SpaceX, Rocketplane Kistler Win NASA Competition

An anonymous reader writes "Two emerging space companies have won a NASA competition to provide low cost commercial transport to the International Space Station. SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk, is developing its two-stage reusable Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft, but it is making changes after the loss of Falcon 1 during its maiden launch. Rocketplane Kistler's K-1 is a two-stage reusable launch vehicle that has been in development for over a decade. Both companies represent a departure from business as usual at NASA. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the largest companies in the aerospace industry and win most NASA contracts."

Comments

I'm waiting for//

[NotFamous]

...the Venusian drivers with beaded seat cushions.

Fantastic!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Musk is doing backflips.

What does low cost means ?

[GedConk]

I'm curious as to just how low the launch cost will be, compared to other options. From the article, it seems that SpaceX is targetting 6M$ per launch, but that is surely not for the same weight a shuttle can lift.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[Lord Prox]

Nope, not even close. But if you have a small payload it mus be nice to have a low cost option instead of the shuttle.
It is also nice to see American business picking up the slack instead of using Russian refitted SLBM/ICBM's. Hurray for the little guys.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[khallow]

The cost per kg has little meaning for the Space Shuttle since the marginal cost per launch is only $250 million per launch (which IIRC puts it around $5,000 per kg for ~50,000 kg to orbit). But the Shuttle also has a $5 billion per year fixed cost whether it launches or not. FWIW, if NASA uses commercial launchers by the launch then they don't have to pay the fixed costs. I seem to recall that SpaceX's Falcon I goal was $5,000 per kg and the Falcon V goal was $1,500 per kg (ie, the customer pays that much, and SpaceX in theory makes a profit). But I have no idea how close SpaceX will come to meeting those goals particularly since they have yet to successfully launch the Falcon I. The Russians' Protons have a cost per kg around $3,000 to $4,000 per kg, IIRC.

Someone who actually has a handle on the prices, please correct me.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[georgewilliamherbert]

The SpaceX "Dragon" capsule will launch on the Falcon 9 launcher, not the Falcon 1 which costs $6 million and change.

The Falcon 9 list price (see http://www.spacex.com/falcon_overview.php ) is $27 million for the basic 3.6 meter diameter fairing. For that price, you get around 9 tons (9,300 kg) lifted to low earth orbit, based on the announced specifications.

I am glad to see that they got one of the contracts. This is good for the industry. So is the Rocketplane Kistler thing, sort of, but there's already been $500 million spent on the Kistler vehicle and it's only half-built, so I have my worries about that one...

Your mileage may vary, they haven't built a Falcon 9 yet or successfully launched a Falcon 1 yet, etc.

Disclaimer: my company was a COTS phase 1 competitor, proposing to launch on a Falcon 9, which SpaceX was cheerfully interested in selling me despite their own Dragon project.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[Aglassis]

I'm curious as to just how low the launch cost will be, compared to other options. From the article, it seems that SpaceX is targetting 6M$ per launch, but that is surely not for the same weight a shuttle can lift.

The Falcon 9 is what is planned to be used for the COTS program. While the Falcon 1 does have a pricetag of about $7 million, it only has a payload capacity of about half a tonne. I think the version of the Falcon 9 that will be used will have a payload capacity of about 9 tonnes and a cost of about $27-$35 million (depending on fairing design). It is still pretty damn cheap.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[iamlucky13]

It's worth mentioning, however, that by the time the COTS participants are ready to demo, NASA will be ready to retire the shuttle, and still be four years short of being ready with the CEV, so the shuttle cost is somewhat irrelevant, especially in view of it's different capabilities. Their comparable options would be the Boeing Delta IV and Lockheed Atlas V EELV's, which aren't nor are they planned to be man-rated and cost over $100 million per vehicle, or the Russian Soyuz and Progress capsules. I've read that the Soyuz cost about $70 million per launch, in equivalent US dollars. The Progress are a little cheaper.

Your SpaceX costs are correct, or nearly so. Right now the Falcon 9 is slated to cost between $27 and $35 million per launch. However, Musk has stated that the Falcon 9 is to be reusable, so I suspect that figure assumes that plan works out. Also, that number does not include the cost of the Dragon capsule, which I suspect will run anywhere from $5 and $20 million more.

Figures on the cost per shuttle flight range from $55 million, which is how much it costs to do between flight maintenance, preparation, training, and actually operate the mission, up to about $1.1 billion, if you include every single penny spent ever spent on the shuttle program, including R&D (and probably related projects that were killed like the fly-back boosters) and assume no more flights will be made.

Everyone go take a look at the illustrations in the article if you haven't. That Dragon looks really cramped when you squeeze 7 people into it. Worse than flying coach on Southwest. I know the space shuttle typically orbits for about 2 days before docking with the ISS. I hope that's just a fuel saving measure, because I couldn't imagine spending more than 6 hours in that position.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[khallow]

Wow, that is packed. Still looks like more space than the Apollo command module which had IIRC times when the astronauts were all packed in there for three days at a stretch. So it's possible that the passengers are expected to stay in there for two days.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[FleaPlus]

Right now the Falcon 9 is slated to cost between $27 and $35 million per launch. However, Musk has stated that the Falcon 9 is to be reusable, so I suspect that figure assumes that plan works out.

Actually, Musk has stated the opposite -- the current price assumes that they would be unable to successfully reuse any of the components, and that the price would come down more if it turned out they were able to reuse components effectively.

From here:

Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first stage, but an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. When the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, SpaceX will make further reductions in launch prices.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Apollo CM held only three people and they also had the benefit of stretching out in the LEM for much of the trip, which had room to stand fully upright.

The Apollo CM had a diameter at the base of 3.9 meters and according to wikipedia an interior volume of either 5.9 or 6.2 m^3. I couldn't find any interior volume estimates for the Dragon, but presumably it will have the same 3.6 m fairing diameter as the Falcon 9, but of course is taller than the CM.

Re:What does low cost means ?

[viking2000]

NASA estimated that the shuttle costs $330M for each launch. This was back before the Columbia accident, when they had fairly regular launches. With all the redevelopment and reduced fligth frequency, it must be well over half a billion $$$ now.

For comparison, an average US family of 4 pays $7000 in taxes a year, so every launch blows away all income tax revenue for a town the size of Birmingham, Alabama.

I don't know about you

[Anonymous Coward]

but the Falcon 9 series gives me a hard-on. Theoretically the Falcon 9-S5 will be able to launch almost 25 tons for $78 million. That is about half the cost of a Delta IV Heavy or the Ariane 5 ES ATV (not including the ATV of course). The Falcon 9 series is exactly what the space transportation business has needed for a long time: competition! Cheap heavy lift vehicles are going to make realistic space transportation possible in the future.

Re:I don't know about you

[Nutria]

but the Falcon 9 series gives me a hard-on. Theoretically the Falcon 9-S5 will be able to launch almost 25 tons for $78 million. That is about half the cost of a Delta IV Heavy or the Ariane 5 ES ATV (not including the ATV of course). The Falcon 9 series is exactly what the space transportation business has needed for a long time: competition! Cheap heavy lift vehicles are going to make realistic space transportation possible in the future.

Does DNF also give you a woody?

Let's see a Falcon 1 successfully launch a satellite before dreaming about the F9, 'kay?

Re:I don't know about you

[thedeviluknow]

I don't know about you either but i'm just thinking that perhaps it gives you a "hard-on" because like all rockets it in some superficial way resembles a giant penis.

Billy G

[LennyDotCom]

Bill Gates is giving away Billions for medices but how much could he realy do for the hunan race if he put that money into spce explolration

Re:Billy G

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very much. Space "exploration" is more space "exploitation". No one is suggesting we explore space here, they are more interested in hauling more junk satellites up there to beam more television stations and spy images back.

Invest in the the people who already exist on the planet, you will get a much better return!

And BTW, Bill Gates (and Buffett) are doing a great thing with their philanthrophy, so you can just stop that anti-"M$" nonsense right now. Where is the philanthropy from the millionaires at Redhat and Google? Oh, wait they are buying 747 jets to play in.

Re:Billy G

[khallow]

Actually, Bill Gates' money is probably being spent very efficiently. There are a number of diseases that are prevelant, cause a lot of long term harm, and relatively low cost to treat. For example, malaria not only kills more than a million people a year, but it infects up to half a billion people a year. Some malaria infections are chronic and may linger for years or even decades. Tuberculosis is another disease that can debilitate rather than kill cleanly. And it is still pretty curable despite the advent of drug resistant strains.

Re:Billy G

[NexFlamma]

Maybe I'm of the minority opinion, but curing someone of malaria (and saving their life) is of greater immediate importance than sending a shuttle up to look at some rocks. Mr Gates has been doing this on such a large scale that his money is quite literally saving entire villages of people.

Next time I'm in Africa, I'll stop to ask whether they'd rather have a space shuttle launch than to live through the week.

Re:Billy G

[ScentCone]

Bill Gates is giving away Billions for medices but how much could he realy do for the hunan race if he put that money into spce explolration

Or better yet, remedial spelling lessons. Though I did have a nice dinner tonight, as made by the "hunan" race. Duck, it was. It was that or the peeking chicken.

What is it with people that think it's one or the other? Space exploration/commercialization and things like vaccines and education for kids around the globe are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd venture to say that a whole lot of other resources, as needed currently for defense, etc., would no longer need to be spent if some of the crustier parts of the world could be talked into providing a decent, non-Apocolyptic education for their kids. To that end, be sure to thank Bill Gates heartily for what he and his wife are doing, and just have a little patience. And, it's not like Jeff Bezos is a pauper, either.

Re:Billy G

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time I'm in Africa, I'll stop to ask whether they'd rather have a space shuttle launch than to live through the week.

Are you naive or just stupid? The average person is so selfish that they would rather spend $150,000,000.00 on an operation and hospital care for themselves than save tens of thousands of other people around the world from disease or hunger.

Re:Billy G

[NexFlamma]

Ok, but what does that have to do with the point that Bill Gates' money is doing more good by saving people from diseases in poor countries, than it would be if it was used for the space program?

We weren't talking about the average person (not that anyone who could spend $150m would be considered average...), and their theoretical selfishness has utterly nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Also, if I'm reading your comment correctly, you're upset with me for not realizing that people would want to spend tons of money on their own medical care instead of the medical care of others, right? Well that's just baffling. What are you even arguing there? I'm not even sure how I should respond to that, other than ask you if you're terribly sure that I'm the stupid one, Mr AC?

Re:Billy G

[khallow]

Invest in the the people who already exist on the planet, you will get a much better return!

While this is true, I question how much good external investment can really do.

I think there's something very wrong when the number one way to improve a significant fraction of the world's population (my take, one third to half of the global population) is to get them an airline ticket and a work visa somewhere in the developed world. At one time, the developed world started with pretty much the same primitive culture that everyone had. But they turned that into the advanced societies that are leading the way in human endeavors like space development.

The Gates Foundation targets low lying fruit like treatable but widespread diseases and parasites because in part you don't need a functioning society to fix the problem. Education and some basic infrastructure (like water wells) can be accomplished in such an environment. But ultimately, you need a system of reasonable laws, fairly applied and a democratic process for selecting the local governments, the lawmakers, and the heads of state. I think that more than anything else is what seperates the developed world from everyone else.

Once you have this basic structure, the society can heal itself and invest in its citizens and infrastructure. But without it, you are limited to how you can invest in citizens of this society.

Here's where I'm going with this. Chosing between space development/exploitation and human investment is a false dilemma. Any society where you can measurably improve someone's life and value has social and legal infrastructure that will naturally encourage investment in those people. The places that still hurt are places external sources have limited effect on.

Space development is important for several reasons. First, it allows access to a vast amount of resources. There is far more mass, energy, and space in the Solar System than there is on Earth. Much of the technology developed in space will have tremendous value on Earth. For example, I think the science of arcologies will be greatly advanced by space settlements. Space settlements will have to recycle resources at a level of efficiency unimaginable on Earth.

Re:Billy G

[Squalish]

The Google founders are pouring money into Nanosolar, which is one of the companies developing a new form of solar cell that might actually be economical for widespread use - thereby giving your hypothetical African village power to pump + purify water, and irrigate their own farmlands.

dumb question

[steincastle]

How the f**k is possible for some small f***king private company to reach the f***king space with nearly no f**king money in few f***king month? While big f***king NASA with its astronomical f***king budget is not able to f***king sustain even basic f***king operation of the f***king shuttle?

Re:dumb question

[NexFlamma]

There is a lot to be said for a smaller, focused, agile group of people with a unified dream. They can often do amazing things that (as evidenced by TFA) larger, more cumbersome groups who are weighed down by the inherent bureaucracy of a large group of people (and large amounts of government/corporate money) simply can not.

This sort of thing should be applauded and promoted. The American space industry has become one of "throw money at the issue until it's fixed" while the Russians, with much less money, were having pretty comparable successes for quite some time by just being more efficient and clever about their problems. We need to get back to a "less is more" approach whereby the simplest, easiest, cheapest solutions are the ones that we use, both because they work and because they allow for much greater flexibility and rapid growth for a program that is ailing, to say the least.

Re:dumb question

[Crimson Wing]

Is that a profanity filter I hear overloading? Or did Steincastle censor himself?

Seriously, man, there's no call for that many curse words, ever.

Re:dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

F**k yes there f**king is you f**king f**khead.

Re:dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

The American space industry has become one of "throw money at the issue until it's fixed" while the Russians, with much less money, were having pretty comparable successes for quite some time by just being more efficient and clever about their problems.

Where did you hear this?

The Russians haven't been doing much of anything in their space program lately. While they are smart by still using the workhorse of the Soyuz spacecraft and the Soyuz launch vehicle, they haven't done anything phenomenal in a long time. But I can't really blame them since the Russian space program has a budget of about $1 billion per year.

The American space program has a lot of flaws, but at least a lot of work is being done. Most of the ISS is being built by the US space program (the second largest contributor Ruskosmos is putting up a grand total of 4 modules--one of which is owned by the US), the US space probe program is second to none (Ruskosmos only lauches a space probe every couple of years--NASA ususally launches multiple probes every year), and the US space program is the only program in the world currently developing an ultra heavy lift vehicle. This is simply due to money: with an $18 billion budget you can do a lot more than programs like Ruskosmos with $1 billion or the ESA with $3 billion.

Re:dumb question

[NexFlamma]

"The Russians haven't been doing much of anything in their space program lately. While they are smart by still using the workhorse of the Soyuz spacecraft and the Soyuz launch vehicle, they haven't done anything phenomenal in a long time. But I can't really blame them since the Russian space program has a budget of about $1 billion per year." Yes, the operative word is "lately". I was referring to their great successes back when they were a world power, not their work after their entire country fell apart.

Re:dumb question

[NexFlamma]

Friends don't let friends drink and format.

Re:dumb question

[khallow]

The Russians haven't been doing much of anything in their space program lately. While they are smart by still using the workhorse of the Soyuz spacecraft and the Soyuz launch vehicle, they haven't done anything phenomenal in a long time. But I can't really blame them since the Russian space program has a budget of about $1 billion per year.

I disagree. The real action in space development is Earth to orbit. The Russian space program has the most active launch systems (Proton and Soyuz) in the world. They have the most reliable manned vehicles (no deaths in a Soyuz vehicle since the 70's). Their program may actually generate a profit for them. That is phenomenal given the resources they currently have.

Re:dumb question

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the fact that the last time the US did anything phenomenal in the space program was in the 70's (that was the Orbiter program by the way and it was definitely phenomenal - a phenomenal failure) they are doing pretty well.

Re:dumb question

[thedeviluknow]

I too disagree, the Russian space program has not been stagnant despite their budgetary shortfalls they are now designing the Klipper space craft and despite the EUs decision not to help fund the program in spite of its advantages over the CEV, they are both able to reach the moon eventually and expanded versions can reach further afield, however the Klipper is significantly cheaper and has the Russians nearly spotless record behind it. And let's not forget the joint venture between Russia and Space Adventures which aims to send the lowly Soyuz to the moon, Soyuz's original mission anyway, with paying customers aboard. Does that that not count as "phenominal" for an agency with a budget of $1 billion?

Re:dumb question

[khallow]

Well, I personally would like to see some metal bent first before I too excited. ;-) But I agree, if this isn't "phenominal", then what is?

Small group of experts vs. massive orgs

[garyebickford]

The short answer is, SpaceX for example is building from scratch, using a small number of (we presume) highly talented individuals. Until the product is built and accepted by NASA, a high proportion of their resources are directly productive, and they can change directions very quickly in the event that a particular design won't work.

Big established companies, especially government contractors, must devote a huge proportion of their resources to satisfying internal and government regulatory/ oversight demands - this can be viewed as frictional losses and the energy required to maintain system integrity (I forget the name in biology - auto-something) - big systems have a big basal metabolism.

No doubt if Boeing were to start a new spacecraft program, the project would require more people just doing paperwork than all the employees of SpaceX's entire company - and that would be before NASA got involved! SpaceX can just work away on their prototype with minimal paperwork and justification, and can exchange future potential benefits for present pay and security with their employees. As it happens, the most capable and creative people often tend to be the biggest risk takers - bonus for SpaceX!

Re:Small group of experts vs. massive orgs

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, as is typical for people who have trouble using words with more than four letters in a sentence, he rather seriously discredits what NASA does achieve. SpaceX is a long ways from building launching a space plane, building a permanantly manned station, or landing on the moon. That's where they want to go, but it's a long ways off.

SpaceX has a double bonus that they were able to sneak away with a decent number of Boeing, Lockheed, and NASA's experienced engineers who were feeling stifled by the deeply set culture of their original employers.

Re:Small group of experts vs. massive orgs

[Teancum]

Not necessarily here. The key word is if Boeing were to start a new government contract to build a new rocket system, it would require massives amounts of paperwork, just like any government welfare program. Or about one sheet of paper for every $100 that you recieve. Think about it. Think college Pell grants and anything else you have recieved from the government, including tax refund checks.

$1,000,000 of government money usually translates into a nice stack of about 10,000 sheets of paper by the time it is all said and done. $1 B is usually a semi-trailer worth of paper. I am not kidding. Electronic documents merely add to the mess, not reduce it. The Shuttle booster engines have a paperwork trail on each mission that is heavier than the actual boosters themselves, and that isn't even the original engineering paperwork that happened before they were designed in the first place.

If Boeing decided to go the route of SpaceX and decide "if we build it, customers will come", the paperwork would be decidedly less, as they would only have to report directly to the board of directors of the company. The problem there is that the culture of Boeing may not be used to designing and building in an extreme design fashion and not be able to untrain its engineers to not need so much paperwork or bureaucracy.

Of course, that allows windows of opportunity for companies like SpaceX to come in that somehow solve the problem. BTW, Mr. Musk did hire some former Boeing engineers who signed on specifically because they didn't have to answer to so much red tape and that decisions about how and when to proceed could happen on the factory floor by the company owner, not in some congressional hearing that takes a week to decide what flavor of pizza they should be ordering for their staff members while the hearings take place.

That is precisely why SpaceX can do it so much cheaper.

Re:Small group of experts vs. massive orgs

[Big Hammer]

Why don't we just beam them up? Its safer that way.

Re:Small group of experts vs. massive orgs

[garyebickford]

I agree on all points. You said it better than I did! :) Once SpaceX succeeds, and becomes a "real" government contractor, they will inevitably move in the same direction. If we differ, it is only in that any organization of the size of Boeing and working in that environment, will eventually have the same paperwork requirements (among other things). It's not only the government, although the government is the biggest driver. I assert that _any_ organization will require that level of paperwork = internal metabolic energy consumption.

I don't mean to pick on the government either - they need much of the oversight just because there's always another shill out there ready to take advantage of whatever system of rules are in place. Governments have the least ability to use individualist protection schemes, and so have to develop the massive edifices of legal and administrative protections. I don't see an alternative, given the need for governments of that size. Every government is basically fighting a losing battle with Goedel.

Your remark about the shuttle paperwork rings true. I was involved in a proposed project with McDonnell Douglas back in 1985, and got a tour of their facility south of LA. Our guide told us that the hangar we were standing in (big enough for a couple of 747s) was about to be converted to a paper storage warehouse. He said each DC-10 had a pile of paperwork that weighed as much as the airplane. I can't confirm this, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised. In a different project, I learned that changing a single resistor in an aviation radio would cost several million dollars (in 1984 dollars) for new approvals from both FAA and FCC. This was something like 8 times the actual engineering and manufacturing cost. No wonder a coffee pot cost $5000!!

Re:Small group of experts vs. massive orgs

[emilper]

were not those projects sponsored/financed by the federal government ? Musk is still spending his own money.

SpaceX?

[OBeardedOne]

SpaceX? Spacesex? Of course they won. Nothing like getting the pron industry involved to get a market pumping.

Summary misleading

[Keebler71]

"Two emerging space companies [CC] [MD] [GC] have won a NASA competition [CC] [MD] [GC] to provide low cost commercial transport to the International Space Station.

The summary is misleading. These companies won a "competition" but it was not to provide low-cost commercial transport to ISS. The competion was for NASA funding to develop a demonstration of this capability. Once a particpant actually demonstrates this capability, the project will move into the services phase where they will have the opportunity to bid on a service contract for cargo transportation services.

Both companies represent a departure from business as usual at NASA.

I don't think it is the companies themselves that represent the departure from business as usual as much as it is the whole concept behind COTS: NASA seed money (in the form of firm, fixed-price milestone awards) for commercial partners to develop a new technology. NASA isn't buying/developing anything. They are germinating a seed and nurturing it.

Why this is different

[FleaPlus]

From the submission: Both companies represent a departure from business as usual at NASA. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the largest companies in the aerospace industry and win most NASA contracts.

