On Fourth Launch Attempt, SpaceX Falcon 1 Reaches Orbit 518
xp65 writes with the just-announced success of Elon Musk's SpaceX's long efforts to reach orbit with a privately-developed launching craft: "T+0:08:21 Falcon 1 reached orbital velocity, 5200 m/s Nominal Second stage cut off (SECO) — Falcon 1 has made history as the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit!"
dbullard adds "This was a completely new vehicle — it's not using any previously developed hardware. All developed from scratch. No government supplied hardware, Russian engines, or old ICBM motors. My hat's off to the employees of Space X — all 550 of them. (Note — no 'cast of thousands,' just 550).
They've got video of the entire launch."
A toast (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only men, I hope (Score:4, Funny)
May SpaceX be there to participate as man finally reaches for the stars.
Let's bring some women too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are problems with women in space. The catheters they use for space suits are still pretty awkward, and menstruation is apparently very awkward. But heck yes, bring women. They're lighter and take less oxygen/kilo and fewer calories/workload.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but women are better psychologically suited to endurance missions: we're biased toward consensus, flexibility and efficient group dynamics, where men are biased toward rigid hierarchies and a "winner-take-all" mentality at the expense of the group. There were even a set of studies done by the US Navy (can't remember the citation off the top of my head) that recommended that all SSBNs be crewed by female sailors for just that reason - given the tours assigned to ballistic missile submarines,
Re:Not only men, I hope (Score:5, Interesting)
we're biased toward consensus, flexibility and efficient group dynamics
A couple of quotes by women, about women:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=36260&in_page_id=34
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
e are problems with women in space. The catheters they use for space suits are still pretty awkward, and menstruation is apparently very awkward. But heck yes, bring women. They're lighter and take less oxygen/kilo and fewer calories/workload.
No, you just have to convince them that a bigger space station will have better schools for the kids, then the wives will insist the husbands mortgage themselves up to their eyeballs to build it. "Suzanne researched this!"
Re:Even better - space midgets (Score:5, Interesting)
That's vaguely funny, but completely wrong. The fat being transformed back to energy is quite inefficient: it's far more effective to send up the fat as food, and not pay the water and oxygen and space costs of storing it as live fat in the body, especially because it will change the size of their space suits. Also, a lot of midgets have a lot of other medical issues, and limited body strength. Sending up all that spare organ space just to get a really short pair of arms up there seems pretty inefficient.
Now, people with their legs chopped off might be more effective. I bet there are quite a few military veterans right now who'd be happy for the ride, and have a lot of upper body strength to bring to their efforts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A toast (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost fifty-one years after Sputnik, the private sector catches up, sort of. Woo-hoo, Alpha Centauri here we come.
"Sort of" is right. The thing to remember is that if SpaceX can deliver the Falcon 9 with the price point they claim, then it will be a game changer. As I understand it, the price of launching things into space by a US company will drop by a factor of 3 or 4. That's new. The Russians and Chinese are in that territory. but they subsidize their rockets. Having the cheapest launcher on the market being mostly unsubsidized. That will be different indeed.
Re:A toast (Score:5, Informative)
The military didn't invent mechanically propelled vehicles at all. The first steam engine was used for pumping water out of private mines. Richard Trevithic was the inventor IIRC, and James Watt improved the efficiency. The first trains were built privately in order to win competitions. Diesel invented his engine privately, Daimler Benz were a private company. Steam ships were initially merchantmen, and when Brunel invented the screw propeller he had to put on a "tug of war" between a paddle steamer and a screw driven ship, just to convince the navy that it worked.
Car analogies are bad enough without posting "authoritatively" on such a basic subject that you clearly know nothing about.
Oh, re: your sig. Actually it indicates a deeper issue with the viewer, quite apart from the fact that any personal association with child porn is a crime (unless you are a child involved).
Re:A lame toast (Score:5, Insightful)
Grand parent sounded ridiculous with his 'toast' to man finally reaching to the stars...there was, you know, the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo programs, whatever the Soviets called their programs, dozens of probes, satellites, etc...all done decades ago.
I applaud what SpaceX is doing, but I cannot stand when people praise them like retarded donkeys while pretending they are space pioneers. They are pioneers of funding...the stuff they are doing has already been done several times. If you look at what they're doing IN CONTEXT it's still remarkable!
As far as the analogies that the parent is speaking of...let's just drop the BS...you can look right through the 'government does it first' and the 'private industry does it first' counter argument and see its just your standard liberal vs. conservative circular argument.
Sure the military and other gov't agencies have pioneered several technologies (the internet springs to mind...ARPANET anyone?), and private industry has had its successes as well.
We can, you know, have both...
Re:A toast (Score:5, Informative)
The first mechanically propelled vehicles were military ones, made by governments. Troop trains, steam ships, and so forth. There were very few of them and they were very expensive.
That's a nice theory, but that doesn't make it true. Look at the history of the development of the steamship, railroad, or car. Most of the early development was by people looking to make a buck or simply to tinker, and development was not payed for by the military (although financing often came from government officials, because being rich often meant having a government position). Of course, that's not to say that the military was never involved, but they often became involved at a later stage once the technology had proved itself to some extent. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat#Early_development [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport#Steam_power_introduced [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile#Eras_of_invention [wikipedia.org]
Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate! (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine he'd do pretty badly, since he can't even calculate the failure rate correctly.
I agree... 80% is a bit high... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He then Falcon-Punched the reporter into orbit for dramatic effect.
Congrats ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? So there can be advertising on the face of the moon?
Why do we 'need' tacky, crappy private space companies firing off rockets that fail 3/4 of the time?
Frickin awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Elon Musk is friggin' Hank Rearden man.
Now he is really gonna swim in the money. Tip my hat to all involved. :-)
Re:Frickin awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
ugh...
i know you meant that as a compliment, but i highly doubt someone like Musk would want to be compared with a protagonist form an Ayn Rand novel.
FYI, Musk invested much of his profits from PayPal in Tesla Motors. considering the altruistic goals (echoing the company's namesake) of the company to ultimately bring affordable electric vehicles to market, not to mention the various philanthropic projects funded by the Musk foundation, i really don't think it's appropriate to label him as the archetypal Randian objectivist.
he seems more like someone who's made his millions, and is now trying to use that wealth to better society rather than a staunch capitalist obsessed with acquiring money and power.
Re:Frickin awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The Space Review has an article on the motives of entrepreneurs:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1216/1 [thespacereview.com]
The author, Bob Clarebrough, suggests that the "economic rational" motives proclaimed by Adam Smith are really only surface effects of the greater motivation: passion and vision.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
correction, not ALL people. Some do, and it's great that they do.
Examples ?
Elon Musk gets an honorary mention today (not just for spacex)
Eckart Wintzen (dutch guy, sadly deceased)
Dean Kamen (not too sure about him though)
Nicolette Mak
Anousheh Ansari
I'm sure there are many many more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
sulfur-spewing
Sulfur doesn't cause mental retardation...
with toxic MTBE
Congress said, "Oxygenate your fuel", so the oil companies oxygenated their fuel. Now they're mad at the oil companies for obeying the law.
orbital photovoltaic
Orbital photovoltaics are one of the least practical ideas ever conceived. There's too much (man-made and natural) junk up there to ever make it workable. Not to mention the cost of boosting all that mass into orbit, and the atmospheric heating and resultant climate change.
fusio
Let's revisit his recent quote... (Score:3, Informative)
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had a few words for his critics last month: "Optimism, pessimism, f-ck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work."
I guess he showed them!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean "Him"?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you like cursing and insulting other people huh? Let's brush that silly ad hominem aside and look at the facts.
Many people have ALREADY put their money into F1 launches, check their launch manifest. And that was when, by your standards, they had a 100% failure rate. I expect SpaceX to receive more bids now.
The F9 and F9 Heavy uses the Merlin engine, but in multiple configurations for added thrust. Now, you would want to prove your concept in the smallest scale possible to minimize losses, so they d
YES!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been waiting for their success for the past 5 years or so, and I'm absolutely ecstatic.
They have a couple more Falcon 1 flights scheduled for this year, with their first Falcon 9 flight next year. The Falcon 9 is considerably larger, and is the vehicle SpaceX plans to use for delivering cargo and crew to the International Space Station.
I imagine that there's been a number of announcements waiting in the wings for SpaceX's first successful flight. Perhaps we'll be hearing soon about a more formal arrangement between SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace with their private space station plans?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services [wikipedia.org]
Are there any ACs on Slashdot who are not morons?
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that NASA is going to back out on COTS.. and basically just give SpaceX millions for doing nothing. Well I guess that's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And it would of course depend on Musk being able to make Falcon 9 work; far from certain.
What do you think are the show-stoppers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clustering 9 engines considering the shit they went through getting one to work. Its going to be some pretty fireworks.
Are there any particular failure modes you have in mind that they might be prone to? Do you believe they'll be unable to replicate the procedures which led to success on this past flight? Why not?
Re:multi-engine test stand firings (Score:5, Informative)
Also, in case other readers aren't sure what I'm referring to:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/spacex_9enginefire.html [nasa.gov]
August 1, 2008 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX ) conducted the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early.
At full power, the nine engines consumed 3,200 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second, and generated almost 850,000 pounds of force - four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft. This marks the first firing of a Falcon 9 first stage with its full complement of nine Merlin 1C engines . Once a near term Merlin 1C fuel pump upgrade is complete, the sea level thrust will increase to 950,000 lbf, making Falcon 9 the most powerful single core vehicle in the United States.
âoeThis was the most difficult milestone in development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and it also constitutes a significant achievement in US space vehicle development. Not since the final flight of the Saturn 1B rocket in 1975, has a rocket had the ability to lose any engine or motor and still successfully complete its mission,â said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. âoeMuch like a commercial airliner, our multi-engine design has the potential to provide significantly higher reliability than single engine competitors.â
âoeWe made a major advancement from the previous five engine test by adding four new Merlin engines at once,â said Tom Mueller, Vice President of Propulsion for SpaceX. âoeAll phases of integration went smoothly and we were elated to see all nine engines working perfectly in concert.â
Re:multi-engine test stand firings (Score:4, Funny)
Not since the final flight of the Saturn 1B rocket in 1975, has a rocket had the ability to lose any engine or motor and still successfully complete its mission,â said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX.
I hear what he's saying and I'm sure it can survive an engine quietly losing thrust, but I wouldn't quite bet on it with any of the more spectacular failure modes.
Re:Oi... what an idiot... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it was separation timing. They had it timed to be after the predicted end of thrust but the prediction and therefore the timing was wrong.
How did it get through? The extended thrust period was caused due to the difference in air pressure at the altitude at the end of burn and the sealevel (or nearly) that they did the original test burns at. With the lower air pressure more reaction mass was able to bleed through the system, end result longer thrust than predicted.
To lose 3 consecutive craft before getting the bugs out is regrettable but understandable.
Failures during development are expected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also curious, but at what point would you consider SpaceX deserving of congratulations? Their first successful Falcon 9 launch? Their first manned launch? Their first launch to a private space station? Their first circumlunar navigation? Their first lunar landing? Their first Mars landing?
Would you consider them deserving of kudos at that point, or would you still find something to gripe about them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, but between SpaceX and the Ares I, which do you think will be transporting crew to orbit first?
Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups (Score:5, Insightful)
ill bite: i think youre being a little unfair. considering that no other private space-flight company has ever achieved an orbit in space (as opposed to suborbit), this is a monumental achievement. the gemini programs had their fair share of failures too, yet i dont hear anything but admiration and pride in the people involved there.
i say well done, SpaceX! this is a moment in history - no longer is spaceflight limited to governmental agencies. usher in the era privately funded space access, and may that lead to mass produced spacecraft for private use!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one is waiting around for these clowns to get their act together finally. Given their pathetically incompetent history the fact that they finally managed to not fuck up once again is certainly due to pure dumb luck.
Dream on if you think anyone is going to let these nimrods anywhere near something as valuable as the International Space Station.
Both NASA and its Russian counterpart had several failures, some of which claimed lives. What makes you think these guys are any worse?
grats! (Score:2, Insightful)
Week of newsworth orbits (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say I'm even more impressed by this than by China's manned spaceflight.
This is something new and very interesting. It's relatively trivial for a nation of over a billion people and a strong centralized government to develop a space program. But a privately funded orbital rocket. That's a game changer.
Congratulations to China and especially congratulations to the groundbreaking team at SpaceX!
Re:Week of newsworth orbits (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially when they've purchased a large quantity of the required technology from Russia.
Re:Week of newsworth orbits (Score:5, Insightful)
While China's accomplishments are noteworthy, SpaceX together with Rutan's engineering at Virgin Galactic assure me that America will continue to be a leader in space.
Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO (Score:5, Informative)
A few days ago the Washington Post had a pretty interesting discussion/interview with Elon Musk, the CEO/CTO/founder/funder of SpaceX. Some juicy tidbits, which are even more exciting in the context of today's launch success:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/24/DI2008092402502.html [washingtonpost.com]
Washington, D.C.: If and when you manage to get all the Falcons and Dragon [wikipedia.org] up and running, what's next? Further incremental improvements on these or something more revolutionary? Also, where do you stand on the value of the various X-prizes (and equivalents)?
Elon Musk: Still a long way to getting *all* the Falcons and Dragons flying. We need to get F1 to orbit for one thing :) Then F9 [wikipedia.org], F9 with Cargo Dragon, F9 with crew Drago and F9 Heavy. My interest is very much in the direction of Mars, so a Mars lander of some kind might be the next step. ...
Stillwater, Minn.: Mr. Musk, first of all, I've been following SpaceX via your website since before Flight 1, and I hope to join you all someday (I'm an undergrad ChEg at Notre Dame). Talk about the inherent advantages of your rockets over those designed by Lockheed Martin and Boeing (reusability, smaller size = significantly smaller cost, redundancies on the Falcon 9, etc.)
Elon Musk: The full answer for why SpaceX is lower cost is too long for this forum and I don't like to give soundbite answers if they are incorrect. The cost of a single use rocket is:
* Engines
* Structures
* Avionics
* Launch operation
* Overhead
We are better on every one at SpaceX vs competitors -- by a factor of two vs most international and four vs domestic. That is before reuse is considered, which could ultimately be a 10X or more additional reduction. ...
Cocoa Beach, Fla.: Congress mistakenly took the first step towards extending the shuttle program. Anyone in the know is aware that this is impossible given the cost of re-certification. Why then is this being supported at any level. Why isn't Congress saying anything about privatizing our space effort?
Marc Kaufman: Congress has put up some money for privatizing the space effort, and SpaceX has indeed been the main beneficiary. I think that Congress and NASA are waiting for a successful launch before going more deeply into expanding the privatizing.
Those initial steps taken by Congress regarding extending the shuttle program are a reflection of just how strongly people feel about the five-year gap, during which there are no current clear alternatives to paying Russia for Soyuz transport. Extending the shuttle could close some of that gap, and could also allow some very expensive and promising equipment--now absent from the rest of the shuttle manifests- to be delivered to the station. One grounded, $1.5 billion piece of equipment in particular has become very controversial because scores of institutioins and national space agencies helped pay for it. ....
Urbana, Ill.: Right now you have two rockets based on the same first-stage engine (Merlin). To launch Falcon 9 Heavy, you'll need 27 of those engines to fire simultaneously. Do you have any plans to develop a larger engine in the future so that such clustering is not necessary?
Elon Musk: Yeah, I think there is an argument for a really really big Falcon engine or BFE, as we call it :)
That would be equal or greater to the thrust of 27 Merlin 1C engines. Would be exciting to see that fire! ...
Calistoga, Calif.: Elon, Your business plan emphasis low man power as cost savings method, how does NASA documentation requirements impact your man power requirements? In other words, how many of SpaceX staff are on board solely to deal with NASA
Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
Elon Musk: Depends on how common. If we can make reusability work well, I think we can get the cost per person to orbit down to a few million dollars within eight to ten years. If reusability works well and demand is strong, so that we can distribute overhead over a large number of launches, it could one day get to under $1M.
This strikes me as one of those quotes that people are going to laugh at 30 years from now, like the oft-repeated quotes on how someday computers will be 'only a few tons' and 'take up only one room'. At least, I hope so.
Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
The amazing shrinking transistor is a whole different kettle of fish from chemical rocket propulsion. Spaceflight may get cheaper, but there certainly won't be any price reduction like a 1960's supercomputer to the 1990's scientific calculator.
There could be a major breakthrough in (non-chemical) propulsion, but if so we're still looking at the "vaccuum tube" era where those "only a few tons" predictions were entirely appropriate and even optimistic.
Congrats! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.
Sure NASA has problems, but they need to fix the problems, not mothball the whole agency!
Private industry will never replace public endeavor. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT GOALS. Sure both are going to space, but one is going to make money, the other is going for more altruistic reasons...you know...sci
Inspiring (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen plenty of launch videos before, but watching this and hearing them cheer when the stages separate... well, it warmed my heart. It's a beautiful example of bright people getting together to do something that people thought was unreasonable my many. That is one very small organization to break free from the surface of our little planet. Congrats to them.
Not an orbital velocity (Score:4, Informative)
YouTube link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ [youtube.com]
This shows the fourht launch.
The video on spacex.com is for previous launches. I suppose they are all getting drunk now, instead of updating the website.
Orbital speed? My 4$$11 (Score:5, Informative)
Why does the space shuttle orbit earth in about one and a half hour? Because low earth orbit takes you around the earth in about 1.5 hours.
Orbital speed is over 7000 m/s and 5200 is simply not enough.
Re:Orbital speed? My 4$$11 (Score:5, Informative)
Orbital speed is over 7000 m/s and 5200 is simply not enough.
After the second stage shut off at 5200 m/s they apparently coasted for a while and then tested a restart of the second stage until they got to their final velocity.
It's not news because (Score:3, Funny)
we can't use a telescope and a microscope simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
To view microscopic objects in space.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point in the thread, it is traditional for an Anonymous Coward to jump in with a mention of 'black holes' which links to Goatse.
Re:If the chinese can do it --- (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, like that whole gun powder and rocket propulsion thing...
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
To develop? That's proprietary.
Want to buy a launch? $7.9 million [spacex.com].
Re:Cost (Score:4, Informative)
Looks like the prices are going to drop big if they manage to do what they intend though, from the same page they plan to go from $7.9M for 420 kg now to $9.1M for 1010 kg in 2010. Still not exactly cheap for my paycheck but I guess lower than the competition.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
Rocket launch prices don't scale linearly with payload mass. Launching small payloads is very expensive per unit mass. The Falcon 1 variants are a direct competitor to the Pegasus family, but at 1/3rd the price. *Assuming* they can keep their prices down (or even drop them, such as with reuse). This is always a tricky aspect; often what happens is that issues that came up in development or a market that failed to materialize increase prices. Whether that will happen with SpaceX, only time will tell.
One thing I find encouraging is, as Musk notes, how much simpler the Falcon is than the Pegasus. The Falcon is a standard two-stage liquid-fuelled rocket designed ground-up for simplicity and bulk production. Pegasus is partially made of hardware borrowed from earlier rocket programs. You're looking at five stages. The first has to be man-rated, since you drop the rocket from a plane. You have to maintain the plane. The first rocket stage is effectively a hypersonic aircraft, complete with flight surfaces. And so forth. So, I think there's a good shot of them staying cheaper than Pegasus, probably by a good margin.
Also, I just in general like the approach they've taken with the Falcon series; there are a lot of clever design choices. My favorite: the cross between balloon tanks and rigid tanks. Balloon tanks are very light but very flimsy tanks that rely on internal pressure to keep stable. This gives you a better payload fraction but makes them hard to handle on the ground without damaging them; you have to transport them inflated, for example. Rigid tanks are heavier, but easier to handle. The tanks on the Falcon are rigid enough to not have to be transported under pressure, but not to withstand the forces of launch without their internal pressure. It's a "best of both worlds" type situation.
Re:Cost (Score:4, Interesting)
$7.9M for 420 kg
I reckon thats enough mass for a partly reusable single person capsule. Add two million for the capsule and operational support and you are still at half the price of a trip to the ISS with the Russians.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
These clowns have only managed to get 25 percent of their ships to sub orbit and you are babbling about that being some sort of 'accomplishment'???
The US, Soviets/Russians, Chinese have similar numbers at a similar stage of development.[1]
This is a huge advancement. Space just isn't for the elite any more and it is about time! W00t! And hats off to the SpaceX engineers.
[1] How do American children count down? 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0 shit. - joke from the 1950's.
Re:Cost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cost (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cost (Score:5, Informative)
For those very rare occasions that NASA uses the space shuttle to launch, the reason for it is usually that none of the available commercial solutions will work (payload size, of launch assist from astronauts, etc). And even then, the space shuttle is serviced and prepped by many contractors...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realise that the space shuttle is strapped to a fucking huge rocket right? See parent's post, your second sentence is exactly what he said.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do remember that Musk is also wrapped up in solar power (SolarCity) and electric cars (Tesla Motors).
Re:Cost (Score:4, Interesting)
He sure seems to have a streak for investing in 'nice' companies as well as being successful.
I'm very happy to see him succeed.
In fact (Score:5, Interesting)
And WRT Spacex, Musk is changing the game. Many ppl on this site certainly hate him. Surest way to tell if somebody works at lmart, raytheon, Boeing, etc is to find a rocket science guy and ask what they think of spacex. If they work at one of the standard companies, they will RIP spacex. If not, the love them (conditionally). And if person is not rocket science, then they just seem to love them unconditionally
Re:Cost (Score:4, Funny)
I think he is trying to make amends for Paypal.
Cant really blame him....
Re:Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
>>Exactly how much did this cost?
You? nothing. Which is precisely why it's so significant. This is private enterprise, vs. a mandatory government space program. You get to choose whether to be a part of this, or not.
Oh, and as far as "cost", I think it's more accurate to consider it an "investment" for soon these space shots will generate income.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it comes from someone else's bank account does not make that 'cost' zero. Ignoring the 'cost' of that up-front investment, irrelevant of some unspecified 'income' that the project will generate, is how Dotcom companies go out of business: don't encourage that kind of sloppy thinking here.
It's also exactly the sort of question potential investors should be asking. Don't just blow it off with voodoo economics.
Private Enterprise != Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.
Re:Private Enterprise != Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.
Which was "encouraged" by Democrats (Janet Reno: if you don't make lots of home loans to poor black people who can't afford it, we'll prosecute you for housing discrimination) who then killed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which was designed to regulate the FNMA and FHLMC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The assertion that over-regulation cause the current financial problems is not well supported by the facts. See this rebuttal [prospect.org].
Re:Private Enterprise != Free (Score:4, Interesting)
Aha! It was all Janet Reno's fault! I knew it! And those endless generic subdivisions in Phoenix and Las Vegas were meant for black people.
Seriously though, that is a very selective and limited analysis. There was more than enough encouragement from the deregulation happy Republicans. And adjustable rate mortgages pushed by a Fed subservient to a spend-your-way-to-success *Republican* White House are what has brought millions of Americans to brink of foreclosure and thus screwed Wall Street.
And lets not forget the role of the absurdly low capital gains tax rate in encouraging risky behaviour and an 'asset bubble' in the financial industry.
But I know, blaming minorities has always been a fun and profitable strategy for right wingers.
Re:Private Enterprise != Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.
Considering that the banks & financial institutions operate in essentially a walled garden, setup by the various regulatory agencies & the Federal Reserve, you can't exactly claim that the enterprise they've been engaged in is "private".
Especially when you look at some of the biggest players (Freddie, Fannie, Ginnie, the Fed Reserve Bank) and discover that they're all quasi-public in nature.
To keep this on topic: The only real problem with privatizing the space industry is that NASA will lose a lot of generally useful institutional knowledge as the people associated with the Shuttle program are moved to other projects, retired, or go into private industry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it good if people move from NASA (highly bureaucratic red tap environment) to the private sector (either to SpaceX, which will expand to provide more launch capabilities, or to Boeing or Lockheed)? Shit actually gets done.
Not exactly.
When you split up a group of knowledgeable individuals, you lose their collective wisdom and break up their organizational culture.
There's a reason I said "institutional knowledge" and not "skilled individuals"
As for Boeing or Lockheed and "shit gets done", how often do they finish big government projects on time and on budget? Hell, how often do they accept anything big other than with a cost plus contract [wikipedia.org]?
If I had to choose between a private contractor wasting tax payer money or civil servants
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html [nasa.gov]
Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?
A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do think there are a number of things that NASA has and is doing wrong in terms of its general attitude toward spaceflight development and its focus towards a useful mission that NASA can play.
NASA can and should be in the space exploration business, not the business of providing space transportation services. Travel to low-earth orbit may have been remarkable back in the 1950's, but it isn't even news any more. Heck, even this launch... which I do believe to be not just newsworthy but down right hist
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you implying that public funded space exploration is wrong for some reason? If so you are dead wrong.
I'm not the person you're responding to, but I used to work for NASA in the 1980s and I think that yes, public funded space exploration is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
We could have had something like this about three decades ago if there weren't so many stupid government restrictions in this area.
defense (Score:5, Insightful)
this is not an exhaustive defense...at all...not even close
This sounds like a anarcho-capitalist argument against all taxes. I don't have the energy for a political discussion, but I think it's important to acknowledge going in that the core of critics like you is not about how to do science or anything of that nature...you're against all taxes.
don't flame this topic...please. I'm a left-leaning libertarian, just fyi.
I think space exploration should be funded by the government because of the inherent nature of this type of exploration. It's expensive, requires decades of planning and preparation, and has very high stakes. It really is 'the final frontier' and as the original US astronauts liked to call it, "pushing the edge of the envelope."
I advocate government funded scientific endeavor of all types. We're talking about space, but the benefits of expanding our knowledge through space exploration are seen in practically ever scientific discipline.
Here's a ridiculously cursory list:
1. Survival of our species. Depending on who you talk to, we may have already ruined it. Climate change is a recognized fact. Of course there is always an asteroid, war, overpopulation, pandemic, FPS video games, etc. Take your pick. Space exploration as I (and many others) see it is a way to expand the human presence beyond our world, and in doing so dramatically increase our chances of moving past the dangerous times in which we live.
2. Science. I shouldn't have to go into this too much on /. Seriously...this is /. Space exploration lets us look deeper into space with telescopes, which allows us to test our theories about how the universe, and our planet came into being in the first place. It helps us understand how the most fundamental aspects of our existence function...idk, like say, gravity. Like I said, this is /. and I think this point is self-explanitory.
3. Technology. The trip to the moon pushed the US to develop technology that wasn't necessarily 'marketable' at the time, and may not have ever gotten developed. I really don't have time to put up links with specifics, but increased computer capacity for guidance systems and all the communications technology spring to mind. Private exploration can take risks with technology that may not make financial sense at the time but reap huge rewards later.
Corporations are risk averse and profit from defective design (DRM anyone?). Public endeavors have fewer limits on what they can do.
4. Promoting increasing knowledge. I know some hardcore anarcho-capitalist is going to say "it's not the government's job to blah blah blah"...that's a straw man argument. I'm not advocating Soviet style government mandated work programs! I'm saying that because of our space endeavors in the 50s and 60s generations were inspired to get involved in science and engineering. That's priceless.
That's 4...in no way presented to represent all the reasons why public funded space exploration is a good investment.
Now, if you want to talk about how NASA's mission and policies need to be focused and reformed, of course we can improve!...that's a different discussion. This discussion, if you read the parent is not about that aspect. This is about whether the US should even do it in the first place, and the answer is a big fat yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really believe that you're being deprived of your liberty? Then vote. Get people to vote with you. Or do you only believe in the kind of liberty that is given to you, not taken; just a whiner who want's "liberty" without working to preserve it?
Hats off to Musk. He's worked for his (and indirectly humanities) great benefit, and is showing wonderful success.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, no. You don't get to choose, and instead of funding a publicly owned space launch capability, we give Elon Musk and other SpaceX investors a cut off the top.
I guess you thought that Titan, Atlas, Delta, Saturn and STS were designed and built by gov't employees, eh, instead of The Martin Company,Consolidated-Vultee, Douglas Aircraft, Chrysler, Rockwell and Morton-Thiokol, plus dozens of other companies.
The bottom line is that the US has NEVER had a "publicly owned space launch capability".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure the Orlando Sentinel will be very unbiased in its assessment of SpaceX, an upstart that threatens the established contractors, with many of their employees living and working in central Florida. That's like reading the LA Times for its opinion on copyright legislation, or the Detroit Free Press for their opinions on the success of import car companies.
The welfare you speak of is paying for launches at the going rate (which is well below development costs), and funding development of a manned r
Recommend you don't click (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Next step - open-source space vehicles!
Heard of ITAR?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice One! Although the press release says this time around it carried a "payload mass simulator" which I'm guessing means "nothing we're gonna sweat over getting blowed up" - no satellites or
When I was watching the webcast, Musk kept on joking about a "RatSat" when congratulating his employees after the successful launch. It sounded like they just had a metal cylinder with a drawing of a rat on the side.
Scotty's ashes or such.
You probably already know this, but just in case, the previous SpaceX rocket only carried a symbolic portion (1 gram or so) of "Scotty's" ashes. Assuming the family is still interested, they'll probably just try launching again on a future flight.
Re:Not THAT impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking what the Big Nasty State of China just did, private enterprise is looking positively lame. Even with this launch, Musk's rocket still has only a 25% success rate and can only launch a few kilos into orbit.
Uh sure, and to get to this point SpaceX's total expenditures (over 6 years) have been around a half billion dollars. In contrast, China spends around $2 billion every year. China may be ahead of SpaceX for the time being, but it'll be interesting to see where they are a few years from now.
Slashdotters seem more than willing to jump on Elon Musk's "entrepreneurial" cock but at the same time make racist statements when the Chinese government achieves a far more significant space milestone.
Um, what? I didn't see much of that myself, although I usually only read at +3 or higher. Are the people who are congratulating Elon Musk the same folks who were making racist statements about Chinese efforts?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps I should take your lead then. Any articles about the Shenzhou programme (which, btw, is doing pretty well to cost only 20 times as much as Musks effort considering how much more they are doing) are dogged with comments about 'chinks' and how they must be faking it because they couldn't possibly grasp high technology, followed by some comments about Tibet by people who get awfully defensive about Iraq. It gets pretty ugly.
Sure, and as we've just seen, apparently stories about SpaceX's successes are dogged with comments about slashdotters wanting to jump on CEO's cocks. Fortunately both sorts of comments tend to get modded down pretty quickly as ignorant and/or irrelevant.
Re:Not THAT impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not impressed by 550 people pulling off something that took China the resources of 1.3 billion people plus a close partnership with the Russian space agency to pull off?
China's accomplishments are impressive, but no more so than the ESA's -- a government with immense funding learning from partners who already have the technology. SpaceX has pulled off a real, independent first -- more like Russia or the USA did in decades past.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why am I being so rough? Slashdotters seem more than willing to jump on Elon Musk's "entrepreneurial" cock but at the same time make racist statements when the Chinese government achieves a far more significant space milestone. Don't expect everyone to fall at the feet of this guy simply because he fits in with your ideological predispositions; he is quite far behind.
Vulgarity aside, you miss the point entirely. True, the Chinese have accomplished quite a bit. But they've had thousands of people working on it and spent hundreds of billions of yuan on it. Musk has only a few hundred and hasn't even spent a billion dollars. His project has accomplished a first for humanity -- a privately-financed launch platform. Praising him does not diminish the Chinese accomplishment, but Musk deserves credit for seeing this through to success. His objective was not to duplicate
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
SpaceX employs about 500 people. There was a crew of about 25 people down there actually handling the rocket. Yes, a 25% success rate sucks badly and SpaceX will need to work hard to stay alive. But they put, as I understand it, almost 200 kilograms in orbit. That's useful and something people will pay for. There's no one else who can get by with that little manpower.
Also consider that SpaceX was started in mid 2002. So over a bit over six years, SpaceX has developed two launch vehicles, the Falcon I and th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So because some people who post here refuse to consider that the Chinese might actually have accomplished what they say they did you are go
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, we can point out to the availability of credit practically free of charge from the Federal Reserve since 9/11 - that's a governmental intervention.
The Community Reinvestment Act that mandated banks extend loans to high risk individuals in 'need' while giving them the ability to repackage those high-risk mortgages and sell them in the market as a consolation prize - that's a governmental intervention.
Maybe you should stop quoting Joseph Stiglitz's buzzwords and start educating yourself on what actu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Escape Velocity (Score:5, Funny)
I would be fascinated to hear how you measured the radius of the Earth to the nearest proton diameter.