Jump to content



Photo

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon


424 replies to this topic

#256 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 28 April 2014 - 18:59

 

"Frankly, if our rockets are good enough for NASA, why are they not good enough for the Air Force?" Musk asked. "Doesn't make sense."
 
http://www.cbsnews.c...-less-than-ula/

no, Mr. Musk, Shuttle has been good enough for nasa -- your torpedoes are good enough for obumer :D




#257 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 28 April 2014 - 20:00

no, Mr. Musk, Shuttle has been good enough for nasa -- your torpedoes are good enough for obumer :D

 

Seriously, why don't you go troll elsewhere?  I'm getting really sick of you crapping all over SpaceX and trying to shove your digital tongue up Boeing/Lockheed's thruster port.



#258 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 28 April 2014 - 20:51

FFT, relax :) i have my point, you have your own. Have no arguments? Just ignore me & move on ;) actually, no one can explain what is superior in f9. by the way, f9 has no capacity to inject in GTO something useful w/ reusable stage. heavy version??? :) perhaps - perhaps, but this «perhaps» belongs to moody/muddy future. 



#259 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 28 April 2014 - 20:55

It's FFM, learn to type.

 

And Doc's explained the advantages several times. It's not our fault you don't understand his explanations.



#260 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 28 April 2014 - 21:16

 

It's FFM, learn to type.

sorry, FFM, just a typo.

 

 

And Doc's explained the advantages several times. It's not our fault you don't understand his explanations.

DocM, just expressed old mantra about reusability :) however, scheme isn't proven so far: they must recover stage at least 2 times to see real figures. + as i said, even w/ theoretical numbers, they pass by the rest of payloads. In short, to keep self in market forces them to rely upon expendable versions. Thereby Musk claims get ruined from the very start.    



#261 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 28 April 2014 - 22:41

Claims are not ruined until proven false. One cannot do -that-, until the launches take place and either succeed or fail.

 

So far, SpaceX's record speaks for itself. Success after success, and at a phenomenal rate when compared to the over-bloated and corrupt Boeing and Lockheed behemoths.



#262 IsItPluggedIn

IsItPluggedIn

    Neowinian

  • 900 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 11
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • OS: Win 7

Posted 29 April 2014 - 00:14

FFT, relax :) i have my point, you have your own. Have no arguments? Just ignore me & move on ;) actually, no one can explain what is superior in f9. by the way, f9 has no capacity to inject in GTO something useful w/ reusable stage. heavy version??? :) perhaps - perhaps, but this «perhaps» belongs to moody/muddy future. 

What,

 

Falcon 9 deploys to GTO, SES-8 and Thaicom both were GTO.

 

It is superior because of cost and being a USA rocket. The only rocket that competes on Cost is the Indian Rockets.

 

As for the Shuttle it was not good enough for NASA that is why it was discontinued. It was only used because the only other option was to go with the Russians. 



#263 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:54

 

Falcon 9 deploys to GTO, SES-8 and Thaicom both were GTO.

IsItPluggedIn,

there were ordinary expendable launchers for not the heaviest payload.

 

 

It is superior because of cost and being a USA rocket. The only rocket that competes on Cost is the Indian Rockets.

nasa has paid.. whew.. $140m per flight :)  S :woot:  cheap :D

 

 

Both officials assert SpaceX is billing NASA an estimated $120-140 million per launch, a range likely derived from a contract spec that calls for 12 such cargo runs by the end of 2015.
 
http://aviationweek....r-nasa-contract

 

 

As for the Shuttle it was not good enough for NASA that is why it was discontinued. It was only used because the only other option was to go with the Russians.

Shuttle cost steadily had gone down: overall cost per flight was estimated about $450m :)  And Shuttle had a plenty room to get better. As i said, Russia may have provided engines for LRBs or entirely designed LRBs, Energia-like boosters.



#264 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,097 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:44

do-not-feed-the-trolls-text-smiley-emoti

Gentlemen,

I appologise for not following my own advice and feeding the troll with my long post. It opened the door to this latest bout of uninformed lunacy. That shall now be corrected and I suggest others do the same.

#265 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 09:24

ULA launch services are expensive for the same reasons as SLS (you know why).

Sanctions against Russians will create shortage of launch services.
Prices in this situation will grow for launch services and satelite companies will pay more, and will increase price for satelite services that will cost for everybody.
ULA will not gain much - they already too expensive for private satelite companies and government budget problem will not allow them to have much more.

 

Future of Atlas V is in question because of Russian RD-180, Antares rocket for the same reason - Russian and Ukrainian hardware.

SpaceX will be the big winner in every service, including need to replace Soyuz by Dragon.

 

Indian rockets probably will be in demand as well (if they could provide).



#266 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,097 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 April 2014 - 10:14

The RD-180 could be produced in the US, RD AMROSS joint venturex partner Aerojet Rocketdyne has a livense to do so, but they only have ~2 years worth of engines stockpiled and it's estimated to take 4-5 years to start the line.

I'd rather they switch to the Aerojet AJ-1E6 that's under development for the SLS Advanced Booster upgrade (subs liquid boosters for the SLS Block 1 solids). It would be more powerful and more flexible than RD-180.

#267 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 19:12

 

The RD-180 could be produced in the US, RD AMROSS joint venturex partner Aerojet Rocketdyne has a livense to do so, but they only have ~2 years worth of engines stockpiled and it's estimated to take 4-5 years to start the line.

DocM, cough-cough :) Atlas 5 gets price risen even w/o blockade from Russia, Time has been passed by, but significant improvements of the Atlas 5 & Delta 4 have left on paper. Second moment: to ruin Ru's economics means war versus Russia. i don't know a country on Earth so good at war like Russia has been ;) 3rd moment: Climate changing is the most driver to collapse the worldwide economics. In short, DocM, your optimism doesn't belong to this World. hmmmmmmm.. by the way, China has more sophisticated manufacturing (and even R&D) than USA does, but they haven't provided analogs of RD-180, furthermore, USA has been relied upon chinese electronics.



#268 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 114 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 19:20

 

I'd rather they switch to the Aerojet AJ-1E6 that's under development for the SLS Advanced Booster upgrade (subs liquid boosters for the SLS Block 1 solids). It would be more powerful and more flexible than RD-180

so long-lasting song :) Just a little remark: «more powerful» doesn't mean «more stable». afaik, sls is decades away from something real & practical characteristics shall be not so attractive (if will be at all) like it looks on paper.



#269 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 20:14

USA got licenses and blueprints of PD-180, but they cannot reproduce that engine because apparently lack of advanced metallurgy process here - the metall cannot hold in that super hot oxigen rich environment inside of PD-180 engine.



#270 malenfant

malenfant

    Neowinian

  • 43 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 20:37

ULA has ~2 yrs worth of engines. Nowhere near the time needed to produce new engines, assuming they could. And assuming they could -at what price? Certainly not less than the Russians. American engines, Aerojet or others - similar situation.

My view is in a few short years SpaceX is going to eat ULAs lunch.