SpaceX Falcon Heavy Successful Flight

[Travis In Austin]

4 hours ago, Mallette said:

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

 

Musk didn't, NASA did.

 

NASA made it clear with COTS in 2004-5.  NASA is in partnership with SpaceX and the other winners.

 

SpaceX and Boeing were project winners on manned flight to ISS, they begin testing this year.

 

Quote on COTS, the same thing is going on with SpaceX moving to manned flight, partnership.  Musk put in 100 million of his own money for SpaceX.  Google and Fidelity are in for a billion.   Guess how much NASA is in for just manned spaceflight development for SpaceX?  NASA is leveraging taxpayer money and facilitating competition.

 

The COTS Program demonstrated that with a limited investment (a total of about $788 million) NASA could encourage the development of non-government cargo delivery services.  The majority of the development funds (approximately $1 billion) were provided by industries that saw a solid market for this new capability in ISS resupply.  In the end, two new launch vehicles, their automated cargo carrier spacecraft, and the ground support systems needed to operate them were developed collaboratively.  An amazing accomplishment in just 10 years.  As noted by NASA Administrator Bolden, “The commercial space industry will be an engine of 21^st Century American economic growth and will help us carry out even more ambitious deep space exploration missions.” 

[Travis In Austin]

8 hours ago, JJkizak said:

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

1.  Cheeper than what, NASA partnered and funded half.

 

2.  How are they faster,  NASA funded 50% of everything you said, they spearheaded and managed every aspect of it. 

 

3.  NASA not only comprehended it, they approved the design, development and testing process, holding out a carrot the entire time.

 

4.  You have really exposed yourself as not having an understanding of the facts and reality on how this development and funding worked.  

 

If you want to know the facts on the funding and how the development worked, read the report I posted above.

 

From the Introduction:

 

In May 2012, the SpaceX Dragon made headlines as it 
became the first commercial spacecraft to deliver cargo to 
the International Space Station (ISS). In September 2013, 
NASA saw a second commercial partner, Orbital Sciences 
Corp., follow with its own resupply mission to the ISS.
These successful missions represented the fruition of 
six years of intensive work executed under partnership 
agreements between NASA and the commercial space 
community—partnerships that both resulted in the 
availability of cost-effective cargo transportation services 
for the Agency, and the advancement of the U.S. 
commercial space industry. 
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 of running.”

Orbital President and CEO David W. Thompson echoed 
the sentiment as he described how NASA was “very helpful 
in helping us work through various kinds of problems that 
came up,” concluding that “it’s been a great relationship.”

These partnerships had their origin in 2005, when NASA 
Administrator Michael D. Griffin was appointed and, with 
the support of the presidential administration and Congress, 
allocated a fixed $500 million contribution from NASA’s 
budget for the instigation of commercial transportation 
capabilities to low-Earth orbit. The new Commercial Crew 
& Cargo Program Office (C3PO) at the Johnson Space 
Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas was charged with the task 
of “stimulating commercial enterprise in space by asking 
American entrepreneurs to provide innovative, cost-effective 
commercial cargo and crew transportation services to the 
[international] space station.”

 

 

[Mallette]

OK, then what is holding up SLS and Boeing?  No harder than Dragon and FHL.  And, given the greatest reductions in launch costs in space history wouldn't you say that NASA money was well spent?  As a taxpayer, I certainly do.  

 

So, what's the deal with Boeing?  

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

1 hour ago, Mallette said:

OK, then what is holding up SLS and Boeing?  No harder than Dragon and FHL.  And, given the greatest reductions in launch costs in space history wouldn't you say that NASA money was well spent?  As a taxpayer, I certainly do.  

 

So, what's the deal with Boeing?  

Dave

Absolutely money well spent.  As someone who has followed this weekly since we'll before 2004, I am trying to correct this misconception about NASA.  They were trying to commercialize space flight for two decades before COTS.  People seem to have this belief that Musk woke up one day and said I'm going to build a rocket, and he did it on his own and then shopped it to NASA.  Or, the absurdity that NASA competes with SpaceX.  They are partners. 

 

NASA was able to leverage their shrinking budget to a win-win.  They set up parameters as to what they want, and let design competition win out.  They are not going to get into a monopoly situation again, they will always have at least two contractors.  That is their redundancy.  If SpaceX or Orbital ATK blow one up on the pad there is another ready to jump in.  This incentivizes safety.  SpaceX started behind and have surpassed everyone.  Better designs, better execution.  

 

The path is this.  NASA needs something.  Like getting man to ISS which they call the Commercial Crew Program (CCP).  They offer money to firms to develop a design.  Firms are awarded money to design.  That goes through a few rounds, Rachel round the companies get money. They narrow it down to two companies to develop and actually build, test and fly the stuff.  That is where we are now, CCtCAP and it is SpaceX and Boeing. 

 

This all came out of  COTS, and COTS is NASA.  Below is NASA's explanation of manned space flight costs and funding before and after COTS, and it is ABSOLUTELY money well spent .  The emphasis is mine.

 

 

How NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is Different
NASA's Prior Approach for Obtaining Crew Transportation Systems:
·  NASA devised requirements for a crew transportation system that would carry astronauts into orbit, then the agency's engineers and specialists oversaw every development aspect of the spacecraft, its support systems and operations plans.
·  An aerospace contractor was hired to build the crew transportation system to the design criteria and the standards NASA furnished.
·  NASA personnel were deeply involved in the processing, testing, launching and operation of the crew transportation system to ensure safety and reliability. The space agency owned the spacecraft and its operating infrastructure.
·  Every spacecraft built for humans, from Mercury to Gemini and Apollo to the space shuttle and American section of the International Space Station, was built and operated using this model.

Commercial Crew's Approach for Obtaining Crew Transportation Systems:
·  NASA's engineers and aerospace specialists work closely with companies to develop crew transportation systems that can safely, reliably and cost-effectively carry humans to low-Earth orbit, including the International Space Station, and return safely to Earth.
·  Interested companies are free to design the transportation system they think is best. For the contracts phase of development and certification, each company must meet NASA’s pre-determined set of requirements. 
·  The companies are encouraged to apply their most efficient and effective manufacturing and business operating techniques throughout the process.
·  The companies own and operate their own spacecraft and infrastructure.
·  The partnership approach allows NASA engineers insight into a company’s development process while the agency’s technical expertise and resources are accessible to a company.

 

Here is what it has cost at the stage we are at now, and total cost.

 

Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap)
Contract
     CCtCap is the second phase of a two-phase certification plan for commercially built and operated integrated crew transportation systems. Two FAR-based, firm fixed-price contracts were awarded in September 2014 following an open competition. Through its certification efforts, NASA will ensure the selected commercial transportation systems meet the agency’s safety and performance requirements for transporting NASA crew to the International Space Station. NASA awarded a total of $6.8 billion under CCtCap contracts. CCtCap 

Boeing - $4.2 billion
SpaceX - $2.6 billion

Who Is Involved
These companies played roles in the development and certification phases of the Commercial Crew Program. Amounts are totals of all Space Act Agreements and contracts awarded to each company.

Alliant Techsystems
Participated in CCDev2
Unfunded partnership

Blue Origin
Participated in CCDev1 and CCDev2
Awarded $25.6 million

Boeing
Participated in CCDev1, CCDev2, CCiCap, CPC and CCtCap
Awarded $4.82 billion

Excalibur Almaz Inc.
Participated in CCDev2
Unfunded partnership

Paragon Space Development Corp.
Participated in CCDev1
Awarded $1.4 million

Sierra Nevada Corporation
Participated in CCDev1, CCDev2, CCiCap and CPC
Awarded $363.1 million

SpaceX
Participated in CCDev2, CCiCap, CPC and CCtCap
Awarded $3.144 billion

United Launch Alliance
Participated in CCDev1 and CCDev2
Awarded $6.7 million

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

This is the big year.  Commercial Manned flight is scheduled.  NASA has partnered with Boeing and SpaceX and test flights are scheduled for August, and crewed manned flights are scheduled for the end of the year.

 

This has been in the works for 4 years and when we have manned space launches from the US again some uninformed fool will again say "man that is sometin', it figers NASA couldn't do 'er.  Honey can you get me another Keystone and some of them spicy pigskins."

 

This is what it has all been leading up to, this will separate the men from the boys, and this is what will accelerate SpaceX and/or Boeing into everything from Earth to earth suborbital flight, to asteroid mining, and even to landing man on Mars.  This is the equivalent of breaking the 4 minute mile in terms of commercial Spaceflight. NASA will then begin awarding contracts to private companies to carry people to Space.

 

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

The next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will return human spaceflight launches to U.S. soil, providing reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit on systems that meet our safety and mission requirements. To meet NASA’s requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station. Two of those demonstrations are uncrewed flight tests, known as Orbital Flight Test for Boeing, and Demonstration Mission 1 for SpaceX. After the uncrewed flight tests, both companies will execute a flight test with crew prior to being certified by NASA for crew rotation missions. The following schedule reflects the most recent publicly releasable dates for both providers.

Targeted Test Flight Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): August 2018
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): November 2018
SpaceX Demonstration Mission 1 (uncrewed): August 2018
SpaceX Demonstration Mission 2 (crewed): December 2018

[Jeff Matthews]

I don't think those are exactly pro-NASA arguments at all.  The fact that a giant chunk of the process has been privatized to a successful result supports the pro-Capitalist argument.  It's nice that NASA is taking it all with a smile.  Sounds like a win-win.

[Travis In Austin]

13 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I don't think those are exactly pro-NASA arguments at all.  The fact that a giant chunk of the process has been privatized to a successful result supports the pro-Capitalist argument.  It's nice that NASA is taking it all with a smile.  Sounds like a win-win.

Other than the fact that NASA offered it up to a capitalist-free-market, winner take all, scenario and it was too big, too much risk.  

 

GOVT is involved in all kinds of things.

 

The reason that the US is the leader, again, in semiconductors is the Govt-Private sector partnership in Austin called Sematech.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424786/lessons-from-sematech/

 

All of transportation in the US was GOVT led and subsidized.  Railroads, Autos,. Air travel, everything.

 

I think there are a lot of people who want to believe that an industry giant, or a sector in the economy is pure capitalist, built from the ground up,.It's a myth that supports their agenda.

 

This thread proves that people are desperate to believe this myth, , but it is just a myth, a canard.  

 

The true genius of industry giants, from the industrial revolution up until today, is to take a giant vision and figure out how   to partner with government in a way that makes the impossible possible. 

 

 

[oldtimer]

It's one of slick willie's favorite concepts.

[Jeff Matthews]

2 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

The true genius of industry giants, from the industrial revolution up until today, is to take a giant vision and figure out how   to partner with government in a way that makes the impossible possible. 

I certainly agree with you on that.  This is even so on rather mundane things, like growing corn.

[oldtimer]

We call it maize.

[Jeff Matthews]

3 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

We call it maize.

Yeah, it can get complicated like that.

[jimjimbo]

We call it maize.

Go Blue!

[J M O N]

Private enterprise can do just about everything better than those run by the government -- space exploration is just one of the many categories.  Get rid of the politics, budget constraints, changes in elected officials resulting in constant direction changes and imagine just what NASA would be capable of doing, beyond the incredible successes already achieved.  In fact, it is impressive what they have been able to achieve with the handicap of being a government organization.  I've always felt that NASA may very well be the most efficient organization in the government.  Every year, NASA publishes the Spinoffs publication (https://spinoff.nasa.gov/) which highlights the technologies developed by NASA that benefit mankind.  They publish this because the general public just doesn't understand the benefits NASA provides.  There is a positive return on investment (ROI) with the tax dollars given to NASA.  That return just doesn't go back into the federal budget.  I don't know the current value, but my memory from previous years was somewhere on the order of 2 to 1.  Technologies developed by NASA become public property and are made available to private companies like SpaceX (and many others to include non-space industries).  Technologies developed by private companies become intellectual property of those private companies that are not shared unless there is some form of compensation returned.

 

With that being said, we must also remember that private industry won't make investments unless there is profit to be made.  The government doesn't have that requirement and that's where the government can do things that the private sector can't (or won't).  There is no profit to be made in providing things such as national defense, health regulations, infrastructures, and so on.  There was no profit to be made in going to the moon (at least not in the 1960's) so that achievement would not have occurred without government involvement.  Despite the issues that we know are prevalent in the government, there are still important roles that will never be filled by the private sector.

[Mallette]

7 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

People seem to have this belief that Musk woke up one day and said I'm going to build a rocket, and he did it on his own and then shopped it to NASA.

Actually, that part is true to all reports I've seen.  Either divine providence or luck got NASA down the commercial space route in time to speed up Elon's dreams...and I'd like to think it was wisdom on their part knowing that they'd take decades to get anything done relying on our government.  Good on them for that realization.  

 

Travis, pleased, but not surprised, you really keep up with such things.  I'd certainly comment that Boeing shows the signs of being a giant, diversified entity that has been used to sucking the taxpayer to the max while SpaceX shows the signs of a totally focused company over performing to get to it's objective.  

 

Personally, I think Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada should get more.  They also have focus other than shareholder value.  

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

30 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

It's one of slick willie's favorite concepts.

. . . And Carnegie and JP Morgan and Leland Stanford and . . .

[Don Richard]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:12 PM, JMON said:

Every year, NASA publishes the Spinoffs publication (https://spinoff.nasa.gov/) which highlights the technologies developed by NASA that benefit mankind.

 

Out of all the freebie magazines I got when working, NASA Tech Briefs was my favorite. NASA was (is) required to publish all projects and techniques they developed and make them available to the public. I adopted more than a few of these cutting edge technical gems into my own work projects.

[Schu]

 

[J M O N]

On 2/12/2018 at 8:46 AM, Schu said:

 

I actually was able to see the very tail end of this.  Off in the distance, noticed them maybe about two seconds before they touched down.  Again, this was from about 50 miles away so not nearly as good as this video shows.

[Mallette]

25 minutes ago, JMON said:

Again, this was from about 50 miles away so not nearly as good as this video shows.

But it must have been magnificent.  I saw a shuttle launch from Orlando once.  Incredible.

 

Dave

[J M O N]

Yes, it was fantastic.  First launch of a spacecraft I've ever seen.  Very little sound made it to where I was, however.