SpaceX Dragon Launch To ISS Set For April 30th 127
Spy Handler writes "NASA announced today a tentative April 30th date for SpaceX launch to the International Space Station on an unmanned cargo mission. 'Everything looks good as we head toward the April 30 launch date,' said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations. If successful, SpaceX will become the first private company to launch a space vehicle and dock with the ISS."
Most Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Most Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a *brand new* private market. We need competition. So far who do we have? SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. And even Virgin only go Sub-orbital and is mostly publicity runs.
There's alot of players missing at the moment. For example: Where's Boeing? One of the biggest Government contractors for aircraft hasn't thought to invest in their own space vehicles?
I get the feeling that when SpaceX actually has a proper, reliable, regular launch schedule that the market for private space launches will absoloutly boom.
Re:Most Excellent (Score:5, Informative)
Boeing is in it. They are designing a capsule called CST-100, together with Bigelow Aerospace. There is also a more direct competitor to SpaceX, the Antares rocket built by Orbital Sciences and also scheduled to launch this year. Not to mention many smaller but ambitious players like XCOR that work on upper stage engines with ULA.
Arianespace (Score:5, Informative)
The European Arianespace is commercial since 1980. They launch their Ariane rockets on a regular basis. You want competition? You got it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianespace [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, see, it's not proper rocketry unless you read about it in a NASA press release.
Which is the problem here: why are we hearing about this from NASA? Screw those lumbering dinosaurs and their thousand-dollar hammers, I'd love to see SpaceX, Virgin or any other player just go ahead and send a surprise cheap dumb booster up to the ISS for so little outlay that they can say "Oh hai, say, do you guys you want these supplies or not? Doesn't bother us much either way, we'll just leave them in orbit here in c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is the problem here: why are we hearing about this from NASA? Screw those lumbering dinosaurs and their thousand-dollar hammers,
If they had bought five thousand dollar hand tools instead, tested for space operations, instead of listening to those short-sighted people who want to pinch pennies whenever they see them, we might not have hand tools floating in space [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
The big issue for NASA is station safety. Do you really want an untested vehicle near your 100billion dollar station? One that if there is an error in coding could easily ram it?
Re: (Score:3)
One that if there is an error in coding could easily ram it?
Define easily. Even Low Earth Orbit is pretty big.
Re:Arianespace (Score:5, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-17 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Define easily.
"Mostly correct in the sense of plotting a course that intersects the ISS as intended, but not correct enough to finish the delicate procedure of docking without incident."
Sounds pretty easy to me, at least if you don't do proper diligence.
Re: (Score:1)
100billion dollar station
That's 150 billion. You were out by 69 days in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see SpaceX, Virgin or any other player just go ahead and send a surprise cheap dumb booster up to the ISS for so little outlay that they can say "Oh hai, say, do you guys you want these supplies or not?
i guess if you pay for it you probably can, but at the moment nasa calls the shots because it pays the money. that's why spacex is more a government contractor than a commercial enterprise. difference being that a commercial enterprise would be servicing multiple clients. as long as nasa is its only customer, it is the boss, not spacex. if spacex goes space cowboy, nasa may well just say "Oh hai, say, do you guys want to do as we tell you, or do you want us to pay space-y/ruskies instead; we're not averse
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX has already put up satellites (on Falcon 1) for people other than NASA. Second flight of Falcon 1 carried a satellite on spec, as I recall.
In addition, SpaceX already has contracts over the next couple of years to put up satellites for MDA (Canada), SES (Europe), Thaicom (Thailand), NSPO (Taiwan), Asiasat (two launches), CONAE (Argentina).
Among others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just like Grumman, Martin, McDonnell and others relied on NASA back on the 60's, or like all their predecessors relied on NACA [wikipedia.org] in the 30's and 40's. The big difference is that SpaceX is selling launches at a guaranteed price, rather than the usual "cost-plus" contracts that have plagued the space program for decades. And SpaceX is hardly without competition... Orbital is running their first ISS re-supply mission this summer. Frankly, this is a step in the right direction. And when you get down to brass
Re: (Score:2)
still, a lot can happen in at least 50 years before space becomes commercialized to the point where you or I could afford a holiday there
i wouldn't be surprised if the global economic and political environment is completely different and companies as we know them won't exist
Re: (Score:2)
>> "...I'd love to see SpaceX, Virgin or any other player just go ahead and send a surprise cheap dumb booster up to the ISS for so little outlay that they can say "Oh hai, say, do you guys you want these supplies or not?..."
I understand your point and share your frustrations, but rockets pass through controlled commercial airspace as they launch. None of the carriers you mentioned want to get on FAA's bad side. Making feds pissed off is a bad way to kickstart a business.
The new commercial space car
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the problem here: why are we hearing about this from NASA?
Because NASA is going to use them to send supplies to the ISS, and probably a few other things as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I found it really striking that SpaceX posts prices [spacex.com] on their website. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but they are talking some serious shit over there at SpaceX. I'd love to see them back it up.
As for the need for a thousand dollar hammer, I call shenanigans. That hand tools in space link doesn't prove anything except carelessness.
Re: (Score:2)
While I understand your sentiment, if I was an astronaut aboard the ISS I don't think I would appreciate a unknown, unexpected, untested, unverified rocket hurtling towards my fragile little home.
Indeed. And I'm sure there would be some nice men from the government who would not be amused. Or nice, once this happened.
In fact, that's one of the reasons this launch was delayed. They need two people on the ISS qualified in the docking procedures for this mission, and they only recently got the second up.
Re:Arianespace (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you people really that stupid to think that both SpaceX and NASA haven't spent tens of thousands of man hours planning, testing, retesting, and triple testing this docking procedure? Are you aware that the only reason it takes two people to do the docking is that NASA won't _allow_ SpaceX to do the docking automatically like the Russian Soyuz? Instead, they have to pull up close to the station, and then get grabbed by the robot arm, for SAFETY.
Do you have any idea how many ex-NASA and space shuttle contractors have been hired by SpaceX? Do you know how many former astronauts work there?
God, it is like some people think Elon Musk hired a bunch of high school rocket club kids and is being allowed to dock with the space station based on plans drawn on the back of a napkin.
Get a freaking clue, people.
- Necron69
Re: (Score:2)
God, it is like some people think Elon Musk hired a bunch of high school rocket club kids and is being allowed to dock with the space station based on plans drawn on the back of a napkin.
I know quite a few very successful engineering designs that originated on the back of a bar napkin. In some ways that is a wonderful way to get inspiration as you get out of the office and get a chance to think about other stuff to hopefully jar your mind into thinking other kinds of thought patterns. There is also something very relaxing about spending time together with co-workers out of the office as well, even if "shop talk" works its way into the conversation or is even deliberate in terms of a "plan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But the cost of an Ariane launch is 10000 per Kg whereas the cost of a Falcon 9 is 5000 per Kg.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article:
Other companies in the private space race include aerospace giant Boeing, the Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corporation, and Washington state-based BlueOrigin LLC.
More [ibtimes.com] info about their private space plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the Chinese have said that SpaceX is flying at a price point cheaper than they can provide launch services, I'm sort of curious who this "cheap knockoff" might be? The Mexican Space Agency?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is but one of several articles about this topic:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/05/spacex-explains.html [nasawatch.com]
You can do some web searches on the topic if you want as well to get some other opinions on the topic, but it was in the news awhile back. Or perhaps Aviation Week is a two bit blog that doesn't matter much and is an unreliable source?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Chinese whispers to me (pardon the pun.)
In any case, which Long March rockets is this (supposedly authoritative) guy allegedly talking about? The current ones, or the ones that are in development?
China's rocket fleet currently uses hypergolic propellants, which are expensive to buy, use, and clean up. Their next generation use LOx/RP-1 like sensible people, and will utilize the industrial base of modern China rather than legacy ICBM manufacturing from the 1970s.
I'm fairly skeptical of this claim
Re: (Score:3)
It may be that the Chinese business leaders being quoted here were more upset that their profit margin was going to be cut on future flights and become something of a cost war between themselves and SpaceX rather than necessarily being unable to meet the price that SpaceX has been publishing on its websites for the cost of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launches. It is remarkable at how much cheaper SpaceX has made launches already with their price point something that is generally viewed within the launch industry
Re: (Score:1)
Considering that the Chinese have said that SpaceX is flying at a price point cheaper than they can provide launch services, I'm sort of curious who this "cheap knockoff" might be? The Mexican Space Agency?
Probably. Did you ever see the documentary about it [southparkstudios.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
when they start launching for revenue, or when they start trying to drum up investment from sources other than rich dick swingers trying to impress their rich dick swinging friends, those prices will skyrocket because otherwise they will go bankrupt (think kistler)
their first payload
Re: (Score:2)
American rocket builders have all but given up trying to seek private commercial spaceflight launches, even though America was where the concept originated. I am not talking about joy rides such as the "space tourism" flights done by the "rich dick swingers" (I presume such a reference is to Richard Gariott who is rich but not really a swinger and his dickhood is of personal opinion that I disagree with even if you may think he is one), but rather for businesses that already are making a profit off of acti
Re: (Score:2)
don't worry, once the financial risk is low enough (after someone else has already put in the high risk hard yards - most likely funded by taxpayers), the cheap knockoffs will begin to appear, ready to kill off the cheapskate idiots who decide to fly with them, probably doing the world a favor.
Given that the massively expensive space shuttle destroyed itself and killed the crew about one time in sixty, a 'cheapskate' doesn't have to try too hard to kill their crew less often.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, oddly enough, have had loss-of-crew accidents twice, just like Shuttle (which translates to a higher percentage loss rate, since there have been fewer Soyuz missions than Shuttle missions, in spite of Shuttle being developed a decade later).
Re: (Score:2)
Well let's hope they aren't knocking off the space shuttle -- you might recall that 33.3% of them exploded catastrophically, killing all their crew members.
Re: (Score:2)
All American rockets today that can deliver payload to orbit are made by private companies. They just happen to be under contract for government agencies like the air force, or even NASA. None of these rockets are man-rated, though, which is something SpaceX is gunning for in a big way. I'm definitely excited. Even if they are the only ones who can do it for a while, that's okay too. It's unlikely that a monopoly situation will lead to prices any higher than they are now!
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Blue Origin [blueorigin.com] (run by Amazon's Jeff Bezos) and the quaintly named but feisty Armadillo Aerospace [armadilloaerospace.com]. Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman -- I believe those companies have been contracting to NASA and the defense department for years but prefer to suck the government's massive teats by going through NASA, the DOD, and all those other agencies. In fact, Northrop more or less purchased Scaled Composites [space.com].
These new companies are fresh faces on the scene that has been dominated by aerospace heavy weights for
Re: (Score:3)
What I love about Armadillo Aerospace is that they are one of the few companies whose budget for rocket fuel is larger than the budget for the construction of the vehicles they fly. They also are not afraid to admit they've gone down a blind alley and try something completely different, like completely different fuels, injector systems, and pretty much every part of their rockets. Of any group of rocket developers around today, I'd dare say they have more experience actually using rocket engines and comin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad idea.
Why?
Two words: Space junk.
The Invisible Hand has a bad record for picking up after itself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
- space hippies go collect garbage (and re-invent the cradle2cradle concept, making nice new stuff from spacejunk);
- greenpeace goes there with big solarsail-made-into-banners;
- Al Gore will say he invented space and then make a movie about how terrible the whole spacejunk problem is;
- We will see spacejunk-sceptics;
And when they are all up in arms, here on
"don't should pay" (Score:2)
..rich will donate more if taxed less and that the poor should don't pay enough.
A stunning example of the brilliance that is the statist mind.
And if that wasn't telling enough, they couldn't even figure out how to create an account...
Re: (Score:3)
Space junk is a bit different to the normal polluting behaviour though, since it will directly and literally impact the polluter's future operations. Also, its not like publicly funded endeavours have that great a record when it comes to space junk either.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the insurance is for something like that? A dent in the ISS must cost an arm and a leg to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK. Flo told them that they could just plug "snapshot" into their spaceship and get a huge discount!
Re: (Score:2)
If there are specific mission requirements, they should put those requirements into the RFP and subsequent contracts. There certainly could and likely would be other providers willing to step in if Zero-G can't get the job done. It isn't as if the ability to fly parabolic arcs in the sky is necessarily a new concept which is the subject of a patent.
Besides, it is in the official mission statement and federal charter for NASA that they will support private commercial efforts where possible. If you think t
The deeper problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course those computers are all made of components fabricated in other countries. While the link is interesting, the manufacturing base has left America some time ago to get stuff like that done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually what makes westerners, you and me included, to buy new items instead of fixing them is the just cost of repair. Let's say a reasonably well-performing nondescript toaster from your local hypermarket costs $50 or $100 for a "high end" one. Let's also suppose that you get $20 an hour. You basically have three choices:
1. Find out what is broken, get a replacement part, and replace it yourself.
Sounds easy, but if it's anything except the heating element, you need more than a multimeter to figure out wh
Re: (Score:3)
Option 4: Do NOT buy or repair your toaster oven until you can afford a much higher quality replacement.
This seems to me like the soundest decision, but with consumerism, people want instant gratification and the quality converges to the lowest that producers can get away with.
Re:The deeper problem (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you buy a much higher quality toaster? On occasion I have tried to buy higher quality appliances. Price is no indicator. Brand is only a weak indicator. Reviews are only a weak indicator, because product lines are constantly being churned, even if the name has remained the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the warranty. Anything less than 5 years is cheap crap, 10 years is good. Some German and Japanese manufacturers offer them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, in my experience, the premium items break down just as frequently as the cheap crap, but are more expensive to repair, either professionally or DIY because they make the repair parts cost 50% of the price of a new unit.
As an example, I have a Maytag washing machine which cost about $1100. Maytag is the one with the commercials of the repairman sitting around doing nothing because nobody
Re: (Score:3)
As an example, I have a Maytag washing machine which cost about $1100. Maytag is the one with the commercials of the repairman sitting around doing nothing because nobody ever calls in. Well, it has broken down on me about 5 times. Twice, it has been the circuitboard, which has to be replaced in its entirety and costs well over $100. The most recent item was a cracked outflow pump housing. How did it crack? Why, pennies got into the housing.
I hate to tell you, but at $1100 you're still in the cheap consumer territory - you've paid for features, not quality. Higher end consumer washers are more in the $2000 range.
You won't find a $1100 Maytag at a professional cleaner or tailor's - they need quality, and are willing to pay for it. Consumers aren't, and when comparing items, will either pick the cheaper, the one with more features, or the one that looks best.
But how can that be? They've been in the business 100 years.
I hate to tell you this too, but Maytag went out of business in 2006, after consumer
Re: (Score:2)
And toast.
which you don't need a toaster or toaster oven for.
While I have a toaster oven, I prefer to make toast the old fashioned way, because it's easier to clean up - the only way a toaster oven makes sense is if you are a lazy slob - too lazy to flip a toast and most of the time won't bother cleaning the oven.
A toaster can make sense if you don't want to keep the family together and not leave the table during breakfast, but that's generally not how it's used.
Yes, I prefer to slice my bread myself too. Which mean
Re: (Score:1)
And toast.
Yeah, Toast! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why repair is a hobby (DIY). That way your time is basically free and you're doing it for fun or experience. (It's just like people who admin Linux machines for fun).
Now, a toaster is actually a very simple product and a poor example - anyone competent with electricity can rapidly fix it.
Take something that doesn't cost a lot more - say a computer monitor - you can pick up a 20" or
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you love your job so much that your time off is worth *less* to you than the time you spend at work? Glad to hear it, not everyone is so lucky.
Your "basic economic resource" isn't money, it's time. Money is only one thing you can exchange that time for, and unless you're under-employed you're already selling about as much of it as you care to at the wage you're receiving. Ergo your remaining time is worth *more* in dollar terms than the time you spend at work.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, since you want to be absurd, that means that an attorney who bills out at $500 per hour loses $4,000 for getting 8 hours of sleep.
Your time, like anything else, is worth only what the market will bear. Generally, people cannot just go off and get piecemeal work in any amount desired at any time they desire. Their time can't automatically be exchanged for money. If you make $20 per hour, but the market can't or
Re: (Score:2)
there, ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
What failure in NASA? Not providing Buck Rogers for your entertainment and amusement? (As opposed to actually getting on with the hard and mostly boring bits, which they have done.) Failing to meet some abstract standard of cost and performance? (Which borders on the ludicrous - it's like complaining about the low performance and high cost of a 8008 in 1971. There's simply no track record on which to base such a standard.)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, you're remembering a golden era that never existed
The young are prone to doing that. We who have been around a while know how bad the past sucked; we were there.
Why all the hype?! (Score:2, Interesting)
I glanced over the article... hoping to find some pictures.. didn't find any. Boring. Then I read some of the words. Someone was in there whining "the space station is moving faster than a bullet!!!" Yeah? So? It's orbital space. That's how it works and speed is "relative." That's why it's not such a big deal to negotiate an exit from a freeway moving at 70MPH... the other cars are moving at that speed too! I'm not saying that docking to something in orbital space is child's play, but to talk about
Re: (Score:1)
Here is an article with pictures. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/04/frr-sets-april-30-dragons-first-flight-fully-prepared-iss/
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that docking to something in orbital space is child's play, but to talk about the station's speed relative to the earth is ridiculous and irrelevant. Only two things seem relevant to me. The first is the speed of the two objects relative to each other. The second is the possibility of space junk getting in the way.
All this stuff is interesting but it's not rocket science... well... okay, so it IS rocket science... but rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know?
Those two objects are not just moving in a straight line, they're in a orbit. This means the one object moving faster than the other (to close up to it) can't be and won't be in the same orbit as the other object. Getting one object near enough to another with no or very little relative motion between them (rendezvous) requires some totally non-intuitive ways of maneuvering.
Not that this is the hard thing about that mission. What SpaceX did here is building a launcher and a spacecraft to get into orbit and
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying it for a while now.. rocket science is easy. It, and the associated orbital mechanics, are governed by a relatively small handful of equations, and most problems have been solved already. Rocket engineering, on the other hand, is still a very tricky and complicated business.
if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know
the risk of significant R&D investment by any company far outweighs the benefits. its much cheaper to ripoff little innovators who can't defend their IP rights.
if courthouses were only allowed to be in space, we would have a huge space transportation industry funded by big corporate clients of
Re: (Score:1)
... but rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know?
Maybe not so new. Still awesome though.
Re: (Score:2)
Future progression... (Score:4, Interesting)
But my hope is that the future of private space is a private space station that does what a space station really should: Serve as an rotating orbital way station (e.g. see 2001). If you store fuel there, NASA can purchase fuel for fast-track missions to Mars, Europa, whatever. Let SpaceX raise money via space tourism and charging for the fuel. People can LIVE there (artificial gravity eliminates many problems) and train for Lunar or Martian missions there (closer to the rotating hub there are natural low-gravity zones). People can also increase their gravity on the return trip from these missions so as to be able to return to earth.
This would make the space station a usable thing for MANY missions, not just an extremely expensive orbital platform. It would also facilitate our permanent colonization of other worlds. And (best part) it can be done with existing tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I will admit that the ISS is doing some very impressive things, is it really worth the $100 Billion price tag to get it built? That is roughly the cost of about 4-5 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and certainly more than has ever been spent on the entire cost of exploring Antarctica since Americans first went to that continent combined.
Then again there are several members of congress that would like to simply splash the thing into the Pacific Ocean and forget it ever existed in the first place. I
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely ever reply to ACs...but for this idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because you're talking with a Space Nutter. There's nothing rational about what they propose. They just think space is some kind of giant Wal Mart filled with resources waiting to be plundered, instead of the deadly, hostile, huge vacuum it really is. Any sci-fi they read is the equivalent of fully thought-out realistic engineering.
I'll make an exception.
I'm a physicist, so I'm willing to bet I know more than you do about this topic. I'm familiar with the idea that space is, in fact, a deadly, hostile vacuum. But I'm also familiar with the fact that lack of gravity is, at least currently, horribly detrimental to human health. If we are going to exist in space long term, we need gravity.
The beauty of a rotating station is that the hub has zero centripetal acceleration. I'll simplify that for you: THE MIDDLE DOESN'T SPIN. That
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a physicist too.
The middle does spin, just not with such a great tangential velocity. Unless you have some kind of joint, at which point we are into the realm of some extremely tricky engineering (you want people on this station right? So how are you going to stop air getting out? Can you make this triply, quadruply redundant, like a good space system should be?)
And for what? Making something sci-fi like in LEO gets us not one iota closer to colonising Mars or any other world.
Road trip! (Score:1)
I call shotgun seat.
Reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
A little perspective is needed here.
SpaceX is doing something that the US managed during the Gemini program, the USSR perfected in the 1970's with the Salyut stations, and the Chinese have just done. The first two of those national programs did so without any help or prior knowledge to draw on, and the Chinese had less help from the Russians than is commonly acknowledged.
SpaceX has had their hand held every step of the way by NASA, and have benefitted greatly from NASAs expertise, experience and technology - as have all commercial space launch companies in the US. The people running these companies freely admit this, but the libertarian fanboys simply refuse to, and demand NASA "get out of the way". This is like a teenage, entirely dependent on his parents income to live, demanding they "get out of the way" of his life.
Secondly, the "commercial" label is quite a stretch. These companies are offering a service that is almost exclusively used by a government agency (the very one that fanboys want to die right now quickly please) - they are not catering to a market. The artificial generation of demand that they are exploiting is pure Keynesian. No wonder the space libertarian crowd don't want to talk about this aspect of it.
It is nice that the US is working towards a Shuttle replacement, regardless of how it achieves this - but it is wrong to take this as a sign of the Ultimate Capitalist Triumph In Space, or as a cue to tear apart NASA in the name of ideology.
The reality at present is this; you can support the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, and any other markets-above-all nuts - OR you can support the continued presence of the US in space. You cannot do both, at least not honestly.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX has over 40 booked launches for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, that qualifies for commercial in my books. It's one of the reasons they are looking for an additional launch site.
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about manned spaceflight. I am well aware that SpaceX has attracted commercial clients for satellite launches; that you can make money putting communication satellites up is not news.
But their flagship program, the one that is being discussed here and touted as evidence that the glorious Invisible Hand will take us all to the stars, is what I am saying is completely dependent on NASA, and I'm, right.
Furthermore, the development of SpaceX launch technology, whilst commercial in its operation,
Re: (Score:1)
And your point is? Elon Musk has never been shy about the help they got from NASA and all the pioneers that went before. Since SpaceX is selling launches they are now more than "just" an engineering company. If all they were doing was NASA related activities I'd agree with you; but that is not all they are doing.
If you are looking for big dreams Mr. Musk's stated goal is to retire on Mars. You can't get much bigger than that.
Re: (Score:1)
My point is, it isn't likely. More likely is a successful but unremarkable existence as a LEO launch service provider.
Launching satellites, and even manned spacecraft, IS just engineering. That is not meant in a dismissive way, by the way. I just object to the ideological spin (only a fraction of which emanates from Musk himself.
Re: (Score:2)
An engineering company would not be gearing up for volume production of their primary product. They would be shopping around trying to sell their design after having proven it.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of "just engineering" depends on what the goal of engineering is. Musk's stated goal with SpaceX is to make life multi-planetary, and he has identified the most crucial enabler of that goal as rockets that are rapidly and completely reusable (IOW, what the shuttle was supposed to be). They are already selling launches (Falcon Heavy) for less than $1000/lb to LEO, but the big break will come when they crack the reusability barrier. That will open up a whole new range of possibilities and marke
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is in fact an ideological development as much as a commercial development. For this launch, SpaceX can claim the glory or the blame depending on the success / failure of the mission. NASA, for its part seems perfectly willing to share all their expertise in exchange for a guaranteed rate for space launches -- an accountability that their traditional funding patterns seem to lack entirely. And, if the mission fails, NASA can always blame SpaceX and keep themselves nice and squeaky clean.
Persona
Re: (Score:3)
So then, we're not actually entering an era of commercial space - we've been there for decades... Because Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, etc... have frickin' well blown up more private launches than SpaceX has booked - and they've flown successfully an order of magnitude more.
Re: (Score:1)
As a libertarian-leaning person myself, you are right on so many levels. SpaceX is entering into a heavily subsidized field. But the jury is still out on what they do after get through the POC. That will be new ground.
Will the "international government" allow for colonization on the moon? Mars? If they do these and issue Moon/Mars property rights, they could actually create quite a tourism market. Rich people would spend oodles of money on a day or two luxury vacation on the Moon.
But until the concept
Why all the docking hyperbole? (Score:1)
Why do people in spaceflight always resort to hyperbole when describing docking maneuvers? Example from this article:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We can't get computers to drive autonomously on earth, but we can program computers to automatically dock with the space station, that tells me it's EASIER than driving.
Your analogy immediately took a nosedive when you compared driving a car with parking a spacecraft. Computers are already somewhat decent at parking cars. However, if a computer had to navigate a spacecraft safely through a congested orbit of spacecraft piloted by humans it would likely be just as bad as it would be driving a car.
Put simply, you've overlooked the reason computers can't drive cars autonomously - it's impossible to predict with 100% certainty what the humans driving around the computer will
Best B'Day candle ever!! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... Not into history much, eh? Nail in coffin might have been Obama, but NASA's manned space flight mission was killed by W with the 2006 budget cuts (exacerbated by congress).