3 ms·

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 industri

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
    Well, there is a difference between fanboy and layperson - if you take 20 random people and ask them to name people who build (not fly) space ships I would be impressed if you get more than VonBraun and Musk. Maybe Branson :-). It is oddly an industry without many big names. This is in no way diminishing the big achievements. Anyway - my first few googles lead me to the livingmoon where a seemingly well sourced article on shuttle military missions is on the same site as proof Santa Claus exists. So from wikipedia / NASA.gov there are some reliable figures but we stand at 11 classified missions, 25 public and this seems to be still the most useful overview http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318554/ http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318... In short the NRO / DOD made the shuttle design cope with larger payloads, different orbits, but still the same essential missions - put spy satellites up, preferably in a way thay cannot easily be tracked. My issue is that it does still seem to be launching satellites - in unusual orbits, yes, in secret and possibly in some other clever way - but the shuttle is just a clever satellite delivery system - it does not seem to be being used itself as a defence system. That might not be the point I grant you, but do please point me in the right directions.

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
  Well, there is a difference between fanboy and layperson - if you take 20 random people and ask them to name people who build (not fly) space ships I would be impressed if you get more than VonBraun and Musk. Maybe Branson :-). It is oddly an industry without many big names. This is in no way diminishing the big achievements. Anyway - my first few googles lead me to the livingmoon where a seemingly well sourced article on shuttle military missions is on the same site as proof Santa Claus exists. So from wikipedia / NASA.gov there are some reliable figures but we stand at 11 classified missions, 25 public and this seems to be still the most useful overview http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318554/ http://www.airspacemag.com/space/secret-space-shuttles-35318... In short the NRO / DOD made the shuttle design cope with larger payloads, different orbits, but still the same essential missions - put spy satellites up, preferably in a way thay cannot easily be tracked. My issue is that it does still seem to be launching satellites - in unusual orbits, yes, in secret and possibly in some other clever way - but the shuttle is just a clever satellite delivery system - it does not seem to be being used itself as a defence system. That might not be the point I grant you, but do please point me in the right directions.