Slashdot Mirror

Obama wants to combine efforts with the the Air Force, which has a MUCH larger space program and a proven launch capability (Delta IV, Atlas V) already in hand.

Strictly speaking, the EELV rockets are more commercial boosters than the Air Force, and NASA would be dealing with Boeing and Lockheed-Martin rather than the Air Force. I do have a lot of hope for the EELV-based approach though, and it's also likely that a capsule adapted to the EELVs could also adapt later on to commercial vehicles from companies like SpaceX or Orbital.

As things currently stand, NASA's Ares I has been running into major problems, many believe it to have fundamental design flaws, and projected development costs are running into the $30-$50 billion range. Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago a NASA-commissioned independent study confirmed that the commercial EELVs would be able to fulfill NASA's needs of transporting NASA's orbital and lunar spacecraft, with estimated costs of a few billion dollars (about an order of magnitude less than the Ares program). There's also SpaceX and COTS-D, which could do the job for around $1.5 billion dollars of development costs. The independent study contradicts a previous flawed NASA study which concluded that the the EELVs would be incapable of doing the job.

The path that NASA was heading down with previous administrator Michael Griffin was really bizarre and backwards, and I have my fingers crossed that Charles Bolden will be able to turn things around.

(adapted slightly from a comment I made a few weeks ago)

"The NASA budget for 2010 has been announced, up 5% on 2009. Human space flight plans to be reviewed."

I'm quite glad to hear that this review of NASA's spaceflight plans is occurring, and from what I've read seems to be quite good at minimizing outside/political/industry influence and making sure that the recommendations will truly be the best ones possible. The only problem is that NASA and/or the administration might end up ignoring those recommendations for political reasons (e.g. making sure jobs remain in particular congressional districts).

Evidence has recently been leaked that the NASA's ESAS study which settled on the homebuilt Ares I (based on then-Administrator Mike Griffin's pet design) over the already-existing commercial EELV rockets was deeply flawed. Basically, the flawed 60-day ESAS study (often relied on by certain NASA officials to defend their plans) had a number of major problems:

(from Selenian Boondocks, with parts of the leaked study available on Wikileaks )

• Exceptions given in the ground rules and assumptions on maximum dynamic pressures to In-line SRM based crew launch concepts that weren't given to any other vehicles (without the exception, all of the five-segment Stick concepts would've been ruled out from the start).
• Unrealistically assuming a fixed LAS mass regardless of first stage characteristics (like T/W, max-Q, and whether you can shut them down or not).
• Inaccurate dry mass numbers for existing EELV upper stages (just as some of the guys on NASASpaceflight.com had been saying for years now).

As things currently stand, the Ares I has been running into major problems, many believe it to have fundamental design flaws, and projected development costs are running into the $30-$50 billion range. Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago a NASA-commissioned independent study confirmed that the commercial EELVs would be able to fulfill NASA's needs of transporting NASA's orbital and lunar spacecraft, with estimated costs of a few billion dollars (about an order of magnitude less than the Ares program). That's to say nothing of SpaceX and COTS-D, which could do the job for around $1.5 billion dollars of development costs.

I am about to compare the NK "space program" to the efforts of SpaceX. http://www.spacex.com/. Before I receive a terminal flaming, let me emphasize the fact that the two enterprises exist in alternate universes when it comes to scientific and technical expertise. And intent, for that matter. Having said that, it is important to consider two things they have in common: 1) Limited resources. NK is poor, isolated, etc. SpaceX is not NASA. Because it is privately funded, it does not have NASA's (comparatively) deep pockets. 2) The early efforts of both programs (and NASA's!) have been "failures". If success in actually achieving orbit is the only metric, SpaceX has a 75% failure rate. They didn't put anything into orbit until the fourth try. Elon Musk and company kept on trying. Now they are readying a fifth launch from their facility on Kwajalein Atoll, and they are preparing to launch an even larger rocket from Cape Canaveral. I have no doubt that the scientists and engineers in NK also learn from their failures. Their most recent launch may not have been a failure at all. I agree that it was most likely an ICBM test and not an attempt to orbit a satellite to give the world Kim Jong Il's version of MTV. This is why I believe it is dangerous and short sighted to dismiss the NK space program as a NASA wannabe run by incompetents for whom the wheel and fire are the latest technology.

Spacex' Falcon 1 has a thrust about 1.25 times its lift-off weight. The old Saturn V had much the same. You don't need, and in fact don't want, engines much bigger than that if you plan to go to orbit; they'd just be dead weight for most of the trip.

Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist. I just know how to do arithmetic.

Shouldn't we have off-the-shelf components and some semblance of a mass-production system for them by now?

I would posit that spaceX is among the first to attempt just that. I for one have been rooting for their success, as I think they can bring a revolution of sorts that is sorely needed in the field.

Real-life example begging to differ

I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.

But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.

First of all, you have no idea how bad it is that Ares has been designed to spec. So much so that with problems in the basic design of the Ares I, rather than trying to fix the problems they are shaving off payload mass and forcing a redesign of the capsule. Ask about the "pogo stick" problems (where the main engines give an incredibly bumpy ride... much worse than the Saturn V ever did). I'm sure a couple billion dollars will eventually fix the Ares I rocket, but for that price they might as well do a fresh "redo".

The Falcon 9-Heavy is going to cost for its full development a fair bit less than $1 billion... and that rocket completely financed through private (not government) funds. Furthermore, the Falcon 9 is quite a bit closer to getting ready to fly than the Ares I. Yes, I do consider this at least comparable to the Ares I in intention and purpose... with the Falcon 9 having a much larger safety margin in terms of launch capacity and room for improvement to achieve proper man-rating.

As for the name Jupiter, this is one with a decidedly interesting history in terms of rocket history, including the Jupiter-C rocket that was designed by none other than Werner Von Braun himself. I call that a heritage to at least build off from and help to inspire the next generation of rocket builders.

While I agree with your conclusions, we can't just dust off the Saturn designs and reimplement them. For one, we don't have all the details. Some of them have been lost. For another, you'd have to redo a lot of things anyway -- do you really want to be using Apollo-era electronics? If you did, where would you get them? It would make sense to update the alloys used, at which point you have to recheck all the design parameters.

Of course, I'm all in favor of building an all-liquid rocket that focuses on reliability over performance by doing things like modest chamber pressures and gas generator cycles, and eschews the minimal gains and large headaches of hydrogen in favor of kerosene. Huh, where have heard that before? Building to similar specs as the Saturn V makes a lot of sense as well; it's an appropriate size for such a vehicle. But any idea that we can just dust off the old designs is as much a fantasy as the idea that the new Orion SRBs are just retouched Shuttle ones.

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

I really wish the editors would stop indulging these ad whores who are just regurgitating what's on the SpaceX site already.

Dunno why TFA didn't just link to their site... much more info.

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

So far, the Falcon rocket has being nothing but failure. Every single one of their rocket has either exploited or the cargo has failed to reach the target orbit.

Flight 4 was dead-on perfect. http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.php

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

The offical site and news: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php It says exactly what the article links to, just a bit more offical ;)

I know a lot of people never thought SpaceX would get this far. I watched the first three Falcon1's explode like everyone else before this last successful launch in Sept (even though it had no real payload). I'm hopeful their Falcon9 starts out successful.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php (Please make source articles more complete)

It doesn't sound any different than Lockheed or NGC getting $3 billion.

As I've noted in another comment, the difference is that Lockheed/NGC have cost-plus contracts, while this is a fixed-price contract. Lockheed et al get more money if they go overbudget. SpaceX has to pay the cost if they go overbudget.

The concept drawings from any of these companies are equally far from the real thing. Maybe the CEO of SpaceX is worth a little more than the Lockheed CEO.

Concept drawings? SpaceX's Falcon 9 has already been transported to Cape Canaveral, and will be fully assembled and vertical within the next week.

