Watching Falcons

Atlas V is as good as any rocket anywhere, yet we can't stop talking about the future resting on Falcon 9. Maybe we are the problem, not the rockets

You'll say most first flights of a new launcher fail; Elon tries again.

The new administration's space plan relies on a commercial space industry that does not yet exist for commercial transportation of astronauts to the space station. Falcon 9 is going to be first launch of the first booster (and so far, the only launcher) that has been explicitly stated to be a vehicle to service this market. So, yes, a lot is riding on this launch indeed, and if it works, the new plan looks a lot better.
I have a lot of respect for Space-X for getting up and trying again after a failure. Learning from failure is the way to succeed. I do hope that their launch will work, but I also hope (and expect) that if it doesn't, they will find the problem, fix the problem, and come back with a stronger and better booster.

I think it has a good chance of success after all the testing they have done, I hope it's 100% successful, but I didn't like Musk's characterization of Armstrong as just a Pilot on TWIS.

I'd be more surprised by a 100% success than a partial (or total) failure. It's a test program after all.

I truly wish them well. My concern (as well as many others) is that this takes time and that this manned flight role is trying to be accelerated faster than it is likely to (or should) go. With the latest delays caused by qualification of the flight termination system, these are the types of things that will crop up in a manned system and make for extended delays in schedules.

I would say that they've got a lot more work to do.

I would also say that the US government should give ULA a call about starting to build out an Atlas V-402 with HSF in mind.

So far, Space X has had a 40% success rate. But there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to improve there success rate beyond the 40% level in the future. However, there are other companies that have been building successful manned and unmanned space vehicles in the US for decades. So I'm not sure what the big deal is.

I'm more afraid of the financially struggling Elon Musk getting his hands on our tax payer dollars than I am about whether or not his primitive rocket system will work or not:-)

Marcel F. Williams

The fact that this launch is being watched like a hawk and is turning into a huge critical event whether it succeeds or fails speaks volumes of the mess Obama has created.

I think it was General Charles Bolden of the US Marines that remarked
"Once you're on the beach, irrespective of the adversity, there's only direction you go - and that's forward!"

I agree with him.

"Atlas V is as good as any rocket anywhere, yet we can't stop talking about the future resting on Falcon 9"

Maybe because the RD-180 is a Russian engine

Folks:

The Falcon 9 is a superior rocket design compared to anything out there. The first stage is recoverable which puts it way ahead of any booster that gets thrown away. The second stage may also be recoverable in the future.

The Dragon capsule is reusable and contains most of the flight systems on-board. The service module "trunk" is actually the the inter-stage between the second stage and the capsule. It houses the solar panels and radiator for the capsule, a minimal amount a hardware to discard.

It's a well thought out system that will change the way we think of space flight. It's what you get when you have a guiding force in Elon Musk akin to the Wright brothers and Howard Hughs.

Note to critics:

We become a space fairing civilization or the Earth will die. Do you really want to be considered an accessory to Gaiacide?

tinker

"The Falcon 9 is a superior rocket design compared to anything out there."

And this statement is based on...what? Falcon 9 MIGHT proove to be a robust design, but without any launches to back this statement up, it's still just pretty graphs and hand waving.

"The first stage is recoverable which puts it way ahead of any booster that gets thrown away."

Sure, but this same argument applies to Ares 1.

"The Dragon capsule is reusable and contains most of the flight systems on-board."

This same argument applies to Orion.

"We become a space fairing civilization or the Earth will die. Do you really want to be considered an accessory to Gaiacide?"

I don't think SpaceX's success (or any space program's success for that matter) in the next 50 years will determine the fate of humanity. When humans finally spread out through the solar system and beyond, I doubt we'll be doing it on chemical rockets.

Yeah, the Atlas is a good design, but it will take time and money to make it HSF rated. Everyone seems to forget that ULA stated they aren't interested in making their vehicles human rated, unless someone (NASA) was willing to pay to make it happen. The problem, as has been the problem since EELV was just a glimmer in a general's eye, IS THAT THERE IS NO MARKET. No company can scrape together a decent enough business plan to make human spaceflight justifiable. No CEO or stockholder would condone spending as much profit as would be necessary to create a viable human rated system. Take NASA's business away from Elon, and what's left? Will he develop Dragon for tourists? NO, because there's NO MARKET.
That is why the government must spend the money to develop the capability. To spin it in such a way as to imply "commercialism" is laughable. And if the government is the one paying, they ought to be the one controlling. Not Wall Street or private investors.

I am new to the space industry so can someone explain how having a commercial company (ie. Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing etc.) design and build a rocket to NASA man rating requirements is different from a "commercial" rocket built to NASA man rating requirements?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Rumor on the street was that Falcon 9 was given Shuttle batteries for the flight destruct system and possibly some explosive hardware too. Couldn't make their schedule if they didn't. My problem is that it sounds like NASA is picking/making a winner, not letting the "commercial" companies sort things out themselves.

Editor's note: yea, and I also heard that Elon Musk reverse-engineered Falcon 9 from wreckage found at Roswell.

go4launch, what YOU'RE saying is laughable. Companies that only serve the government should be government-controlled? What Marxist–Leninist party do you belong to?

I'm rooting for both SpaceX and Orbital. But on the note that the Atlas V has Russian engines, I believe that Orbital is also using leftover rocket engines that were originally going to be used by Kistler. Why is it that only Elon Musk's group can design a first stage booster engine by themselves? Why can't Rocketdyne or Aerojet do it with their own money?

And ULA could have put in a bid for the commercial resupply and didn't. Let's see if they participate in the commercial crew competition.

Silly as that may sound, I heard the same thing from a buddy at the 45SW. The "off-the-shelf" batteries would never be accepted by the Range without considerable, time-consuming testing. So they went after a qualified battery. Don't know where they ended up getting it (or if they succeeded).

Yeah, score one for you, RC, bad choice of words on my part. My point is that without NASA funding nobody would be making rockets for HSF. And dbooker, that is why Rocketdyne or Aerojet don't do it -- there's no money in it, unless there's a NASA contract.

And D, the two scenarios you mention (commercial company building to NASA specs, versus commercial rocket meeting NASA specs) are identical. And oh, by the way, neither are "commercial."

I may be picking nits, but it bugs me to call SpaceX or Orbital commercial when NASA is the only customer. By that definition, the Shuttle would be "commercial," as Bolden astonishingly stated during one of his earlier testimonies. I doubt any reasonable person could argue the Shuttle program is commercial. SpaceX and Orbital and the Merchant7 are no different (in the HSF arena, admittedly they do have some non-gov payloads for non HSF). None is commercial until they have paying customers from someone other than the government.

dbooker:

Musk has the advantage of starting from the ground up. He's not reinventing the wheel just building a new wheel from scratch. He is building the whole wheel in house, no sub-contractors. Spacex takes advantage of 50 years of space technology without the crutch of "legacy" to hold them back.

Also, Musk has an always ready middle finger for his detractors and sound arguments to back him up. Sometimes "My way or the highway" is the only way to get things done.

Like you I'm rooting for everyone to succeed but Spacex get top points from me for originality.

It's been a long time since we've had a Von Braun or a Korolov (neither of whom were American).

tinker

Doesn't the Falcon 9 engine have roots in the Fastrac engine? BNI made the turbopumps for both?

"The first stage is recoverable which puts it way ahead of any booster that gets thrown away. The second stage may also be recoverable in the future."

The Falcon 1 first stage was also supposed to be recoverable but I haven't heard of the success rate on that. I saw that they claimed the second stage would be recoverable but nothing to support that claim. It would seem to be very expensive to recover a stage that is traveling at near orbital velocity.

jamesl:

I've heard that parts of the Merlin engine were originally designed by NASA. So was the heat shield material and many other bits and pieces on the Falcon and Dragon capsule. That's the point!

That is your tax dollars being put to good use.

Everybody talks about the spin-offs from NASA effecting our day to day lives. But spin-offs leading to advanced space hardware? Now we're talkin'!

