DerekL1963 Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 hour ago, kunok said: I was only saying that SpaceX is not in the market of the Ariane 5 or the Delta IV. Very expensive launchers but with a 100% success rate. I understood what you were saying quite clearly. I was explaining that said market doesn't exist - if you're not sufficiently reliable (both in meeting schedule and successful delivery), you're not going to be in business long. People buying launch services for payloads that cost a fair fraction of a billion dollars and stand to produce substantial revenues do not shop with a Wal-Mart mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunok Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said: if you're not sufficiently reliable That's why I was saying cheap but reliable enough. We are saying exactly the same, forgive my bad Sundays english. A tip, we non-USA persons don't have any reason to know what a wall mart mentality is Edited February 5, 2017 by kunok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekL1963 Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just now, kunok said: That why I was saying cheap but reliable enough. We are saying exactly the same, forgive my bad Sundays english. A tip, we non-USA persons don't have any reason to know what a wall mart mentality is Non USA persons also might not understand that in many parts of the US, "reliable enough" also has shades of "but don't really trust it with anything important if you can avoid it". So yes, I think we're saying the same thing across a modest language speedbump. But that's not really a different market per se, even though they haven't actually lost one nobody believes that's anything but a temporary situation. They might have better insurance premiums, but they still insure. Wal-Mart is chain of stores here in the US specializing in very cheap (in both in price and quality) goods. It's generally viewed as a place where only poor and/or stupid people shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunok Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said: Non USA persons also might not understand that in many parts of the US, "reliable enough" also has shades of "but don't really trust it with anything important if you can avoid it". So yes, I think we're saying the same thing across a modest language speedbump. But that's not really a different market per se, even though they haven't actually lost one nobody believes that's anything but a temporary situation. They might have better insurance premiums, but they still insure. Wal-Mart is chain of stores here in the US specializing in very cheap (in both in price and quality) goods. It's generally viewed as a place where only poor and/or stupid people shop. I keep forgetting that cheap in english is not only a monetary term but also a quality related term. In Spanish also has that connotation but a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 8 hours ago, kerbiloid said: I.e. as the end user gains 3..5 % (almost nothing), why the "reusability" of the booster should play any role for him, and be an argument to select SpaceX? SpaceX is already the cheapest launch provider on the market. The appeal for customers is price paid for the service, not the cost for the provider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 4 hours ago, Nibb31 said: SpaceX is already the cheapest launch provider on the market. The appeal for customers is price paid for the service, not the cost for the provider. While NASA pays the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) On 2/6/2017 at 3:07 AM, kerbiloid said: While NASA pays the difference? As anyone who has studied economics knows, the price of a product or service is rarely related to the actual cost. Vendors set their prices based on what their customers are willing to pay: a pair of sneakers only costs a couple of dollars to make, but they can sell them for $150 because that's what people are willing to pay. The difference in price between what commercial satellite operators pay and what NASA pays are due to plenty of things: - NASA's commercial cargo is a bulk contract for delivering X tons of cargo to the ISS. The price is for a specific amount of cargo to be delivered (and returned optionally), not the number of launches or the spacecraft that is used. Of course, NASA gets to decide how much goes on each flight and certifies the vehicles that operate at the ISS, but the Dragon, Cygnus, CST-100, and DreamChaser are all owned and operated by the commercial vendors. On the other hand, commercial satellite contracts are only for the launch service. The responsibility of the launch provider ends when the spacecraft reaches orbit. A launch is much cheaper than a full mission. - NASA uses a government procurement process which is much more strict than a commercial RFP. Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs include the development and operation of a fleet of commercial spacecraft. In other words, the development of Dragon, Cygnus, CST-100 and DreamChaser, and their launchers, including multiple test flights, is all part of the price paid by NASA. - It's not a problem if NASA pays more for a service than a commercial business, because part of NASA's role as a government agency is to subsidize the industry. This keeps highly skilled jobs in the country, maintains and develops technological capability, helps national competitivity, and ensures that the country remains a leader in the aerospace industry. Money spent by the government is never wasted. It flows through the economy, creates jobs, and most of it comes back to the government through taxes. Edited February 7, 2017 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 FLIGHT HARDWARE! GET HYPED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 20 hours ago, DarthVader said: FLIGHT HARDWARE! GET HYPED! Potential flight hardware. ...Get potentially hyped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 