SpaceX Developing Orbital Crew Capsule

iamlucky13 writes "Private aerospace firm SpaceX has revealed that it has secretly been working on a crew and cargo vehicle since late 2004. Development of the capsule, named Dragon, has so far been funded by SpaceX and its partners, which includes the Canadian company that built the robotic arm for the International Space Station. Dragon would be launched atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 and dock at the ISS with assistance of the robotic arm. While SpaceX founder Elon Musk is prepared to complete development of the capsule with his own resources, SpaceX is seeking funding from NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, which makes up to $500 million available through 2010 for private spacecraft development."

Comments

Think ahead...

[OriginalSpaceMan]

If they thought ahead they would have realized that it's much more efficient to put 2 robotic arms on IIS. One to catch the capsule and one to throw it back to Earth. Now IIS will have to take it's glove off before it can throw the capsule back down.

Re:Think ahead...

[whyrat]

If they intend for people to visit the ISS someone will also need to design and build a gift shop module.

Re:Think ahead...

[garrett714]

If they thought ahead they would have realized that it's much more efficient to put 2 robotic arms on IIS. One to catch the capsule and one to throw it back to Earth. Now IIS will have to take it's glove off before it can throw the capsule back down.

So if you did this would IIS finally become a real server?

;-)

Re:Think ahead...

[OriginalSpaceMan]

LOL... Wow, I work too much. /me takes a smoke break.

Re:Think ahead...

[Anonymous Coward]

only an American space station needs two hands. the rest of the world doesn't need a glove to catch a ball...

Re:Think ahead...

[sconeu]

No, but could pitch like crazy if they followed the OP's logic!

Re:Think ahead...

[Rei]

Bah, it's blasphemous to even consider. If God had intended humans to go to the ISS He would have given us a two-stage cryogenic torso and an ablative skin.

Re:Think ahead...

[Guppy06]

Nah, as I recall the arm on the station is one arm but has two hands: one on either end. One hand holds on to the station while the other does the catching/throwing, and it can move around the station like a slinky.

(Just going by faulty memory here, too lazy to look it up.)

SkyRamp FFS

[LordKazan]

All these "carrier plane" based ideas make me barf, but the "new" launch vehicle nasa is coming out with makes me want to barf even more.

FFS Listen to what Von Braun said dammit

Read: http://www.skyramp.org/

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently von Braun said "crash Firefox". What a visionary! (I hope that's not the name of your launch vehicle!)

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[AKAImBatman]

I don't see any quotes from Von Braun. In fact, Von Braun thought the Saturn V was his baby for launches. Using accelerators to get up to speed in thick atmosphere is a very different idea that AFAIK, he never got behind.

About the closest thing they have is on this page where they take Von Braun's consultation for a movie as serious evidence that he backed such a scheme. That's not exactly evidence.

BTW, any site that uses Java Applets for each rollover button (something possible without Java) needs to be shot.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Tumbleweed]

SkyRamp?

"Fling!" ... "I _love_ my astronauts!" *bang*

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[QuantumG]

Very true. If you want to attribute anything to Von Braun, attribute in-orbit assembly. His proposals for military installations on the Moon in the late 50s were elegant and advanced. He relied on what today we would call medium-lift launch vehicles and in-orbit assembly. At the time the army had a proven capability to fire off hundreds of these rockets a month and had shown they can man and supply outposts in much harsher conditions. The only thing lacking was a mandate. From an economical point of view medium-lift launch vehicles make a lot of sense. See The case for smaller launch vehicles in human space exploration by Grant Bonin, part 1 and part 2.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[iamlucky13]

I suppose cost is one of the big reasons a rocket sled hasn't been tried. A full scale ramp would be a major investment. If the sled is rocket driven, you still deal with burning lots of fuel, although reuse of components could be made simpler. If it's magnetic, you're dealing with developing new technology on a very large scale. I'm not sure if pneumatic or steam systems are even reasonably realistic at the velocities in question. Either way, you need a very long and straight ramp, which means a lot of real estate pointed roughly west-east, and you still have deal with high speeds in the densest portion of the atmosphere. As far as alternatives to vertical ground launches go, dropping from a carrier plane sounds like a better way to go to me...unless we can build a space elevator, that is.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[complete loony]

There are a number of problems associated with building and using such a ramp. For such a track to work at such high speeds it would need to be absolutely flawless. The slightest bump or blockage on the track and you can say goodbye to your crew. At best you could make a short track somewhat like an aircraft carrier launch pad. But even then, the amount of mass you have to move and hence the forces involved would be enourmous.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[LordKazan]

They have a pretty thorough analysis that addresses those points.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[TheGavster]

Opera, FTW.

Though using 20 java applets to supply a mouse hover effect to each navigation link is a little bit ... nuts.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Buran]

Actually, carrier-plane based systems are very successful. Take a look at the Pegasus booster and SpaceShipOne, for instance, and the rumored Blackstar program. Plus, with a manned aircraft launching from high altitude, the hard work of getting off the pad and through the lower atmosphere has already been done, and there's less to throw away -- the launcher simply returns to its launch site just like a normal aircraft does (and in fact the Pegasus has always used modified aircraft built for other purposes rather than needing a specialized design).

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[delong]

T-space is doing interesting work on air-launched rocketry using a lanyard to upright the rocket. Requires less ground infrastructure, and can be launched over water - making it unnecessary to make expensively safe launch pad facilities in populated areas.

Safer too, supposedly. If the rocket screws up during light-up, the capsule would separate and parachute down. In contrast to blowing up on the pad.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[isomeme]

had shown they can man and supply outposts in much harsher conditions.

And where, exactly, had the Army been maintaining outposts in conditions harsher than those of hard vaccum, 300K day/night temperature variation, unfiltered exposure to solar and cosmic radiation, and a nearly complete lack of extractable life-support volatiles in the soil?

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Buran]

Yep. They have yet to launch, though -- that's why I cited the two I did. I hope it works, though; it's a great idea. It also has the advantage Sea Launch does in that it can be taken to the equator, where it gets a larger kick from the earth's rotation.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[QuantumG]

The "harshness" of maintaining an outpost is all about the logistical difficulty of resupplying it.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[isomeme]

Well, I'll also argue that maintaining a base on the Moon is logistically more difficult than anywhere you can name on Earth.

My brother, an Army veteran, claims that Fort Benning, Georgia is far less hospitable than the surface of the Moon, by the way.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Atzanteol]

New Jersy.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiould you really trust the next generation space launching technology to a company that thinks MS Front page is a good way to build your corporate web site?

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Octorian]

Umm... We've had this thing called a "launch escape tower" ever since Mercury, and the Russians have something similar. (In fact, I think the Russians are the only ones to have actually used it in an actual abort.)

The idea is that a little rocket is mounted on a small tower above the crew capsule. In the event of a booster failure (yes, even on the pad), the rocket fires and pulls the capsule safely away from the booster. Then, it can parachute down to safety.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[delong]

Yeah, and the launch escape tower is a Hail Mary measure. Separating from an exploding rocket in mid-air is safer and more certain of survival.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[cmowire]

Not having your rocket explode is even safer.

Witness the lack of escape tower in a modern airliner. :)

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Octorian]

And not having an escape mechanism can be more dangerous. Witness the lack of an ejection mechanism in the Space Shuttle.

Of course an advantage of the escape tower approach is that it moves you far from the exploding rocket, probably a lot further than any other sort of mid-air separation. It also gives you a quick on-pad escape mechanism, if you are launching with a conventional rocket.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Kiryat Malachi]

Ejecting at hypersonic speeds is *always* more dangerous than hoping your vehicle doesn't blow up. Your vehicle might not blow up. Unprotected exposure to hypersonic flow is generally contraindicated for humans.

On the other hand, the Shuttle lacks a good supersonic ejection capability. The crew escape mechanism works at subsonic speeds, but at supersonic it's a more risky maneuver. However, the mid-deck seats are *inside* the fuselage. Working a supersonic ejection capability in for mid-deck is probably unfeasible, certainly unfeasible given the plans for the Shuttle.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[QuantumG]

Well no offense man, but I'll take Von Braun's argument over yours any day of the week.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[isomeme]

Well no offense man, but I'll take Von Braun's argument over yours any day of the week.

Do as you like; but note that I, unlike Von Braun, am not defending my argument in order to obtain billions of dollars in government funding for my pet projects.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[DerekLyons]

I don't see any quotes from Von Braun. In fact, Von Braun thought the Saturn V was his baby for launches.

Actually von Braun thought the Saturn V was a mildly interesting side road - his real interest was in reuseable shuttlecraft. In fact, NASA has (by-and-large) been following von Braun's Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan since the day it changed it's name from NACA.

Under NASA's original plan - Apollo was just a general purpose earth orbiter with a seperate (expendable) heavy lifter for cargo. Both were supposed to be replaced with reusable craft. (Expendables were to be used at first only because they were easy to develop - reuseable is hard, much harder than was thought then.) The moon was thought to be reachable "sometime in the 70's, pherhaps in time for the Bicentennial".

Then Kennedy made his "because it's hard" speech and imposed an entirely new schedule. (But even as NASA was very publically racing to the Moon, it was also preparing for the day they could return to the von Braun vision. The Phase II shuttle study contracts were signed on July 20, 1969.) As soon as we reached the Moon, and Congress asked NASA, "what next" - and NASA answered "Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars". (The political fallout from this overambitious (and expensive) plan in a time of a tightening budget is still being felt today.)

Even the current Administrations VSE is just the von Braun Vision with a new paint job.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[DerekLyons]

I suppose cost is one of the big reasons a rocket sled hasn't been tried. A full scale ramp would be a major investment.

No, it hasn't been tried for one reason only; when you run the numbers - it doesn't work. The cost/LB turns out to be greater current expendables, and a much higher percentage of parasitic mass is required.

If the sled is rocket driven, you still deal with burning lots of fuel,

Rocket fuel is cheap. The total cost of the Shuttle's liquid and solid fuels is somewhere around 2 million dollars.

As far as alternatives to vertical ground launches go, dropping from a carrier plane sounds like a better way to go to me

Only so long as you don't intend to send any significant mass into orbit. (An aircraft that could carry a Mercury capsule and booster is bigger than the C5. An aircraft that could carry an Apollo, even for a LEO mission, would make the AN-225 look like a toy.)

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[DerekLyons]

Actually, carrier-plane based systems are very successful. Take a look at the Pegasus booster and SpaceShipOne, for instance,

Pegasus, which costs two orders of magnitude over it's initial promise, and whose cost/LB to orbit is essentially the same as the overly expensive Atlas and Delta series (with a significantly worse safety record)... SpaceShipOne, which is a high performance aircraft, not an orbiter...

Yeah. Those are really convincing arguments for the 'sucess' of air launch for LEO payloads

and the rumored Blackstar program. Plus, with a manned aircraft launching from high altitude, the hard work of getting off the pad and through the lower atmosphere has already been done,

Sure, the hard work of getting off the pad and through the lower atmosphere has already been done, but the insanely freaking hard job of getting up to orbital velocity still remains to be done. (Air launch gets you, at best, something like 1/20th of the energy needed for orbit - at no noticeable savings.)

and there's less to throw away

Not noticeably.

the launcher simply returns to its launch site just like a normal aircraft does (and in fact the Pegasus has always used modified aircraft built for other purposes rather than needing a specialized design).

Pegasus can do this because it's a low payload, low performance booster. Once you start talking significant payloads - you start talking aircraft designs where the C-5 is considered too small.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[AKAImBatman]

Actually von Braun thought the Saturn V was a mildly interesting side road - his real interest was in reuseable shuttlecraft.

People keep repeating this, but it just isn't true. The Space Shuttle concept was an offshoot of the Dynasoar which was an offshoot of the Silbervogel (Silverbird). The Sibervogel was Eugen Sänger's baby, not Von Braun's. Sanger died in Berlin, but his concepts were carried forward by the USAF (and later NASA) independent of Von Braun's work. Von Braun actually believed that the Saturn V was the future to space access, and became a big believer in a Saturn V launched Orion. His idea was that the SatV would get the craft up there, then the Orion would take us to other planets.

If the Space Shuttle had been Von Braun's baby, then he wouldn't have resigned in protest when the government cancelled the Saturn V program.

In fact, NASA has (by-and-large) been following von Braun's Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan since the day it changed it's name from NACA.

This has always been NASA's vision as a whole, and has not had all that much to do with Von Braun himself. Von Braun was working to make good on that vision, but he had his own ideas about how it should be accomplished. Most of them featured the Saturn V prominently.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Buran]

Pegasus, which costs two orders of magnitude over it's initial promise

For something never tried before. Just like the space shuttle, which also had unexpected problems and costs. Nothing new ever comes in at the expected price. That comes with doing something new, and is part of the literal cost of trying new ideas. Lessons learned from first tries at things tend to be applied later on to more successful derivatives of the original idea.

Sure, the hard work of getting off the pad and through the lower atmosphere has already been done, but the insanely freaking hard job of getting up to orbital velocity still remains to be done

Yes, but it's also true that a significant portion of the fuel a vehicle carries is used for getting off the ground in the first place. Launching from the air gives you more choices of where to launch from and is another first stage of sorts. No one's built an SSTO yet because, among other problems, the huge mass that would be required -- why do that when you can let something else do the job of getting started and then drop off?

you start talking aircraft designs where the C-5 is considered too small.

Then build a bigger aircraft. There are bigger designs than the C-5 out there - the An-225 among them. C'mon, we're innovators, we can come up with something that could do the job. Like, say, an XB-70 and smaller spaceplane?

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[DerekLyons]

Pegasus, which costs two orders of magnitude over it's initial promise

For something never tried before.

You held it up as an example of sucess. No matter how hard you wave your hands - it wasn't.

Sure, the hard work of getting off the pad and through the lower atmosphere has already been done, but the insanely freaking hard job of getting up to orbital velocity still remains to be done

Yes, but it's also true that a significant portion of the fuel a vehicle carries is used for getting off the ground in the first place.

Only if you have a really bad vehicle design. A typical design will use 5% or less of it's fuel between ignition and vehicle first motion. Maybe 20% tops by the time it gets to any reasonably achievable air launch altitude and speed. To save that 20% of your fuel (which is cheap) you have add weight (in the form of structural reinforcement) to your rocket - worse yet, a non trivial portion of that weight is in the upper stages where it's impact on performance is the greatest.

The reason convential rockets are so expensive isn't because of fuel costs or the costs of the structure to contain the fuel. Both are trivially cheap. Conventional rockets (current ones) are expensive because they require insane amounts of man hours to prepare to launch, and their margins are so thin, you have to spend insane amounts of man hours in getting the payload weight down.

No one's built an SSTO yet because, among other problems, the huge mass that would be required

The Titan II first stage (circa 1964) has more than adequate performance for a low performance SSTO. Nobody has built a high performance SSTO because there is no economic incentive to do so.

why do that when you can let something else do the job of getting started and then drop off?

Because air launch doesn't do a significant job of getting started in return for the costs it imposes.

Imagine drving a compact car across the US. Imagine using a semi-trailer and a thousand pound adapter fixture (which much stay on the compact the whole way) to push the compact for the first hundred miles. That is what proportion of the work air launch does for an LEO booster.

you start talking aircraft designs where the C-5 is considered too small.

Then build a bigger aircraft. There are bigger designs than the C-5 out there - the An-225 among them.

The AN-225 couldn't even air launch a Mercury/Atlas.

C'mon, we're innovators, we can come up with something that could do the job. Like, say, an XB-70 and smaller spaceplane?

The consensus among people who know how these things work is this - Blackstar (if it exists) will work only if you use insanely expensive fuels. Fuels which are extremely corrosive, extremely toxic, and extremely difficult to work with. This means you get a difficult to build, insanely expensive to maintain, and fairly low performance vehicle.

What you don't get is cheap acess.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[DerekLyons]

Actually von Braun thought the Saturn V was a mildly interesting side road - his real interest was in reuseable shuttlecraft.

People keep repeating this, but it just isn't true. The Space Shuttle concept was an offshoot of the Dynasoar which was an offshoot of the Silbervogel (Silverbird). The Sibervogel was Eugen Sänger's baby, not Von Braun's

Right. That's why Von Braun wrote an entire *book*, as well as a series of articles for Collier's magazine, as well as movie for Disney... All pushing the Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan in the 1952 , which was a follow on to a design from 1948!

Von Braun actually believed that the Saturn V was the future to space access, and became a big believer in a Saturn V launched Orion. His idea was that the SatV would get the craft up there, then the Orion would take us to other planets.

Von Braun was a master political opportunist whose life goal was to get to Mars. If that meant building A4's or Saturn V's, so be it. He adapted to what his masters would pay for - but never changed his core vision.

If the Space Shuttle had been Von Braun's baby, then he wouldn't have resigned in protest when the government cancelled the Saturn V program.

I never said the Shuttle was Von Braun's baby - just that a shuttle was his vision. (And he resigned because NASA wasn't going to Mars anytime soon, not after the Administration shot down the Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan.)

In fact, NASA has (by-and-large) been following von Braun's Shuttle-> Station-> Moon-> Mars plan since the day it changed it's name from NACA.

This has always been NASA's vision as a whole, and has not had all that much to do with Von Braun himself.

And just who very publically promoted that idea?

Von Braun was working to make good on that vision, but he had his own ideas about how it should be accomplished. Most of them featured the Saturn V prominently.

In the 1940's they featured derivatives of the A4, in the 1960's they featured derivatives of the Saturn V. I.E. they featured what he was paid to develop. As I said, as masterful oppurtunist.

Re:SkyRamp FFS

[Buran]

You held it up as an example of sucess. No matter how hard you wave your hands - it wasn't.

Yes, it was. It worked, didn't it? It isn't as capable as some other systems (it's not that big) and it costs more than originally planned, but it launches satellites, doesn't it? That's a success in my book. And I'm going to wave my hands all over the place because I consider something that actually does what it's designed to do to be something that is a success. Now if it consistently explodes or crashes, that's a problem, but it hasn't done that on a consistent basis any more than other rockets have -- Arianes have failed. Deltas have failed. Atlases have failed. Soyuzes have failed. Protons have failed. And all of those are considered to be successes. No system is going to work properly 100% of the time, but for the most part a successful system is going to behave as intended, and when it doesn't, a successful system can be repaired and/or modified.

Only if you have a really bad vehicle design. A typical design will use 5% or less of it's fuel between ignition and vehicle first motion.

You took me too literally. There's a lot of inertia to overcome to get moving in the first place and that takes a lot of effort/force -- that's why a lot of rockets use liquid or solid fueled boosters, but you'll notice that they use those only to get off the pad and during the initial minute or few of the flight -- then the extra effort isn't needed, so the boosters drop away. That's an indication of what I'm getting at -- that a system that doesn't have to have the hardware to do all that built into it can be a lot smaller, and aircraft are a pretty cost-effective way to do it, and we're pretty experienced at building aircraft after 103 years of experience. And it's not like dropping things off planes is a new idea -- before Orbital Sciences started doing it with an L-1011, they did it with a B-52 -- the same B-52 that did the same thing numerous times with the X-15 and many other test vehicles.

Nobody has built a high performance SSTO because there is no economic incentive to do so.

There's lots of rich people out there who would pay the money. If I won the lottery, I would. There's plenty of incentive to build it now that the interest is there -- and look at the X-Prize ideas that have been put forth -- there's air-dropped vehicles, balloon-launched vehicles, among all sorts of conventional ideas. Seems to me like there's a lot of people, who are actually building these things, who think air-launching is a plausible idea. Sure, Scaled Composites has only built a suborbital spacecraft so far -- but they're looking at going further, and I also need to point out that even the government-funded Mercury program launched a number of unmanned and manned suborbital flights before it tried going orbital.

Because air launch doesn't do a significant job of getting started in return for the costs it imposes.

Tell that, again, to Scaled Composites and NASA, both of which have done it and seem to think it works pretty well.

The AN-225 couldn't even air launch a Mercury/Atlas.

I never said that that specific design would be the one used, did I? No. My point was that if a design doesn't exist now to do the job, build one.

Fuels which are extremely corrosive, extremely toxic, and extremely difficult to work with.

And hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide aren't? Yet they are used as propellants and seem to work pretty well, and that thing called "we don't need an ignition system if we use these, saving complexity and weight" is a pretty big advantage. Take safety into account when in the design phase and the problem isn't that bad. Science research labs handle dangerous chemicals all the time -- there's a reason safety training is mandatory for the workers.

And there's no reason why you have to use expensive fuels to build a spacecraft. Hydrogen and oxygen are pretty efficient and they're pretty safe, too, and they're easy to g

Remove the government ...

[SengirV]

... and you get performance at a tiny fraction of their price.

Re:Remove the government ...

[OriginalSpaceMan]

Here's your problem. You're trying to ADD the government to this project. /me erases the TNT

Re:Remove the government ...

[LordKazan]

This isn't universally true, but it's far too true.

Government can be efficient if people take them to task for not being, but people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.

In NASA's case it's an oldguard groupthink problem from what i've been told by someone who used to work there.

Re:Remove the government ...

[JanneM]

So we really should have private armies, then. And we should be voting for the best corporate tender for running the government.

Re:Remove the government ...

[TheDugong]

Isn't that more or less what happens?

Re:Remove the government ...

[Eunuchswear]

And, suprise suprise, it turns out that private armies are much more expensive than publicly owned ones.

Whoda thunk it.

(N. Machiavelli maybe?)

El Segundo?

[Red Flayer]

"Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is asking NASA to help fund the demonstration of a reusable space capsule the El Segundo, Calif.-based company has been developing in secret with its own funding for the past 18 months."

Their own funding? Some guy from a Tribe Called Quest told me he left his wallet in El Segundo, I think I know what happened to the cash that was in it.

Also, until we see figures on how much they've spent on development themselves, I bet it pales in comparison to what they ask for from NASA. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as any tech they develop enters public domain (I wish).

Re:El Segundo?

[FleaPlus]

Also, until we see figures on how much they've spent on development themselves, I bet it pales in comparison to what they ask for from NASA.

From the article:

Musk declined to say how much he has spent on Dragon so far, but said it was only a small part of the $100 million he has invested in SpaceX to-date building the Falcon 1 and getting started on the larger and more powerful Falcon 9.

Also, from what I understand, SpaceX isn't asking for one of the typical cost-plus contracts, but this is part of a competitive bid for a delivery contract from the COTS program. If another company has a solution which can deliver to the ISS at a better price, NASA will buy from them instead.

Re:El Segundo?

[iamlucky13]

Musk supposedly has never said how much of his own cash he's invested in SpaceX, but the article, as well as other estimates, place it at around $100 million so far. No mention of other contributions. The article also mentions that they don't expect to receive all of the $500 million NASA grant, but are hoping for at least half.

It's doubtful there is any stipulation that their technology become public domain. After all, don't Boeing and Lockheed get to keep all of theirs? I guess the grant could be considered sort of a private investment on the part of NASA. If SpaceX is successful, the investment pays off in the form of cheaper products in the future. Otherwise, it's lost money. Certainly no bigger a waste of money than any of the programs that have gotten as far as prototypes being built before getting cancelled.

Re:El Segundo?

[FleaPlus]

Musk supposedly has never said how much of his own cash he's invested in SpaceX, but the article, as well as other estimates, place it at around $100 million so far. No mention of other contributions.

SpaceX is almost entirely self-funded by Elon Musk, with a few small investments by "friends and family." He has mentioned though that after the first Falcon I flight he'll be pursuing some outside funding to raise another $50 - $100 million for the development of things like the next-generation Merlin 2 engine (which would be the largest rocket engine in the world). If the company's launch products are successful, he plans on an eventual IPO in "three to four years."

Re:El Segundo?

[cmowire]

The biggest benefit won't be any exact products or technologies they create.

Building a rocket engine isn't as much science as plumbing. Doing it on the cheap especially.

The biggest benefit is a cost point. Even if SpaceX fails long-term, if they can prove that it is possible to get the cost of launch way down, it becomes possible for other people to get funding to make a go at it.

Re:El Segundo?

[theProf]

Merlin 2 would not be the most powerful motor. More like #5. SpaceX is shooting for design simplicity.

its nice to see...

[ganjadude]

Eventhough some of the designs are flawed... it is still nice to see a sort of Spcae Race again, I am only 20 so i missed the first Space race, however i enjoy the prospects involved with the process, as well as the idea of making something that no one else has before. Remember the wright brothers, they had a few failing designs before the suceeded. Just because we are still in the early stages of development, flaws are to be expected, designs will crash and burn. But so what? isnt this what Space exploration is about?? learning and using what you have learned to further the learning??? I for one am thrilled that the spaceX foundation is doing great things, even if it isnt perfect. was the x1 perfect when chuck Yeagur broke the sound barrier??? NO. and neither will spaceX be perfect. Shit NASA still cant even get it right all the time.

can you say vapourware?

[QuantumG]

The prototype lacks a reaction control system for maneuvering in space and a heat shield that would prevent it from burning up upon re-entry, Musk said, but could otherwise be launched into space.

LOL, that's brilliant. What does it have?

"As part of a top secret project, we've already built a prototype flight crew capsule, including a thoroughly tested 30-man-day-life-support system, which is sitting on our factory floor right now," Musk told Space News. "It doesn't meet all the NASA requirements, so it will probably not see flight, but it has served as a valuable learning experience."

So nothing. You have a tin can. Brilliant.

Neither Dragon nor its Falcon 9 rocket is ready to roll out to the launch pad. But the Falcon 9 is in development for a 2007 debut..

The Falcon I hasn't even got off the launch pad.

Look, I love SpaceX. Elon Musk is trying to dig a big hole in the middle of the overweight aerospace industry and so far he's doing a good job of it. But this is nothing but vapourware. I hope NASA gives them a big chunk of that funding but frankly, it's a high risk proposition right now.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[FleaPlus]

Look, I love SpaceX. Elon Musk is trying to dig a big hole in the middle of the overweight aerospace industry and so far he's doing a good job of it. But this is nothing but vapourware. I hope NASA gives them a big chunk of that funding but frankly, it's a high risk proposition right now.

Could you remind me what Boeing and Lockheed-Martin have produced so far with their contracts to build NASA's CEV? If I recall correctly, all they have so far are design documents and powerpoint slides.

It seems to me SpaceX (which has a full-sized prototype with tested life support) is a good bit ahead of them, using just Elon Musk's out-of-pocket funding instead of NASA's.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[QuantumG]

full-sized prototype == big tin can.

tested life support? He clearly says that the life support system used is not up to spec and will not fly.

SpaceX needs to prototype this stuff before they can design a real system because they have no experience making spacecraft. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin can focus on gathering requirements and doing engineering, on paper, because they know what they are doing. The only reason NASA has to go with SpaceX is because they are likely to get a better deal, but they've gotta wear the risk.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[RocketGeek]

> full-sized prototype == big tin can.

No, it's a full sized prototype with all internal systems working. Your average tin can on a shelf in Walmart generally doesn't come fitted with seats and working controls, etc.

> tested life support? He clearly says that the life
> support system used is not up to spec and will not fly.

No. Read the article again. It says the life support system has been thoroughly tested. It is just a case of the whole system does not meet the arbitrary pile of paperwork test required for NASA, and the reaction control system and heat shield are not fitted. Both clearly essential for a spaceflight (or one that returns to Earth), but the rest of the vehicle is functional.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[cmowire]

I would think that it's better to say that it clearly won't meet NASA specs, because given the way NASA has worked in the past, if you have hardware ready and they won't like it, the spec will be carefully constructed to exclude your existing hardware. :)

Oh, and many many capsules have been launched sans heatshield on the first flight. Saves the trouble of a recovery crew and not accidentally landing on somebody or something.

Of course, seeing the Dragon makes them doing the Falcon 9 instead of the Falcon 5 make much more sense...

Re:can you say vapourware?

[J05H]

>LOL, that's brilliant. What does it have?

Everything else: tested life support, avionics, the Service Module with main engine (Kestrel? SM is probably shortened version of their second stage), maybe a full cockpit and some kind of pressure vessel. From the quote, it sounds like it's flight-weight or very nearly. I half-agree on calling it vapourware: I'll give Dragon more credit when they start drop tests. The 30-man-day lifesupport test is no small cookies. They do have an impressive base of contractors for it, they definitely can build this vehicle with funding.

This vehicle is an interesting contrast to t/space's CXV. t/space has focused on a demo-or-die drop test and tour vehicle, while SpaceX has focused on the internals of their capsule. They are both blunt cones, one reenters 'sideways' the other base-first. The CXV has both Burt Rutan and Gary Hudson's prints all over it, their is a certain fly-boy cachet to the craft: dropped from a high-altitude craft with an innovative rocket attached. From the first look at SpaceX's Dragon, it seems to take a very conservative approach to aerodynamics and basic design. Elon even called it a mix of Soyuz and Apollo, they are focusing on a functional capability and relying on brute-forcing the vehicle to orbit with their Falcon 9. A lot of aerospace cost is getting the last 10% of weight shaved off the craft. If you own the rockets and they are delibrately over throwweight for an average capsule (5 tons), you have the option to not bother losing that extra 10%. With the estimated costs and business savvy that SpaceX has shown, the added mass cost is not going to matter. So, it'll cost them slightly more per flight, but they'll still be able to profit while undercutting every other provider.

1. Get rich in Internet biz
2. ??Build rockets??
3. Profit!

Josh

Re:can you say vapourware?

[wronkiew]

SpaceX needs to prototype this stuff before they can design a real system because they have no experience making spacecraft. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin can focus on gathering requirements and doing engineering, on paper, because they know what they are doing. The only reason NASA has to go with SpaceX is because they are likely to get a better deal, but they've gotta wear the risk.

Boeing and Lockheed-Martin know a lot less than you think. What manned space vehicles have they built in the last 30 years? I will grant that Boeing has been building space station hardware, but that's a lot different than a crew launch vehicle that has to survive ascent and reentry. Any new effort will be essentially starting from scratch. SpaceX and t/Space have been building and testing hardware, while Boeing and Lockheed-Martin have been drawing artist conceptions and writing reports, the same way they've tackled every failed STS replacement program to date. Whatever the differences in approaches, there is no contest between them. One of Boeing and Lockheed will get the $* billion CEV contract. SpaceX is working on a vehicle for ISS resupply, which is a separate, much less expensive ($500m), and better structured program.

Also, SpaceX built their life support system in 2004, before NASA published the requirements for life support systems on vehicles carrying US government employees. That does not mean that the system they designed wouldn't work or even that it would be unsafe. It just doesn't meet NASA's new requirements.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[FleaPlus]

Whatever the differences in approaches, there is no contest between them. One of Boeing and Lockheed will get the $* billion CEV contract. SpaceX is working on a vehicle for ISS resupply, which is a separate, much less expensive ($500m), and better structured program.

Not to nitpick, but Boeing and Lockheed are actually both on the list of vendors expressing interest for the COTS program. I have no idea if they ended up submitting a proposal, though.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[wronkiew]

Not to nitpick, but Boeing and Lockheed are actually both on the list of vendors expressing interest for the COTS program.

Yes, good point.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[DoctorStarks]

It is just a case of the whole system does not meet the arbitrary pile of paperwork test required for NASA...

"arbitrary pile of paperwork test"?

I think you're taking your anti-NASA hyperbole a little far here. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to safely launch a person into space and bring them back again?

Nevermind. You answered my question in your post.

Arbitrary pile of paperwork, indeed.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[RocketGeek]

> "arbitrary pile of paperwork test"?

Yes, arbitrary in the sense that much of the paperwork is needless. Much of the space qual specs were developed before the major space agencies had launched manned vehicles / and / or were developed during the early years of manned spaceflight. There are many places where they could be relaxed with today's knowledge, and other places where they could be tightened up.

> I think you're taking your anti-NASA hyperbole a little far here.

Not anti NASA. Anti NASA and anti ESA in terms of the paperwork requirements. The level of paperwork is certainly worse for both of those agencies than the Russian requirements.

> Do you have any idea how difficult it is to safely launch a person into space and bring them back again?

Yes, I used to be a payload test engineer on a number of payloads for manned missions to Mir, and had to write the documentation to go with the payloads in question amongst other things. Oh, and I run a small rocket propulsion consultancy as a sideline nowadays, so yes, I also know my delta V from my c*.

> Nevermind. You answered my question in your post.

Good, I'm glad.

> Arbitrary pile of paperwork, indeed.

Yes, arbitrary.

I take it that as well as your expert knowledge on paperwork for manned missions, that you have seen the SpaceX Dragon capsule in the flesh then ?

Re:can you say vapourware?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, all they have so far are design documents and powerpoint slides.

Your sources are incorrect. Some prototype hardware has been built - it's just under wraps due to the high stakes in the bidding.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[Anonymous Freak]

SpaceX needs to prototype this stuff before they can design a real system because they have no experience making spacecraft.

Uh, neither did Scaled Composites, yet they managed spaceflight WITH their prototype.

Come on, it's not like this is... uh... Rocket........... sci...

Nevermind.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[georgewilliamherbert]

I believe I am highly but not uniquely qualified to answer this particular question. I spent the last month writing my company's NASA COTS proposal.

The Service Requirements Document (NC3P-1000) was an entirely appropriate and comparatively svelte 23 pages (thank you for a reasonable sized SRD, C3PO). The Interface Requirements Document was a slightly chunkier 130 pages, which was basically a summary of the Applications docs listed below for ISS Visiting Vehicles.

There were 49 "ISS Applications" specification documents, many into the hundreds of pages, 206 megabytes total, mixed PDF and .doc . 13 files and about another 138 megs of "ISS Familiarization". 16 docs and 66 megs of cargo data. Another 30 megs of human rating docs.

The FAA human rating docs are about 36 pages long, in 3 documents.

The COTS program office are doing a good job of minimizing paperwork requirements. The existing body of prior NASA specifications and requirements are excessive.

If you disagree, we can do a little test. I'll drop a stack of printouts of all the NASA docs listed above (one copy, single sided) on your foot, and you can drop a stack of printouts of the FAA regs (one copy, single sided) which apply to commercial spaceflight on my foot.

One of us will walk away, one will limp at best.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[georgewilliamherbert]

The final printed copies of the proposals are due tomorrow at 2pm Houston time, though CD-ROMs were due last Friday; estimates by various surveys of the Vendors Expressing Interest list is that something like 25 proposals from prime contractors are expected. Many of those will probably not address all 4 capabilities NASA was inquiring about (A. Unpressurized cargo; B. Pressurized cargo; C. Pressurized cargo and return of equipment to Earth; D. ISS crew rotation).

Presumably more press coverage will be out tomorrow afternoon. So far, SpaceX has announced they submitted Dragon as a propopsal; Space Dev has strongly hinted they submitted Dream Chaser. Several other companies have said they were working on it. My company submitted our capsule.

When NASA held the industry briefing day, the hotel conference room probably had 200 seats set up in it, and it was nearly standing room only. Most of those companies were subcontractors rather than prime contractor candidates, but that's a lot of interest.

Re:can you say vapourware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha! Pwn3d...

Alternate submission; why they announced

[FleaPlus]

Dang... I just saw this on slashdot a few minutes after I submitted it myself. For the curious, here's my version of the submission, which includes some different info and a link to a SpaceRef story which has more pictures of the capsule:

SpaceX has revealed that for the past few years they've been secretly developing the Dragon space capsule, which will be the first privately-built manned orbital spacecraft. The company has already built a full-scale working prototype and thoroughly tested its life support system, with the capsule development using 'only a small part of the $100 million [CEO/founder Elon Musk] has invested in SpaceX to-date building the Falcon 1 [orbital rocket] and getting started on the larger and more powerful Falcon 9.' According to Musk, 'I feel very confident about being able to offer NASA an ISS-servicing capability by 2009 and am prepared to back that up with my own funding.' It's believed that Musk will also compete for crew/cargo delivery contracts to private space station modules built by Bigelow Aerospace.

All in all, I'm very excited about this announcement. I'm sure SpaceX wishes that they could have gotten their Falcon I rocket off the ground before announcing the capsule, but the deadline for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program was a few days ago. The COTS program is the means by which NASA hopes to award competitive contracts to delivery crew and cargo to the International Space Station, in order to reduce reliance on the Russians and promote the development of private spaceflight. Since the capsule is a critical part of their COTS proposal, SpaceX pretty much had to let the secret out.

Re:Alternate submission; why they announced

[iamlucky13]

Sorry, I beat you to it. Actually, I saw the SpaceRef article only a few minutes after I made my submission. It's a little bit better write up, if only for the fact that it has pictures and doesn't have space.com's ponderous wealth of ads and background images. Interestingly enough, I found the SpaceRef article when, out of curiosity, I checked wikipedia to see if there was any prior mention of the capsule, since I remembered Musk suggesting a year or two ago that he was interested in manned space flight. Instead, I found that someone had already added a section about the capsule this morning to the SpaceX entry. Crazy nerds!

Also, as you probably know but others may not, SpaceX already has a tentative contract to launch one of Bigelow Aerospace's prototype inflatable modules sometime next year (barring delays from either company, which is a longshot) aboard a Falcon 9.

Re:Alternate submission; why they announced

[FleaPlus]

Sorry, I beat you to it.

No worries. ;)

Instead, I found that someone had already added a section about the capsule this morning to the SpaceX entry. Crazy nerds!

Indeed! I noticed that too. I wonder if anyone's looked at the statistics of the time between when a news item is released and when it appears in a Wikipedia entry...

Re:Alternate submission; why they announced

[Anonymous Coward]

They have pushed back the Bigelow prototype launch several times, along with the launch of the Falcon 9.

Re:Alternate submission; why they announced

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, I found that someone had already added a section about the capsule this morning to the SpaceX entry. Crazy nerds!

Your morning is my lunchtime. Yay for timezones! ;-)

- ShimaKatase (Wikipedia contributor)

Space, The Final Frontier...

[XxtraLarGe]

The only way we're going to advance space travel is for private competition to take over. How far ahead could we have been if the government hadn't been monopolizing space travel? The future is probably going to look more than Escape Velocity than Star Trek...

Re:Space, The Final Frontier...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government DOES NOT monopolize space. It doesn't own it, for one thing.

Where there is commercial gain in going to space, like satellite TV, corporations make use of it. Where there is no commercial gain in going to space, like manned space flight or blue-sky research, corporations don't do it, and it's left to government agencies to do the stuff which benefits humanity overall but doesn't make any money.

If you want to understand these discussions get a clue about the differences between reality and hollywood sci-fi.

Re:Space, The Final Frontier...

[worst_name_ever]

Well, I hope the actual future has better graphics...

mcb

What's with the naming???

[ssummer]

Scaled Composites has the "White Knight", SpaceX has the "Dragon", what's next? The "Grand Wizard" orbiting space station?

Re:What's with the naming???

[Tumbleweed]

You missed the biggie, though, "Elon Musk."

This is obviously just a big stealth marketing campaign for an upcoming computer game. The names aren't as silly as character names in a Gene Roddenberry show, but pretty close.

Okay, so "Andromeda Ascendant" and "Pax Magellanic" were cool names, but those were ships. :)

Dylan Hunt? Trance Gemini? C'mon.

Re:What's with the naming???

[iamlucky13]

Actually, another article said the capsule was originally referred to as "magic dragon," a reference to a certain Peter, Paul, and Mary song you might have heard. So the question is, are the engineers at SpaceX role-playing nerds or stoners?

Re:What's with the naming???

[FleaPlus]

So the question is, are the engineers at SpaceX role-playing nerds or stoners?

Since they tend to internally refer to their new test stand and unannounced rocket as BFTS ("Big F*****g Test Stand") and BFR("Big F*****g Rocket"), I suspect a number of them are also video game nerds.

Re:What's with the naming???

[Anonymous Coward]

*whoosh!* Grandparent was referring to the KKK.

An appropriate acronym...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

From the story (if you read it...):

The Dragon capsule is the centerpiece of the proposal SpaceX submitted March 3 under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration program.

An appropriate acronym, COTS, already used for "Commercial, Off The Shelf"...

Re:An appropriate acronym...

[darklordyoda]

Or, if you're an anime junkie, COTS can stand for "Crest of the Stars", which is funnily enough still a somewhat relevant name.

Re:An appropriate acronym...

[Harlan879]

From the story (if you read it...):
The Dragon capsule is the centerpiece of the proposal SpaceX submitted March 3 under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration program.
An appropriate acronym, COTS, already used for "Commercial, Off The Shelf"...

And closely related to a long-standing acronym in the space-enthusiasts community, CATS, for Cheap Access To Space.

Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[kclittle]

Could someone briefly explain why liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen are one of the preferred fuels for orbital rockets, at least for the first stage? I know the F-1 engine on the Saturn V used kerosene, but I never understood why; the J-2 engines on the second stage of the Saturn V used liquid hydrogen and LOX -- why the mix?

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[cmowire]

Kerosene is not the most efficent, in terms of mass, but it is rather efficent in terms of density. It's rather much like jet fuel, so there's already hardware to deal with it.

Hydrogen is more efficent in terms of mass, but it's not very dense, so you need huge tanks to store it. Also, it's cold enough to give you nasty materials problems that you don't get with just LOX.

So usually it makes more sense to use kerosene + LOX on the first stage because you are going to need a lot of fuel and you are going to have to push it through the atmosphere and stuff. Then once you are above the atmosphere and have ejected the first stage, the rest of the stages work better with hydrogen as the fuel.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Jonathan_S]

Could someone briefly explain why liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen are one of the preferred fuels for orbital rockets, at least for the first stage? I know the F-1 engine on the Saturn V used kerosene, but I never understood why; the J-2 engines on the second stage of the Saturn V used liquid hydrogen and LOX -- why the mix?

Liquid kerosene / LOX is more efficient energy per volume, while liquid hydrogen / LOX is more efferent energy storage per mass.

For 1st stage rockets that aren't going to burn for very long, the reduced tank volume possible with kerosene / LOX can be enough of a total weight savings to offset the lower ISP and greater mass of kerosene / LOX over hydrogen / LOX.

On upper stages, where you are going to carry the fuel higher, and burn the engines longer, the mass efficiencies and higher ISP of hydrogen / LOX win out.

Hence the Saturn V switched fuels as it went through its stages.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

It's rather much like jet fuel, so there's already hardware to deal with it.

Isn't "jet fuel" a formulation of kerosene? Just askin'

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[cmowire]

Okay, so I'm not a petrol engineer... but then when does that sort of thing stop any good slashdotter?

RP-1 is a highly refined kerosine fraction.

Jet-A / Jet-A1 is a slightly less refined kerosine fraction.

K-1 Kerosine is yet another kerosine fraction. In some places, they skip out on K-1 and just sell Jet-A1 as kerosine for simplicity's sake.

There are other jet fuels that take a "wider cut" and include some napatha and gasoline fractions.

If you want, you can run turbines on all kinds of crazy stuff, although with modern catalytic oil processing, that's far less useful than it used to be.

Diesel engines can be made to burn Jet-A or RP-1.

Either way... the hardware to pump jet fuel/kerosine/etc. sorts of fluids is pretty well understood and easy to get ahold of. Not so for hydrogen.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Keebler71]

Also, LOX/Hydrogen are cryogenic which means that they must be maintained at extremely cold temperatures. This necessitates all sorts of additional requirements such as more robust seals (Challenger) and insultating foam (Columbia) on the external tanks. Moreover, there is a huge logistics and support footprint for cryogenic fuels. They must be stored near the launch site and the spacecraft fueled immediately prior to launch and de-fueled if there is an abort. This further constrains flexibility of operations. In other words, while the Isp is much higher for cryos, there are other factors that in some cases trump the extra power per mass of propellant.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Coocha]

I filmed Mr. Musk's guest lecture at Virginia Tech, and I remember him mentioning that LOX+Kerosene is also very cheap compared to other rocket fuel combinations. Part of SpaceX's design/implementation strategy is minimizing costs in order to undercut Boeing/Lockheed's prices, so that's just another reason to use it.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important thing for the first stage is thrust. It needs to be a lot more than gravity. Otherwise you never leave the ground. If you don't exceed gravity by a big margin, it does not matter how high your ISP (specific impulse) is.

Kerosene weighs more, so it generates more thrust. It is that simple.

There are no first stages on any rocket that are purely liquid hydrogen. All use either kerosene, or are assisted by solid boosters.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[RevRigel]

Challenger's o-ring breach was in the solid rocket booster, which is not cryogenic.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[georgewilliamherbert]

Perhaps you should take a closer look at the Delta IV Medium configuration at http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/pr oduct_card/pc_d4_tech_print.pdf (PDF) There are no solids there, on the low end model.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Keebler71]

Yup... I was droning on about cryogenic and thinking about the cold which had caused that mishap. Of course, it had nothing to do with the liquid propellant, but rather the cold morning... good catch!

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but many of you are wrong about hydrogen fuels. Hydrogen fuels are typically not used because they simply occupy TOO MUCH VOLUME. The energy content of hydrogen fuel, as many before have stated, is much higher than traditional fuels, but only on a _per mass_ basis. Liquid hydrogen fuel has a significantly lower density than that of other fuels. Additionally, the tanks required to keep hydrogen in its liquid state are typically fairly heavy. In order to keep hydrogen fuel cold enough to be liquid, the tanks must be either:

-surrounded by vaccuum tanks (read: two tanks, twice as heavy)
-encased in aerogel/foam/etc. (adds weight, adds volume, difficult to maintain)
-in some other form of insulation (most of which must incorporate pressure regulators, bleed valves, etc.)

The bottom line is that hydrogen fuels, while very energetic, are simply not practical for most aerospace applications. I am an aerospace engineering student working on my senior thesis in aircraft design, and one project is a hydrogen fueled jet-liner. I know that it is not a strictly _space_ application, but many of the concepts are very similar. Hope this sheds some light on the situation.

Re:Slightly OT: Kerosene?

[Guppy06]

I can go down the street to get kerosene. Hyrdogen, not so much.

It's similar to the reasons why cars are still primarily designed to burn gasoline instead of hydrogen.

Wait, not a computer game!

[Tumbleweed]

It's an elaborate setup for a new perfume. Elon Musk...for men. It'll have Christy Turlington in the regular ad campaign.

But when cost is the barrier...

[Dukeofshadows]

...then government can be of help. Without a Cold War race and massive government expenditures, I doubt we'd have gone to the moon or made a third to a half the technological discoveries involving computers and space. Your point holds given that many of the technologies we use to get into space could use innovation and commercialization, but in areas where cost is the main barrier to technology development government can prove useful.

Re:But when cost is the barrier...

[SengirV]

Yes and No. What were the requiremets for our next Gen. human spaceflight vehicle after the Apollo program? I can tell you that something VERY much cheaper than the complex hunk of junk known as the Space Shutle could have fulfilled all the requirements. But NASA in it's infinite wisdom gave us an albatross around out necks for 30 years. Something so complex, expensive, dangerous, etc... that has eaten up huge mounds of cash that could have gone to true science instead.

Private industry could not really get us the ISS, but private industry could get us to the ISS. This is where I see NASA failing us. Hopefully, in time, we can look back at the last 30 wasted years and say it was simply early growing pains. But human spaceflight can't take another 3 decades of spending most of our resources on building sledgehammers to kill flies - like we've been doing.

Re:But when cost is the barrier...

[FleaPlus]

I can tell you that something VERY much cheaper than the complex hunk of junk known as the Space Shutle could have fulfilled all the requirements.

I doubt a much cheaper system would have been able to perform the Space Shuttle's most important requirement, delivering a sufficient number of jobs to key constituent districts.

Re:But when cost is the barrier...

[Moofie]

s/NASA/Congress and the Air Force, and you're right.

Re:But when cost is the barrier...

[Buran]

You can blame Congressional penny-pinching for that one. They refused to spend the money for a better system when the Shuttle was under development -- and as a result has paid for that mistake many times over.

Disclosure is also a factor

[Jeff Molby]

people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.

That's true, but government's performance is also harder to judge than a publically listed company. Large parts of the budget are vague (or completely misleading) and i doubt there is much (if any) independent auditing.

Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of the budget goes to items which are inherently non-profit, so how can you compare efficieny when you can't compare an expense to "what the market will bear"?

Re:Disclosure is also a factor

[superflyguy]

Walk through beaurocratic offices, and write down the prices of things nobody ever wanted, nobody's allowed to use, and someone higher up decided they needed anyway.

For a secondary measurement, walk through beaurocratic offices and write down the discrepancy between the cost of what people got and the cost of what they need.

There are a lot of departments where there's a lot of waste. My dad is working in a ten-person office that has two color coppiers that they aren't allowed to touch for fear that someone will break them or waste money on ink. They all had desktops 2-3 years old replaced with docking laptops that nobody in the office has ever removed from the docks.
That's a several thousand dollars worth of useless equipment right there, and they have more. And maybe a few thousand dollars doesen't make much of a difference, but if you extrapolate those numbers to account for all government offices, that's a lot of money.

Even better...

[AndroidCat]

launched atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 and dock at the ISS with assistance of the robotic arm.

It sounds like they're going to thumb a ride.

Can overseas companies get such funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not apply Globalisation to NASA... eg:

Let the funding go to suppliers in China, India, and other places
where the $'s might go further than in the US (if only due to the
difference in salaries & office space rentals).

The nationality side:

As it is overseas students from such countries are recruited to
the US, required to become US citizens - even when that entails
renoucing or at least losing their original nationalities (even
Australia's Andy Thomas had to give up his Aussie citizenship -
in order to become a NASA astronaut; of course, he was quick to
become a "dual-national" - ie, American (for NASA) and Austral-
ian (for family & country?)).

Why not make exploration & development of space a true -world-
project where one can make one's contribution without "burning
any bridges" (even temporarily).

The economic side:

As it is: An overseas student recuited from uni/graduate school
has to pay "first world" rentals (if on a short-term project) &
pay higher living costs, eg, while working in USA.

Better if s/he could live & work in her/his own lower-cost land
- both so s/he could increase the economic yield from the work
and so that their country's economy could also win from her/his
living costs being spent locally.

The Internet (and faster networks) make such outsourcing at the
individual lever practical.

Fewer 2-way trips help the environment & more money coming into
the local economy means more culture would be brought there - &
less need to fly off to experience it.

We do this with things (eg, incorporating the Canadian "robotic
arm" into the Shuttle, etc.), & I think it's time to do it also
for people, who might like to be nearer to family, friends, and
their cultural roots.

(Of course, those who choose can still "fly off" to experience
the places & cultures of their choice, perhaps more so - since
they would end up with more disposable income in their pockets
than they would if they lived in higher-cost cities.

What'cha think? :-)

Re:Can overseas companies get such funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is pretty impractical because it's assuming expertise in aerospace manufacturing is available worldwide (this *is* one area of expertise here in america) and that the only difference between a chinese/indian engineer and an american one is wages. As a rule of thumb, lower wages do not necessarily lower the overall cost of a job, if expertise and worker skill are taken into consideration (see outsourcing to germany instead of other countries for some things, even though their wages are much higher).

That said, outsourcing is beneficial to many industries, but it's not a silver bullet. Outsourcing is good for call centers (~30% of the price of US after taking into account all other factors) and simple programming jobs, but it's less useful for jobs that require expertise and experience in a field and constant communications. You can't change the fact that one team is working while the other one sleeps, and if there's a high level of interdependence, productivity is lost. That and language issues amongst a host of other minor issues related to outsourcing.

While some may spend their whole lives communicating via the internet and thats great for certain purposes, one should not discount the power of face to face, always available communications that you get by putting experts together in a room to solve a problem. In anything that requires such communications, outsourcing is often a bigger logistical issue than it's worth, and you'll likely get a lower quality product. Having specific research centers located in countries with experts in those fields, devoted to certain fairly autonomous project - maybe. But a small, highly integrated project? KISS.

it sounds nice to get an international effort going, but I'd be skeptical at the scale they're looking at right now.

Re:Can overseas companies get such funding?

[bhima]

FUCK!

If the world spent as much on space exploration as they did on their military (or their own corrupt politicians) and they cooperated as much as my *grade school aged children* (when avoiding chores), we'd have giant gold plated colonies on every sizeable chuck of rock in the solar system.

Re:Can overseas companies get such funding?

[emilper]

It won't be cheaper ... rents are not everything, and utilities could cost more; besides that, you will have to ferry the external tank and the shuttle back and forth across across the world ... and also watch the local governments just in case they decide to use the shuttle schematics to improve their ICMB programs ...

NASA funding a private project = oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense to the politically naive here, but if NASA is handing out $500 million of tax extracted dollars to these firms, they can hardly be considered private.

How about waiting until they succeed?

[edremy]

Remember, SpaceX's grand accomplishment so far has been a static test firing of a very small vehicle. Two other attempts to launch have been scrubbed, one damaging the Falcon1 so badly during defueling that it required replacing an entire stage.

The Falcon1 is still vapor, the 5 and 9 and this capsule are beyond vaporware. I *really* hope these guys succeed, but before commenting on the failure of the government remember that they haven't even gotten to where NASA was in 1960.

Re:How about waiting until they succeed?

[Rei]

Falcon 1 isn't vapor - it's beta ;). Otherwise, you go straight from "vapor" to a full release. And the rocket only got damaged because of a faulty valve that they didn't make. Falcon 5 and 9 are still vaporware, of course.

No, they're not doing everything NASA did in its past. I'll be one of the first here to defend NASA. But what SpaceX is doing is a serious and difficult task, and shouldn't be denigrated. Even if they have to outright double their launch prices, they'll still get plenty of business.

Ok, let's make a deal...

[Jeff Molby]

...You promise to walk through all of the offices and total their waste each year and I'll promise to vote based on your results. Heck, you can even take the odd years off.