What I meant above is that Spacex builds all it's hardware in house, as much as it can. They found early on that "traditional" subcontractors were way overcharging for their gear and services.
Spacex time after time discovered that they could built a lot cheaper and to higher standards on their own. It makes sense especially when the stakes are so high.

tinker

Fund SpaceX to keep Elon in the game. He's got a ways to go, but his presence is good for the industry. Fund LM to complete a stripped-down Orion capable of LEO. Fund Boeing to human rate the Delta IV capable of putting up the Orion. (Atlas V may be a fine rocket, but the Russian engines make you a politically incorrect choice.) Outfit a VAB highbay to process the Delta IV and integrate the Orion. Press on with mods to O&C highbay and MPPF to process Orion. Take down FSS/RSS on Pad B, build EES, and develop propellant loading systems for launch off LC-39B. Modify either new Cx ML or Shuttle MLP for Delta IV/Orion. Everyone wins a little - except ATK (sorry boys, your political clout seems over) - and we can press on with HSF and lose little over the Constellation time line. But dammit, let's hurry up and get on with it! This endless squabbling is annoying and counterproductive.

I say if we're going to be stuck in LEO for the next decade and a half or more, let's revive programs like X-33 and X-34, and start working on the technologies that will really allow for routine, affordable access to space. Also, why not revive X-38/CRV? That could be turned not only into a lifeboat, but also send crews into orbit along with a man-rated EELV. I know, never gonna happen, but it's a shame that now we're stuck with retro-design capsules and we're still not going anywhere beyond LEO. It's shaping up to be a lost decade, basically - someone wake me when we start advancing again.

"Editor's note: yea, and I also heard that Elon Musk reverse-engineered Falcon 9 from wreckage found at Roswell."

Hey, I did preface my comment with "Rumor", unlike most of the posters on this blog. If Falcon 9 is the best the aliens have, we should have no trouble invading the rest of the known universe. Now to just get out of Iraq:\

Its obvious that there's not enough manned launches commissioned by NASA to support a private manned spaceflight industry.

That's why I believe that the Federal government should help to create a manned spaceflight market for the emerging private manned spaceflight companies by helping to promote space tourism by starting a space lotto system. There are probably hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of people around the world who would be willing to spend a few dollars every year for a chance to travel into space aboard a private American space ship.

This would give private spaceflight companies potential tourist from both wealthy individuals and from lotto winners. Bigelow thinks that transporting wealthy space tourist to its space station might require a manned spaceflight demand of 20 launches per year.

Additionally, the $1.2 billion a year that NASA proposes giving private industry to develop their own manned vehicles could be used to provide more funds for space tourism once these vehicles have already been developed. That $1.2 billion a year might support an additional 10 or 12 manned space tourist launches per year.

Marcel F. Williams

The first Falcon 9 launch could certainly fail, as did the Delta 4 upper stage (twice) when it was used on the Delta III, as did the Ares first stage on Challenger. But Falcon is a good clean-sheet design with a simple and efficient processing flow, and the company is cost-competitive on the international market. It isn't surprising that SpaceX has far more actual commercial orders booked than ULA. If the company isn't prepared to respond to a failure by fixing the problem and demonstrating success then they shouldn't launch at all.

That was the problem with the DC-X; it was so underfunded that when the prototype crashed there was no money to replace it.

I have actually sat through many many days of NASA safety meetings. Unfortunately many NASA safety analysts have no hands-on experience and believe everything can be done on paper or in Powerpoint slides. They tend to make "estimates" (i.e. WAGS) when they don't know the reliability of a component or subsystem. Never once have I heard a NASA engineer say that before trying to use the majic of "systems engineering", the first step in designing a reliable system is to actually test the components to determine their failure rates and modes of failure. NASA engineers have a tendency to think that redundancy is equivalent to reliability. Challenger is a good counterexample to this; the booster had an O-ring, and if it failed there was a backup O-ring. Obviously redundancy only reduces the rate of random failures. Unfortunately most launch vehicle failures are deterministic.