You could just about persuade me to take a trip in the mothership, but I wouldn't go near the SS2 for all the tea in China - not until they've done, say, one percent of the number of test flights needed to certify a typical normal civil light aircraft, and not had any unfortunate incidents like the one that so nearly killed the pilot on the first SS1 launch. It blows my mind that people are willing to slap down hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to be torn to shreds by centrifugal force, incinerated by an engine failure, or even simply spiralling gently down with half the control surfaces missing for a nice leisurely twenty minutes before lithobraking.

On the other hand, conneisseurs of huge explosions are eagerly awaiting the first test flight of Falcon-9, which as the name suggests bundles nine of the Falcon S1 engines that put their test mass into orbit a few months back. Unlike F1 which have been at Kwajelien Atoll in a US army test range, F9 launches from the Cape. There's no keeping spectators and TV crews away from that baby, no sir!

You want to look at Bigelow Aerospace. By the time companies like XCOR and Virgin are offering orbital rides, Bigelow is quite likely to have an orbiting hotel for your destination. Note that Bigelow has a launch listed on the SpaceX manifest. They're quite serious, and well funded. They don't always get as much press, because they don't make hot flamey stuff, but they're just as important.

I should have posted the link - Apologies

You did not even search.
Here's the test footage.

Activity on the floor is constant and will remain so throughout the week and weekend as we prepare the F9 structures for shipping to Texas for testing before they head to the Cape.

Which you're going to get done by Dec 31 right? No? They update the launch manifest which says Falcon 9 Maiden Flight, Cape Canaveral, target date: Q4 2008, where "target date" is curiously defined as "vehicle arrival at launch site" which is a very strange term to use on a launch manifest, but hey.

Given that its a pure copy, and the submitter links back to the same site; I think we're just increasing someone's pageviews.

The original is: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

The data sheet says max axial load at MECO is 5g, and at SECO 3-5g depending on mission. They specify a design load factor of 6g.

If you want the slopes of the curves, you can work out estimates from published data. Takeoff mass is 333,400kg. Vacuum thrust is 5.56MN; multiplying by the Isp ratio, that suggests a liftoff thrust of 5.03MN, or about 1.5g at liftoff (seems I misremembered).

Liftoff Isp of 275s equates to 2700m/s, so to produce 5.03MN thrust it burns 1860 kg/s of propellant. That'll give you the start of the curve and total propellant mass; the Isp and thrust increase with altitude (rockets perform better in a vacuum), so the middle portion of the curve is a little hard to pin down without better data about the flight path.

So NASA and the USAF have options to buy launches from SpaceX. Doesn't look like either have committed to any specifics, though.

Check out the SpaceX launch manifest. They have some NASA flights booked, so that NASA can see if they're actually capable of resupplying the space station.

As for private enterprise? No chance. No private enterprise has ever launched a person into orbit. SpaceShip One was a major achievement for them, but didn't even reach Alan Shepard levels of spaceflight; a Gagarin is far beyond them.

Is there a reason you're mentioning SpaceShip One (which was never designed for orbital capability) while ignoring Falcon (which was)? Granted, Falcon didn't carry any people, but a claim that this capability "is far beyond them" is ridiculously false. Dragon should be ready to go by the time the shuttle retires.

If you mean could the government write a cheque to a private firm to build them a spacecraft, yes, they could.

And they already did. You seem to be treating an ongoing program, started years ago, as if it's a hypothetical...

Does this look like a pretty viewgraph and amazing estimates of low cost?

http://spacex.com/galleryimages/9engine_vts3018_large.jpg

That was a full up 9 engine test in precisely the configuration that will be flying on the final vehicle. Not a viewgraph, but a photo of an actual engineering test.

I should also note that they are planning on flying that vehicle sometime before Christmas, this year. Just look on the official manifest if you don't believe me. It will be flying by March/April at the latest assuming they do come across some problems that weren't already uncovered with the Falcon 1, and it is the same engine that flew on the Falcon 1.

Actual hardware has already been built for the Falcon 9, and it is being assembled even now as I'm typing in this response. I'd agree that it needs some actual flight tests to "prove" the design, but it certainly is much further along in its development than the Ares rocket.

As far as NASA engineers doing designs in a fishbowl, I'd have to say so are a number of other groups that do that too. Any publicly traded company should at least be that open to their shareholders, if not prospective shareholders. SpaceX and even more so with companies like Armadillo Aerospace have some remarkable candor with what they are doing and blogs about their progress that we could only wish for from NASA engineers. These aren't the only ones this open either.

I did mention other vehicles like the Delta IV rocket that might also work, but then again is that something imagined and put into a nice viewgraph as well?

Another alternative: Falcon 9 Heavy

(bold added by me.)

The Falcon 9 does not yet exist. The design you haven't yet tested is always better than the one you're working on now, because you know the problems with the one you're working on, while you don't know the problems of the shiny new one being proposed.

And, the design that you're trying to sell to the customer with pretty viewgraphs and amazing estimates of low cost and high performance is always better than anything ever built or conceived of.

Ares 1 has problems that are being solved by engineers. Surprising? No, that's what engineers do: figure out what the problems are before they occur and then solve them. That's engineering.

What is unusual is the fact that NASA engineers do it in a fishbowl.

Another alternative: Falcon 9 Heavy This is being deliberately built with the goal in mind to become man-rated eventually, and will be making trips to the ISS on unmanned resupply missions. The first flight of this rocket (not the heavy variant but at least the Falcon 9) is going to be later on this year. The manned version will be using a completely new spacecraft as well, which SpaceX is calling the Dragon.

But will it get us to the moon? That is the whole point of Ares.

Alternatives? Well, there is one huge one for starters:

http://www.directlauncher.com/

The DIRECT launcher is one that has been worked on by a number of years by some of the very same engineers who are working on the Ares vehicle. In fact, it meets the requirements of re-using existing shuttle components much better than the Ares, and doesn't even modify the SRBs (the solid rocket boosters) at all. Those are treated as commodities and used nearly in an identical fashion as they have been used on the Shuttle.

Another alternative: Falcon 9 Heavy This is being deliberately built with the goal in mind to become man-rated eventually, and will be making trips to the ISS on unmanned resupply missions. The first flight of this rocket (not the heavy variant but at least the Falcon 9) is going to be later on this year. The manned version will be using a completely new spacecraft as well, which SpaceX is calling the Dragon.

You also have suggestions of using a man-rated Delta IV-Heavy rocket that certainly has the firepower necessary for launching a manned vehicle, and one unusual suggestion was to use a Falcon 1 as the 2nd stage on top of an Atlas booster.

There are also dozens of projects that NASA has worked on since the Space Shuttle was originally laid down that you really just need to dig on both the official NASA website and onto space-related websites (or even "encyclopedia" websites) to find these plans. In spite of some actual hardware being built and billions of dollars into these programs, there is a huge graveyard of earlier attempts to build a successor to the Space Shuttle. Ares is just the latest example, unfortunately.

Will government manned spaceflight capabilities end in the next couple of years? Yeah, I think it will. This is something akin to the U.S. Navy being unable to send a ship out to sea because the ships fall apart before they can clear the harbor.

Private manned spaceflight in the USA looks considerably more promising, with about a dozen companies all at various stages of development that are all chomping at the bit to get a piece of the action. In other words, CNN and the rest of the news media will be on hand in space to greet future NASA astronauts in a congratulatory party when NASA actually gets it act together.

BTW, I've also suggested that CNN is going to cover the first NASA landings on Mars with their own camera crews that got there through other means. The more I read about things like Ares, the more I'm convinced this will really happen.

In some ways, I'm glad that NASA is throwing its surplus money into Ares even though it is a huge black hole sucking up any money you can throw at it. At the very least when these private spacecraft go on line, congress might just force NASA into buying tickets side by side with tourists. What an accomplishment from the agency that supposedly is on the leading edge of spacecraft development.

Yea man, even with that. Those three failed launches cost 30 million dollars, rounded up. Musk alone put 100 million of his money into the company. That's besides the COTS competition money which they managed to get quite a lot of, and whatever other investors they might have which I have not a clue of.

Check their launch manifest. It's booked till 2011.

Makes me wonder about that near-future 5-year gap where the US will have no way to get up there and repair our assets in space (like the Hubble)??...

Virgin Galatic? SpaceX?

I'm thinking a five-year downtime for government run space launches is a wonderful idea. A lot of people seem to think private companies would do a much better job of it. I don't know that that's true, but let's see what happens. We may look back on the five-year NASA downtime as the best thing that ever happened to the US space industry...

Virgin Galactic has done successful manned space flights, albeit only sub-orbital. SpaceX has now successfully done orbital launches, albeit unmanned. Manned orbital spaceflight is within reach. The private sector isn't quite ready to service a satellite in orbit -- but it ain't that far off...

Is it really any cheaper? Their website quotes a price of $7.9m to get 420kg to LEO, or about $20,000 per kilo. This is just about exactly what we pay now. There's no cost advantage as far as I can see.

Actually, several things bothered me about the video. First, what is all the liquid on the camera? That doesn't seem right; I don't remember seeing anyting like that on a NASA launch.

Second, during the separation, at the very end of the video, it seemed to run into the main body. Was that intentional? it wouldn't seem so.

See http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=13 at the end.

I couldn't find the video for Flight 4, but found the video for Flight 3 (that failed to reach orbit) that is very interesting...

To develop? That's proprietary.

Want to buy a launch? $7.9 million.

This is almost old hat for Russian and American astronauts (or cosmonauts or whatever). Any country could work with those two space programs and complete a space walk on their own. I wouldn't be surprised if the ESA has already done this as well and I just haven't heard of it. In other words, the third or fourth country doing this isn't a great step forward for all humankind, it's one more country catching up to where other countries were decades ago.

The early Renaissance was old hat to the ancient Romans. But the Europeans had to make that first step back to the level of technology and culture enjoyed by their ancestors, or they would have been stuck in the Dark Ages. Think of the Chinese space effort as a complement to the venture capital-funded new space economy of (mainly) the US. Most of the technology used by these small space companies are just mash-ups of old pre-Apollo technology. Yes, sometimes it's necessary to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes not just once, but many times over.

Assuming that they need the video telemetry anyway, and that they have been making some rather public announcements about this launch... I would say it is quite likely.

If you don't want to miss the webcast, make sure you look at the "main page" of the SpaceX website... where they've had links to the webcast on each of the previous launches.

http://spacex.com/

They sell launches for $7.9 million each, or $9.1 million for the extended version. I'm sure they cost less than that to build. Price quoted down at the bottom of this page: http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php

Prices include insurance and launch range fees, so no hidden costs.

They're not precisely throwaway, either, since the stages are designed to be recovered, refurbished, and relaunched.

Not relevant to TFA, but to the /. crowd:

Unix/Linux admin and software engineer positions open at the L.A. facility. https://spacex.com/careers.php

The subject line is a ripoff of a ST:TNG episode. I'm not with SpaceX. I'm still trying.

My only real question regarding transportation would be how they got the tank TO the road (ie railroads, boats, or was it built right next to a road?)

Space-X Photo Gallery has a picture of it being loaded.

But it would be a tragedy if Orion replaced the Shuttle's current functionality. The whole point of Ares/Orion should be exploration, not the menial (and uninspiring) resupply of low-Earth orbit. That's where I'd like to see broader use of commercial options, like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital Sciences, or an assortment of others.

SpaceX will be serving the ISS in 2010. 2011 at the latest. They're making serious progress.

Also, the flight test webcasts are geekily fun to watch.

Aha! I found it here: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Message from Elon Musk

Posted August 2, 2008

Plan Going Forward

It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight [Falcon 1, Flight 3]. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened.

The most important message I'd like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward. We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that. I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six. Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1. We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing.

As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment. Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon. There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport. For my part, I will never give up and I mean never.

Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four.

--Elon--
(In a message to Employees, August 2, 2008)

From SpaceX:

During launch, SpaceX will use the extensive range safety, tracking and telemetry services provided by the Reagan Test Site (RTS) at the United States Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Central Pacific. The next launch window opens 29 July and runs through 6 August, followed by one from 29 August to 5 September.

The Falcon 1 will carry the Trailblazer satellite for the Jumpstart Program of the Department of Defense's Operationally Responsive Space Office (ORS). Additional secondary payloads include an adapter system developed by the government of Malaysia that holds two small NASA satellites.

Wait, they have Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, but no Falcon 7?

Wait, they have Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, but no Falcon 7?

Look, does this news really come as a surprise? NASA's been over-budget and behind schedule since the last Apollo flight. Without the unlimited checkbook that Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had, this should be expected.

Unlimited budgets have a way of clearing all obstacles in their path.

>Why make a relatively paltry living as a scientist when you can make oodles of cash as a lawyer, running a business, or even to a lesser degree, writing software?

Because for some geeks prestige and riches aren't their first priority. Some are more interested in doing something fun or important. Why give up much of your life to money making activities when you can get enough money doing what you love?

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that http://spacex.com/ is building a reusable manned launch vehicle right now. SpaceX already has a contract with NASA but I don't know for what. They're waiting for the Fourth of July vacation to end to launch their Falcon 1 rocket at the end of this month. Their launch manifest lists the first launch of their Falcon 9 before the end of the year.

There seems to be little appreciation of the importance of SpaceX's projects. Their Falcon 1 is supposed to have a reusable first stage and their Falcon 9 is supposed to have both a reusable first and second stage. If SpaceX can get these rockets to work they could be the huge breakthrough in launch costs that we've been waiting for. The Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet and the Falcon 1 has flown and crashed twice, but it almost got to orbit. I don't see how any other launch vehicle in the world will be able to compete with SpaceX if they can reuse their rockets. Although I guess if the Space Shuttle could mess up the economics of reuseability then maybe SpaceX can to.

They must be doing something right, cause apparently, the rocket is on the pad right now going through dress rehearsals.

clickenzie here.

They're hardly comparable are they! Slashdot readers are far more interested in something which will take PEOPLE into space, rather than yet another satellite lifter that's only interesting because it's cheaper to make.

Apparently you've never heard of the Dragon. The Falcon series is designed to lift cargo *and* people to orbit. Unlike the shuttle, they made the wise (IMHO) decision to not require people to be on every liftoff; you include people when you want to lift people, and not otherwise. The first Dragon flight is scheduled for early next year. Both Falcon and Dragon have passed every NASA COTS review so far (example).

Also, once again, the old fallacy of "being in space is roughly equivalent to being in orbit" rears its ugly head. Sadly, this happens in pretty much every thread about SS1/SS2.

Apart from anything, SpaceShipOne/Two just simply looks WAY cooler!

You hit the nail on the head.

"The masses" in this context are people who can afford to pay six figures for a joyride to take them to a tenth of the delta-V needed for orbit in an vehicle design that physically cannot scale to orbit.

Meanwhile, actual orbital vehicle development continues. The massive Falcon 9 has not only completed its one engine firing, its two engine firing, and its three engine firing, all flawlessly, but also it's five engine firing. Only one more static firing is scheduled before launch (all nine engines). The smaller Falcon 1, which would have easily reached orbit in its last test flight but for either the lack of a bump *or* the presence of an upper-stage baffle, now is designed both to prevent the bump *and* now has an upper-stage baffle. It will be launching within the next month with its first payload, and the Falcon 9 should launch by the end of the year. The Falcon series represents a two to three fold price cut per kilogram compared to similar sized launch vehicles after almost half a century of price stagnation.

But hey, by all means, Slashdot is free to continue largely ignoring them (dedicating roughly the same number of articles to SpaceShipTwo, of which only minimal info has been released yet as the entire Falcon series through its history) and to keep reporting on every last detail from this unscaleable joyride.