SpaceX is a go for April 30th: 1st commercial launch to space station

[YellowSubmarine]

OK, so splashdown is due in a few minutes. The parachutes just deployed. Great job!

Edit: "Dragon safely splashed down in Pacific at 12:22PM PT" - so as space flight is concerned, CRS-1 is a success.

[Crazy Eddie]

^ It was a success when it docked with the space station, technically. The loss of blood and urine samples would be regrettable, but not catastrophic.

To have it be a COMPLETE success just bolsters the case for commercial spaceflight even more: with two fully operational flights under its belt, the Dragon is now in a far better position to begin crewed flights than any other spacecraft in America.

[YellowSubmarine]

If SpaceX plan to sell their Occupy Mars t-shirts to the future Martian 99% they need to guarantee them safe landing. Unsuccessful re-entry would not re-assure them.

[gturner]

But landng on Mars wouldn't require re-entry, just entry.

[publiusr]

An interesting smackdown from Musk on Ariane 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...0402.msg981261

One person tried to describe the folks there as being like ATK. Ironically, solids were looked at for the cheaper Ariane 6 option. Sadly, that may mean no ATV?

[Byeman]

publiusr wrote:

---

Remember, it was The Aerospace Corporation that "participated in the planning and development of system requirements for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aerospace_Corporation

Now early on, the EELV fans took shots at Ares/Constellation, and floated all this depot nonsense specifically to launch scores of EELV since the 1990's DOT.COM bubble burst and the teledesic internet in the sky deal fell through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic

This all left the DoD saddled with two rockets--an albatross they tried to force on Griffin's neck, and a lot of people believed their hype about how NASA shouldn't be in the rocket building business, and should rely on private space manufacturers--meaning EELV.

And then Musk came along--a true private space company. Then--all of a sudden, the Aerospace Corp--retired Blue Suiters mind you, changed their minds and said that maybe the time isn't right for true private space:
http://spacetalknow.org/wordpress/?p=2728
http://tweetmeme.com/story/458747744...cts-nasa-watch
www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/114170-Falcon-9-Heavy-and-propellant-depots?p=1873638#post1873638

There was talk about preserving infrastructure. In a recent column from Aviation Week and Space Technology, Musk responded with the question "Whose infrastructure are we preserving? what with Russian RD-180s, AN-124s etc.

Now isn't that interesting? Anytime someone talks to you about costs of this or that--think about where they are coming from. When Musk launched his first rockets, the EELVs were also just getting started. Musk was forced off the coast under the aegis of "range safety"--as if an EELV couldn't have went off course and hit his rocket instead. My guess is that this was done to eat his paypal fortune alive in immense logistics costs--and to price him out of the market--so he would quit like Beal did.

But Musk didn't. Now, seeing that the same folks who put heavy-lift down are the same folks who went after Musk--can you really believe the figures they spouted, especially now after the Druyen tanker scandal, the EELV data theft all forgotten now that Boeing and Lockmart are one big happy fleet under ULA, etc?So SLS hits ULA high, and Space X hits them low. No wonder the EELV folks squawk so much.

What a bunch of crap, disinformation and outright lies.

[Byeman]

[QUOTE=publiusr;6580471]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

1.. It tells me that folks are fed up with the Dan Golden era stagnation of endless also-ran Delta II missions of the Goldin era.

2. And six or seven Delta IV heavies will easily cost as much as a single production SLS launch--thus no savings--just overcomplicated ISS style assembly methods and other costs that go with mission complexity that HLVs eliminate.

3. That's why engineers favor them.

4. Take the skycrane for Curiosity. That work-around is the direct result of EELV contraints.

5. In terms of a down select--it would actually be better if Dream Chaser and Musk got the contracts, perhaps allowing them to work together and pool money, instead of Dream Chaser being a junior partner to ULA

1. Only you think that in your warped view.

2. Wrong, not with cost of SLS development

3. No, they don't. Only those who want a jobs program

4. that is blatantly wrong and far from the truth.

5. Wrong on many levels. It shows that you don't know what you are talking and are full of shit. It would not be better.
a. Dream Chaser is a competitor to Dragon
b. In your warped idea, that would make Dream chaser a junior partner to Spacex.
c. Another clueless post. Dream Chaser is not a junior partner with ULA. Dream Chaser is the lead and ULA is a subcontract.

[Byeman]

publiusr wrote:

---

This is also to be launched by Atlas, so Dream Chaser will wind up having to deal with a conflict of interest. This is why the downselect must be Dream Chaser and Space X, in that each compliments the other. So write your Congressmen.

More cluelessness. There is no conflict of interest. ULA treats Boeing and SNC equally. Anyways, your view is so warped, that you actually can't see a real potential conflict of interest. Dragon vs Dream Chaser. If your world is real, then Spacex would be favoring is own Dragon over Dream Chaser.

[Byeman]

publiusr wrote:

---

1. That LV was bigger than 'needed. Korolyov could easily have waited for warheads to be shrunk down. But his answer wasn't to shrink the payload--but make the rocket bigger.

2. The big reason I want Space X and Dream Chaser to work together is to keep them out of that ULA culture.

3. Frankly Dream Chaser would have a better ride on Falcon Heavy and might evolve into an even more capable version. Muskfocus stays on the rocket, Dream Chaser on their lifting body..

More disinformation and lies

1. It was not bigger than needed. Russians didn't have the technology at time to shrink the payload. The US did and we are better off in many ways. Also, the R-7 was never a viable weapon system.

2. You don't even know what the ULA culture is. In your warped view of the world, you have a perception of ULA that in no way reflects reality.

3. That is total wrong and has no basis in fact. Also, you don't have the knowledge or experience to make such a claim.

[Byeman]

[QUOTE=gturner;7072984]
I replied with

George Turner October 7, 2012, 10:22 pm

That the Falcon 9 delivers the payload to its appointed orbit through rain, sleet, wind, and dark of night. That neither fire nor explosion will divert it from its task. A Falcon rocket can’t be stopped, can’t be reasoned with. It takes horrendous damage without flinching and just recomputes the optimal strategy to carry out its mission. It isn’t like other rockets that disintegrate when they get hit with styrofoam or blow up when their rubber O-rings get the shivers. It never falters. It never stands down. It doesn’t feel pain. It doesn’t know fear, and it doesn’t feel remorse as it drives its competitors into bankruptcy

That was really asinine.

[Crazy Eddie]

A long-time aerospace guru with years of experience working for NASA, whose expertise can be ultimately distilled to "You're stupid! I'm right! Multi-quote? What's that?"

[publiusr]

That and a case of recto-cranial infarction.

[sojourner]

^And yet, he takes your arguments apart rather nicely.

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm not sure that 5 consecutive posts of "You're a clueless moron with a warped view of the world" could actually be described as "taking an argument apart."

[sojourner]

Oh I wasn't referring to his reply to you, just the point for points he made against publiusr.