In short, I just don't see any real evidence that NASA is better prepared to ensure launch vehicle and spacecraft safety than the experienced contractors who are the people who actually do this job on Atlas, Delta, Falcon, and Shuttle.

"The Dragon capsule is reusable and contains most of the flight systems on-board."

This same argument applies to Orion.

Dragon capsule has onboard engines and oxygen etc...

orion not..

You, along with all the technocrat/engineer geeks on here are missing the real big difference between old way of doing business and the supposed new commercial way. It's not the design and fabrication, it's how and who actually flies the vehicle. As you correctly noted there isn't really any difference from the design and build perspective. What is differnet is that you are going from an organization that has over 40 years of experience and processes for safely conducting manned space flight to contractors with zero experience in conducting that same mission. How many mistakes will commercial space flight repeat before they achieve the same level of experience and knowledge.

"I am new to the space industry so can someone explain how having a commercial company (ie. Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing etc.) design and build a rocket to NASA man rating requirements is different from a "commercial" rocket built to NASA man rating requirements?"

Well, you may be new to the game but you have hit the nail on the head. Especially your enquoted "commercial".

If there we no quotes around "commercial" I would say that the difference is that no US taxpayer money is used to design and build a commercial rocket and no guaranteed US taxpayer-funded subsidization is needed for profitability of operations. This would be huge, and would represent a tipping point in human spaceflight. A good example of this is the attempt by Virgin Galactic, but it is of course sub-orbital only.

Unfortunately, of course, that is NOT what is going on under the Obama plan. So in the world of enquoted "commercialization", it means that there is much less US Government oversight in the design and operations (maybe good, maybe bad - think Wall Street and BP) but the taxpayer foots the bill for a good bit of the development and the US Government is guaranteeing business. Oh, and it also means that the contractors cut out of the current NASA programs get another bite at the apple.

"Also, why not revive X-38/CRV? That could be turned not only into a lifeboat, but also send crews into orbit along with a man-rated EELV."

The Air Force has one in orbit right now and it was launched on an Atlas V. NASA handed over the design to them 5-6 years ago because NASA wanted to use a capsule in the POR.

@CessnaDriver

"The fact that this launch is being watched like a hawk and is turning into a huge critical event whether it succeeds or fails speaks volumes of the mess Obama has created."

Exactamundo. But it's not all his fault: the people who urged him to do this, provided his 'plan', etc are also at fault. If the launch fails, Musk may regret turning the spotlight so brightly on SpaceX. I don't envy the guys who are working on Falcon - who needs that kind of extra pressure at a time that's already so stressful?

@MD

"I think it was General Charles Bolden of the US Marines that remarked 'Once you're on the beach, irrespective of the adversity, there's only direction you go - and that's forward!'"

Funny thing, that's how a lot of people working on Constellation felt.

@giskard03

"When humans finally spread out through the solar system and beyond, I doubt we'll be doing it on chemical rockets."

Once out of the Earth gravity well, no, but we still have to take that first step. And despite 70 years of Really Smart People, we still don't have a better technology for that first step. Not that I'm saying it's impossible, but it's not a Simple Matter of Engineering.

@D

"I am new to the space industry so can someone explain how having a commercial company .. design and build a rocket to NASA man rating requirements is different from a 'commercial' rocket built to NASA man rating requirements?"

Good one!

@The Rat

"Couldn't make their schedule if they didn't."

Actually, I think they are already way behind their original schedule. Not that I'm too exercised about that - this is a difficult business, and that happens a lot. Beating up rocket projects just because they are behind schedule is really lame IMO - either that, or one should apply the same standards to all.

@tinker

"Sometimes 'My way or the highway' is the only way to get things done."

People are continually complaining that Griffin operated in that mode, though. (Oddly, many of these same people cheer when Bolden fires someone for, basically, not getting on board. Go figure.)

@whyisthat1

"claimed the second stage would be recoverable but nothing to support that claim. It would seem to be very expensive to recover a stage that is traveling at near orbital velocity."

Yup. And any stuff that you put on board to help with that recovery (e.g. heat shielding) is going to reduce the mass fraction. If someone really did make a claim about a re-usable second stage on a 2-stage-to-orbit system, I cannot imagine what they were thinking.

@Swing A Dead Cat

"This endless squabbling is annoying and counterproductive."

I agree - but this was all pretty inevitable when Obama and his nitwitted minions (Boldren, Garver et al) pole-axed the PoR with a plan they didn't bother to work on without anyone outside their small circle.

Hang on to your hat, though, it's going to get worse (sadly).

"I am new to the space industry so can someone explain how having a commercial company (ie. Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing etc.) design and build a rocket to NASA man rating requirements is different from a "commercial" rocket built to NASA man rating requirements?"

first we no longer "man rate" but we "human rate".

There is a difference between NASA dictating requirements up to and including the various "parts" of the rocket (as they did in Constellation) and NASA simply buying a rocket that they dictate certain standards the rocket must meet.

With Constellation NASA dictated "everything" including that the first stage would be a solid (so they could keep ATK in the loop). If NASA were to say "these are the requirements a rocket must meet to carry humans" and SpaceX, ULA or anyone built a rocket to those standards...that is a big difference.

NASA HSF really has no business even dictating what defines "human rated". There safety record in HSF is lousy, two shuttle orbiters lost and 14 people killed all because of management "goofs" ..

really the FAA should start generating those standards and any future accidents should be investigated by the NTSB. NASA needs to find another role.

Robert G. Oler

"Dragon capsule has onboard engines and oxygen etc...

orion not.. "

Please read up on Dragon and Orion. Are you saying that Orion doesn't have oxygen? Wouldn't the crew complain? Both have oxygen and propulsion.

The main difference is Orion is designed to operate around the earth and moon, Dragon only the earth. Also, Orion allows intimate crew control, Dragon not (as far as I know, it's either automated or ground control).

A number of you seem to be missing some very important points... The Falcon 9 (and Falcon 1) were developed primarily to serve as low cost expendable commercial satellite launchers. Both vehicles have commercial orders booked. They have a viable commercial enterprise going regardless of NASA business. Keep in mind that ULA has no commercial orders for Atlas or Delta. The government is the only customer.

The COTS cargo and possible crew transport business from NASA is the icing on the cake for SpaceX. They received milestone based development funds to design Dragon and create a vehicle that could safely dock with the ISS and deliver cargo. The government is the only current customer for this particular service. They'll also be paid for the flights themselves. This is a far cry from any previous launcher/spacecraft development program. It should also be noted that any work done on the Dragon to enable it to carry crew has been done totally by SpaceX without government funds.

SpaceX has a high level of vertical integration. That doesn't mean they make everything in house. They announced a long time ago that they were sourcing the range safety system from established vendors and that there was no simple off-the-shelf solution. The package would have to be built specifically for Falcon 9 and the particular launch facility.

It's also silly to think that SpaceX or any other company is going to come up with a design that uses no previous knowledge or experience. NASA's database is available to all qualified U.S. companies and organizations who request access. The same goes for research done by the government on things such as heat shields. Accusing SpaceX of crating the Merlin engine by using previous NASA designs is like accusing Toyota of creating their first V8 engine by improperly using data from the Chevrolet small block V8. Designs (even those by different organizations) are evolutionary.

All of this venom towards SpaceX is astonishing. Here's an American company creating new rockets and attempting to lower the cost for access to space. We should all be cheering them on at every step of the way, regardless of any other issues we have with programs of record or the government in general. This is a commercial company with a commercial product.

If you want a comparison to work with, think about the KC-X tanker. It'll either be based on the 767 (likely) or A-330 and the government will be the only customer. They will also contribute funds for development and to woo manufacturing in certain locations. Does that negate the commercial aspects of the host aircraft programs? No it does not and the same applies to Falcon 9.

A lot of people are losing sight of the big picture and it's disturbing.

@DrManhatten

Your bias against president Obama clouds your facts on the matter of commercial spaceflight:

1. The "Obama" plan to initiate commercial cargo delivery was started under president Bush.

2. You incorrectly characterize that SpaceX and Orbital are in effect on the dole with the US government. On the contrary, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract is a lean system that only pays out on the achievement of specific milestones. This heavily favors NASA and saving US taxpayer dollars, as NASA can walk away at any time if performance isn't satisfactory.

3. The US government, from what I understand, is not the primary funding source for the development of Falcon 9. Elon Musk and his investors have input the lion's share of development costs, and are now taking the lion's share of risk.

4. SpaceX has a long list of paying customers secured in their launch manifest. Pending reliable performance, this points strongly to a market outside government funding.

5. One clear commercial market beyond ISS cargo/crew delivery and commercial launch services is space tourism. Orbital space tourism is by far a greater problem to solve that sub-orbital, and the outlay of cash to overcome it will be significant. The single greatest hurdle in enabling that industry is likely the development of a human-rated commercial launch vehicle. Without a pre-existing commercial human spaceflight program, the SpaceX plan to leverage off of an ISS crew delivery program seems completely reasonable, and is a perfect example of a spinoff industry - the kind NASA and the US government (regardless of party association) loves to cite. Another industry is long-duration, commercial, recoverable micro-gravity experimentation (see SpaceX DragonLab, an off-shoot of the standard Dragon capsule).

So, what's your complaint with this approach???

"We didn’t quit when Vanguard 1, with America’s first satellite aboard, exploded on its launch pad in 1957."

True Vanguard did eventually succeed in launching satellites...
but what put the first American satellite in orbit?

I think the real question is what if Falcon 9 does a Vanguard TV3 (December 6, 1957) on the pad?

And D, the two scenarios you mention (commercial company building to NASA specs, versus commercial rocket meeting NASA specs) are identical. And oh, by the way, neither are "commercial."

go4launch, you wouldn't know commercial if it smacked you in the butt. I'd guess you work on the government side, based on your ignorance of the difference.
If the company has a customer and a set of requirements but complete control over the design and system engineering, then it's fully commercial.
If the customer insists on getting involved in the requirements development, design, system engineering trades, hardware build, and testing program -- in fact assembling a shadow program team to mirror the contractor's -- then it's almost a job-shop contract for a government program.
The latter is typical of NASA programs, with some exceptions. Believe me, there is a night-and-day difference at the contractor house, and that includes a big relief on costs.

How Space X defines Success:
"It's important to note that since this is a test launch, our primary goal is to collect as much data as possible, with success being measured as a percentage of how many flight milestones we are able to complete in this first attempt. It would be a great day if we reach orbital velocity, but still a good day if the first stage functions correctly, even if the second stage malfunctions. It would be a bad day if something happens on the launch pad itself and we're not able to gain any flight data.

If we have a bad day, it will be disappointing, but one launch does not make or break SpaceX as a company, nor commercial spaceflight as an industry."

The crew return vehicle was the X-38. It has a lifting body configuration and was a prototype for a 7-person vehicle to be used for emergency crew return only, and is recovered by parachute. It is expendable. The lifting body configuration was intended to provide increased crossrange and does not sufficient lift to land on a runway.

The Air Force launch was the X-37B, derived from the NASA x-37, an unmanned vehicle with a wing-and-fuselage configuration. it is a technology demonstrator, a reusable unmanned spacecraft which lands autonomously on a runway. It is designed for testing reusable technologies for a future generation shuttle that would be used for launch and entry, and does not represent an operational vehicle.

The vehicles are similar in size but different in almost every other characteristic.

You are basically saying that design/fabrication is easy and a given while operations is difficult and the key to success. This is ridiculous. Design and fabrication is by far the most important and requires an engineering degree, operations can be done by high school graduates as is 80% of the Shuttle workforce. Unfortunately, NASA is full of conceited ops people and we are entering an era where we need design and development skills, of which we have NONE. Constellation didn't fail because it was underfunded, it failed because those in charge at nearly all levels were ops people with no clue about design and development. It doesn't matter who the president is, or who the administrator is, or what the architecture is, until we get people with design experience running these large development programs, we will fail. You should see what the idiots are doing with the flexible path laid out in the 2011 budget. The potential to do good is almost unlimited because we have a chance to start over and get things right. But with the same dumbasses in charge that failed with CxP, NASA has no future.

