American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

clark · 2003-12-01 13:46:27

It's not an atmospheric glider, it's a bomb that can withstand hyper-velocity speeds as it is fired towards earth.

The CAV vehicle is launched into orbit, where it is then deployed, awaits a target order, after receiving a target order, it speeds towards it (on earth) and blows it up using mostly the kinetic speed it receives from leaving low earth orbit.

Bill White · 2003-12-01 15:35:02

Elon Musk, of SpaceX.com, look at his October release, which states:
http://www.spacex.com/
SpaceX Wins DARPA & Air Force Launch Vehicle Contract
We?ve been selected as a phase one winner of the FALCON launch vehicle development program underway with the Air Force and DARPA. By pure coincidence, this program has the same name and approximate specifications as our launch vehicle (Falcon). Since we?re already approaching completion of Falcon, our proposal was only to charge the government for modifications required to allow launch of a satellite on very short notice.
Elon Musk, who has created a new space launch business, iis sending his first rocket up on a DARPA sponsered project, as part of the overall FALCON program, which is run by DARPA.
Now, what exactly will the rocket be launching into orbit under the FALCON program (please note, that the name of Elon Musk's launcher is called the Falcon)?
I'm glad you asked, it will be launching a CAV, or if you are unfamiliar, a Common Aero Vehicle, or CAV. Well, what is that?
go here for a full description in pdf format:
http://www.darpa.mil/body/NewsItems/pdf/falcon_fs.pdf
To find out what a CAV is, what the Falcon rocket will be launching, look on the bottom of page one of the pdf file, and the top of page two.
Here it is, typed out:
The U.S., however, needs a prompt global reach capability in the much nearer term. The near-term operational capability is embodied in the Common Aero Vehicvle (CAV) mutionions delivery system integrated with a low-cost, operationaly responsive, rocket booster. CAV would be an unpowered, manueverable, hypersonic glide vehicle capable of carrying approximetly 1,000 pounds in munitions or other payload. CAV designs based on exsisting technologies are predicited to have a downrange on the order of 3,000 nautical miles
Elon Musk's rocket is designed to be cheap, carry about 1000 pounds, and be responsive. It is in essence, exactly what the military wants to deliver the CAV to space.
Bill, you wanted a stock tip. Here it is.

More money to be made in bombs than spinning mice?

clark · 2003-12-01 15:50:32

we always need more bombs.

clark · 2003-12-02 09:40:35

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11154

NASA Presolicitation Notice: Space Technology Research and Development

Description
NASA/ARC plans to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Space Technology Division at Ames to obtain the services needed to conduct its varied research programs. The major objective is the development of technologies for use in the design and fabrication of prototype vehicles that travel at hypervelocities in the atmosphere of Earth and other bodies in the solar system.

This is part of dual-use technology research that NASA does- this has applications for the civilian side, as well as the military, especially given the objectives of DARPA's FALCON program. The long range plan is to have unmanned vehicles capable of striking anywhere on Earth in a matter of hours from the US- for that, they need to use scramjet technology, and use materials that can withstand the hypervelocities encountered at high Mach speeds.

clark · 2003-12-04 09:16:52

Now, back to the moon...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/p … 030858.asp

Milky Way Days
Returning to the new frontier.

By Dennis E. Powell

When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation. For more than 30 years America's manned space program has limited itself to low Earth orbit; indeed, everyone under the age of 31 ? more than 125 million Americans ? was born since an American last set foot on the moon.
The speech will come at a time when events are converging to force some important decisions about the future of American efforts in space. China has put a man in orbit, plans a launch of three Sinonauts together, and has announced its own lunar program. The space shuttle is grounded, and its smaller sibling, the "orbital space plane," may not be built. The International Space Station, behind schedule, over budget, and of limited utility, has been scaled back post-Columbia.
The content of the speech does not appear to be in doubt; the only question is timing. While those who have formulated it have argued that it be delivered on the anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered flight, there exists a slight possibility that it will instead be incorporated in the State of the Union address at the end of January. This has its own, less triumphant, significance, which is in the form of a chilling coincidence. Every American who has died in a spacecraft has done so within one calendar week: The Apollo 204 fire on January 27, 1967; the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986; and the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003.

And a report about O'Keefe (you know, that NASA guy in charge of NASA)

http://www.al.com/news....230.xml

By SHELBY G. SPIRES
Times Aerospace Writer shelbys@htimes.com

Experts predict an ambitious plan for space exploration

WASHINGTON - NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told his council of advisers this morning that big changes in the space agency's mission could be in store in the coming year, but he couldn't say whether that means a rumored return to the moon and beyond.
O'Keefe told the NASA Advisory Council that the Bush Administration is working to develop policy on whether NASA should scale back space exploration or take it further. When pressed by council members for details, O'Keefe said he could not elaborate.
The advisory council meeting began today and continues through Thursday in Washington.
"There's an effort under way that will focus the administration's view very prominently on options we can consider," O'Keefe said. "We are looking at some significant sea changes."
He said 2004, during which NASA hopes to get the grounded space shuttle fleet back in flight, might also include a long-sought mapping out of NASA's future mission. He said 2004 will be "a seminal time" for the agency.
Space experts predict NASA will possibly map out an ambitious space exploration program that may return explorers to the moon and send advanced probes to Jupiter and Venus within the next decade. Mark McDaniel, a Huntsville lawyer and member of the NASA Advisory Council, said he would support that direction.

Frankly, I'm impressed with myself so far. :laugh:

Bill White · 2003-12-04 11:21:16

clark, you are on a roll, yet I must ask, will you be as impressed with yourself if this is what happens:

New NASA looks like the old one
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The ``bold agenda for space exploration'' that the Bush administration has been crafting since August is expected to be long on rhetoric, but short on new goals and money.
The Orlando Sentinel
November 30, 2003

clark · 2003-12-04 11:55:52

Bill, get out of my head! :laugh:

I was just about to read that very same article when you posted the link.

My take on the article though is that it is a wee bit 'biased', and dosen't hold much water, if other reports are to be belived.

The Administration is looking at about a 7% increase in NASA budgets for the future. That's a sizeable chunk of change. Prometheus was, and is, fully supported by this administration, and they have put some serious funding into it.

In fact, NASA may squeeze existing programs to help raise the estimated $280 million needed to return the space shuttle to flight after the Feb. 1 Columbia disaster.

In fact, NASA will receive supplemental funding once the 'plan' is given to Congress and they understand how that 280 million is going to be used to get NASA back on track, and to where. I mean, as it stands now, NASA isn't 100% that they are even going to return the shuttle to space in any appreciable way.

NASA will continue with the same human-spaceflight programs that have been the agency's focus for more than a decade: the shuttle and the international space station. Likewise, incremental research will proceed on projects to develop nuclear rocket propulsion and a small orbital space plane that would ferry people and cargo to the station.

Can you say 'belittle much?" OSP, new propulsion, and complete the ISS- some might call that a 'plan'. We should finish what we started before we go racing off on the next objective, which seems lost in this rather shrill bit.

Despite assurances from the White House and NASA political appointees that the president is deeply committed to space exploration, there is no indication President Bush is willing to spend money on new programs in a time of soaring budget deficits.

Umm, hello, Congress and Bush are 'spending like drunken sailors', right? Bush dosen't decide the budget, Congress does. Bush will sign the budget for increased NASA funding precisely becuase any new funds in NASA relate to further funding for the 'next generation' military the Hawks are clamoring for.

The document calls for a ``steppingstone approach'' in which robotic missions would lead the way. The shuttle would resume flying to complete assembly and ``full utilization'' of the $100 billion space station this decade. The station would continue to do ``world class research'' on crew health and safety ``necessary to support the survival of humans traveling far from Earth.''
An orbital space plane would be developed to eventually replace the shuttle as transportation for astronauts to the station. Research would be conducted on new forms of propulsion, including nuclear power.
This ``bold agenda'' outlined by the draft document is identical to NASA's plans before the Columbia accident -- plans universally criticized since as lacking a clear, coherent, core vision or purpose.

Universally criticized by whom? It's freaking plan that the author dosen't agree with, that's all. Hmmm, a replacement for the Shuttle, nuclear power in space (does anyone else realize the profound implications of this?), and completion of ISS.

I'm still impressed with myself.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-04 12:42:26

::thinking about making the bet "more interesting"::

clark · 2003-12-04 12:45:38

depends... what's the ante, and the terms?

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-04 12:57:12

I said I was thinking about it.

clark · 2003-12-04 12:59:32

Oh, I forgot to turn off my teleapathic ability.

I'll wait till you actually 'say' it. :laugh:

clark · 2003-12-04 14:05:03

Maybe I can :nudge: Josh from hiding...

from UPI:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 4042-8972r

By Phil Berardelli
United Press International
Published 12/4/2003 1:25 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- Since last spring, the Bush administration has been conducting a confidential effort to establish a dramatic new goal for the nation's civil space program, perhaps rivaling President John F. Kennedy's call to place a U.S. astronaut on the moon before the end of the 1960s, sources told United Press International.
Only a few administration insiders have been involved, with Vice President Dick Cheney heading the effort, the sources, which requested anonymity, said.
Though some details have leaked out -- most notably reports Wednesday and Thursday that President George W. Bush will call for returning Americans to the moon -- sources insist no final decisions have been made. Instead, the president is reviewing a list of alternative goals -- some of them more practical than dramatic -- that must conform to a pair of overriding directives: Any option must be achievable within a reasonable period of time, and it must not require any major new federal spending.
Bush's decision and announcement, sources told UPI, could come as early as Dec. 17, when the president is scheduled to speak at Kitty Hawk, N.C., at a ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered flight. The matter also could be deferred until January 2004 and included in his State of the Union address to Congress.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has completed a cost review of the proposed alternatives. Reportedly, the alternatives validate the idea a new U.S. space initiative could be attempted with existing or proposed technology and hardware and could avoid the budget build-ups of previous projects, such as the space shuttle or the International Space Station -- although such a policy change would require NASA to make tough choices regarding cuts in existing programs.
Sources said the White House space policy review is not connected to the ongoing investigation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which was made necessary by the space shuttle disaster. On Feb. 1, shuttle Columbia broke up over several southwestern states during its reentry into the atmosphere, provoking a massive re-examination of the agency's manned space program.
Instead, the effort seems to have grown from a more fundamental motivation to reform and revitalize NASA -- something Cheney has been championing almost from the first day he and Bush took office in January 2001.
Bush ordered the policy review in late May. Since then, it has proceeded slowly and carefully, sources said, perhaps more so than any previous examination of the space program. Its progress was managed at a series of meetings involving only a few participants, headed by Cheney and including NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe.
The recommendations were developed confidentially by O'Keefe and his staff and the cost of each recommendation was analyzed by OMB and evaluated according to Bush's twin directives. Cheney -- who has gathered other input from members of both houses of Congress with an interest in the space program -- will make the final recommendation to the president.
On July 20, 1989, on the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, President George H.W. Bush proposed a return to the moon and an attempt to go to Mars. Neither of those proposals so far has borne fruit.
If Bush accepts the new recommendation for a major space objective and makes such a commitment -- and if the effort moves forward -- it would represent the first time in nearly two decades a U.S. president has proposed a new vision for the space program that yielded results. The last time such a proposal succeeded was when President Ronald Reagan announced a plan to built permanent space station in his January 1984 State of the Union speech

Bill White · 2003-12-04 14:40:28

I was drawn to this:

Instead, the president is reviewing a list of alternative goals -- some of them more practical than dramatic -- that must conform to a pair of overriding directives: Any option must be achievable within a reasonable period of time, and it must not require any major new federal spending.

And some do fear lofty rhetoric intended to mask the shifting of DoD projects onto the NASA budget. . .

Nonetheless, if space rated reactors are deployed for JIMO and DoD projects, they will then exist and be tested and thus available for future civilian missions.

clark · 2003-12-04 14:57:04

You were drawn to that?

Hmmm, and here I was thinking you might key in on the Cheney comments. Afterall, you have gone on about Halliburton..... ??? :;):

Bill White · 2003-12-04 15:45:54

You were drawn to that?
Hmmm, and here I was thinking you might key in on the Cheney comments. Afterall, you have gone on about Halliburton..... ??? :;):

If we were talking about a doubling of NASA's budget then a KBR contract could be in the wings. But a few billion a year is mere chump change to Halliburton. And NASA needs most of its $15 billion.

KBR would need to spend a few billion to get up to speed on building space infrastructure, but then. . .

$30 billion a year to construct a permanent Mars outpost? Bechtel, Halliburton etc. . would be front and center, IMHO, and they might start with a takeover bid for the SpaceHab people (design rights to TransHab).

BTW, I just wrote a scene where some "investors" purchased SpaceHab just before the Mars funding was announced.

clark · 2003-12-04 15:50:18

Do me a favor, name one of the investors, "Martha". Heehee... yeah, okay, poor taste. Ahem.

Remind me to buy some property in South America some time, okay? :;):

clark · 2003-12-05 09:02:31

Looks like the story is making the rounds....

Now from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 3Dec4.html

Return to Moon May Be on Agenda

By Mike Allen and Kathy Sawyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A01

An interagency group led by the White House, for instance, has been working since August on a blueprint for interplanetary human flight over the next 20 to 30 years to give NASA a new mission after the Feb. 1 disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia. Plans call for Bush to issue an ambitious new national vision for space travel by early next year, and officials said the initiative is likely to involve cooperation between NASA and the military.

Vice President Cheney recently discussed possibilities with lawmakers with jurisdiction over the space program but did not tip his hand. Options that have been considered by the administration include a permanent outpost on the moon and a human mission to Mars.
Although much of the scientific and emotional focus has been on Mars over the past decade, the buzz inside NASA has seemed to shift toward a return of man to the moon, officials at the space agency said.
"The drumbeat is getting louder," Wendell Mendell, manager of the Office for Human Exploration Science at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said in a telephone interview. Mendell has long advocated a return to the moon. "The tables and lists being created here are consistent" with a lunar initiative, he said.
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has steadfastly declined to discuss the ongoing review of space policy, except to acknowledge that it is "moving forward."
Edward Weiler, NASA's chief of space sciences, said in an interview yesterday that he commissioned a major study to determine space science priorities, which was completed by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year.
"I was surprised that the moon turned out to be one of their targets," he said. The panel listed the moon as one of five prime targets, he said, primarily because a crater at its South Pole contains some of the oldest, if not the oldest, exposed material in the solar system.

Bill White · 2003-12-05 09:20:39

Looks like the story is making the rounds....
Now from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 3Dec4.html
Return to Moon May Be on Agenda
By Mike Allen and Kathy Sawyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A01
. . .
Vice President Cheney recently discussed possibilities with lawmakers with jurisdiction over the space program but did not tip his hand. Options that have been considered by the administration include a permanent outpost on the moon and a human mission to Mars.
Although much of the scientific and emotional focus has been on Mars over the past decade, the buzz inside NASA has seemed to shift toward a return of man to the moon, officials at the space agency said.
"The drumbeat is getting louder," Wendell Mendell, manager of the Office for Human Exploration Science at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said in a telephone interview. Mendell has long advocated a return to the moon. "The tables and lists being created here are consistent" with a lunar initiative, he said.
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has steadfastly declined to discuss the ongoing review of space policy, except to acknowledge that it is "moving forward."

"The drumbeat is getting louder," he says. . .

After reading lots and lots of current press, I now wonder whether this drum beat originated at the White House (or with Dick Cheney) or whether those at the top of the Administration are merely the focal point of a well coordinated drumming campaign initiated by others.

If so, all I can say is, "well done!"

clark · 2003-12-08 11:55:29

Well, the main stream news has bit the hook now... all weekend long the major news outlets have covered the possibility of Bush making some announcement related to a return to space beyond LEO.

Cindy posted a link to FT, which just rehashes what a lot of the media are saying, but as she pointed out, the last line says it all:

http://news.ft.com/servlet....1727162

Sceptics say politicians, enthusiastic now, may lose interest in a lunar mission when presented with the price tag. President Bush's father in 1989 made a speech calling for a manned trip to the moon as part of a push to Mars, but the plan was later dropped. Some politicians have called for placing the cost under the auspices of the defence budget.

