SpaceX Falcon Heavy Successful Flight

[MyOwn]

This is really really really significant....I believe in interstellar travel..... it's out of the hands of the government now "just my thoughts"

[richieb]

On February 7, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Drewg said:

IMG_0383.jpeg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Dave - that's not you by chance?!

[oldtimer]

No, it's Drewg.  The post clearly states he sent it from his iPhone using tapatalk...I'm jealous he gets such a good signal out there.

[YK Thom]

I was very impressed. Haven’t felt this way about a launch for decades. This really looks like a great step forward.

[Travis In Austin]

On 2/7/2018 at 7:05 AM, JJkizak said:

He sure makes NASA look bad.

JJK

Why?  

 

On 2/7/2018 at 1:23 PM, Mallette said:

Three out of four is not bad.  Core engine was lost when only one of three engines required to land it started.  Came down at 300mph a short distance from the target barge and did some damage.  The footage of those two boosters landing perfectly and simultaneously is incredible. 

Absolutely incredible is right.  

 

 

[Mallette]

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

Why?  

Perhaps producing a rocket 90% cheaper than theirs, which is still a long way from reality?  NASA did some great work, but I don't think it is, pardon the expression, "rocket science" to suggest that capitalism is more efficient than government in such work.  

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Mallette said:

Perhaps producing a rocket 90% cheaper than theirs, which is still a long way from reality?  NASA did some great work, but I don't think it is, pardon the expression, "rocket science" to suggest that capitalism is more efficient than government in such work.  

 

Dave

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  "Theirs"?  We went from a government model to Govt-private partnership in 2006.  The model is for the companies to own the vehicles and NASA to contract 

 

SpaceX exists because of Congress and ultimately NASA.  NASA coordinated and managed half a billion in seed money to private companies in 2006 in order to be able to compete for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts. The brilliance of Musk isn't diminished by the fact that he siezed that opportunity to launch into the commercial space flight arena.  He beat out about 10 other companies including Lockheed and Boieng to be one of two companies to be awarded CRS contracts.  Three companies were awarded contracts under CRS2 which goes to about 2024 

 

Familiarize yourself with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Program (COTS) if you want to understand how SpaceX went from a dream to a reality. Musk has never been shy about crediting COTS with allowing him to get into the game.  I have attached the history of the program for those who want to truly understand how what happened yesterday was a result of what NASA implemented. 

 

Here is a great quote from SpaceX as to what NASA and COTS did for that company:

 

NASA’s support was critical to the companies’ success. 
Said Gwynne E. Shotwell, President of the Space 
Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), “We would not 
be the company that we are today without the support 
of NASA,” continuing, “We’d probably be limping along, 
trying to change the world, but limping instead."

 

 

 

 

SP-2014-617.pdf

[Travis In Austin]

6 hours ago, Steve_S said:

This is really really really significant....I believe in interstellar travel..... it's out of the hands of the government now "just my thoughts"

No it is firmly in the hands of NASA and the FAA.  The FAA will have to certify any space vehicle designed to carry a human that is launched from the US.  

[Travis In Austin]

Here's what's next.

 

http://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-gets-nasa-approval-for-first-dream-chaser-iss-cargo-mission/

 

 

 

[J M O N]

Criticize the government bureaucracy and politicians if you'd like, but don't criticize NASA.  For NASA is mostly made up of engineers and scientists that are very dedicated, generally underpaid, and in numerous cases quite brilliant.  The problems with NASA mostly arise from the government bureaucracies, funding limitations, and often being a political football.  There are plenty of registered voters who think money should be spent elsewhere which only adds to the challenges that must be overcome.  As with many government programs, funding often gets turned off and on depending on who is in office.  This of course is not an efficient use of the money that is allocated.

 

While the SpaceX launch was impressive to say the least, keep in mind it was unmanned and Elon Musk himself estimated it to have a 50% chance of success.  A manned mission would be nowhere ready to launch if that were the case.  Of course NASA also has produced unmanned missions and those have been likewise impressive.

 

The SpaceX launch was conducted from NASA's Kennedy Space center -- so obviously NASA was involved and should be included when credit is given.  Beyond that, you can still give credit to NASA engineers for the successes of SpaceX -- where do you think SpaceX got their engineers?  When the Space Shuttle program was cancelled, where do you think many of the NASA engineers (and NASA contractors) went?

 

By the way, I happened to be in the area and was able to see the launch from about 50 miles away.  It was the first space launch that I have seen and was quite the sight!

[J M O N]

12 hours ago, Deang said:

I thought the car idea was cool. I mean, you had to put something in there for the test -- why not "a land rover".

Yeah, that was pretty cool and a very brilliant marketing move. For those that aren't aware, Elon Musk also owns Tesla.

[ricktate]

I test drove a TESLA model X on my birthday this week it was AWESOME. You should try it i highly recommend it.  

[JJkizak]

7 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Why?  

 

Absolutely incredible is right.  