Griffin and others criticized Shuttle for wasting 30 years in LEO. The real tragedy of Shuttle was that 30 years of operations allowed our design skills to atrophy to the point that we are incapable of doing anything else. The entire Agency is run by ops people who have no clue how to run a development program. HSF is finished in this Agency. Our only hope is Commercial Space, or continue to operate Shuttle for the rest of time. As soon as Shuttle ends, HSF is over regardless of the follow-up program because we are incapable of development.

You had all better keep your fingers crossed for Elon because this is our only chance as a nation to continue in space. It's not that Boeing and LM can't, they just won't unless they are paid premium bucks to do it with all liability assumed by the government. We need to layoff about 5,000 NASA civil servants (of which I'm one) and hire contractors because we can't do it anymore. Just give them performance requirements and oversee what they do. If NASA gets all up in the detailed technical requirements like they did with CxP, we will ruin it, no matter what "it" is.

"And ULA could have put in a bid for the commercial resupply and didn't. Let's see if they participate in the commercial crew competition."

Do a little research before you Post.

ULA's Charter does not allow it to bid as a Prime for any such service. They can only provide launch services in support of a Prime proposal.

I can assure you that MANY Primes will include Atlas V or Delta IV in their proposals when/if NASA ever issues an RFP for crew launch.

"What is differnet is that you are going from an organization that has over 40 years of experience and processes for safely conducting manned space flight to contractors with zero experience in conducting that same mission."

that is just simply not the case.

It is fair to say that for the first oh 15 years of HSF NASA had a clue how to "safely" operate test vehicles that were being used as test vehicles. With the shuttle era that expertise was lost, if it ever existed as a test vehicle tried to masquerade as an operational vehicle (or the other possibility is accurate as well...it was an operational vehicle being flown as a test vehicle).

An organization is not "safe" by any definition if it allows two hull/crew losses for the same exact reason (faulty management decisions) and whose explanation for the second hull loss is essentially "we forgot the reasons for the first one".

The problem with that explanation is that there is no telling when the lessons of the first accident were forgotten or that they were even learned. And the evidence (some close calls and continuing problems) is that the real problem really never went away.

In any event I suspect that commercial lift will make some mistakes and there will be some heart stoppers but the odds are that 1) the lessons will really be learned and 2) corrective action will not be a series of paper work fixes.

NASA HSF really has no clue how to operate complex technical machines in either an operational or experimental environment. The mismatch of trying to do both has caused the competency in both to evaporate; and it shows in the program management of things like Constellation. Particularly in the so called "safety stats".

Private industry has in the history of The Republic operated enormously complex vehicles with an "acceptable loss" rate throughout history. In any true matchup of technology; spaceflight is no more difficult to our technology then transatlantic flight was to 1930's. ...

Robert G. Oler

"Your bias against president Obama clouds your facts on the matter of commercial spaceflight:"

Please read D's and my posts again. I am NOT against commercial spaceflight. I applaud commercial spaceflight. I am against "commercial" spaceflight.

"1. The "Obama" plan to initiate commercial cargo delivery was started under president Bush."

D's post (and my reply) concerned "'commercial' rocket built to NASA man rating requirements" not commercial cargo delivery.

"2. You incorrectly characterize that SpaceX and Orbital are in effect on the dole with the US government. On the contrary, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract is a lean system that only pays out on the achievement of specific milestones. This heavily favors NASA and saving US taxpayer dollars, as NASA can walk away at any time if performance isn't satisfactory."

It doesn't "heavily favor" the US taxpayer if these guys fail. It is our money down the drain. I certainly prefer this to a wholey subsidized plan, but if there is this huge market out there, the commercial market would have been chasing it by now. They haven't been, so that means it is highly suspect in their stockholders' minds.