Currently, the US defense budget for space gets about 20 billion (envisoned to have 28 billion by 2008); NASA gets 15 billion now...

We also shouldn't forget the recent achievments of India...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zzt.html

India Conducts Endurance Test Of New Cryogenic Engine

Bangalore - Dec 08, 2003

An endurance test for duration of more than 16 minutes on the indigenous Cryogenic Engine for Geo-synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle, GSLV, was successfully conducted today (December 5, 2003) at ISRO's Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre

The cryogenic rocket engine gives India the capability to send things to the moon, and there have been declarations from Indian officals and leaders to do just that.

India is also now part of the Galielio GPS system, along with China, Europe, and Russia.

clark · 2003-12-18 12:46:39

Here is something of an Opionion piece, but it has some rather good points. If anyone is looking for a perspective that might explain some of the stuff I have been posting here, this goes a long ways towards putting it into context:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/69/1

by Taylor Dinerman
Monday, December 8, 2003

How important is the Moon?

The last week has seen renewed speculation over whether or not the President will announce a new space policy, one that will take America back to the Moon to stay. The debate over why we should or should not go naturally will intensify.
Of course there are lots of good, basic reasons why we should build a sustainable moonbase. They have been laid out over the years by the space advocacy community. The scientific and technological knowledge to be gained by building such a base is huge. The moon is an ideal point from which to launch missions to Mars and beyond. Mineral and energy resources, for example, helium-3, are there to be exploited.
What is not often said is that the moon is a critical, so called ?Gibraltar point?, in the Earth-Moon system. It was the late G. Harry Stine who first used this analogy, noting that in the heyday of the British Empire Gibraltar was the critical base that allowed the Royal Navy to dominate the western Mediterranean and critical parts of the eastern Atlantic. The shape of the prevailing winds as well as the geography of the straits gave Britain the ability to ?swing? their fleets from the Med to the Caribbean and back again without the need to return to their bases in Britain for replenishment and refitting. Nelson?s victory at Trafalgar would not have been possible without their base on the ?Rock.?
The Moon will be a comparable asset for roughly similar reasons. It?s gravity rather than the winds that determine the military ?geography? of space. The Moon dominates the Earth?s gravity well in the same way that a mountain dominates a valley. A military force based on the Moon would find it easy to return there for replenishment and refitting. The Moon?s resources could be used to build any number of weapon types from simple kinetic energy ?Rods From God? to more sophisticated anti-satellite and directed energy systems. Bases built deep beneath the lunar regolith would be hard targets indeed. The Moon is a natural fortress and this fact must be taken into account by any world leader who is thinking about military strategy in the next century and beyond.
What is not often said is that the moon is a critical, so called ?Gibraltar point?, in the Earth-Moon system.
The Outer Space Treaty, of course, prohibits any signatory from building such a base and there is no sign that it will be abolished any time in the foreseeable future. Treaties and international agreements are inherently fragile things. History shows they only exist as long as powerful nations are willing to follow them. Idealists who believe that these kinds of agreements can substitute for military and economic power are not only often disappointed, but can sometimes take those who follow them down with them.
In his 1999 book, ?The Avoidable War,? J Kenneth Brody shows how the British peace movement helped paralyze British power at a critical moment when Hitler could have been stopped as he reoccupied the Rhineland, overturned Europe?s security structure, and set in motion the logic that would lead toward World War Two. In spite of a lot of overheated rhetoric, no one comparable to Hitler is leading any of today?s world powers. That, however is no reason not to imagine that in the future the world will not be a far nastier place that it is now.
This brings us to back to the Moon and to its relationship with American spacepower. American spacepower, like British 19th century seapower, has military, commercial, scientific, and ?colonial? aspects. Building a base or a colony on the Moon will enhance America?s non-military spacepower. For this reason alone it would be a good thing to do from a national security standpoint. Even more important, it will provide America with a foothold that, if needed, can be transformed into a real military base in an emergency.
Building a new home for humanity on the Moon is in the national interest in the same way that building the Panama Canal or carrying out the Marshall Plan was.
The Chinese are thinking about such a base and no doubt believe that they will find it militarily useful to have such a base. It would be a mistake to try and build a single international moonbase, similar to the ISS. Instead a number of moonbases that will probably be built that will provide for a level of mutual support and will, under normal circumstances, be open to visitors. However benign the stated reasons for building these bases, though, they are major national assets.
This Administration has often tried (with mixed success) to integrate its efforts so that its actions in one area, say energy, support its efforts in another, say Middle East policy. There is nothing new or particularly original about this, but they do seem to push this concept more intensively than their predecessors did. A drive to build a sustainable lunar base would support their plans to secure American supremacy in the Earth/ Moon system, to keep America at the forefront of science and technology, to inspire and educate a new generation of highly trained scientists and engineers, to diversify America?s sources of energy and minerals and to show the world that this nation still has the pioneering spirit. As Ronald Reagan said that Americans ?have every right to dream great dreams.? Building a new home for humanity on the Moon is such a great dream. It is in the national interest in the same way that building the Panama Canal or carrying out the Marshall Plan was. In the most profound way, such a project would be in America?s enlightened self-interest.

