Elon Musk's SpaceX Offers Low-Cost Rockets

Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Ive always wanted to rocket into space at an affordable price and parachute down.

I cant see any problems with this plan.

Re:Cool by ospirata · 2004-03-29 07:50 · Score: 1

I have already bought one of these to launch at July, 4th. "If yourre going to drive, do not drink. If youre going to drink, call me"
Re:Cool by British · 2004-03-29 08:08 · Score: 1

Didn't Estes come up with rockets that land with parachutes first though?

Does this have a huge key that you turn that activates on a tripod launcher?
Re:Cool by BerntB · 2004-03-29 08:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Ive always wanted to rocket into space at an affordable price and parachute down.
I cant see any problems with this plan.

Right you are, Sir, no problems!

--
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Re:Cool by ron_ivi · 2004-03-29 08:52 · Score: 1

Far cheaper than making it into real space, this rocket guy who'se been interviwed on slashdot before has plans for a 35-mile-high rocket like this for entertainment.
Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 13:11 · Score: 0

apart from the minor inconvenience of going without food and water for a few weeks to do the re-entry at velocities that a parachute can handle...

What a deal... by jwthompson2 · 2004-03-29 07:47 · Score: 3, Funny

SpaceX wants to fly up to three Falcon I missions in 2004 at a $5.9-million list price per flight...

If I max out my credit I will be 3/5900ths of the way to my own launch...woo hoo! Yay for the people who need this stuff though.

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

Re:What a deal... by howlatthemoon · 2004-03-29 08:25 · Score: 1

You could set up a paypal account like people who spend themselves into debt and want others to pay it off. I'd much rather support an initiative that results in a huge fireball. I bet that was Elon Musk's idea for PayPal all along; to set up a way for geeks to pay to shoot themselves into space.

Well by odano · 2004-03-29 07:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Now the real question is: Where the hell are you going to go?

Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:53 · Score: 0

I think you have a good point.

You could go to the moon. That way you could see for yourself that nobody has landed there, and in fact the US landing was a con.

:)
Re:Well by Serious+Simon · 2004-03-29 08:22 · Score: 1

Now the real question is: Where the hell are you going to go?
It doesn't have a toilet?
Re: Well by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-03-29 08:47 · Score: 1

Where the hell are you going to go?

Where do you want to go today?
Re:Well by Jim_Maryland · 2004-03-29 08:57 · Score: 1

Didn't Microsoft already take us there with their Where do you want to go today? campain? I would have thought we had gotten there already. Maybe they'll get us there with the next SP or Longhorn.
Re:Well by cybercuzco · 2004-03-29 10:51 · Score: 1

To see the best view in the solar system: Earth from LEO. How many people pay millions of dollars for their house to be on the ocean, or on the side of a mountain, or on a lake, or near central park so that it has a good view? the view of earth from space is about a billion times better, because you see the entire planet, and its always changing. First you gt tourists wanting to see it, then you get real estate developers, because people will want to live there, just for the view.

--

And, with a 50% discount by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:48 · Score: 3, Funny

You can send two up and still probably get it done with the 50% failure rate.

Re:And, with a 50% discount by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:53 · Score: 0

Too bad the rocket is the cheapest part of the package...you can't afford to lose your payload 50% of the time.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by BerntB · 2004-03-29 08:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Too bad the rocket is the cheapest part of the package...you can't afford to lose your payload 50% of the time.

I've seen the argument that if the launch price went down a lot, the cost of hardware would go down.
If a subsystem didn't cost $10,000/lbs to launch it would be built much, much cheaper.
There would also be a push to standardisation of interfaces and modules.

--
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Re:And, with a 50% discount by timeOday · 2004-03-29 10:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's cool, the larger model can supposedly make orbit even with 60% failed engines.
Unlike other current U.S. boosters, the Falcon V with five SpaceX Merlin engines will have an engine-out capability much like the Wernher von Braun Saturn vehicles of the 1960s. That means even with up to three engine failures, the vehicle's remaining powerplants can achieve velocity and altitude targets to make orbit.
Wow, here it is 2004 and we've almost caught up with Wernher von Braun... either he was really cool then or we're pretty pathetic now, or both.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by DerekLyons · 2004-03-29 17:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wow, here it is 2004 and we've almost caught up with Wernher von Braun... either he was really cool then or we're pretty pathetic now, or both.
No, it means Mr Musk has taken a step backwards. The other current boosters don't have engine out capacity, because they don't need it. Engine reliability is high enough that adding extra engines does nothing but increase cost and actually decreases reliability by adding more failure points. If his engine reliability is low enough that he actually needs engine-out capability, thats one thing. I rather suspect though that he is engaging in market hype.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by Gr8Apes · 2004-03-30 02:07 · Score: 1

I wonder if he really has taken a step backwards. The Delta IV has a single engine first stage, complemented by 2 solid fuel boosters. Not much engine out capability there.

After all, how much did that single engine cost compared to the 5 "off the shelf" engines he's using? Not to mention the fact that liquid hydrogen adds to the expense of operations as compared to kerosene. I tend to agree with you that he's engaging in market hype, however, as the engine out capability is a fortuitous (from a marketing perspective) result of using off the shelf components.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by DerekLyons · 2004-03-30 05:37 · Score: 1

I wonder if he really has taken a step backwards. The Delta IV has a single engine first stage, complemented by 2 solid fuel boosters. Not much engine out capability there.
Perhaps you didn't read my message, I'll repeat it; Modern boosters don't have engine out capability because they don't need it, any more than you need a spare engine, transmission, and driveshaft in your car. Engine out capability is protection against unreliable engines and components.
After all, how much did that single engine cost compared to the 5 "off the shelf" engines he's using? Not to mention the fact that liquid hydrogen adds to the expense of operations as compared to kerosene.
I wouldn't be surprised if his set of five cost about the same or a little more than a single Delta IV engine. OTOH having five engines increases your costs as that means five engines to install, test, checkout etc... Five engines mean more piping, more wiring, more controls, more possible points of failure. Just because they are cheaper to buy doesn't mean they are cheaper to use.
I tend to agree with you that he's engaging in market hype, however, as the engine out capability is a fortuitous (from a marketing perspective) result of using off the shelf components.
If he's using truly off the shelf components, this is likely the case.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by cheesybagel · 2004-03-30 06:31 · Score: 1

He is saving money on design costs for Falcon V, by reusing the same engine designs. It makes a lot of sense.
Compare his design with the Delta IV Heavy, which has no engine out capability and will use 3 engines. Mighty risky I might add.
I suppose he will design a heavier duty engine, once he has recouped his original costs and made a small profit.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by DerekLyons · 2004-03-30 10:16 · Score: 1

Compare his design with the Delta IV Heavy, which has no engine out capability and will use 3 engines. Mighty risky I might add.
ROTFLMAO. No more risky than driving my car, which has no engine out capability either. (What part of 'modern rocket engines are don't need engine-out capabilities because of their high reliability' is so hard to understand?)
Re:And, with a 50% discount by cheesybagel · 2004-04-01 12:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, Boeing probably said that about the Delta III too. Which part of the higher the number of non reduntant engines in your system, the higher the possibility of failure do you not understand?
Re:And, with a 50% discount by cheesybagel · 2004-04-01 12:47 · Score: 1

Oh and there is no comparison possible with the auto business. A car uses less parts, has lower chamber temperatures and pressure, non-cryogenic fuel, you name it. Materials technology evolves slowly, this is one of the most significant factors for the poor reliability in rocket engines.
Besides, if your single car engine fails, you usually don't come crashing into something and the brakes and steering still work. Those new fangled unstable configuration military airplanes are a different matter altogether.
Re:And, with a 50% discount by DerekLyons · 2004-04-01 17:19 · Score: 1

Yeah, Boeing probably said that about the Delta III too.
Probably not, because engine failure didn't cause the loss of of the Delta III. The Delta III could have had 2,3,4, or any number of first stage engines and it still would have broken up.
Which part of the higher the number of non reduntant engines in your system, the higher the possibility of failure do you not understand?
You may believe that, however it's false. With a modern engine you already have a >99.9% sucess rate. Adding additional engines does not raise this rate significantly. Adding additional engines increases the number of potential failure points, which increases the chance of failure, which offsets even the small gain from adding extra engines.

What they don't mention by andy666 · 2004-03-29 07:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is the instability that a lot of people found when testing the falcon. I am surprised how positive this article is.

Re:What they don't mention by AKAImBatman · 2004-03-29 07:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Instability in flight, instability in engine power, or instability in structure? All but the last amount to more development. The last often amounts to completely scraping the design and starting over.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:What they don't mention by mrright · 2004-03-29 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

I read the sci.space newsgroups regularly as well as the very good hobbyspace site, and I have heard nothing about this.

Could you elaborate? Or are you just spreading FUD?

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Re:What they don't mention by saden1 · 2004-03-29 08:14 · Score: 1

whatever they do, they'll be paying royalties to the big boys like Boeing and Lockheed. I'm sure they old a ton of patents in those areas.

--

-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Re:What they don't mention by frinkster · 2004-03-29 08:26 · Score: 1

Luckily, patents still expire in a reasonable amount of time. Anything developed before, what, 1985 (?) should be in the public domain by now.
Re:What they don't mention by AKAImBatman · 2004-03-29 08:35 · Score: 1

That takes care of the Delta II, Titan, and Atlas, but any patents relating to the Delta III or IV are out.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:What they don't mention by bughunter · 2004-03-29 09:46 · Score: 4, Informative

The top-level comment was an attempt at humor by misinterpretation of the reference to 'Falcon,' in this case, the F-16 Falcon and its [unintentional?] inherent longitudinal aerodynamic instability in flight. More information can be found here.
Unfortnately, such attempts at misinterpreted humor often fail because of the obscurity of the alternate interpretation, as in this case.
Overall funny rating: 2.5 out of a possible 5.0 (Weak). [Not to be confused with slashdot moderation scores, of course. Everyone knows those are a joke.]

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:What they don't mention by SB9876 · 2004-03-29 11:29 · Score: 1

IIRC, there are virtually no patents on rocketry technology. Partly this was due to NASA being pushy and insisting that any patents that were developed using even a dollar of NASA cash were property of NASA.
Re:What they don't mention by StarsAreAlsoFire · 2004-03-29 14:58 · Score: 1

The first amounts to a redesign of the aerodynamics, which leads to a redesign of the structure, which leads to more weight which leads to a redesign of the engine, which leads to a redesign of the structure, and more weight, which leads to interesting new aerodynamic loading which leads..........

There are no cheap fixes in aerospace. Period. An instable engine system (note SYSTEM) is the WORST thing that could happen, as that is the major selling point.

The owner gave a speech at Purdue which I was able to attend. Pissed off a bunch of professors with some flippant comments regarding the simplicity of what he is doing... but hey, its his money. And I kind of agreed with him.... as long as my money isn't involved :~)
Re:What they don't mention by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 17:51 · Score: 0

What they don't mention is that the turbopump that they are using is based on the NASA Fastrac turbopump which barely worked when they hooked it up to the Fastrac engine. Integrating the pump and the engine is not a trivial task. The engineers at NASA never got a chance to work out all the bugs because the X-34 program was cancelled. Now SpaceX is talking about launching in a few months, but apparently they have not hooked up their turbopump to their engine yet. The trouble is that the turbopump output pressure rises smoothly, while the engine input pressure jumps higher when it starts burning. They may have a way around this issue, but in general there is a lot of engineering yet to do.
Re:What they don't mention by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 20:30 · Score: 0

humor by misinterpretation

So is that politcally correct for stupid?

When does the price drop enough for tourists? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

'cause then.. we can have the ultimate motivation for human endeavour.. profit!

Re:When does the price drop enough for tourists? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:58 · Score: 0

Please tell me the parent was supposed to be funny, even though it got modded for being Insightful.
Re:When does the price drop enough for tourists? by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-03-29 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

'cause then.. we can have the ultimate motivation for human endeavour.. profit!
I thought the ultimate motivator was sex? Just look at what kind of companies were among the first to profitably sell a service on the Internet. Hmm.... perhaps 'step 2' is selling weightless sex trips?

But seriously... this is good news; having private enterprise undertake missions to space. It'll be good to see the price of launches drop even further.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:When does the price drop enough for tourists? by Richthofen80 · 2004-03-29 08:18 · Score: 1

it is insightful. the profit motive is the driving force behind the industrial revolution. and the profit motive is behind the computer you're using.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

-Adam Smith

--
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Re:When does the price drop enough for tourists? by argStyopa · 2004-03-29 09:24 · Score: 1

I think original AC poster probably meant this as an ironic comment, but I'd wager that capitalism and self-interest have propelled more development and improved the lives of more people in total than all the government programs in history put together.

I'm all for deregulating spaceflight and allowing private ownership of property and property rights in space. Its a far quicker ticket for humanity ad astra than to wait for some congress to appropriate $$ for it over the incessant public whining for "more bread" and "bigger circuses".

--
-Styopa
Re:When does the price drop enough for tourists? by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-03-29 12:11 · Score: 0, Troll

When does the price drop enough for tourists?

You appear to have misspelled the word "terrorist."

--
True story.

Jetsons! by PRES_00 · 2004-03-29 07:49 · Score: 1

The first step toward an affordable flying car? I think so! Are rockets really the most expensive part though?

Re:Jetsons! by Yeep4711 · 2004-03-29 07:58 · Score: 2, Informative

There are already flying cars. Just google for it. You'll find things like the Skycar which look quite promising!
Re:Jetsons! by Trolling4Columbine · 2004-03-29 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

A successful "flying car" wouldn't be rocket-powered, but air-breathing.
With rockets, the craft would be heavily weighed down with the necessary O2 tank. An air-breathing engine would be much lighter, not to mention less expensive.
If a flying car is ever to be practical, it won't be using rockets.

--
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Re:Jetsons! by Hiro+Antagonist · 2004-03-29 08:34 · Score: 1

No; the insurance is. Given the way most people drive, at any rate.

--

--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.

Amazing! by Neil+Blender · 2004-03-29 07:49 · Score: 1, Funny

I wonder if they will advertise in the same place I am advertising my low cost heart transplants that I perform on my new cheap 747-like airplane that I am also selling.

Re:Amazing! by LordHatrus · 2004-03-29 07:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

not sure how to take that.... :)
Re:Amazing! by Analogy+Man · 2004-03-29 07:54 · Score: 1

So you are advertising on slashdot?
I'll give you every dollar in my wallet for the 747...that would be $6 today!

--
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Re:Amazing! by Neil+Blender · 2004-03-29 07:57 · Score: 1

Analogy Man (601298)

Christ, the irony.

TCO is what's important, though. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Considering the high cost of most payloads, do you think most companies will jump on board with them having no proven launch record in the hopes of saving some cash? Even with insurance, the considerable delays caused by losing a payload would likely outweigh any savings made by using one of their launch vehicles. That's not to say that they won't produce some great hardware, but it may be an awfully slow start for them.

Re:TCO is what's important, though. by Shakrai · 2004-03-29 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even with insurance, the considerable delays caused by losing a payload would likely outweigh any savings made by using one of their launch vehicles.
More to the point will Insurance Companies be willing to underwrite a launch on a vehicle with no launch history built by a company with no history?
I wish them luck but they have a hellva barrier to entry to overcome.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by mrright · 2004-03-29 08:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

For the payloads of today, you are right. But first of all, falcon I and especially falcon V is designed to be extremely reliable. Simple technology has a tendency to just work once it is debugged. Just ask the russians.

And second, the main reason satellites are so expensive is that they have to use very exotic materials and low margins to save mass. If you have a cheaper launcher you can build your satellite heavier, cheaper and more rugged.

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by cmowire · 2004-03-29 08:11 · Score: 1

I noticed that they made a point of trumpeting the traditional-aerospace background of many of the members of the team. ;)

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by dougayen · 2004-03-29 08:24 · Score: 1

Well, if they can't find someone willing to pay for the first launches through normal sales channels, they can always put them up on on EBAY. Someone will pay them to get their stuff into space, even if it's just the cremated remains of a loved one.

After the first few successful launches, they can start selling to the people who need to see success before they'll buy in.

--doug
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by mirio · 2004-03-29 08:27 · Score: 1

Considering the high cost of most payloads, do you think most companies will jump on board with them having no proven launch record in the hopes of saving some cash? Even with insurance, the considerable delays caused by losing a payload would likely outweigh any savings made by using one of their launch vehicles. That's not to say that they won't produce some great hardware, but it may be an awfully slow start for them.

I agree. The payloads tend to be *very* expensive. However, I would bet that many payloads are so expensive because of the cost of launching one into orbit. They take every conceivable precaution to make sure the satellite will actually work. I would guess that with cheaper launches, many launch customers would be willing to rush their payloads to orbit knowing that if something is wrong, they can diagnose the problem, build another and launch another satellite.

The cost to build a satellite is relatively minor. It's the research and the triple-redundancy that drives costs skyward (pun intended).
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by robindmorris · 2004-03-29 09:07 · Score: 0

What tends to hapen with new launch vehicles is that for the first few launches, they give much reduced launch fees to organizations such as AMSAT or other scientific organizations. These people have satellites that, while having cost them a great deal of money, have lesser problems if they fail than commercial satellites. The first launch (failure) of Ariane 5 was carrying payloads with a high experimental content.
I also heard a talk last summer which was looking at just this problem -- modelling the probability of failure of launch vehicles. The conclusion was (basically) that the learning curve is very steep -- a company that has had 3 launches (successful or not, as it happens -- the unsuccessful ones go out of buisiness quicker than that) has almost the same reliability as a company that's been launching for many years. There's a pdf linked from the conference page. The main data points are that after the first two launches, new companies have a success rate of 0.88, and established companies, a success rate of 0.89.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by tenchiken · 2004-03-29 09:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's the brilliance of the scheme. They already have a first customer to get them thru the first couple of launches.. Ladies and Gentlement, I give you dadadum.......

The United States Navy (who, if I am not mistaken is already funding this program).

USN is used to makign really risky (as in, people die if they don't get it right) investments in Technology. Compared with the decision to buy F-35's or F/A-18s, this is a simple matter. Cheap, check. Will it fly without blowing up? We will find out soon.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 10:38 · Score: 0

And second, the main reason satellites are so expensive is that they have to use very exotic materials and low margins to save mass. If you have a cheaper launcher you can build your satellite heavier, cheaper and more rugged.

Well ... uuuuh ...No.

Cheap rockets don't solve this problem. Even if the price to lift is $CHEAP/lb up to the X lbs, no amount of money will allow you to get a payload heavier than the rocket's capacity into orbit. (multiple lifts and assemble in space isn't gonna be a cheap solution to this problem either)

Now, if you had cheap rocket with double the payload capacit of current rockets it may make it possible to skimp on the payload construction. But it is maximum payload capacity, not per-trip cost that dictates expensive, exotic, fragile payloads.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by georgewilliamherbert · 2004-03-29 12:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Well ... uuuuh ...No.

Cheap rockets don't solve this problem. Even if the price to lift is $CHEAP/lb up to the X lbs, no amount of money will allow you to get a payload heavier than the rocket's capacity into orbit. (multiple lifts and assemble in space isn't gonna be a cheap solution to this problem either)

Now, if you had cheap rocket with double the payload capacit of current rockets it may make it possible to skimp on the payload construction. But it is maximum payload capacity, not per-trip cost that dictates expensive, exotic, fragile payloads.

This is a common misperception.

In reality, it is often cheaper to fly on the next
sized larger rocket than it is to save 10% off the weight of the payload itself. Trying to save the last few pounds because you didn't plan in enough margins for your project is always a horrible experience, expensive and painful.

It's a rule of thumb that the most efficient
satellites have hardware cost around the same
as the launch cost. R&D and operations costs
may be other major factors, but you want to
try and balance out the payload and launcher
costs to be roughly equal.

Look at the Falcon V. It costs around $12 mil.
A roughly equivalently sized Delta II (7925) is about $45 million. A much smaller Delta II (7325) only costs $22 mil (NASA used a bunch of these for small missions in the last 5 years) but only lifts about half as much payload as Falcon V.

Using the rule of thumb, we want to spend about $12 mil on the spacecraft hardware for a Falcon V launch, and about $22 mil for the hardware for a Delta II launch, which weighs half as much. So the price per pound of the Delta II payload is about four times as much.

As a rough rule of thumb, allowing weight to double within otherwise identical performance
requirements for electronics and systems will
save you about half the total cost. Sometimes
more than half, but half is conservative. So the rule of thumb supports the $12 mil payload price on the Falcon.

So we have a total mission whose hardware costs $12 mil to build and $12 mil to launch ($24 million, plus the R&D costs and the operations costs) versus $22 mil to build and $22 mil to launch ($44 million plus R&D costs and operations costs). Capabilities should be roughly identical.

Saving $20 million on the flight is a lot of money, even for rocket people.
The R&D and operations costs may add another $50 to $100 million to the mission cost, but even so, saving the $20 million on the hardware and launch is a big deal. And R&D costs may go down a lot if the hardware complexity goes down and weight is allowed to grow, so you can save there too.

And the best part is, the rule of thumb keeps being valid as you keep making cheaper larger
rockets to launch things on.

So don't fall for the old story that you don't save overall cost if you make lower cost launchers. You need both cheaper *and* bigger, but if it gets cheaper faster than it gets
bigger you win.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by twostar · 2004-03-29 13:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually there are a surprising number of interested parties out there that are willing to take the risk. Universities are one.

The two biggest problems universities face when trying to launch their satellite are cost and ITAR. A lot of the satellites that universities build have the latest and greatest because companies like to give samples and parts to universities. We stick those on some satellites and then ITAR becomes an issue. The state department laughs at us and says there's no way that's leaving the country. So now we're stuck on an American launch vehicle, which costs much more and generally has more stringent requirements for redundancy. So we sit on the ground with no way of getting into orbit.

Then comes a startup. They offer a cheap(er) ride to orbit, with less stringent safety requirements (yay, only triple redundancy instead of quad or higher), are an american company, and a little more risk on our side. So our satellite might not make it into an exact orbit with the precision that a Delta could do. So our satellite might blow up in a million parts, but hey, at least we had some fun and had the chance of getting into space. University satellites generally only have a 50/50 chance of working once in orbit anyway.

I work on a picosatellite project called CubeSat. We developed a standard system to allow universities and other interested parties to build picosatellites (10cm x 10cm x 10cm, 1kg) and then integrate all the satellites together into a single system that is then sent to the launch provider as a unit and attached to the launch vehicle. The goal is to provide cheap, easy, frequent, access to space. We have our second launch coming up this fall on a Russian DNEPR launch vehicle and will be deploying 14 satellites from universities all across the world. This same launch is also carrying multiple other small satellites.

CubeSat
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by DerekLyons · 2004-03-29 17:23 · Score: 1

For the payloads of today, you are right. But first of all, falcon I and especially falcon V is designed to be extremely reliable. Simple technology has a tendency to just work once it is debugged. Just ask the russians.
But you won't get the answer back that you think. Fact is, the 'simple' Russian boosters have failure rates within .1% of the 'complex' American boosters.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by cheesybagel · 2004-03-30 06:35 · Score: 1

So you are saying that making a vastly more expensive and complex design with about the same reliability as the simpler design is a good deal?
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by DerekLyons · 2004-03-30 10:20 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying the reliability of the 'simple' Russian rockets is vastly overrated, and the reliability of the 'complex' Western rockets underrated. The difference in reliability between the two is so small as to be statistically insignificant. The simple fact is, that if any other form of transportation was as unreliable as rockets currently are, the manufacturers would either be held criminally liable, or flat out of bussines.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by cheesybagel · 2004-04-01 12:57 · Score: 1

IMHO, the major source of problems for several US rocket families (Titan IV, Delta III, Shuttle) was the use of hard to control solid engines. Statistically, it is easy to see that solid engines are less reliable than liquid engines on average.
The Russians have historically favoured liquid fueled rockets.
The US dumped its most successful heavy lift launch vehicle, Saturn, which was built to run exclusively on liquid fuel, for the Shuttle and Delta IV with solid engines. Hmmm...
I consider the Russian reliability numbers excellent considering the usual shoddy quality of their hardware.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by DerekLyons · 2004-04-01 17:34 · Score: 1

The US dumped its most successful heavy lift launch vehicle, Saturn, which was built to run exclusively on liquid fuel, for the Shuttle and Delta IV with solid engines. Hmmm...
Fact is, not enough Saturns were launched to make a statistically valid determination of their reliability. Fact is *no* western booster has been launched enough to make a statistically valid determination. The only launcher in the world that has launched enough is the Soyuz booster (not the capsule, which has only flown 80 some times), which has flown 900 odd times. Given that your potential error is 1 divided by the sample size (number of flights in this instance), it takes that many to make a decent judgement.
After all that, the Soyuz reliability works out to .996, which is not really all that reliable at all The general reliability of US rockets (keeping in mind the caveats above) is .997! (A vanishingly small difference.) That implies that your claim of liquids vs. solids stands on shaky grounds.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by cheesybagel · 2004-04-02 03:26 · Score: 1

General reliability of US rockets is .997 uh? Which US rockets are those? It certainly isn't Shuttle, Titan IV or Delta III. And Shuttle has flown over 100 times. Which is reasonable for a launch vehicle.
Perhaps you are talking about the Atlas II-V family. That one has a flawless flight record. But then again, most launches were done without solids. Hmmm... Atlas and Saturn, this is starting to become a recurring pattern. Solids are evil, especially those of the multiple segment variety.
The Soyuz booster has had several major upgrades during its lifetime on engines and avionics, ergo, possibility for new failure modes. Shuttle has also had upgrades, but not so many on the highly critical path. We call every R-7 based space launcher a "Soyuz" but there are significant differences.
In fact, you could say the second Shuttle accident was due to design upgrades (they stopped painting the main tank) and the first was due to the solids.
Failures most often seem to be due to solid engine, stage separation or engine ignition failure. Chamber explosions or structural collapses, the main problems with liquid rockets, do not seem to happen much anymore.
Re:TCO is what's important, though. by DerekLyons · 2004-04-02 08:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps you are talking about the Atlas II-V family. That one has a flawless flight record. But then again, most launches were done without solids. Hmmm... Atlas and Saturn, this is starting to become a recurring pattern. Solids are evil, especially those of the multiple segment variety.
It's only a recurring pattern to those who refuse to do the math. Once you do, the 'pattern' vanishes. (Thats why engineers and analysts rely on math rather than the perception.) Solids have problems, yes, but statistically speaking at a rate not much different, however higher, than liquids. The big drawback to solids isn't that they fail, but that they have essentially no non-catastropic failure modes.
It's interesting to note however that the US SSBN force, which uses non-segmented solids, have a failure rate (of the solids) somewhere around 12% of the NASA/USAF rate for non-segmented solids. Why that is, I don't know off hand.
In fact, you could say the second Shuttle accident was due to design upgrades (they stopped painting the main tank) and the first was due to the solids.
Um. No. Painting the tanks has exactly nothing to do with the bipod ramp failure that destroyed Columbia. No paint in the world has the mechanical strength to hold that ramp on.
Failures most often seem to be due to solid engine, stage separation or engine ignition failure. Chamber explosions or structural collapses, the main problems with liquid rockets, do not seem to happen much anymore.
Yep. Modern engines have a chance of catastropic failures of around .04%, they have a chance of non-catastropic failure around .02%. (Which I why I keep pointing out to you in another thread that adding engines does not materially add to safety.) These are calculated numbers, but so far experience and trends show they are valid working numbers.

Nice protection of IP... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

With Boeing in its sights, SpaceX ironically wanted to validate its own Falcon I calculations against high-quality Boeing Delta hardware and found a Boeing-discarded Delta II interstage section in a Hollywood, Calif., junkyard on which to make those calculations.

Nice to know they leave this stuff lying around...

Re:Nice protection of IP... by InfiniteWisdom · 2004-03-29 08:44 · Score: 2, Funny

They had to unscrew the access panels to look inside, right? I think that counts as circumvention of copy-protection mechanisms. Its DMCA time, baby!
Re:Nice protection of IP... by NOLAChief · 2004-03-29 09:44 · Score: 1

They should send it over to the Junkyard Wars folks once they're done with it....That'd be cool to see. :)
Slightly more ontopic, when I was co-oping at Stennis Space Center they showed me some of the Apollo-era hardware they kept finding discarded in the woods. Some were full-built engines! Apparently the testers would just junk the test articles once they were finished with them. (Obviously not hardware being flight-certified prior to launch, of course.) So it's not unheard of, though Stennis is still a secure facility and a random upstart company wouldn't be able to reverse engineer the parts that were lying around. I'm sure whoever was responsible for discarding that interstage is currently being stood up against a wall facing a Boeing-badged firing squad.

Guidance system? Payload? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:51 · Score: 1, Funny

So how good is the guidance system on these things? Would it be capable of carrying a payload... oh say the size of a suitcase from somewhere in say... Asia, to the west coast of the United States and hit a target within a few hundred metres? If so I know some Arab gentlemen who would be interested in purchasing a few of these.

minus paragraphs, minus line breaks... by HarveyBirdman · 2004-03-29 07:53 · Score: 4, Funny

*SCREEEEEEEEEEEEECH*

*BAM!*

Damn! That dense block of unbroken text just jumped out right in front of me. Thank goodness my browser has airbags.

Everyone else OK?

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:minus paragraphs, minus line breaks... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:54 · Score: 0

htmlisoverrated.thereisnoneedforformatting
Re:minus paragraphs, minus line breaks... by CaptKilljoy · 2004-03-29 13:51 · Score: 1

htmlisoverrated.thereisnoneedforformatting

You're Japanese, aren't you?

(For the benefit of less-informed moderators, Japanese (and some other Asian languages, but it's worst for Japanese, IMO) don't use spaces between words, making it hellaciously difficult to read for West^H^H^H^H this Westerner at least.)

They make rockets? by HarveyBirdman · 2004-03-29 07:55 · Score: 4, Funny

I splash on a little Elon Musk every morning after shaving.

It makes me smell sweet and alluring.

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:They make rockets? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:11 · Score: 0

>>I splash on a little Elon Musk every morning

Who are you, his wife? :)
Re:They make rockets? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 09:08 · Score: 0

I splash on a little Elon Musk every morning after shaving.

You have an Elon Musk mini-me? And was that "splash" or "squirt"?
Re:They make rockets? by pragma_x · 2004-03-29 09:46 · Score: 1

Acutally, I think that's just leftover Kerosene that they package after market.

Paypal payload payments? by psyconaut · 2004-03-29 07:56 · Score: 1

I wonder if I launch "questionable goods", whether or not my Paypal account will be suspended and funds held indefinitely.... ;-)

-psy

Re:Paypal payload payments? by iamhassi · 2004-03-29 09:34 · Score: 1

and does the insurance only cover up to $100? Because my satelite costs a little more...

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

It is reusable by mrright · 2004-03-29 07:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

The falcon first stage, which represents the bulk of the mass of the vehicle, is designed to be reusable. It will deploy a parachute, land in the ocean and be recovered. The only expendable part in the first stage is the nozzle.

They have also developed their own turbopump and reusable engine with quite impressive performance.

And all that for less than 100 million $. For that kind of money, NASA could probably produce a really nice paper study, but nothing that gets off the ground.

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)

Re:It is reusable by pegr · 2004-03-29 08:06 · Score: 4, Funny

And all that for less than 100 million $. For that kind of money, NASA could probably produce a really nice paper study, but nothing that gets off the ground.

You could climb up on the paper...
Re:It is reusable by NOLAChief · 2004-03-29 09:28 · Score: 1

From looking at the article, this looks like one of the most innovative launch systems to come down the pipe in a while. The one thing that strikes me as the Achilles heel though, is that common bulkhead between the oxygen and kerosene tanks. IIRC, common bulkheads have been tried before but have a tendency to rupture due to the thermal stresses induced by having a non-cryogenic fuel and a cryogenic oxidizer sitting on opposite sides of them. Of course I'm not privy to the patent, so maybe they've worked this problem out. If they haven't though, then they're probably going to be nothing more than a flash in the pan.
Re:It is reusable by mrright · 2004-03-29 09:47 · Score: 1

Many launchers have common bulkheads. Most notably the Saturn V. There was never any problem with that.

So I think your fears are unfounded.

