Comments on: SpaceX reveals plans for heavy lift rocket

By: Messier Tidy Upper

Messier Tidy Upper — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:55:13 +0000

@57. Ferris VAlyn & ^ Elmar_M : Thanks – belated but sincere.

As for “needing wings” for reusability – dunno, capsules just seem throwaway by their very nature I guess & wings are cool – if they can do reusability with an un-winged craft then great. But I do like my spaceplanes!

(Not that I actually own any – just wish I could.)

By: Elmar_M

Elmar_M — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:01:03 +0000

In a recent interview Elon Musk stated that a fully reusable launch vehicle is their long term goal (I had already thought so, but it is good to hear it from the horses mouth).
I like that. I think that once they have fully evolved their expendables, they will apply their experience to reusability by sacrificing some of the payload, but gaining a fully reusable system (or by building an even larger rocket).

By: Ferris VAlyn

Ferris VAlyn — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 04:27:57 +0000

Messier Tidy Upper, and others asking about spaceplanes

Near term – Dream Chaser on an Atlas V

Longer term – look to the suborbital guys

And who says you need wings to be reusable?

By: Mike Mullen

Mike Mullen — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:37:30 +0000

54. Nigel Depledge Says:

Erm … they have had only 2 successful F9 launches.

Would you risk a satellite costing millions on a launch system with such a short track record?

===========================================

Well apparently the people at Iridium would:

http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=479890

By: Elmar_M

Elmar_M — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:28:25 +0000

Nigel, that is what insurances are for. Every launch on a Falcon 9 (or other launcher) is insured by an insurance company. The risk of flying with the LV contributes to the amount you have to pay. AFAIK, the difference in price for the insurance for a launch with Falcon9 is much less than the cost difference for the launch.
2 successful launches of 2 launches is a pretty good record, IMHO. Ariane 5 did not have that and AFAIK it turned out to be the most successful commercial launcher to date.
Ariane 5 had paying customers on each and every single one of its flights.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:07:41 +0000

Erm … they have had only 2 successful F9 launches.

Would you risk a satellite costing millions on a launch system with such a short track record?

(Actually, I suppose I would, if the saving were of the same order as the value of the satellite, so that kind-of answres that).

By: Elmar_M

Elmar_M — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:41:25 +0000

How can you say that it is not ready to fly commercially? What is missing?
They are selling services, they have signed contracts and plenty of that.
They do not need any further testflights for commercial operation. All they need is testflights for NASA/COTS, but that is a whole different matter and only applies to NASA, not to other commercial flights.
I dont get it.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:40:33 +0000

@ Elmar_M (51) -

Hmmm … I think we might be splitting hairs a bit.

What they are selling is future launches on a rocket that is not yet certified. In that sense, they do have a service to sell.

However, in terms of having an off-the-shelf product / service, Falcon 9 is not yet ready to fly commercially and Falcon 1 is too darn small. This is not to detract from the achievement that SpaceX is making. I just think you came down too hard on MadScientist for that comment.

By: Elmar_M

Elmar_M — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:27:56 +0000

ITAR prevents US rocket and space companies from selling their technology to other nations (even friendly nations).
This is actually a huge problem for the competitiveness of US space companies. Other nations dont impose such restrictions on their companies and this is why Ariane space and the Russians get a lot of customers.
Soon it will also be the Indians and the Chinese.
Of course, being European, I could not care less
Nigel, I dont think I missunderstood Madscientist at all. He said clearly that SpaceX has no product or service to sell, which is clearly wrong, as they have been selling Falcon9 launches for a while now and quite successfully. He also referred to them only having Falcon1 and that being a niche market. This is also not correct. Most of their Falcon 1 clients have since switched to rides on Falcon 9 as secondary payloads (is cheaper).

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:17:18 +0000

Tropicaldan (32) said:

This is all well and good, as long as these private companies don’t help the Chinese, Iranians, N. Koreans, et al with launching their wares into orbit. Like with any capitalistic entity, it can be tempting to cave in to greed and quickly become an industrial prostitute; at the demise of our national security. So with the hand-off of these kinds of missions to private enterprise, comes responsibility, and hopefully, careful government oversight.

What?

In what way does launching satellites for other nations compromise national security? And if foreign satellites can compromise national security, then the USA – by having more satellites up there than anyone else – has been compromising everyone else’s national security for years.

Also, there are thousands of satellites in LEO and GEO, launched by at least 6 or 7 separate organisations. Including the Chinese (were you not aware that they have their own space programme?).