USAF, SpaceX Close To Agreement On Launch Certification Plan

Jeff Findley

unread,

May 14, 2013, 11:07:23 AM5/14/13

to

USAF, SpaceX Close To Agreement On Launch Certification Plan
By Guy Norris, Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_05_13_2013
_p01-01-577898.xml

From above:

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and the U.S. Air Force
are "days away" from agreeing on the details of a certification
plan that would enable the private company to compete for
national security payload launch contracts with the Falcon 9
and Falcon Heavy.

Looks like hell might be starting to freeze.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Jochem Huhmann

unread,

May 14, 2013, 4:21:58 PM5/14/13

to

Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> writes:

> Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and the U.S. Air Force
> are "days away" from agreeing on the details of a certification
> plan that would enable the private company to compete for
> national security payload launch contracts with the Falcon 9
> and Falcon Heavy.
>
> Looks like hell might be starting to freeze.

Some other companies also will feel very cold suddenly.

Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Me

unread,

May 15, 2013, 4:01:14 PM5/15/13

to

Nonsense

Jeff Findley

unread,

May 16, 2013, 8:45:55 AM5/16/13

to

In article <8c4207fb-e752-44a2-802c-1c8d8de1dcd6
@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, charlie...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Nonsense

Since you left no context, it's hard to tell exactly to what you're
replying. Care to elaborate?

Jochem Huhmann

unread,

May 16, 2013, 10:47:50 AM5/16/13

to

Me <charlie...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Nonsense

You may very well know more than I do. Care to share?

SpaceX is about to soak up much of the commercial launching business
(that they have launchers for anyway). Tapping into the USAF's
launching needs can't be something that others are looking forward to.
This was my line of thinking which certainly could be wrong.

Me

unread,

May 31, 2013, 4:51:13 AM5/31/13

to

Spacex has a long way to go before getting USAF business.
They already bit off more than they can chew now.
Likely won't see another launch this year

Jeff Findley

unread,

May 31, 2013, 8:59:14 AM5/31/13

to

In article <a3ee765e-f247-47a0-a471-600b9725d7c4
@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, charlie...@yahoo.com says...

>
> Spacex has a long way to go before getting USAF business.

Agreed.

> They already bit off more than they can chew now.

In what way have they "bit off more than they can chew now"? By what
metric are you claiming this?

> Likely won't see another launch this year

Rick Jones

unread,

May 31, 2013, 7:38:47 PM5/31/13

to

Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> Really? On their website, they still list the following missions for
> 2013:

> Customer | Vehicle Arrival at Launch Site | Vehicle | Launch Site

Note particularly that the dates are, as they put it, "Vehicle Arrival
at Launch Site" not "Expected Launch Date."

There has been one (IIRC) F9 launch from Canaveral thusfar in 2013.
If they were going to actually launch all those "2013" missions this
calendar year, that would be a rate of almost one launch a month from
Canaveral (handwaving math) and one every two from Vandenberg

Even sitting in the peanut gallery that strikes me as rather optimistic.

> And even if some of these slip, there are valid reasons for this,
> including their transition to the next generation of Falcon 9 (with the
> Merlin 1D engines, stretched tanks, and etc.), introduction of a new
> vehicle (Falcon Heavy), and etc. Even the "big boys" run into issues
> causing schedule slips.

I'm wondering how much of that "Arrives in 2013" hardware is actually
even at the launch site at this point.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Me

unread,

Jun 19, 2013, 1:04:14 PM6/19/13

to

On May 31, 8:59 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <a3ee765e-f247-47a0-a471-600b9725d7c4

> @t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, charliexmur...@yahoo.com says...

>
>
>
> > Spacex has a long way to go before getting USAF business.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > They already bit off more than they can chew now.
>
> In what way have they "bit off more than they can chew now"? By what
> metric are you claiming this?
>
> > Likely won't see another launch this year
>
> Really? On their website, they still list the following missions for
> 2013:

And what other marketing spin are you going to believe.
I can list many other sci fi websites too.