This is true, but it isn't the reason that this is so different from the way NASA (and government agencies in general) typically do business. In fact, Lockheed Martin is one of the members of the Rocketplane-Kistler team. RLV News (a very good source of private spaceflight news, btw) describes nicely what makes this such a departure from typical government contracting:

NASA will select the COTS winners based on the viability of their proposals but the agency will not dictate the design of the hardware. Another unusual feature of the COTS approach as compared to the standard way NASA does business is that the COTS winners will not receive money in annual lump sums. Instead the companies will be paid incrementally as they meet milestones laid out in their contracts. If a company doesn't meet a milestone, it won't get paid.

Usually these contracts are cost-plus, meaning that the contractor is paid for whatever the project ends up costing, plus a reward. Cost-plus contracting is a sure-fire way to end up with a project that is over-schedule and over-cost, as the contractor has little incentive to do things quickly, and decreasing costs actually means they make less money.

With the COTS contracts, companies will only get a fixed amount of money for meeting pre-set development milestones. If they go overbudget, they'll have to eat the costs themselves, or they'll get nothing at all. This gives them a strong incentive to do things cost-effectively. Plus, both companies will also be responsible for supplying their own funding, and I suspect that with at least one of the companies the private funding will be more than what they'll be getting from NASA for meeting milestones.

Re:Why this is different

[evilviper]

This gives them a strong incentive to do things cost-effectively.

Historically, the problem with this has been safety...

If it isn't explicitly specified as a requirement, they won't build any level of safety into it at all.

Even if safety standards are set, they'll completely bullshit their way to whatever benchmark they are supposed to meet, by modifying tests, tweaking anything they possibly can, and ignoring every imporant flaw they can possibly get away with.

Re:Why this is different

[khallow]

NASA wasn't born yesterday. Safety requirements will be part of the milestones. I couldn't find an explicit description of the milestones, but there are "reliability" requirements built into the first set (according to a press conference which I just lost the link to).

Re:Why this is different

[Anonymous Coward]

> If it isn't explicitly specified as a requirement, they won't build any level of safety into it at all.

IMO there's an implicit desire for some level of safety coming from the bottom up.
Remember ... there are actually engineers who want to produce a reliable product.

But I might have a skewed view of the world because I work for a medical device co.

SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[FleaPlus]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave a rather fascinating talk at this year's Mars Society Conference, where he talked about his plans for the Dragon capsule, his long-term vision for private spaceflight, and his hopes of eventually helping to enable Mars colonization. An article at the Space Review, Dragon Uncloaked, gave a nice summary of the talk. Here's some interesting quotes from the article:

The large number of engines needed for the Falcon 9 will provide SpaceX with notable economies of scale, Musk believes. "Next year SpaceX will manufacture more rocket booster engines than the entire rest of the US industry combined," he claimed. He estimated they will manufacture 25-30 engines in 2007, when Falcon 9 tests are scheduled to begin, growing to 40-50 engines in 2008. ..

At the same time, Musk is dismissive of some of the proposed applications that could take advantage of such a powerful rocket. "I don't believe in the mining of stuff in space. The transportation costs are so horrendously high that I don't think there's anything... if there were packages of purified crack cocaine in orbit right now, I'm not sure it would be financially viable to go and retrieve them," he said, to gales of laughter from the audience.

He was similarly dismissive of another popular proposed application, space solar power. "I know a lot about solar power," he said, "and trust me, space solar power is not a good option."

So what might be the "killer app" for space? Musk has an unconventional answer. "I think there's some number of people in the US and other countries that would pay to move to Mars," he claimed. "They would sell everything that they've got, and they would move to Mars." If the cost of a one-way journey to Mars could be lowered to the "single-digit millions" of dollars, he said, "I think enough people would pay that to actually make the business plan quite viable. I think thousands of people a year would pay that." Needless to say, that got a loud round of applause from the Mars Society conference attendees.

That concept might seem way of out left field for an industry that is only now accepting space tourism as a realistic market, but it also fits into Musk's personal philosophy. Early in his presentation he spoke of the importance of becoming a multiplanet species, calling it "one of the most important things we could possibly aspire to". "I think it's really incumbent upon us to extend life beyond Earth," he said. "Basically, to help make that happen is why I started SpaceX."

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[Julian Morrison]

He's not being suficiently nuanced about mining. Boosting up to orbit, mining stuff in space and shipping it down to Earth makes no sense. But, once we as a species have multiple populated worlds, it makes far more sense to ship something to a factory in Earth orbit from the asteroid belt, than up from Earth. Just as it makes more sense to manufacture in orbit and drop the product down the well than to manufacture on the ground and boost it up. The core principle being: avoid boosting anything up to planetary orbit. It's just so ridiculously expensive that fetching the same stuff from anywhere else in the solar system will always be cheaper.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[FleaPlus]

I actually agree with you. I think there's plenty of opportunity for mining for in-space use, such as mining deposits of water-ice in asteroids or comets for H2 or O2 fuel constituents.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[edxwelch]

" If the cost of a one-way journey to Mars could be lowered to the "single-digit millions" of dollars, he said, "I think enough people would pay that to actually make the business plan quite viable. I think thousands of people a year would pay that." ...that's right after smoking the purified crack cocaine in orbit, right?

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[frankzeg]

By the time Elon has met all of NASA's demands for manned ops and ISS rendezvous and actually learned to fly successfully his total costs will be nearly identical to those of Atlas or Delta. These are not big teams contrary to popular conceptions. When you are in a prototyping phase you can afford to screw around and reduce operational discipline. His first launch attempt was a comedy of errors. Collapsed tanks, lost propellants- it was almost funny to watch. If he was not footing most of the bill the whole thing would have been shut down on the basis of inherent incompetence. There are NO short cuts to successful space flight.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[khallow]

OTOH, does it make sense now? It sounds like there has to be substantial demand in space for the appropriate materials to justify it. What are the chances that that will happen in the lifetime of the Falcon 9 series?

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[khallow]

So you are claiming that SpaceX will eventually run up similar costs to these other rockets even though he's further behind than Lockheed or Boeing would be (since they already have the experience and testing infrastructure in place)? Alternately one could point out that SpaceX spent a lot less to get something to the pad. I think we'll just have to use hindsight to see whether his development costs end up lower or not.

I think the crucial difference is the higher launch volume that is intended for the Falcon series. This includes a number of launches from customers that don't require the reliability that NASA would (and NASA probably doesn't require that much reliability since the launcher won't end up near the ISS and it is needed to transfer cargo as well). That means intrinsic testing each time a rocket gets sent up for a paying customer. OTOH, with nine engines per Falcon 9, they will need the testing.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole mining idea is a long, long ways off. That's part of his point. Once we have an established presence in space, then we can afford to start thinking about making it self-sustaining, which is no small task. If you've ever done any metal working, you know tools for working at high temperature are heavy and use a lot of energy, which brings a lot more heavy stuff into the mix. In space resource utilization will be a huge step forward, but it will be a tough one.

Comets though, would be another tough one. Your thought on using them for fuel is a good one, but all of the comets that pass close to earth are on really, really eccentric orbits, with velocities up to 60,000 miles per hour when they swing through the inner solar system. You would probably spend more energy transferring material into a useful orbit than you would just launching it from earth to begin with.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[frankzeg]

The "intended" launch rate for the Atlas V and Delta IV was 20 vehicles per year. They are right now flying 5/year. The cost of the metal in the machines is not the issue. The Atlas V especially is a very simple machine with far fewer elements and components than an equivalent Falcon. Costs are in the people to support the missions and keep the machine alive through years.

How much do you think LM and the USG spent on the Atlas V? It was a bargain- for less than $1.5B you got an entire family of launch vehicles- 8 variants in all including an upper stage that can send you direct to GSO or provide the energy to go to Pluto. You got two brand new state of the art, high launch rate launch pads. Advanced avionics, the most advanced guidance, fluids and propulsion systems. This means they freaking work when they need to (not just when you get lucky). Like when the payload is people. Or something important for ISS. You got 5 different payload fairings including one that would hold most of a Falcon 1.

For equivalent performance and capability Elon will have spent just about the same. Of course he is sitting at 0% reliability right now. Atlas is at 100% for the past 79 launches-including the last two decades worth of NEW vehicle first flights. I bet it cost Elon many millions to just figure out what happened on his first flight and fix the problems. I've heard there were mulitple issues uncovered by the failure analysis. You get to add that to flight costs- unless this is a hobby of his.

Here is the bottom line: NASA selected the two "finalists" not with an eye to replacing the shuttle with commercial vehicles for ISS resupply but to provide a justification for the continued development of the horrid CLV "stick" launch vehicle. They know that these two teams will fail to meet the technical and cost targets. Especially the Kistler design- that is a total loser. Their failure will show that NASA just HAS to use the CLV even though it is probably five times the cost. They can say they tried but that industry was simply not up to the task. Total crap. The Atlas V was teamed with one of the COTS proposers and lost since they were decremented because of their intent to use existing, proven, low cost launchers. No one who does not build their rocket in a third world country can compete with an Atlas V 401 on cost per pound to orbit. But this obvious winner was not selected in favor of high-risk and low capability systems.

The whole thing is a sick joke- that the taxpayers get to foot the bill for.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[cogno64]

Mr. Musk's comments are quite interesting. Sands of Mars, it's been aeons since I read the book "Startide Rising"//// also important to factor in the 'multiplanetary' consciousness aspect to this. It's hard to explain but this has a lot to do with the next phase in the growth of the brain and evolution, along with the multiplanetary internet which we have already achieved on a sporadic, 8kbps-type level

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[khallow]

The "intended" launch rate for the Atlas V and Delta IV was 20 vehicles per year. They are right now flying 5/year. The cost of the metal in the machines is not the issue. The Atlas V especially is a very simple machine with far fewer elements and components than an equivalent Falcon. Costs are in the people to support the missions and keep the machine alive through years.

I see you're not counting the development costs for the early ICBM days of the Atlas series. Encyclopedia Astronautica claims that part is another $2.23 billion in 1965 dollars. Using the GDP deflator, that becomes more than $10 billion in today's dollars. So total development cost is around $12 billion, assuming you're right about the Atlas I through V costs and those costs are in current dollars.

And while an Atlas V doesn't have as many engines as the Falcon V design would have, visual inspection of pictures indicates that the Atlas's engines are far more complex than the proposed Falcon 9 engine (or here for a CAD drawing). There's a lot less plumbing associated with SpaceX's Merlin engine meaning if SpaceX can maintain that level of complexity, they'll have an engine that is far easier to assemble than the RD-180 that the Atlas V uses.

Finally, if COTS ends up being a justification for CEV, it will be a cheap one unlike the CEV specifications game which just so happens to rule out the Atlas V Heavy. I think another possibility is that the COTS proposals based on the Atlas or Delta launchers were too expensive or the plans too underdeveloped.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[frankzeg]

Well you didn't include the cost to develop metal and to liquify cryogens either so where does it end? Here is the situation: there is hardly a single piece of hardware that was developed for the original Atlas or Centaur that is on the present Atlas V. Every system has seen multiple upgrades and simplifications. Elon Musk also hired a bunch of folks with some previous experience so he too benefited from prior work. Lets be honest and compare near term costs. The Atlas V had a pricetag and it was not $12 billion.

The RD-180 engine as shown is an all-up ready to fly engine with a complete operational set of instrumentation as well as the basic plumbing for moving propellants around. That adds a few tubes and wires here and there. The photo of the Merlin is a prototype on a test stand. The test stand itself replaces much of that flight hardware. In terms of basic function they are very similar. A pump, injector, control valves and chamber. Except that one has never failed in flight and the Merlin failed its first time and had a raft of problems before then. Ironically the image you chose is in an article describing how they cooked their control wires on the test stand leading to hardware damage. This behavior has been known for DECADES but they chose either by ignorance or hubris to take no preventive measures. What does this say about the level of sophistication of the team?

Your next comment on complexity is pretty funny- they are proposing to use NINE of these engines on a Falcon 9. They must work in synchrony and not interact too much with each other. This is non-trivial and ended up burning the Russians in the past. Surely you will agree that a single RD-180 is not nine times more complex than a Merlin. This complex rocket can get you all of 8.7mt to LEO and a measly 3.1mt to GTO. A base level Atlas V 401 with ONE booster engine delivers 12.5mt to LEO and 5t to GTO- fully 50% greater capability. This means you will have to launch a lot more of these non-existent F5's to match delivered payload-if in fact their performance calcs are correct- they have never actually made it to orbit. Think that a mistake there is unlikely?- the Delta folks got severely burned on the Delta III performance because they chose to play it cheap and omit a propellant utilization system- a few $100K. And F5 has no real capability to GSO.

So Elon consumes 15 Merlins per 1 RD-180 on a payload basis. All of those Merlins must work or there is a mission failure. Of course I could fly an Atlas 551 and get performance up to 20mt to LEO by adding some flight proven solids- the very same ones that got us going to Pluto with a nuc powered payload. There- I use 6 booster engines and Elon uses 9 and I get over twice the delivered performance. Yep I'm twice as expensive- is that a ripoff?

Lets say YOU had to launch a $70M payload which is time critical. Lives may be at stake. You are in the news. Astronauts are depending on the replacement widget you MUST deliver. Which would you bet your money on- a rocket made by a team with a dicey track record or one that has not failed in well over a decade? Now change the scenario to you being responsible for spending someone else's money and having a duty to do the right thing. Your job and reputation are on the line. Do you play it cheap and take a chance or spend a few millions more for a virtual guarantee? Remember this no hobby or game this is FOR REAL. With Atlas you as the customer get complete access to technical assessments of the health of the rocket by a time-proven team. You can see every change made and demand complex analyses be undertaken to address your concerns and doubts. You know they will be done by some of the best in the industry. You have hundreds of flights of data to compare to. You can see that minor issues are worked as if they are show-stoppers and brought to resolution in a open forum with you, your engineers and your mom there if you like. The best efforts of the best team are focused on YOUR success.

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[khallow]

Well you didn't include the cost to develop metal and to liquify cryogens either so where does it end? Here is the situation: there is hardly a single piece of hardware that was developed for the original Atlas or Centaur that is on the present Atlas V. Every system has seen multiple upgrades and simplifications. Elon Musk also hired a bunch of folks with some previous experience so he too benefited from prior work. Lets be honest and compare near term costs. The Atlas V had a pricetag and it was not $12 billion.

My point is that SpaceX is at a point prior to the Atlas ICBM series. There's a huge amount of investment not just in building the current Atlas V, but in developing the knowledge, manufacturing capability, etc leading up to the Atlas V. It's simply incorrect to say that the development costs were only $1.5 billion and ignore the huge head start.

The RD-180 engine as shown is an all-up ready to fly engine with a complete operational set of instrumentation as well as the basic plumbing for moving propellants around. That adds a few tubes and wires here and there. The photo of the Merlin is a prototype on a test stand. The test stand itself replaces much of that flight hardware. In terms of basic function they are very similar. A pump, injector, control valves and chamber. Except that one has never failed in flight and the Merlin failed its first time and had a raft of problems before then. Ironically the image you chose is in an article describing how they cooked their control wires on the test stand leading to hardware damage. This behavior has been known for DECADES but they chose either by ignorance or hubris to take no preventive measures. What does this say about the level of sophistication of the team?

The RD-180 also has a hydraulic system and a more complex pump. The pictures were also unfair in that there were two RD-180's mated together, while there was only one Merlin. The complex of nine Merlins will obviously be more elaborate than a single one.

As far as cooking hardware on the test stand goes, what's the problem? It's not particularly valuable. I doubt anyone goes to any serious effort to avoid breaking hardware on a test stand especially when the setup is this cheap.

Lets say YOU had to launch a $70M payload which is time critical. Lives may be at stake. You are in the news. Astronauts are depending on the replacement widget you MUST deliver. Which would you bet your money on- a rocket made by a team with a dicey track record or one that has not failed in well over a decade? Now change the scenario to you being responsible for spending someone else's money and having a duty to do the right thing. Your job and reputation are on the line. Do you play it cheap and take a chance or spend a few millions more for a virtual guarantee? Remember this no hobby or game this is FOR REAL. With Atlas you as the customer get complete access to technical assessments of the health of the rocket by a time-proven team. You can see every change made and demand complex analyses be undertaken to address your concerns and doubts. You know they will be done by some of the best in the industry. You have hundreds of flights of data to compare to. You can see that minor issues are worked as if they are show-stoppers and brought to resolution in a open forum with you, your engineers and your mom there if you like. The best efforts of the best team are focused on YOUR success.

I'd go with the Atlas, of course, unless they couldn't ready a rocket in the timeframe required.

But let's spin a couple of alternate scenarios. Suppose I have $2 million worth of basic supplies, nothing really expensive or drawing a paycheck that needs to go up sometime in the next year? Ie, it doesn't have to be timely. Should I use the expensive launch platform or the cheap one that only needs to work most of the time? Especially if I only pay for what gets to the station? Reliability isn't everything.

Here's the second scenario. Suppose I want a competitiv

Re:SpaceX CEO's talk at Mars Society

[FleaPlus]

So Elon consumes 15 Merlins per 1 RD-180 on a payload basis. All of those Merlins must work or there is a mission failure.

This is actually false. Part of the point with going with going with so many rockets is to have engine-out capability, so the rocket can still make it to orbit if some engines fail. It'll supposedly be the "first American rocket with true engine out reliability in three decades." The engine-out tolerance is of course dependent on how close to max payload capacity the rocket is. It would also only protect in those circumstances in which the failure isn't catastrophic enough to punch through the kevlar inter-engine shielding.

That Dragon looks really cramped...

[thedletterman]

and I didn't see a big screen tv or an xbox 360! No wonder it's so cheap!

How does the K-1 manage re-entry

[rbanffy]

I am looking to the diagram at http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/i mg_display.php?pic=060818_kistler_nasa_02.jpg&cap= Where+is+the+heat+shield? and wondering how do they manage a atmospheric braking and re-entry maneuver.

Any ideas?

Re:How does the K-1 manage re-entry

[Keebler71]

It is on the top (the end opposite the engine). The basic design is of a blunch sphere-cylinder-cone.

Re:How does the K-1 manage re-entry

[rbanffy]

I know they have done their math, but it sure looks unable to generate enough drag. Picture gallery was down when they got slashdotted. I will try again tomorrow

Re:How does the K-1 manage re-entry

[Keebler71]

Actually it is plenty draggy. In fact, the only way you could make it more draggy is to make the pointy end even flatter (right now it has a much greater radius of curvature than the Dragon) or increase the diameter.

In related news...

[GammaRay Rob]

... three members of NASA's advisory panel resigned for telling Griffen what he didn't want to know: that NASA is stealing money from science. Two of these were asked outright to leave and the other quit in sympathy (check NASA watch). To paraphrase: NASA doesn't need anyone to comment on current policy. Yet another example of how far Griffen has fallen to support the Bush adminitration's 'NASA as feeder for the aerospace business' policy. Sure, we'll get cargo to space, but it will consist of McDonalds (tm) hambugers for the ISS. Sorry I'm so bitter about this, but there goes your tax dollars (US readers!). Think of what $500 million US could do for the shrinking portion devote to the NASA science budget; which, by the way, has helped to fund the current and next generations of astronomy and astrophysics researchers in the US. Given the nature of the research, that helped everyone by advancing fundamental science research.

Re:In related news...

[FleaPlus]

Think of what $500 million US could do for the shrinking portion devote to the NASA science budget; which, by the way, has helped to fund the current and next generations of astronomy and astrophysics researchers in the US.

You should really think in longer terms. Investing that money now in lowering transportation costs will allow us to perform much more space science with the same money in the future.

Re:In related news...

[khallow]

First, the NASA Watch story you mentioned.

Second, a glance at the official purpose of NASA (as described in the amended act that established NASA) reveals that NASA oversees nonmilitary US activity in space, that it should "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space", and then as the first of the activities that NASA should engage (which follow these previous declarations) "The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space."

In other words, science isn't the main priority at NASA nor IMHO should it be. So claiming that NASA is "stealing from science" and is a "feeder for the aerospace business' policy" ignores that encouraging "commercial use" of space is a higher priority and that the recent moves can be rationalized as doing just that. I'm not saying they actually are fulfilling their purpose, just that it's not enough to criticize a NASA move by saying that it takes away from space science.

IMHO, the current manned missions do little to support NASA primary purposes. It's just salt in the wounds that they are funded with money taken from the space science budget. Nor is NASA addressing significant problems with the proposed missions. For example, we have no idea what the health consequences are to extended living in Martian and Lunar gravity (0.4 and 0.16 gees respectively). Assuming the Ares launch vehicles remain unchanged, we don't have backup vehicles in case these fail. If the Ares V vehicle is grounded for a couple of years of NASA soul-searching (ie, NASA conducts an accident investigation), then all programs that depend on this launcher are halted for a similar length of time. This will generate huge expenses each time it happens. We aren't studying the Moon very well given the ambition to colonize the Moon.

Finally, given the importance of space science missions to future US commercial activity in space, it's not clear to me why these missions have been scaled back or delayed. It will ultimately just add to the cost of the missions and thwart one of the prime objectives of NASA.

Further, it's not clear why the Bush administration expects that future presidencies will respect these programs. I expect that the next president will complete change course on NASA.

Kistler funds Foundation for The Future....

[cogno64]

Cool. UC-Berkeley's Arthur Jensen won Kistler's Foundation For the Future award in 2003. There is much to be said for small teams. The brain and space are the 2 big frontiers. We hope to make a dent in the brain area. We're even giving away a quick speed test free, no sign up or you can take a brain test (with piped in Vangelis mp3) based on the noir film Blade Runner.

The Hunan Race

[ArsSineArtificio]

Though I did have a nice dinner tonight, as made by the "hunan" race. Duck, it was. It was that or the peeking chicken.

I've always thought that 'Hunan Resources Department' would be a great name for a Chinese restaurant.

Not quite accurate

[WindBourne]

It's worth mentioning, however, that by the time the COTS participants are ready to demo,

SpaceX may be ready with the cargo system by mid 2008. In addition, it is possible that they will be ready by mid 2009 with human system (not much earlier, but ....). Regardless, I suspect that as soon as any system is able to get the ISS with human-rated loads and cheaper than either space shuttle and russian, then they will take over the loads to the ISS wrt to crews.