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

[Capt_hensley]

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!

GWS is fictional, as well as it's launch schedule. What I do see is a lot of folks in this thread speculating....:facepalm:

The SpaceX Launch Family is designed to meet many needs, Space stations, LEO satellites, Moon missions, MARS missions, the list goes on. NASA aside, what private company is planning to meet the needs of all these missions?

SpaceX will be around in 5 years, as will many other private ventures, Space missions take time and planning, nothing happens overnight.:thumbup:

NASA gives seed money to SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, NGC, Boeing, LM, JPL, L3 and many other agencies. Private money in this economy is a must, Government money is a given. The ratio is debatable, but it takes lots of funding no matter what. NASA wants to use and help SpaceX succeed.

No one, and I mean no one can tell SpaceX or any other company how many launches they can make in a year. Safety, not the raw number of launches is the only concern. All other priorities come second. If SpaceX(A private company) and NASA(A gov company) want to share resources to get any job done, then more power to them, it's called cooperation, and it gets space missions accomplished.

SpaceX will do what they must to do business, even if it's at a loss. NASA will do what they can with the budget they are given. Even if it's costly to only do one thing at a time. Both have a mission, goals, and the means to accomplish them.

If SpaceX wants to buy my design and fly it, at the rate I predict, then they will, and nothing will stop them, that is what's great about a "Private" company doing what only governments have done up till now. Private companies have no limits, even when bankruptcy threatens, all it takes is support, and a market for the product, no matter the cost. Elon only did what Kennedy did, he forced an acceptable risk and goal, the rest fell into place. Instead of debating and speculating the improbable, we should support the possible.

Soap box tap-dance complete.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

GWS is fictional, as well as it's launch schedule. What I do see is a lot of folks in this thread speculating....:facepalm:

The SpaceX Launch Family is designed to meet many needs, Space stations, LEO satellites, Moon missions, MARS missions, the list goes on. NASA aside, what private company is planning to meet the needs of all these missions?

SpaceX will be around in 5 years, as will many other private ventures, Space missions take time and planning, nothing happens overnight.:thumbup:

NASA gives seed money to SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, NGC, Boeing, LM, JPL, L3 and many other agencies. Private money in this economy is a must, Government money is a given. The ratio is debatable, but it takes lots of funding no matter what. NASA wants to use and help SpaceX succeed.

No one, and I mean no one can tell SpaceX or any other company how many launches they can make in a year. Safety, not the raw number of launches is the only concern. All other priorities come second. If SpaceX(A private company) and NASA(A gov company) want to share resources to get any job done, then more power to them, it's called cooperation, and it gets space missions accomplished.

SpaceX will do what they must to do business, even if it's at a loss. NASA will do what they can with the budget they are given. Even if it's costly to only do one thing at a time. Both have a mission, goals, and the means to accomplish them.

If SpaceX wants to buy my design and fly it, at the rate I predict, then they will, and nothing will stop them, that is what's great about a "Private" company doing what only governments have done up till now. Private companies have no limits, even when bankruptcy threatens, all it takes is support, and a market for the product, no matter the cost. Elon only did what Kennedy did, he forced an acceptable risk and goal, the rest fell into place. Instead of debating and speculating the improbable, we should support the possible.

Soap box tap-dance complete.

All good points, especially about supporting the possible. SpaceX may not be perfect, but the last time I checked, the Falcon 9 isnt just an idea on somebodies drawing board, its real, and it is a way of going to space.

The important thing that needs to be remembered is that SpaceX is really just a spacecraft supplier for the first space entrepreneurs. Even if as Urwumpe pointed out, the Falcon 9 is a fairly simple design, it has been reliable so far, and a future space mission will need to incorporate more than just SpaceX hardware into it to be successful.

 

[Urwumpe]

Even if as Urwumpe pointed out, the Falcon 9 is a fairly simple design, it has been reliable so far, and a future space mission will need to incorporate more than just SpaceX hardware into it to be successful.

