Commercial Space: Spirit of Apollo Or Spirit of Solyndra? 157
MarkWhittington writes "Andrew Chaikin, the author of A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts, believes that the spirit of Apollo no longer resides at NASA, but rather in the nascent commercial space companies such as SpaceX. This assessment is disputed by many, who see in the Obama administration program of government subsidies for commercial space the spirit of Solyndra."
SpaceX rocks! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is they deliver stuff that works the same way stuff worked 50 years ago. There just isn't any room in physics and engineering to allow the massive amounts of energy the overoptimistic delusions of the Space Aged promised.
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:5, Interesting)
The space shuttle cost between a billion, and half a billion dollars per launch.
Of that, well under a percent was the fuel.
A Falcon 9 launch retails at $50m, and of that perhaps .4% is fuel. (300 tons of propellant at $1/Kg, which is a high estimate)
There are plans to make portions of the falcon reusable.
There is _CONSIDERABLE_ room for launch cost reduction, if they suceed.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plans to make the entire launcher reusable. Huge improvement.
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad there's still no destination for people, eh? It's still a vacuum, it's still a radiation-blasted hell, and it's still empty. Low Earth Orbit is not "space"... Too bad we still need massive amounts of material to build rockets, too bad there's no new physics of propulsion... Why are the dead dreams of bygone eras so important to a small segment of rich, white middle-aged geeks?
What happened to the 1997 Japanese space hotel? Oh yeah, nothing. What's going on with the PG&E space based solar power? Oh yeah, nothing. Space is dead. None of the delusions about orbital ball bearing factories, commuting to the office on the Moon or retiring on Mars make a shred of sense. The two most powerful nations on Earth entered a no-holds-barred contest to get people on the Moon, and even THEY, at the PEAK of their power, weren't able to sustain it.
But somehow, CEO and his magical sidekick, the Free Market, will do it? It's time for a reality check. Metal tubes filled with chemicals don't compensate for the basic fact that people arent' meant for space, there's nothing IN space, and space is so enormously bigger than anything we can conceive... Think we'll colonize the universe with balding middle-aged apes with bad eyesight? Where is the free market life extension effort to go with the size of the universe?
It's very simple. Even here on Earth, where EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is, we couldn't even sustain Concorde. Where are these magical rich people just waiting in line to shower money at the private space buff(oon)s? After the novelty of going nowhere wears off, then what? It wore off already in 1972. It won't change.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad there's still no destination for people, eh?
Bigelow is supposed to be launching his first hotel soon. So the fat-cats will be able to take their mistresses on a vacation where they can be pretty sure their wife won't find them.
Re: (Score:3)
So the fat-cats will be able to take their mistresses on a vacation where they can be pretty sure their wife won't find them.
That market will last about 6 months, until the novelty wears off, and word gets around that zero-g is bloody uncomfortable. Even once the vomiting/motion-sickness phase wears off, you spend the rest of your 'vacation' with a bloated head, feeling like you have a minor head cold. And I suspect the much-anticipated space sex will turn out to be more comical than erotic.
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Space Shuttle could have been considerably more efficient, had the budget for it not been slashed many times over. Nuclear propulsion was entirely possible 50 years ago, but this thing called an Arms Race made it politically a no-go. Had there been a more enlightened attitude on both sides of the curtain, we'd have colonies on Saturn's moons by now, never mind Mars. Ion drives make extended-mission space probes a real possibility, but the lack of isotopes to make nuclear energy cells (due to a total lack of decent nuclear facilities in the US) means that the probes will still have propellant long after the batteries are dead.
Ok, launch systems. ARLA is a real possibility for low-mass satellites. TAR is a real possibility for larger systems. NASA is experimenting with ski-jump assisted launchers but I doubt that will go anywhere - Congress keeps slashing the budget. Blended-Wing Body aircraft could have been released by NASA by 2010, but Congress - guess what! - slashed the budget and the program was killed off.
NASA could do a hell of a lot better, but it can't do it for free. The current rocket program is a mistake - NASA is an R&D facility, a discovery facility, not a mass production facility. Multiply NASA's budget by 10 or 20, build it a dedicated reactor for producing the necessary isotopes for batteries, devolve it as a quango so it has less political interference, and you'll see what it is capable of. All without breaking a single law of physics.
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear propulsion was entirely possible 50 years ago, but this thing called an Arms Race made it politically a no-go.
More the lack of an arms race, really. NERVA was pretty much ready to go, but had no use for ICBMs: it was aimed squarely at a mission to Mars. A very expensive, not particularly-useful-in-competing-with-the-USSR mission to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
we'd have colonies on Saturn's moons by now
Doing what and for what purpose and at what cost?
(Don't say "mining" unless you're an actual mining engineer who knows how much heavy industry is required by mining.)
Re: (Score:2)
Mining.
Re: (Score:2)
A small base on Saturn would make controlling things like space probes and rover-type landers viable. The delay is otherwise simply too great. It makes it possible to custom-build experiments in a way that can't be done on Earth - again due to latency. It also makes it possible to rig up experiments that are too fragile to launch from Earth's gravity well.
Re: (Score:3)
controlling things like space probes and rover-type landers viable.
Better AI would be much cheaper and than keeping humans alive, functional and not wracked with cancer.
Anyway, what about when Saturn is on the opposite side of the solar system from what you want to control.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they can't build mass drivers...
Nuclear propulsion?! Really?! (Score:2)
Have you ever read about the few airborne nuclear propulsion tests they did? Running a small research reactor in a plane, the small amount of shielding they could put in it left the aircraft so radioactive from neutron activation that they couldn't get near it for weeks.
Plus, the plutonium for RTGs is some REALLY nasty stuff. It would be a lot safer if we could put that reactor in lunar orbit - since the RTGs are only used on deep-space missions, and we're getting pretty good at remote processing of fuels,
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Killing Orion/Ares is something that should have happened for a whole bunch of reasons, and I'm glad that it was canned. It was a program grossly over budget and behind schedule and was something that should never have been proposed in the first place. It didn't even accomplish the primary goals of the endeavor, which was to keep as much of the Space Shuttle infrastructure (aka the assembly plants and spare parts delivery queues) going after the retirement of the Shuttle program.
For myself, I think the DIRECT [wikipedia.org] approach is something that should have been done, and it might have even been able to use the Orion spacecraft. Indeed the Orion design was deliberately changed to make sure it couldn't fly on DIRECT or on existing EELVs like the Atlas V or Delta IV.
Really, the Ares program completely missed the objective of keeping Americans in space and only accomplished one real goal: keeping members of congress happy because money from that project flowed into their districts. Their main gripe is that the flow of money stopped, and unemployed constituents who were sucking off of the government teat are not happy voters when that flow of money ends. That doesn't justify why any other member of congress needs to support that program to continue other than to support their own crazy form of pork.
Certainly killing the Ares rockets has done nothing to American science, and indeed it might have even helped out.
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SpaceX rocks! (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you to a point. SpaceX has been able to prove they can get stuff "up there" in one piece, and that they can nail orbital parameters that they set out to achieve.
This next year (2012) is going to be the big year for SpaceX to put up or shut up. Either they are going to have several successful launches or they are going to have several spectacular failures including their collapse as a company. Assuming they get the NASA COTS demos completed, they will certainly have a proven track record including to paying customers.
There are several commercial customers that are taking a "wait and see" attitude toward SpaceX, and presuming these flights are successful there are more flights that will go onto their backlog of flights [spacex.com]. It is also worth telling that SpaceX has already sold more flights this past year to new customers than all other spaceflight companies in the world, including the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and ESA combined. That should say something which should be worthy of notice, and also tell a sad tale of the incredibly small market that there currently is for commercial spaceflight. It isn't a completely dead market, but it is still incredibly small... and I'm talking about people willing to pay for telecom satellites and other proven commercial markets for spaceflight.
False. (Score:2)
The rocket they delivered worked. End of story.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF?
Seriously, who ever posted this preceding post is simply clueless about what SpaceX has accomplished. Yes, they had a couple of spectacular failures with the Falcon 1, including one "loss of vehicle". Three flights that were clearly "test flights" that had some problems followed by two flights of the Falcon 1 that were clear successes including a delivered commercial payload. That isn't even a "partial" success but a complete success and the satellite is still in use.
As for the Falcon 9, it has had t
Re: (Score:2)
Right........ what is your source of information here? Really, I'm interested.
I am guessing it is the same people who have informed you about the Burbank studio where the Apollo 11 landing took place at. Please try to convince me otherwise, but I have to take the word of an AC as just a crank who is clueless about life and thinks grand conspiracy theories rule the universe.
Yes, I do realize that the stuff you see in the publicity reels about the landing is from the test drop that was done from a helicopte
Re:Only if you ignore ALL THE FAILURES (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but here are the facts.
First of all, the Falcon 9 has flown twice. The first time there was a problem when the second stage separated, and the dummy cargoe ended up in a lower than intended orbit. But it made it to orbit. And of course it crash landed because it had no landing systems. It was a mock up of a dragon module. It was only there to give the rocket something to lift.
On the second flight, it lifted a first generation dragon module into the correct orbit. The dragon then re-entered the atmosphere and splashed down. The flight went nominally, it and it's cargoe were recovered. This was the flight NASA paid for, and Space X delivered it.
They had a secondary objective of recovering the first stage of their rocket, but the first stage burned up as it re-entered the atmosphere. That was not something NASA had paid for, it is an experimental program SpaceX is undertaking to try to further reduce the cost of their launch system.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:3, Interesting)
If SpaceX gets humans back on the moon, then more power to them. Currently, though, the notion that "private sector will solve all!" seems like more of an ideological excuse than an honest assessment of what the U.S. is capable of in space.
I'm starting to think we haven't gone to the moon since 1972 because we forgot how.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree. Space is experimental and there's bugger all anything outside of geostationary with any commercial value at this time. It's an area where governments have the cash to do things that no-one else can, though if you want outside involvement then I'd suggest throwing that cash at eccentrics, inventors (though not innovators) and geeks - the people who are capable of coming up with new ideas.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Informative)
Iridium is able to make a small profit after admittedly a financial disaster over the previous decade. The next generation satellites look like they will finally have some real bandwidth as well.... being flown up into space on Falcon 9 rockets no less, so it looks like Elon Musk has that market cornered as well.
Really, commercial spaceflight currently falls into the following categories:
To add to these areas, two other very likely and emergent areas of commercial spaceflight can be summed up in the two following areas:
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, especially on the hypersonic. But to do that, you'd need one of the higher-speed waveriders and a working scramjet. Currently, nobody has the former - NASAs projects keep getting killed - and the Australians are the only ones with the latter after NASA's project got killed. I don't see private enterprise being willing to step in and complete a technology Congress has deemed profitless. For starters, if they tried and failed, their shareholders would roast them with garlic butter precisely because Co
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or it could be that there's nothing at all on the Moon, it's far away, deadly and hostile? Is there a big market for radiation blasted vacuums?
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck marked this as insightful? You really aren't serious are you?
There's plenty to be found on the moon. We should be investing in the tech to get there cheaply, so we can start exploiting the assets around us and stop gouging holes in our own home rock when there is a universe of materials floating around us. We have to evolve out of our reptile brained thinking at least long enough to understand "the big picture" and get moving on it.
How many billion of us are there now? 7? We either have to expa
Re: (Score:2)
One thing you don't understand is that exploiting space will make little difference to earth's population. The human race will simply become 7 billion and growing plus whatever is in space in addition, in fact, earths population may possibly grow faster while earth is a direct beneficiary of those resources.
Note that I don't necessarily share your pessimism about population issues either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The more the merrier. But unless we find more resources, such as in space, this planet isn't going to sustain this many damn people. Especially as they wish to start raising their lifestyle up the carbon footprint scale. We are dragging our feet at planetary atmosphere scrubbing technology. It's right in front of us in our bongs, but we haven't been smart enough to realize it. Hemp will scrub the shit out of carbon in our atmosphere, give us petroleum, feed us, give us construction materials, paper, clothes
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Informative)
the tech to get there cheaply
Physics (gravity, heat dissipation, fluid dynamics, structural integrity, physical properties of aluminum and rubber) and chemistry (unless there are some easily transportable fuels and oxidizers in some lab somewhere that have more energy and less toxicity and cost than kerosene and LOX ) aren't going to change any time soon. Fiction writers hand wave over a STUPENDOUS amount of complexity.
there is a universe of materials floating around us
Except that
1) it's REALLY FSCKING FAR AWAY,
2) bathed in high-energy radiation,
3) we're at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
4) surrounded by a friction-inducing atmosphere, and
5) require on a consistent basis food and a pretty narrow range of temperature and oxygen and nitrogen partial pressures.
Re: (Score:3)
Fiction writers obviously do that, but engineers often lack balls and imagination. I think it stems from the inherent need to be "right" that comes from the field. You obviously can't be another drone, or lackey or salary slave and expect to pave new frontiers. Nor can you expect the corporate mindset or government mindset to produce it either. You have to get tired of waiting for it to happen and just do it yourself. Of course we are lacking sorely of people of that freedom, and caliber.
I think the problem
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
It all depends on what you want to accomplish. I would dare say that the "problem" of getting to low-Earth orbit (LEO, aka what the Space Shuttle did and what most other spacefaring countries are currently doing) is a "solved problem" and really something that needs to be handed over to private companies completely. Back in the 1950's, there still was doubt it could be done at all or at least reliably done. That isn't even a remote issue any more. LEO is hardly even a frontier any more and there are some serious traffic issues in terms of dealing with what is up there because so much stuff [wikipedia.org] is up there at the moment.
Turning over actual launches to private companies seems like a very wise use of tax dollars, and try to set up the means for private individuals (or companies) to be able to launch their own payloads on the same vehicles.... just like is done currently with commercial aviation. The U.S. government often does buy flights on commercial carriers or even individual seats on regular commercial routes. Why can't that same business model be applied to spaceflight if you can get similar economies of scale?
As for going to the Moon, the notion that you have a disintegrating pyramid that absolutely must start on the ground here on the Earth is the first idea that needs to be killed. Once you give up that notion, it becomes much, much easier to design a vehicle and system which can go from LEO to the Moon and back. We certainly don't need a multi-billion (with a giant "B") dollar boondoggle [wikipedia.org] that is only really designed to keep rocket engineers busy in key congressional districts that does more of the same and even duplicating services being done by private companies.
It isn't really so much we forgot how to go to the Moon, but that the cost of doing so with this massive disintegrating pyramid is so huge that designing a unique vehicle to accomplish that one task is cost prohibitive. The circumstances which created the original Apollo program won't be duplicated and currently don't exist either. We (as a country or even as a species) aren't in a particular hurry to get to the Moon either.
Re: (Score:2)
keep rocket engineers busy in key congressional districts
I've often wondered why Space-X doesn't open an office in Huntsville. There's got to be more than a few different-thinking unemployed "rocket scientists" there.
Re: (Score:2)
I've often wondered why Space-X doesn't open an office in Huntsville. There's got to be more than a few different-thinking unemployed "rocket scientists" there.
Like this one [al.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
It will be a small office with a few employees as the company explores new business opportunities, Brost said..
SpaceX already does business with the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command here.
Business development isn't what I had in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of the problem is that Apollo didn't make good use of the capability to get to the moon. There was some useful science but only one of the men who walked on the surface was a scientist, and it seems like no thought was given to commercial opportunities at all. To be fair a lot of that is due to simply not knowing enough about the moon or about the potential for commercial operations like mining, and the limits of the technology of the time making long term or robotic exploration impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an attempt to leverage the engineering and technology developed under the Apollo program into something incredibly useful. It was called the Apollo Applications Program [wikipedia.org], of which only the space station portion ever got developed. Today that is known as Skylab.
If you want to see a NASA that could have been instead of what actually was, that Wikipedia article should at least give you a good glimpse into a very interesting alternate history of what NASA and America could have been doing.
I still arg
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really about commercial vs private, they've framed it that way to simplify the debate for the public. This is about fixed firm contacts versus cost plus contracts. And if the early results are any indication, fixed firm is much better.
What the fuck are you talking about? (Score:2)
Only one attempt [wikipedia.org] has been made under the COTS [wikipedia.org] program. And and it was a success. Your subject line would have the reader believe that there were 9 unsuccessful attempts. Both flights of the Falcon 9 [wikipedia.org] to date have been successful (the first of which was not even under COTS).
I would suggest that perhaps you meant to include the Falcon 1 [wikipedia.org] (even though no Falcon 1 flights have been part of COTS), but clearly we would then need to increase the total number of succ
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I am well aware of the downfalls of Cost Plus contracts. I make most of my money working under them. Suits love them because they allow them more control over the work being done, which means more power for them.
That's why I hope that COTS and SpaceX will be able to show that Fixed Firm contracts are better and put an end (hopefully) to the insanity of how government contracting is typically done today. And so far, they're doing pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you are talking about a company with a 90% failure
SpaceX doesn't have a 90% failure rate.
The problem is that the government has the tendency to CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS late in the game
While NASA is notorious for doing this, it's worth noting that for large contractors on cost plus contracts, this is a feature not a bug.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Informative)
Currently, though, the notion that "private sector will solve all!" seems like more of an ideological excuse than an honest assessment of what the U.S. is capable of in space.
Not a lot of people realize this, but -all- DOD launches and all non-Shuttle NASA launches, plus of course all commercial satellite launches, have been on privately-built rockets for quite a few years now. This includes multi-billion dollar satellites critical to national security. It's somewhat nonsensical to have a separate government-designed/operated launcher just for manned US launches, especially when NASA hasn't successfully developed a launch vehicle in the past 30 years (plenty of failures, though).
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The private sector is at least trying to pick up the slack, give them a break. Our "government" has turned out to be a bunch of whores in this "slash and burn" capitalist environment. We need industry in America or we will not be able to produce pop bottle rockets if we keep going. Wall Street has turned into the new Vegas, and "fuck 'em all" financial practices have rendered us a nation of fast food industries. Face it, we are seriously screwed.
Is there any end in sight? Yes, a bad one. The fact that we ar
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, though, the notion that "private sector will solve all!" seems like more of an ideological excuse than an honest assessment of what the U.S. is capable of in space.
Compared to what?
I'm starting to think we haven't gone to the moon since 1972 because we forgot how.
Or it could be because we couldn't spend 4% of the US budget on space exploration any more.
Re: (Score:2)
If SpaceX gets humans back on the moon, then more power to them. Currently, though, the notion that "private sector will solve all!" seems like more of an ideological excuse than an honest assessment of what the U.S. is capable of in space.
I'm starting to think we haven't gone to the moon since 1972 because we forgot how.
We haven't gotten back to the moon because of a lack of a compelling reason to do so. .Many people forget that the mission of Apollo was not to chart new frontiers and advance science. It was to beat the Russians to the first manned landing on the moon, a mission accomplished in 1969. Once that was done the public perception quickly changed to the idea that Apollo was no longer needed, hence the quick fall off of interest in the moon flights after the brief drama of Apollo 13.
Considering the source... (Score:5, Insightful)
I generally see Mark Whittington as being the chief cheerleader for the "let's do Apollo again" school of space flight. There's nothing wrong with that, except that NASA has pretty definitively proven over a period of decades that it's too bureaucratic, too sclerotic, and too much organized as a patronage/jobs organization to do anything big in manned space flight. Even were that not the case, it's a shame that Whittington continually elides the fact that the commercial space contracts — both cargo and crew — only pay out when specific milestones are achieved, and they pay fixed amounts for those milestones. In other words, this isn't Solyndra, where money is just thrown down the drain with no expectation of success; that actually better describes NASA's normal manned space flight program than it does the commercial space companies.
I think Chaikin's right, and that the entrepreneurial spirit that characterized NASA in the 1960s now resides in the private space companies. And as a bitter critic of the Obama administration on pretty much every other point, I nonetheless have to say that this is the one area where they've definitely improved on the Republicans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Considering the source... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Name the only organization to have sent a man on an extra-orbital space flight"
That organization hasn't done that for nearly 40 years. Most of the people at that organization who did do that have retired or passed away. You simply can't keep milking your long past accomplishments forever. You pretty much have to stop when none of the people who did the great things is in that organization now.
If you saw the feeble attempt that was the first test launch of Ares, or watched every other one of NASA's failed attempts at a new launcher design since the Space Shuttle you seriously have to question if NASA can ever build a successful new launcher. The Space Shuttle, though it had some positives, was a pretty flawed one too and its over 30 years old.
SpaceX may ultimately fail but a lot of people are really pegging their hopes on it being the best shot the U.S. has of actually leading and innovating in space again.
If you've actually watched NASA, Boeing or Lockheed over the last 40 years you can be pretty confident they've just been milking Congress to perpetuate a high tech jobs program, while feeding the states and districts of a few poweful Congressmen who are adept at doling out port. They seem to have very little fire in their belly to do ANYTHING interesting, innovative or risky. When youÂclosely couple that with a political system that completely changes direction every 4-8 years you have a system designed to go nowhere. SpaceX is at least somewhat decoupled from all that BS.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to have very little fire in their belly to do ANYTHING interesting, innovative or risky.
Because they're sensitive to the wailing, moaning and histrionic caterwauling that blasts forth whenever anything bad happens. Reference the "wussification" comments.
Someone must stand up and say, "Shit happens, people die."
Re: (Score:3)
The main restriction to deep space travel is cost. When the estimate for a round-trip mission to Mars ended up being somewhere close to $100 billion (IMHO a gross underestimation for a government program of that scope), there is a reason why Congress had a huge sticker shock and decided to dump the whole program, especially for just a "flags and footprints" kind of mission to the Red Planet. Going back to the Moon seems even more pointless.
Still, the whole thing really rests upon somebody even getting to
Re:Considering the source... (Score:4, Interesting)
SpaceX seems pretty pragmatic about their funding. They are going after as much of the existing satellite launch business as they can get, take what they can from NASA for ISS support or other government launches and use the money to build both cheaper small launchers for LEO and cheaper big launchers that would enable deep space missions.
Not sure if SpaceX cares about Moon missions or asteroids, Elon seems pretty focused on Mars as his real deep space goal. I imagine he is hoping that if he has off the shelf launchers that make Mars viable the missions will come (i.e. some government(s) will see the possibilities and fund actual missions). This is as opposed to now where no one has anything that will makes Mars feasible so it never gets off the drawing board. If you are waiting for NASA to build a heavy launcher you will be waiting forever it would appear. All that buearacracy cares about is keeping the jobs program going in the home states of Senators Shelby, Nelson, Hutchinson and Hatch.
Its kind of out there but opening a whole new planet to habitation would seem to offer future economic incentives. Also as we exhaust our mineral reserves moving mineral rich asteroids in to earth orbit and mining them also would have huge economic payoffs. Someone in China wrote a paper on this recently. One asteroid could yield trillions of dollars in returns... though it could also crash the price of the commodities involved if, for example, someone found an asteroid laden with gold.
Re: (Score:2)
The state-sponsored behemoths of the USA, Russia, and China are the *only* organizations that have definitely proven it can do big things in manned space flight.
What have they done lately? And I can't help but notice that China hasn't actually done anything big in space.
Re:Considering the source... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider this.
SpaceX designed and built Falcon 9 for under 20% of what it would have cost NASA.
The proposed new launcher from NASA would cost 30 billion over the next decade, and provide 2 launches, totalling around a hundred tons.
If the money was spent purchasing Falcon 9 launches, you would get 7500 tons in LEO.
With the development of Falcon heavy, that rises to 20000 tons.
If you can't bootstrap a decent space industry with what in an earlier age would be a respectable mass for an aircraft carrier - you're doing it wrong.
And this assumes SpaceX fails in their goal of making the rockets partially reusable, which will significantly lower costs.
The fuel is under a percent of the costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider this. SpaceX pretty much raided JPL for lots of engineering talent. Experienced engineering talent.
Re:Considering the source... (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly.
Who were not making rockets at the time.
Re:Considering the source... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't hard to recruit junior engineers with the following proposal: Do you want to spend the rest of your career building power point presentations and attending conferences, or do you want to work on a clean sheet engine design and actually fly stuff into space?
It doesn't take much brain power to figure out which career path will help you out both professionally and intellectually.
BTW, SpaceX didn't raid just JPL, but also Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and several other major aerospace companies. They also did a pretty good job of raiding the NASA astronaut corps (as have some other private commercial spaceflight companies) and have been picking up other people along the way that are also extremely talented, including some recent college graduates who also like working for companies that have an active production floor. The manufacturing plant at El Segundo is as busy as any factory was during the glory years of the Cold War when Atlas missiles (and others) were being built for ICBMs. SpaceX right now has more engines in its production queue than all other countries of the Earth combined, with an estimated completion of about one engine each week if the production line goes to full production as is anticipated.
Which place would you rather work for... a company where things are happening or a place where they are reliving the glory days and lamenting why it will never come back?
Re: (Score:2)
Raided or offered them an opportunity to work on the exciting, high risk project that get the real space geeks adrenalin pumping; the kind of projects that NASA rarely does anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who put together the Mars Science Laboratory at JPL will be surprised to hear that. Yes, I know that some components such as the robotic arm were developed and built elsewhere.
You really shouldn't just make stuff up.
you mean the spirit of the cold war? (Score:3)
what these fucking morons forget is that the only ONLY ONLY reason we went into space was because the Soviet Union did.
the ONLY reason we went to the moon was to beat the Soviet Union.
there hasn't been a Soviet Union in 20 years. there is not going to be another space program.
Re: (Score:3)
You overstate your argument a bit, but have an important point. However, salvation is at hand.
The Chinese.
No Red Blooded American politician will allow a significant space gap once they actually get past the 1970's in terms of accomplishments.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the issue that for China, national pride and showing up America is pretty much exactly what their ruling class and population want from a space program.
I do imagine that when they go to the moon they're probably going to be pretty ambitious with for how long and what they want to do there.
Re: (Score:2)
Eisenhower was clearly interested in space reconnaissance, and almost everything that the NSA does in space is something that Eisenhower not only would approve of, but was actively involved with pushing for in terms of rationale to encourage the development of rocketry and satellites.
That said, I don't think he even remotely considered the public relations impact of manned spaceflight nor even the "missile gap" issue that really was more smoke and mirrors than anything else at the time. There certainly was
Re: (Score:2)
1. the soviets knew they could never compete with US on conventional force levels
ROTFLMAO. The Red Army was *huge* all during the Cold War.
The spirit of Solyndra is in Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
The Obama administration has a lot of problematic policies related to tech (Solyndra, Yucca Mountain, green energy, etc.) but as far as NASA and space is concerned, they for once have the right idea of buying services from the private sector.
Congress is the group that wants the return to the old NASA, primarily because that keeps the money flowing to the old NASA centers.
Re: (Score:2)
And by old NASA centers you mean pork barrel spending in republican districts like, say, Thiokol. At this stage of the game, pork-barrel spending is completely hobbling NASA with ridiculous restrictions like "you have to develop a rocket using technology from from my district" etc. I say spend the money on SpaceX and friends.
Resources (Score:2)
Of course advancing space travel sounds good, we all grew up with science fiction. Also, the notion of "leaving the cradle" has a nice ring to it. ... ? These rocks are fille
But the main problem is the incentive. Why should we really go into space? The cradle argument is valid, but not a very big short-term motivator.