13 hours ago, Streetwind said: Potential flight hardware. ...Get potentially hyped? The real question is where is it going? McGregor? KSC? Vandenburg? Hype levels depend on the destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 hours ago, wumpus said: The real question is where is it going? McGregor? KSC? Vandenburg? Hype levels depend on the destination. Do they even have facilities to handle a 3-core stack at McGregor, if it is in fact a booster? Pretty sure they don't at Vandenburg. Pad 39 at the Cape was the only place being actively upgraded for the FH. And speaking of the Cape... delayed again. NET the 18th, now. And much as I hate to say it, I think it's gonna slip further. It seems to me qualifying a brand new launchpad is something that probably takes a lot of time and testing, and they haven't even erected a rocket there yet, let alone a static fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 hours ago, wumpus said: The real question is where is it going? McGregor? KSC? Vandenburg? Hype levels depend on the destination. Spaceflight now says it is launching out of lc-39A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Do they even have facilities to handle a 3-core stack at McGregor, if it is in fact a booster? Pretty sure they don't at Vandenburg. Pad 39 at the Cape was the only place being actively upgraded for the FH. And speaking of the Cape... delayed again. NET the 18th, now. And much as I hate to say it, I think it's gonna slip further. It seems to me qualifying a brand new launchpad is something that probably takes a lot of time and testing, and they haven't even erected a rocket there yet, let alone a static fire. The FH side core was spotted in Arizona headed to Macgregor. Also, the first time a FH is integrated will be at 39A, because Macgregor can't handle it Edited February 9, 2017 by DarthVader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 8 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Do they even have facilities to handle a 3-core stack at McGregor, if it is in fact a booster? Pretty sure they don't at Vandenburg. Pad 39 at the Cape was the only place being actively upgraded for the FH. And speaking of the Cape... delayed again. NET the 18th, now. And much as I hate to say it, I think it's gonna slip further. It seems to me qualifying a brand new launchpad is something that probably takes a lot of time and testing, and they haven't even erected a rocket there yet, let alone a static fire. I visited KSC a month ago and looked at LC-39A, no launch tower yet, just the assembly building. Wonder if the tower will de designed for manned launches too? However it makes sense to build the tower elsewhere and then place it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpens Solidus Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 hours ago, magnemoe said: I visited KSC a month ago and looked at LC-39A, no launch tower yet, just the assembly building. Wonder if the tower will de designed for manned launches too? However it makes sense to build the tower elsewhere and then place it. The Strongback is finished and has been raised, there's photos somewhere. They'll add the crew access tower much later. I'm guessing the pad is structurally complete and they're now in the testing phase. I'll feel confident about an upcoming launch when I see a test fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) Other rumors: - No word yet on dates for Falcon Heavy - SLC-40 to be operational again "in a few months" (probably early summer) - Red Dragon not happening in 2018. Totally unconfirmed claim, no source. But personally wouldn't surprise me, what with all the Commercial Crew delays, pad repairs, AMOS-6 investigation, manifest congestion and so on... Edited February 9, 2017 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Streetwind said: Red Dragon not happening in 2018. Totally unconfirmed claim, no source. But personally wouldn't surprise me, what with all the Commercial Crew delays, pad repairs, AMOS-6 investigation, manifest congestion and so on... Me neither, but still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) I found this picture posted on unofficial SpaceX facebook group, originally posted by reddit user codercotton I have quoted the original description, but I the date is obviously a typo Quote Seen on eastbound I-10 early morning 2/28/17, an hour east of Tucson. Edited February 9, 2017 by Cuky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 23 minutes ago, Cuky said: I found this picture posted on unofficial SpaceX facebook group, originally posted by reddit user codercotton I have quoted the original description, but I the date is obviously a typo FH side core! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Key Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Michoud Assembly Facility suffers damage from EF-3 tornado. http://www.space.com/35619-nasa-tornado-recovery-new-orleans-facility.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Cuky said: I found this picture posted on unofficial SpaceX facebook group, originally posted by reddit user codercotton I have quoted the original description, but I the date is obviously a typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Right. Obviously it is a record - breaking, world's biggest cigar. It will be lit on fire at conveniently empty launch site and will produce biggest smoke ring ever - two Guiness records for the price of one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HebaruSan Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 I think there's a joke here involving your mother's order for something finally having shipped. ... I'll see myself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 No, no. This is Elon Musk's new tunnel bore! His plan of increasing drilling speed by 5x-10x involves strapping Merlin engines to the back of it, so obviously they're gonna test it at McGregor first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts