Double Standards and Sour Grapes From the Romney/Griffin Camp
SpaceX’s Dragon capsule docks with international space station, Washington post
“On Friday, Musk said that SpaceX could be ready to fly people into space by 2015. But Scott Pace, a space policy expert at George Washington University and an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said the company first needs a track record. “They need to fly [cargo] six or seven times consecutively,” he said.”
Keith’s note: More Griffin era, out-of-date, sour grapes thinking from a Romney campaign advisor. Please tell me, Scott, where are the legal or agency requirements or 6 or 7 cargo flights prior to crew flights on Falcon 9/Dragon? Answer: there are no such requirements. You are just throwing imaginary hurdles in front of SpaceX so as to make their successes look less impressive than they are. And where is a precedent for such hurdles? Certainly not in the historical record of American human spaceflight. Why was the Space Shuttle allowed to fly with a crew on its very first flight? Human crews flew on the third Gemini/Titan II flight, Apollo crews flew on the third Saturn V flight, etc. How many cargo-only Ares 1/Orion flights were you and Mike going to have before you flew crews? Certainly not “six or seven times consecutively”. So why are you suddenly calling for SpaceX to meet criteria never levied upon NASA by you or anyone else?
Keith’s update: Curiously, you see a markedly different (and reasoned) tone than the dour stance taken by Mike Griffin and Scott Pace from another individual identified as a space supporter of the Romney campaign:
“Mark Albrecht, a former Republican space-policy maker who also previously ran Lockheed Martin Corp.’s international rocket business, called the launch “a watershed event” and a “Sputnik moment for the U.S. space program and the entire aerospace industry.” Large aerospace rivals need to “take heed, adapt or go the way of the electric typewriter,” he said.”
So … who speaks for Gov. Romney – and who does not? With Griffin and Pace there always seems to be a lingering “what if” bitterness – of the sort often associated with talking about having lost some big game way back in high school.
– Obama to Romney: Will You Fire Mike Griffin?, earlier post
– Partisan Romney Space Advisor To Call For Non-Partisan Space Policy, earlier post
– Obama Campaign Issues Space Policy Fact Sheet, earlier post
Don’t worry by the time there ready to fly the first crew they should have that many if not more launches under their belt. They already have three F9 launches.
Why is Liberty considered to be human rated when it has never even flown?
Because of the false premise that their solids flight history have something to do with Shuttle RSRMs and are thus “human rated” by default.
Everything about Liberty is like this – misleading and disingenuous to “game” commercial, to “move to intercept” SpaceX/others before they detour arsenal space out of NASA HSF.
Too late.
No, they don’t have three. Falcon 9 v1.1 is enough different than the version flying now that these three and the two v1.0 launches to follow do not count. It is not even close to the same rocket. Basically if you are keeping a tally, they have one successful Dragon launch and zero booster launches. But, don’t fret. Baring a disaster SpaceX will crank out the 6 or 7 V1.1 vehicles in no time.
Also, who is stopping SpaceX from orbiting their own Astronauts/test pilots? These requirements are for launch NASA astronauts to the ISS…
“Falcon 9 v1.1 is enough different than the version flying now that these three and the two v1.0 launches to follow do not count. It is not even close to the same rocket.”
As Keith said, but ATK wants to claim Liberty is based on “flight-proven” shuttle technology?
A “flight-proven shuttle technology” with 14 notches in its handle. /s
Anyone know how John Logsdon feels about Space X and astronaut capability?
I don’t really care about what the new fella at GW thinks. Space X has continued to change the paradigm- Cots combination flight seems to be going like clockwork.
I am continually amazed that folks who are supposedly all about the private sector seem to always cheer for the good ol’ boys. Private, as long as it means slower, bigger, more expensive. As the old adage goes, no one ever got fired by doing the safe thing and buying from IBM. It can be argued however, that given IBM intransigence in the 80’s- maybe someone should have.
Simply put
Airbus makes Boeing better.
So too will Space X.
Let’s let NASA and the Astronaut corps decide exactly what they feel comfortable flying- and lets hold each contractor to a set of specs with a margin of safety far higher than anything that came before.
Space X either meets the high specs or no- but when and if they do meet those specs (and I bet they do it by 2015) let them fly! If they meet spec, then Dragon is no more risky than Boeing’s never flown CST.
Worried about lack of proven data for the Dragon/Falcon 9? Fine- fly the heck out of the system by using it to resupply the station and launch Iridium 2.0 – Which is exactly the plan.
We’ve actually accepted much more risk before:
We need to remember that Shuttle flew 2 humans in ’81 with no previous automated launches, and no actual launch data for the combined Shuttle stack.
How did Thiokol’s “experience” help in January of ’86?
And going as far back as the 60’s, Space, Inc. was full of space newbies. How much did Grumman’s A6 have in common with the LEM, really?
Given the mission critical nature of a proper Space Suit- How much Space Experience did Playtex have?
We need to be agnostic about the builder and look to creating a phenomenal set of requirements and choose a vendor with proven ability to meet or exceed those requirements reliably. All else is superfluous nonsense.
I believe you mean tolerant about the builder, not agnostic, that means without knowledge and I think we want a lot of knowledge about the builders.
I tend to move the other way in regarding “a phenomenal set of requirements”.
According to Wayne Hale the gemini capsule had 25 pages of requirements, the apollo capsule 50 but when it came to the shuttle it became encyclopedic.
“We need something that can do X, give us a bid”
“We want to place a NASA lunar geology on the moon, what is the per seat cost?”
“We want a bed, bunk and a bathroom in living quarters on the moon for 4 NASA researchers, how much per month per person?”
“We want a lunar research vehicle for EVA’s must be self sustained for two weeks, how much to lease it?”
I would much prefer a NASA like that then having everything NASA does go through the congressional pork machine first.
“Agnostic” is pretty standard techie slang for “without preference”. Ie, “Vendor agnostic”, “platform agnostic”. Taken from the common use of the term (without religious preference) rather than the 19th century academic meaning.
Other than that anti-pedantic pedantry, I agree with your point.
I’d like to see Obama announce that he’s officially directing NASA to conduct all future SLS work using the same “proven model” as COTS. Multi-vendor, fixed-price, fixed-milestone. Specifying only the bare minimum requirements necessary to get the job done.
He could make a point of comparing the funding SpaceX received under COTS with the funding received by SLS contractors. (<5%?) Congratulate Bolden on reigning in Constellation’s out of control budget/schedule via his new “streamlined” SLS program, and direct him to take the next “bold leap” to the commercial model.
From memory, the language of the SLS authorisation would allow this while still following the letter of the law, so he wouldn’t need Congressional authorisation. And if Congress changes the language to prevent it, he has the power to veto, as he threatened to do (finally!) when they recently tried to choke CCDev.
It would certainly stir things up.
(Also, $3b/yr for a COTS-like Big Rocket contest? Woof!)
The success of COTS is in having the provider be “the decider” – how to get there with what particulars.
As they explain to NASA why it meets NASA’s concerns, and NASA feeds back its experience to modulate how to best deal with those concerns. Far better than the RFQ/RFP acquisition process to vendors.
Because the provider can consider a much broader range of things than the constrained, preordained ones NASA must only consider.
add:
Ask John yourself – logsdon “aat” gwu dot edu .
Christopher Miles asked: Anyone know how John Logsdon feels about Space X and astronaut capability?
