NASA and Space Station Alliance On Shaky Ground

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA and Space Station Alliance On Shaky Ground

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 23, 2009 @01:10PM from the in-space-nobody-can-hear-you-disagree dept.

coondoggie writes "Even as the latest shift of astronauts arrived at the International Space Station, challenges with the orbital outpost on the ground are threatening its future. Those challenges include the pending retirement of the space shuttle but also the way NASA and the ISS are managed. A report issued this week by the Government Accountability Office said NASA faces several significant issues that may impede efforts to maximize utilization of all ISS research facilities."

55 of 73 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

i see what you did there by fred+fleenblat · 2009-12-23 13:13 · Score: 1

maybe don't link to the comments section of the article next time...
1. Re:i see what you did there by MathiasRav · 2009-12-23 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  There's a tag for that. badlink
2. Re:i see what you did there by awyeah · 2009-12-23 14:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Apparently there's a "baddoggie" tag for that as well. Learn something new every day.
  
  --
  Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
3. Re:i see what you did there by Antimus · 2009-12-24 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  He always link to the same crappy site (which I assume he works for), and the summaries are always mangled with one or more stupid errors.
  Never noticed that, it's true though. boo, hiss!
Note to editors on article link by GasparGMSwordsman · 2009-12-23 13:20 · Score: 3, Informative

1) You link to the comments at the bottom of the article.
2) Here is the one page, print version: http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2009/122309-layer8-nasa-iss-astronauts.html&pagename=/news/2009/122309-layer8-nasa-iss-astronauts.html&pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122309-layer8-nasa-iss-astronauts.html&site=printpage
1. Re:Note to editors on article link by OolimPhon · 2009-12-23 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  TL;DR
No human spaceflight can't help by jpmorgan · 2009-12-23 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well now that Obama is going to cancel Ares 1, the USA won't have any human spaceflight capacity until probably the 2020s (assuming the rest of Constellation isn't canceled before then too). That can't be helpful for the future of the space station.
1. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by wizardforce · 2009-12-23 13:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Neither party has any interest in the future. One focuses resources on entitlements and the other on war.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
2. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by camperdave · 2009-12-23 14:01 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The existing Atlas and Delta-IV will be able to lift the Orion module just fine. Not only that, but Space-X's Falcon/Dragon vehicle will be ready well before then.
  
  Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system for a lot less money than the ARES craft. The beauty is that all of the engines are already built and tested, and the J-130 can loft about 30-40 metric tons of payload (say, an MPLM along with the Orion module.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
3. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by garyisabusyguy · 2009-12-23 14:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  jpmorgan, you need to keep up on the news, good and bad
  "Reporting on a White House and NASA meeting last Wednesday, sources say that the President has decided to give NASA an additional $US1 billion in 2011. The extra funding will serve to create a new heavy lift rocket, as well as to increase the fleet of satellites controlling Earth’s land, oceans and atmosphere.
  The objective is to have the heavy rocket ready for a 2018 launch"
  http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/12/obama-gives-nasa-bigger-budget-backs-new-rocket-cancels-ares-1/
  Can't agree with tomhath either, looks like this administration is willing to invest in the future
  
  --
  Wherever You Go, There You Are
4. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by DerekLyons · 2009-12-23 14:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not only that, but Space-X's Falcon/Dragon vehicle will be ready well before then.
  Unless you are a time traveler, that's an opinion - not a fact.
  
  Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system for a lot less money than the ARES craft.
  Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
5. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by ClosedSource · 2009-12-23 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Obama's agenda has always been to funnel all available money into entitlement programs and short-term make-work projects."
  Really? I missed that. If that's really his agenda, he's really doing a bad job following it. Unless you consider the military an entitlement program.
6. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by ClosedSource · 2009-12-23 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if human spaceflight continues to consist of dicking around in earth orbit like a project Mercury SUV, it's not much of a loss.
7. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by jpmorgan · 2009-12-23 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ares 1 was almost done. To put people on top of a Delta-IV or Atlas requires man-rating them. Building a new launch system means throwing away years of engineering effort. If you want to start building Direct now, you have to consider all the work that's already gone into Ares in the cost. Is it still cheaper?
8. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by jpmorgan · 2009-12-23 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was the point of the constellation project - to make it feasible to leave LEO. Constellation has now been thoroughly dismantled so who knows.
9. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by amightywind · 2009-12-23 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  There is only one solution. Sarah Palin must be President!
  
