Discussion SpaceX - where can we find its current position in history?

[Cosmic Penguin]

Ah SpaceX.

A magical word that can bring some people to hysteria on how close The Elon is to Mars and :WTF: to others. A magical word that, at the chaos in finding the next direction of NASA, seems to become the savior and The One for the future of American spaceflight. A magical word that represents the pinnacle of NewSpace (TM) and the fight against the "evil" NASA and Congress on the heavy launcher and BEO spacecraft programs. A magical word that promises to bury the Chinese, technically knock-off every Russian launcher and de-throne Ariane from the commercial launch market with grasshopper-derived rocket stages that can brake and fly back at Mach 5+. A magical word that probably produced the largest spaceflight enthusiast cult since the cult of NASA during the Apollo days. A magical word that is now almost holy and should be dealt with in the same way as any religion deity.

:rofl:

OK, this is almost fitting for yesterday, but seeing the X-fever in several languages in various spaceflight forums, and finding several threads here filled with SpaceX discussions, I decided to open such a thread for such a hot discussion topic this month. So discuss away! (unless there's a need to link to political topics, in which please move to the dungeon for speaking :tiphat

I have form my own opinion, but I need sleep right now, so will post later on....

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Ah SpaceX.

A magical word that can bring some people to hysteria on how close The Elon is to Mars and :WTF: to others. A magical word that, at the chaos in finding the next direction of NASA, seems to become the savior and The One for the future of American spaceflight. A magical word that represents the pinnacle of NewSpace (TM) and the fight against the "evil" NASA and Congress on the heavy launcher and BEO spacecraft programs. A magical word that promises to bury the Chinese, technically knock-off every Russian launcher and de-throne Ariane from the commercial launch market with grasshopper-derived rocket stages that can brake and fly back at Mach 5+. A magical word that probably produced the largest spaceflight enthusiast cult since the cult of NASA during the Apollo days. A magical word that is now almost holy and should be dealt with in the same way as any religion deity.

:rofl:

OK, this is almost fitting for yesterday, but seeing the X-fever in several languages in various spaceflight forums, and finding several threads here filled with SpaceX discussions, I decided to open such a thread for such a hot discussion topic this month. So discuss away! (unless there's a need to link to political topics, in which please move to the dungeon for speaking :tiphat

I have form my own opinion, but I need sleep right now, so will post later on....

Ok cmon, describing SpaceX like that is absurd. My feelings on the matter are that SpaceX will eventually take over crew transport for NASA, and help out in a few other areas, but they probably wont reach their cost goals for many years. 150 million for a HLV launch is something we wont see for another 20 years or so, IMO.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think for current position in history it is far too early. It is history in the making.

I think SpaceX is not the big change, that it claimed to be. It arranged itself with the market.

 

[garyw]

I think SpaceX is not the big change, that it claimed to be. It arranged itself with the market.

Not yet but some of the stuff they are playing with like grasshopper and the deorbiting/landing first stage are things NASA wouldn't touch due to risk adverseness so from that angle I think that SpaceX, whilst not world shattering today are off to one hell of a good start.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

I think for current position in history it is far too early. It is history in the making.

I think SpaceX is not the big change, that it claimed to be. It arranged itself with the market.

But it may have potential to be a big change in the future. Even the shuttle probably could have been a great launch vehicle if it had flown enough, but the US gov cancelled it to move onto something new. Think of how efficient a Falcon 9 could be 10-20 years of flights from now.

 

[Urwumpe]

Not yet but some of the stuff they are playing with like grasshopper and the deorbiting/landing first stage are things NASA wouldn't touch due to risk adverseness so from that angle I think that SpaceX, whilst not world shattering today are off to one hell of a good start.

I don't think so. NASA had the DC-X until they ruined it. They considered seriously a manned RTLS abort test... and luckily decided against it.

What SpaceX can do better than NASA for now is, that they have less people interfering into their decisions. NASA has to listen to too many sides. But this will also change, when SpaceX grows and especially grows attached to NASA.

 

[garyw]

What SpaceX can do better than NASA for now is, that they have less people interfering into their decisions. NASA has to listen to too many sides.

Well, yes. they also don't have a long term goal any more but that's something probably better for the NASA futures thread.

But this will also change, when SpaceX grows and especially grows attached to NASA.

Depends. If SpaceX are limited by ITAR then yes, they'll become a NASA clone in 10-20 years.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Depends. If SpaceX are limited by ITAR then yes, they'll become a NASA clone in 10-20 years.

ITAR? care to translate the anocrym?

 

[Urwumpe]

ITAR? care to translate the anocrym?

Technology export restrictions (International Traffic in Arms Regulations).

 

[garyw]

ITAR? care to translate the anocrym?

As Urwumpe said and very thing that pulled the NTRS (NASA Technical Reports server) down.

As SPACEX are an American company they'll have to comply with ITAR and that could make breaking into the European/far east satellite launch market impossible.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/03/nasa-blocks-eve.html

 

[Alfastar]

But it may have potential to be a big change in the future. Even the shuttle probably could have been a great launch vehicle if it had flown enough, but the US gov cancelled it to move onto something new. Think of how efficient a Falcon 9 could be 10-20 years of flights from now.

Funny, but that was almost the same words as the Space shuttle after two launches. And look what the outcome of the shuttle is (sadly) : Only between 2-4 launches in a year, but was originally planned to launch it almost every week. The shuttle was, (and still is) a awesome spacecraft, full with nice missions in her history. But what I mean is that something what even looks cool is not directly the same as efficient & a full-time launch windows.

And hey, remember that mostly thanks to NASA, you see a Falcon-9 (1.1) launched from the Cape. Sadly its something what makes my directly skeptical about the question of SpaceX was really something without funds from NASA.

But what makes my so mad sometimes is that there on some forums / websites SpaceX is almost like a religion, with Elon as a god, and NASA be the bad person who can't do anything. But I wondering of there really read something...

(Note: I mean nobody here with that last words)

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

But what makes my so mad sometimes is that there on some forums / websites SpaceX is almost like a religion, with Elon as a god, and NASA be the bad person who can't do anything. But I wondering of there really read something...

alone!

 

[garyw]

Only between 2-4 launches in a year, but was originally planned to launch it almost every week

And that was always a daft idea. Even if the shuttle could have launched every week it wouldn't have because, even today, there are not enough missions to require a weekly launch schedule.

 

[N_Molson]

But what makes my so mad sometimes is that there on some forums / websites SpaceX is almost like a religion, with Elon as a god, and NASA be the bad person who can't do anything.

Exactly. I'd call it "space bigotry".

 

[Capt_hensley]

And that was always a daft idea. Even if the shuttle could have launched every week it wouldn't have because, even today, there are not enough missions to require a weekly launch schedule.

Well maybe not a real project on the books, but Gateway Station(GWS) would need SpaceX and others to sustain a weekly launch schedule for the first 5 years, making GWS a lucrative LV hungry space station at the least.

The SpaceX Family of LVs is the largest workhorse of GWS with SLS following a close second.

ATV, HTV, and Cygnus all have important resupply missions on GWS making monthly missions for the next 45 years possible, now I'm not saying these vehicles would do the job all 45 years, but knowing that 45 years of GEO space operations is needed makes a very good market for competing LVs and SpaceX has a great start. I'm sold, now if only someone could convince the rest of the world to buy GWS, that would be outstanding!.:thumbup:

GWS factoid: average LV rate in first 5 years = 1 launch every 8.5 days, of which SpaceX constitutes 1.5 of those launches every 17 days.

 

[Alfastar]

Well maybe not a real project on the books, but Gateway Station(GWS) would need SpaceX and others to sustain a weekly launch schedule for the first 5 years, making GWS a lucrative LV hungry space station at the least.

The SpaceX Family of LVs is the largest workhorse of GWS with SLS following a close second.

ATV, HTV, and Cygnus all have important resupply missions on GWS making monthly missions for the next 45 years possible, now I'm not saying these vehicles would do the job all 45 years, but knowing that 45 years of GEO space operations is needed makes a very good market for competing LVs and SpaceX has a great start. I'm sold, now if only someone could convince the rest of the world to buy GWS, that would be outstanding!.:thumbup:

GWS factoid: average LV rate in first 5 years = 1 launch every 8.5 days, of which SpaceX constitutes 1.5 of those launches every 17 days.

Well, do you really think you see a Falcon-9 launch every 17 days? Well, no. Do you think SpaceX goal is to use there Falcons mostly for space-station building? Nope. And 5 year later, we not even sure knows how SpaceX is, or even exist or not!

There main goal is (I hope) to be a big private spaceflight company / space agency. Look, the Dragon may look nice, but you don't earn profit on it pure from private funds. Even a manned Dragon don't give a good profit! And one of the problems by SpaceX is that there much focus on the Dragon, and the NASA funds. To say simple: The Dragon stays a non-profit spacecraft, and no one private company survives from mostly non-profit stuff. If SpaceX really will become a serious private spaceflight company / space agency, then there need to chance there way, and go focus 90% on company satellite launches. And not blind focus on stuff as the Dragon, or the Grasshopper what there will land the first stage of it on a place on the Cape (And, you need fuel for the return burn, and the landing. It was much better and cheaper if there let land it on water, with parachutes on it)

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Ok cmon, describing SpaceX like that is absurd. My feelings on the matter are that SpaceX will eventually take over crew transport for NASA, and help out in a few other areas, but they probably wont reach their cost goals for many years. 150 million for a HLV launch is something we wont see for another 20 years or so, IMO.

Except that this satire comment (which again I did badly, looks like I have to revoke my own humor-making license :shifty isn't aimed at SpaceX as a whole or its staff (well maybe except Mr. Musk himself, but see my comments below), but at many of its hard core supporters that I have seen in various forums (and well controlled ones I must say!). I mean really, trying to determine how to use a Dragon for MANNED spaceflights, buzzing on how long before SpaceX stocks can be traded on the open market (man, this is no Tesla Motors!), and designing rockets for future Mars colonists (search on the web with "SpaceX MCT" for details of such ideas), when they have just flew 10 rockets?