Yes, but still, you also can't call it a major change in the game. There is nothing in it, that supports claims, that it will be cheaper than other commercial launch systems. It will have lower R&D costs, because of many factors (A lot of the R&D costs had been in the failed Falcon 5 and Falcon 1 programs) but lower R&D costs only apply in competition against launchers that still need to pay off high R&D costs.

Contrary to other launch systems, SpaceX has still no proven GTO capability - the majority of the commercial market is not covered at all by them. And for LEO and MEO launches, you have Russians and Chinese in the market. The Proton M costs $4300 / kg and is pretty reliable, if you don't want to GSO. The $4109 / kg of the Falcon 9 1.1 are not that impressive in that context, quite contrary: SpaceX would not be competitive in their segment at higher prices.

 

[Capt_hensley]

Cost, Cost, Cost. Must we always boil all space adventures down to cost?

This thread is about history, not cost.

Let history reflect that SpaceX has a foot hold in a very competative market, and has a future in that several more launches are expected. Let history reflect that SpaceX has a plan for the future, and that the reduction of costs is one of the many goals set by it's founder. Let the current launch successes speak for themselves, and the failures speak to the determination that is driving a fledgling company on a very difficult trek into a well earned place in history.

As long as the cost is money, and not lives, SpaceX has a place in history, and the current status is recorded without bias, is fair, and unswayed by politics.

We find it's current place in history by reading the many publications, and announcements found in the media, and on SpaceXs Web site itself. NASA also runs regular updates on the programs that SpaceX is a dedicated partner, and well established member. What they have done to date is history, and what they do tommarrow, will become history. It's all being written as it happens, all we need do is read, listen, and watch as it all happens to understand it's current position. Weather that be Good, Bad, Costly or Cheap is your interpretation. Only the facts need be recorded, speculation is best if left out of the books.

 

[Urwumpe]

Cost, Cost, Cost. Must we always boil all space adventures down to cost?

This thread is about history, not cost.

Like you can always learn in history: No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Columbus was not the first to reach America maybe, but he was the first to also have the funding behind him to achieve something that lasted more than 10 years.

 

[Alfastar]

Cost, Cost, Cost. Must we always boil all space adventures down to cost?

This thread is about history, not cost.

Let history reflect that SpaceX has a foot hold in a very competative market, and has a future in that several more launches are expected. Let history reflect that SpaceX has a plan for the future, and that the reduction of costs is one of the many goals set by it's founder. Let the current launch successes speak for themselves, and the failures speak to the determination that is driving a fledgling company on a very difficult trek into a well earned place in history.

As long as the cost is money, and not lives, SpaceX has a place in history, and the current status is recorded without bias, is fair, and unswayed by politics.

We find it's current place in history by reading the many publications, and announcements found in the media, and on SpaceXs Web site itself. NASA also runs regular updates on the programs that SpaceX is a dedicated partner, and well established member. What they have done to date is history, and what they do tommarrow, will become history. It's all being written as it happens, all we need do is read, listen, and watch as it all happens to understand it's current position. Weather that be Good, Bad, Costly or Cheap is your interpretation. Only the facts need be recorded, speculation is best if left out of the books.

Well, first of all, SpaceX goal is to become a private spaceflight company / space agency, and income / cost ratio are always a main factor in the private world. If it was a government running spaceflight company (Wait, was SpaceX almost already that?) then it was a less problem. There goal also is to have a lower cost per kg to orbit then normal space agencies. BUT, you can't calculate really the cost of a Falcon-9 1.1 / Falcon-Heavy launch, because there are no independent calculations how much the launch cost are. Success are a must-do at this moment for SpaceX, and failures are not a good factor. If you got a launch history of 15 launches, but 3-5 of them are a (partial) failures, then you make not a good PR for you company. In the private world, every failure is bad, and can cost you company. This problem got a government space agency less.

There got already a place in history, but we must look to the future also, and not only the history. At this moment, SpaceX stays alive thanks by NASA funds. Orbital sciences did maybe less great things as SpaceX, but is really more a private spaceflight company then SpaceX is ATM. And this points are more fact then speculation.

 

[Mader Levap]

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.

I will ask again: what you expect/require from them? Antigravity device?

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.

SpaceX avoid patents due to concerns about technology lifting by Chinese.

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.

Does not change fact that Urwumpe's claim about commercial flights that "can be counted on one hand" is false.

 

[Urwumpe]

I will ask again: what you expect/require from them? Antigravity device?

I expect them to use efficient technology and drive innovations. Not use oldtimer technology and prevent innovations. I expect them to fulfil the promise of commercial spaceflight and not become NASAs pet.

Concrete technologies that could be integrated and improved:

Staged combustion engines (which are expensive if PWR does them, and cheap when Russians do better ones). And Downsizing is a successful trend in the car industry for a good reason. It is like comparing a 1970s V8 Big Block to a modern single row four cylinder engine - which weights less, costs less, has more power, consumes less fuel... and is so badly effective that it requires electric heaters in the winter. :lol: *


Composite structures (The Japanese use composites for reducing costs, despite them also being lighter)

Reusable or at least standardized space tugs.

Automatic launch processing (Like the Russians do and have filed patents for )

And I expect you to think and not argument ad absurdum. And you can see what I get for my expectations. Nothing.

SpaceX avoid patents due to concerns about technology lifting by Chinese.

Aha. Not filing a patent prevents technology theft by the Chinese.

Does not change fact that Urwumpe's claim about commercial flights that "can be counted on one hand" is false.

How many flights for commercial customers are in the manifest? Maybe you need help in counting. Even if you count those that are past the fusion constant and still only intented (no flight contract yet), I get just 13 flights for private customers. which you can still comfortably count on one hand (if you can count binary). If you count only the definite launches in the near future, you get just 5 flights for commercial customers. And counting that should be among the capability for all, even for you.

And in 11 years of existence, SpaceX has not served a single private customer - zero. That is really easy to count. It only exists by NASA. Other explicitly commercial companies would be already completely dead with such a commercial success. But SpaceX is not commercial anymore. It is a NASA service provider, as independent as the United Space Alliance.

* And if you think downsizing is a stupid idea for rocket engines: The RD-170 has 16% more thrust than the F-1 engine. Consumes about 20% less propellant per second. And is much smaller and weights about the same (four chambers instead of one, internal TVC actuators). Despite using the same propellants and doing the same role.

 

[indy91]

I think SpaceX is in a very interesting position. At the moment they are very dependent on NASA; their main focus has been developing Falcon 9 and Dragon for CRS missions and they had some successes with it. They have very ambitious plans for the future and want to become a real commercial company. But their current position is actually being 'NASAs pet'. The future will show, if they have a real position in history. But let me make a statement here:

I am not a SpaceX critic.

Why am I not a critic? Because I am not a NASA official or US tax payer. I only see a company, that wants to do great things (Reusable rockets, cheap access to space, Mars...) and that always gets me excited, because I am a spaceflight enthusiast. If they fail to achieve their goals I won't be disappointed, because it is the more likely outcome.

And in 11 years of existence, SpaceX has not served a single private customer - zero. That is really easy to count. It only exists by NASA.

RazakSAT doesn't count for you, because it is a Malaysian governmental developed satellite? The market doesn't only consist of NASA and private customers.

Aha. Not filing a patent prevents technology theft by the Chinese.

They just want to keep their 'special technologies' secret. If they would file a patent, they would have to provide public accessible information about it. Does that work? I don't know.

Concrete technologies that could be integrated and improved:

I completely agree with you and these are really needed innovations, that the aerospace industry should do (funded by whoever). But I don't expect SpaceX to do all of this. How can and why should they? If they really achieve reusability with their 'oldtimer technology', I would be happy to see better rockets with high performance, cutting edge engines that can do the same. But real reusability with old technology would work as innovation for me.

 

[Urwumpe]

RazakSAT doesn't count for you, because it is a Malaysian governmental developed satellite? The market doesn't only consist of NASA and private customers.

It is like CONAE or the ROC, a public customer. Not a private commercial one. You can of course ask if serving other governments can count as commercial operation - that is a good question. For me it doesn't change, if it is NASA, ESA or CONAE: taxes paid that show.

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

They just want to keep their 'special technologies' secret. If they would file a patent, they would have to provide public accessible information about it. Does that work? I don't know.

