[FPSPACE] correction/update

David Portree dsfportree at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 6 16:14:18 EDT 2017


Marc:


The truth is, I don't "dislike" SpaceX, I think they are unnecessary and overblown. I don't think they can reach the "cadence" they themselves have said they need to reach in order to be economical. I resent US tax dollars being spent to enable Elon Musk to play rocketeer, just as I resent any misuse of US tax dollars.


I see people becoming excited about launches just because they are "commercial," and I am at a loss as to why they are excited. Some folks start chanting about building a new civilization in space when SpaceX launches a rocket. I don't see the connection because there isn't one, unless you point to the future and use what hasn't happened yet as proof of amazing accomplishments.


dsfp


David S. F. Portree

Email:

dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>

Blog:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: FPSPACE <fpspace-bounces at mail.friends-partners.org> on behalf of Marc Boucher <marc.boucher at spaceref.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 7:47 AM
To: FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] correction/update

I have not investigated the cause of solution to the two delays. I could if so inclined, and will eventual get updated on that topic, but no, other than a computer being tripped for a limit violation, I don't know the specific cause or the applied solution, presumably a software change.

My point with respect to the launch numbers is that last year there were 22 total orbital launches by U.S. companies last year. These providers are on pace to eclipse that by almost doubling the number of launches of the previous year. Of those SpaceX alone may come up one short of matching the total output of all U.S. launches last year.

This year there have been 41 successful orbital launches globally. Of those, 1 in four, or 25% are attributed to SpaceX alone.

I know you dislike SpaceX. However, an objective look at their performance shows a company increasing its cadence. Their customers believe in them even if some grumble about delays. Delays are inherent in the launch business and SpaceX is trying to increase cadence and lower the incidence of delays due to mechanical or software related issues. As a business, it's in their best interest to do so.

As for range conflict, which you said "They're just lucky that one of those other launches you mention wasn't scheduled for yesterday - they'd have been delayed still further.", that was not an issue as the only other company launching from the Cape is ULA, and they are not scheduled to launch their 5th launch of the year until August.

Range issue though is one reason why SpaceX is building a new launch complex in Texas near Brownsville.


Marc Boucher, Co-founder & CEO
NOTE: You can use Signal or WhatsApp for secure encrypted communication with me.
office: 1.519.685.6586  mobile: 1.647.985.9203
Twitter / Linkedin / Skype @MarcKBoucher
[http://images.spaceref.com/logos/email_sig_logo_300_100.png]<http://spaceref.com>

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:09 AM, David Portree <dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Marc:


Dammit - I didn't even press "send". I'll repeat my question.


Do you know what caused the two delays and how SpaceX fixed the problem(s)?


Arguing that we're cooking right along because of launches to come isn't very convincing. Probably should look at plans for the last year and compare them with what actually flew, including delays, accidents, etc.


David S. F. Portree

Email:

dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>

Blog:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: FPSPACE <fpspace-bounces at mail.friends-partners.org<mailto:fpspace-bounces at mail.friends-partners.org>> on behalf of Marc Boucher <marc.boucher at spaceref.com<mailto:marc.boucher at spaceref.com>>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 6:49 AM
To: FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org<mailto:FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org>
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] correction/update

"Partial success"?? Delays are par for the course for anyone launching payloads to space. This mission was a complete success as the customer had their payload launched into the correct orbit which is what they contracted for. Last year there were 22 U.S. orbital launches. Should SpaceX, ULA and Orbital complete their scheduled manifest for the rest of the year, a total of 37 launches will have been completed. Of that, 21 would be for SpaceX.

Marc Boucher
SpaceRef


On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:53 AM, David Portree <dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Peter:


For the sake of argument (and because I am a curmudgeon), I'm going to call this a partial success because of the delays. As long as the business model demands 40 or so launches a year, delays are set-backs.


Did they ever explain what went wrong the first two times and what they did to solve the problem? Was it a software fix (reset the values so the problem goes away) or something else?


dsfp


David S. F. Portree

Email:

dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>

Blog:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: FPSPACE <fpspace-bounces at mail.friends-partners.org<mailto:fpspace-bounces at mail.friends-partners.org>> on behalf of Peter Pesavento <pjp961 at svol.net<mailto:pjp961 at svol.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 6:10 PM
To: FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org<mailto:FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org>
Subject: [FPSPACE] correction/update


It is Intelsat 35e, not 45e.  And the second stage burn was good, and the spacecraft is set for deployment.

_______________________________________________
FPSPACE mailing list
FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org<mailto:FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org>
http://lists.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20170706/c30160ac/attachment.html>


More information about the FPSPACE mailing list