Can Commercial Space Tech Get Off the Ground? 133
coondoggie writes "While NASA's commercial partners such as SpaceX and Orbital have made steady progress in developing space cargo transportation technology, they have recently fallen behind their development schedules. Combine that with the fact that the most critical steps lie ahead, including successfully launching new vehicles and completing integration with the space station, and you have a hole that will be tough to climb out of. Those were the two main conclusions of a Government Accountability Office report (PDF) on the status of the commercial space world this week. The GAO went on to say that after the planned retirement of the space shuttle in 2010, NASA will face a cargo resupply shortfall for the International Space Station of approximately 40 metric tons between 2010 and 2015."
Speaking of SpaceX, reader Matt_dk sends along an update on the company's Falcon 9 flight efforts. "Six of the nine first stage flight engines have completed acceptance testing and all nine flight engines are on schedule to complete acceptance testing by mid-July."
Isn't space like really exspensive ? (Score:5, Informative)
You have to get to very high velocity - that implies a lot of fuel, and very exspensive craft that can survive the high velocity
It's hard to do repair, so you have to spend a lot for high reliability equipment
Space is a harsh environment - you have temperature extremes, radiation, vacumn welding
many people get the low gravity equivalent of car sickness
although it is not publicized by nasa, in low gravity, liquid containment - like when you go to the bathroom - is difficult;' as a result, there is a lot of intestinal illness in space (think about that !)
The take home is that space is, and always will be, very $ relative to ground; therefore there has to be some compelling reason to go to space.
Sadly, there are few compelling reasons.
I have been doing biotech high technology startups for 20+years, and aside from the .dom boom era, there is very little money or enthusiasm for gee wiz technology
The subject is unnecessarily alarmist (Score:5, Informative)
Just to clarify, if you RTFA you will find that SpaceX has completed all the milestones so far on time, and they are looking at a 2-4 month schedule slip on future milestones. Now, obviously we'd much rather not have the schedule slip, but in the world of NASA contracting that is like... totally nothing. I have to say that, as a confirmed space nut, SpaceX really impresses me. If they manage to deliver on a third of what they're talking about, they'll completely change the game--and they've done enough truly innovative stuff already that I think they might actually deliver on most of it in the long run.
Imagine a fully reusable launch vehicle, and a mostly reusable orbiter, making access to LEO or GTO cost in the hundreds of dollars per lb., instead of thousands... that's what Elon Musk is talking about in the long run, and I think he just might actually pull it off.
Re:Here we go again (Score:3, Informative)
If you'll pardon the pun, I wouldn't hold my breath. On earth, space for solar power means practically free desert land. In orbit, it means thousands of dollars per kilogram of launch costs, and correspondingly (pardon the pun again) astronomical installation and maintenance costs. I don't see how it'd be remotely possible to make up for that extreme difference simply because you get more sunlight. And this isn't even counting the transmission challenges and losses, micrometeorite/radiation damage (cells die a lot faster in space than on the surface), stationkeeping, the risk of catastrophic failure, and so forth.