If you file a patent, you publish that you have learned new tricks and how they work, but at the same time, you prevent others internationally from using your trick as long as the patent is kept up. Even more, once you file it, only really major improvements to your technology can be made patented - even if you let your patent slip into the public domain. In a field like rocket science, where small improvements can cost easily millions, a very important factor.

If you don't file a patent, you keep your technology partially secret - but technology thieves could even patent it, if they are successful.

Also, you don't need to publish everything in a patent - otherwise patents on weapon technologies couldn't work.

 

[indy91]

If you file a patent, you publish that you have learned new tricks and how they work, but at the same time, you prevent others internationally from using your trick as long as the patent is kept up. Even more, once you file it, only really major improvements to your technology can be made patented - even if you let your patent slip into the public domain. In a field like rocket science, where small improvements can cost easily millions, a very important factor.

If you don't file a patent, you keep your technology partially secret - but technology thieves could even patent it, if they are successful.

Also, you don't need to publish everything in a patent - otherwise patents on weapon technologies couldn't work.

What you say is completely true. What I said was SpaceX's argument, not mine. I just don't know, if not filing a patent is wise or not. Perhaps they just don't have new technology that is worth to be patented :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Perhaps they just don't have new technology that is worth to be patented :lol:

Highly possible. Currently they only pay for patents, from what I can tell.

But AFAIR, their improvements to the PICA-X heatshield had been considered for filing a patent, not sure what happened to the intention.

 

[Alfastar]

I think SpaceX is in a very interesting position. At the moment they are very dependent on NASA; their main focus has been developing Falcon 9 and Dragon for CRS missions and they had some successes with it. They have very ambitious plans for the future and want to become a real commercial company. But their current position is actually being 'NASAs pet'. The future will show, if they have a real position in history. But let me make a statement here

Well, the problem with SpaceX is that there not really focus on become commercial. There are much more focusing on the Dragon, and that is a non-profit program. The launch cost, the stages, the dragon, everything on the Falcon-9 and the Dragon cost money, and we not known how much a future manned dragon launch cost, and we also not known how much a seat in the Dragon cost. But, the total cost are between the 60-75 million dollars I think. Because SpaceX will have profit for it, you can buy a seat for around 15 million dollars. A seat for a Soyuz launch cost 20-30 million dollars (secretly there ask more for NASA astronauts :lol: ) so then a Dragon cost less. However, there is only a small private group who can afford that, and because there are much of them not will risk there lives, or simple will pay that money for more profit things, there is a very small group who are interested in a seat in the dragon to the ISS. So, SpaceX need to look to more easy way to earn private money. The only way to do that is to focus much more on launching satellites for private companies for a low price.

Why am I not a critic? Because I am not a NASA official or US tax payer. I only see a company, that wants to do great things (Reusable rockets, cheap access to space, Mars...) and that always gets me excited, because I am a spaceflight enthusiast. If they fail to achieve their goals I won't be disappointed, because it is the more likely outcome.

Well, you see a company who stay alive thank by NASA funds. Anyway, the main goal of SpaceX is (I hope) that there will become a private spaceflight company / space agency. There goal is not to make a new Re-usable rocket, or going to Mars. SpaceX is young, and still working on the first main goal, so a Mars mission is out of the question. Its now hip to yell about manned missions to Mars, but none of them all did any real test.

We all here are spaceflight enthusiast, so don't worry that you're be the only one. Anyway, you may not become disappointed when SpaceX fails a mission, but for companies, failures are a no-no. Satellites are not cheap, so all companies who will launch a satellite don't will that it become destroyed by a failure of the rocket. So no company will launch there satellites on a Falcon if the rocket got 3-4 failures in 10 launches*

*Note, that number is pure theoretical

 

[Mader Levap]

I expect them to use efficient technology and drive innovations.

They do exactly that, if you believe them. I believe things like Grasshopper, PICAX derivative or engine that is among lowest T/W ratio in the world indicate they are innovative.

Staged combustion engines (...) Composite structures (...) Reusable or at least standardized space tugs. (...) Automatic launch processing

In other words, everything except what SpaceX actually does. I guess if they start to do anything mentioned by you there, you will just silently drop it from list. It is most visible with "reusable space tugs". Because making reusable (granted, in future) rockets somehow does not count.

Aha. Not filing a patent prevents technology theft by the Chinese.

Quarrel about it with SpaceX, not me.

We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China—if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.

I get just 13 flights for private customers. which you can still comfortably count on one hand (if you can count binary).

13 flights counted with one hand? This kind of rethoric is pathetic.

And counting that should be among the capability for all, even for you.

Yes, I know one can perfectly get any result one wishes, if numerology, special cases, "this don't count just because I said so" and other kindergarten-level methods are employed.

And in 11 years of existence, SpaceX has not served a single private customer - zero..

Not true. They had [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RazakSAT"]one[/ame], launched on last F1 flight. Yes, it is only one and it is way too small number.

Other explicitly commercial companies would be already completely dead with such a commercial success. But SpaceX is not commercial anymore. It is a NASA service provider, as independent as the United Space Alliance.

You know their next launch (currently 18 June 2013) is commerical ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASSIOPE"]CASSIOPE[/ame] for [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonald_Dettwiler"]MDA Corp[/ame]), right?

 

[garyw]

You know their next launch (currently 18 June 2013) is commerical (CASSIOPE for MDA Corp), right?

The launch manifest shows quite a few commercial launches in the pipeline.

 

[FADEC]

I think the current position of SpaceX in history is that it was the first privately founded company which launches payloads into low earth orbit.

But the entire hype actually hides the fact that SpaceX would not be able to launch Falcon 9 without the funding and the support that came from NASA. SpaceX is just as dependant as NASA is. Sure, SpaceX needs less money and less employees in order to get a working rocket that launches into LEO. But only because there is something like NASA. Big space programs are not possible without all the know how and standards that derive from governmental space agencies and its programs. No NASA, no Falcon 9. SpaceX will never fly to the Moon, Mars or beyond, manned, without all the know how, experience and lots of money from NASA. That's where hype collides with reality.

I.e. SpaceX is overestimated by lots of people I think. But it is still a great chance for NASA in terms of outsourcing. NASA could use their launchers for future space programs. Especially Falcon Heavy. There is not really a need for I want a giant rocket (except keeping lots of useless jobs in order to design something that never gets off the ground anyway).

 

[Alfastar]

I think the current position of SpaceX in history is that it was the first privately founded company which launches payloads into low earth orbit

Not true, Orbital Sciences did this already before the first plans for start SpaceX.

But the entire hype actually hides the fact that SpaceX would not be able to launch Falcon 9 without the funding and the support that came from NASA. SpaceX is just as dependant as NASA is. Sure, SpaceX needs less money and less employees in order to get a working rocket that launches into LEO. But only because there is something like NASA. Big space programs are not possible without all the know how and standards that derive from governmental space agencies and its programs. No NASA, no Falcon 9. SpaceX will never fly to the Moon, Mars or beyond, manned, without all the know how, experience and lots of money from NASA. That's where hype collides with reality

Well, the problem with SpaceX is that there clam that there be private, but the true is, and stays that there was nowhere without NASA funds. Its also a reason why the launch cost of the Falcon-9 are unstable. If NASA cuts on the funds that SpaceX stays alive, then you gonna see a rise in the price for a Falcon-9 launch, and in rather there gonna more focus on more easy, good private funds by launching much commercial satellites, SpaceX will again talk about upgrading the Dragon. Next become the second stage, and then we go back to the first stage to more upgrade it. Cause this that it become cheaper to launch something by SpaceX? No, because its mostly funded by daddy NASA, and that makes the price of a launch very unsure every year. SpaceX needs to stop with jumping in in every Mars plan, and go start with become there real goal: Become totally private funded on a day.

I.e. SpaceX is overestimated by lots of people I think. But it is still a great chance for NASA in terms of outsourcing. NASA could use their launchers for future space programs. Especially Falcon Heavy. There is not really a need for I want a giant rocket (except keeping lots of useless jobs in order to design something that never gets off the ground anyway).

