Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck

SpaceX Awarded $100 Million Launch Contract 141

Posted by Zonk from the backyard-business-makes-good dept.
FleaPlus writes "The US Air Force has awarded a $100 million contract to SpaceX, an orbital rocket launch company which aims to 'increase the reliability and reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of ten.' The contract is for launch services on a recurring basis through 2010 on SpaceX's Falcon I rocket. The company has been mentioned previously on Slashdot. SpaceX was founded by former Paypal CEO Elon Musk, who was asked to testify before Congress last month on the future market for commercial spaceflight. Their Falcon I rocket recently completed structural qualification and initial test firings, and will be lifting off later this year at a per-launch price of $6 million. Their larger $16 million Falcon V rocket, designed to be able to carry people to orbit, are scheduled to launch next year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Awarded $100 Million Launch Contract More

SpaceX Awarded $100 Million Launch Contract

Comments Filter:

  • Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:17AM (#12441046) Homepage Journal
    FTA Responsive Small Spacelift (RSS)

    We need a standards compliant group for acronyms.

    Moving right along... Google reveals the exact prototype schematics on their image search for Falcon 1 [google.com]. Anyone else wondering if it's named that because of the Millenium Falcon?

    SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles intended to increase the reliability and reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of ten.

    That said, is it feasible that we will see it reduced by a factor of 1000? That would allow us mere mortals to have access to other solar systems for vacations and deep space missions to find Eden, baby, hell yeah! :-)
    • to find Eden, baby, hell yeah! :-)

      Each of us hides a secret pain.


    •


      Heading out to eden,
      Yeah brother.
      Heading out to eden,
      Yeah brother.
      No more trouble
      In my body or my mind.
      Goin' to live like a king
      On whatever I find.
      Eat all the fruit
      And throw away the rind.
      Yeah brother, yeah.

      Steppin' out to eden,
      Yeah brother.
      Steppin' out to eden,
      Yeah brother.
      No more trouble
      In my body or my mind.
      Goin' to live like a king
      On whatever I find.
      Eat all the fruit
      And throw away the rind.
      Yeah brother.

      • Please tell me you didn't quote that entire thing from memory!

        You Herbert!

        (For those not in the know, the above lyrics were from a Star Trek episode involving hippies hijacking spacecraft to look for Eden. They sang songs with Spock -- yes, Spock sings. Although it doesn't sound anything at all like Kirk singing) A "Herbert" was a nickname for a obstructionist official.

        Gee- weren't we all talking on slashdot the other day about how tough it is to get licenses for private spacecraft launches?

    • Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 )
      Anyone else wondering if it's named that because of the Millenium Falcon?

      Its actually named after his mothers favourite movie, the maltese falcon, despite her cursing him with such an amusing name.
    • That said, is it feasible that we will see it reduced by a factor of 1000? That would allow us mere mortals to have access to other solar systems for vacations and deep space missions to find Eden, baby, hell yeah! :-)

      One step at a time. Bigelow's Falcon rockets will shake up the space industry if his cost projections are correct. The lower price might result more launches of private sats. More launchs == economics of scale, so the cost of the launch vehicle should go *down*. The added competition should
      • Sorry, minor correction:

        Musk's Falcon rockets which Bigelow will use will shake up the space industry.

        Bigelow has been working pretty closly with SpaceX, so I sometimes get them confused. :-)

        My original point still holds though. Bigelow and SpaceX are the ones to watch.

      • Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)

        by iamlucky13 ( 795185 )
        Bigelow originally planned to launch his spacehab inflatable module prototypes aboard Falcon rockets. Unfortunately, SpaceX has fallen behind schedule, and I believe Bigelow is now planning on using Sealaunch for his first launch.
      • It's relevant to note that SpaceX has already announced that they'll be competing for the Bigelow-funded America's Space Prize, for orbital human flight.

        http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,6630 8 ,00.html [wired.com]

        With most of the other space entrepreneurs focused on suborbital flight, Musk is closest to the holy grail of manned commercial spaceflight: orbit. Although Falcon I, with its single Merlin engine, will be able to launch only small satellites, five Merlins will be mated to the first stage of t
    • Falcon I. Isn't that the ship that did the kessel run in less than twelve parsecs? Oh wait, that was the Millennium Falcon! It must be getting close to another Star Wars movie premiere,...

    • That said, is it feasible that we will see it reduced by a factor of 1000?

      From an interview [spaceflightnow.com] with Elon Musk:

      "Long term plans call for development of a heavy lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. We expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease in cost per pound to orbit. For example, dollar cost per pound to orbit dropped from $4,000 to $1,300 between Falcon 1 and Falcon 5. Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound or less is very achievable."

      (Not quite 100
    • Anyone else wondering if it's named that because of the Millenium Falcon?

      According to this press release [spacex.com], the name of the Falcon I is indeed a tribute to Han Solo's spacecraft.

  • Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) * on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:18AM (#12441059) Homepage
    The "test firing" [spacex.com] URL is particularly interesting with some neat pictures. And for those that think "Rocket Science" is so easy, I thought this quote summerizes it well.

    In this process, I think I've come to realize what makes orbital rocket development so tough. It is not that any particular element is all that difficult, but rather that you are forced to develop a very complex product that can't be fully tested in its real environment until launch and, when you do launch, there can be zero significant errors. Unlike other products, there is no chance of issuing a bug fix or recall after liftoff. You are also forced to use very narrow structural safety margins, compared to an aircraft or suborbital rocket, to have any chance of reaching orbit at all and must hit a bull's eye when you do.

  • This could be big (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:24AM (#12441100)
    A man rated rocket at a launch cost of only 16 million could make things interesting.

    I don't know how many people it could carry, but assuming it was more than a few that could make access to orbit a lot cheaper for private parties.

    As I understand it though, they are primarily pushing both of the rockets as cargo lifting bodies and will probably not utilize them for space tourism applications at least initially.
    • On manned flights, Elon has specifically said that SpaceX's longterm goal is providing lift for passengers. He apparently wants a piece of the pie when Bigelow's Nautilus stations start flying.

      josh
    • I have worked with SpaceX on the TacSat project and there is something everyone should know about their cost figures, they only cover the rocket! $16M only gets you a rocket, it does not get you a launch. You are going to have to pay the cost of range integration, transportation, and all applicable gov't fees and insurance. Right now all those thing minus insurance can add up to about $6-$10M for a rocket the size of the Falcon V. The insurance though is insane, especially with people on board, guess $20M o

  • Factor of 10 (Score:4, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:30AM (#12441150) Homepage Journal
    The US Air Force has awarded a $100 million contract to SpaceX, an orbital rocket launch company which aims to 'increase the reliability and reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of ten.'

    Does that mean they'll give $90 million back?

    Admiring grinds Fontenot.

  • checking my online bank account... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0110011001110101 ( 881374 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:32AM (#12441160) Journal
    I'm not sure about the rest of you, but at $6 million per launch... even decreasing costs by a factor of ten won't help me out... I'd love to get into space, experiement on sea monkeys, and all that good stuff, but salting pretzels just isn't cuttin the mustard.

    On a more serious note, how will this kind of funding and research propel the movement to colonize other planets, become more enlightened, and generally get the f*** off this planet?

    Any thoughts from the /. crowd as to how these goals could best be accomplished? Whether through this kind of channel or elsewhere?

    • how will this kind of funding and research propel the movement to colonize other planets, become more enlightened

      I'm not sure how you are relating these two. Colonizing other planets is a strictly technical undertaking. Becoming more enlightened is a personal/human/psychological process. If you are one of those people that thinks being able to explore other worlds will automatically make humanity more enlightened then I would disagree. What's to stop us from fucking up the other ones just as bad as this
    • I don't know about that...

      $6 million per launch / Factor of ten = $600,000

      $600,000 / 6-10 people per launch and it starts to be come reasonable

      Add a mission to the launch like orbiting a Satellite and the price all of a sudden drops pretty quickly.

      As for colonizing other planets I would recommend starting a bizar new religion. The "New World" was settled by religous nuts (look at the Puritans) and were funded either by people kicking them the f*** out of England or by getting funding within the church.
      • The falcons *already are* reducing launch costs by a factor of ten. Your figures would be by a factor of 100!

        Let me put it this way:

        The "average" cost per pound to fly something into space is considered $10,000/lb. The goal of NASA and areospace companies has always been to get that down to $1000/lb. While they've had partial success, it can still cost as much as $5000/lb. to reach orbit.

        SpaceX's Falcon 1 is a low cargo prototype that can lift about 1,480 lbs to LEO. At a cost of $6,000,000 per lauch, it manages to get get the cost per pound down to ~$4000 or 2/5ths the average.

        The Falcon V is then intended to use scale to it advantage by flying 13,270 lbs at a cost of ~$16,000,000. At that rate, the cost per pound is about $1200. Just slightly above the 1/10th cost reduction that SpaceX is targetting. And if these rockets become popular, SpaceX may be able to further reduce costs to be *just under* the 1/10th range.

        Is that a bit more clear?
        • After the DoD gets thru with the "safety" modifications and other things to make it conform to the range requirements (things like self-destruct, studies on debris radius, environmental impact, etc.) I'll bet ya the price of each launch doubles. However that is still cheaper than the other alternatives. FYI to the other /.ers who want to ride the beast into orbit, it is a LONG LONG way from a sattelite launcher to a man rated rocket. I am 100% behind the small space companies. have invested in a couple of
          • Isn't "Ride the Beast" a pr0n title?
          • After the DoD gets thru with the "safety" modifications and other things to make it conform to the range requirements

            The Falcon V is built to *man rated* specifications. Which means that they've probably already got all the necessary gizmos in place. Especially since they're already slated to fly. And you can't fly without a self-destruct mechanism.

            Not to mention that the FV has cool safety features not seen since the Saturn V. e.g. It has engine-out ability for *up to three engines*! That means that th
            • Nowhere does SpaceX claim to be building to Man-rated specs on their Website under the Falcon V info. It's a great design but man-rated is an official NASA qualification process which does involve certain design specs but also has to be extensively tested. I also don't see any capsule system for the Falcon V to hold passengers, that is not a trivial undertaking as no capsule has been built in the USA since Apollo. We have lost a lot of that know how. Not to say they can't get there if they wanted to, but ri
              • Nowhere does SpaceX claim to be building to Man-rated specs on their Website under the Falcon V info.

                From here [spacex.com]:

                In addition to the existing Falcon I and V features, Musk said SpaceX has "a long-term interest" in making the Falcon V upper stage and the first stage recoverable. He has also held formal discussions with NASA about using later versions for manned missions such as to the International Space Station. With that in mind, the avionics and other parameters of the Falcon V will be man-rated from

                • Lockheed Design? I didn't see that one. But if it is the one I think it is, it's only a prototype they have been showing for about the last 5 yrs. They are looking for funding to build it, NASA has no interest as long as they have the bleeping Space Shuttle. I've not heard about Bigelow, the only Bigelow I know about makes fibers and carpet. I suspect the cost of the capsule system will exceed the cost of the booster. Thus they need to sell quite a few boosters (or find a few more billionaires) to have so
                  • Holy cow are you ever out of it! Let me edumacate you:

                    Bigelow Aerospace [wikipedia.org]
                    Lockheed CEV [popularmechanics.com]
                    The Crew Exploration Vehicle contest [wikipedia.org]
                    Falcon V info [wikipedia.org]

                    The long and short of it is this:

                    1) Bush has declared the Space Shuttle a dead duck and wants a new spaceship that's based on existing technologies instead of some pie-in-the-sky concepts.

                    2) The CEV is that vehicle, and will be flying by 2014. No excuses this time, they want a design that can come off the assembly line.

                    3) Lockheed just released their proposal to th
                    • 5) The private sector has been gearing up on non-shuttle launches for the past 8 years or so. This has made the Delta II one of the most popular launch vehicles while the Shuttle finds less and less work.

                      That must be why ILS is the current launch market leader then (Hint: Delta II is from Boeing and ILS is a consortium of Lockheed-Martin and Russians).

            • And you can't fly without a self-destruct mechanism.

              While this is conventional wisdom, it is not really true. You merely have to proove that the probability of harming someone outside the spacecraft in less than 30/million. As far as I know, there has only ever been one spacecraft launched without a self-destruct - the lunar lander. (Nasa basically refused to put it on.)

            • ...they've probably already got all the necessary gizmos in place.

              Not to mention the various thingamabobs, whatsits, doohickeys and willnots.
      • As for colonizing other planets I would recommend starting a bizar new religion. The "New World" was settled by religous nuts (look at the Puritans) and were funded either by people kicking them the f*** out of England or by getting funding within the church. I bet the same idea would work here.

        This sounds like a job for scientology! Plus we'll be eliminating many of our most annoying celebrities.
      • FTA, $6mil/launch is for a satellite launcher Falcon I. What is its payload, just one satellite? It is just a launch vehicle, and its main feature is partial reusability. To actually launch people into space a launcher is not enough, you need also a reusable orbiter with sufficient life support for several astronauts for several days. In particular, man-rated Falcon V is currently at $16mil, and it still lacks an orbiter. So $6mil per launch for a satellite is pretty expensive, considering that Russian ICBM
        • Which brings up a good point.

          If non-reusable space craft are so cheap, then why are we so excited about developing reusable ones?

          I can understand things like an orbiter might as well be reusable as you probably want the people to come back and complex life-support system aren't cheap. If you are launch a satellite then why do u care if everything comes back (if it is less expensive)?
          • The theory goes, if a vehicle is reusable you can save money on testing. You need less prototypes to qualify a vehicle, and you can more often can do non-destructive aborts and not cause million dollar satellites to explode.

            Unfortunately, the cost of developing a reusable is way, way higher than an expendable. Not to mention that all orbital "reusables" built so far are *not* 100% reusable and are hard to repair (read: costly) or monitor. Think Space Shuttle or Energia+Buran here.

            The problem is usually

    • Where, exactly, are you planning to go?

      And have you thought that maybe sorting out _this_ planet might be an idea, while you're waiting for other planets to be terraformed (if such a thing is possible)
    • We're still trying to decide if the assholes go, or if the good people of the Earth go. There is a big dispute over facts of oil on Mars or not.
  • I'm thinking that perhaps the Space Shuttle program was purposefully designed to leave a gaping hole in the market, and that private businesses were expected to fill that gap these last 20 years. Businesses have been slow to pick up on this opportunity, so the Air Force decided to give them a little push with this contract. Either way, this can only be a wonderful thing for space access when there are a slew of companies to choose from for your low cost earth to orbit launches.
    Perhaps by 2015 we can just
    • Businesses have been slow to pick up on this opportunity, so the Air Force decided to give them a little push with this contract

      What would have been really cool is if the Iranian airforce had awarded a 100 million dollar contract to SpaceX, if only to see how quicky an embargo could be applied.

  • What about Burt? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kpwoodr ( 306527 )
    Should Burt Rutan be consulted? I know he's a bit out there, but his designs have flown all the way around the world. I haven't paid a great amount of attention, so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he win the Ansari X-Prize? The same prize that Space-X lost?

    Granted they have a more long term approach, and the Rutan design is more of a quick fix.

    With all the google articles (advertisements) the last couple of days, I keep waiting to her that Sergey and Larry have decided to enter the space race with
    • Granted they have a more long term approach, and the Rutan design is more of a quick fix.

      Bingo; SS1, as impressive as it is, is simply not what the USAF is looking for. They want a simple, cheap, reliable orbital access system, and that is something SS1 will never be. Remember, they sent some of their people up for the "suborbital joyride" thing back in the 1950's.

      That being said, I think that if Rutan puts his mind to orbital solutions, he's got as good a chance as anyone; hopefully he'll be able to d
    • The same prize that Space-X lost?

      SpaceX was not a contestant in the Ansari X-prize.

    • What about Bill? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Chairboy ( 88841 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:55AM (#12441353) Homepage
      In future development of Linux, shouldn't Bill Gates be consulted? I know he's a bit out there, but his designs have sold around the world.

      Granted, they're an older company, and the Linux design is a more recent evolution.

      Seriously, suggesting that someone from a competing company should be 'consulted' is disingenuos at best, and insulting at worst. They're a privately held company, and they can do whatever they want. Telling them to go talk to Rutan because he was in the news recently is more similar to telling Linux advocates to listen to MSCEs then you may think. I'm not trolling (usually, that phrase is one of the first signs that a post is a troll, but...) but your suggestion sounds like something I'd expect to hear from a politician who has the most fleeting of familiarity with the subject.

      We've all seen the 'well meaning but eventually self serving' politico who brings a representative from Microsoft or Sony up to testify on DRM, because they know 'computer stuff'.

      Rather then suggest design by forced consultation with someone you happen to remember seeing in the news (a camel is a horse designed by committee), sit back and find someone else who wants your advice on how to run their company.

      If they want Rutan's input, they'll make that decision without armchair quarterbacking from the public.

      Honestly, there seems to be some sort of plague of centralized decision making that's taking over this community. Just because we write and contribute to open source software doesn't mean that we should become communists!
    • In addition to working on Spaceship Two (or whatever they are going to call it) for Virgin Galactic, Burt Rutan and Scaled Composities are working with these fellows [spacelaunch.com](note: annoying flash menus) on a project that can more directly benefit from the Spaceship One experience.
    • Should Burt Rutan be consulted?

      Well, I hope that Lockheed and Northrop will take note of Rutan's "feather" design and try something similar when they compete for the contract to build NASA's new vehicle. In my opinion the last thing we need is another craft like the old shuttle that just blasts into the atmosphere on reentry, relying on panels to absorb all the heat. Rutan's feather design allowed SpaceShipOne to get around that problem quite nicely.
      • Sorry to pop the idea balloon, but: Rutan's feather reentry design will NOT work for the shuttle.

        The difference is the delta-V, the speed of the craft when it hits atmosphere. Rutan is functionally at a dead stop (topping out in the zero-g trajectory and falling backwards). The shuttle is at mach 25, about 17,000 mpg (iirc). This means putting up a high-drag chute and hitting the atmosphere would (a) rip the chute off, or (b) decelerate it so fast the puny humans would be liquified, slightly before the
    • Should Burt Rutan be consulted?

      It should be noted that Elon Musk and Burt Rutan are both part of t/Space [wikipedia.org], a market-oriented company competing for the NASA contract to build the Crew Exploration Vehicle (the successor to the Space Shuttle).

      Keep in mind that Musk's SpaceX is very much a rocket company, while Burt Rutan is very much an aeronautical guy. Even with SpaceShipOne, Rutan didn't design his own rocket, but bought one from SpaceDev. It'd be interesting to see what would result if SpaceX supplied a

  • Let's break out the calculator here.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Urania ( 874567 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:39AM (#12441219)
    So they claim to 'increase the reliability and reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of ten.' Well, according to Wikipedia (where else?) a space shuttle mission is likely to cost $500 million. If they've been given $100 million, and can stretch it 10 times as far, that gives us, what, 1 billion dollars' worth of effort? Divide that up and that's 2 space shuttles' worth, as it were. (In a very rough sense, at least.) It will be interesting to compare this with the end results that the company actually produces. Of course, that doesn't even *broach* the subject of how you would calculate whether the reliability was increased by a factor of 10 or not. (90% fewer accidents?) However, the statement may have just meant a general increase in reliability....
    • From Falcon's Overview page:
      For contracts completed in 2004, Falcon I is offered for $5.9 million and Falcon V for $15.8 million plus modest range fees that vary by launch location. A half bay flight of Falcon V will be available at $8.9 million to accommodate customers with payloads in between Falcon I and V.

  • No longer commercial launches (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Edward Ka-Spel ( 779129 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @10:41AM (#12441237)
    Now that they have a big contract with the government this is no longer a young inspiring company that will lead us to space, but just another Boeing or Lockheed with less employees.

    I don't mean this in an idealistic way, but a pessimitic way. There will be nothing adventuristic left in this company once the bureacracy sets in.
    • Boeing and Lockheed did really cool stuff when they were in the same boat.

      Lets hope SpaceX is able to pull something good off before they are bought by Boeing or Lockheed.
    • I think it's rather unfair to blantantly stereotype in this way. The government has contracts with TONS of companies, both large and small. Furthermore, government contracts have paid for a tremendous amount of research and production that has led to advances in just about every area. Sure there are some companies that tend to pork and underdeliver, but this is not a universal rule of all government contracts.

      Also, "young inspiring" companies need money. Nothing will ever come of their aspirations if they
  • ...an orbital rocket launch company which aims to 'increase the reliability and reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of ten.'

    Wow... so reliability will increase from 95% to 950%!?

  • Is it really worth it to pay $100,000,000.00 to send billionaires into space?

  • launch costs (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ariane: $70 million
    Minotaur 4: $20 million
    Lockheed Atlas: $100-150 million
    Boeing Delta IV: $100-150 million
    Pegasus: $20 million
    • Explosive Enema: priceless!!

    • Payload capacities (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ZeroGee ( 796304 )
      Ariane 5: LEO: 17500 kg, GTO: 6200 kg.
      Minotaur: LEO: 640 kg.
      Atlas V: LEO: 8500 kg - 19000 kg, GTO: 4500 - 8000 kg.
      Delta IV: LEO: 7800 kg - 23,450 kg, GTO: 4000 - 13000 kg. (depends on configuration)
      Pegasus: LEO: 500 kg.
      These numbers are gathered from a variety of sources so in some cases could be off slightly, but are a good indicator of context. Note Atlas has had 76 consecutive launches without failure, and I believe Ariane also has a pretty good track record of safety.

  • Well, I hope SpaceX handles financial information better than PayPal... PayPal is constantly sending me e-mails about having lost my credit card information and needing me to e-mail it back to them. I've e-mailed the damned thing to them 6 times already this month. Of course, it's a moot point because I've had to cancel this one (yet again) since somebody somehow got the number and used it fraudulently.

  • From the chief criminal who brought you PayPal... (Score:5, Funny)

    by autophile ( 640621 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @11:42AM (#12441830)
    SpaceX was founded by former Paypal CEO Elon Musk

    US Air Force: Okay, now all we have to do is put our spy satellite in the SpaceX vehicle, like so... (clicky, clicky)
    SpaceX: You have exceeded the limit on spy satellites deployed per month. Your account has been suspended. If you wish to deploy more satellites, you may upgrade to our Super SpaceX service.
    US Air Force: What the...? Okay, I'll bite. What's the Super SpaceX service? (clicky, clicky)
    SpaceX: Fee per month: $1.1M. Fee per satellite deployed: 0.04 of a satellite.
    US Air Force: Well, I can't have my spy satellite sitting around doing nothing. (clicky, clicky, upgrade)
    SpaceX: Welcome, Super SpaceX user!
    US Air Force: Finally. Now, put the satellite in the SpaceX vehicle... (clicky, clicky)
    SpaceX: We have confiscated your spy satellite. Payment has been submitted by an unverified government.
    US Air Force: (view of planet Earth) DAMN YOU ELON MUSK!!!

    --Rob

  • Hmmm, well if the space shuttle has, as a worst-case estimate, one chance in 200 of blowing up, ten this new thingy will have one chance in 2000. To verify that within a reasonable error bound, they'll need to run at least ten times that many launches.

    2,000 launches at 1/10th the cost means the equivalent of 200 launches using the current equipment.

    Hmmm.....

  • Not that exciting... yet (Score:5, Informative)

    by Usaflt2003 ( 881612 ) on Thursday May 05, 2005 @12:39PM (#12442520) Homepage
    IAARS (I am A Rocket Scientist) and I have worked with Space X on this very project and it is really nothing to get that excited about, not yet anyway. Let me explain what exactly the RSS contract does, and what it doesn't do. RSS is a contract that will allow GOVERNMENT agencies to go to the Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP, based at Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque NM), which is part of the Space and Missile System Center, based at LA AFB, and choose the Falcon I booster to lift their payload. RSLP then supplies the experience and expertise of working with the space range and getting the vehicle launched. (RSLP has been doing launch for the past 40+ years and since 1993 has had 144 successful spacelift missions, we are the small spacelift experts.) However, this contract does not help the civilian market all that much. RSS is for use by the US Gov't (and selected friends) and not open to use by commercial entities. How this does help the civilian market is that it will give SpaceX many more chances to launch, prove the technology and start getting out of the red (Falcon I cost over $120M to develop). Eventually this will be great for the civilian market as it will mean another capable and responsive rocket. (Right now launch contracts take 18-24 months to fulfill, RSS would establish that 12 months is doable no matter who the customer is.) How this does not help the civilian market is that it is not providing a $6M dollar launch. SpaceX provides a rocket, they do not provide any interface to the government or the space ranges as some of their competition can and does. This is a buyer beware situation because while $6M is a great cost for a rocket you have to know what you do not get. Their can be another $6M-$10M in additional launch costs which real quickly brings you back to the same cost as the competition who have proven and reliable vehicles. I realize some of you will say that saving $4M-$8M a pop sounds like a great deal and you would definately use SpaceX (or anyone else that can under cut the competitions price by that much). You are in the wrong mindset if that is the case. The companies and governments with money to burn don't care about a few million, so the cost is not that big an issue. Those companies and governments that are strapped for cash want a rocket they know will work because this is likely to be the only satellite they have and can't afford to rebuild. In both cases they will spend the extra money if it gets them a rocket that has flown 100 consecutive successful missions, they aren't going to gamble. What is SpaceX's appeal then? They are fast, if they can launch in 12 months they will be one of 2 companies that can do that and time saves lots of money, about a million a month if you are sitting on the pad. Please don't misunderstand me though, I wish SpaceX (and the rest of the small rocket companies out there) the best of luck in their coming endevours. What they have accomplished in the last few years is phenomenal. SpaceX has overcome huge supply problems, learned to cast their own metals and make their own composites. They have started to develop a mature core build around veterans of the space business with a tremendously enthusiastic and skilled group of younger engineers. Granted that this mission is going to be 2 years late BUT it is going to be late because they wanted to do it right. This shows a great amount of maturity for such a young company, they understand what it would cost them if they fail. Small space is the future and SpaceX will lead the way to revolutioning this industry in the next 10 years. Just don't expect to be hoping a ride on a Falcon V to a Virgin Space Habitat for summer vacation next year, you will be disappointed.

    • Those companies and governments that are strapped for cash want a rocket they know will work because this is likely to be the only satellite they have and can't afford to rebuild. In both cases they will spend the extra money if it gets them a rocket that has flown 100 consecutive successful missions, they aren't going to gamble. What is SpaceX's appeal then?

      Aside from low cost SpaceX's appeal is exactly that you COULD NOT get a rocket that has flown multiple consecutive missions, since none of the oth

      • Yu are correct you can not get a particular rocket motor that has flown more than one mission, that is not how everwhat I was refering to. It is a matter of the type of rocket. Take for example the Minuteman II 1st stage. With RSLP for example we have had 144 consecutive successful launches with that motor type. People are comfortable using it because they know everyone that is involved with the launch are intimately familiar with it, each part has gone through the strictest quality checks etc. This is not
  • Odd, the exact terms of the contract didn't seem to designate the entire $100M for SpaceX, as they were actually one of two firms named in the contract - Orbital Sciences Corp. with its Raptor I and Raptor II was the other. Defense Industry Daily has the exact wording: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/04/100m-f or-small-spacelift-vehicles-and-support/index.php [defenseindustrydaily.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close