SpaceX News

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:29 pm

No Kite. I was correct both times. You and Krenshala are the ones that have a reading comprehension failure. It's a shame you have the poor judgement to take what was a simple mistake and bit of arrogance on Krenshala's part and turn it into a bigger issue so demonstrating your lack of social graces.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:28 pm

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:36 pm

GIThruster wrote:
krenshala wrote: Who said anything about using Spaceship Two for this? I was listing the name of a company that was already looking to take people to the edge of space. . .
You mentioned Virgin Galactic, who owns Spaceship Two. That is a suborbital ride that uses less than 1/100 the energy necessary than is required to get to an orbiting station such as Bigelow has proposed. Granted, they're offering a ride to the "edge of space" but their ship cannot gain the horizontal velocity needed for orbit--which is the vast majority of the energy needed.

Note too that Rutan's design does not include an air lock, so even if it could achieve orbit, it could not dock with something like a space station. In order to do this you need something much closer to what SpaceX has and so you're talking about not $150-200k/seat but $10m/seat.

Burt Rutan is also working with t/Space in the development of an air launched, two-stage-to-orbit, manned spacecraft. It is intended to have a taxi capacity to carry passengers to the International Space Station. In June 2005, air drop tests of quarter scale mockups verified the practicality of air release and rotation to vertical

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:51 pm

Yes, but that's got nothing to do with Virgin Galactic.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:56 pm

KitemanSA wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thirteen smilies?

scoops12 · Post by **scoops12** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:42 pm

Bigelow assumed that the original NASA budget request for private manned taxis would lead to flights c.2014. When Congress cut the budget, the best case was for 2016.

So he had a 2 year hiatus, and stopped or cut back work.

Like many others,he's probably waiting for the election and fiscal cliff outcome to commit fully. After all, NASA's budget could be at least decimated (in the correct sense of the word) and CCDev dragged out yet again.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:47 pm

Yeah, certain politicians would love to kill CCDev...

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:58 pm

GIThruster wrote:No Kite. I was correct both times. You and Krenshala are the ones that have a reading comprehension failure. It's a shame you have the poor judgement to take what was a simple mistake and bit of arrogance on Krenshala's part and turn it into a bigger issue so demonstrating your lack of social graces.

Okay, lets try this again, please read carefully what I wrote:

krenshala wrote:All that is missing is Virgin Galactic, or someone else, officially announcing flights to/from Bigelow modules in orbit and we'll have the beginnings of offworld commerce.

Yes, I list Virgin Galactic. I do so because they already are advertising rides to the general (albeit rich) public to at least the edge of space. Note, too, that I don't limit things to VG.

I have no clue where you get the idea that extrapolating from VGs present capabilities of suborbital flight to orbital flight is a mistake, either. Yes, they currently "only" have SpaceShip Two. That we know of. Who is to say they won't be a major purchaser of SpaceX manned Dragon flights, or make use of some other product that can reach orbit.

Your stance is like saying Motorola makes sound systems for automobiles, so they could never get into radios. History has proven that to not be the case (for Motorola). Why can't VG make orbital flights as well as sub orbital? And if you say the reason is because SpaceShip Two can't reach orbit, then you clearly aren't capable of comprehending what I've written.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:19 pm

This is a thread about SpaceX news. You posted that "all that's needed is" and gave an example of someone who has no plans to fly to orbit. All I did was point out to you that there is a huge difference between flying to the "edge of space' and flying to orbit.

SpaceX flies to orbit. Currently it is the cheapest ride by far and if they start reusing stages, it could grow significantly cheaper. You will not however see orbital flights drop down to the range of suborbital flights while using rockets. That's just not possible. SpaceX will need to collect at least $6M per seat until they start reusing stages. That might cut the price again, though how much is debatable. VG gets $0.2M/seat. You can see this is quite a significant difference, though there are plenty of people who could pay for a week long vacation in a Bigelow station.

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:16 pm

GIThruster wrote:This is a thread about SpaceX news.

Yes, and Bigelow has already stated SpaceX is one of the companies he'd like to use for lofting his habs off this rock.

GIThruster wrote:You posted that "all that's needed is" and gave an example of someone who has no plans to fly to orbit. All I did was point out to you that there is a huge difference between flying to the "edge of space' and flying to orbit.

To quote myself again:

All that is missing is Virgin Galactic, or someone else, officially announcing flights [to Bigelow habs]...

Since SpaceX is already in the mix, most likely launching the BA modules, I thought I'd be optimistic and entertain the notion that more than one company would be making orbital launches of men and material. <sarcasm>Clearly you know way more than I do on the subject of what might, possibly, happen.</sarcasm>

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Assorted recent news about SpaceX and its competition.

Elon Musk's Latest Interview
Elon Musk’s Mission to Mars

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.

Reaching for the stars in Mojave

Blue Origin Successfully Tests Crew Capsule Escape Rocket

zbarlici · Post by **zbarlici** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:24 pm

the us corporations are now at risk of losing their profits to chinese corporations. the latest example is Huawei. Ive seen some ads for smartphones on ebay, saying how the new $250 Huawei Android smart phone is newer has lots more to offer, and at 1/3 cost of iPhones. If there is patent protection in china, it sure as hell wonn`t deter them from stealing and duplicating technology that will put them ahead when it comes to spaceflight etc....

Anyways, Google just opened up the pandora`s box with the Android OS... it used to be that the chIpods had real bad, rudimentary interfaces, not anymore, not with Android..

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:59 pm

zbarlici wrote:the us corporations are now at risk of losing their profits to chinese corporations. the latest example is Huawei. Ive seen some ads for smartphones on ebay, saying how the new $250 Huawei Android smart phone is newer has lots more to offer, and at 1/3 cost of iPhones. If there is patent protection in china, it sure as hell wonn`t deter them from stealing and duplicating technology that will put them ahead when it comes to spaceflight etc....

Anyways, Google just opened up the pandora`s box with the Android OS... it used to be that the chIpods had real bad, rudimentary interfaces, not anymore, not with Android..

My wife and a coworker have a Huawei phone -- considering how they behave the name has, for me at least, become "Huawei did I buy this again?".

It is interesting how companies seem to be moving back toward predominantly using trade secrets instead of patents to protect their works/equipment designs. On the one hand, its a bit of a shame, because a patent allows someone else to see it and say 'oh, its already been done ... but what if I did this', where as with a trade secret you just have to hope someone else doesn't come up with the same solution and publish it. At least, if I'm understanding how the two work correctly.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:15 pm

Yes but you're mixing apples and oranges. Of course the Chinese will purchase a consumer item like a phone and back-engineer it. Patents are supposed to stop this but since we owe China a couple trillion dollars, we're in no position to stop this kind of crime.

Rocket technology is ITAR technology and has nothing in common with consumer electronics. There is no reason to patent Falcon tech because it is never in a place where it can be absconded with and torn apart to look at and back engineer. Since no one is in a position to copy it, a patent isn't useful in any way. Rather, ITAR requires secrecy and security to avoid the trade secrets get into unauthorized hands.

Note, SpaceX doesn't sell Falcons. They launch Falcons. What they're selling is a launch service, not the vehicle itself, so there's no reason to patent.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:17 pm

The Dragon spacecraft is targeted to splash down from the International Space Station this Sunday at approximately 12:20PM PT. For real-time updates throughout Dragon’s reentry and splashdown, follow @SpaceX and visit www.spacex.com/webcast.