14 thoughts on “SpaceX And Mars”

  1. Reading that article filled me with anger. It’s a perfect example of someone that can’t do giving their ‘wisdom’ to somebody that can do.

    if not for NASA, SpaceX would probably be flying the Falcon 1 or 5 rocket today or might not exist at all

    This statement is a mind blowing ignorance of the fact that had Elon not had his focus, no amount of NASA sugar would have created what Musk has. Also it’s a myth that requires an alternate universe to disprove. Plenty of commercial customers might wish SpaceX got out of NASA business and just focused on them. Since we don’t live in that alternate universe there is no way of knowing how far along SpaceX would be had that been the case. Even people that believe in free enterprise (not just those that claim to) are influenced by their awe of govt. sugar which has destroyed more companies than it has ever helped.

    Sure, we all worry about Musk’s focus. But for me it’s because we want him to succeed in his primary focus because that’s what got us to this dance. A dozen other companies could send crew to the ISS, but Musk is the engine driving much of the industry (world wide) forward and this writing ‘genius’ would like him to stop???

  2. There are plenty of companies that will do anything space as long as NASA or the DoD pay them up front. And they will do so with a passion – as long as the money flows. If government agencies did not pay said companies would not put one stone gathered from the parking lot (which they would happily outsource) on top of another.

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand where they are at and why they act the way they do, but that is the truth of the matter. I have been there and have seen.

    SpaceX (and others) is/are a company that exists to do space because it is there and they have a vision and yes they will use any resource available to accomplish their goal.

    Good on them.

    Indeed SpaceX just took a major technical and financial hit but hopefully they will be able to overcome these issues and proceed forward.

  3. Dumb article. SpaceX needs to have a varied set of clients. Focusing on only one customer, and a government customer at that, is nearsighted and foolish. Imagine Trump gets elected and cancels Commercial Crew. What then? Close SpaceX?

    Also the fact is SpaceX has done more launches for commercial customers than NASA this year so far:
    http://www.spacex.com/missions
    It is a mistake to ignore this revenue stream. Sure you have more trouble handing more clients but it also means you have more stable revenue because you don’t have all your eggs in the same basket.

    SpaceX has been changing their rocket design a bit more often than I would if I was them. The design is unstable. It’s not unexpected to have a launch failure or two in a new rocket. Falcon 9 v1.2 is a new rocket and it’s had 1 failure in 8 launches. That’s perfectly normal. The rocket which failed before that was Falcon 9 v1.1. So it’s not even the same rocket. Doesn’t matter.

    The current failure rate is acceptable. If its one failed launch every eight that’s 87.5% success rate so far. It would be better if it was 90% or more but given the current sample we can’t be sure how it will end. I think Proton isn’t any better in reliability and it is one of the main workhorse launch vehicles around. Proton launched ISS modules and launches large comsats all the time. It will take SpaceX time to prove similar or better reliability than Soyuz or Atlas V. If SpaceX continues with this mindset that might never happen and still not kill their cargo and sat business. They don’t need such reliability levels to be a viable business for launching satellites but it will lose them contracts eventually.

    What NASA Commercial Crew should do (and possibly the DoD if it is to launch one of a kind billion dollar satellites) is force SpaceX to freeze their rocket design for every block of launches they purchase. Oh and make sure the rocket has had enough good launches. e.g. at least 2 good launches. The risk will never be nil but it will be minimized this way.

    Basically SpaceX needs to do like Ubuntu or RedHat does for software. You have the long term support design (mature) and the short term support design (leading edge). The prices should be different (cheaper for leading edge and more expensive for mature).
    Otherwise they will have trouble getting high paying customers with expensive satellites to use their services.

    I would not be surprised if SpaceX’s legendary reputation for no lifers has caught up to them as well. What was the last thing I read? That Elon was using a sleeping bag and sleeping near the end of the production line? Probably doing more harm than good. They have been doing this long enough that there is burnout. Guaranteed.

    They should freeze the Falcon 9 Full Trust design for the Commercial Space missions early Q1 next year and only do fixes from then on.

    I mean how much more do they want? It has enough payload. It is cheap enough to manufacture.It can be recovered.

    I think this also clearly demonstrates SpaceX needs to improve their upper stage validation procedures and possibly they need to improve the fidelity of the tests at McGregor so that there will be less of a chance of blowing up another satellite on the pad.

    1. They should also have a detuned version without the chilled propellants to improve the reliability and cheapen up the launches a bit. I doubt its necessary for all launches. The Russians don’t use the densified propellants unless the mission requires them because of the payload size.

    2. “SpaceX has been changing their rocket design a bit more often than I would if I was them. The design is unstable. It’s not unexpected to have a launch failure or two in a new rocket. Falcon 9 v1.2 is a new rocket and it’s had 1 failure in 8 launches. That’s perfectly normal. The rocket which failed before that was Falcon 9 v1.1.”

      That’s interesting. I haven’t been following the alteration of the vehicle closely. Is there some place I can go to see the “Release Notes” and dates for the versions?

    3. They should freeze the Falcon 9 Full Trust design for the Commercial Space missions early Q1 next year and only do fixes from then on.

      That’s what they need, all right! A “Full Trust” version of the rocket. Put all your customers at ease.

    4. That is a good assessment. One of their strengths though, has been having their customers pay for testing. Maybe now that they have reached a point where they can land, they can freeze some of that development like you suggest.

      How would segmenting their product line like this affect the manufacturing process, facilities, and costs?

  4. Eric Berger is saying focusing on the Falcon 9 is focusing on Mars,

    The Falcon 9 rocket lies at the core of everything SpaceX wants to do. It delivers commercial satellites and cargo. It will deliver astronauts into orbit. Three Falcon 9 boosters will power the Falcon Heavy. It is the basis of proving the reusability of orbital launch systems. So if there is no Falcon 9, there is no business.

    The bit at the end about making his speech more about what is being done in regard to the Falcon 9 is just a PR thing. Why couldn’t Musk do both or even have a separate speech or press conference about the Falcon 9 status?

    Musk giving a speech on his Mars plans isn’t the same as SpaceX not having an appropriate level of focus on their existing customers and products. But that so many people think their focus might be lacking, it is something he should address. But this also seems a little standard because any launch failure leads to people wondering if a company has their stuff together.

    1. It’s very rare that I disagree with you Wodun, but here I must.

      Eric Berger is saying focusing on the Falcon 9 is focusing on Mars

      You could read it that way; however, that’s not the thrust of his argument. His argument is that NASA is existential to SpaceX which is the same lie that detractors have been using since 2002.

      It’s in the same class of lie as when Obama claims he’s been great for the economy because, take his word for it, it would have been worse without him. Or Pelosi saying the multiplier affect only happens when govt. spends your money.

      These lies are insidious because they require an alternate universe to disprove (or faith in common sense which is severely lacking.)

      It is so evil because it actually persuades people that should know better. “Well we need govt. for things the private sector can’t do.” Which is complete rubbish, but difficult to disprove. The govt. can waste money that others can’t. This is not the same as saying others couldn’t perform the exact same service, but it gets confused as such. “We wouldn’t have the interstate without govt.” Baloney, it would have been different, but traffic demands would have built it either way.

      Govt. involvement ALWAYS results in less progress, but does it in a way that is more visible than the distributed progress that would have occurred without them. The most govt. can do is provide a focus, but always at a cost.

      1. NASA has paid SpaceX a lot of money for services. Could they have gotten to where they are without NASA? Probably. They would have just focused on other customers and the from one of the links, they have a $10b manifest. Faster or slower? Who knows. But Musk chose to get involved with NASA both monetarily and organizationally.

        This has upsides and downsides but an upside is that it means less effort from NASA to c**kblock SpaceX’s efforts. And NASA wants to be involved for the very reason you state, they get to claim some credit.

        NASA is one of their main customers though. Previous setbacks haven’t had a negative effect on their relationship, will this one? It seems unlikely, depending on the outcome of the investigation or even if NASA is happy with how the investigation is conducted even if the findings are problematic.

        Making NASA happy makes sense, although there is no sign that they aren’t. From SpaceX POV, when they start launching astronauts for NASA, it is like the ultimate seal of approval to launch people for other customers.

        You are right that slower progress is also a downside but government involvement in unavoidable here. Space based business must go through our government. That means lots of lobbying of both politicians and government employees. SpaceX is doing a good job of navigating that environment while retaining the most freedom and getting the most return from the entanglement.

        Regardless of how important NASA is to SpaceX bottom line, their other customers rely on the Falcon 9. That’s their bread and butter right now. We will see what the investigation turns up but I doubt the cause will be a lack of focus. But as far as getting in bed with government, they don’t have a choice.

  5. Musk is attempting to revolutionize a field so static that a 50-year-old engine (J-2-X) was being retuned for CxP, and SLS is designed around 40-year-old STS components.

    Personally, I’m a great believer in using what works. But we are in an era now where unlimited budgets are no longer available, and the launchers (Delta 4, Atlas 5) are too expensive to support real transformational growth in the use and exploration of space.

    This loss obviously hurts on many levels, but what SpaceX is doing is essential. If SpaceX cannot succeed, somebody else will have to take on that role, with all the attendant sniping, scorn, and naysaying.

    1. To be honest the J-2X was basically a whole new engine which shared little more than the name of the J-2X. They basically tested an old J-2 engine, did some reverse engineering, and then proceeded to make a new engine using modern tools and methods. Check this slide:
      https://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/j2x-lineage.jpg

      Notice how no performance or design parameter matches.

      The problem with the J-2X, which I always had a suspicion from the beginning of the project, is that it has few uses outside of the monster rocket Ares V/SLS or whatever they call it next. Like I said before they would have been better off designing something like the cancelled RL-60 which would have commonality with the mainstream launcher market replacing twin RL-10 configurations that could be used in ACES. J-2X is just too big.

Comments are closed.