John Logsdon:
“This demonstration flight for NASA’s COTS program provides valuable
experience for SpaceX, but also for NASA and the entire industry that
will be carrying cargo and eventually crew to the International Space
Station,” said John Logsdon, professor emeritus at the George Washington
University’s Space Policy Institute, in a statement. “Congratulations
to SpaceX for extending their streak of successful Falcon 9 launches.”
http://www.bostonherald.com…
I should think that three consecutive, successful cargo flights to ISS would be enough to justify man-rating Dragon. Claiming ‘6 or 7’ only would be enough is obfuscation, ‘Not invented here’ or even propoganda.
The number of freight flights isn’t much of an issue. It will take about that long for DragonRider to be built and wrung out. Once it is, I suspect SpaceX will fly (perhaps) one automated unmanned mission (which will no doubt include tests of both life support and of the escape system’s landing function), then go directly to crewed flight. In other words, crewed flight will probably begin almost as soon as a crew-rated capsule is available. I don’t foresee SpaceX wasting much time.
OS,
I agree; they won’t waste much time. I’m assuming that no on here has absolute knowledge of everything that SpaceX is working on day to day, or what their cash flow situation is week to week, so they might just spring it on us sooner than everyone is guessing. That seems consistent with Musk’s style. But, I do suspect that SpaceX will be a little more conservative in their own predictions in the future. My bottom line: don’t count flights; SpaceX will be ready for HSF when they say they are — and hopefully not too much longer after they say they will — and I highly doubt they’ll consult with Romney, Griffin, Scott Pace or anyone else in the political arena.
Steve
They just did their first cargo flight. Aren’t they going to have done six or seven by 2015?
I agree to a degree, but this Falcon 9 (version 1.0) only has 2-3 flights left before it’s superseded by the Falcon 9 v. 1.1 – the stretched F9 that will also be the common core with Falcon Heavy. If it’s anywhere near as smooth a ride as F9 1.0 before a 2015 crew flight that core will have flown most of its 12 ISS resupply missions plus several satellite launches and who knows how many Falcon Heavy launches. Seems that 7 straight of of that many launches is low hanging fruit.
Exactly. Falcon 9 V1.1 is a major improvement over v1.0 in almost every aspect. Seven launches is not a lot to expect from SpaceX – especially when they were not designed in concert/with/by NASA as those other launchers such as the Shuttle. Look at Atlas V for instance. It is currently a way more reliable rocket than Falcon, proven through MANY flights and it is still having to jump through many expensive hoops to become man rated.
I sure hope that we don’t have to continually be deluged with Keith’s hard core Democrat/liberal bias through the entire election cycle. Please just post these interesting stories and maintain this great website without the one-sided stupidity. And yes, I would be saying the same thing if he was hard over on the right wing side too.
“Keith’s hard core Democrat/liberal bias”
And you somehow managed to not noticed all the Bolden bashing articles he’s posted over the last few years? Seriously? It’s easy to see bias everywhere when you’ve got one eye closed.
I was not particularly liked in the Clinton White House either (Dan Goldin anyone?)
Kieth:
LOL, so right! I remember that.
As far as I’ve seen, you seem to take aim at all legitimate targets and rarely miss. If you have a bias, it would be toward having a successful American space program regardless of how or who does it. Only fair to go after anyone who stands in the way of this lofty goal, regardless of politics of affiliation.
Maybe John mistakes your stories about ‘workers rights’ as some sort of lefty pinko attitude instead of being something everyone should care about. 😉
tinker
Justatinker: and when I posted comments in support of private sector and commercial efforts by Bush II’s administrator O’Keefe (not normally something us lefties support, right?) people questioned whether I was a real democrat. But when I question why pro-business Republicans appointed by Bush II (Griffin) oppose private sector and space commercial efforts I am – what a pro-business leftie? I have a headache. Like you said, I want to see the best American space program – regardless of what party does it.
Keith:
What should we call folks like us then?
Up wing? 8D
tinker
Yawn – and you can’t even show a little spine and use your real name … if you do not like NASA Watch then stop reading it. You will feel better, I promise.
Keith, you are an “equal opportunity offender”. You raise issues that make many uncomfortable for a variety of reasons.
Keep doing so.
Stop reading NASA Watch? You’re kidding!? I’d give up dessert first. Keith, please keep on calling them as you see them.
I rather like the idea that SpaceX innovates often. One of the problems with the space shuttle is it was to expensive of beast to allow additional funding for the next gen, altough they tried.
Maybe they just want a name-brand, in which case I’ve got a proposal. Skip Boeing and go straight to the biggest name of ’em all; Cocacola.
There have been literally thousands of Coke bottle flights using auqajet technology and they’re developing a more advanced propulsion system based on Diet Coke and Mentos.
SpaceX thinks they’re on to something with their lower ISP fuels to simplify operations, but you don’t get lower and simpler than fetching some dry ice from the local Baskin Robins and dropping it into a bottle of Aquafina.
Sounds like Scott Pace has a simple minded view of how vehicles should be certified. Shuttle had 24 successful flights and was certified for flight every time, but on the 25th they found a significant design flaw and the crew was killed. Actually it had been certified even though they were aware of the design flaw before the accident because it hadnt killed anyone yet. Columbia followed the same pattern. NASA was fully aware of the design and hardware issues with the foam, but certified it anyway since it hadn’t yet caused an accident. Read Diane Vaughn’s book or the report on the Challenger accident investigation.
I also wouldn’t be too interested in what Logsdon has to say on this. He’s a historian, not an engineer or certification specialist, and he had no clue of the status of Shuttle’s certification and really a poor understanding of how the design configuration was established in the first place. Maybe he should stick with his narrow area of specialization, Kennedy and the moon decision. The Columbia accident investigation in my opinion was not as accurate or insightful because of erroneous ‘opinions’ like Logsdon’s instead of unbiased fact.
Certification is done in a lot of ways and over a period of time. It can be done through design, through test, through flights…We know the Dragon and Falcon design works. We need to hear and see the paperwork about whether there have been technical issues and if so how they were fixed.
I hope and suspect that Space-X has done a better job on certification of its vehicles than Boeing did for instance with ISS. Since Space-X did most of their own manufacturing and testing, hopefully they have the records in hand. When ISS elements were to be certified (15 years ago), we found lots of missing documentation, and the plants responsible for the construction, testing and certification had been closed, people had moved on, and traceability was suspect. Boeing thought no one would notice.
NASA’s fundamental safety problem is the institutional belief that
enough people sitting around a table looking at paperwork can figure out everything that can go wrong. This led to the fundamental problem with Shuttle; the design was chosen without any prototype testing except in the most trivial part of the flight regimen.
Certification has its uses, but paperwork doesn’t keep you alive at Mach 25. NASA certification procedures tend to involve expensive reviews by large groups of people with little hands-on experience who feel obligated to prove they are doing something useful by requiring changes. They feel obligated to push “safety” by requiring things that can be seen on a block diagram, like additional levels of redundancy, which is ineffective in preventing deterministic failures, most historical failures in LVs, because the redundant systems share the common failure mode. Certification tends to make design improvements slow and expensive so we are tempted to fly with the old design even when we know there are problems. We know it is safe, because it is “certified”.
SpaceX has learned about problems that were not anticipated in design analysis on every single flight and made immediate hardware improvements. Before it carries people the Falcon will have a dozen flights under its belt with all detected problems corrected at the design level, not with mitigation. That is much better evidence of reliability than any level of analysis, indeed ULA has made the same point regarding the Atlas. NASA’s big concern over the flight software paperwork that delayed the Dragon launch does not (SFAIK) seem to have resulted in any changes at all in the actual flight hardware or software though it produced considerable paperwork.
However I agree that it doesn’t make sense to be launching station modules after the plant has been closed and the people dispersed. Not much opportunity for design evolution there. Hopefully commercial crew won’t have this problem.
Having it all under one roof vastly simplifies certification. Also, having a small staff size relative to the scale of the undertaking makes it easier to maintain uniform provenance.
I think I heard a variation on this question at the first Falcon 9 abort for this mission. The question was how many Falcon 9 launches did SpaceX want before they tried a crewed mission. As I recall, SpaceX was looking at more than 10 launches before they tried sending people into orbit.
If SpaceX stated they were planning on 10 or more unmanned launches before a crewed launch, then it seems that they are in agreement with Scott Pace.
Not really. Elon simply said that a goodly number of freight missions would have flown before DragonRider was ready to test. Could be five, could be ten, but Mr. Pace wasn’t a factor in Musk’s projections, which were made beginning as long as two years ago.
I agree that Musk said that on his own before Pace’s comment. It just seems that there’s no disagreement between the two that there will be a good number of unmanned flights before a crewed flight. Just going by the SpaceX contract, I think they have 12 flights scheduled by 2015 or so anyway so it seems that the question is moot.
I do commend Space X for the most recent misson success. It is critical to control the design and software if this is to be a reliable system. I would not commit to flying humans until all the process controls are verfied to make sure changes don’t creep into the sytem that will reduce its reliablity. As soon as that is verified and the changes are controlled and well documented and verified I would feel good about flying humans.
I’ll be curious to see if SpaceX launches it’s own private crew before a NASA crew. Having a private crew in orbit, or even docking with the ISS, would be another major first.
I believe Musk mentioned that a private crew would make a test flight.
If the first launch of a crewed Dragon is in 2015, I hope SpaceX chooses March 23. That is day for the first crewed Gemini mission in 1965. It would be cool if exactly 50 years later, a commercial crewed mission was launched.
I suspect they could fly sooner if Elon is willing to commit. Assuming a private crew, of course. Flying NASA personnel promises to be somewhat more…complicated.
I hope Elon flys private crew first. And hope Bigelow gets some stations up and running where they can get free of some of this. Sure seems like we can be safetied to having no space future at all. Reading these posts sounds like NASA could just become a big weight making man space fight impossible.
As cool it would be (STS-1 20 years after Gagarin’s flight) but schedules should be set for technical reasons not . Let’s not let Dragon-1 end like Soyuz-1 (I think Politburo wanted it 10 years after Sputnik1 and ended killing one of their best cosmonauts).
oops, I pressed ‘enter’ too quick. I meant to say, “…set for technical reasons not political reasons.”
No one’s rushing, unlike with STS-1 where we almost lost the Shuttle – we’re not seeing manned test flights of all up new LV + RV.
Test flights are where you gain tons of engineering data, and don’t do anything else.
Orion’s EFT-1 is intended to be a partially outfitted capsule bolted to a EELV upper stage, with the stages preprogrammed flight path in its own controller – so the long pole that Dragon had of avionics, software, prox ops, rendezvous … are nowhere to be seen.
It’s basically a heat shield and recovery test. Less than the prior COTS 1 test(Orion won’t have a SM for EFT-1), except for a higher boost to simulate lunar recovery.
And Orion/MPCV is arguably the best part of the SLS nonsense. Even if they cut over to EELV’s for manned flight, they will never catch up with Dragon as a more mature, tested, reliable, flight history vehicle.
Now we watch as the parade of fools attempts to advance SLS/Orion … by running down Falcon/Dragon.
If they were smart, they’d find a way to leverage it’s success. Hundreds of ways to do so.
But bitterness knows no end with these guys.
add:
Martijn,
Sigh. Afraid/fear you’re right. Look, I’ve seen these guys do amazing things … in the dark past.
You keep hoping like with an alcholic relative, that they’ll get better, and the past greatness will reemerge.
But political “substance abuse” is just as addictive/destructive as others. It gave them a way to succor their bitterness.
I would never have guessed how much bitterness could consume. Enough to have done a HSF Mars mission … that really, really hurts.
If they were smart, they’d find a way to leverage it’s success. Hundreds of ways to do so.
But bitterness knows no end with these guys.
That’s why I gave up on SDLV. It’s not that a workable compromise can’t be found (even though it would still be unjust), it’s that the SDLV crowd, from the politicos down to the fanboy morons, will never compromise.
The beast must (and will) die. Its death throes will consume several more years and billions of dollars and may end up taking out most if not all funding for manned spaceflight. Not an unacceptable outcome if you believe in market forces and limited government, but still an enormous waste.
“You keep hoping like with an alcholic relative, that they’ll get better, and the past greatness will reemerge.”
I suppose there is always hope. A combination of bad things (Osteoarthritis, loss of an unborn grandchild) and a wonderful thing (birth of a healthy granddaughter) made one close relative drop the booze. There is such a thing as redemption, but unfortunately it’s rare. It’s wonderful when it does happen.
The extra seats that Dragon will have seems to open up some possibilities. I wonder if SpaceX might provide one or two private crew members on every flight to act as pilots (even if Dragon is automated). This would reduce the training time needed for Expedition crew members as they wouldn’t have to learn anything about Dragon operation other than basic safety procedures. The SpaceX pilot(s) would fly a crew up to ISS on one Dragon capsule, then a few days later bring the returning Expedition crew members back on another. Similar to Soyuz, Expedition crews would normally come back in the same Dragon capsule they came up on. Although unlike Soyuz they won’t have to deal with the complication of seat liners in case someone winds up returning on a different capsule.
And maybe there would be room once again for one or maybe even two space tourists who would be able to stay on ISS for a few days. NASA seemed to start getting comfortable with the space tourist thing after they realized that it provides a lot of good PR and wasn’t causing any problems. SpaceX could pay NASA a certain amount for “hosting” their guest on ISS, meanwhile SpaceX would be charging the tourist and be able to make a profit if they want to.
Another interesting question – will cosmonauts sometimes go to/from ISS on Dragon? If Russia prefers not to then I suppose we could wind up in a situation where Russia rotates their cosmonauts using Soyuz exclusively, while U.S./ESA/JAXA rotate using Dragon.
All of my speculation applies equally to any other commercial crew provider I just used SpaceX as an example.
Could work. DragonRider is being designed for long-duration missions and to serve as an ISS lifeboat. Ride up on the new, down on the old. I like it.
NASA started getting comfortable with space tourists once they realized there was nothing they could do to prevent the Russians from flying them. Those who control the launch vehicle controls access.
I dislike Griffin’s Constellation program as much as the next guy, but SpaceX’s results were a result of an initiative started under Griffin. This part of the program has worked along the lines of what he wanted. Granted, the next phase of exploration totally diverges.
That said, it’s fun to watch the anti-SpaceXers:
The past:
* SpaceX starts
“We’ll see if they can even launch a rocket”
* Falcon launches
“Yeah, but what about a spacecraft”
* Dragon orbits
“Sure, but wait until it gets to the ISS”
* Dragon gets to the ISS
“But it’s not carry people”
The future:
* Dragon carries people
“Sure it’s just LEO, though”
* Dragon lands on Mars
“Let’s see it land on Venus”
Anyone remember “nattering nabobs of negativism” ?
Lolololol
These people are called scoffers and are one of the lowest forms of life. Now is the time to be bold and to move forward to the future.
Absolutely fragging-lutely, sir!
Rumor has it that one of the main scoffer’s today was in the past turned down in their demand for a huge salary by Elon and has not been a fan of SpaceX ever since.
I absolutely agree Dennis. The meek shall inherit the Earth. And we’ll wave to them as we’re leaving.
Wasn’t the commercial initiative begun under Sean O’Keefe?
COTS was started under Sean O’Keefe. It had several other names though.
I stand corrected.
Still, back in 2006, Griffin did seem to be a strong supporter of COTS:
http://www.space.com/2762-n…
Personally, I was actually surprised by these comments when I read them last week. I had been so disappointed in Griffin’s time that I didn’t realize he sounded like this back then. For all the discontent between former Administrators, this seems to be a case where a program managed to survive and flourish across NASA heads.
IMHO he expected it to fail.
Griffin’s statements are interesting but peculiar. He expected US participation in ISS itself to be terminated at some point soon after assembly complete; the exact date varied but was never later than 2015. So he had no reason to believe COTS would be anything more than a temporary stopgap. He repeatedly expresses support for the concept, yet “As for how well the COTS initiative worked overall, Griffin said he had very limited engagement with the process.”
SpaceX had made its first (unsuccessful) Falcon 1 launch months before yet when asked to identify entrepreneurs who he felt had gotten beyond the viewgraph stage, Griffin identified only Burt Rutan, who was clearly not interested in competing for COTS. Curious.
Folks:
It’s a great day to be Spacex fanfolk! I saw over 3,500 stories listed on Google News after the hatch opening. Most of them were positive, some were “yes, but…” stories and a very few were out-right negative. The international press have picked it up as well, including the part about Congress trying to ram SLS down NASA’s throat while, at the same time, under-funding commercial crew. This cat’s not just out of the bag… it’s had kittens!
Someone mentioned the New York Times article where Elon Musk said he’d reveal the baseline for Spacex’s super-heavy lifter within a year and fly it in two. This is obviously part of Musk’s Mars Colonization Strategy. It’s also obvious that he has some idea of what kinds of payloads this behemoth would loft. So, not only is Spacex going after cargo and crew to orbit, the entire commercial satellite launch market and the Air Force/NRO contracts, they’re going after SLS as well. They actually seem to have some sort of mission in mind to rationalize building such a monster launch vehicle too.
Can someone give me a rational idea not to give such a plan all the help it can get, regardless of who’s idea it is?
Kennedy challenged America to “…within a decade… send a man to the Moon and return him safely…”. America took on that challenge and delivered on it to the letter! Obligation fulfilled. Time to move on.
So, instead of ‘Taking the Next Step’, as NASA proposes for it future human spaceflight missions, why not take a great leap instead? Instead of ‘going somewhere’ just to say we went further, let’s simply go!
And stay… this time.
tinker
The strategy is to deny success and double down on the “earmarks”, oops, “bipartisanship”, oops again, “cost plus” acceleration to eliminate the gap after Shuttle, oops, “move the goal posts”, oops, “blame SpaceX for budget/schedule overruns”, oops …
For people who are always “right”, they make too many “left turns” …
In a rational universe, we’d advance SpaceX’s Dragon to crew capability ASAP on the thesis of not being dependent on foreign providers.
Then, because SpaceX hasn’t passed the test of time, we’d also fund 1-2 others taking very different approaches so as to backstop any potential “blind spot”.
Again … in a rational universe. Not Congress.
add:
Arsenal space we go to last – because a) you want to keep your strategic capability unaffected because it is too important to risk messing it up, b) short timescale response is insufficient for cost/capability/program risk, and c) long timescale response is insufficient for cost(sharing/developmental)/schedule(interference with strategic).
Which, by the way, was part of the decision process for doing things like COTS long, long time ago.
Rational universe!! Lololol
Time for Elon to shove a real inner solar system railroad strategy right down their/our throats lolol
Can’t wait to see him on Charley Rose Show!!!
Tinker
O
Elon is not so special !!! He only tries to compete with bloated porky has bins. They are easy to beat!!!!!!! Lolololol
I can build you heavy lift with a few billion and ELONS phone number lololololo
Out!!!!!
See you on Mars!!!!
Tinker,
Being realistic, there are some people/companies who may agree with this 110%, but still not be able to support it because their welfare/company depends on being in Congress’ good graces, because of other, unrelated investments/programs. When you are responsible for the jobs of large numbers of people (and therefore indirectly for the welfare of their dependents) you can’t really thumb your nose at Congress for the sake of a principle. Some might call this hypocritical; I’d call it simple survival in the jungle.
As for the rest of us, I see absolutely no reason not to support any plan that might force, or at least encourage, Congress to act more rationally than they do, and more in line with the principles of democratic government that they supposedly represent. The question I have to ask when sanity-checking any such plan is: will we have to redo it every two years, or is there a more permanent “lesson” we can teach them?
Steve
Yup it is the Joe Q taxpayers like me against the the others that have been wasting my hard earned money NOT getting us to Space!!!!! That simple!!!
DTARS,
I’m sorry my friend, but I don’t understand your comment (I guess I’m that simple). Can you explain it for me, please?
Steve
Steve I wrote this before seeing your request for an explanation.
Politicsl
Lol I’m a middle of the roader, I’m a waffler.
I find it funny that it seems that many that have worked for NASA are conserative and claim to be against social programs yet work for one. I had relatative big business farmers that did the same. I think I agree, there is no government program that by nature doesn’t work over time by the simple fact that if you have a budget you will spend it to justify you getting it in the first place. On the other hand in our increasing robotic world, big business now has the power to do more without humans. I don’t buy the fact that technology will replace as many jobs as it takes away.
At some point we will have to have a socialistic like society that helps take care of the many and protect them from the few. A lesson learned while watching Mr. Musk, do his great things is do to his nature, NOT the free market or capitalism. Just as social programs don’t work to well, neither does our corporate systems. Both sides are in need of great reform and both sides work together to not be reformed. Joe Qs like me are in the middle and we are in deep s$&@!!! I sure don’t know the answers but I’m looking.
We are in an election year again!!! Has the guy in office had enough time! Should presidents terms be longer? Should congress critters have career limits like presidents?
This cots model seems to work for now. Sure better than cost porky plus.
All I know for sure that without Mr. Musk a little guy that looked at our broken down gamed system and said hummmm what opportunity I can beat this. I would have little hope.
What if Paul is right what if Obama has Bolden reform the NASA contracting model and forces these porkers to diet big time. Wouldn’t that be great?
Steve it’s not just congress it’s our whole system which was originally designed to best coup with our rotten human nature but currently is failing to do the job, because they have figured how to game the system. How do you change reform it? I don’t know.
Steve I hear left people and right people fussing on here. And it seems so silly to me. Because the sad fact is it makes little difference who I pull the lever for. Most likely I lose either way. How do we change things I don’t know.
Maybe this explains why I enjoy watching Elon do his thing so much!
He found a way to make a difference.
🙂
Folks:
The ‘gap’ between American vehicles visiting ISS was closed in eleven months! Not bad considering.
tinker
Looking forward to CRS upscaling cargo to ISS and not paying for more Progress flights.
noofcq
Oh yeah! Dragon can start hauling ISS lab racks up and down too. Also, NASA can send Orbital Replacement Units that won’t fit into the Japanese HTV. Almost back to Space Shuttle logistics support.
tinker
Dragon can start hauling ISS lab racks up and down …To do so would require a custom modification and … uh … unique extraction/insertion/hold down modifications … that are do able.
This brings up one of Dragon’s virtues – specialization, where you can make of it a temporary module of the ISS for given specialized purposes, returned, resultant extracted, refurbished, reused, reflown.
Think about that as a model for ISS research utilization.
Here’s an example of an experiment you couldn’t do on ISS (for various reasons) until now (includes Shuttle). Animal testing of radiation pharmaceuticals – including primates. Use “glove box” – like technology for isolation, and have the ability for fast recovery/departure on need.
Many, many more examples. Like … free flyers that can revisit ISS for sample change. Entire miniaturized semiconductor / MEMS fabs for next gen devices. Combustion/propulsion experiments.
Lots of fun. Oh wait – arsenal system space politico’s say “wait, don’t look, don’t touch … its ‘unclean'”.
Who are you gonna believe – your eyes, or their ‘special interests’?
Ya know, even the arsenal guys have some experiments they too could run on Dragon to enhance the arsenal industrial base … ain’t it a bitch?
justatinker, don’t overlook the fact that environmental controls such as refrigeration are already part of the SpaceX/Dragon capability, something that Soyuz cannot do.
We need to close the gap on crew as well, and this could take years. The Administration has repeatedly said that doing this efficiently and expeditiously will take $800M/yr. Congress has repeatedly slashed this in half while giving far greater sums to its pet contractors on SLS and Orion. NASA has a tough choice; We can have two affordable US manned vehicles quickly, or pay more for rides on Soyuz than we are saving by cutting Commercial Crew.
We as taxpayers need to provide some guidance.
Projecting from Senator “Bad Mouth” Shelby, he’s for more Russian Progress flights, not “manufactured all in America” Dragon flights, or “assembled in America from Ukrainian, Russian, and Italian parts” Cygnus flights.
So he’d likely prefer more Soyuz crew flights … over the expense of Commercial Crew.
If only that bastard Obama didn’t cancel Ares I, everything would be just fine, and cheap at $9 billion expended and $ 25 billion to go. Ignore the flaming debris on pad abort, stainless steel parachutes might protect the crew …
An example of American greatness?
What data supports your contention that Atlas V is way more reliable than Falcon 9?
Both have a success rate of 100%.
Atlas V wasn’t designed initially for crew flights, therefore it must be “man-rated” at great expense to ULA’s biggest investor–the taxpayer. F9 was designed at the outset to carry crew, and private money paid for almost all of its development.
No, F9 doesn’t have the proven track record of Atlas V. It also doesn’t have the huge (and growing) price tag, or the Russian sourced engine.
I don’t care for the leftward slant either, but I respect Keith and what he’s done with nasawatch (as do we all, I’m sure… kiss kiss!). As a conservative, I’m continually amazed at how little respect Musk gets from our side. You’d think a giant tax-sucking bureaucracy was all we ever wanted in a space program.
I fail to see how approving of SpaceX is leftist. Someone will have to explain that to me.
Perception of HSF as a arsenal system supplied proxy war.
If budget isn’t going to arsenal primes, it’s “leftist”.
Now, the political contradiction present is … using arsenal money for Soyuz/Progress – which are products of the Russian arsenal system! You’d think the right would like to “buy American”. So they should applaud Dragon simply for that reason.
One must realize – that the right believes that a dollar going to the arsenal system – even Russia’s (!) … is being denied to the leftist enemy.
The right currently puts the “idiot” in ideology with this. Sometimes to the point where it begins to resemble something not serving America’s interest. Vexing.
Note – not all the right is this way. The libertarian side finds it a political contradiction they laugh at all the time.
Personally, I’d like the right and the left to not mess with the arsenal system as their budgetary battleground. Screws up national security needs when you conflate issues – this is a profound issue right now that the right trivializes.
If they don’t want to fund space if not a proxy war, well then so be it. At least they’ll be more honest about it.
“I fail to see how approving of SpaceX is leftist. Someone will have to explain that to me.”
Because Obama obviously supports commercial and Musk is one of his campaign donors? A=A.
I’m pretty conservative, but this is one that Obama is right on.
Then you can’t be a conservative – nothing that Obama does can be “right”. Opening a door, going to the bathroom, breathing, eating …
add:
punder,
I’ve worked longer / harder for Republicans. In the past. In my experience, they don’t listen unless you hit them with a hard hammer of a message. They eventually appreciate the “correction” because they know this about themselves.
Unlike the Dems, who even the slightest push-back causes them to resent you forever, so you have to constantly “calibrate” / “tune” so as not to upset delicate feelings.
Poor baby if you can’t take the message and instead assult the messenger. Who is very, very used to this. Can see you’re more like the Dems.
Amazing how “I don’t like his politics, but I agree with him on this” elicited so many openly hateful, bigoted responses about the Right. We’re greedy, hating, stupid people, aren’t we? Holding back progress, legislating physics. Now that’s insightful thinking, and not at all offensive or simple-minded.
Ditto for me. Besides, everyone should realize by now that adding political (and pseudo-intellectual) terms to a space discussion only degrades it. It’s bad enough we have to deal with the politics and the politicians, let’s not poison our comments with nasty adjectives. Let’s just stay in the non-partisan middle and talk about space topics.
Steve
It is to be expected. Note the failure to address specifics. It’s a simple “I hate X” … because I do.
Just point the “hate ray” at something to make it die.
An aspect of “be your own God”, “all knowing/seeing”, undisputed, “throwing lightening bolts”…
Now ask yourself this question … do you want people like this involved in doing anything in space. Perhaps they’ll decide gravity works as they decide, not as a physical law. Unconstrained from reality.
In the Saturn/Shuttle days, there was this worry that some might get so detached from reality that they would become a risk. It was this fear of detachment, and losing to the Russians in competition by such irrationality that it scared people … to not do this anymore.
Take it for what its worth.
add:
Mr. Steve,
I would otherwise, in other circumstances. agree with you to leave stuff that degrades the discussion out of it. Because that is sensible.
Your thoughtful and sensible nature correctly suggests projecting forward to the future of political conflicts … beyond.
However, it is impossible … to be thoughtful and sensible … about things that aren’t.
With your example, as with the current example case … the issues are more about human nature and how groups can abuse it for ambiguous “gain”.
Plenty of examples of this in history. All bad.
Human nature is what we have to strive to overcome. Perhaps even after another million years.
“Perhaps they’ll decide gravity works as they decide, not as a physical law.“
Mr. C,
On one level, I’d say that’s a clear cut case of natural selection, in the Darwinian sense.
This is something that has occurred to me time and again. It happens in fiction, so it’s probably just a matter of time before some politician in real life mandates the impossible somewhere in space and gets people killed (other people). And that is the only reason that I see for mixing politics into space issues (aside from all their lovely money). I think that the political setup in space is going to have to be much less forgiving than even the environmental setup, if people are to survive out there, let alone flourish. And I can’t envision any of the past or present government modes from Earth (that I am familiar with, which is certainly not all of them) that are up to the job. I am certainly not a sociologist or political scientist, or any of the other ‘ists’ who claim to understand these things, but it does seem obvious to me that humans living off Earth are going to need a social environment (and a set of laws) that are on one hand very strict and severe while on the other hand very forgiving and opportunistic, both in ways that simply don’t apply here.
I expect to get some argument on this issue, but I would insist, without a second thought, that any sort of absentee landlord system, which will certainly be the rule at the start of space colonization, will have to be dispensed with as quickly as possible once off-Earth colonies start to become self-sufficient. A smart “King of England” will recognize that space colonies will make lucrative marketplaces for Earth, but the typical politician of today will, I think, try to maintain power over the colonies for as long as possible, to everyone’s loss.
Maybe that’s a topic of study we should already be offering at universities, The Politics of Space Colonization, so that we’re better prepared when the time comes (and maybe we already are and I just don’t know it).
“Take it for what its worth.“I’d say it’s worth careful thought.Steve
I don’t have to explain it, because I didn’t say it.
It’s no secret which side of the fence Keith is on. I don’t have to agree with him on his general politics to agree with him that SpaceX is a good thing. Which I do.
Read more carefully.
I don’t have to explain it …
Yes you do. Otherwise meaningless. And not conservative.
add:
You’re not either, Mr. Pot/Kettle.
You’re not much into logic or reading comprehension, are you?
What next… you’re rubber and I’m glue?
It’s astonishing what passes among some for “left wing” these days. Positions held by what used to be considered “conservative” Republicans, for example.
Things are distorted by fear.
Reliability is earned through qualification with built-in safety margin AND a series of flights. One is not a substitute for the other. Check out the track record of Taurus for instance. They flew the first five in a row successfully and then put three out of four in the ocean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
The Atlas V has been proven over many flights and a huge part of the cost is the microscope that NASA and the military put ULA under in order to ensure that reliability. The Government launch contracts for Atlas V include the rights for the Government to see all of the dirty laundry and demand records and pedigrees that the COTS/CRS contractors can not match without increasing the price by millions (if at all). Would you want MSL (2.5 $Billion) or an expensive military satellite flying on anything other than Atlas V or Delta IV?
The Falcon 9 is currently carrying food, water, experiments and clothes. If one crashes into the ocean once in a while it is no big deal. For that reason, NASA is on a truly commercial contract with very little insight/versight in SpaceX. Last week’s Falcon launch would never have occurred at the price it did if it had a science or military satellite on board.
For the record, I am a middle of the road conservative, very much a SpaceX supporter and Liberty detractor. I try to look at the facts and stay away from the politics. I want to see SpaceX begin flying people as soon as possible, but I am not going to make the big mistake of becoming enamored of the SpaceX/Elon/Falcon like a school girl watching Justin Bieber and lose sight of what is really needed to certify the Falcon 9 for humans.
I don’t want to diminish what SpaceX has done in the last few years and last week because it is truly great and something we as Americans should all be beaming over. Fact is the upcoming Falcon 9 V1.1 is not just a stretch version of the Falcon 9 v1.0 (which is being used on the first five flights). It is very different. Too different to draw on any of the first five flights as part of its certification for human flight or Government cargo aside from food and water.
I see nothing that warrants the headline of “double Standards and Sour Grapes”. Personally I think 6-7 cargo flights along with a test flight with life support systems in place is very fair and given the current F9 manifest will have no impact on F9 launching astronauts in a reasonable amount of time.
http://www.spacex.com/launc…
Maybe if ULA had been working to a fixed price for delivery (when only successful launches are paid) they would have put the development under their own microscope?
And the success of Atlas V hardly proves the effectiveness of oversight for ensuring safety. Shuttle was built exactly the same way. In both cases NASA overrode the contractor’s advice IIRC – the first time not to launch in the cold, the second to inspect the Shuttle for damage before re-entering.
The aircraft industry achieves great safety levels without oversight so it is clearly neither necessary nor sufficient. Make lots, fly them often, fly them more than once. Don’t pay them if they crash.
So far, no-one at all has flown into space with the kind of safety assurance that seems now to be the minimum acceptable and anyone who believes that NASA (alone) have achieved this level is deluding themselves.
I heard Dr. Pace on The Space Show earlier today. He didn’t sound too anti-commercial and didn’t cheerlead SLS all that much. He did say that Orion was, as far as he knew, the only vehicle in the works that was capable of BEO.
I sent an email to the show mentioning SpaceX’s plans for BEO with their beefy heatshield and their Red Dragon proposal. I got him to admit that he thought Dragon could be upgraded to a BEO vehicle. He said that _this_ Dragon, the one berthed at station, couldn’t do BEO. (Which we all already knew.)
“He said that _this_ Dragon, the one berthed at station, couldn’t do BEO.”
So the cargo capsule, with no LAS and no life-support system, can’t carry humans beyond Earth orbit? The man’s a freakin’ genius.
I really liked Griffin at the beginning. Technically he seemed very knowledgable. He was very passionate about human spaceflight. He was very passionate about moving beyond LEO (during testimony in front of Congress before he became administrator he was very critical of ISS seeing it as something holding back spaceflight beyond LEO). He seemed to have a reasonable plan (Constellation) for implementing VSE. He seemed supportive of the commercialization effort.
But over time my passion faded and turned negative.
Now I almost feel he is trying to set himself up to be NASA Administrator again if Romney wins the election, and I suspect he will push harder for a primarily government orchestrated program again (Constellation/SLS), and anything that challenges that may need to be sacrificed.
Constellation was his baby before he became NASA Administrator. Constellation was his baby once he became Administrator. I suspect Constellation is still he baby.
He should be cheering SpaceX on for achieving what it has so quickly and for so little money in both development and operational costs. Instead he is essentially belittling their efforts.
He’s still passionate. About power. Which was really the only thing he’s been passionate about all along … if you look closely at the game.
CadetOne,
Fortunately, I think on his last go ’round he ended up with enough people in Congress who either don’t trust him, or outright don’t like him, that he wouldn’t likely get confirmed again. He had a once in a life time opportunity and he basically blew it, so I can’t see him getting a second chance, no matter what deals are offered. But, then again, many unlikely things have been known to happen in Washington.
Steve
Griffin back in charge off NASA ??? That does it. Have to pull the lever for Obama! Lol
Well, it’s moot to more or less knowledgeable people like us, but it’s a straw-man argument to be used by lobbyists and CongressCritters. Fortunately, Elon will now begin building a track record, and hopefully will fly DragonRider sooner than expected.
If that sounds optimistic, remember that most programs accelerate as the vendor travels the learning curve; SpaceX may be about to put all those delays to good use.
SpaceX should have a number of cargo deliveries and satellite launches between now and 2015. Through 2014 I count 8 Falcon 9 launches for satellites and 6 Falcon/Dragon cargo deliveries scheduled. That should provide 14 Falcon 9 launches before 2015. That should provide a pretty good idea of its track record.
Oh, and another 14 launches in 2015 alone. (six are cargo to ISS).
They’ll have the experience. The only question is whether there will be political pressure to halt any govt support for the man-rated capsule (an escape system being the most expensive element I believe)
The FH core stretches 227 ft with a fairing vs. the 179 ft for the F9 1.0 with a fairing – necessitated by the much thirstier & powerful Merlin 1D, so yes stretched tanks are pretty much a given.
The “v. 1.1” name was in a NASA document. Up for grabs is a new octagonal +1 center engine thrust structure hinted at by graphics in an Iridium promotional material. If real it’s probably shorter and lighter.
Tinker
With Elon about to reveal his heavy lifter that we could see flying about 2016.
I had some more thoughts about your heavy lifter again.
What if Spacex made their falcon heavy central core extra heavy duty so that it could hold 6 strap-ons and you fly just has you suggested with your 7 core idea.
First generation. Below
justatinker
1 hour ago
DTARS:
You might as well make your Falcon 6 pack into a 7 pack, a core stage with six strap on Falcon stages. That’s 63 Merlin engines with four staging events. The outer six boosters cross tank fuel/oxidizer and drop off in pairs as they empty. The fourth stage is the center core which is air-lit just before the last two strap on boosters are shut down and jettisoned. This configuration exceeds the payload capacity of SLS at 150 tonnes to LEO (doing ‘back of the envelope’ calcs) and doesn’t even need an upper stage (the core stage is the ‘upper stage’ and makes orbit). Better throttling of the Merlin engines would make a configuration like this feasible because it provides for a slower climb through the lower atmosphere, unachievable with solid boosters. It’s the same cross tanking scheme I used in my mega launcher applied to the Falcon 9. It wasn’t until I ran the numbers a couple of times that I realized I hadn’t taken the core stage thrust into account (although I did account for it’s fueled mass).
