FishInferno Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 3 hours ago, Nibb31 said: Government subsidies: Since its inception, SpaceX has relied on government contracts. The Merlin engine is based on a NASA reference design. Falcon 1 was funded by the DoD. Falcon 9 developmend was co-funded by NASA and private funds. Dragon was funded by NASA. As said above by @Streetwind, these are not subsidies. The DoD payed SpaceX for the product which was Falcon 1. NASA helped fund F9 and Dragon with the expected return of a new launcher and ISS resupply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) 41 minutes ago, FishInferno said: As said above by @Streetwind, these are not subsidies. The DoD payed SpaceX for the product which was Falcon 1. NASA helped fund F9 and Dragon with the expected return of a new launcher and ISS resupply. When a government subsidizes the private sector, it doesn't mean that they don't expect a return on investment. The money that the DoD poured into Falcon 1 development far exceeded the utilisation that was made of the Falcon 1 afterwards. The same is true for Falcon 9 and Dragon, where NASA paid for the development as part of the COTS program, but SpaceX is free to sell both products on the private market. One could argue that the commercial use of those products is subsidized in the same way that Ariane development is paid for by ESA member states but launches are sold as a commercial service. The main purpose of many US Government cost-plus contracts, particularly DoD and NASA, is to provide jobs to the military/aerospace industry, regardless of the actual value of the product or service to the nation. The point of that is to maintain jobs, boost technology, and maintain capability, more than to actually pay the fair price for a given service. It can be argued that any government contract represents a form of subsidy. However you call it, it isn't very important. My point was that all spaceflight is government-sponsored, whether it's subsidized or purchased at a fair price, and that there would be no orbital space industry without that government sponsorship. Edited December 4, 2015 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 34 minutes ago, FishInferno said: The DoD payed SpaceX for the product which was Falcon 1. Kind of Sort of... it is one of those blurry lines type things to the general public. They did both they subsidzed the development in the hopes of getting a small sat launcher that is inexpensive. But as the product did not work (except on the last flight) and they were not required (AFAIK) to pay back the DoD or pay a penalty (once again AFAIK) it is more of a subsidy than a full on contract with penalty clauses like you would get if you want them to launch a commercial sat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nibb31 said: One could argue that the commercial use of those products is subsidized in the same way that Ariane development is paid for by ESA member states but launches are sold as a commercial service. One could, perhaps, if one knew nothing about how Arianespace operates... In other words: no. Ariane 5 is an actively subsidized launcher. ESA pays Arianespace a healthy sum - about €100 million every year, last I heard - for no other purpose than making the Ariane 5 cheap enough to be able to compete on the commercial market, so that the company can stay alive and provide assured access to space for Europe. Comparing that to NASA buying a couple Falcon 9's doesn't work no matter which way you try to turn it. Also, Arianespace is literally in part government-owned. The French government holds a 35% stake, the largest of all the various shareholders. That right there is how government subsidies of commercial aerospace companies work. And it is in no way, shape or form comparable to anything that SpaceX does. Edited December 4, 2015 by Streetwind Typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 On 11/23/2014, 4:31:36, PakledHostage said: I can't think of a way to "reduce the apparent wave height" without pumping water ballast back and forth in floating pontoons to increase/decrease their buoyancy as the waves pass. Vertical thrusters on all four sides of the barge? If the barge starts listing to port side, the port thrusters would push up and the starboard thrusters would push down. Same with the thrusters mounted fore and aft to reduce pitching. That seems more likely to me than pumping ballast around, which is inherently slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 2 hours ago, Kerbart said: Vertical thrusters on all four sides of the barge? If the barge starts listing to port side, the port thrusters would push up and the starboard thrusters would push down. Same with the thrusters mounted fore and aft to reduce pitching. But because you are now pushing one side up and the other side down you run the risk of not being in a good position when the next wave comes swamping the deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Something I found neat: http://imgur.com/rOY556X A direct comparison of the size of the landing area of the barge versus the landing pad. Edited December 4, 2015 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 41 minutes ago, Streetwind said: Something I found neat: http://imgur.com/rOY556X A direct comparison of the size of the landing area of the barge versus the landing pad. That's.... Pretty significant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Yep. And should they come down really off target, there's four secondary "contingency pads" spread out around this main pad. Admittedly I don't know if they have been constructed already, I only know for certain that the main pad is done. Edited December 4, 2015 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartoffelkuchen Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 RTF launch moved to 19th December, the cause seems to be a payload issue. It also seems very likely that the first stage will do RTLS, the AirForce approved it, and FAA..somehow to. Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/673270563742289920 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 On 12/4/2015, 3:43:18, Streetwind said: Something I found neat: http://imgur.com/rOY556X On the inner most dark circle is concrete on that image... the area between the inner black circle and the outer circle is compressed dirt it seems. So it is really not all that much bigger. In other news SpaceX got permission from the USAF to land back on land, hoping FAA will approve too, launch was pushed back to the 19th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 1 hour ago, B787_300 said: On the inner most dark circle is concrete on that image... the area between the inner black circle and the outer circle is compressed dirt it seems. So it is really not all that much bigger Still, there's a big difference between compressed dirt and compressed waves... I'd imagine they would be quite happy to land on one, if they had the choice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipcard Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 So I'll see a Falcon on Friday and a Falcon on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 On 6.12.2015, 01.38.45, softweir said: Still, there's a big difference between compressed dirt and compressed waves... I'd imagine they would be quite happy to land on one, if they had the choice! Yes, the concrete main benefit is that you will not get dirt kicked up from the engine flame. The landing legs don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Quote Aiming for Falcon rocket static fire at Cape Canaveral on the 16th and launch about three days later We might have a launch in 9 days. Edit: More news from NASASpaceflight: Quote Chris B - NSF @NASASpaceflight Window is 20:25 to 23:25 local time for the 19th. Edited December 10, 2015 by Albert VDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WuphonsReach Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 That's a pretty big window - but then this isn't an ISS supply flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Where's all the launch hype from SpaceX/NASA? Awful quiet for a rtf launch in nine days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Ooo, nice and dark. I might just have to take a drive out the coast next Saturday. Doubt I could get close enough to see the actual landing attempt though, unless it explodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Motokid600 said: Where's all the launch hype from SpaceX/NASA? Awful quiet for a rtf launch in nine days. It's not a NASA launch. So no hype from them. SpaceX is busy making sure the flight is a success, hype will come after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 http://spacenews.com/mccain-will-consider-wider-russian-engine-ban/ more business to SpaceX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 I saw that too, and scratched my head. All statements that SpaceX has given so far on the topic of selling its engines were "firmly not interested". Did that change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 5 minutes ago, Streetwind said: I saw that too, and scratched my head. All statements that SpaceX has given so far on the topic of selling its engines were "firmly not interested". Did that change? Given that ULA's Atlas RD-180's come from Russia, I think he meant more business going SpaceX due to a lack of Atlas V's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Hmmm... looks like I mixed up the articles here? When I read this yesterday, I also read an article somewhere that claimed that the government was in talks with multiple alternative providers, including SpaceX. I thought it was this article, but it isn't. Welp. Disregard anything I said then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcube Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 I suggest you continue this discussion by MP or start a new thread. After all, this thread is about spaceX. It's starting to be very confusing if you guys deviate this much from the subject. On topic : When is spaceX supposed to make an announcement about it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 3 minutes ago, Hcube said: I suggest you continue this discussion by MP or start a new thread. After all, this thread is about spaceX. It's starting to be very confusing if you guys deviate this much from the subject. On topic : When is spaceX supposed to make an announcement about it ? Early 2016 is the new date. It got delayed due to the CRS-7 failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts