen. A slightly bigger version of Vega (Lyra) with a LOX/CH4 upper stage may happen too.”

    I agree completely..together ofcourse with Arv capsule on Ariane and manrate the rocket..

    And I think that if Ariane 5 get manrated will keep flying for many years..
    Esa thinks that the next manned spaceship will last some decades ,like Soyuz..

  • Martijn Meijering

    I agree completely..together ofcourse with Arv capsule on Ariane and manrate the rocket..

    That might be nice, but I doubt there will be money for it.

    And I think that if Ariane 5 get manrated will keep flying for many years..

    The trouble with Ariane is that it is too big and too expensive for commercial markets and they don’t want to have to subsidise it so much. They are trying to make it smaller and cheaper, not bigger or man-rated.

  • Byeman

    “The for the record an individual SRB is the least expensive component on the space shuttle stack”
    For the record, amightwind is wrong again. The ET is the cheapest component. The costs that are associated with ATK for the shuttle are for SRM’s, and not SRB’s. There are more USA costs to turn SRM segments into an SRB, which exceed an ET.

    “That is incontrovertibly false.”
    Church, you don’t have the knowledge or experience to make such a statement much less make a correct one.

    Propellant, depots can reduce the size of launch vehicles, thereby reducing cost. No matter what retort you respond with, it will be wrong.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    > Kelly Stark – still tpyes wtih a nut losoe no hsi kybeord.

    When you complain about my spelling, could you spell my name correctly?

    ;)

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ August 14th, 2010 at 12:22 am

    >>“Stanl[e]y Kubrick’s Pan Am Shuttle used nuclear thermal propulsion.
    >> It drove a superheated fluid out the back end at high velocity.” Hmmm. Didn’t catch that ‘explained’ in the all of four minutes of screen
    > time Kubrick’s Pan Am ‘Orion’ shuttle waltzed through the film– however
    > there was a briefly seen but fairly straight forward set of directions for operating a zero-G toilet.

    ;)

    I think there was some comment about the shuttle being nuclear –but I only remember it in the Aurora model — course they didn’t even get the size of the door on the outer hull correct, so they might not be the most dependable data source.

    ;)

    Though really, its surprising how close it matches the actual orbiter in size and shape of the craft, and the cargo capacity.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ August 15th, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    When you complain about my spelling, could you spell my name correctly?

    You obviously missed the irony…

  • Martijn Meijering

    No cryogenic propellants have ever been transfered in space because it is extremely difficult to store and handle them in zero gravity.

    For the sake of argument let’s assume cryogenic propellant transfer is impractical. That still leaves us with the possibility of using noncryogenic propellant. Before you jump in and say that’s inefficient let me point out that we could do one of two things to deal with that:

    1) launch a fully fueled Centaur on top of an EELV Heavy (i.e. quasi 3 stage), use L1/L2 as a staging point and use storable propellant transfer from there on (and back)
    2) Use noncryogenic propellant from LEO but resupply them with RLVs

    Either way you could do whatever it is you wanted to do with an HLV without the HLV. And in neither circumstance would your earlier statement about dying if you cannot reach your depot. Those are the facts. Regrettably for you that they do not argue in favour of an HLV.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The costs that are associated with ATK for the shuttle are for SRM’s, and not SRB’s. There are more USA costs to turn SRM segments into an SRB, which exceed an ET.

    Do you have any insight into SRB costs as a percentage of total costs for Ariane?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>