So, mull over that. And thanks, DTARS, I wouldn’t have bothered to tinker that up if I hadn’t seen your post.
Cheers:
tinker
Second generation below
Spacex makes all the boosters completely kerosine with only enough oxygen to do the fly back maneuver. Using your thrust frame and a truss floor you put your huge oxygen tank on top of your seven booster cluster And have another truss floor over the oxygen tank for your big payloads. The extra floor adds strength to your thrust frame structure.
This way your Oxygen tank to orbit is bigger and clean.
Your boosters having the same diameter as falcon heavy. Use the same landing leg recovery system.
Your strap-on engines are cheap! Merlin2s
Your fuel is safer kerosine or methane?
You have a merlin2 kestrel in the center that lights after you are in orbit plus it could light during flight to Leo acting as your engine out back-up.
Your reusable kero/methane boosters are safely under your oxygen tank protected from falling ice. Your thrust frame, far enough away to keep your side payloads safe.
Maybe you use your central core to distribute your oxygen with one simple connection up to your oxygen tank for quick tank integration.
Anyway I just thought such a beast might be more versatile, and easier to reuse than Spacex building large core rockets and all that expensive mess.
Question if this large lifter could run on methane that would be almost as clean as your hydro lifter and a lot cheaper and safer to operate right?
Anyway just thought I would throw it out there for fun. 🙂
It will be interesting to see Spacex’s solution 🙂
Tinker
If the booster cores were the same size as a falcon nine booster, how much payload could this second generation version lift to orbit?
How big would be the volume of the oxygen tank that could be used in orbit?
DTARS:
Yes, for my system to function, the larger volume tank goes to orbit. The LOX tank for KeroLOX and the H2 tank for H2/LOX. This makes the strap-on tugs as small as possible and the real estate to orbit, the core tank, as large as possible.
If the core tank is going to orbit anyway it only makes sense to put the payload at the bottom of the stack. This way, you can make the core tank a lot lighter because you no longer have to support the payload, only an ever lightening load of fuel or oxidizer.
For the Spacex hardware makeover of my idea? Lets see… what could we use that’s lying around tinkers shop. There’s a Shuttle era hydrogen tank that’ll hold about six Falcon 9s worth of LOX. Perfect! I mean, it used to carry liquid hydrogen so it should do fine with LOX, right?
What do we use from the Spacex toolbox? Each of the three pairs of stap-on booster will have to be specialized in some way:
The stage 1 boosters would have nine Merlin engines and each carry enough fuel to feed itself and cross-feed the stage 2 engines for two minutes. That pair would then jettison and be recovered. The stage 2 boosters would then use their full fuel tanks to feed their nine engines each for the next four minutes before dropping away for recovery. The stage 3 boosters only have five Merlin engines each and carry enough fuel to power each stage 3 for the full nine minutes to orbit. The stage 3 pair carry themselves, the core LOX tank and the payload to orbit. This pair will be equipped with Dracos for maneuvering and for retro burn when the tugs come home.
This configuration will produce about six million pounds of thrust at liftoff. Payload, tugs and LOX tank to orbit, 250 metric tonnes.
The tugs would be about half the size of a Falcon 9 first stage. The LOX tank could be made skinnier but I like the idea of having a cargo canister 27 feet in diameter and 20 feet high. Heck, we could ship D-9 bulldozers to the Moon in that thing.
And, of coarse, a huge hundred foot tall tank gets placed into orbit every launch!
All this from stuff I found just sittin’ around in plain sight.
tinker
Tinker
We at inner solar system rail road are working with customers that want to own and operate fuel depots. After seeing that you have partnered with Spacex they believe that your design could be inexpensive enough and a perfect for their project. They plan is to buy your tank and thrust frame and two third stage boosters as well as paying for the launch service of your other stages.
They want to build complete fuel depots/outposts assembled on earth that can be ready to go partly fueled. Once they reach their destination.
So we will require our own launch pad at your space port at Texas where we can assemble our depots using your thrust frame and tank design. We will then add the second fuel tank in your cargo bay and plumb both tanks to all our docking fueling ports on the thrust frame. Each depot will include one Bigelow habitat as well as two dragon capsules with service modules.
And one dragon lander.
Since your lifter is man rated we realize that variations of our fuel depot/exploration outpost package we can provide turn key exploration missions that leave a fuel depot in place.
Mr. Tinker
So that we can plan for the future please leave a break down estimate, in today’s dollars what it would cost to develop your Spacex version lifter as described. Once operational since the thrust frame tank and two upper stages are part of our fuel depot/outposts we will assume that cost. An estimate operational cost including three dragon riders with service modules would be appreciated.
Please provide this information ASAP, with Spacex tooling up, the inner solar system will be busy before you know it. And we want to be ready to provide their fuel for them.
Lol any suggestions on refueling strategies would be appreciated too lol
Tinker this metric tone version would be perfect for depots I think?
Guys,
I’m a little concerned about all of the things that the core of gen 2 has to do. (If I’m envisioning it right) if the core should buckle for any reason on launch, you’ll lose your O2 as a minimum, but you might just be setting off a huge bomb. Am I missing something?
Steve
Steve
Tinker stopped my idea and made it more like his original design using the thrust frame to hold the tugs. But back with his old idea with Spacex engines I want estimates lol think how easy one launch missions could be leaving fuel depots out posts all over the place lol. Maybe use medium LVs like falcon heavy to refuel. Lol
Hell, if heavy lift was cheap just 4 or 6 tugs let’s get started lol!!!
Thrust frame goes to the ground
In my version two idea I assumed the you had thrust frame structure holding up your double floor thrust frame system just like a building the beefy core was just to hold your cluster of tugs a simpler steel colum can hold lots of weight but I didn’t consider it being top heavy which would a problem I think?
Get dragon breathable as fast as possible put the docking hatch on, fly it two three more times unmanned, get some test pilots from the military to go for a nice ride, tell the Russians to stuff it with their expensive old rocket rides and lets take our human space program back!!!!! We act neutered!!!!!!! It’s shameful!!!!
DTARS,Now, now, the Russians are human too. And if you look at the space record, I’d say we’ve done well working together. ASTP was the start of a new world, and it was a space program that got us cooperating instead of competing.Steve
DTARS:
Dragon is more or less ready to fly folks down to Earth right now. No launch abort Super Dracos necessary. They could probably use the standard Dracos and landing legs to cushion a parachute landing on a lake bed. Cargo up, crew/cargo down. Or maybe just adapt Dragon to accept the Soyuz seat liners and use it as a real lifeboat in case of a mishap that takes the Russian vehicles off-line.
I’m sure that Super Draco development will take less then a year. They can test the system the same way they’ll test Grasshopper. Short hops, Hover, maneuver, altitude milestones then, Wham!, six gees for six seconds off a ground-launched Falcon 9 second stage.
The recoverable second stage will use Super Dracos too for landings. This makes sense for two reasons. The second stage empty weighs less than a fully loaded Dragon capsule and it may spend too much time in space to rely on the liquid oxygen supply. Besides, I doubt that the Merlin engine could be throttled down deep enough to actually go down like it’s supposed to when it lands ;). The second stage needs Dracos to maneuver and for ullage anyway.
The second stage may be the easier of the two stages the recover.
All three vehicles, the first and second stages and the Dragon capsule, will benefit from the Grasshopper Program research.
The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a step in the direction of absorbing the mass cost of Spacex’s recovery system for the reusable launch vehicle.
tinker
Steve
I have nothing against Russians at all!
I do however have a big problem with our government paying others more than market to fly seats to ISS. What’s the price? 56 million per???!
I do consider our human space program to be in OUR national interest. And worthy of a little risk. I do fully realize that the space community fears another failure because it would set back our recovery years so they say. I find it very upsetting to watch on the news every night the names of soldiers that have given their lives for the squabbles we have with other folks on this planet over this old religious rivalry or competition for resources and influence. Anyway to sit here and watch us pay others when we shouldn’t even be in this fix in the first place is just madding.
Call me an old fool but a human life is a life. Some things are worth a little risk some things are not. And as Mr. C Suggests WAR is big business once WE start one it’s hard to stop.
Steve we should work together! I agree with you! But we don’t!
There is a lot of Irony and disingenuousness when we talk here about the importance of space craft safety when we kill our young people each day for what may well be much less nobel reasons.
On memorial day I watched some world war II videos and wondered what it must have been like when we were REALLY in imminent danger fighting for our very survival. They stopped the killing of 6 million killed in Hitlers camps. Now that was a reason to fight, how about now?
Sorry to go off on a bender. It just touched a nerve.
Rational universe!! Lolololol Mr. C
Ohhh news flash!!!!
Saw a USA today head line
We are now selling predator drones to Iraq. Lolololol
Don’t worry they are not armed. Lololol
Don’t worry they are on our side now lolol
I know let’s use robotics to make killing machines! Lol cost plus lol
Hum I wondered if I’d get pissed off if a car blew down my road and killed a few of my neighbors as well as some “bad guys”
Hurry Elon I want a one way ticket to Mars lolol
Out!!!!!
DTARS,
I agree with you, but I notice that when we talk about “the bad guys” on our side, we specifically say “Congress” or whoever, but when we talk about “the bad guys” over there, we say “Russians.” The cosmonauts, scientists, engineers and mission controllers don’t set the Soyuz seat prices any more than the vegetable farmer at the local market. I just think we should be careful to make the distinction. Same with Iraq. It was a relatively small number of people who made up “the bad guys,” not the Iraqi people or the opposition government (such as it was). What the US is doing with Iraq today in no different than what was done with Japan after WW II, and that worked out well. I think it’s smarter to do business with someone and make him a friend than to snub in the name of a past problem and leave him thinking you’re still enemies. It makes it a little easier to sleep a night. And besides, if there is a future problem, we’ll know the exact strengths and weaknesses of their drones. If someone in the US hadn’t sold them drones, there are those in several other countries who would have. I hope you don’t think my take on this is out of line.
Steve
Makes sense as always. My point was more about us creating and selling wars machines. It will be a sad day when Spacex launches a military payload. Cheaper therefore better but sad just the same.
“Bad guys” is George Ws term. Even crazy al qaeda guys consider themselves “right” lol
Senator Shelby showing he hasn’t lost any of his jerk-ness
“The reality remains that SpaceX has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to launch a rocket nearly three years later than planned,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) told the Huntsville Times. “The ‘private’ space race is off to a dilatory start at best, and the commercial space flight market has yet to materialize.”
http://www.spacepolitics.co…
Redefining success as failure.
Well, to be fair, Mr. Musk tried to redefine an obvious Falcon 1 launch failure as a “success”. So all this “poor little me” act from Mr. Musk about not getting respect from the space “establishment” wears a little thin.
Please. Both Falcon 1 failures were test launches; valuable data was gained and improvements made.
I don’t think that Mr Musk gives a rat’s a$$ what the space ‘establishment’ thinks – the rolled eyes on this site regarding the old-school bleaters comes from outsiders such a myself, and insiders such as Ken. I don’t remember any SpaceX tweets complaining about outside opinions. That is Mr Musk’s great advantage – he doesn’t care what other people think. He wants to go to Mars, and he’s going, whether you like it or not.
For myself, its the first time I’ve been really excited about the space program for a long, long time. Sure, if that makes me a fanboy, go ahead and laugh all you want, but as a passionate advocate of manned spaceflight, I’ve spent most of my life being laughed at by others. It tells me that I’m on the right path.
Now is no different.
a. It was three failures, not two. And every other ‘test’ in history that went kablooey or did an ocean-insertion maneuver was considered a failure. Every one until Falcon 1. If we’re going to whine about redefining success or failure, we should apply that definition equally.
b. Mr. Musk went on “60 Minutes” and made it abundantly clear he did care what the “establishment” (if by that we include Mr. Armstrong and Co.) thinks.
I want to go on record here as congratulating Mr. Musk and SpaceX for a job well (almost) done. My position has always been “perform first, boast second”. And I do think Mr. Armstrong and Captain Cernan are flat-out wrong about commercial space.
To be fair, unlike some commentators, Musk knows the difference between testing and operations. I don’t see much self-pity coming out of Hawthorne.
X-33
X-34
Venture Star
NLS
OSP
Ares I & V
etc. etc. yada yada
Dave:
Ah, I think you forgot the X-37 and X-38… I’m sure we’ve both missed others. The point is, it’s a point well made.
Since Spacex is free of ‘strings attached’, maybe they can pick up the ball on the best of those programs like Sierra Nevada did with the HL-20 (<- There’s another one!).
tinker
A politician’s career ought to be over when he becomes a crude caricature of himself.
I found this a little sad:
“I haven’t heard any of the ‘national heroes’ congratulating Elon Musk,” [Miles O’Brien] said. “It would be kind of nice and gentlemenly if they would.”
http://www.spacepolitics.co…
It goes along with recent criticism by Neil Armstrong and others of commercial space efforts.
I saw a recent interview with Elon Musk where the lack of former astronaut support was brought up, and you could tell it really hurt him.
Miles is right. Meanwhile Armstrong and the rest come off looking like grumpy old men of diminished capacity.
It would be nice if one or two could step forward, man-up and congratulate Musk on this success.
To my knowledge they’ve not ever examined any “new space” factory/vehicle/pad – anything.
And yet they pontificate “knowingly”.
Dunno about Cernan. But Armstrong knows better.
Playing politics with “buddies” isn’t going to look good in the history books.
Perhaps … a “come to Jesus” moment?
Scott Pace:
Every Shuttle flight flew crewed… with no launch escape system.
Need I say more?
tinker
Far right Conservatives have no business in manned spaceflight. There is a reason SpaceX is headquartered in California. Stupid crap like this is too easily consumed used for abuse with that type of thinking. The key words “Experience, track record, etc” sound more about appealing to social darwinists than anything worthy of merit
While these comments from Scott Pace are pretty ridiculous, the average JSC or MSFC employee is often far worse and devoid of reality. A significant amount of players at those centers in the industry care more about social standing than getting humans into space.
Anybody notice we can’t get an Ipad to ISS without a headache? Some of these people LOVE stopping progress. It’s all about power.
Both centers should be shut down within the near future if manned spaceflight is going to survive in this country.
Just a quick look into why we should have our own ride into space… hate to say it but I told ya so… I know it’s fox, but it’s a telling story…http://http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/201...
Wow, Russians abandoning Baikonur could sure disrupt HSF activities. Part of article below:
“Kazakhstan’s space agency Kazcosmos is blocking three Russian Soyuz satellite launches over a dispute over the drop zone for debris, according to a report from the AFP.”
I hope Mr. Romney has a change of heart with his Space Policy Advisers.
http://youtu.be/amE82rdykOg
He could do so much better.
Respectfully,Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space