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Re:It is reusable by NOLAChief · 2004-03-29 10:59 · Score: 1

A quick googling verified what you said about the Saturn V, but it was a common bulkhead between LOX and LH2, as is every other reference to a common bulkhead that I found (again, it was a quick googling...if you can disprove me, please do.) And the Saturn folks had had trouble with the bulkhead. Referring from here, "The two tanks shared a common bulkhead consisting of two face sheets separated by an insulating layer. The bulkhead turned out to be especially difficult to manufacture... A critical problem was insulating the big LH2 tank, especially at the common bulkhead. Initial stages used exterior insulation panels. Later, NAA developed a spray-on foam insulation technique."
The difference between the normal boiling points of hydrogen and oxygen is about 70K. They had trouble guarding against problems caused by heat transfer in that situation. The difference between the NBP of O2 and ambient (where the kerosene will be held) is around 200K. That's a much larger driving temperature difference to work against. To reduce the risk of failure from thermal stresses, or even freezing the kerosene, insulation must be added. This cuts into any weight savings from having a common bulkhead in the first place.
Long story short (and sorry for the verbose response), my fears are probably unfounded. Judging from the story and the website they seem to be stressing weight savings in their design. Heck, maybe they've come up with a brand new ultralightweight insulation to put on the common bulkhead. That'd be a cool thing that would have other applications.

Re:mr paypal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 07:58 · Score: 0

he's already taken them. i was wondering where my "siezed account" funds went to...

The first stage will be reusable by haggar · 2004-03-29 07:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

From the article:
Starting with the first flight this summer, the vehicle's first stage will be reusable.

After propelling the second stage and payload to 56 mi. and Mach 9, a 75-ft. parachute will be blasted out of the first stage nose by a 10,000-lb.-thrust mortar. The chute will lower the vehicle to a splashdown 500 mi. off Baja California, where it will be recovered for $50,000 by the crew of the salvage tug Aahu.

So, they're not just copycats, they introduce innovative technologies to keep the costs down.

So, there'll probably be some fierce competition in the space delivery business before the scramjet tech becomes viable. After that point it's anybody's guess which companies will come on top.

--
Sigged!

Re:The first stage will be reusable by cmowire · 2004-03-29 08:25 · Score: 1

You assume that a scramjet will ever be viable enough to be worth bothering with. Remember, any hypersonic air-breathing engine needs to be lighter than the equivelent amount of oxydizer that an equivelent non-air-breathing hypersonic engine needs. And you will need some rocket power to manuver in space.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:The first stage will be reusable by haggar · 2004-03-29 08:48 · Score: 1

Yes, that's my assumption. You are correct that it may turn out that the air-breathing engine adds more overhead than the oxygen otherwise necessary. I think the odds for that are slim, but yeah, my original post was written in an over-optimistic tone.

--
Sigged!
Re:The first stage will be reusable by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 09:58 · Score: 0

Think of the first stage as a thin aluminium can, that must not have any weak spots in it when they pressurise it up with rocket fuel the 2nd time round.
Mach 9 may cause invisible, heat or pressure wave, induced metal fatigue,it may cop a few dents on the side when loading onto the boat, after recovery. As with boosters, a teeny weenie leak, or soft spot, has big consequences.

Discount Rockets by ackthpt · 2004-03-29 07:58 · Score: 4, Funny

It's just a matter of time before we have ads like this on the toob:

Save! Save! Save!
Save 20% to 50% off other leading brands of rockets at SpaceX Rocket-O-Rama! Come on down and bring the whole family, first 25 in the door get a free gift pack of Sunscreen, SpaceX Sunhat and Binoculars. Be the first on your block to put a mouse, dog, rabbit, chicken or chimpanzee into orbit! (Children not recommended) Why settle for mini-cams around your house, when you can monitor security from space, or watch your neighbor's house or the whole town! Always know where your spouse or kids are! Act now, launch windows are going fast!

it's going to be just like the Jetsons...

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Discount Rockets by superdan2k · 2004-03-29 09:20 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm looking forward to getting this one in my inbox:

Y0U S4VE NOW ON LAUNCH SERVICES! BE A MAN AND PUT YOUR V1AGRA SUPPLY IN A SAFE PLACE ON MOON SURFACE, SOLD BY LUN4R EMB4SSY!

You know it's going to happen.

--
blog |
Re:Discount Rockets by cybercuzco · 2004-03-29 10:45 · Score: 1

it's going to be just like the Jetsons...
Not until I get my flying car. And talking dog. And Judy Jetson.

--

reliability? by SoupGuru · 2004-03-29 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am not terribly educated on cost and reliability figures for sending payloads into orbit, but it would seem to me that a satellite can't be cheap. When you're looking for options on how to get the bugger into orbit, would you rather choose the status quo for a twice to three times the cost or the upstarts? I guess there will need to be people willing to take the risk and send up a few satellites to show reliability.

But I'm all for it. Competition is a good thing, right?

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable

Re:reliability? by cmowire · 2004-03-29 08:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, it's a bunch of equations in a Linear Programming problem.

Part of the reasons why satellites are so expensive is because the cost per pound is so high. Reduce the cost per pound, you need to spend less time and money making it so lightweight, which means you can spend time and money making it last longer, cheaper, more functional, etc.

Reliability for unmanned launches ends up being such that, currently, 98% launch reliability is "good enough" because going beyond that ends up being far too expensive.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:reliability? by JohnsonWax · 2004-03-29 08:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, the cost decision is a feedback loop.

If it costs $30M to get into orbit, you don't waste that on a $1M satellite. You use it for a $30M+ satellite. NASA should be safe for high-cost payloads provided that they have the reliability record (only time will tell).

If it costs $6M to get into orbit, then a whole pile of people can get into the game that weren't previously there, and some design decisions may change. Plans like GPS look much more attractive provided the satellites are cheap. Consider launching 50 $2M satellites:

With NASA, that costs you $1.5B (launch) + $100M (hardware).
With SpaceX, that costs you $300M (launch) + $100M (hardware).

SpaceX is an attractive option provided they can launch very frequently, even if their reliability is terrible. Simply build 100 satellites and if half fail, you're still way ahead of the NASA budget.

Remember, what often makes launch failures so catastrophic is not the $30M lost on the launch, but the $1B lost on hardware at the tip of that rocket.

SpaceX will cause people to design cheaper, less-advanced satellites. Unfortunately, it will also further clutter our orbital spaces. I really have to think that with the advent of private launches, that the world govts need to coordinate and essentially tax each launch to cover debris tracking and ultimately debris cleanup.
Re:reliability? by GileadGreene · 2004-03-29 08:44 · Score: 1

As a previous poster pointed out, a lot of the cost of a satellite is a direct result of the cost of the launch ("if I'm paying that much to get the damn up there then it better bloody well work").
From what I have seen, there are any number of customers eager to fly on Falcon. In particular, the USAF has been fawning all over SpaceX. The current doctrine in USAF Space is based around so-called "Responsive Space", which means launching small satellites fast and cheap in response to the needs of a specific conflict. Falcon is a natural for that kind of mission.
Of course, "Responsive Space" is pretty much a rehash of a previous USAF effort about 15 years ago (different name of course) that was supposed to use the OSC Pegasus to do the same kind of thing. Whether or not Falcon will go the way of Pegasus remains to be seen (it is at least a lot cheaper then OSC's offering).
Re:reliability? by NanoGator · 2004-03-29 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I saw a Dilbert cartoon where they pushed a Satellite into orbit using a laser + a really big sail of some sort. This is a cartoon, I know, but is there any basis in reality for that sort of launch?

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:reliability? by TigerNut · 2004-03-29 08:52 · Score: 1

I would think that a big motivation for this would be time to orbit, as in: If you get into the queue today at any of the existing space agencies, when will your piece of hardware actually achieve orbit? Having a low-cost, fast-turnaround operation allows quicker replacement of failed space hardware. Hopefully (as others have lamented) this won't result in a rash of space junk cluttering the LEO corridors.

--
Less is more.
Re:reliability? by TigerNut · 2004-03-29 08:55 · Score: 1

You need to harness the kinetic energy of the photons in the laser beam such that it doesn't just turn into heat... pretty hard to do given the range and acceleration you're required to achieve. Solar sails could eventually be used to accelerate interplanetary hardware but most of the concepts these days envision effective sail areas of multiples (hundreds?) of square km.

--
Less is more.
Re:reliability? by DanielRavenNest · 2004-03-29 09:23 · Score: 1

Communications satellites do the same job as
cell phone towers - they receive and send
radio signals, usually on multiple channels.

When you design a comm sat, you want to maximize
earnings, which comes from maximizing number
of channels (transmitter/receivers) you have
and lifetime of the satellite. For each of
the component parts of the satellite, you
usually have a choice of cheaper, heavier
parts, such as aluminum structure and single
junction solar cells, vs more expensive, lighter
parts: graphite structure and triple junction
solar cells.

When you lower the cost per pound of launch,
the optimal design, measured in transponder-
years per megabuck, will shift to heavier,
cheaper components.

Daniel
(who is a rocket scientist)
Re:reliability? by mikeee · 2004-03-29 09:44 · Score: 2, Informative

In theory it can be done with a laser and a very small sail. Essentially you build a rocket with no real fuel - maybe just some reaction mass - and shine a BFL up the tailpipe.

Very nice in theory, very hard in practice.

I *think* NASA had demonstrated this technology to get a 1-pound 'rocket' to a height of about 10 feet, but that's the state-of-the-art for ground-based laser launch.
Re:reliability? by J05H · 2004-03-29 11:02 · Score: 1

Everything else, definite agreement.
SpaceX will cause people to design cheaper, less-advanced satellites. Unfortunately, it will also further clutter our orbital spaces
I would argue that cheaper launch via Falcon will enable new entrants into the market to design cheaper but higher-tech satelites. We will be able to use faster processors, newer CCDs for cameras, bulkier-better-handling-fuels. These new systems will be very intensly designed, using CAD, new materials and propulsion concepts (because you can risk it). The new generations of sats are going to continue the revolution begun with the Iridium constellation, MOST and CHIPSat.
As far as space junk, deorbit services for microsats may be as simple as an electrodynamic tether for end-of life or advanced as refuelable tugs collecting them for on-orbit recycling.
Josh

--
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Re:reliability? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 18:03 · Score: 0

There is no world govt.... yet.

Intense Specs by millahtime · 2004-03-29 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Will these hold up to the intense specs NASA has? That is one reason things are so expensive. Previously mentoned on /. about how some gears were in backwards yet never broke is an example of how tough the specs are. Then there is all the testing that needs to be done which is expensive. Will these meet all the NASA and other space agence requirements to use??? Will they meet Military specs to be used by the miliraty?? They may only be able to be used by comercial industry if they aren't up to spec.

--
Evolution or ID?

Re:Intense Specs by mrright · 2004-03-29 08:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Nasa has a habit of having so much paperwork and specification stuff that only the big launch companies (boeing and lockmart) need apply. They also have a habit of being heavily biased against new companies.

The DOD on the other hand seems to be really interested in cheap, reliable and fast launch. They want to be able to put up a sattelite on short notice, and none of the incumbent companies are able to provide this.

That is why the DOD has bought the first launch of the Falcon I and will buy many launches on Falcon V. Of course the high value payloads will go up on Atlas V for the forseeable future, but there will be a lot of pressure on boeing and lockmart if falcon is successful.

Isn't competition great?

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Re:Intense Specs by Kaa · 2004-03-29 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Previously mentoned on /. about how some gears were in backwards yet never broke is an example of how tough the specs are.

Mmm... no. That's not about specs, it's an example of how NOT to design mechanical parts.

These gears could be put in two ways, the right way was non-obvious, and when put in the wrong way, the gears more-or-less work (so the problem doesn't show up during testing) until the time of unusual stress.

This really should be a textbook case of how not to do things.

--

Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Re:Intense Specs by millahtime · 2004-03-29 08:15 · Score: 2, Informative

"The DOD on the other hand seems to be really interested in cheap, reliable and fast launch."

The DoD wants more than inexpensive, reliable and fast to launch. They have to consider many more things that cost a lot of money. When it gets to the mil specs and the requirements they put on a subcontractor, well you can see why a happer costs $100. There is a lot you don't see until you work in the industry. And it's all about what the military expects and there is almost always a good reason for it. And the reason is usually safety

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:Intense Specs by cmowire · 2004-03-29 08:28 · Score: 1

It's probably the case that, if Falcon I and Falcon V do well, NASA's going to end up dealing with SpaceX anyway. It'll make for some great congressional hearings if they don't. ;)

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:Intense Specs by jwo7777777 · 2004-03-30 04:51 · Score: 1

Yeah...should have been "Poke-Yoke'd". A Japa-lish word for a method of making things idiot proof. The dang gear should have had a feature that totally prevented incorrect insertion.

A Rocket Scientist? by amigoro · 2004-03-29 08:00 · Score: 4, Funny

So a Rocket Scientist created paypal, huh?

That explains a lot.

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

--

Nothing to see here

Re:A Rocket Scientist? by RobertB-DC · 2004-03-29 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative

So a Rocket Scientist created paypal, huh?

Not exactly... as I understand it, he got rich from PayPal (originally at this cool URL), *then* started SpaceX.

So in effect, PayPal created a Rocket Scientist!

What's next? Google Labs creating a Brain Surgeon?

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Re:A Rocket Scientist? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:45 · Score: 0

Actually Elon Musk did NOT found Paypal. Paypal was founded by Max Levchin and Peter Thiel in the fall of 1998 (under another name). Elon Musk founded online bank X.com in the spring of 1999. That same year Paypal and X.com were united in a "merger of equals". Musk's ownership of X.com made him the biggest shareholder of the combined company which continued under Paypal's name.

good by savuporo · 2004-03-29 08:03 · Score: 1

New Dennis Titos and Mark Shuttleworths are lining up as we speak.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/News/2004 /News-2004-03.html#Mar.29.04

If rocketry will evolve anything like computing industry did after first Apples and PCs i can buy a ticket to orbit in ten years.
BTW, John Carmack is going to do a hover test of their full-scale X-Prize vehicle next week. Yay !

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!

Re:good by IWorkForMorons · 2004-03-29 08:16 · Score: 1

New Dennis Titos and Mark Shuttleworths are lining up as we speak.
Yes, because there are all those millionaires who just couldn't afford spend $20 million on a trip, but think $5 million is a much better deal...
Sorry...I know that, looking at the numbers, a 75% savings is a really good deal. But it's still $5 million that you need to put up, and that's a lot of money. There might be a few people who will do it, but even the rich people who could afford $20 million probably wouldn't take this deal up. Rich people didn't become rich by throwing their money away. We probably won't see more then 20 buy their way into space, until the price comes down to around the $100,000/ticket range. But nonetheless...this is at least a step in the right direction.
Re:good by ArsSineArtificio · 2004-03-29 10:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, because there are all those millionaires who just couldn't afford spend $20 million on a trip, but think $5 million is a much better deal...

There are a lot of millionaires who can't afford $20 million but do think that $5 million is a good deal. The former trip is four times as expensive as the latter. You are falling victim to the common fallacy that "the rich" are a nebulous, homogenous group. Some people can afford $20 million for a thrill. Some can afford $5 million. Some can afford $100K. Some can afford $10K. Some can afford $100. There isn't any fixed line between "the rich" and "everybody else".

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Re:good by IWorkForMorons · 2004-03-30 02:19 · Score: 1

You are falling victim to the common fallacy that "the rich" are a nebulous, homogenous group.
No, I'm stating that the rich people more then likely got rich by making smart business decisions, not by sinking $5 million into a single week long experience. There will be some people who will do this for the thrill and experience. People that most likely didn't make that money themselves (inheritence) or made it in such a fast an easy way(lotto winner, rockstar looking to spend as much money as possible before the label takes it from them). That's why I said there won't be more then 20 people taking this up. If only 2 people took it at $20 million, then chances are a few more people will take it at $5 million. And when it's down to $1 million, a few more will take the trip. Let's say no more then 100 people. Then with all that money the space company has made, they'll research ways of make getting to space cheaper. Which will bring the price down to about $500,000 a trip. And then even more people will take the trip, making more money for the space travel company, who will see greater profits by making space travel cheaper, which will reduce ticket prices, which will convince more people to go...etc...etc...etc. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Do you understand now why I said that? It's not what people can afford. It's what people are willing to spend...
Re:good by IWorkForMorons · 2004-03-30 02:24 · Score: 1

Oh...and sorry...to take this back to the original post, this process is going to take a lot longer then 10 years. Any money says you won't see the next space tourist until 2010, if not longer. Not one paying only $5 million anyways.

Falcon? by spellraiser · 2004-03-29 08:05 · Score: 1

So when will the Millenium Falcon be flown then?

We already have Windows ME, so where is the MF ??

--
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots

Re:Falcon? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:42 · Score: 0

if you have ME....I'm quite sure you've used 'MF' more than a few times...

Sorry just couldn't resist that one ;-)
Re:Falcon? by Mikkeles · 2004-03-29 08:46 · Score: 1

'So when will the Millenium Falcon be flown then?'

er... in the year 3000
(or when they reach Falcon M ?)

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Re:Falcon? by Arthur+Dent+'99 · 2004-03-29 08:57 · Score: 1

As most Slashdotters are aware, the real millenium will start in 3001, while the great unwashed masses will be celebrating in the year 3000. Make your reservations early! :-)
Re:Falcon? by RLW · 2004-03-29 10:06 · Score: 1

I thought is was the geeks on /. that are unwashed.
Re:Falcon? by Marvelicious · 2004-03-29 17:51 · Score: 1

*sniff* Yup!

--
Send whiskey and fresh horses!

Well, it had better be significantly cheaper ... by hattig · 2004-03-29 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/267 ::
"That competition is caused by an oversupply of launch vehicles in a soft market according to a recent report by Booz-Allen and Hamilton mentioned in Spacelift Washington. That report notes that the "excess capacity" in the launch vehicle market is currently at 35 percent of the market and growing, creating a downward pressure on prices. That excess capacity may not deter new entrants into the launch vehicle market, such as Japan's H-2A and India's GSLV, but it will prevent them from gaining more than a small piece of the overall market."

It will have to go up against a lot of established players, most notably Ariane with their 12,000 tonne payload launch system, Ariane 5. I don't know what a launch on Ariane 5 costs at the moment though.

The secret, revealed! by Spoing · 2004-03-29 08:06 · Score: 2, Funny

"You see, it's our patented water compressor unit over there...well, that, and of course the 10,000 kids used to push the plunger."

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.

Cool. by mikeophile · 2004-03-29 08:06 · Score: 1

Now when can I get a "Launch It Now" button for my website?

My Specs by kippy · 2004-03-29 08:07 · Score: 1

NASA might not use it but this is a good precedent. If private industry can come up with space travel for prices like these, it would open Mars to private settlement when that time comes. It will still cost a bundle but it wasn't unheard of back in the colonial days of the Americas for people to cash in their life savings for a start in the New World. If I can get to Mars when I'm 50 or 60 by cashing in all my chips, I'd be there like a shot.

--
Blaze a trail to the New World

Re:My Specs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:29 · Score: 0

" If I can get to Mars when I'm 50 or 60 by cashing in all my chips, I'd be there like a shot."
Dude, face it: You are not going to Mars by cashing in all your chips. Not in our lifetime.

that name ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:07 · Score: 0

Delta IV Medium Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

wow ... they should have added a turbo XP .. and I'd soooo have bought one

Elon is from south africa by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:07 · Score: 0

Elon Musk is a South African like Mark Shuttleworth (one of the first space tourists). He feels he has to live up to another local boy.

The lowest bidder by LabRat007 · 2004-03-29 08:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

"The SpaceX Falcon rocket project will specifically target Boeing, by offering the SpaceX Falcon V booster for 60-70% less than Boeing can fly its Delta II and newer Delta IV Medium Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle"

Firstly, does anyone else have a problem with low altitude geosynchronous orbit objects designed by the military being placed in the heavens by the lowest bidder?
Secondly, if they really can do it for 60-70% less why hasn't someone stepped in long before SpaceX? An "Entrenched culture" just isnt a good enough answer for me.

--
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"

Re:The lowest bidder by cmowire · 2004-03-29 08:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, first, it's a huge business risk. People *have* tried to step in, but nobody has managed to do so successfully. Check out astronautix.com and browse their database for a whole load of things that were promised to be cheaper but weren't. Garry Hudson has tried several times, in fact.

Second, because NASA has done much to discourage competition. Like the point in the 80s where they were trying to shut down Atlas, Delta, and Titan so that everything would launch on the shuttle.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:The lowest bidder by fredmosby · 2004-03-29 09:56 · Score: 1

low altitude geosynchronous orbit objects

Geosynchronous orbit is 35,785 kilometers, which is not a low altitude.
Re:The lowest bidder by Roadkills-R-Us · 2004-03-29 10:35 · Score: 1

Then I would suggest that you have no idea what the term, "entrenched culture", means in this case. "Miltary-industrial complex" has become pretty much just a buzzword, but it fits this situation.

Trying to buck such behemoths can be like trying to push a small neutron star up Mt. Everest. In your boxers. It's not for the faint of heart, and even then, the odds are low you'll even get started.

The really cool part is that the military is helping do an end-run around the MIC (k e y - m o u s e)...

20-30% eh? by Glog · 2004-03-29 08:09 · Score: 1

So now that we've found out how cheap their launch vehicles are and Boeing is trembling from fear of being made completely irrelevant all SpaceX need to do is have a successful launch. Minor detail.

Question, is this even legal ? by aepervius · 2004-03-29 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

I always thougth that most of the space treaty are so worded that only governement or governement allowed company can launch anything in space, and that if you really want to launch anything you have got to ask 10000's of autorisation to all kind of agency everywhere.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:Question, is this even legal ? by MojoRilla · 2004-03-29 08:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

From the article:

The Falcon I development is funded in part by the Defense Dept.'s Office of Force Transformation because the Pentagon believes if SpaceX is successful, it could have a major "transformational effect" on how military space operations are launched.

This is definately being santioned by the government.

Reliability by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:12 · Score: 0

60-70% less cost amounts to that much less man-hours working on the rocket. Boeing's Delta II has the highest reliability among all commercial rockets; it obviously costs a premium to buy something that won't blow up.

Re:Somewhat off topic by boutell · 2004-03-29 08:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Flash itself can be pretty amazingly efficient. It can be used stupidly, but so can HTML. , anyone?

--
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/

Enabling solar power satellites? by apsmith · 2004-03-29 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Cheaper access to orbit is one of four major technical milestones we need to reach to enable utility scale solar power via Solar Power Satellites - Musk's company is promising a factor of 3-5 cost reduction now, and, if they succeed, will surely be just the start of continuing cost improvements in space launch. If we can just get some money invested in solar cell design and production for space use, wireless power transmission, and light-weight space construction, we'll be there.

At least all those other technical areas have had even less money invested in them than space launch - so there's good reason to hope all the needed breakthroughs can be made soon - with some R&D money.

--

Energy: time to change the picture.

Re:Enabling solar power satellites? by mrright · 2004-03-29 08:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Falcon I and Falcon V would be a bit too small to be useful for SPS. But the long term planning of Elon Musk is to build a real heavy lifter (Saturn V class). That would make it possible to build solar power satellites and really open up the space frontier.

Lets just hope the first launch goes according to plan. That would be really good for attracting outside investors.

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Re:Enabling solar power satellites? by cybercuzco · 2004-03-29 10:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or instead of investing in 4 things that each need to be accomplished in order for cheap space solar power, we could just sink our money into fusion research, and probably accomplish the same thing alot sooner. (and more efficiently). Current fusion technology has reached breakeven in terms of power generation, and has been increasing power generated by fusion reactions by an order of magnitude a decade at least.

--
Re:Enabling solar power satellites? by cmowire · 2004-03-29 11:03 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. It probably holds for most heavier satellite applications that if you can only get 10,000 lbs up per flight, but the cost per pound is sufficently low, satellites that are assembled in space out of launched components start to look good.

Which, really, make sense. I mean, in the real world, big stuff is usually shipped dissassembled and then assembled on-site.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:Enabling solar power satellites? by apsmith · 2004-03-30 06:33 · Score: 1

Fusion has had billions invested in it, and that investment continues ($10 billion over the next decade between ITER and the others). Energy production, even as projected with that huge investment over the next decade, will still be two orders of magnitude more expensive from fusion than from any commercial source.

In contrast, we're already doing space solar power - in fact solar power has been running in satellites since the 1950's. The 4 technology areas I mentioned are ECONOMIC issues, to get costs to a competitive point. We aren't even close to that point with fusion. And yet we've spent perhaps $30 million on space solar power since 1980.

--
Energy: time to change the picture.

It already has... by DoorFrame · 2004-03-29 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

It already is cheap enough for tourists... just not cheap enough for tourists like you. Dennis Tito went into space with the Russians in 2001, and Mark Shuttleworth went in 2002. Of course, this cost them tens of millions of dollars, but they were tourists none the less. In addition, there's another tourist, an American, scheduled to fly later this year.

Now, admittedly these have all been based on national programs taking on a "charity" case now and again either for a few bucks, or for the attention that it gives them, but I'd say it's only a matter of time before a private company starts really marketing these trips to the extremely wealthy. If you can bring the price down to a million dollars a trip, you'll have your self a line of people out the door ready and willing to go. This is the ultimate in conspicuous consumption, Thorsten Veblen would be proud.

--

--
RumorsDaily

Re:It already has... by cmowire · 2004-03-29 09:21 · Score: 1

Also consider that the National Geographic society invests quite a lot of money sending photographers to strange and beautiful places on earth and in the ocean. I've often wondered if the solution to space exploration is merely making it easier for folks like them to launch space missions.

--
Gentoo Sucks

Bargain Launching isn't necessarily that great... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:14 · Score: 0

If I've got a $100 million worth of satellite, marked fragile, going up, I don't think I wan't Fly-By-Night Aerospace & Escrow making the tough decisions.

Design the rocket factory, not the rocket by G4from128k · 2004-03-29 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

The key to lowering the cost of launches is mass production and that means emphasizing manufacturing design, rather than rocket design. Yes, you must build something that will fly. But if you don't do a good job building the systems (the factory) that build the systems (the rockets), you will be stuck forever in a high-cost hell of precision, one-off, hand-assembled, hand-tweaked machines. This means using standaridzed parts, designing custom parts that can be mass-produced at low cost, and design easy-to-assemble, easy-to-lauch rockets.

It also means having enough volume that you can afford to invest in factory. This is the real chicken-and-egg problem. Without a high volume of launches, you can't justify the invetsment in a multi-billion dollar rocket factory and streamlined launch process. And without the rocket factory, you can't get the launch price low enough to create the launch volume. I do hope that some of the remaining wealthy internet entrepeneurs invest their collective billions in this endevour.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:Design the rocket factory, not the rocket by mrright · 2004-03-29 08:38 · Score: 1

You are right of course. But what makes you think that spacex has not thought of that? They produce a large part of the vehicle inhouse for that very reason.

It is not exactly mass production, since there are just not enough customers. But they make an effort to minimize manual labor.

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)
Re:Design the rocket factory, not the rocket by AJWM · 2004-03-29 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

The key to lowering the cost of launches is mass production and that means emphasizing manufacturing design, rather than rocket design.

That might be one approach -- but the Lockheed Martin (then Martin Marietta) factory south of Denver, when it was built in the early 1960s, was capable of rolling out a Titan II every week (actually the peak was closer to 6/month). Back then, aside from their role in the Gemini program, they were also our ICBM of choice.

You're still left with the problem of guaranteeing that something (the rocket you just built) you haven't tested under operational conditions will work correctly the first time. Would you be willing to book a ticket for a trans-Pacific flight aboard a 747 that just rolled off of Boeing's assembly line? (No shakedown flight, no place for an emergency landing, just load and go.)

That's fine for low-value payloads where you don't mind if you lose one every once in a while, or for ammunition, but carrying people is going to require an order of magnitude better reliability, which is either very expensive (you can't really inspect-in quality) or we need to come up with vehicles that can be test-flown, reflown, and have reasonable emergency abort provisions.

(And you're right about the chicken and egg problem. My wife used to be a manufacturing engineer for Martin, involved in a lot of studies on how to streamline and automate the production process for various real and projected launch vehicles. Low volume demand nearly always meant it was cheaper to just stick with the old methods (a lot of hand labor) than invest in new equipment and processes.)

--
-- Alastair
Re:Design the rocket factory, not the rocket by drinkypoo · 2004-03-29 11:49 · Score: 1

You can inspect-in quality. Materials, parts and welds can be x-ray inspected for example. Larger pieces of metal can be tested sonically. The more inspecting you do the more it costs because it's not easy to do right and it's not easy to do by machine, though there are certainly ways to automate inspection with costly equipment which is difficult to maintain.
Optimally you would end up with enough volume to where companies could make money just making engines, or just building rocket bodies, just making the separation equipment, and so on. Then each company can be responsible for testing their components, and they can certify their equipment, and then you just have to follow the proper procedures and you only have to inspect your welds and other connections.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Design the rocket factory, not the rocket by AJWM · 2004-03-29 13:32 · Score: 1

You can inspect-in quality.

No, you can't.

Materials, parts and welds can be x-ray inspected for example. Larger pieces of metal can be tested sonically.

That inspection doesn't add quality, it just weeds out the crap. Now, if your production process gives you only one bad item for every 10 you produce, you won't have to inspect as many to get n good ones than if your process creates 5 bad items for every 10 produced.

Same as developing software: you can do all the code walk-throughs (inspection) and turn on all the compiler warnings (automated inspection), but the real proof is when it gets turned over to the testers and end users. Problem with most rockets is, once they've been tested (under operating conditions, firing the engines on the stand isn't a complete test) they can't be re-used.

To add quality to a vehicle, you have to flight test it and fix the problems the flight test turned up. And fix them in that vehicle, since the next one off the line may have different problems.

(Of course you inspect your materials and components during assembly, but that doesn't prevent the dropped washer in the circuit board, or the misplaced socket wrench behind the panel, or the rag left in the fuel line, or the airbrake gear installed upside-down (all actual space vehicle occurances)).

--
-- Alastair

Mars by kippy · 2004-03-29 08:16 · Score: 1

The time may not be now but there will come a time (hopefully) when settlement of Mars becomes a possibility. Once NASA or whoever does a proof of concept mission, settlement will occur if the price is right for private citizens. Even if it's a million dollars for a one way trip, I bet the population would go from 0 to thousands in a few years.

--
Blaze a trail to the New World

Who would have thought? by Black+Mage+Balthazar · 2004-03-29 08:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I guess PayPal really is rocket science...

Elon Musk -- still a prick by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

"In Musk's spartan cubicle at SpaceX hangs a large picture that illustrates his competitive nature and what SpaceX wants to do to OSC and Boeing--it's of the boxer Mohammad Ali decking an opponent."

Don't imagine that this guy is a well-meaning geek. I've met him, and he went on at length about how much he admired Microsoft's business practices.

Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford 10/08/03 by amigoro · 2004-03-29 08:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Quick overview of his old companies: Zip2, Paypal

Zip2 - print-media-to-web software, clients included KnightRidder, etc, sold for $300,000,000 in cash to Compaq

PayPal - started as idea for one web site for all a person's financial needs. Email-money-to-someone feature was a quicky add-on feature, took one day of initial development, "classic viral marketting", 1 million customers at start of 2nd year of operations, went public in 2002, sold in june to Ebay for 4.5 billion in stocks, now worth 3billion.

Was doing background space research in '01-02, why did we stumble after Apollo? Computing analogy, mainframes filling rooms in 1970s, etc.

The idea he settled into would generate public interest, advance both science and engineering and be privately funded. It was a $10-20million Mars lander. The lander would carry seeds and nutrients, a miniature greenhouse, it would attempt to grow plants, the furthest life would have travelled. Went to Moscow looking for rockets, "We don't buy Russian cars, kitchen appliances or computers. Why can the Russians build such reliable, low cost launch vehicles?"

friends with group of aero-engineers from Mercury onward, put together a feasibility study. This happened at the same time he was selling PayPal, at this point he settled on "doing space" as his next business enterprise.

Space now - US govt. spaceflight in bad shape, quick recap of Shuttle status, losses, expenses, dangerous.

Slide - problems of Shuttle - kind of standard complaints.

Slide - OSP/Orbital Space Plane - "Pretty Darn Expensive" -
$300-400million/flight, Delta-IV Heavy is $200mil alone.

Between NASA and the industrial partners, things have traditionally not been under budget and under time.

Soyuz has a good (safety) record, and only costs about $60mil/flight.

Russian economy is size of Belgian economy.

China's program is only current effort that could spur any new government space programs, be it NASA, ESA, etc

Slide - dawn of a new era of space exploration like DARPA, NASA could support entrepreneurs. Burt Rutan, Scaled, Jeff Bezos, SpaceX could all benefit from NASA as enabling customer.

Slide - Armadillo Aerospace

Slide - Bezos' Blue Origin

Slide - SpaceX -

Falcon is a 2-stage orbital rocket, initial target is satelite launch business small commsats- revenue base long-term aim is human spaceflight super-heavy lift, Apollo-class rocket for Moon, Mars, SpaceX "Holy Grail"

Video - Merlin main engine test
Video - Upper stage engine test

First flight will be from SpaceX's pad at Vandenburg AFB, aiming for March 2004, a Navy satelite

QA -
comparison of Zip2, PayPal

PP had 30 fulltime engineers, both were made of small teams, software-based products flat hierarchy, best idea wins, everyone in each company was an equity stakeholder on development, pick a path, do it instead of vacilating on design decisions both companies were very product focused.

q- biggest stumbling blocks for space entrepreneurs?

a - stifling regulation, jumping through regulator's hoops. Rockets are still munitions, lack of regulations on software encouraged development, Silicon Valley as "Libertarian Paradise"

Falcon has been the fastest development time ever for an orbital vehicle.

(basic rocket/space questions)

Rocket development, "What makes space expensive?" - Low launch rates, 2/% of rocket's mass to orbit low cost launch suffers from chicken-and-egg problem, need cheaper flights to get a bigger volume of flights, need volume for cheaper flights. (he doesn't say this, but Internet entrepreneurs like him
have the resources to solve the chicken-egg problem)

Compares Falcon to Pegasus, costs of $6 vs $25 million/flight

Q - XPrize - will it succeed in brining CATS, How did SpaceX get Navy contract?

A- likes the XPrize, compares Carmac, etc, a very good thing. Mentions that

--

Nothing to see here

Re:Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford 10/08/03 by cybercuzco · 2004-03-29 10:43 · Score: 1

Q - XPrize - will it succeed in bringing CATS, How did SpaceX get Navy contract?

A- Hopefully not, unless you want all our base to belong to them. To answer the second part, we took off every zig for great justice.

--

BAD Idea Boeing is actually well armed by greywar · 2004-03-29 08:20 · Score: 5, Funny

"The SpaceX Falcon rocket project will specifically target Boeing..." BAD Idea Boeing is actually well armed.

costs vs price by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:23 · Score: 1, Funny

Reminds me of an exchange where a reporter asks a drug company exec
'Why are pills are so expensive when they cost 5 cents apiece to produce?'

His answer:
'The first one cost 150 million to produce.'

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by hattig · 2004-03-29 08:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Hmm, if you have a small device to launch, an Ariane-4 ASAP looks to be the best option. If I am reading http://centaur.sstl.co.uk/SSHP/launcher/launch_asa p.html correctly, you can put a 50kg object into orbit for $1.2m (actually up to 4 50kg objects into orbit). Looks like excess capacity in scheduled launches is utilised.

An Ariane 5 launch will be expensive though ... they have to recoup $8b in development costs, although the rocket is powerful enough to launch space planes (The Hermes, cancelled). I don't see a launch under $100m for this launcher, of course they would be for massive devices anyway, 1000kg - 10000kg, or dual-launch of smaller devices. http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs /ariane5.htm ah, $180m a launch ... or $120m a launch http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/project/launchers/ariane/ ariane.html

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/l vf am/ariane.htm

Ariane 44P apparently can launch at a cost of $10m and do 3000kg devices ... that must be a mistype, the other Ariane 4 launches are around $80m a flight.

I'd bet the insurance on an untested launch vehicle with so-far 50% failure rate would be a fair portion of the cost of the launch+device! Insurance appears to take up a large portion of space-launch costs.

Legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:27 · Score: 0

Who cares, let's see'em try to send the cops up after you! Muahhahahahahahahahaha!

Cost by tsotha · 2004-03-29 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

What a lot of people are missing here is the "virtuous spiral" of the cost.

When launch costs are lower you don't need satellites that last 15 years and tested to the nines. If I use the shuttle to launch it costs half a billion dollars to get my bird up (although a lot of that is picked up by the taxpayers), so I need something that's guarenteed to work. That means lots of expensive parts, and lots of expensive testing.

If I can launch cheaply I can afford to make cheaper satellites, since the cost of failure is lower. So now I need one less decimal place in my reliability, which means one less decimal place in the price. And I don't need the darned thing to work forever - a five year life might make more sense if I can replace it cheaply.

This makes the number of launches go up. Which makes the cost of the launch go down. Which makes the price of satellites go down. Take this loop a couple of times and you'll get closer to the actual production cost of the rocket, which is very low, in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Cost by BCW2 · 2004-03-29 12:49 · Score: 1

You left out the exponential increase in space junk that will soon render near space unusable for anything but armored satellites. Ending the controversy about manned missions due to inability to get anything beyond the man made asteroid belt.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Re:Cost by cmowire · 2004-03-29 13:58 · Score: 1

Perhaps.

However, it's also the case that if it was cheaper to ensure proper disposal of a satellite, more people would do it. It would also be more likely to have robotic tugs designed to pull satellites down from orbit.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:Cost by DerekLyons · 2004-03-29 17:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

What a lot of people are missing here is the "virtuous spiral" of the cost.
When launch costs are lower you don't need satellites that last 15 years and tested to the nines. If I use the shuttle to launch it costs half a billion dollars to get my bird up (although a lot of that is picked up by the taxpayers), so I need something that's guarenteed to work. That means lots of expensive parts, and lots of expensive testing.
No. Satellites are expensive because they are almost always mission critical hardware for their function. That dicates the extensive testing, expensive parts, etc. The repeaters on undersea cables cost almost three times a pound as much as current satellites, even though the cost of placing them is far lower per pound. Why? Because the loss of a repeater means the loss of millions of dollars in revenue until it can be raised and replaced or repaired.
The cost of launching a GEO bird could drop to $10/lb next Monday, and a commsat would still cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, because the cost of an outage because of a failed bird remains the same. And it would still take weeks to months to replace the bird. They aren't built on an assembly line and never will be, there simply isn't a need for that many, nor is their space in GEO for them.
Re:Cost by tsotha · 2004-03-31 11:31 · Score: 1

No. Satellites are expensive because they are almost always mission critical hardware for their function. That dictates the extensive testing, expensive parts, etc. The repeaters on undersea cables cost almost three times a pound as much as current satellites, even though the cost of placing them is far lower per pound. Why? Because the loss of a repeater means the loss of millions of dollars in revenue until it can be raised and replaced or repaired.

Er... wrong. The extra reliability requirements of the satellite are only related to outage costs in that they determine how many spares you need. At current launch prices you need lots of reliability since each spare is very expensive to loft.

I'm not familiar with the undersea cable business, but I'm guessing the cost of the repeater is peanuts compared to the overall project cost. It would make sense, under those conditions, to optimize for reliability vs. cost, since redundancy means adding a whole extra cable.

Satellites are a different matter. Since the satellite is the entire system (as opposed to a piece of the whole), it makes more and more sense to optimize for cost as launch costs come down since you can boost your reliability with spares.

The cost of launching a GEO bird could drop to $10/lb next Monday, and a commsat would still cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, because the cost of an outage because of a failed bird remains the same

Today's commercial and military systems already have spares. Launch costs will never come down to $10/pound, but if they did you could design to much less stringent criteria, because each satellite could 1) be heavier, 2) have a shorter lifespan, and 3) be less reliable as a result of redundancy. Look, what makes these things expensive is they must be as reliable as possible within the limits of our technology without weighing very much. You're paying ten times the cost for that extra digit.

And it would still take weeks to months to replace the bird. They aren't built on an assembly line and never will be, there simply isn't a need for that many, nor is their space in GEO for them.

It wouldn't take weeks or months, as I said, since you would have another one ready to power up. And while it's true you wouldn't build them on an assembly line, your design costs don't change if you build one, ten, or twenty. The second one is much cheaper than the first. In any event the primary reason we don't "need" many is because they cost too much. Lower the price point and you get more customers as the service enters their price range.

As far as space in GEO, that's nonsense. What's in short supply is space for active satellites, since they can't be so close they are indistinguishable to ground-based receivers. But there's plenty of space for "dark" birds. In any case you can use directional antennae to "multiplex" the slot, and for other comm applications lower orbits make sense anyway - with cheap phased array antennae GEO isn't as necessary as it once was, and it has its (latency) drawbacks.
~

Layers by blogboy · 2004-03-29 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can totally see this working. Start a company from scratch, instead of using the contracting behemoths. Contracting costs are largely sheer bloat and bureaucracy (hmm...70-80% of the total cost?) A new company (SpaceX) could be lean mean rocket-making machine.

Re:Somewhat off topic by pqdave · 2004-03-29 08:41 · Score: 1

Navigation, not flash itself. I can't think of a single instance of flash navigation that was better than plain HTML links, even stipulating unlimited bandwidth.

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by Mysticalfruit · 2004-03-29 08:43 · Score: 1

As prices for launching stuff into space start to come down the question now becomes reliability vs. cost.

Yeah it costs ALOT to have a Delta 4 put a satellite into orbit. However, they've been highly successful at doing so, so is the extra cost worth it?

Or would you rather put the money you were going to spend launching the satellite into increasing the satellite capacities but now your launching on a less proven quasi reliable launch system (aka Ariane)

So, if these guys can prove to the market place that their launch system is both cheap and reliable, Boeing, Lockeed, Energia will need a major change in strategy.

--
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by GileadGreene · 2004-03-29 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Falcon is not competing against Ariane - they are in completely different markets (at least for now). Falcon is competing against the likes of OSC's Pegasus, and they are significantly cheaper than Pegasus (~1/4 of the cost).

The only potential clash with Ariane is, as another poster has pointed out, the ASAP ring that Ariane uses to launch small payloads. Falcon is more expensive than an ASAP launch. However, Falcon has a larger payload capacity than an ASAP slot. More importantly, a Falcon payload launches as the primary, rather than as a secondary. That means launching when you want, and to the orbit that you want. For many payloads that makes it worth paying a little more than an ASAP launch.

Mind in the gutter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-29 08:51 · Score: 0

Did anyone read that SpaceX as sex? Man, I need to get my mind out of the gutter...

Pressure fed systems by amightywind · 2004-03-29 08:59 · Score: 3, Informative

The most interesting thing about the Falcon X second stage is that it is pressure fed. This simplifies the rocket design at the expense of increasing its size. Check out this old but interesting article which discusses many ideas which the folks at FalconX seemed to have taken to heart.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Re:Pressure fed systems by mrright · 2004-03-29 09:06 · Score: 4, Informative

The second stage is quite cool in other aspects too:

-It does not use liquid hydrogen, so the propellants can be stored for a few weeks.

-It uses heated helium for propellant settling and gimballing and dual redundant torch igniters for ignition, so it can be restarted basically indefinitely as long as there is some propellant left.

-As a pressure fed stage it is extremely rugged, so the empty stage could be reused as the hull of a space station. That would make most sense for the falcon V, since the falcon I upper stage is not big enough.

--
Private property is the central institution of a free society (David Friedman)

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by hattig · 2004-03-29 09:11 · Score: 1

Actually Ariane is the most reliable launch vehicle available today. Ariane 5 started off a bit shaky though. Not bad for a company doing 15 to 25 launches a year, possibly more by now (although with the double-satellite launches this might be reduced). To say that Ariane 4 is less proven is a bit off!

I'm sure that if the new rockets work well enough, then they will do well. Cost predictions don't usually turn out to be final costs though, but even at double the price they will undercut their competitors significantly.

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by hattig · 2004-03-29 09:15 · Score: 1

Couldn't Arianespace bring back Ariane3 or something to compete in that area? Or will they just upgrade ASAP (300kg per payload on Ariane 5) to allow bigger devices?

Can you make a fully functional useful satellite in 300kg? Imagine launching 4 at the same time and then being able to offer a few hundred digital TV channels off your own satellite network ... heh!

Launch info by Rorschach1 · 2004-03-29 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative

I've been following SpaceX for awhile. Whenever they do get around to launching, I plan to go climb up on the roof and watch. The pad's a few miles from here.

The Vandenberg AFB launch schedule currently shows the launch as 'indefinite'. Until it's got a scheduled launch date it'll stay down at the bottom of the page.

Yeah, I know there aren't any exact dates listed for the launches. Hopefully Public Affairs will let me change that soon... it's been that way since 9/11. Until then, Google is your friend.

Off Topic by PsiPsiStar · 2004-03-29 09:26 · Score: 1

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

You, my friend, have never driven in Pittsburgh.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by GileadGreene · 2004-03-29 09:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Or will they just upgrade ASAP (300kg per payload on Ariane 5) to allow bigger devices?

That still doesn't change the fact that ASAP launches are constrained to go when and where the primary payload wants to go, while Falcon launches are not.

Can you make a fully functional useful satellite in 300kg? Imagine launching 4 at the same time and then being able to offer a few hundred digital TV channels off your own satellite network ... heh!

Yes. Globalstar satellites were ~300 kg. They were launched multiply-manifested (up to 8 at a time IIRC) on a variety of launch vehicles. However Globalstar was a LEO constellation. GEO sats tend to be much bigger, because they either need a lot more power, or a much larger antenna aperture, than a LEO sat in order to be able to offset the greater RF propagation loss that results from their greater distance from the Earth. That's why there was so much excitement about LEO constellations a few years back - the sats could be much smaller and cheaper. You need a lot more of them of course, but if you build enough (ala Iridium or Globalstar) you can realize economies of scale not available to one-off GEO comm birds.

excellent by VanillaCoke420 · 2004-03-29 09:33 · Score: 1

Competition in the private space market, this can only be good. Will prices go down more than ever, now? And also consider the X-prize. It's going to be a very interesting near future.

Orbital and SpaceX by MtbRocket · 2004-03-29 09:44 · Score: 1

After watching the Pegasus launched X-43a on the big screen at the Launchables cafeteria here in Chandler, AZ I say bring it on. They might have Ali but Orbital has George Foreman.

name space misfit - should have been SpaceBuddy by Roadkills-R-Us · 2004-03-29 10:22 · Score: 1

They should have kept it similar to PayPal. Like SPaceBuddy. Then they could have Saturday morning cartons, and sell lots of plush toys and action figures and DVDs, maybe make some movies. Lots of parents buy their kids all the latest fad garbage, anyway; let them help fund the future!

``No, mom! I NEED that SpaceBuddy! I don't have them all now!''

What's an IP tow truck look like? by Roadkills-R-Us · 2004-03-29 10:26 · Score: 1

And I wonder how much the Repo Man got paid for hauling that off...

Debris Clean-up? by thentil · 2004-03-29 10:38 · Score: 1

Debris cleanup? Easy to solve - once the [current-administration variant of Star Wars] satellites get up, charge kids $1.25 for a 2-minute game of "Asteroids" (as we know, although blowing up a large object will produce several more-dangerous smaller objects, after the 4th generation or so they disappear as harmless dust).

Attribution! Re:Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford by J05H · 2004-03-29 10:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Dude! How about some attribution on that file? You copied my notes!! Obviously, putting them on sci.space.policy puts them in the public domain, but how about a shout-out for a couple hour's worth of transcription and editting?

Jon Goff pointed me toward the lecture video a couple months ago. I saw your notes and gosh do they look familiar:

My sci.space.policy lecture notes, posted 14.12.2003 titled Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanford 10/08/03

That said, Elon rocks! Falcon will be cheap enough that new businesses beyond comm sats may become viable. Entrpreneurs have postulated a "sweet spot" in pricing where widely available tourism, water mining, maybe Space Solar Power become viable. Russian Dnepr rockets almost hit that spot (offered @ $700/lb in late 90s), but we Americans have to pay significantly more for them, a rule to keep home-grown rocket companies "competitive". Yeah, free market and all. Anyway, the Falcon looks to be about to completely shake up the launch market. Imagine Falcon flying from the SeaLaunch platform?

Now, can you please give me a little credit, Amigoro? And you forgot to include my intro paragraph.

Josh

--
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.

Re:Zero G nookie by MachDelta · 2004-03-29 10:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Hmm.... perhaps 'step 2' is selling weightless sex trips?

Pfft. Only chicks would need an expensive and exotic item (like a rocket) to get off. All guys need is a 747 on one of them parabolic flight paths. 30 seconds of weightlessness? Thats plenty of time!

Valurocket by glass_window · 2004-03-29 10:55 · Score: 1

I wonder how soon before we see the news story, "discount rocket crashes in Florida Everglades." It sounds like they're trying to push something they're not quite ready for, expecting the customers to serve as the test bed to work out the kinks? Sounds sort of familiar.

Re:Guidance system? Payload? by Lord+Kano · 2004-03-29 11:07 · Score: 1

If so I know some Arab gentlemen who would be interested in purchasing a few of these.

Arab, Korean, Pakistani, Chinese, and French might want a piece of that action.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:Attribution! Re:Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanfo by amigoro · 2004-03-29 11:35 · Score: 1

Sorry

I hereby solemnly do declare that the grandparent was nicked off the usenet, and it originally belongs to the author of the parent.

Thank you

--

Nothing to see here

Re:Attribution! Re:Elon Musk Lecture notes, Stanfo by J05H · 2004-03-29 11:56 · Score: 1

Thank you! The little media I create, I like credit for, thanx for digging them up and posting them.

ad astra

Josh

--
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.

Test flight by gd2shoe · 2004-03-29 13:32 · Score: 1

A valid point. The first flight that the article points out though is to show that their equipment works. It might not be a history of success, but it will significantly help them market.

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.

Launching lunch by Latent+Heat · 2004-03-29 13:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

While there are some things that you launch because they are high value, some things only become valuable because you put them in orbit. For example, lunch is only a couple of bucks worth of food, but at current rates it costs $5000-$15,000 per meal to bring it to the Space Station. This thing promises to bring lunch down to about $1000.

Now supposes lunch blows up on the pad. Well, the seagulls are going to have to fight over some hamburger fried in rocket fuel. I am thinking a low-reliable low-cost launcher is OK for humping supplies into orbit. On the other hand, the upper stage needs to be reliable because we don't want those things smashing into the Space Station after what happened with Mir.

Inspecting for quality by Latent+Heat · 2004-03-29 13:58 · Score: 1

This notion of inspecting for quality has gotten a bad reputation with all the emphasis on lean manufacturing and emulating the Japanese success and all of that.

While "we will get quality by adding more inspectors" may be a fallacy, the idea of meeting quality goals by culling from a pool of not-so-good quality has a certain history to it. Seymour Cray did it to get parts for his early computers, S. P. Korolev did it to build a space program on a rather shoddy industrial base, and Intel and Apple have been accused of doing this to at one time or another to get their top-end clock speed processors.

payment by nazsco · 2004-03-29 16:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Can i pay my satelite launch trhu PayPal?

upper stage built from lithium-aluminum by Muhammar · 2004-03-29 16:45 · Score: 1

This alloy sounds like exciting fuel, not something to store LOX in. And they can power the onboard controls with the lithium-aluminum cell batery...

--
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it

Fallout by RedLaggedTeut · 2004-03-29 18:29 · Score: 1

I found it funny how in the computer RPG Fallout, you could shoot robots in the motivator, which was located precisely where a humans private parts would be.

--
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.

no bucks, no buck rodgers by soldeed · 2004-03-29 19:29 · Score: 1

Wealthy people always get the best new stuff! The provide the initial demand that amortizes development costs, and over time manufacturing efficiency improves, leading to further price reductions. Lower prices attract more customers generating more profit. Air travel, when new, could only be afforded by the wealthy. How may people could afford the first VCR or CD player? So be grateful for rich people! They will help drive down the cost of space access.

Missed opportunities (apologies to Digitiser) by Channard · 2004-03-29 20:43 · Score: 1

A name like Elon Musk and he's *not* a porn star? Talk about missing your vocation.

Re:Well, it had better be significantly cheaper .. by Insipid+Trunculance · 2004-03-30 03:11 · Score: 1

I think you make a very interesting point abt excess space launch capability/capacity and the development of national launch vehicles by countries such as Japan,India,China,Brazil etc.

Even though commercially this market is saturated,Launch Vehicles are strategic assets and no country likes to depend on another to launch their satellites.

If you consider another case,their is a very large excess of armed forces around the world who mostly sit around doing nothing but we dont see any country outsourcing them.

--
Wanted : A Signature.

small rocket question... by LifesABeach · 2004-03-30 05:05 · Score: 0

i get the part of a rocket in a frame that holds a pay load pointed up.

but what is this guy going to use as a 'skin' for his rocket? i just don't see any government stepping up to the plate to help him out. and the weight of what's available on the open market causes me to think those extra engines are there for good reason...

ok, i'll bite by LifesABeach · 2004-03-30 05:22 · Score: 0

considering that space is mighty big, ok; ol' papa bear feels intreged this morning:

"and essentially tax each launch to cover debris tracking and ultimately debris cleanup"

how much 'extra' are computers in china, russia, u.k., and the u.s. tracking objects going to charge?

and what debri cleanup is being done by anyone?

Slashdot Mirror

Elon Musk's SpaceX Offers Low-Cost Rockets

221 comments