Let’s see your evidence.

CAPS

Very well, how then do you justify a procurement process that is unfair, noncompetitive or not redundant? What necessity or major advantage justifies overruling the judgment of the market and NASA’s mandate to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space”?

“CR all by himself has advertised the falcon heavy, not even talking about the nine, more times than anyone has “shilled” for SDHLV.”

Too bad I don’t get any compensation, but then again companies that are looking for launchers in the Falcon 9 Heavy class already know what their choices are, and don’t listen to you or me blabbering on this blog.

So why do I mention Falcon 9 Heavy so many times? Because Falcon 9 Heavy lifts 70,000 lb to LEO for $95M, or $1,357/lb ($2,992/kg). That makes Falcon 9 Heavy the least expensive way to get payload to space out of any existing or near-term launchers.

Falcon 9 Heavy is also scheduled for it’s first flight out of Vandenberg AFB next year, so Falcon 9 Heavy is real hardware, not mythical like Liberty, SDHLV or even SLS.

And since Falcon 9 Heavy uses the same boosters cores as used on Falcon 9, every Falcon 9 launch validates their design, increases overall reliability, all the while keeping costs lower than anyone else in the World.

That’s why I talk about Falcon 9 Heavy – because it meets my criteria of lowering the cost to access space.

I also talk about Orbital Sciences, ULA and Boeing for their respective products, but apparently you don’t remember those, but only remember your technological nemesis, Falcon 9 Heavy.

There, nine more references to Falcon 9 Heavy (make that ten), and two for it’s smaller sibling. Thanks for the opportunity to bring that up…

You said “we see.” Since you did not say otherwise the “we” means we here on this website.

“but they don’t even attempt to address the issues openly.”

I do. I am not they.

Since the blogosphere is replete with SDLV shills, I find it hard to believe a single poster could outdo them, even if I did believe CR was a SpaceX shill, which I don’t. But the bottom line remains that all the pro-commercial side is arguing for is fair, competitive and redundant procurement, which is almost the exact opposite of shilling. Those arguing against competitive procurement have a mountain to climb, but they don’t even attempt to address the issues openly. To me that (among others things) suggests they know they are wrong. You don’t have to distort the facts or the question at hand if you have a solid and respectable case.

I am going to call that one a lie. CR all by himself has advertised the falcon heavy, not even talking about the nine, more times than anyone has “shilled” for SDHLV.

Check, they appear to be in the process of establishing a set of standards for ECLSS systems to be deployed on any number of different vehicles. Like I said a great idea. It is hard to tell from the press release but the CCT-ARS they refer to seems to have been a “table top” demonstrator for the system (it fits well with the $1.5 Million figure reported). That is not knocking what they accomplished as that is a critical interim step to producing a working ECLSS, but a good deal more work remains to be done (as the press release itself implies).

“Let’s just leave it at that for now, since both of you seem pretty passionate.”

Passionate yes (I really believe in this stuff), and other than that I am like (I think) anyone else. Your polite to me, I am polite to you; otherwise not so much.

“But regarding this statement:
“A very “success oriented schedule” might produce a prototype vehicle for testing sometime in the 2014-2015 timeframe.”
Considering that Soyuz is under contract through at least 2015, and that even SpaceX has said that their Dragon crew upgrade program would take 2-3 years, this guesstimate of yours doesn’t seem to be an impediment.”

I did not mean to imply that it was an impediment, I was replying in the context of the assertion that ECSS development was trivial and could be done in a few months. I was actually glad to see that the CCDev process was not taking that approach.

Bravo! Well said. Enough w/t press releases and promises of ‘things to come. Stop talking, start flying and get some skin in the game.

@Vladislaw wrote @ March 6th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
“As of right now SpaceX does not need or is required to have any flight hardware for crewed missions.”

Which reaffirms it as a ticket to no place for near and mid term HSF planning. Soyuz is operational with a long and successful record and can ferry crews to a space station slated for splash by the end of the decade. It represents past planning and will struggle to maintain operational funding as the decade rolls on in the Age of Austerity. Dragon can schlepp-up the luggage and provide room service if they ever get around to going operational. Should they ever install, verify, test and fly a Drago with a viable ECS and actually risk flying a human crew which returns alive, this writer will cheerfully applaud and ask what took so long. But based on your own musings, don’t hold your breath.

“Dragon has no viable, independenly verified ECS for crewed flight and cannot fly crewed missions as of now.”

As of right now SpaceX does not need or is required to have any flight hardware for crewed missions. Why? Because they are currently in the process of competing, against mutiple contractors, to provide that service for NASA. That is like saying Ford motor company doesn’t have an independantly verified tank for the US Army. If the Army wanted tanks and Ford won the bid, I am sure they could, for the right money, design and build whatever the government wants. You are once again putting the cart before the horse.

“Investors have no idea if it is a gem or a deathtrap.”

Investors bet on entrepreneurs, their track records and the future. One thing is guaranteed, no investor will ever invest one single dime in constellation.

Before something have the monikor “deathtrap” it actually has to cause some deaths. Now take the space shuttle, it killed 14 people, one person per nine flights on average. So anything using legacy shuttle hardare, like say constellation, would be closer to being a deathtrap that a product that has not been created or tested yet. AGAIN cart – horse.

“It’s not economically viable to invest millions into a LEO crude, crewed ‘space pod’ to access a space station increasingly battling for operational funding in the Age of Austerity and is slated for splash by the end of the decade.”

Since when has a “crude” product never been brought successfully to the market. Hell look at the first mobile phones. ( lol the brick)

Actually it is more likely to be slated for an extention into 2028.

“Americans don’t wan’t to pay for the turkey anymore. It represents past planning. By the time a safe, crewed Dragon got flying, if ever, it would be too late in the decade, redundant to Soyuz and never turn a profit.”

It is no wonder you do not publish your name, you are going to look so foolish because every statement like this you made has been faithfully archived by Mr. Foust for all to see in the coming years.

It is paced to surpase soyuz in both the number of passengers and undercut the price and the Russians are working on an upgrade so when Dragon does fly there may not even be a soyuz.

I really hope you enjoy the taste of crow… because man … if you stay on this blog, and keep using the same name, you are going to be living on it.