Comments on: Briefs: Nelson’s complaints, New York’s fear of Texas

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:43:40 +0000

@Major Tom wrote @ November 26th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/50-million-spacex/

Key phrase- ‘claims slight profits.’ And it is a limited market. Commercial HSF will finally take root with Branson.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 04:38:57 +0000

“Yes it does, particularly as more competitors come online and especially if other firms excel in affordable HSF proposals.”

No, if there are lots of effective competitors cutting up the human space flight market into lots of small pieces, then SpaceX needs other lines of business, like unmanned satellites. And those are the payloads that comprise the majority of the SpaceX manifest.

Again, think before you post.

“SpaceX needs the ISS contracting for cargo and/or HSF flights to ISS through its projected lifetime.”

Says who? Reference?

And since when did SpaceX have a “projected lifetime”? How many years? Reference?

Stop making stuff up.

Sigh…

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:55:00 +0000

Vladislaw wrote @ November 26th, 2010 at 1:20 am

That may have been a valid suspicion early on, but the hardware flaws are genuine. Once again, though, we see NASA shuttle managment processes at work, which may be as equally sub-standard as the workmanship on the ET in question.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:51:06 +0000

Major Tom wrote @ November 26th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Yes it does, particularly as more competitors come online and especially if other firms excel in affordable HSF proposals. SpaceX needs the ISS contracting for cargo and/or HSF flights to ISS through its projected lifetime. If NASA suffers deep cuts or is abosrbed by DoD– or simply is disbanded- it most defintely will affect SpaceX’s future– and its capacity to attract private investors. Indeed, think before you post.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:00:17 +0000

“Through 2017, you mean, however, its future depends on NASA contracting”

No, it doesn’t. No launch company has contracts that go more than a handful of years into the future. Just because a company isn’t reliant on NASA business for the next seven years, doesn’t mean they’re suddenly going to become reliant on NASA business in the eighth year.

Think before you post.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:19:17 +0000

@Martijn Meijering wrote @ November 25th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Yes, scrub a flight as the program is ending- a flight which was penciled in anyway- due to substandard hardware. No more ‘wing and a prayer’ flights. The quicker this program is finally put to bed, the better.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 06:45:56 +0000

@Rand Simberg wrote @ November 25th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Two to choose from leaving months to rework the flawed one as the reserve. Unless you’re willing to risk crew and vehicle again on a piece of flawed engineering. Speaks volumes about your managment judgment– or maybe you just want NASA’s HSF program to go out w/a bang. Good grief.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 06:20:40 +0000

DCSCA wrote:

“Theyâ€™ve slipped this launch date so long, the wise move would be to switch out the ET.”

Or maybe the slips were planned so that it delays the retirement and holds onto employees for a few more months. The more delays on this launch could be used to push that potential last launch out more months. A way of backdoor extending the shuttle program and forstalling that last dying gasp of a program.

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 23:08:37 +0000

Yes, because they have so many ETs sitting on the shelf.

Depending on whether you want to help or hurt SDLV that could be either a bug or a feature. Once they’ve lost the Michoud workforce (and we may already be past the point of no return) every ET that is taken out of the running means another potential Shuttle mission that is eliminated. As I understand it they have three more tanks that do not require modifications, including one SWT (or maybe LWT).

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:44:24 +0000

Theyâ€™ve slipped this launch date so long, the wise move would be to switch out the ET.

Yes, because they have so many ETs sitting on the shelf.

More ignorance from the usual suspect.