

Elon Musk  (Source:
Lockheed said SpaceX is inexperienced and is cutting corners by cutting costs
















Source: The Washington Post

Comments     Threshold


By Khenglish on 12/27/2012 2:32:15 AM , Rating: 1
So Lockheed seems to think that SpaceX needs to waste much more money to be successful:$163M-to-keep-orion-going.html (I cannot make link work on click unfortunately)

First test launch won't be until 2014, and 4B has been spent so far with over 2B left to go. After the 6B+ on development, NASA will then have to pay more to even use Orion. My favorite is that Lockheed would have cancelled the program if they weren't handed an extra 163M due to their amazing ability to throw money away. It's called a fucking contract.

SpaceX did a crewless launch of their version of Orion back in May:

Their contract was for 1.6B, which includes the actual use of the Dragon. They stayed within budget and got the job done. Lookheed-Martin's problem isn't that they think SpaceX is spending too little to succeed, their problem is that SpaceX does such a good job that there is no reason for NASA to contract anyone else.

RE: costs
By Gurthang on 12/27/2012 9:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair the dragon capsule they have been sending up to the ISS is just a robot cargo container with the ability to dock to the ISS.

Orion is ment to be used for far more than that and is from the start designed as a "man rated" vehicle to be potentially used outside earth's orbit so is always going to be more expensive. You know that whole redundant life support, crew controls, and higher spec saftey and recovery systems don't come free.

Mind you the fancy ultra-lightweight alloys they are building Orion from don't seem to be doing as well as hoped which is kind of sad. So who knows the whole thing could turn out a bust.

RE: costs
By trclark81 on 12/27/2012 10:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
The Dragon capsule has also been designed from the start as a man-rated capsule. Musk has stated repeatedly since 2002 that his intent was to develop a manned vehicle for Beyond Earth Orbit function and SpaceX has designed all of their rockets and capsules with precisely that in mind. The ISS cargo resupplies are and have always been a budgetary means to a crewed end. Without manned Dragon down the road, there would have been no cargo Dragon. Period.

RE: costs
By Gurthang on 12/27/2012 11:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
I would instead argue that the cargo dragon is a simplier product designed to test necessary systems that will be eventually used in the manned module in LEO and later farther and farther out as the launch vehicles get better and more powerfull. But that it at this point is not an Orion capsule or even a Soyouz so costs of them and the rockets used to launch them (planned or otherwise) are not comparible.

I have no doubt SpaceX plans to keep going further and have designs in the works to do so but until they are actually building functional (not engineering mock-ups) and doing real testing with their man rated designs the costs and ability to get there is still a big ?.

As to the necessity of a manned dragon for there to be a cargo version... BS.. SpaceX for all of its founder's Sci/Fi spaceflight dreams is first and formost a profit driven company. What had to come before any dragon capsule made it past the powerpoint stage was a way to make money. If there was not already some real or precieved need from NASA there is no way SpaceX would have gone this far with the Dragon system. Musk has money to burn but rockets burn money very very fast.

In the end I am excited for them and wish them nothing but luck.

RE: costs

RE: costs


RE: costs


RE: costs
By Guspaz on 12/27/2012 12:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
Dragon was designed from the ground-up as a manned spacecraft, to the point that its heat shield is designed to survive re-entry velocities from lunar or martian return trajectories. The cargo flights are definitely "pay the bills" missions, but they're also effective unmanned tests of a manned spacecraft; they give SpaceX a ton of data and test a lot of systems that will be used on the manned variant. In the mean time, they've done extensive testing on a 30 man-day life support system, and are expected to test an abort system (based on upgraded RCS thrusters rather than a separate system) before the end of 2013.

One important difference between Dragon and Orion is that Dragon has actually been to orbit and back three times, while Orion isn't even going to go to orbit until 2014. Dragon is expected to have its first manned mission by mid 2015, while Orion isn't planning any crewed missions before 2019. The point is that Orion doesn't actually exist yet, while Dragon has multiple unmanned tests under its belt. It's also currently the only spacecraft capable of returning significant amounts of cargo from orbit safely, since Soyuz doesn't have any real cargo capacity beyond the passengers.

They're not really intended for the same sort of thing anyhow. Dragon is designed for deep-space flight, but in practice it's going to be used primarily for getting to and from LEO, such as servicing the ISS (it's expected to cost about a third as much per seat as a Soyuz). Orion is meant strictly for deep-space missions, and would be insane overkill for delivering crew to LEO. Barring any success from CCiCap (where NASA is funding Sierra Nevada, SpaceX, and Boeing to develop manned capabilities), NASA intends to continue using Soyuz to deliver crew to the ISS, regardless of Orion's status.

RE: costs
By Gurthang on 12/28/2012 9:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
I agree Dragon is cool and has lots of great ideas and potential, it'll be interesting to see how the various systems do as they are tested and refined. I am always a little worried for these and other up and comming companies that space flight is rather unforgiving and that it took NASA a lot of painfull experiece to learn how to do it, I'd hate to see this new rush of optimism and growth in the industry crushed by some small mistake/oversight. But for now it is nice to see what can be done when a company/group has a clear goal, vision, and the money to execute it. It is even more refressing to see a solid business plan.

As to Orion, we'll see I don't get the hate for it by so many here. But whatever I just hope we get to use it for something inspiring I'd love to take my son to see the launch.

Now if someone could make a next gen spacesuit that uses mechanical/elastic force to maintain pressure rather than the fancy air bags we make now... but anyway I digress.

RE: costs
By trclark81 on 12/28/2012 12:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think the Orion situation is not so much a hate thing as a reaction to some of the critical comments about Dragon and other commercial companies. Quite often the criticisms leveled against the private ventures are equally or even more so applicable to Orion (running behind, more expensive, hasn't flown yet, etc).

It doesn't make it a bad spacecraft. Heck, in my opinion it was the one and only thing that should have survived the expiration of Constellation. I was thrilled when everything else was circular filed and Orion was kept.

The SLS issue is the same, though slightly lesser magnitude, as Ares. It's bigger than it needs to be for its intended mission (see Augustine, et al), it costs more than it should, and it will take forever and a day to build. That's not Orion's fault. If Orion had a functional launcher it could fly in relatively short order.

That said, I want SLS to succeed because I do see a benefit to an wholly-owned NASA rocket with eyes firmly toward BEO. But I think it could have been done in a better fashion than the 'everything for everyone' approach it was built under that caused so many problems with STS. In short I fully believe SLS is the rocket congress wants, not necessarily the one NASA wants for the job.

But, back to the point, Orion hasn't flown yet and won't before manned Dragon. And it is being built by Lockheed which has built exactly as many manned space vehicles as SpaceX (read 0). It is more expensive and it is over initial time estimates. And so naturally when someone starts on a litany of all the risks and problems with Falcon/Dragon, the first reaction of those who support it is to point out the exact same flaws in SLS/Orion. But I think they should both be built. I just think the debate needs to fairly note the benefits and flaws of both systems instead of pointing out one system's flaws in a vacuum.

RE: costs
By Visual on 12/29/2012 5:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
The link you didn't know how to escape properly:
($ should have been %24)