Falcon heavy? With 28 engines to launch it? And also is not sure of it still stays active after a few launches. I don't be surprised when there is no Falcon-heavy launch anymore after a few test-launches, because there is not much interest in it. Even the SLS got a higher chance to stay active after 5 years of the first launch then the Falcon-heavy.

 

[FADEC]

Not true, Orbital Sciences did this already before the first plans for start SpaceX.

Orbital Sciences wouldn't exist without the existence of US defense systems. I don't know much about Orbital Sciences, but I guess they are also hugely funded by tax money and supported by NASA. Much more than SpaceX.

Well, the problem with SpaceX is that there clam that there be private, but the true is, and stays that there was nowhere without NASA funds. Its also a reason why the launch cost of the Falcon-9 are unstable. If NASA cuts on the funds that SpaceX stays alive, then you gonna see a rise in the price for a Falcon-9 launch, and in rather there gonna more focus on more easy, good private funds by launching much commercial satellites, SpaceX will again talk about upgrading the Dragon. Next become the second stage, and then we go back to the first stage to more upgrade it. Cause this that it become cheaper to launch something by SpaceX? No, because its mostly funded by daddy NASA, and that makes the price of a launch very unsure every year. SpaceX needs to stop with jumping in in every Mars plan, and go start with become there real goal: Become totally private funded on a day.

I doubt SpaceX will become entirely privately funded. The basic reason why they are able to exist is because they service the ISS, which in turn takes place because NASA retired their Shuttles. SpaceX, i.e. Elon Musk just was at the right place at the right time I think. He used a small window that just opened. Should SpaceX be incorporated in another future space program, then it will only happen due to funds by NASA i.e. the government. Otherwise it might become completely privately funded one day, but doing nothing more than launching satellites into LEO.

Falcon heavy? With 28 engines to launch it? And also is not sure of it still stays active after a few launches. I don't be surprised when there is no Falcon-heavy launch anymore after a few test-launches, because there is not much interest in it. Even the SLS got a higher chance to stay active after 5 years of the first launch then the Falcon-heavy.

SLS won't even become active. It's another dead horse from NASA.

 

[Alfastar]

Orbital Sciences wouldn't exist without the existence of US defense systems. I don't know much about Orbital Sciences, but I guess they are also hugely funded by tax money and supported by NASA. Much more than SpaceX

Well, sadly the Orbital sciences website is down for my (again), so I can't tell good information about that ATM. But I sure there got a lot more private funds then SpaceX.

I doubt SpaceX will become entirely privately funded. The basic reason why they are able to exist is because they service the ISS, which in turn takes place because NASA retired their Shuttles. SpaceX, i.e. Elon Musk just was at the right place at the right time I think. He used a small window that just opened. Should SpaceX be incorporated in another future space program, then it will only happen due to funds by NASA i.e. the government. Otherwise it might become completely privately funded one day, but doing nothing more than launching satellites into LEO

Well, why then fund a company who never become on a day really private? NASA can also theoretical build and study cheap rockets and a cheap spacecraft. Musk was in the begin focusing about become a private spaceflight company / space agency. But when he hear the terms COTS and CCDev, he was going to the way to become a pet of NASA. And look what it is now, a company who cost only money, and does almost nothing to earn money from private funds! You maybe find it bored if there will become private funded, what cause that there mostly launch then satellites into LEO and GEO, and that earns money. There can't really make profit from Dragon missions, so why be naive, and go most focusing on something what cost only money!

SLS won't even become active. It's another dead horse from NASA.

And the Falcon-heavy become cancelled after 5-6 launches, because there is no one who is really interested in the Falcon-heavy. Also, its very unsure how much it really gonna cost.

 

[indy91]

And the Falcon-heavy become cancelled after 5-6 launches, because there is no one who is really interested in the Falcon-heavy. Also, its very unsure how much it really gonna cost.

Well, if the Falcon Heavy can be really as cheap in terms of price/kg as SpaceX says, it could influence the market. When you can launch more payload to orbit with less money, why not send more payload up? But you are right, we don't know how much it will really cost and I don't see that happening.