  --
  an ill wind that blows no good
10. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by dirkdodgers · 2009-12-23 14:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Correction. Both parties focus resources on entitlements and war.
  This is shameful. Better to be a beggar in a world colonizing the Moon, Mars, and mining asteroids, than to be a CEO in a world in which the human spirit is dead.
11. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by 0123456 · 2009-12-23 14:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ares 1 was almost done.
  That will be why it wasn't supposed to make its first flight to ISS until around 2016.
  
  To put people on top of a Delta-IV or Atlas requires man-rating them.
  The whole concept of 'man-rating' is mostly nonsense: if a rocket isn't safe enough to launch some spam in a can, it's not safe enough to launch a billion-dollar satellite. There are issues with using the Delta and Atlas, but they're relatively minor compared to building a whole new launcher: ensuring that the trajectory used always allows a safe abort, improving engine-out performance (where your satellite is toast anyway so you might as well crash and burn on an unmanned launch), etc.
  
  If you want to start building Direct now, you have to consider all the work that's already gone into Ares in the cost. Is it still cheaper?
  Yes. Because you only have to build one new launcher and not two.
12. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by fotoguzzi · 2009-12-23 15:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Ares I is really not almost done, and the many redesigns of the Orion capsule to make up for Ares I's deficiencies have delayed the programme further. I believe (I may be wrong here) that the J-2X upper stage engine and not Orion is the "long pole" development item for Ares I.
  
  Even the number and type of engines has not been decided for Ares V, the supposed Batman to the Ares I Robin.
  
  By contrast, all the major pieces and launch infrastructure are available to make the NLS/DIRECT idea work if the decision is made to take that route.
  
  --
  Their they're doing there hair.
13. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by CrimsonAvenger · 2009-12-23 15:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "Reporting on a White House and NASA meeting last Wednesday, sources say that the President has decided to give NASA an additional $US1 billion in 2011. The extra funding will serve to create a new heavy lift rocket, as well as to increase the fleet of satellites controlling Earth's land, oceans and atmosphere.
  The objective is to have the heavy rocket ready for a 2018 launch"
  One billion a year extra isn't going to get a heavy lift rocket ready in nine years.
  Note also that that extra billion is the lowest rate of growth of any budget item so far. Most of them are getting 9-12% increases, this is closer to 6%....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
14. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by camperdave · 2009-12-23 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
  
  It uses exactly the same engines as the space shuttle stack which can lift the shuttle (68.5 metric tons) plus it's cargo (24.4 metric tons) to Low Earth Orbit (92.9 mt total). It should be able to lift a 20-25 metric Orion module with no difficulty whatsoever (even if you hauled up a few metric tons of water as ballast and/or resupply).
  
  As far as development, the only difficult thing that needs developing is the avionics. Everything else is fairly simple (changing the end cap on the tank, aft thrust structure, payload fairing). Engines are already built, in stock, and paid for. SRBs are already built, in stock, and paid for. There's more metal "bent" for Jupiter than ARES.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
15. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by QuantumG · 2009-12-23 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh, they both suck. Trading Ares for DIRECT is just as bad a deal because they both have horrible recurring costs.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
16. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by Rip+Dick · 2009-12-23 18:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  sentence (plural sentences)
  1. (grammar) A grammatically complete series of words consisting of a subject and predicate, even if one or the other is implied, and typically beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.
17. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by DerekLyons · 2009-12-23 18:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
  It uses exactly the same engines as the space shuttle stack
  In a world where a booster consists of only the engines, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world.
  
  As far as development, the only difficult thing that needs developing is the avionics. Everything else is fairly simple (changing the end cap on the tank, aft thrust structure, payload fairing).
  For certain large and handwaving values of 'fairly simple', sure. In reality, you're creating the most difficult parts of the structure from scratch, almost completely recreating the difficult parts of the fuel system, and creating the avionics and flight software from scratch.
  
  Engines are already built, in stock, and paid for. SRBs are already built, in stock, and paid for. There's more metal "bent" for Jupiter than ARES.
  In a world where how much metal is bent is a useful metric, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world. In reality, your big costs are in integration and engineering - two tasks that for DIRECT/Jupiter are as big if not bigger than for Ares.
18. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by jpmorgan · 2009-12-23 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  You need to keep up on the American political process. First, $1B is chump change when we're talking rocket development. But it's a moot point.
  Obama will ask congress for an additoinal $1B in funding to build a heavy lift rocket. Congress will, as expected, decline to spend that amount of money on such 'frivolities' when they're desperately trying to pay for an expanded health care system and repay $1T spent digging holes in the ground.
  I don't know why everybody is so shocked over this. Obama told everybody he'd kill the manned spaceflight program in his campaign. He's just following through.
19. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by khallow · 2009-12-23 20:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  its time to INNOVATE and IMPROVE technology not be like the USSR and just keep using the same thing day in and day out never improving
  Then Ares should be nixed as well. My view is that the problem isn't the insufficient sexiness of the technology, it's the feeble economics of space launch especially as practiced by NASA. The single most important economy of scale is launch frequency yet NASA has yet to use that economy of scale.
20. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by twosat · 2009-12-23 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Alas V is probably off the table for political reasons because of its Russian kerosene first stage engine, the RD-180. The proposed Atlas V Heavy is still a few years off with an extra RD-180 mounted on each side to act as boosters. The Delta IV Heavy is inefficient and costly because of its hydrogen engines made in the USA that are inefficient in the lower atmosphere. As well, it uses a lot of expensive helium gas to pressurize its tanks and to start its engines. Probably the only option that would not hurt NASA's pride and be a reasonable price and efficient would be a hybrid rocket with a Delta core and at least two Atlases used as strap-on boosters. That way they could say that the Russian rocket engines were only assisting, and still have an all-American core.
21. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by cheesybagel · 2009-12-24 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  $9 billion is barely enough to develop a new medium rocket, which might scale to heavy lift if using parallel staging with some more cash. But not super heavy lift.
  $9 billion buys you a new engine design and work on a 1st stage, plus integration work with an existing 2nd stage (such as Centaur). i.e. something like what SpaceX will have by H1 2010.
22. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by jbezorg · 2009-12-24 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  For anyone who would like to look at the actual data and draw their own conclusions.
  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
  Page 321
  Consumption expenditures 2010 Estimate ( % GDP )
  Defense - 4.8
  Nondefense - 2.5
  Consumption expenditures 2002 ( % GDP )
  Defense - 3.5
  Nondefense - 2.0
  Current Transfer payments 2010 Estimate ( % GDP )
  Government social benefits - 11.0
  Grants to State and local governments - 3.8
  Other transfers to the rest of the world - 0.3
  Current Transfer payments 2002 ( % GDP )
  Government social benefits - 8.7
  Grants to State and local governments - 2.9
  Other transfers to the rest of the world - 0.2
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
23. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by Jason+Levine · 2009-12-24 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  I've been re-watching Farscape and just got depressed at one statement. During one episode, human astronaut John Crichton states: "My planet doesn't even go to the Moon anymore." I realized that we haven't been to the Moon in my lifetime (born in 1975), much less anywhere else (manned) beyond low Earth orbit. By all rights we should have some kind of permanent Moon base in operation now if not a manned trip to Mars. Instead, we've pulled back and decided that we're ok with just orbiting around our planet for a while. Very sad.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
24. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by khallow · 2009-12-24 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Man rating goes a little beyond launching spam in a can. First of all, a satellite can withstand higher G forces. Second, a satellite has broader temperature and pressure tolerances. Third, a satellite doesn't need an abort system capable of pulling it away from the soon-to-be fireball that used to be the launch vehicle.
  The key word here is "little". The ULA knows how to lower G forces (assuming that becomes necessary). You get higher gravity losses, but it's not a deal killer. Second, satellites don't have broader temperature and pressure tolerances. Recall that the humans will be flying inside a pressurized, insulated can. They will have the same temperature and pressure sensitivity as any other valuable payload. Third, the abort system is part of the payload not the launch vehicle. The part that you need is some sort of monitoring system compatible with the launch vehicle avionics to trigger that abort system. This isn't a serious burden.
25. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by nitehawk214 · 2009-12-24 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  In a world where...
  I cant help but hear your post in the voice of Don LaFontaine.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
26. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by DerekLyons · 2009-12-24 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't sound anything like him, but I was channeling him... :)
Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-23 13:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Mine is the Ramses-Hattusili Treaty.
SpaceX to the rescue by QuantumG · 2009-12-23 13:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Current estimates suggest they will lower the cost of cargo to the ISS from $46,000/kg to $20,000/kg. The Dragon capsule will serve as a lifeboat too, increasing the number of crew that can be permanently stationed at the station.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by Trepidity · 2009-12-23 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  What's the "true profit motive in a free market" for space exploration and colonization? Mining? Hotels?
  Or are you suggesting government bounties of some sort? Because artificial incentives ponied up by government with taxpayer money hardly count as true profit motives in a free market, though they may in some cases be reasonable ways for the government to get something done.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by amightywind · 2009-12-23 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if America is ready to tolerate a vehicle with a 33% success rate, which is what Falcon 1 has. Talk about carnage. I laugh at how much stock you people put in the amatures at SpaceX.
  
  --
  an ill wind that blows no good
3. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by 0123456 · 2009-12-23 15:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wonder if America is ready to tolerate a vehicle with a 33% success rate, which is what Falcon 1 has.
  If I remember correctly, Atlas had about a 75% failure rate before NASA stuck John Glenn on top, and I think the first Mercury/Atlas unmanned test flight exploded shortly after launch.
  Failures are expected during development, the question is whether you can fix the problems and move on (and sustain funding while you're debugging the system), which SpaceX appear to be doing.
4. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by QuantumG · 2009-12-23 15:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  People are ready and willing to pay to go do exploration and colonization.. if only the price wasn't so damn high.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
5. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by QuantumG · 2009-12-23 15:57 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  1. You're not real good at math.
  2. You're a malcontent armchair retard.
  3. Neither cargo, no the life boat Dragon has anything to do with Falcon 1.
  4. You can't spell amateur.
  5. You don't seem to know what it means if you could spell it.
  6. Kindly fuck off.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
6. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by khallow · 2009-12-24 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Give space exploration and colonization a true profit motive in a free market and we'll be on Mars in a decade.
  It's not happening now. NASA has obstructed space development and exploration in a number of ways, but my view is that if we were this close to profitably landing on Mars, private industry would be well on its way, NASA or no NASA. The truth is that we don't have a "true profit motive" for going to Mars in the near future. That is, we don't have any serious business plans that would expect to make a profit by landing on Mars in ten years. NASA, the legal environment, etc aren't the only obstacles. You also have to make a profit. The capitalism/free market pixie dust is strong stuff, but it isn't that strong.
7. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by amightywind · 2009-12-24 15:51 · Score: 1
  Falcon 1 has 1 success in 3 flights.
  
  Falcon 9 uses the same engines. Ergo, its reliability should be similar or worse.
  
  Unlike the lawyers at the whitehouse?
  
  Dragon's engineering may be even more uncertain than Falcon 1. You propose pinning America's future in space on the whims of a rich hobbiest.
  
  Spelling flames are a dullard's response to an air-tight argument.
  
  I am surprised you can count to 6!
  --
  an ill wind that blows no good
8. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by amightywind · 2009-12-25 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! You are really torqued up. Why such a SpaceX fanboy? Of course you cannot refute anything I say. Yet you waste everyone's time and reply anyway. Who then is the loser?
  
  --
  an ill wind that blows no good
9. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by frederickroyceperez · 2009-12-26 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  The sooner NASA is privatized the better. There really is very little the government does without colossal waste involved. Give space exploration and colonization a true profit motive in a free market and we'll be on Mars in a decade.
  Do you also believe that the only way to raise revenues is to cut taxes ?
  /
"More expensive to run experiments in the ISS" by l2718 · 2009-12-23 15:17 · Score: 1

GAO wins the "d'oh" prize for the most useless self-evidence statement of the year. Instead, they should have tried to figure out if the extra expense has led to better results. My guess is that the bang-for-bucks ratio for the sundry experiments in the ISS is very low -- except for the PR value. However, all this PR is important to keep the big experiment -- the ISS itself -- going, and that one is worth all the expense.
The first two points by CompressedAir · 2009-12-23 16:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

The first two points in the article cancel each other out. To paraphrase, they are:
1. It costs too much, so no one flies experiments, and
2. There are too many experiments for the crew to handle.
No one goes there anymore, it is too busy. -- Yogi Berra
If the ISS is kept running for 5 years, we will get more out of the fifth year than we did the first year. If it is kept running 10 years, we will get more out of the 10th year than the 5th year. Launch cost will be dropping regardless of the fate of Ares, and as current research opens up new research the demand for space launch capabilities will increase. Remember, in the absolutely most boring future, the Russians could build a second Progress assembly line. The probable success of SpaceX just makes that better (notably in the "return of material" area.
Now, is any of this worth it? That's more of a policy decision than a technical one. I think it is, half for the science and half for the global cooperation required. Remember, this International Space Station represents the efforts of 2/3 of the planet (land area-wise, heh, not population). When is the last time that has happened without there being a war in progress?
1. Re:The first two points by khallow · 2009-12-24 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  And since the Shuttle is being shut down, putting up new habitation modules isn't likely.
  As far as I know, there never were plans to extend the size of the ISS past six even when the Shuttle's end wasn't considered. Someone would have to build the habitation module first. And even with the end of the Shuttle, there are several vehicles (Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, Proton) that can launch such modules to the ISS.
2. Re:The first two points by SnarfQuest · 2009-12-24 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a dumb idea for SpaceX.
  Have them start up by making trips to the ISS carrying odd shipments (like fancy meals and such) claiming them as training exercises. As NASA loses intrest in the ISS (the government right now is much more intrested in giving free medical insurance to Mexican Crack Whores than science), they can take over the routine stuff. Soon, the only way for the US to reach the ISS is through SpaceX. That pretty much gives them full control over it (with maybe some complaints by a bankrupt Russia). They can now use it as an expensive hotel, like Russia is doing, but at a lower cost. Soon they could build up a series of orbiting Hotels, which could be a jumping off point for the planets. Building hotels on the planets/moons would give them control over most of the solar system. The adventurous would be the ones intrested in going out, leaving the unemployable welfare recipients stuck on Earth. When the planets reach self-sufficiency, they cut political ties to Earth, saving huge amounts on useless taxes used to build useless bridges in a useless senators district. Earth might try to cause problems after that, but drop a few asteroids on them and they should quiet down fairly quickly.
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Re:HINT: watch the video of thefirst Ares flight . by fotoguzzi · 2009-12-23 17:36 · Score: 1

I'm as much an Ares I basher as anyone (and not a RS), but Ares I-X used a standard 4-segment RSRM first stage. The velocity and altitude are much different than they will be with the 5-segment RSRMV, or whatever they are calling it. The test was designed to show that the "stick" wouldn't fall over on the launchpad and to get some aerodynamic data. It was in no way a test of the entire flight.

--
Their they're doing there hair.
Re:Are you kidding???? by QuantumG · 2009-12-23 17:43 · Score: 1

I really don't know why people feel the need to make up FUD about SpaceX. If you want to criticize them it's not hard, just point at their schedule and link to some of their claims from 5 years ago. I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to be a troll, be a smart troll, do some research.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Truth is not FUD by QuantumG · 2009-12-23 18:16 · Score: 1

You know a great way to back up a "it's the truths!!!" retort? References. It also helps if you log in coward. In any case, that's not much of an argument.. there's much better ones you can make against SpaceX, my point is, why are you aiming so low?

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Are you kidding???? by khallow · 2009-12-23 20:34 · Score: 1

They've had 2 successes out of 5.
They should just dump it in the sea by Joce640k · 2009-12-24 02:20 · Score: 1

...like the giant albatross that it is. It serves no useful purpose but it's soaking up all of NASA's budget, budget that could be spent on more interesting/useful stuff like the Mars rovers.

--
No sig today...
Poorly worded title by sajuuk · 2009-12-24 02:47 · Score: 1

Since I read this title and thought it was an Onion article about how the ISS crew was planning on attacking NASA... I for one welcome our new space-dwelling overlords!
Re:Truth is not FUD by amightywind · 2009-12-25 04:51 · Score: 1

The previous poster is correct. Proof that SpaceX is not ready for prime time is seen in the dismal success rate of the Falcon 1. The Falcon 9 is an order of magnitude more complex. I think America's space future would be more wisely bet on the men that sent us to the moon and built the space station than some web hack hobbyist with too much money to spend.

--
an ill wind that blows no good