clark · 2004-01-10 11:30:09

Posted: Mar. 12 2003, 09:51

I think we will be back on the moon, with a base, by 2015-2020.
So, am I off my rocker or what?

I may be off my rocker, but I'm right.

clark · 2004-01-12 10:28:35

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04b.html

Announcing the Falcon V Launch Vehicle From SpaceX
El Segundo - Jan 12, 2004

ROCKET SCIENCE
Announcing the Falcon V Launch Vehicle From SpaceX

El Segundo - Jan 12, 2004
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation has announced the details of a substantial upgrade to its Falcon rocket family under development and scheduled for completion in 2005.
Drawing from experience with the single engine Falcon I, unveiled in Washington DC last month and due to launch in mid 2004, SpaceX is developing a five engine version that will be the first American rocket with true engine out reliability in three decades.
Depending upon the phase of flight, Falcon V will be capable of losing any three of the five engines and still complete its mission. Historically, engine related problems are the overwhelming cause of launch vehicle failures.
Not since the Apollo program's Saturn V, developed over three decades ago, will there be this level of reliability available in the United States. Extremely rare among rockets, Saturn V had a flawless flight record, despite having an engine fail on two separate missions. Without engine out safety, the Apollo Moon program would have had two flight failures, possibly with tragic consequences.

The Falcon V also significantly increases the capability of the Falcon family, with a capacity of over 9,200 pounds to low orbit and up to a 13.1 foot (4 meter) diameter payload fairing. The vehicle is also capable of launching missions to geostationary orbit and the inner solar system, as well as carrying supplies to the International Space Station with the addition of a lightweight automated transfer vehicle.
With firm contract pricing set at $12 million per flight (2003 dollars) plus range costs, the approximately $1300 cost per pound to orbit will represent a new world record in the normally available cost of access to space for a production rocket (excluding only limited use, refurbished military hardware from the former Soviet Union).

$1300 per pound to orbit? Can deliver to GEO, LEO, ISS, and what may be infered as the Moon (inner solar system)? Ready in 2005? Saftey specs like the old Saturn?

If Elon Musk can do this, then others can do this. Others will do this.

Rxke · 2004-01-12 11:05:22

Surely hope Elon Musk pulls this off... They haven't launche their original Falcon yet, though...

But they seem to be based on solid engineering, the Falcon is not a McGyver-A-Team contraption, it's well funded, no corners have been cut.

Bill White · 2004-01-12 12:09:08

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04b.html
Announcing the Falcon V Launch Vehicle From SpaceX
El Segundo - Jan 12, 2004
ROCKET SCIENCE
Announcing the Falcon V Launch Vehicle From SpaceX

El Segundo - Jan 12, 2004
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation has announced the details of a substantial upgrade to its Falcon rocket family under development and scheduled for completion in 2005.
Drawing from experience with the single engine Falcon I, unveiled in Washington DC last month and due to launch in mid 2004, SpaceX is developing a five engine version that will be the first American rocket with true engine out reliability in three decades.
Depending upon the phase of flight, Falcon V will be capable of losing any three of the five engines and still complete its mission. Historically, engine related problems are the overwhelming cause of launch vehicle failures.
Not since the Apollo program's Saturn V, developed over three decades ago, will there be this level of reliability available in the United States. Extremely rare among rockets, Saturn V had a flawless flight record, despite having an engine fail on two separate missions. Without engine out safety, the Apollo Moon program would have had two flight failures, possibly with tragic consequences.