"3. The US government, from what I understand, is not the primary funding source for the development of Falcon 9. Elon Musk and his investors have input the lion's share of development costs, and are now taking the lion's share of risk."

"Elon Musk" is not a publically traded company and has no "investors". If the boy billionaire gets bored with space, the game is over.

"4. SpaceX has a long list of paying customers secured in their launch manifest. Pending reliable performance, this points strongly to a market outside government funding."

Again, the point of D's post and my response was not unmanned commercial payloads. Musk/SpaceX may be able to compete with the rest of the world's highly subsidized competition. I hope they can. My point concerned human spaceflight.

"5. One clear commercial market beyond ISS cargo/crew delivery and commercial launch services is space tourism...."

BS, BS, and BS. A commercial market is a consumer need at an affordable price. If this were true entrepreneurs would be building rockets and launch pads as fast as offshore rigs.

"Elon Musk" is not a publically traded company and has no "investors". If the boy billionaire gets bored with space, the game is over.

Not necessarily. What would happen if he were to run out of money to pump into SpaceX before he got bored?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Teslas-Elon-Musk-ran-out-of-cnnm-250280342.html?x=0&.v=2

Oh. Has anybody reported yet on how this might affect the future of SpaceX?

6-3
Spaceflight Now is incorrect.In an update some time ago they said that the orbit would be 150 or so miles and Dragon would not return to Earth ,until it came down on its own.This altitude is much better than the F1 Rat which was at 400 mi.Space junk for a very long time.They did not give the inclination.However,ISS is coming over during the launch window and they may be practicing to get to ISS.This will give you the inclination and launch time.

Folks:

From spaceflightnow.com:

"We will report events as they happen, but are not providing a score sheet that our numerous enemies can use against us to nitpick what will hopefully be a great flight,"

Good for them! There's that middle finger I mentioned above put to good use. Not only is Spacex competing against the military industrial complex (which robs tax payers at every opportunity and plays dirty when it can) but it also has to put up with a whole bunch of yahoos who can't tell a gem from paste.

Let's get with the program folks. Elon Musk might have been born in South Africa but he came to America because of what it stands for, used Americas freedom and American know-how to do something amazing.

I hope to see the American Dream come true with this first launch and you know what I think of those that don't...

tinker

They've issued a press release that they are not effected by it. Which makes sense, since he is not their sole investor, and since most of what Musk has run out of is liquid assets, which generally don't include business investments.

Those dang inexperienced upstarts. Here are some of their resumes--don't worry, they are reaallllly short.

http://www.spacex.com/company.php#spacex_people
If link gets stripped, it's the spacex, company, people page.

Don't know why I keep chiming in. Some people just don't change their minds, and continue to equate apples and oranges. (Apples being, say, a $450M taxpayer-funded one-off test of a leftover shuttle SRB, and oranges being, say, a small company that has spent the same amount--mostly private funds--to develop two launch vehicle designs from scratch.)

Seriously... can't you guys appreciate the contrast here? And can't you at least acknowledge the sheer balls of a private entrepeneur starting a launch business and operating it for several years before any involvement with NASA?

Folks:

...and let's not forget that Spacex involvement with NASA was not their original intent. They were planning on going it alone as a completely private space launch business. NASAs contracts just speeds the process along some.

tinker

@punder

Good news. You'll be pleased to know that there are large numbers of people out there who appreciate the efforts of a modern day Howard Hughes (Now there's an idea for an article!)

Although some sensible things have been said in this thread, some really unsubstantiated and ill-thought through things have been said too.

I think the most interesting (and revealing) comment is possum's remarks about NASA's technical 'state of health'.

I would be interested in his view of whether NASA would need a specific vehicle to work on simply to maintain a set of technological 'in-house' capabilities?

For example, the LIDS team worked on that piece of spacecraft technology without a specific vehicle.

Oh, and I missed a word from Bolden's quote!

"Once you're on the beach, irrespective of the adversity, there's only one direction you go - and that's forward!"