Instead, I think harvesting resources is the real motivation. Getting materials from the asteroid belt alone would end resource problems pretty quickly. Running out of iridium, indium, platinum
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the rest of my comment, it should become obvious that I was not talking about near-term goals.
Anecdotes (Score:3)
Anecdotes from a supplier of NASA and Space-X:
NASA: They called for support, but could not follow suggestions because the person on the phone was a software person, not a hardware person. They were not authorized to use a screwdriver and reseat a PCI card.
Space-X: Support calls from knowledgable people around the clock and on weekends. Apple employees had their "90 hours a week and loving it" t-shirts. From what I can tell, Space-X is living that sentiment.
BOTH. (Score:2)
Now, as to 'Spirit of Sol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Spirit of Solyndra" == space launch system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about your conclusion either. There is an economic presumption that there is a price/demand curve for spaceflight services where dropping the price for a launch is necessarily going to bring increased demand.
Yes, at a certain point there will be some markets that will grow exponentially with a drop in price, but here is the main question: If you drop the price of the launch in half, will you double (or more) the demand for launch services?
At the moment, I'd have to say the answer is a resound
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You clearly don't understand how dangerous it is to put someone in space, even with every precaution we can think of. Maybe you've forgotten the 17 deaths that have occurred so far?
Going to space isn't like assaulting Omaha beach. Throwing more cannon fodder out in unsafe vehicles that are likely to fail will not overcome or wear down space and allow later people to make it through.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why are the lives of astronauts any more precious than those of fishermen?
Over a 30 year career, according to dept of labour statistics, 5% will die.
If you asked the average trawlerman if they would prefer to make 3 or 4 flights in shirt-sleeve conditions, taking perhaps a week at a time, and make what they would make over 10-15 years, a huge fraction will leap at it, even knowing the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason that 5% of those fishermen die is that they're willing to put their lives in that sort of jeopardy in exchange for the money that they might make. For people with no real skills beyond the ability to perform manual labor, a job on a fishing trawler can be very lucrative because it usually pays a hell of a lot more than minimum wage. If nobody was willing to take the risks, there would be more effort put towards safety ...or the boat fishing industry would collapse and we'd only have farmed
Re: (Score:2)
Why is an astronaut - as a special little snowflake - more valuable than the fisherman.
Why is it socially permissable for low waged unskilled workers to undertake risky careers, knowing the risks, when it's not permissable for astronauts?
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly anyone can learn how to work on a fishing boat in less than a week. Learning to pilot a spacecraft is a lot more complicated and few people would take the time and put forth the effort required to develop the necessary skills. We, as a society, value people with rare skills because it's hard to find replacements for those people when needed.
Aside from that, there's the financial aspect of it: If a single trip on a fishing trawler cost half a billion dollars and you had to hire crew and train them f
Re: (Score:2)
There is a function of cost to perform a given task vs risk.
At one end, it goes up because your launch platform is not reliable enough, and you need to make too many satellites or whatever before one succeeds in being launched.
At the other end, it goes up as you've spent too much money on the launcher.
Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot of minimum cost.
If however, you insist that no precaution must be omitted to keep astronauts safe, then the cost rises - perhaps prohibitively.
As a proportion of the c
Re: (Score:2)
> If however, you insist that no precaution must be omitted to keep astronauts safe, then the cost rises - perhaps prohibitively.
I never insisted anything of the sort. You're creating straw man arguments.
We've had enough deaths that only an idiot would think that the safety measures in place are overprotective. Fewer safety measures would almost certainly result in more deaths, failed missions and billions of dollars wasted which the theoretical cost-savings of reduced safety measures would almost cert
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly anyone can learn how to work on a fishing boat in less than a week. Learning to pilot a spacecraft is a lot more complicated and few people would take the time and put forth the effort required to develop the necessary skills.
Nearly anyone can learn how to work on a space shuttle in less than a week. Here's how the toilet works, here's how you get out after a pad abort, don't get in the way of the flight crew.
And as for the flight crew, most of the time they're pressing a few buttons and watching cockpit displays; NASA gets thousands and thousands of perfectly qualified applicants for those jobs every time they look for new astronauts.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahahaha... you have clearly never tried to play one of the realistic shuttle flight sims.
I have. It's fucking frustrating and difficult as hell even with a pause button and manual to refer to. There's a hell of a lot more to it than pushing a button once in a while.
Re:Why have Americans become nancies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to space is, however, more like some of the early flights that were done in aviation. Many of those early aircraft were incredibly flimsy and there were thousands of (non-military combat) related deaths each year in the early years. If anything it is the risk aversion that is to me something that is repugnant, other than the fact that nobody wants to be responsible for the death of somebody else.
In terms of some of those deaths on spaceflight, all 14 of the Shuttle-related deaths could have been prevented had NASA simply followed their own safety guidelines. Apollo 1 was also an unfortunate accident, and something which should have been preventable.... also something which didn't even happen during the course of the actual flight but during a ground test that could have even been inside of a factory. On top of that, the number 17, while technically accurate by figures that NASA claims, is only Americans and not deaths by other people who have attempted spaceflight or deaths by Russian Cosmonauts. It also doesn't include other astronauts who died "on the job" through other means, nor does it include deaths of ground personnel in many countries that can also be related to spaceflight.
Yes, it is dangerous, but so is simply living as a person. You take risks, but you also take measures to try and avoid the most serious injuries and hopefully take safety measures seriously. The trick is to learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others so you don't repeat them... particularly the most dangerous mistakes.
BTW, in terms of spaceflight, most vehicles have built into them the knowledge and experience of the previous generations of astronauts where those mistakes... especially fatal mistakes... are not likely to be repeated. That is true for anybody trying to push the boundaries of human experience. I certainly would assert that anybody going into space today on board any modern spacecraft is going to be far safer than their predecessors by an order of magnitude or better, and I expect that to improve over time. It certainly isn't a reason to fear going into space.
By far the largest problem in terms of going into space is simply the cost. That is, of course, what the whole point of commercializing spaceflight is all about. There is certainly room to make the trip to space much cheaper.
Amen, brother! (Score:2)
We should be willing to take risks. But spending hundreds of billions on a manned space program with poorly defined goals only to watch the astronauts burn up in reentry is not the kind of risk we should be taking. You found a very good way of pointing out how little truth there is in claims that dead astronauts' sacrifices pave the way for others.
Until we're willing to make large and meaningful goals and commitments (like a lunar base/observatory) we have little reason to spend money and lives taking unnec
Re: (Score:2)
18.
* Soyuz 1 (1)
* Soyuz 11 (3)
* Challenger (7)
* Columbia (7)
Re: (Score:2)
I was counting NASA's deaths... 7 in each shuttle, 3 in Apollo -= 17.
I didn't include Russia's space program deaths because, having read some of the history of their space program, I feel confident in saying that risk aversion wasn't holding them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet oddly enough they have produced some of the most amazingly capable launch vehicles in the world (seeing as how the US currently has to buy Soyuz launches to get astronauts to the ISS).
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviets never produced anything as capable as the space shuttle. They tried with the Buran, but it never amounted to much.
The only reason we buy Soyuz launches is that we decided to end the shuttle program, which was done for reasons which are far too complicated and not relevant to this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
well... not in the strict sense, the fire occurred during a pad test. Challenger was at 48,000 feet, actually lower than the cruise altitude of a certain commercial supersonic airliner. Columbia was doomed before it even reached orbit and the astronauts probably knew it. Could the Americans say they have never lost a man in space and keep a straight face? I would say so.
Re: (Score:2)
My motivation for busting America's balls. I hope it get's it head out of its ass.
The result: America learns very quickly to ignore your obnoxious ranting. You are not America's dad, and America does not have to straighten up and be the country you want it to be. Your approval, or lack thereof, isn't relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
So driving full throttle into becoming a 3rd world country is your idea of where we should go? You can't rebuke fools into wisdom, but it's fun trying.
Re:How about the Spirit of Jack? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that Deke Slayton was heavily involved with the construction of the Conestoga rocket system [wikipedia.org] in the 1980's, I'd say he certainly has a foot in both the early days of Apollo (even being one of the original Mercury seven), and in some ways one of the very early pioneers of commercial rocketry. He embodies perhaps the whole of what was once upon a time NASA of a long ago era and what could have become of commercial spaceflight.... if America will only let it happen.
Yeah, the spirit of Deke Slayton would be of particular interest at the moment, and it would be good to invoke him in any such discussion of the intersections of NASA's past glories and what is happening now for spaceflight in America today.
Re: (Score:2)
2011 is passing and SpaceX hasn't launched jack. I thought these jokers were supposed to be fast. Definitely the 'spirit of Solyndra'.
Uh, dude: http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php [spacex.com]
I believe SpaceX have been waiting for NASA to give them the go-ahead to fly the first Dragon flight to ISS, so complaining that SpaceX are slow is amusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Many different, diametrically-opposed segments of people want to enforce their way of life on everyone else, and knowing that their beliefs are unpopular with voters, seek government power to forcefully do it.
There, fixed that for you...
Re: (Score:2)
The faster, easier way is to make me absolute ruler of all Earth.
Anyway, rigorously clipping the government's wings would lead to an even worse corporate oligarchy than now exists.
Re: (Score:2)