The Falcon V also significantly increases the capability of the Falcon family, with a capacity of over 9,200 pounds to low orbit and up to a 13.1 foot (4 meter) diameter payload fairing. The vehicle is also capable of launching missions to geostationary orbit and the inner solar system, as well as carrying supplies to the International Space Station with the addition of a lightweight automated transfer vehicle.
With firm contract pricing set at $12 million per flight (2003 dollars) plus range costs, the approximately $1300 cost per pound to orbit will represent a new world record in the normally available cost of access to space for a production rocket (excluding only limited use, refurbished military hardware from the former Soviet Union).
$1300 per pound to orbit? Can deliver to GEO, LEO, ISS, and what may be infered as the Moon (inner solar system)? Ready in 2005? Saftey specs like the old Saturn?
If Elon Musk can do this, then others can do this. Others will do this.

Also look at this:

Another comparable vehicle to the Falcon 5 is the Dnepr, a converted Russian SS-18 ICBM. The Dnepr can place up to 3,700 kg into LEO for a price comparable to the Falcon 5: an estimated $10-15 million. The Dnepr, however, has seen little activity, with only three launches since its introduction in 1999 (a fourth is currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2004.)
This raises the question of what market, if any, exists for the Falcon 5. The vehicle may offer the best of both worlds for US customers, providing low-cost launches without the export control hassles of launching from Russia. However, there?s been little non-US interest in the Dnepr?s cheap launches, and NASA, the primary customer for this class of payload in the US, is committed to the Delta 2 for at least the next several years. SpaceX did drop a hint of one market it was considering: the company noted that the Falcon 5 will be capable of ?carrying supplies to the International Space Station with the addition of a lightweight automated transfer vehicle.?

Space Review has another article about Falcon V. One key issue is demand. Another is whether the Russians might willfully sell some of their 150 surplus SS-18 Dneprs at a loss (say $10 million to undercut Musk's $12 million) to capture the non-US market share.

Dnepr currently flies to a higher inclination which is more expensive. In terms of capacity Falcon V and Dnper are very close in payload and cost.

The problem with the launch industy is over capacity. Massive over capacity.

A moonbase, sooner rather than later, and the permanent settlement of Mars would create demand for launches, right?

clark · 2004-01-12 12:13:19

Right.

The problem with the Russian rockets though is that NASA is limited by US law from paying Russia any money for them. Russia is in violation of some law becuase of their support of the Iranian nuclear industry.

Elon will have a head start becuase he has less red tape to get through (being an american company), and plus, he is working hand in hand with the Airforce on the current Falcon rocket.

I believe the automated transfer vehicle is part of the NASA alternate access program for the ISS. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2003-12-01 13:46:27

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#277 2003-12-01 15:35:02

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#278 2003-12-01 15:50:32

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#279 2003-12-02 09:40:35

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#280 2003-12-04 09:16:52

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#281 2003-12-04 11:21:16

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#282 2003-12-04 11:55:52

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#283 2003-12-04 12:42:26

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#284 2003-12-04 12:45:38

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#285 2003-12-04 12:57:12

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#286 2003-12-04 12:59:32

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#287 2003-12-04 14:05:03

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#288 2003-12-04 14:40:28

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#289 2003-12-04 14:57:04

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#290 2003-12-04 15:45:54

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#291 2003-12-04 15:50:18

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#292 2003-12-05 09:02:31

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#293 2003-12-05 09:20:39

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#294 2003-12-08 11:55:29

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#295 2003-12-18 12:46:39

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#296 2004-01-10 11:30:09

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#297 2004-01-12 10:28:35

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#298 2004-01-12 11:05:22

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#299 2004-01-12 12:09:08

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

#300 2004-01-12 12:13:19

Re: American Moon Base prediction... - tell me what you think

Board footer