 

 

1...Cheaper than NASA (By billions)

2...Faster than NASA (By 20 to 1 in years)

3...Accomplish successes in areas where NASA could not comprehend. (Reuse rockets, not just boosters that fall into the ocean)

4...NASA is a bloated mega government organization in love with itself.

JJK

[Jeff Matthews]

5 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Here's what's next.

 

http://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-gets-nasa-approval-for-first-dream-chaser-iss-cargo-mission/

 

 

 

Why is this what's next?

[Mallette]

8 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  "Theirs"?  We went from a government model to Govt-private partnership in 2006.  The model is for the companies to own the vehicles and NASA to contract 

Dream Chaser remains just that, a dream.  And not remotely, even when and if it is realized, in the capability range of Falcon Heavy and certainly not even a blip compared to BFR, which may will fly before it.  You could probably put one or two of them on a BFR along with a payload plus a bunch of passengers.  However, I follow that program along with Rutan/Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, Boeing, and all.  As to the cost, not my figures but readily available.  Cost of a FHL launch is quoted as 90,000,000.00.  It would take two of NASAs largest rockets to get that much into orbit.  

 

I am NOT criticizing NASA.  Their costs are typical of government funded big science.  They had, and still do, the "Right Stuff," but Musk has made it clear that space transport systems are best handled by private enterprise.  Musk has had a lot of our tax dollars and I am good with him, and the others, getting more.  Of course, NASA and the FAA are...and should be...in charge of judging flight readiness for these craft.  I certainly have no interest in boarding a craft or having one fly near me that hasn't be approved by these agencies.  I stood in my yard and watched Columbia break up over my home.  No debris fell in the immediate area but it certainly did elsewhere.  I felt a deep sadness as I knew she was gone along with her crew before I went back inside and turned on the TV.  Flight in general is risky, but we've made airline travel the safest place one can be because falling is one of our deepest fears.  I believe we will do the same for space travel.  

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, Mallette said:

Cost of a FHL launch is quoted as 90,000,000.00.

Looks like the price of tickets won't be consumer-friendly.

[Mallette]

40 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Looks like the price of tickets won't be consumer-friendly.

FHL isn't BFR, Jeff.  I think he's placed a "guesstimate" of 200k on the price of a Mars ticket and claims New York to Shanghai on it at the price of a "full price economy airline ticket."  Of course, that remains to be seen but his claims have been pretty close to his targets.  I think I saw recently that we pay the Russkies 73,000,000.00 to get a single crew member to ISS.  Makes FHL look pretty good.  Not sure what FHL could carry in a passenger mode, but Falcon 9 full thrust is 73 million, vs. NASAs cost of 400 million for a Delta Heavy.  Looks good to this taxpayer.  

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

6 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Why is this what's next?

They lost out on CRS1, they appealed that and lost the GAO appeal.  They were one of 3 that got approved (with SpaceX) for CRS2 and have NASA approval for a cargo flight in late 2020.  After a few cargo flights I think they will get rapid approval for manned flight to ISS.  That vehicle can land at any large commercial (or military) airport.  It can be launched from an Atlas 5 rocket (110 million per launch, made in Texas by the way) or a Falcon 9 (60 million).   It can launch from Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, or California without any new infrastructure.  It holds six and is full automated with ground support and guidance.   

 

Boeing and SpaceX got the funding and approval for development of manned flight to ISS and they begin doing test flights this year.   This vehicle could leapfrog over because of cost savings.

[Mallette]

Agreed, Travis.  I think Musk has lost interest in the passenger Dragon so far as its ability to land on terra firma as it is a distraction from BFR and he doesn't need it to get to Mars.  It will be reusable, but do Apollo style water landings that will up the mission cost.  I am all for other companies in space, and especially Burt Rutan.  

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

3 hours ago, Mallette said:

FHL isn't BFR, Jeff.  I think he's placed a "guesstimate" of 200k on the price of a Mars ticket and claims New York to Shanghai on it at the price of a "full price economy airline ticket."  Of course, that remains to be seen but his claims have been pretty close to his targets.  I think I saw recently that we pay the Russkies 73,000,000.00 to get a single crew member to ISS.  Makes FHL look pretty good.  Not sure what FHL could carry in a passenger mode, but Falcon 9 full thrust is 73 million, vs. NASAs cost of 400 million for a Delta Heavy.  Looks good to this taxpayer.  

 

Dave

An acquaintance of mine in Austin, Richard Garriot, paid about 30 million to go up to ISS on a Russian flight.  

 

You can get it down to about 6 to 10 million a passenger with a Dream Chaser type vehicle which can launch on a Falcon 9, or an Atlas 5.

 

"NASAs cost of 400 million for a Delta Heavy.  Looks good to this taxpayer."  @Mallette Technically it's ULA's price, which they were able to get from the USAF or NASA because they had a monopoly.   That all ended this week with Falcon Heavy at 90 to 100 million per launch.  They are going to be out of military launch business soon if they don't come up with something quick.  I think they have about a half dozen contracts left, which I believe USAF or NASA can cancel before a certain point.