10 ms·

I don't see how this has anything at all to do with the mission profile for any current or projected SpaceX endeavors. SpaceX is building launch and deployment

I don't see how this has anything at all to do with the mission profile for any current or projected SpaceX endeavors. SpaceX is building launch and deployment vehicles. While I have no doubt that this plane could deploy satellites, it doesn't take 500 days to do that. There are clearly other goals.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I am sure there are many direct project goals - but one overriding meta-goal is to not stand there looking dumb whilst Elon eats your lunch in the minds of the politicians at least.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I am really not understanding the downvotes. Elon and SpaceX represent (though are not the whole extent of) a direct threat to the funding of and reputation of a whole slew of US government / closely-tied to US govt companies. If Elon can demonstrate relaunch capabilities for a fraction of the normal cost, then the big question from Congress will be "So why are we paying you guys so much". This is irrespective of whether its reusable space launches, or smaller "mission focused" space vehicles. Any project that is capable of providing an answer to that question is worth tens of billions in continued funding - so the X-37B could be empty and it would still be a worthwhile investment (it isn't empty, of course, but it's value is budgetary defence, not national defence). All of which to my cyncial mind is far more realistic than a secret project to put nukes in orbit.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    You're being downvoted because you're bringing irrelevant fanboyism into the thread. If you think a project aimed at (in relation to the current space industries) mass-produced cost-effective commercial launch vehicles is a threat to small-production-run projects aimed at defense missions, I think you have some horizon-broadening to do. SpaceX is, for the most part, just taking well-trod ground and trying to make it more efficient. Classified defense stuff, on the other hand, tends to break a lot of new ground and do exotic things the civilian market hasn't even considered enough to debate whether they're possible. It'd be kind of like someone working on a cheaper, more efficient jet airliner, and you coming in and saying "see, this is a threat to stuff like the SR-71 because it's so much cheaper than all the bloated contractors!"
    - josefresco 12y ago
      While I agree on some level (there's probably another level of secret launches we don't hear about), Space X is going after those military contracts too, and even with additional security measures still projects significant cost savings. Also military launches are quite regular and not all are unique "small-production-run" top secret jobs that require custom vehicles/equipment.
      - ubernostrum 12y ago
        Not all of them are, sure. But year+ long reusable spaceplane flights are not exactly run-of-the-mill flights, which strongly suggests that these aren't the sort of thing a more mass-market-oriented vehicle would even be competing for.
        josefresco 12y ago
        Agreed, my point was that there are also run-of-the-mill military flights/launches which SpaceX is also interested.
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      Well, thank you for the reply. No, I am not a fanboy, and yes I shall broaden my horizons. Where do you recommend one get a intro to the "state-of-the-art" for space capabilities? What are the current parameters? I had presumed there was one simple limiting factor - the rocket pushing you to orbit. Everything else seems like noise in that O(n) calculation. If there are envelopes being pushed, what impact do they have outside of that? And, thanks for answering.
      - ubernostrum 12y ago
        Go look at articles about how the Shuttle had to be changed to suit defense mission parameters -- defense missions seem like they do a lot of things that aren't just "put XXXkg of payload in orbit YYYkm up", and a vehicle designed to pop off an assembly line and just do that probably won't fit the mission. Also, I'd argue that yes, the people who feel a need to inject Elon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. into even the most tangentially-related threads are indeed fanboys, and are doing it out of fanboyism.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

I am sure there are many direct project goals - but one overriding meta-goal is to not stand there looking dumb whilst Elon eats your lunch in the minds of the politicians at least.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I am really not understanding the downvotes. Elon and SpaceX represent (though are not the whole extent of) a direct threat to the funding of and reputation of a whole slew of US government / closely-tied to US govt companies. If Elon can demonstrate relaunch capabilities for a fraction of the normal cost, then the big question from Congress will be "So why are we paying you guys so much". This is irrespective of whether its reusable space launches, or smaller "mission focused" space vehicles. Any project that is capable of providing an answer to that question is worth tens of billions in continued funding - so the X-37B could be empty and it would still be a worthwhile investment (it isn't empty, of course, but it's value is budgetary defence, not national defence). All of which to my cyncial mind is far more realistic than a secret project to put nukes in orbit.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  You're being downvoted because you're bringing irrelevant fanboyism into the thread. If you think a project aimed at (in relation to the current space industries) mass-produced cost-effective commercial launch vehicles is a threat to small-production-run projects aimed at defense missions, I think you have some horizon-broadening to do. SpaceX is, for the most part, just taking well-trod ground and trying to make it more efficient. Classified defense stuff, on the other hand, tends to break a lot of new ground and do exotic things the civilian market hasn't even considered enough to debate whether they're possible. It'd be kind of like someone working on a cheaper, more efficient jet airliner, and you coming in and saying "see, this is a threat to stuff like the SR-71 because it's so much cheaper than all the bloated contractors!"
  - josefresco 12y ago
    While I agree on some level (there's probably another level of secret launches we don't hear about), Space X is going after those military contracts too, and even with additional security measures still projects significant cost savings. Also military launches are quite regular and not all are unique "small-production-run" top secret jobs that require custom vehicles/equipment.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      Not all of them are, sure. But year+ long reusable spaceplane flights are not exactly run-of-the-mill flights, which strongly suggests that these aren't the sort of thing a more mass-market-oriented vehicle would even be competing for.
      - josefresco 12y ago
        Agreed, my point was that there are also run-of-the-mill military flights/launches which SpaceX is also interested.
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    Well, thank you for the reply. No, I am not a fanboy, and yes I shall broaden my horizons. Where do you recommend one get a intro to the "state-of-the-art" for space capabilities? What are the current parameters? I had presumed there was one simple limiting factor - the rocket pushing you to orbit. Everything else seems like noise in that O(n) calculation. If there are envelopes being pushed, what impact do they have outside of that? And, thanks for answering.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      Go look at articles about how the Shuttle had to be changed to suit defense mission parameters -- defense missions seem like they do a lot of things that aren't just "put XXXkg of payload in orbit YYYkm up", and a vehicle designed to pop off an assembly line and just do that probably won't fit the mission. Also, I'd argue that yes, the people who feel a need to inject Elon/SpaceX/Tesla/etc. into even the most tangentially-related threads are indeed fanboys, and are doing it out of fanboyism.