However I am slightly more optimistic than some of you guys. So where do I put SpaceX in the current history?

• It is probably the most successful aerospace company formed after Y2K. There are many other similar start ups (e.g. RocketPlane Kisler, PlanetSpace etc.) that didn't even reach the flying hardware stages. SpaceX at least has managed to stay afloat after three launch failures, grabbing a commercial ISS re-supply contract, get quite a few launch contracts from various customers and still have enough money and incentive to start some research and development efforts.
  
• It has managed to restore some of the market share lost by US launch service providers since Boeing and Lockheed Martin lost their own shares with the switch to EELVs. I don't think SpaceX can lower their launch prices by a factor of 10 (as some fanatics claimed they will), but at least it can stay relatively competitive with the likes of Arianespace and the Russian companies.
  
• It symbolizes the injection of some of the "Silicon Valley ideas" into the aerospace sector. The Apple-style PR (1980s/2000s), the usage of large number of prospective young recruits and giving them freedom to pursue their own small projects (Google do just that, well maybe NASA in the 1960s with excessive money....), the tendency to move all the supply chain in-house etc. It remains to be seen if such things fit the aerospace sector, but I think this can only be a positive trend.
  
• Honestly, while government contracts are still required for keeping SpaceX et al. afloat, I still think that SpaceX is the prime example of a broader-than-before commercial effort in providing spaceflight services than before. The COTS contract seems to be working OK-ish right now (though quite too dramatic as of today! :lol, and I believe it will be a rather well-performed general launch service provider (which we will see if it is later this year with several flights coming up).

However my view isn't all rosy, and I will put my worries and criticisms on SpaceX in a later post.

 

[Mader Levap]

Continuing from this topic:

Take for example "We are soo cheap" argument.

Here I will agree that SpaceX is not that cheap currently. It is why I gave "cheapness" as example of SpaceX marketing.

On the other hand, your charge of "using old technology" is IMO unreasonable. This is reason for my sarcastic comment about antigravity device.

The number of commercial payloads for SpaceX booked can be counted on one hand... less than a dozen planned.

Manifest says otherwise.

 

[Urwumpe]

On the other hand, your charge of "using old technology" is IMO unreasonable.

Why unreasonable? They use nothing that is either standard component in the market today, or own developments that are based on 40 year old patents. There is also little known about how many patent applications exist by SpaceX, but it can't be exactly high. The process for engineering patents is much stricter than for software.

 

[Alfastar]

[*]It has managed to restore some of the market share lost by US launch service providers since Boeing and Lockheed Martin lost their own shares with the switch to EELVs. I don't think SpaceX can lower their launch prices by a factor of 10 (as some fanatics claimed they will), but at least it can stay relatively competitive with the likes of Arianespace and the Russian companies.


[*]Honestly, while government contracts are still required for keeping SpaceX et al. afloat, I still think that SpaceX is the prime example of a broader-than-before commercial effort in providing spaceflight services than before. The COTS contract seems to be working OK-ish right now (though quite too dramatic as of today! :lol, and I believe it will be a rather well-performed general launch service provider (which we will see if it is later this year with several flights coming up).

However my view isn't all rosy, and I will put my worries and criticisms on SpaceX in a later post.

Well, about that first point: There can theoretical be a deadly factor for ESA, if you see the launch cost of SpaceX (What cost more then SpaceX will tell, and also there are no independent calculations how much a Falcon-9 1.1 cost really) then there still be not a threat for the private launch contracts for the Russian companies. The key for ESA to survive from SpaceX, is to co-operate with the Russians.

About the second point: This is the main big problem about SpaceX, there clam there are private, but the fact is that there are just very dependent on NASA funds. If there got no 65% of there funds from private companies in 5 years, then there failed in my eyes. The main goal of SpaceX is to become a full private spaceflight company / space agency, and not become a part of a government part.

And, instead of SpaceX do find so much private companies who will launch there sat's, SpaceX just be more busy with linking to more wilder, mostly unrealistic plans beyond the earth.

Continuing from this topic:


Here I will agree that SpaceX is not that cheap currently. It is why I gave "cheapness" as example of SpaceX marketing.

On the other hand, your charge of "using old technology" is IMO unreasonable. This is reason for my sarcastic comment about antigravity device.


Manifest says otherwise.

Well, old technology can also cost sometime much less then build a fresh, new rocket with new technology. Look to the Soyuz-2 rocket, it use old technology, but cost only 50 million dollars for a launch from Baikonur, and I think it cost only 5 million more to launch something of circa 3000 kg to GEO from Guiana.

SpaceX clams that there got a large planned launch Manifest, but most planned launches after 2014 are still not totally sure of there really gonna be launched or not. Also, we not known how much really a Falcon-9 1.1 (Or a Falcon-Heavy) cost.