Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX's Dragon Module Successfully Re-Enters
Zitchas writes "Following the news of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket with a Dragon module on-board, and its arrival on orbit, we now have the news that is has successfully re-entered the atmosphere and splashed down in the Pacific. As their website proudly claims, this is the first time a private corporation has recovered a spacecraft they orbited, joining the ranks of a few space nations and the EU space agency. A great step forward for space travel. Hopefully everything continues to go well for them."
I hope SpaceX eventually fields the first commercial nuclear propelled spaceship! :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
but wasnt this already reported in the launch thread? it only did two orbits, so the total flight time was a few hours.
Two days news turn-around is something one would expect from a news-paper in the good old telex days, not a website in 2010
Back on topic, awesome achievement! kudos to the SpaceX guys
People, what a bunch of bastards
Okay, we have proven we can orbit the Earth successfully for the past 37 years. NOW we have to move on to landing back on the Moon and Mars.
Whatever happened to our pioneering spirit in space? Are we just going to build un-manned shuttles and satellites for the next 50 years?
Our scientific missions seemed a lot more important and interesting on the moon with Apollo 17 in 1972.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This was old news from a couple days ago, covered on some respectable media outlets
Agree completely. Buchenwald, for example.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Everything was coming to this. It's normal to assume that what was done by governments before will one day be done by commercial companies.
If you can get some ROI on it, there's obviously a decent market for satellite launches. And making deliveries to ISS, but that's demand all generated by the government. Maybe you can get some space hotels in LEO, but for everything else like sending out probes, going back to the Moon or to Mars there's not really been many realistic business plans, even if you count on playboy billionaires.
There's lots of services I don't see the private industry ever overtaking from the public like courts, police, CPS and so on. You might subcontrat specific things like ISS resupply missions, but not the overall thing. That I think will be fairly true for space exploration still.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No, 'we' haven't proven much. Some governmental agencies around the world have proven that THEY can orbit the Earth, while you and I haven't done all that much to participate in that (buttefly effect does not count for much here.) SpaceX is a first here. Generalization - tool of choice of any critic.
The POIC (and probably every other NASA center with a TV) had the launch up on the big screen. Scott Kelly, the USOS crew on the ISS right now, took a break and watched it live on the feed we sent up to him between LOS's.
Scott asked CAPCOM to give the SpaceX team his congratulations on a successful launch. We in the ISS community are doubly excited: not only is it great to see such a flawless launch, but the Dragon/Falcon 9 is key to our future logistics and science return!
Well done, SpaceX.
Okay, we have proven we can orbit the Earth successfully for the past 37 years. NOW we have to move on to landing back on the Moon and Mars.
Whatever happened to our pioneering spirit in space?
We're not competing for our "space superiority" against anyone like we did with the Soviets.
Are we just going to build un-manned shuttles and satellites for the next 50 years
Fine by me if it includes unmanned probes. More than likely, space exploration will be a multi-national sort of thing - again fine by me. Having something that we all can work on may help bring humanity together as opposed to this tribalism and political boundaries.
Besides, a country such as the US that has an economy based upon medical and retail services just doesn't have the money to continue with space. We're in decline. An up and coming power will have to take the lead from us.
Well, as reported elsewhere... If SpaceX can secure the funding they will design and build a super heavy lift which would give them capability of 120mT - 140mT to orbit. They're floating a fixed price of $2.5B for development and building the initial flight hardware. That's cheap compared to the current proposals for heavy lift vehicles that NASA is floating. If they can arrange for the funding, that gives us a vehicle in the Saturn V class (again) and it's game on.
I was always wondering, do we need rockets of such a huge capacity, given the possibility (not yet, sure, but hopefully soon) of in-orbit assembly?
There is no money in getting back to the moon, at least at this point. The principle driving force of the commercial space program is the generation of profit... Perfecting the space "tour" is what seems to be the first goal so the commercial company can get a cash cow going. I believe that the commercial space program will eventually want to get to the moon (and beyond), but right now I think it is all about just getting into space in manner that provides profit potential.
I don't see how are we more part of a private company for which most of us don't work or hold shares of, compared to a public project paid by us all.
Not a criticism to SpaceX - I think achieving commercial viability is indispensable for future exploration, at least in our current economic system. But I'm not them.
Dilbert RSS feed
I think 'CPS' is child protective services in this context.
The achievements themselves (launch, orbit, reentry) are not nearly as significant as the COST to perform these operations. Apollo and the shuttle cost many billions to develop. This company developed 2 rockets, a capsule, launch operations and production lines for roughly $600 Million. Barring a major Earth catastrophe, cost reduction is the only way to accelerate our reach into the stars.
Double-check your facts. It's helium-3 that's in abundance on the Moon, not tritium. Helium-3 is a byproduct of tritium decay. Tritium has a short halflife and doesn't accumulate over geological timescales.
Tritium can be manufactured on Earth. Future fusion reactors (at least the magnetic confinement type, like ITER), will almost certainly test or operate lithium breeding blankets that'll produce tritium in abundance, and it'll hardly be worth millions of dollars a kilogram to ship a bulky product all the way back to Earth.
Plus, they have the advantage that they are bound to protect you. In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that police have no duty to protect any individual, only "society," a few special people, and those imprisoned by them. Even if you have a restraining order that commands the police to take action, you are not considered special enough. (See Warren vs. DC, Hartzler vs City of San Jose, Riss vs. New York, DeShaney vs. Winnebago County Department of Social Services; there are plenty of other)
SSC
Assuming we get to the point where we have private, commercial flights in space (for a hefty price), and on-board marshals are required, we absolutely have to call them Space Rangers and not Air (or Space) Marshals.
NOW we have to move on to landing back on the Moon and Mars.
Setting up shop on the moon I can relate to. Seems to me that the moon is the appropriate place to be building (and possibly launching) craft to further explore/exploit our star system, and probably our interstellar endeavours as well.
But Mars? I think robotic exploration of Mars is good enough; why, after spending all that effort to leave a gravity well, would we want to drop back down into one, again? It's not like we can terraform the planet into an Earth-like oasis. The simple fact that it lacks a natural magnetic field precludes anything but enclosed, artificially-controlled environment.
OTOH, going to Mars, in order to shape Phobos and Deimos into orbiting habitats (Mars space stations), using Mars as a gravity anchor, seems like a pragmatic choice. Perhaps, one day when we've got the science together, we can smash Mars into Venus and place the new body in counter-orbit to Earth around the sun, if we really want another planet surface to live on, but for now, it seems our technological limitations dictate we should pursue a persistent presence in space, once we are "out there". Dropping downinto a strong gravitational field feels like a step backward, to me. Let the robots do it.
Oh yeah, and you need a reactor to burn it in too. Ignore all the stupid internet-crackpot garbage about Lew Rockwell, polywell, cold fusion and rubbish like that -- it's a super hard problem which will take billions of dollars and decades to solve.
Too bad the conservatives are doing their best to defund fusion research and limit the US' involvement in international fusion research.
a fixed price of $2.5B for development and building the initial flight hardware
I'm sure Paul Allen can scrape that much together. If he's not overly invested in Virgin Galactic.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I heard that a wheel sized sample of the lunar surface was successfully recovered and delivered to earth.
First and foremost, SpaceX achieved its funding through voluntary means, quite the opposite from how governments achieve their funding.
That's right: Investors voluntarily invest their money in SpaceX. But they do it mainly based on the expectation that SpaceX will win fat government contracts, so they can repay these same investors with a larger amount of money involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers.
What does "pioneering spirit" mean? I think in the formation of the USA it meant overcoming hardship to get land and become rich?
If this is what you mean I am guessing the bankers, entrepreneurs etc reckon there's better promise on good returns to be made down here, possibly with the exception of Richard Branson who reckons sub orbital flight will make him some money.
As for science, that's maybe a different issue from pioneering? I am sure the scientists would like some more money to do more space science but I think they'll be split between whether to spend the money on manned or unmanned research.
Me, I am a romantic. I'd like to go to Mars and beyond because I am selfish and I want to go there and I think it would be really cool. I should imagine some scientists would like to join me to learn new science though, and probably some entrepreneurs in case there's money to be made out of it. I suppose the last group are the pioneering team?
Our scientific missions seemed a lot more important and interesting on the moon with Apollo 17 in 1972.
The moon landings weren't really about science, they were about engineering and national pride. The Russians launched the first satellite, the first man in space, and the first man in orbit; we needed to beat them to the moon and prove that we could keep going there.
We've gotten far more and better science with unmanned space missions.
Free Martian Whores!
The point, I think, is to get the government institutions (who are the ones who don't have to make money at things) OUT of the business of doing repetitious, potentially profitable things. Like putting satellites into orbit, doing ISS supply runs, and other generic things that are pretty much routine these days.
If they are barred from doing easy stuff, maybe they will take their budget where it is supposed to go: into exploration and the development of new things, things that the the private industry won't do because there is no profit there yet.
Z
Not as much fun as it could be. But hey, they would have gotten a sample back for testing. Nice.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The summary seems to indicate that there is an European Union (EU) space agency. Although many members of EU are members of the ESA, not all EU members are members of ESA, and there are members of the ESA that are not members of the EU (Norway and Switzerland).
The moon would make a great place for rich old geezers to retire. At 1/6th Earth's gravity, granny wouldn't need that walker.
Free Martian Whores!
We've gotten far more and better science with unmanned space missions.
Not necessarily from the moon. From Mars? Sure. Of course we've gotten more data from the unmanned missions because *that's the only thing that's been there*.
The rovers have been a wonderful success, and the data they've brought back is invaluable, but realistically, what they've accomplished in YEARS could have been done by a human on the ground in a day or two max.
Unmanned exploration should be seen as a forerunner to manned. Something we send out in advance of our arrival, not instead of it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Okay, we have proven we can orbit the Earth successfully for the past 37 years. NOW we have to move on to landing back on the Moon and Mars.
Whatever happened to our pioneering spirit in space? Are we just going to build un-manned shuttles and satellites for the next 50 years?
NASA/US Government, yes, done, out of the game. They'll say otherwise, but look at behaviors, not rhetoric.
Enter SpaceX... private industry will now make the manned advances. Elon Musk can now fund Moon R&D with revenues from commercial launches and government gigs.
Give the man his cookie, he earned it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Okay, we have proven we can orbit the Earth successfully for the past 37 years. NOW we have to move on to landing back on the Moon and Mars.
SpaceX's current launch is a key step to regaining that capability that the US lost in the 70s.
If you can get some ROI on it, there's obviously a decent market for satellite launches. And making deliveries to ISS, but that's demand all generated by the government. Maybe you can get some space hotels in LEO, but for everything else like sending out probes, going back to the Moon or to Mars there's not really been many realistic business plans, even if you count on playboy billionaires.
Today. What about tomorrow? Keep in mind that fifty years ago, a commercial market for satellites fell into the "not really many realistic business plans" realm. Things change even in the space industry. Just because it's not profitable today, doesn't mean that it'll always be unprofitable.
"SpaceX's Dragon Module Successfully Re-Enters..." WHAT? Damnit Slashdot, don't leave me hanging like that! Now I'm actually going to have to RTFA. Sheesh!
Portions of the bailout money could have gone to several different causes, doing far more good in the world than what it actually did, but the point is that it was called for by the mega-wealthy, to make themselves wealthier. The capitalist elite do not care about space exploration, world hunger, or any pressing social or scientific issues. They only care about themselves, and Congress has had a long-standing policy of trying to sate them, which is impossible to do.
Basically, forget about space exploration being commercially viable while we still the capitalist elite down here on Earth funneling funds orders of magnitude greater to themselves. It's a wealth gap that cannot be overcome by anything except public action.
Also, I don't think any significant ventures into space will happen until we start doing nuclear propulsion. Chemical compounds just aren't going to do the trick.
This is my prediction: SpaceX will choose Elon to be the first private citizen of a private space flight to orbit the earth within the next 5 years.
One of the goals of SpaceX is to not only put a human on Mars (Elon Musk is shooting for 2020), but to make space flight affordable enough to allow people to move to Mars.
“One of the long-term goals of SpaceX is, ultimately, to get the price of transporting people and product to Mars to be low enough and with a high enough reliability that if somebody wanted to sell all their belongings and move to a new planet and forge a new civilisation they could do so.”
Elon Musk: 'I'm planning to return to Mars'
People always give the line that corporations are more efficient, but I don't really see why. Not only are they likely to shell out big bucks to their execs, but they also have to get enough money selling products/services to the government to make a profit. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, so they're providing the service to the government at cost.
Saying that private entities are cheaper for the government to use because private entities need to make a profit seems backwards to me. Yes, the Shuttle was a bloated, expensive undertaking... but last time I checked Lockheed Martin wasn't giving us any sweet deals on the F-22 or F-35.
The quest for profit may spur innovation I suppose, but I think that's a stretch. Science isn't really pushed forward by individuals looking to make money. It's just like the argument you hear about medicine; that high health care costs leads to better doctors. I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I like for my MDs to be motivated by the desire to help people.
For a similar reason, I'd want the builders of a spacecraft I was riding in to be in it for reasons other than profit... I don't want them cutting corners to increase margins when my life is on the line.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Sure, but those future changes are going to result from non-profit oriented exploration. There's just nowhere near enough knowledge about the resources available or the costs of extracting/shipping them for a for-profit business to invest. The upfront costs are enormous, the expected payoffs are very hard to calculate, and the various risks are immense.
A good analogy is fusion research. The amounts of money required to make serious progress are immense (although probably small compared to what a manned mars mission would cost), but the potential payoffs if you were successful are huge and obvious. And while there are various companies dabbling in it, you don't see huge projects from big companies pouring money into figuring it out. Mostly because it's such a risky investment that corporations can't justify it.
And if fusion power research can't pull in that kind of funding, then what hope does interplanetary exploration have? The costs are higher, the risks are higher, and the payoffs are questionable. Any CEO who tried to shovel serious money towards it would be replaced faster than he could write the first check.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
A big step - only two more launches and the capsule is man rated, and we have a seven person scaled up version of an Apollo atop a Saturn Ib, easily capable of reaching the ISS with a full crew. Then all we need is a new version of the Saturn V, and we have essentially all the capability we lost in the 70's and 80's, scaled by 7/3rds. (OK, to do an actual lunar mission, we need a LEM, but there, exact duplicates of the original, flawless design would do - let's hope the Gruman design sheets are still around).
Who is John Cabal?
Sure, but those future changes are going to result from non-profit oriented exploration. There's just nowhere near enough knowledge about the resources available or the costs of extracting/shipping them for a for-profit business to invest. The upfront costs are enormous, the expected payoffs are very hard to calculate, and the various risks are immense.
I have to disagree. I think we're entering a phase where commercial development will on its own be ample incentive for developments such as the above. It might not be as fast or convenient as using someone else's money to do the heavy lifting, but I think there's a pathway for incremental space development to give us space.
Big wheel of Cheese
No word on what type yet.
-tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Pic
-tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
A good analogy is fusion research. The amounts of money required to make serious progress are immense (although probably small compared to what a manned mars mission would cost), but the potential payoffs if you were successful are huge and obvious. And while there are various companies dabbling in it, you don't see huge projects from big companies pouring money into figuring it out. Mostly because it's such a risky investment that corporations can't justify it.
And if fusion power research can't pull in that kind of funding, then what hope does interplanetary exploration have? The costs are higher, the risks are higher, and the payoffs are questionable. Any CEO who tried to shovel serious money towards it would be replaced faster than he could write the first check.
Fusion research is a bad analogy. First, it's not profitable in any way and at least decades from that becoming true. OTOH, the satellite business is profitable now even in the absence of non-profits and government funds. There's also some obvious near future markets such as space tourism that are likely to be profitable.
Nor does one have to hope with spaceflight that not only does it become cost effective, but that it can beat the competitors. Fusion has other base load competitors such as fission power, intermittent sources plus storage, coal, and geothermal. Even some exotic ideas like space based solar power may be competitive with fusion in the long run. There is no competition for many of the services provided in space.
... but for everything else like sending out probes, going back to the Moon or to Mars there's not really been many realistic business plans, even if you count on playboy billionaires.
It's possible that funding could come from traditional research centres, such as Universities with corporate goodwill backing- but you'd be talking about an awful lot of interested Uni's needing to club together to afford a decent interplanetary research project.
But then, there's no reason why the science shouldn't continue to be government funded. I know "small government" sentiment is scarily prevalent in some US political circles, but there's really nothing wrong with scientists (i.e., working on projects for the grater public good) shouldn't be tax-payer funded.
It's exciting that governments can start to take a back seat in terms of rocket development and manufacture, and it's exciting that we now have private technologies capable of launching manned orbitals of their own design, but there's no reason to be disappointed that tax-funded space agencies are going to be their biggest customer.
Well then; just stick to whaling.
It's the most popular cheese in the world - this world, and other worlds. ;)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for "reduction to Hitler" or "argument to Hitler," respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for manned missions. I'm just pointing out that we can get a lot of science done without manning every mission. Here's the NASA page on moon science.
The rovers have been a wonderful success, and the data they've brought back is invaluable, but realistically, what they've accomplished in YEARS could have been done by a human on the ground in a day or two max.
It takes more than a day or two to return from Mars. AND, the rover mission was scheduled to last six months. A six month manned mission to another body couldn't have been extended like that.
Free Martian Whores!
Well, government contracts and private launch contracts. They need to position themselves as a viable, cheaper alternative to launches by the big boys like ULA.
Bingo. Lets the bots do the grunt work, so that why you finally have spaceboots on the ground, they have clear, well defined objectives, so they can do the maximum amount of science during their stay on the surface.
There's an island a few miles off the coast of New England that's a popular destination for sea kayakers. They have proven that we can perform a successful traversal to and from that island. NOW they have have to move on to going to Greenland and back.
See how extravagant that mode of argument is? It's not that the Greenland expedition isn't worth somebody's attention, but if it is ever done it will be done for entirely different reasons. And if those guys really need to go to Greenland, they have a more practical way of getting there than paddling.
The same goes for Mars. Earth orbit is way easier than Mars, and far more immediately rewarding. We sometimes forget, but the reason we as a species developed orbital capacity largely entailed being able to drop bombs on other members of our species. Once we'd got good at that, the Moon wasn't really that much of a stretch, well worth doing to show the world that capitalist America had the biggest pair in the Cold War.
I think we *should* explore space. That's why I'm not excited about bootprints on Mars being our top immediate priority. That will suck the money out robotic missions and near earth manned missions that would build fundamental knowledge and technological capabilities. There's no doubt we *can* put boots on Mars soon if we spend enough money on it, which is precisely why it's not an exciting enough basket to put all our space exploration eggs in.
There will inevitably come a time when landing people on Mars will be the best next project for us to do. That will come when the cost to stage the mission in orbit is a lot cheaper, when space propulsion systems and life support systems are a lot better than they are now, and we know enough about Mars to know where putting those boots is the best investment. A premature manned Mars program would be like the Apollo program in that it would be a spectacular feet that quickly loses public interest and support. A sustainable space exploration program is a better investment. That naturally involves maintaining our manned spaceflight capacity.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
First and foremost, SpaceX achieved its funding through voluntary means, quite the opposite from how governments achieve their funding.
That's right: Investors voluntarily invest their money in SpaceX. But they do it mainly based on the expectation that SpaceX will win fat government contracts, so they can repay these same investors with a larger amount of money involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers.
...in exchange for providing services to the government--services the government would have demanded anyway--and in competition with other entities, spurring innovation and driving down cost, while also offering to the same service to other entities the private sector.
Or are you saying that everybody who ever sold a product to a government is morally identical to that government creating that product itself?
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Dragon has one advantage over Orion is the launch system does not have an "aggressive launch profile" like Ares rocket (which is a screamer in lower atmosphere and has really high dynamic Q). Oh, there is consideration of another launch vehicle but some have written "it has to be done with solid rocket technology!" (somebody needs to read up on what Goddard and Oberth worked on in the 20th century).
mfwright@batnet.com
The moon landings weren't really about science
Yet we got a lot of science out of them. So much in fact, that nobody has bothered to put an unmanned mission on the Moon since.
NOW we have to move on to landing back on the Moon and Mars.
Whatever happened to our pioneering spirit in space? Are we just going to build un-manned shuttles and satellites for the next 50 years?
And the fact we have robots crawling around the surface of Mars, and orbiters studying the depths of the Venusian atmosphere, doesn't impress you?
Sending meaty fleshy humans to distant worlds is exciting, and certainly can get things done. But in terms of pure science, I think we're following the right track with our robots. There's not much scientific gain in sending yet another can of humans to the Moon; you get far more scientific bang for your buck with swarms of probes.
Or are you saying that everybody who ever sold a product to a government is morally identical to that government creating that product itself?
No, I was just pointing out that this situation is not going to be the rugged individualist libertarian space utopia that the AC was fantasizing about.
I was commenting on interplanetary trips, not on spaceflight in general. There's definitely some shorter term, profitable enterprises available in low earth orbit. But the step from LEO to interplanetary travel is a lot bigger than most people think. It's not just a matter of scaling up, if it was, we'd have put people on mars decades ago. Also, the businesses that are finding success in LEO now have certainly benefited from the early exploratory work done by governments, they're not blazing a 100% new trail here.
I think my comments regarding the problems with fusion power are entirely valid when compared to interplanetary travel. Just like fusion, a mission to mars is decades from being practical, and even longer from being profitable. Whatever resources may be available for harvesting on mars/the moon/the asteroid belt/etc. are unlikely to compare cost-wise with the costs of extracting them on earth for quite some time. I don't see a path to profit there any time soon.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
First off, watch the post-mission SpaceX/NASA press conference. There's written notes here. A few relevant points made by Elon Musk:
* The heat shield on the Dragon capsule is massively overengineered to survive not only reentry velocities from low-Earth orbit, but also the much faster velocities from Lunar or Martian return trajectories.
* Instead of solely relying on parachutes, the next generation of the Dragon capsule will incorporate thrusters which will allow it to make a precise landing on the ground, on a target as small as a helipad. Musk didn't say this explicitly, but this is of course a key requirement for building a Lunar or Mars lander.
* During the press conference Musk fired some rather surprising shots at NASA's Orion capsule. Orion is the under-development capsule NASA intends to use for beyond-Earth exploration, and Elon Musk claimed that "anything Orion can do, Dragon can do better." This is quite arguably true, but it's unclear if this was the wisest thing for him to do politically.
* As Musk has stated a number of times before, the whole reason he started a company in the space industry, which historically has comparatively mediocre profit margins, is because of his dream of enabling Mars colonization.
I don't see the incremental steps between low earth orbit and serious interplanetary travel. The jump between them is huge, both literally in the distance you must travel, and figuratively, in the types of engineering challenges that need to be solved. And there's not many places worth stopping on the way.
I'm looking forwards to the commercialization of LEO. It's definitely going to be awesome, and I think that once it gets going it will get crowded up there relatively quickly. But the leap from LEO to Mars is huge, maybe even bigger than the leap from the ground to LEO.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
> (OK, to do an actual lunar mission, we need a LEM, but there, exact duplicates of the original, flawless design would do - let's hope the Gruman design sheets are still around).
As I mentioned in another comment, during the press conference Elon Musk said that the next-generation Dragon will be capable of powered landings. This would allow it to function as, or at least serve as a predecessor to, a lunar lander (or even Mars lander).
"Oh yeah, and you need a reactor to burn it in too."
Funny how that never seems to get mentioned when helium-3 is used as a rational to go to the moon....
"Of course we've gotten more data from the unmanned missions because *that's the only thing that's been there*."
That's the fucking point. It's also the only thing that has a realistic chance of going there in my lifetime. Which people don't seem to want to understand or accept.
I have no doubt that a human could do a massive amount of science on Mars. It would also cost a massive amount of money that we aren't going to spend. As a geologist I would love to see it happen. I also know it is the definition of luxury.
If SpaceX can secure the funding they will design and build a super heavy lift which would give them capability of 120mT - 140mT to orbit.
It took me several tries not to read this as "120-140 Millitesla",
which this unit abbreviation resolves to in the SI system.
Way to even use non-standard unit symbols for standard units.
We've gotten far more and better science with unmanned space missions
You're right of course, and the pursuit of knowledge is great. And we certainly use much of what we learn for applications here on Earth. It's just that many believe those missions should be working up to something spectacular and inspiring. For example, feats that appear to herald space travel resembling what we see in science fiction. A silly dream in the short term of course, but that's why the Virgin Galactic and SpaceX flights are so impressive. They have the appearance of progress towards what we hope to see.
It's just the space fanboy version of, "are we there yet??", and seems healthy enough to me. :)
I don't see the incremental steps between low earth orbit and serious interplanetary travel. The jump between them is huge, both literally in the distance you must travel, and figuratively, in the types of engineering challenges that need to be solved. And there's not many places worth stopping on the way.
Let's just look at the incremental possibilities just from a space tourism point of view:
1) Suborbital space tourism - a few minutes of zero gravity. Can be grown into a new, faster alternative to air flight.
2) Orbital space tourism - hours to weeks to years in orbit. Also, provides a big opportunity for zero gravity space science.
3) Lunar orbit - relatively easy once you've mastered Earth orbit. Swing some tourists on a trip around around the Moon and back.
4) Lunar trips to surface - the first trips might be a few hours, but eventually extending to stays of weeks or longer.
5) Trips to near Earth asteroids - these targets have relatively low delta-v. Once you've mastered living in deep space (outside of Earth's magnetic field) for weeks and have rockets that can get you to lunar orbit and back, you're pretty much ready for a trip to one of the many nearby asteroids.
At this point, you can start trying in situ resource utilization, that is, living off the land. Both the Moon and asteroids provide raw materials that a hotel or outpost could use to replace some m0aterial shipped from Earth. You've also have figured out radiation shielding, closed life support, and other issues of long term living in deep space.
6) Mars orbit - even if you can't figure out how to land safely, you can still reach Mars orbit and visit the Martian moons.
7) Mars landing - land and live on another world.
8) Asteroid belt - only marginally more difficult than Mars to reach. Trojan asteroids are a bit harder again.
At this point, you should be able to fly by all the major planets out to Jupiter or perhaps Saturn. With fission power, you probably can visit any point currently known in the Solar System.
There are a series of incremental steps taking tourists to the Moon, Mars, NEAs, and beyond. The really hard part is just getting established in low Earth orbit and figuring out how to live indefinitely in space without immediate access to Earth supply.
On the contrary, the leap from LEO to elsewhere is relatively benign. Also, there are places like the Lunar-Earth Lagragian points and GEO which offer some in-between stages from which you can build space stations or other kinds of facilities that would be useful in their own ways. Yes, those places do have their own challenges, but they can be overcome.
The delta-v budgetsimply getting from the surface of the Earth to LEO is actually more than getting from the LEO to Phobos. Fusion power simply gets you there faster and with fewer problems like having to worry about microgravity related health issues. Even 1 m/s^s acceleration would hold most things down and make a huge difference for getting somewhere relatively fast rather than a Hohmann transfer orbit.
It was Robert Heinlein who pointed out that getting to LEO was getting halfway to just about the rest of the solar system in terms of energy costs. The leap from sub-orbital flights like what Spaceship Two is going to be doing to LEO is much, much larger in terms of energy costs than going from LEO to Mars.
Once you get people regularly going to the Moon and back, I don't see how you are going to stop them from heading off to Mars except with a really big gun and a space navy that will shoot down anybody making the attempt. Landing on Mars and then returning is a big deal, but getting there isn't so much of the problem, at least into low-orbit around Mars. That could have been accomplished with Apollo-era technology. The rest of the solar system really is much closer than you would think. The trick is to simply get into space in the first place and to do so cheaply.
But the step from LEO to interplanetary travel is a lot bigger than most people think. It's not just a matter of scaling up, if it was, we'd have put people on mars decades ago.
I disagree. It is a matter of scaling up. The Apollo program cost something like 100 to 150 billion in today's dollars. A Mars program using the same approach and funding structure would have been about an order of magnitude larger (I recall NASA doing a study with this price as the estimate). It's pretty clear that the US has not been interested in spending that kind of money.
Until now the only place you could throw money down on the table to buy a ride into space was with RKK Energia and flying out of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. That was especially sad as it seems the former communists are the only ones who seem to understand capitalism and trying to fill a market demand.
SpaceX is the first American company to do so, as none of the other spacecraft manufacturers were even permitted, as a matter of law, to be able to sell their spacecraft except to government agencies where only those who were government employees or direct contractors employed by the government were permitted to fly into space. Christa McAuliffe was the one exception, and unfortunately her trip into space was rather short. She also didn't pay for her flight into space either.
The truth is that the market for flying in space with a private entity has not been demonstrated at all, and unfortunately even with the Soyuz spacecraft those going up had to be fully certified to fly all systems. That is like trying to take a trans-atlantic flight where the qualifications to even be a passenger is to be multi-engine and IFR certified with a commercial pilot's license. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. SpaceX is trying to change that, where only one "pilot" is going to be needed to fly the Dragon into space and back... when passengers are going to be on board as well. In theory even the pilot isn't going to be needed in the most strict of a sense but will likely be there when it happens (aka a SpaceX professional astronaut doing the flying).
The market for people who want to fly into space but don't have six months or more to train for that flight has not even been established yet... and there are people willing to take that six months to train and are still being turned down for a flight with the bucks in hand.
Yes, we did get quite a bit of science of of them, despite the fact that that's not what they were really for.
Free Martian Whores!
"Oh yeah, and you need a reactor to burn it in too."
Funny how that never seems to get mentioned when helium-3 is used as a rational to go to the moon....
On Slashdot, it almost always gets brought up. I do agree that the He-3 fanbois tend to forget that the technology to use the stuff on the Earth has yet to be invented.
There is a market for He-3 right now, but it is an incredibly small and niche market that would be flooded by any attempt to mine the stuff on the Moon. It has some interesting applications in the field of cryogenics as it liquefies at a lower temperature than He-4 (about the coldest boiling point for any substance in the universe) See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3_refrigerator
If you need to cool something to within a fraction of a degree of absolute zero, that is something to seriously examine. Still, if you are talking niche applications that is about as specialized as you can get.
is the the world’s first satellite launch company.
They build and launch satellite commercially since the 80's.
Government is one of the shareholder but I don't see that it makes a big difference. Subsidize or big fat contract are not that different.
It is like the battle between Boeing and Airbus
That's right: Investors voluntarily invest their money in SpaceX. But they do it mainly based on the expectation that SpaceX will win fat government contracts, so they can repay these same investors with a larger amount of money involuntarily extracted from the taxpayers.
On the contrary, prior to SpaceX winning the COTS contracts the development of the Falcon 9 was well underway and being developed for other markets besides trying to win government contracts. Simply put, SpaceX built the rocket and then said to the government: "do you want to come along for a ride?"
Folks like ATK and even Boeing and Lockheed-Martin all send out what are called "cost-plus" contracts where they don't even have an engineer look at the proposal until after there is an RFP "out there", and then in turn charge the government for the "cost" of making the vehicle including all engineering costs up front. The Falcon 9 was not built with that business model at all.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the contracts that SpaceX has made with NASA, they still own all of the equipment and merely "lease" it to the government. The Dragon capsule from this flight is property of SpaceX, not NASA.
Compare this flight with the Ares I-X flight that cost nearly the same as the entire development costs of the Falcon/Dragon capsule so far from SpaceX, and the Ares I-X only made a sub-orbital flight. The quoted "$450 million" for this flight did not include the development work on the Ares I project itself, which was between $2-$5 billion.
I'd say that the taxpayers are getting a real bargain for this flight. Even if full funding for the Ares I was still in the federal budget, the first flight with an Orion capsule would still be several years away, and the Ares I was started before SpaceX had even formed as a company. Talk about getting results for money spent.
Yes, we did get quite a bit of science of of them, despite the fact that that's not what they were really for.
I think we both agree on that. The point I'm making is that motive and goals are not tied to scientific outcome. This is particularly relevant to your claim that the US's unmanned missions have been better scientifically than its manned ones. As I see it, the Apollo program has done more to expand our knowledge of the Solar System outside of the Sun than the rest of space science missions put together. Yes, it's bigger than all the rest put together. Here's the key two words: "sample return".
Currently, all the rest of humanity's space missions can't leverage Earth-side scientific infrastructure. We're left to guess at what they see, any mysteries will stay that way for a couple more decades, until a follow-on mission either sheds enough light to solve the mystery or punts the issue a couple more decades down the road. It's slow and only looks good now because there's nothing to compare it to.
But because we returned about 380 kg of lunar material to Earth labs, we have a really good idea of how and when the Moon and by extension, the Solar System was formed. We know exactly the composition of lunar soils and rocks selected and returned by lunar geologists in the field. Further, the Moon formed and cooled much earlier than the Earth, so a crucial gap from about 4.5 billion years ago to 3.8 billion years ago is covered by the Moon.
Thank Beejus we've taken national pride and replaced it with national shame.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
(OK, to do an actual lunar mission, we need a LEM, but there, exact duplicates of the original, flawless design would do - let's hope the Gruman design sheets are still around).
For that matter there's at least one still around that was never used. (Wouldn't be flightworthy, but it could be reverse engineered.) But while the Block II LMs were pretty darn good, I'd go with lighter electronics and lithium hydroxide canisters that matched the ones in the command module (ie Dragon) -- just in case.
-- Alastair
Ok, but Apollo wasn't really good for much except a quick trip there and back. While I disagree that you could just "scale up" Apollo and go to Mars (turning a trip of a few days into years is rather significant), even if you managed to make it work, you're not going to turn a profit just by bringing back a couple hundred kilograms of mars rock.
Chemical rockets can only realistically scale up so far. The amount of hardware that you'd need to get into space for a trip to mars is huge.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Ok, but the "hard part" isn't just a bigger rocket, it's more the serious amount of time required to get there, and the resources required to keep a human being alive that long. You can take everything you need to last you on a trip to the moon.
There's a ton of problems to be solved, and testing the various solutions is going to be slow and really expensive. This isn't like Edison trying a thousand different materials before finding a proper filament for an electric lightbulb. You're talking about years of research, design, and testing. It's certainly not an impossible problem, but it's not the sort of problem that for-profit companies are itching to take on.
My argument isn't that space travel is impossible, or infeasible, or even a bad idea. Just that private companies aren't going to be the pioneers. There's not enough profit on Mars to take the financial risks.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I agree that there are many problems going to other places, but nothing that is insurmountable.
Not only that, but it will also be important to extract resources from where you are at and to "recycle" the things that you have to make them last longer. This can include things like Oxygen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and Nitrogen. Apparently the only element really missing from the Moon is a reasonable quantity of Nitrogen, and the presence of some ammonia from the various probes that have gone to the Moon recently suggest even that isn't a major obstacle. Yes, it takes putting some equipment on the Moon to be able to process those materials and make them useful, but it isn't impossible either.
There is a huge difference between the initial pioneering expeditions, which will be rough, compared to making the trip afterward. Those initial pioneering efforts, particularly those which are intended to make permanent "bases" of operation, will certainly be rather complicated.
My point I was making is that once you have people who are firmly established at certain points in space, that moving beyond those points is a much lower threshold than simply getting into space in the first place. The reason why you don't see more exploration done is that government bureaucracies are lead by stubborn bunches of technologically illiterate folks from several generations back that often aren't familiar with what could be rather than simply focusing on what has been. Furthermore, private enterprise hasn't even been given the opportunity to even try and do any sort of exploration.
The cool thing here is that while you and I might have differences of opinions on the topic, it really is more of "let's wait and see what happens". I certainly don't have the money for myself to make the financial risks to go to the Moon or anywhere else in space on my own dime, but I am supporting those who do and would love to have that opportunity in the future if it somehow presents itself. I don't think I'm alone in that regard.
NASA has had over 40 years to return to the Moon. I strongly suspect that private enterprise will beat them back there in terms of landing astronauts on a weekend campout expedition.
Well then; just stick to whaling.
But there ain't no whales! So we tell tall tales.
Chemical rockets can only realistically scale up so far. The amount of hardware that you'd need to get into space for a trip to mars is huge.
It's just mass. You need more launches and modest orbital assembly, not a completely new approach. Somewhere between three and eight Saturn V launches gives you the mass for a four man expedition to Mars.
Adding to this, by having a professionally trained and competent geologist actually there on the Moon, able to hand pick samples, putting them into geological context with other rocks, and to literally run his fingers through the regolith, and to even smell and taste the samples (something video doesn't do a really good job of)... I don't see how that is possible to duplicate something of that nature with a robotic probe. The proposal to have a tele-operated humanoid robot on the Moon does sound like something which may be able to approximate the experience, but I don't think even that is going to have the same impact as having somebody who knows what they are doing "up there."
The sad part is that the geologist was the last person to actually step onto the surface of the Moon and that any other followup studies to do another field survey were not completed. I'm sure Dr. Schmitt would have loved to guide any other follow through on the samples he recovered. Having that trained eye being able to pick out those samples really did make some of those "380 kg" of samples collected even more valuable as they were samples that had specific meaning rather than simply stepping outside of the lander and shoveling up enough rocks within immediate reach of the landing site. That is called real science instead of a random sample/return mission by a robot.
I could see Elon Musk buying up Armadillo Aerospace and making John Carmack a VP of engineering. I'm not sure if Mr. Carmack would be interested in selling the company even if the price was real good, but a chance to go to the Moon might just tip the balance. A chance to personally go to the Moon might really tip the balance. SpaceX has bought up a few smaller aerospace companies along a similar vein and brought that production "in-house" as a way to reduce costs, and I could certainly see an Armadillo lander being used for expeditions to the Moon.
If not Armadillo, Masten Systems might also be a ripe target ready for picking up. Paul Breed with Unreasonable Rocket would have a hard time telling his wife "no" to such an offer.
To be fair, a robotic sample return would be directly by Earth experts. They might miss some finds, but they're not going to leave the decision-making to an algorithm.
The key part you're misrepresenting is that police can't be held liable (in civil courts) for failing to enforce a given law. Think of the legislative nightmare it would be if 1 bystander in a mob could sue the cops for not protecting him. How about if every crazy lady who endlessly reports suspiscious behavior gets to sue the one time in a million something really was amiss? How about if every celebrity opted to forego private security and opt to require the cops to protect them?
Yes cops are there to protect the public, but they still get to make judgement calls and dont have to cater toy you. Sorry.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
To be fair, their accomplishments were made possible by said pioneering space projects which taught humanity many lessions.
Its the same price gimick heard in the halls of congress about the costs of some given newer project. F-200... Why? Because the later jet is an exact copy of the former, so all the original R&D costs are tied up in the per-unit price estimates of the F-200 project, and none are accounted for in the F-201, despite it being an already-sunk cost either way.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Even when a restraining order specifically commands the cops that they must take action if XYZ happens, they do not have to do it, per these rulings. Also, in some places, defending yourself can get you in quite a mess of trouble (duty to retreat, anti-weapon laws) that make your best legal option to rely upon the cops for protection.
This goes beyond stopping crazy people from suing cops all the time.
SSC