SpaceX Awarded $100 Million Launch Contract 141
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."
Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Yes, we must find Eden (Score:2)
Each of us hides a secret pain.
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)
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:2)
We reach, Mr. DanielMarkham. We reach.
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3, Informative)
Its actually named after his mothers favourite movie, the maltese falcon, despite her cursing him with such an amusing name.
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3)
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
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:3)
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)
SpaceX competing for Bigelow's Prize (Score:2)
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,6630 8
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
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:1)
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:1)
Oooorrrr... Solo was full of shit and was just trying to impress what he figured were a couple of chumps.
Applying Occam's Razor... I win.
Re:Eden Baby, Yeah! (Score:2)
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
About the name (Score:2)
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)
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.
So Basically... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:1)
Mod parent down (Score:1)
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone that thinks that has never looked at a fluid mechanics textbook.
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:2)
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:2)
Is space a solid, liquid or gas? All can flow.
Even glass flows.
Apparently, hydrogen is the only known gas that heats up when expanded.
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:1)
2. Glass does not flow, in fact it is about a billion times less viscous than lead http://www.cmog.org/index.asp?pageId=745 [cmog.org]
http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html [glassnotes.com]
3. Hydrogen cools when heated, per the Joule-Thompson effect. Search for the second instance of "James Dewar" http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4404/ app-a1.htm [nasa.gov]
And yooouuurrrreeee out!
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:2)
1) Sand flows, how do you define a solid?
2) Glass flows when it is in a liquid state.
3) Got me there, maybe it is the friction of the gas passing over the containment vessel that causes the hotness.
Boy will you be suprised once I figure out fusion with my special combination of the three basic elements!
Re:Rocket Science is ... Rocket Science (Score:2)
There is a good point here - safety margins = reliability. How can you increase the safety margin without increasing the inherent strength of a component?
PROBLEM SUMMARY: If you have a component that is welded alumninum (for example), and to succeed the weld must survive pressure X, you design the material+weld for pressure X+10% so you're not too close to the margin. You could add 20%, but that'd add more weight which would increase other
This could be big (Score:5, 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.
Re:This could be big (Score:2)
josh
Or it could be small (Score:3, Informative)
Factor of 10 (Score:4, Funny)
Naw! (Score:1)
checking my online bank account... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
$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.
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:3, Informative)
From here [spacex.com]:
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
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
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:1)
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).
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
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.)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
Not to mention the various thingamabobs, whatsits, doohickeys and willnots.
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:1)
This sounds like a job for scientology! Plus we'll be eliminating many of our most annoying celebrities.
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:1)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
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)?
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
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
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:2)
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)
Re:checking my online bank account... (Score:1)
So was this the plan all along? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps by 2015 we can just
Re:So was this the plan all along? (Score:1, Troll)
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)
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
Re:What about Burt? (Score:3, Informative)
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
On this day in 1961 in fact (Score:1)
Happens my little desk calender notes that today, May 5, 1961 Alan Bartlett Shepard, Jr became the first American to travel into space. About a month before the 'evil' Soviets did the same thing, an achievement that this stupid calendar did not mention. (Or rather they mention it today, not the anniversary of their flight)
Re:On this day in 1961 in fact (Score:1)
Re:On this day in 1961 in fact (Score:2)
Close, I was missing a comma. Your version is easier to make out though.
Re:On this day in 1961 in fact (Score:1)
Re:What about Burt? (Score:1)
SpaceX was not a contestant in the Ansari X-prize.
What about Bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:What about Burt? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Burt? (Score:1)
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.
Re:What about Burt? (Score:2)
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
Both Musk and Rutan part of t/Space (Score:2)
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)
Re:Let's break out the calculator here.... (Score:2, Informative)
No longer commercial launches (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:No longer commercial launches (Score:1)
Lets hope SpaceX is able to pull something good off before they are bought by Boeing or Lockheed.
Not exactly (Score:2)
Also, "young inspiring" companies need money. Nothing will ever come of their aspirations if they
Reliability increase (Score:1)
Wow... so reliability will increase from 95% to 950%!?
Yes, but... (Score:1)
launch costs (Score:2, Informative)
Minotaur 4: $20 million
Lockheed Atlas: $100-150 million
Boeing Delta IV: $100-150 million
Pegasus: $20 million
Re:launch costs (Score:2)
Payload capacities (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Standard SKM Cargo Shuttle... (Score:2)
Sigh.
I hope the new company... (Score:1, Offtopic)
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.
Re:I hope the new company... (Score:2)
Re:I hope the new company... (Score:1)
Yeah, well I got modded +5 funny. You got modded -5 killjoy.
Re:I hope the new company... (Score:2)
Re:I hope the new company... (Score:2)
From the chief criminal who brought you PayPal... (Score:5, Funny)
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
Oh, the Reliability (Score:2)
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)
Re:Not that exciting... yet (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Not that exciting... yet (Score:3, Interesting)
$100M for SpaceX Not What the Contract Said (Score:1)
Re:Predicted /. verdict: SpaceX =... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:2)
Things don't scale quite that easily.
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:1)
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:3)
A jetski is about the least efficient boat on the water. It is a small, high power (relative to size, ships are easily 100x the power or more), and highly maneuverable craft. Their efficiency is known to be horrid. Jets[1] are less efficient than props[1], but they are more responsive. JetSkis operation on plane, which allows them to go fast, but takes a lot of power. Most jetskis (up to a couple years ago) have 2 cycle motors which run poorly outside of the powerband, meaning that even going at low
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:1)
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:3, Informative)
The max velocity achieved by SS1 was about 1km/sec. The velocity required to reach low earth orbit (LEO) is about 8km/sec. The total energy required to reach LEO is more than 30 times what SS1 achieved.
SS1 was not even remotely close to making it to LEO.
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:2)
Pedant alert: That's not true for powered flight. For powered flight, all that is required is acceleration > 1g.
Which doesn't change your point about the energy for LEO and SS1 not being even close.
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:2, Informative)
Make sure you know you're talking about before you correct someone.
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:2)
Erm, duh. You mean you're not done once you get to 600km? Yah, I'll think more next time.
Re:Cheaper alternatives?! (Score:2)
But how do things change if you're able to somehow apply a non-trivial amount of constant acceleration, via something like a souped-up ion engine?
Re:The irony of it all... (Score:2)
whaaaa? In what possible way could the Soviet space program be marked as "more efficient"?
After its early successes, most of its programs were failures. It could not keep up with the US in creating a lunar program. Its Mars missions were mostly failures. It had no presence in the outer solar system. The only bright spots it had were its Venus exploration program and the Mir space station - an orbiting station that
Per $ spent (Score:1)
Secondly, once we got past the destruction of the resource of private sec
$ efficiency is easy when you aim low (Score:2)
The US program should not be penalized because it had far more ambitious goals, and mostly achieved them. Even saddled with the Space Shuttle - a vehicle created for political needs that we
Re::-| Thanks guys/grrrls/other!!! (Score:1)