Dragon Capsule Could Be 1st Private Craft To Dock With ISS

thomst writes "Space News reports that NASA has given tentative approval for SpaceX to combine the two remaining flights designed to prove the Hawthorne, Calif., company can deliver cargo to the international space station, according to William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for space operations, although formal approval for the mission is still pending. If NASA does approve the plan, SpaceX's Dragon capsule would be the first civilian spacecraft actually to dock with the International Space Station. According to NASA spokesman Joshua Buck, the current plan calls for SpaceX to launch a Dragon capsule aboard a Falcon 9 rocket on Nov. 30, which would then rendezvous and dock with the space station on Dec. 7 — a day that would live in spaceflight history."

Comments

Dragon Capsule

[smittyoneeach]

Dragon Capsule,
Strong to save:
When venturing forth,
Bring Burma Shave.

Re:Dragon Capsule

[PopeRatzo]

Dragon Capsule,
Strong to save:
When venturing forth,
Bring Burma Shave.

Smartest remark on Slashdot this week, on more than one level.

Re:Dragon Capsule

[RudeDude]

Space is big
Space is dark
Its hard to find
A place to park
Burma Shave

Re:Dragon Capsule

[melikamp]

I don't get it.

Re:Dragon Capsule

[mj1856]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Shave

the magic of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

At a fraction of the cost! If this doesn't show how competition in the private sector is miles ahead of any State enterprise, I don't know what doeS!

Re:the magic of competition

[moronoxyd]

Ok, so one example proves that for ANY case?
Math and logic aren't you strong suits, right?

Re:the magic of competition

[ByOhTek]

Where's the one example? There's no mention here of cost.
Also, how multipurpose is the Dragon? The shuttle was meant as a LEO swiss-army-knife, not necessarily the cheapest, but it could do what was necessary for LEO tasks.

And for all we know, NASA isn't paying that much, in part, because the DRAGON was already funded, and the manufacturers were more interested in recouping part of the cost than the whole cost. if anything it's more of an example of cooperation being financially viable. Two separate goals, one project, each side gets what they want for a bit less than they would have.

Re:the magic of competition

[zach_the_lizard]

Cooperation and competition aren't mutually exclusive, even in business relationships. See for example Microsoft and SUSE; they are direct competitors in the OS arena, yet they cooperate on certain things. Microsoft contributes Hyper-V driver code to Linux, code which improves the competitiveness of a rival platform under certain conditions, because it feels it gains more in promoting Hyper-V and getting people to use that than it loses in getting Linux to run at a comparable speed and functionality to Windows under Hyper-V.

Re:the magic of competition

[EraserMouseMan]

Hooray for government run stuff!!! Right now 0.7% of our taxes go to NASA. Imagine what NASA could do if it was 70%!!!!

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

At a fraction of the cost! If this doesn't show how competition in the private sector is miles ahead of any State enterprise, I don't know what doeS!

The first one is always free (or cheap).

It's called a loss leader, to bring you in the door. When there are only one or two space "providers", it will become much more expensive to use the "private sector" than it will to let the government fund it.

Plus, we'll end up with the government subsidizing these space corporations that sell us space flight. Exactly what happened with military contractors, energy providers, telecommunications.

"Privatization" is a scam. It does not work, it will never work.

Re:the magic of competition

[tibit]

That's not magic. They are run by competent people, and it has nothing to do with competition. Heck, they are, in fact, pretty much monopolists in their market niche. They have complete vertical integration -- all of the profits are basically theirs, because they try to make all the custom parts themselves. The big boys are so slow to change, that they'll be using their political clout to get contracts as long as they can while being run over slowly but surely by SpaceX. It's reckoning time for "big" boys and their leadership. I've been saying that for a good while now. I wish there was a way to invest small amounts of money in them...

Re:the magic of competition

[TangoMargarine]

Watch the rest of our country collapse from massive lack of funding?

Re:the magic of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly just defence.

Re:the magic of competition

[khallow]

Also, how multipurpose is the Dragon? The shuttle was meant as a LEO swiss-army-knife, not necessarily the cheapest, but it could do what was necessary for LEO tasks.

If the Shuttle truly "did what was necessary, "it'd be a whole lot cheaper. The problem as you remark on is that it did a whole lot more than what was necessary and that in turn was a significant driver of its costs.

And for all we know, NASA isn't paying that much, in part, because the DRAGON was already funded

By who? NASA already is the prime funding source. And it's worth noting that a NASA group has already examined SpaceX's finances and determined that a traditional NASA contract to do the same thing that SpaceX did through the launch of the Dragon capsule would be about a factor of ten higher than what SpaceX has spent, either of NASA's money or its own. That ignores that NASA contracts often have a habit of growing in cost by a factor of two or more once the money starts flowing.

Re:the magic of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

It only cost less now because it doesn't do anything. The second they try to launch anything with it will require insurance plus they have to make a profit a top of that.
In the end it will cost more than if NASA just had their own vehicle.

Re:the magic of competition

[macpacheco]

Scam is all the PORK associated with most investment done by the government.
Scam is the total financial irresponsibility that Washington-DC lives on today.
Of every dollar the US government spends, 40 cents comes from borrowed money.
SpaceX runs on a contract with NASA where SpaceX is responsible for launching, without ANY compensation owed if SpaceX looses money on their business.
Contrary to all thing done by Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, ... Where every time there are overruns they come to the government for compensation (like most defense/space contracts).
Now if your mentality is 100% decided that privatization is a scam, nothing I say will change your mind...

Re:the magic of competition

[khallow]

Here's a link to my cost claim. I was in error. The cost calculated was just for the Falcon 9 development (including Falcon 1 development).

Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a traditional approach. Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach. Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion.

SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.

So by "traditional methodology," it was roughly ten times more costly and even by a more refined approach, it was more than a factor of 4 more expensive. And this ignores any inflation in program costs.

Re:the magic of competition

[jellomizer]

Not the magic of competition... It is that for some things Private Enterprise does better then governments.
And yes some things government can do better then Private Enterprise.

Governments are risk adverse. (Great for keeping you city water supply going and clean)
Enterprise thrive on risk. (Great for innovation, and making new things)

The problem is you have to many party liners out there who think Enterprise should do it all or the government should do it all. Or they put the wrong groups to do particular jobs.

Space Travel is Risky, Government has a hard time with that, as people sometimes die and needs to be crippled when that happens because they took too much risk and now need to reevaluate how to reduce risk. Enterprise when someone dies, They will not get crippled they will fix the problem and try again. And yes more people will Die with Enterprise space travel... But more people will also be able to experience it, and enterprise space travel will get safer, over time. Probably faster then government space travel as they will be learning and altering from more mistakes.

Roads, Water Treatment, Natural Gas Distribution and Electrical Power, and I would even agree Internet access should be controlled by the Government (Many of those are currently not in America) as these are known quantities, can be tightly controlled, and regulated well. And well shown if our tax dollars are being well used or not, and span a wide infrastructure and if it were private business owning these areas Local monopolies form.

As for Education and Healthcare those are problematic. Neither Government or Enterprise can really properly run these. I would suggest a highly regulated industry for those.

Re:the magic of competition

[bberens]

Privatization is not a scam. However, one of the biggest reasons NASA was overpriced was the procurement process. In order for NASA to spend money they had to spread it around as many Congress Critters' districts as possible, which introduced massive wastes. One of the ways defense contractors win their bids is to similarly "spread the wealth" across as many districts as possible of key Congress members so they can win spending votes. I suspect it is only a matter of time before the private space industry has to play the same game. Until then, hooray for saving some money.

Re:the magic of competition

[macpacheco]

The people are to blame. Demand fiscally responsible politicians. Demand the end to all pork politics. Force politicians to stop catering to the space / defense lobby.
Electing someone doesn't assure they will be serious. Only people's oversight over their politicians can lead to that.
The Internet has brought an unprecedented level of accessibility to all government spending. It's in our hands.

Re:the magic of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

All other things being equal, I will continue to vote for the Congress Critter whom I believe is capable of bringing in a disproportionate amount of pork into my district. kthxbye.

Re:the magic of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

House members are elected to represent the people living in their district. Bringing money and jobs to the district is a large part of what they are supposed to be doing. Senators are doing the same thing on a statewide basis.

It doesn't provide the federal utopia you wish for, but it is how a representative government works.

Re:the magic of competition

[Baloroth]

Riiiight, because SpaceX is a giant, well-funded corporation that can afford to take massive losses on its first few launches in order to lure us away from the competition. Except in this case the competition is Russia who is definitely very expensive, and SpaceX is a (fairly) small startup reliant on NASA funds run by an engineer, not a businessman. So, no, its not a loss leader. They can't afford one. The private sector just really does do things cheaper than the government, due to less bureaucracy, inertia, and congressional district appeasement. Now, if they produce a true monopoly, especially a government given one (the absolute worst form of socialist-capitalist hybrid, bringing the worst of basically everything), then trouble could be coming. I just don't see that, though.

Re:the magic of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it probably will end since there's no more money anyway.
Does China have a congressmen to corrupt to obtain government contracts?

Re:the magic of competition

[datapharmer]

Let's look at it this way: I painted my house a few years ago and it needs a fresh coat. I already have a basic understanding of what needs to be done, the layout of the house, and the materials needed to complete the job (as I have done it before). Is it cheaper to paint my own house or to hire a painter to do it? Privatization dictates that it is both cheaper to let the painter do it and that I should also allow him to run it as a bread and breakfast while it is being painted.

Re:the magic of competition

[macpacheco]

That would be good for you if that pork actually benefits you.
Lots of that pork benefits special interest groups (in your district) that elected that representative, same thing for senators, without actual regard for what the average elector actually needs.
Example, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
Besides, it would be way better for the country and all districts if that money was used towards paying the federal debt.

Re:the magic of competition

[SleazyRidr]

Sure, once NASA had done all the research, a private company can take that and do the last stage cheaper. When a private company lands on the moon (or something else that NASA/JAXA/ESA has never done) then I'll buy your competition argument.

Re:the magic of competition

[JamesP]

"Privatization" is a scam. It does not work, it will never work.

I don't believe there are people this retarded in the world.

You're welcome to move to Cuba, the perfect country for you...

Re:the magic of competition

[khallow]

Privatization dictates that it is both cheaper to let the painter do it and that I should also allow him to run it as a bread and breakfast while it is being painted.

I see part of the problem right here. You don't understand what privatization means, A privatized service merely means that you have a private entity do it, not that you allow them privileged access to other government services (for example, turning your government house into a bed and breakfast). So the correct analogy is that a commercial painter paints your house instead of government you not that you give some stranger unconditional use of your entire home as part of the process of painting it.

And no claim to cheapness is part of privatization. I may claim that my hamburger tastes particularly good, but that doesn't imply that all hamburgers taste good. Advocates will, of course, promise great things and detractors will claim similarly great problems. Neither is a necessary feature of privatization.

Re:the magic of competition

[khallow]

"Privatization" is a scam. It does not work, it will never work.

Let's take the obvious counterexample, food distribution. In most of the world, it is entirely private from the farmer or herder, through to the grocerer and restaurant. It is, of course, heavily regulated in most of the world, but that is a common feature of privatized markets, that they remain regulated to some degree.

Re:the magic of competition

[khallow]

Insurance and profit? They're not insignificant, but those aren't major "costs." There's more like a factor of ten difference in costs between current private and NASA efforts. You aren't going to cross that chasm with little costs.

Re:the magic of competition

[SnarfQuest]

Hooray for government run stuff!!! Right now 0.7% of our taxes go to NASA. Imagine what NASA could do if it was 70%!!!!

100x more administrators, 50% fewer scientists.

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

I agree that SpaceX will be much cheaper than the shuttle -- especially when Blue Origin starts to offer competition, but this launch used the Dragon, not the Falcon, didn't it?. I have this vague recollection that Dragon is more capable than Falcon.

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

Our gov't subsidizes telcoms? Sources please!

Having studied the long distance industry as a management consultant in the 90's, I've seen perhaps half a dozen graphs that chart the precipitous drop in the cost of long distance calls from the breakup of AT&T through 1996. It dropped from something like $1 per minute in 1984 to a $.05 per minute in 1996. Now it's wrapped into an all-you-can eat sort of plan so it's hard to compare. I believe in that case that privatization has worked, although re-consolidation presents a threat.

Another excellent example of privatization here in Los Angeles: Going to the Department of Motor Vehicles versus visiting a Triple A office. The DMV has enormous lines, and irritable, unfriendly workers. It's a nightmare. You can choose instead to get your car registered at a Triple A office in hollywood. It costs a little more, but it's fast, convenient, and the employees are super nice.

There are times where privatization is in appropriate (the Army, for instance) but there are times when it makes sense. Given that NASA is such a political football sometimes, I quite like the idea of privatizing it so that it isn't so much subject to the whims of politics. Also, I believe the competition will be more extensive than one or two providers. The one or two providers is the current situation: NASA outsources to Lockheed, Boeing, Russia, and possibly others for their parts and expertise. With the addition of Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and SpaceX, things should get a lot more interesting.

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

The paint analogy just doesn't hold water. You might be able to paint a house, but can you solve multi-dimensional nonlinear differential equations? I certainly can't. I'd have to hire someone to do so. The reason that private enterprise tends to be cheaper is because private sector workers are less unionized (7%) than public sector workers (36%). In this situation, you don't know how to paint your house. The question is whether you hire the unionized, bonded, insured worker or whether you hire the illegal alien.

Another failure of your metaphor is the issue of equipment. Suppose you don't have any brushes or ladder or cute little painter's cap. You have to buy those too.

And finally, let's talk about specialization. Suppose it takes me 2 hours to clean my house. If I make $100 an hour writing software, why the hell would I waste $200 cleaning my house when I can hire a maid for $50?

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

NASA has done amazing things and should continue to do so. My hope is that delegating the easy stuff (low earth orbit) to the private sector will save enough money to fund next level stuff like the amazing James Webb telescope, more Mars missions, etc.

Re:the magic of competition

[AvitarX]

The problem with education is that it has no consumers/customers to be beholden to.

The closest thing you have is parents, but they are not there experiencing the output. The people paying is everyone (and will always be if it's kept tax-payer funded).

Parents can be flat-out wrong, children don't know any better, and society without children has a strong short-medium term incentive to not fund it.

The fact that there is no consumer makes me think the government should be handling it, but the US and US State governments have a terrible track-record. It's be nice if we could outsource it to somewhere else.

Re:the magic of competition

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Do you even know what you are talking about? The Dragon Capusle is a spacecraft that sits, mounted, on top of a Falcon 9 rocket. The Dragon can't do shit withouht the Falcon 9 vehicle. The Falcon 9 vehicle can launch payloads other than the Dragon, to be sure. However, for its first few demonstration and test flights (like that mentioned in the article) it will be flying with Dragon prototypes so that SpaceX can test out two systems at once and save itself money.

I really don't understand why or how you are comparing the Dragon and the Falcon, as they are two completely separate vehicles that do two completely separate things. The Dragon Capsule is not a launch vehicle. The Falcon rocket (or rockets, if you count the Falcon 1) is not an orbiter.

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

Our gov't subsidizes telcoms? Sources please!

Where do you think all the land where the cables are run came from? Do you honestly believe that AT&T had to buy any of the land that they use?

You can choose instead to get your car registered at a Triple A office in hollywood. It costs a little more, but it's fast, convenient, and the employees are super nice.

That's not an example of successful privatization, it's an example of the rule that paying more gets you more.

Come to one of the DMV offices here in Chicago. You don't have to pay "a little more", yet the offices are still run very efficiently. You can be in and out in as little as 10 minutes (including getting your picture taken and waiting for the license to be made) if you need a replacement license. As soon as you walk through the door, you're asked what service you need and you're directed to the appropriate window. The people really know what they're doing and it's a pleasant experience all around. All without paying "a little more".

I only wish my telecommunications company or health insurance company or electricity provider or natural gas provider (all private industries) were run as well and effectively as the DMV.

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

Example, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

That was a project put forth by a conservative Republican member of Congress who was elected because he was so "fiscally responsible".

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

The private sector just really does do things cheaper than the government, due to less bureaucracy, inertia, and congressional district appeasement.

But they require a significant profit, which pretty much makes the savings due to "less bureaucracy, inertia, etc" moot.

Look what having private industry involved with the has done to the cost of health care. No better than other developed countries at three times the cost. Just so a relatively small number of people can make a nice profit off of sick people.

Re:the magic of competition

[WindBourne]

Well, lets see. The shuttle launchs 7 ppl into orbit for 1.5-3 Billion per launch. The falcon 9 will launch 7 in less than 3 years for less than $150 million.
The shuttle launches 24,500 KG to LEO for 1.5-3 Billion per launch. The Falcon Heavy will launch 54,500 KG to LEO in 2 years for 100 million.
The shuttle has a 2 week lifetime in orbit. The Falcon 9 is for no less than 30 weeks, and has claimed 104 weeks.
The shuttle can go to LEO. The Falcon Heavy can go to the moon and mars.
The shuttle CAN take up 7 ppl and the 24,500 in one launch for 1.5-3 billion. The falcon 9 can rendezvous with a BA unit to provide 10x the living and work room for less than 500 million.
I would say that the shuttle being based on late 60s tech was great in the 70s, but loses in the 2010s.

Re:the magic of competition

[WindBourne]

sigh. The dragon is a capsule. The falcon is the rocket. The rocket launches the capsule into space. recollection may be a bit fuzzy.

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

Yep I think you are right. There are numerous versions of the Falcon (1, 9, Heavy). I think an accurate cost comparison will be difficult.

Re:the magic of competition

[WindBourne]

In the end it will cost more than if NASA just had their own vehicle.
Really? What do you base that on? Costs for JUST THE ARES I was 9 billion and it still had a ways to go. The Orion was over 5 Billion. The Ares V was expected to cost around 20-25 billion and would not be available until 2025-2030. The launch costs for the Ares V would be similar to the shuttle (same critter; just a vertical stack instead of a side stack; same costs to launch). So, to send up 150 tonnes to leo would 1.5-3 billion (in 2011 $). OTH, the FH will take up 1/3 of the Ares V, and only costs 100 million.
So, please provide evidence that a NASA vehicle would costs less.

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

OK yes you have a tangible example of gov't subsidizing telecoms. There's also the Universal Service Fee, although I don't remember where that money actually goes. But what about my point about long distance costs? You'll need to refute that in order to argue that telecom privatization hasn't worked. When you say privatization doesn't work, by implication you are arguing that our phone service would be better and/or cheaper if AT&T still had a monopoly on communications services, which is patently ridiculous.

Triple A offering car registrations, although more expensive, is in *fact* an example of privatization. It's a private company offering services that were once the domain of a government (i.e, public) entity. That it costs more is moot. It works. My car registration was renewed by a private entity.

And your DMV in Chicago may in fact "cost a little more". We'd have quite a chore ferreting out what portion of your taxes go to fund your efficient DMV. I've also dealt with the DMV in Massachusetts and Arkansas and it sucks in both those places too.

Re:the magic of competition

[sneakyimp]

Yes yes my bad on the whole dragon-is-a-capsule thing. In my mind I was thinking of the heavier falcons versus the initial one.

If I had a point it was that there are numerous components developed and an accurate comparison of cost is going to be difficult. There's the dragon and 3 variants of the falcon (1, 9, heavy) as I understand it, all of which have development costs.

Don't get me wrong, I am psyched about SpaceX and do expect private companies to do it more cheaply

Re:the magic of competition

[Nutria]

Look what having private industry involved with the has done to the cost of health care.

I'm old enough to remember the 1970s. Government services SUCKED: poorly done and took forever to complete. That's why so many people were in favor of privatization.

Do a bit of research into government-run PTTs. Their inefficiency is why cellphones became so popular so quickly everywhere except the USA, where ATT was motivated by profit to quickly lay lots of wire and connect lots of customers.

Re:the magic of competition

[Baloroth]

The thing about health care that no one seems to mention is the cost of R&D for drugs. FDA approval costs well upwards of half a billion, and can take 10 years. AFAIK many new drugs are developed by US based companies, and are protected by patents that may only apply in the US (certainly not everywhere). The result is that to recoup that cost, they need to charge Americans more for even basic health care. I have absolutely no figures for how much that cost is, but I imagine its considerable. Plus, Americans don't exactly live the healthiest lifestyles. I suppose you may still have a point, but one single area doesn't render the whole system necessarily broken.

Of course, the FDA approval thing also brings up another issue, which is that government has a huge influence in private sector businesses. That means our economy isn't really free, and the regulation is in many cases more than is truly required to maintain environmental or safety standards. Even in this case, NASA certifying the Dragon capsule man-rated will add considerable cost, much of it unnecessary. Safety is obviously important: filing paper in quadruplicate, not so much.

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

OK yes you have a tangible example of gov't subsidizing telecoms. There's also the Universal Service Fee, although I don't remember where that money actually goes. But what about my point about long distance costs? You'll need to refute that in order to argue that telecom privatization hasn't worked. When you say privatization doesn't work, by implication you are arguing that our phone service would be better and/or cheaper if AT&T still had a monopoly on communications services, which is patently ridiculous.

No, I'm suggesting that if when the government broke up AT&T into smaller companies, if they had actually enforced the break-up then long distance rates would be lower. Instead, because of the power of telcom lobbyists, the regulations governing telecoms have been practically nonexistant, allowing a horrible level of consolidation. We've got like three phone companies in the US now, and they're all trying to merge with another. Without heavy regulation, there would be one phone company, and you'd be paying whatever they want.

Three phone companies, two airframe manufacturers, one container manufacturer, three or four oil companies,

The dynamic is simple: private industry is trying to destroy the free market. The only way to protect even a tiny semblance of a "free market" is for the government to heavily regulate those areas.

It's the nature of the free market to destroy itself.

Re:the magic of competition

[blueturffan]

When a private company lands on the moon (or something else that NASA/JAXA/ESA has never done) then I'll buy your competition argument.

Did you seriously just suggest that NASA has never landed on the moon?

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

The thing about health care that no one seems to mention is the cost of R&D for drugs.

Most of the R&D is done at publicly funded universities. If we counted on the pharmas to do the R&D, the only research we'd get is on weight-loss drugs and baldness cures, with maybe some anti-depressants thrown in with erectile dysfunction cures.

FDA approval is certainly worth every penny. The pharmaceutical corporations would gladly sell drugs that caused 30% of patients a horrible painful death if it meant a 10% bump in quarterly stock price.

As a percentage of profits, the R&D costs and FDA approval costs are negligible.

And the notion that "they have to charge Americans more" is nonsense. The US is no longer the biggest market for these drugs.

Even in this case, NASA certifying the Dragon capsule man-rated will add considerable cost, much of it unnecessary.

Now wait a minute. Nobody is forcing them to dock with the space station.

We've learned time and time again in the past century that private industry hold human life very cheap indeed. There is nothing in any corporate charter about doing good for mankind or making safe products or helping humanity. They're all about one thing and one thing only: profit for shareholders. And even that's been perverted because in practice they've become about enriching the board and senior management (note the dearth of dividends that are being paid on the all-time record corporate profits from this year and last). Instead of paying dividends to shareholders, corporations create huge war chests for buying their competition. So even the very purpose of corporations has been corrupted until they are nothing but golems created to feed themselves.

And most of the people in the world (and all who work for a living) are paying the price.

Re:the magic of competition

[PopeRatzo]

I'm old enough to remember the 1970s. Government services SUCKED: poorly done and took forever to complete. That's why so many people were in favor of privatization.

That was in the '70s. Government services have taken huge leaps forward in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

I'm old enough to remember when going to a DMV in Chicago was a nightmare. Now they are very well run, and staffed by union members to boot.

Re:the magic of competition

[SleazyRidr]

Shit, bad typo to make. No, I'm not a whacko conspiracy theorist, I meant to say Mars.

Re:the magic of competition

[Nutria]

I'm old enough to remember when going to a DMV in Chicago was a nightmare. Now they are very well run, and staffed by union members to boot.

And *why* are they now well run? By some magic pixie dust desire to do better? No: fear of privatization motivated the unions and their members to do right.

I don't mind, though, since I'm not dogmatic about privatization. The "threat" from competition still has to be there, though.

Re:the magic of competition

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Got it.

Re:the magic of competition

[cheesybagel]

It's the nature of the free market to constantly reinvent itself. Once technology or other factors reach some modicum of stability monopolies start to emerge naturally. Of course this is not in the best interest of the individual.

Re:the magic of competition

[cheesybagel]

They have already launched a private satellite with Falcon 1. It is only a matter of time until Falcon 9 does the same. The Falcon 9 rocket has already flown two "perfect" flights. One with a dummy payload and another with a reentry vehicle which reentered and splashed down successfully.

Unmanned I assume

[MichaelSmith]

Dragon is a few years away from being man rated.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[JamesP]

Doesn't matter

If it can be used for cargo, NASA will gladly pay the money

Of course, the more it can be used to send humans the better.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[ZankerH]

NASA's man-rating program is just bureaucracy. If a man wearing a shirt and pants were to sit down in the Dragon during the first demonstration launch, he'd have had a pleasant flight.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying there was a shirtless, pantsless man standing in there? DON THE TINFOIL HATS, CONSPIRACY THEORIES AHOY!

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Verio Fryar]

Only for the first minutes. Since Dragon is unmanned it hasn't vital support.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Amouth]

so put the guy in a suit and launch..

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how a business suit would be any better :-)

Re:Unmanned I assume

[ZankerH]

It's unmanned, but fully pressurised. Even without additional oxygen, there'd be more than enough air for a single person to last the few orbits demo flight #1 completed before re-entering and landing safely.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Issarlk]

Their brains require much less oxygen.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[couchslug]

There is no rush to send humans before developing much more effective remote-manned and robotic systems.

Human interaction with everything outside their "bubble" in the utterly hostile off-Earth environment requires a complete infrastructure of automatons to support the tourists.

It would be perfectly reasonable to spend a hundred years focusing on immediately useful robot systems. The only thing humans can do in space is operate machines. Build the machines.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[arth1]

And the G forces during flight are always acceptable to humans?
There are facilities for dealing with human wastes, and medical emergencies? There's communications equipment?
Or would the human basically be a Laika?

Re:Unmanned I assume

[SnarfQuest]

Is it unwomaned too?

Re:Unmanned I assume

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Yes, unmanned. Flying multiple ISS rendevous missions for cargo only (unmanned) will help build up a flight history of the Dragon that SpaceX can point to and say, "See, we haven't blown anything up yet! Let us put humans on it too!"

Of course, if SpaceX does start blowing stuff up, that will have some effects on how they are percieved by the public, NASA, and Congress (who already mostly hates them).

Re:Unmanned I assume

[BJ_Covert_Action]

There is no rush to send humans before developing much more effective remote-manned and robotic systems.

Speak for yourself. There are a number of us working in the space industry who are eager to take part in human exploration of space because being trapped on this single rock for the rest of our lives is just plain boring.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[SteveFoerster]

Winner!

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Nutria]

There are a number of us working in the space industry who are eager to take part in human exploration of space because being trapped on this single rock for the rest of our lives is just plain boring.

couchslug is completely accurate that human existence outside of our little blue marble is incredibly expensive and incredibly hazardous: vacuum, meteorites, high energy particles, gamma rays, bone deterioration, etc, etc.

Some radical new energy source source is needed in order to launch all the mass required to make long-term existence even reasonably safe.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[CrimsonAvenger]

Some radical new energy source source is needed in order to launch all the mass required to make long-term existence even reasonably safe.

Yah, we could invent something that used the energy stored in the nucleus of an atom to produce large amounts of power.

We could call it "nuclear energy", maybe.

Seriously, a fleet of four Shuttles lifted somewhere around 2500 T to orbit over their careers. If we'd wanted to make the effort, and build a new Shuttle every year, we'd have been able to put a few tens of thousands of tons into orbit by this time.

And economies of scale should have made it more cost effective the more Shuttles we had - it's not like fuel is a significant fraction of the cost of a launch.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[Nutria]

We could call it "nuclear energy", maybe.

Stop being snarky and realize that maybe I'm not so stupid as to not realize that "nuclear energy" exists.

Anyway, are you referring to fission or fusion?

With either, It's very hard to (a) get a high Isp while (b) protecting the crew from immediate death, without (c) lots of radiation absorbers, which of course (d) adds so much more mass that needs to be launched.

The Earth is a very deep gravity well, so it takes a high Isp to get out of it. But not so high as to tun the passengers into jelly. Distances are so great that it takes high velocity to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. Then you need some *practical* manner of slowing down once you get where you're going.

The problem with so many ideas is that the devil is in the details. For example, rail guns. So common in fiction, yet so hard in practice.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[ZankerH]

I didn't say "comfortable" or "in control", I said "would have had a pleasant flight". The first flight only lasted a few hours, waste disposal facilities wouldn't really be necesarry as long as you remembered to "go" before the flight. And yes, people have routinely survived far more taxing acceleration and re-entry profiles than the Falcon-9's and the Dragon's, during the programs of the 60's space race.

Re:Unmanned I assume

[urusan]

While this may be true, the biggest problem with using the Dragon capsule to carry human cargo at the moment is that it currently lacks an escape system. If the Falcon 9 lifting the capsule into orbit was to fail during launch, there's a good chance that it would result in horrible explosive death for the passenger. This isn't a minor risk either, several similar launch systems (Proton, Atlas IV) used for cargo launches have a roughly 90% success rate...meaning that our hypothetical passenger would have around a 10% chance of dying horribly. Now it may turn out that the Falcon 9 ends up with a much better record than such rockets...but at the moment it only has 2 launches under its belt, which is not nearly enough data to make a useful reliability estimate.

Live in space history?

[c0lo]

Counting chicken before hatching?
Live as what: the day the first civilian spacecraft docked with ISS or the day the civilian spacecraft brought the ISS down?

Re:Live in space history?

[impaledsunset]

Don't underestimate them.

Re:Live in space history?

[necro81]

Perhaps a lesson in history is in order:

The Summary: "Dec. 7 — a day that would live in spaceflight history"

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: "December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy"

Re:Live in space history?

[Talderas]

So SpaceX is preparing a surprise attack on the ISS?

Re:Live in space history?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them - in summer school."

Re:Live in space history?

[caseih]

Such naysaying must mean that you are a Republican, and probably from Texas. :) Just joking, although it seems like the Republican party, which should be supporting SpaceX and the free market's solution to space travel, are the ones who are the most critical.

This SpaceX launch will be historic for sure, and will be successful. From what I have read the plan is to do a flyby of the station to prove the software and maneuvering systems, and then if that's successful just go ahead and dock, which was something they were going to do on the second demo flight. If the first part is successful, why not just dock? Glad NASA is willing to accelerate the process some. If something goes wrong at any point, they'll abort the mission, so the station should be relatively safe.

I'm excited! It was great to watch the first launch, and then the orbital demonstration flight. I'll definitely watch this one too.

Re:Live in space history?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does a post explaining TFS count as offtopic...

Posting anon to preserve the up mod to the above post.

Re:Live in space history?

[sneakyimp]

You have a good point here about Texas. As a state, TX and FL stand to lose the most from privatized space flight because of their large aerospace industries. Although Jeff Bezos does have Blue Origin based in TX, it probably won't bring nearly as many jobs as the Johnson space center.

Re:Live in space history?

[WindBourne]

nope. It has doing an out in the open attack on expensive launch systems. Right now, the process that SpaceX is going through is similar to what OSS has gone through with MS and other companies.

Re:Live in space history?

[WindBourne]

It is the neo-cons, not the republicans, that are attacking private space. Even now, they are attempting to get funding cut to any private space, but esp. to SpaceX. This includes Shelby(R), Hatch(R), wolf(R), Coffman(R), Hutchinson(R), and others that are pushing to stop this funding. Oddly, they argue that by moving about 800 million over to their SLS (which will costs 10-20 billion or more) that it will be able to launch in under 7 years. 800 million will not matter to the SLS, but with private space, it means that we will have 2-3 systems ready by 2014, and 3-4 by 2015.

Re:Live in space history?

[c0lo]

Such naysaying must mean that you are a Republican, and probably from Texas. :) Just joking, although it seems like the Republican party, which should be supporting SpaceX and the free market's solution to space travel, are the ones who are the most critical.

Nope, not eve US-ian.

This SpaceX launch will be historic for sure, and will be successful. From what I have read the plan is to do a flyby of the station to prove the software and maneuvering systems, ... If something goes wrong at any point, they'll abort the mission, so the station should be relatively safe.

Great to still see optimists in this world... speaking for myself, software being involved, I'm bit worried.

I'm excited! It was great to watch the first launch, and then the orbital demonstration flight. I'll definitely watch this one too.

I'll watch too.

Hmmm ...

[KSobby]

So would the rescue craft be chasing the dragon?

Re:Hmmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most slash dotters are not going to get this.

Under a Year between flights

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad going to go from their first orbital flight to docking with the ISS in less than a year.

OK, so COTS 2 & 3 have been combined into a single mission but thats onyl because they proved their systems in COTS1

Re:Under a Year between flights

[Miamicanes]

Personally, I'd be kind of amused if NASA decided to allow the Dragon to dock, NASA's bureaucracy prevented it from carrying actual cargo since it's technically still a 'test', and SpaceX cut a deal with FedEx to symbolically make the first private package delivery to the ISS (with the station's Commander having final authority to approve or refuse anything brought or kept onboard, of course)

It would be interesting to see what kind of stuff the crewmembers themselves would have shipped up if they had more or less carte blanche to do so free of official size, weight, and political considerations (insert scene of Commander looking the other way and devouring a few homemade Rice Krispy treats while the crate of Vodka-infused Belgian chocolate gets unloaded and moved over to the "Russian" side of the station...)

Re:Under a Year between flights

[confused one]

Well, they have to test docking, which was the whole point of the COTS 3 flight; so, unless there's a problem I would expect them to at least make the attempt. And, if you're going to test docking, you might as well carry something useful but non-critical along. Something like food, water, spare clothing, and so on; so, if you lose the cargo you know you're not going to impact ISS operational requirements.

SpaceX and Bigelow

[bwohlgemuth]

When SpaceX and Bigelow meet in orbit, that will be an important date in spaceflight. Two wholly private ventures meeting in orbit. Now if someone could just throw enough coin at both of them to undertake a Mars mission...

Re:SpaceX and Bigelow

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigelow has already contracted for a SpaceX falcon 9 rocket in 2014. Presumably to carry the first full scale "BA-330" module into orbit..

Re:SpaceX and Bigelow

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitcoin?

Re:SpaceX and Bigelow

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I, too, am looking forward to the first time SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft penetrates Bigelow's orbital shelter. For us space nerds, the geek porn doesn't get much better than that.

Re:SpaceX and Bigelow

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed

"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[YuppieScum]

Surely NASA is a "civilian" space agency, and the shuttle therefore a civilian craft?

Perhaps the correct term should be "non-governmental"...

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely NASA is a "civilian" space agency, and the shuttle therefore a civilian craft?

Perhaps the correct term should be "non-governmental"...

Excellent point even though everyone knows what is meant. If I could, I'd mark you as +1, pedantic.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[djtachyon]

NASA is a civilian agency as much as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, etc, are civilian agencies.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[EraserMouseMan]

... or civilian-owned. NASA is owned by the Federal government. And the citizens do not "own" the government these days.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[YuppieScum]

Many thanks for your kind words.

By the way, there should be a comma after "point".

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[GooberToo]

Yes, the shuttle was such a civilian space craft that it received much of its re-design mandates directly from the US Air Force.

The shuttle was a military craft, re-designed to satisfy military objectives. The fact that it was administrated by a combination of civilian and DoD authorities, hardly qualifies it as a civilian craft.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[vlm]

Surely NASA is a "civilian" space agency, and the shuttle therefore a civilian craft?

No, numerous design decisions early on in the program were made strictly to appease the defense dept. Most of them revolved around the mission requirement of launching, grabbing a russian spy sat and placing it in the cargo bay, and landing on next orbit. This requires a ridiculous cross-range capability as the launching site rotates with the earth about 2000 miles east during an orbit. Also the DoD mandated some weird on orbit maneuvering capability which I don't remember (probably some classified anti-asat maneuverability, or maybe it was something to do with the RCS system being stable enough to stick a telescope in the cargo bay for military observational purposes?)

There was also a long cross range capability for military purposes... If a civilian is worried about landing short, just aim at the center of the USA and you're all good. Insane as it sounds, if you want to land at a military base in Japan or Israel, and its a no-go for weather or whatever, you need crossrange to ... somewhere freaking far away. What, Korea or Australia as alternates for Japan, or maybe... diego garcia as an alternate for israel? Unlike F-16s etc we never sold any shuttles to Israel or even landed ours in Japan. But the DoD made us design the vehicle to possibly do it.

The point wasn't to actually steal russian sats, which would be quite the diplomatic incident. The point was to scare them into a higher orbit out of SS range. Same sat higher up means lower resolution and less consumables means its got less lifetime and/or costs more. You only have to scare them once, during design phase, and their sats are crippled until the next generation. Presumably we wouldn't steal our own sats, and they were not going to make a clone of our SS (although turns out they did anyway) so in true cold war deterrence fashion, the end result of building the SS to DoD specs means the russians inherently end up with crappier spy sats than we do.

Well, we never did a mission like that, never even flew a super long cross range landing, for most of the active flying SS program the USSR no longer existed, it got really popular to put a giant sat with giant optics and long lifetime in geosync instead of little ones in low orbit that deorbit relatively rapidly. So it was all kind of pointless.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. ICWYDT

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[YuppieScum]

I concur that the design was compromised by military requirements, and that they flew some military/secret missions.

This doesn't change the fact that the orbiters were owned & operated by NASA.

By your argument, you might as well claim that due to the involvement of von Braun and others, the Saturn 5 was a Nazi rocket ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law )

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a nazi rocket !
Also it was designed by alien knowledge. All german tech was because Nazis had contact with aliens.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I find information on vlm's claim that the military influenced NASA's design decisions? While I can't imagine it any other way, I would like some references to use in my discussion with others.

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[Chris Burke]

Ha! But based on news of hacking break-ins at various agencies, it seems that the citizens instead "pwn" the government these days. :)

Re:"Civilian" Spacecraft?

[vlm]

I concur that the design was compromised by military requirements, and that they flew some military/secret missions.

This doesn't change the fact that the orbiters were owned & operated by NASA.

By your argument, you might as well claim that due to the involvement of von Braun and others, the Saturn 5 was a Nazi rocket ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law )

Hmmm. The SR-71 was decommissioned (sorta) and NASA got to fly it for awhile. Does not mean it wasn't a military plane. Also the S5 was all imperial measurements, wasn't it? All UTS threaded screws instead of ISO metric or whatever the Germans used, etc? I don't remember.

I think we can both agree that the borders of this binary decision are both fuzzy and arbitrary and in good faith we can come to opposite conclusions.

SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[captainpanic]

Currently, getting something in orbit costs between 3000 and 10000 dollar per kilogram...
This link shows estimated costs for all current launch systems, ranging from smallest to the biggest.
http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf

I wonder what SpaceX are aiming at. Is the privatization really going to be cheaper? If so, I wonder where they will be able to cut costs.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[CrimsonAvenger]

I wonder what SpaceX are aiming at. Is the privatization really going to be cheaper?

From their website, SpaceX is planning on selling Falcon9 Heavy launches for $80-125 million per. Since the Falcon9 Heavy has a payload of 53000 kg to LEO, sounds like they'll be charging less than $2400/kg

Yep, looks cheaper than $3K-$10K per kg.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

They cut the pork that congress insists on adding to every proposed NASA launch vehicle. SpaceX is free to choose the best tech without political interference.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[Phaeilo]

Maybe they'll start charging passengers for in-flight meals. If it works at 10 km altitude it should work at 300 km. :D

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[bwohlgemuth]

Also throw in the fact that SpaceX is NOT incorporating reusability into their price points (from what I have seen, the boosters are designed to be recoverable but the cost structure isn't built around that being an expectation for each launch)...and now all of a sudden the price point becomes lower. Musk said recently the propellent costs for a Falcon 9 launch were around $150k. If he can get a 50% reuse rate of of his boosters, that's a hell of a cost savings AND drives the cost to orbit down much lower.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[macpacheco]

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER !!!!
Private space launches = PORK FREE SPACE LAUNCHES.
The two biggest costs of anything govt based is PORK and CORRUPTION !
Interesting that a Falcon 9 launch only costs US$ 150k in fuel (propelant) costs.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[tibit]

I wonder where they will be able to cut costs.

To put it bluntly: everyfuckingwhere. They got one thing very, very right: distaste for subcontractors. They figure they can control quality and leadtimes better if they do things in-house, and they don't have to support other companies' profits. It's simple, but it works wonders. There are plenty of simple business strategies that work very well out there, it seems.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[tibit]

The big boys cost pretty much the same if they use same propellants. It's all the other works that makes this cost insignificant, even if you have "completely reusable" launcher.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[icebraining]

Of course, the privates only got into business after the government spent lots of money developing the technology. I wonder if we would have put so much as a man in space if we were completely dependent on private funding.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[captainpanic]

If reusability is reliable, it saves costs.

I got the idea that the reusability of the Space Shuttle was a matter of taking the entire thing apart, checking every component, and assembling it again. That's not reusability... that's recycling.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[macpacheco]

Obviously the maintenance on any reusable launcher will always be expensive.
That's why I believe the only truly affordable launch system will include some kind of aircraft that flies high and fast, sort of the first stage of the launch system.
This way at least half of the launch weight will land nice and easy, that part of the system will then be completely reusable.
The actual space capsule for re-entry is always the tricky part, since heat shielding is an extremely difficult technology.
Also we need to wait another 10 or so years to take full advantage of Carbon Nanotubes. When used to the maximum extent, CNTs should at least half the structural weight of aircraft and space vehicles, bringing about a huge leap forward in air and space technology.
That's one major investment that government should throw money into, developing CNT technology.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[peragrin]

Ite is the SME(Shuttle main egines) that cause the bulk of the work. They have to be pulled torn down inspection and tested for every flight.
Yes the rest of it gets inspected too. But you dont rebuild your car engine every 30k miles either.

Russian buran didnt use SME just bigger boosters.

Now if some one can just make a 1 newton ion engine for space manuvering we will be all set.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglected to include the cost of insurance, ground crew, communications, etc. Traveling to space isn't just the cost of the rocket.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[Tekfactory]

If you listen to the MIT Open courseware series where they had lots of presenters talk about the designing and building the shuttle, one of the engineers talks about the fact the Shuttle was designed without autocad, just blueprints. He also mentioned that if diagnostics wiring had been included in the main engines they could be tested without removing them from the shuttle.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[WindBourne]

Actually, the bulk of the costs IS the rocket and the support crew, not the rest. SpaceX has the SMALLEST number of ground crew. And if they manage to put up 6 F9s without issues, I think that we will see insurance costs plummet on both the F9 and FH. And comm is not that much of the mission.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[WindBourne]

fuel costs on all liquid rockets amounts to less than .2% of the total costs. THat is true whether it is kerolox or hydrolox.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[WindBourne]

zero chance. In fact, the goal here is for private space to take on launches to LEO and multiple LEO space stations. Before 2020, Bigelow wants to be back on the moon. However, it will not be private space that puts man on asteroid or crosses the void to mars, first. It will be NASA. However, once done, it will be private space that will commercialize it and make it CHEAP for all.

It is for those reasons that I reject arguments from ppl that pit private space against NASA. BOTH ARE NEEDED. NASA does the true cutting edge work. But going to leo, living in LEO, and even going/living on the moon is no longer cutting edge. The fact is, that if you can have a station that works in space and underground on earth, then it will do just fine on the moon.

Re:SpaceX vs. NASA vs. Russians vs. Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was designed on blueprints and not Autocad.....They were designed in the mid-1970's....1974 to be exact for the Enterprise and 1975 for Columbia. My dad was the Lead Engineer for McDonald Douglas on the project and had to work on the blueprints at home Christmas of '75. Everything had to be tested the hard way. By building it and then testing the actual product.....and it still was a viable craft 36 years after the building of all those birds began.

Actually...

[YuppieScum]

...Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics are commercial enterprises, which happen to have lots of contracts with both military and civilian agencies of the USA and other governments.

Last time I looked, NASA was one of those civilian USA government agencies...

Put it this way - when was the last time you could buy shares in NASA (paying taxes doesn't count)?

Re:Actually...

[X0563511]

So perhaps being a governmental object doesn't make one not a civilian, but it's still not civilian in the sense that you or I (probably) are.

ESA's Jules Verne was civilian

[macson_g]

ESA's Jules Verne was civilian, although not private.

Re:ESA's Jules Verne was civilian

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is by definition a civilian agency.

Re:ESA's Jules Verne was civilian

[Anonymous Coward]

The space shuttle was civilian, although not private...

Offtopic much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The European ATV program was entirely developed using governmental funding & thus is no different from the shuttle or Soyuz

Why don't you try to post something informative and/or ontopic next time...

Elon Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Dragon can be even half as successful as the (unfortunately now defunct; probably a victim of monopolist big oil like all the other true breakthroughs) "250" miles, and (cheap for what you get) $100k+ Tesla roadster, Elon Musk has yet another winner on his hands.

Now if this technology thing doesn't work out for Mr. Musk, he can always go and hawk the supposed superiority of SlapChop food grinder on late night television.

Re:Elon Musk

[CompMD]

Dude, the Tesla Roadster is no longer in production because Lotus (who made the body) ceased production of the body.

Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[tp1024]

Proving reliability will be the main task of cargo delivery. 13 unmanned flights of the Dragon would be enough to do that. For perspective: that's twice as many unmanned test flights as the Shuttle, Apollo and Gemini had among them. However, first SpaceX must deliver. (That doesn't mean that none of those flights must fail. But they better come up with some very good analysis if one does. Especially, whether the crew could have bailed out or not.)
Reuse is a non-issue both in terms of cost and material. First of all: The Dragon is as reusable as the Shuttle. But: it requires a much smaller (probably non-reusable) rocket to get into space. What you see under the bottom line is not what you reused, but what you didn't.

Launching an 80t Space Shuttle (plus fuel and payload) wastes 2x90t in solid rocket boosters (plus fuel). Those could in theory be reused 20 times, but weren't (it's too costly to do). But even if those numbers had been reached, it would amount to 9t per flight. (In practice, it's on the order of 40t per flight). Then, you have to account for the external tank - 26.5t. The empty Falcon 9 weighs on the order of 30t - including tanks and engines to launch a 3t (or so) Dragon (plus fuel and payload).
So yes, the reuse quota is worse - but the amount of waste is less.

The shuttle also wasn't exactly maintenance free. Especially the SSME (main engines) had its turbo pumps replaced regularly and the engines themselves as well. 46 SSME were produced for 135 flights at a cost of $45mio per engine or $15mio per flight (plus cost for spare parts, disassembly, reassembly, check-ups of the engines after each flight etc. - no idea how much that cost, but given the labor-intensity of those tasks, it must have been millions for each flight). Add to that the cost of the solid rocket boosters, handcrafted tiles to replace the old ones etc ...

But worst of all: The shuttle weighs 100t (with max payload) and carries only minuscule amounts of fuel itself. It can't reach higher orbits. In fact, the orbit that the Shuttle can reach is so low that the friction of the atmosphere necessitated regular lifting maneuvers that can now finally be reduced by 70-80% (fuel comprised a large part of the payload that the ISS has required so far) - by lifting the whole station into a 100km higher orbit (which is a trivial orbit to reach for any spacecraft, except for the Shuttle).
It's even worse for Hubble. It's in such a low orbit, that observations with it have been described by astronomers as akin to riding a bicycle over a cobble-stone road while trying to hold a telescope steady. And that's before you consider that it regularly has to deal with a huge planet getting into its field of view during observations. It could never reach its full potential (and you've seen what it did despite that!) And that wasn't at all necessary. The KH-11 spy satellites that have very similar dimensions and exactly the same optics as Hubble were flown into space using a Titan IIIE missle - which could have brought the telescope into a much higher and reasonable orbit.

For any regular rocket reaching a somewhat higher orbit is no problem because you get rid of the 2nd stage when you're in orbit. You can even replace the payload by a 3rd stage(*) - but the Shuttle itself is the second stage (minus the external tank, weighing about 1/3 of the shuttle) and has a hard time getting rid of itself.

(*) Yes, you can do that with the shuttle, but the results are laughable compared to the insanely huge rocket you're launching to do that. What's the point of launching a 2600t Shuttle in order to place the same amount of payload into a geostationary orbit as a 300t Soyuz rocket? Most of all: what's the point of risking the lives of 7 people to do what is regularly done with unmanned rockets?

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and oranges:

Dragon max payload: 13,228 lbs
Soyuz max payload: 17,100 lbs
Space Shuttle max payload: 53,600 lbs

It shouldn't be one or the other, and I don't think you can really compare them. We are likely to have the needs for a variety of missions, and each vehicle will have its particular strengths depending on the mission. And, I have to agree - if you can send up supplies on an unmanned rocket (like Progress), by all means, do so.

But, we have shot ourselves in the foot by getting rid of the Space Shuttle, instead of complementing it. With the shuttle, we had a sledgehammer to do everything from driving rebar to hanging pictures. With Dragon, we'll have a tack-hammer to hang pictures, and absolutely nothing more.

If the mission only calls for crew, or crew + small payload, or a simple docking mission to ISS, or a high orbit mission, Dragon (or Dream Chaser, etc.) should be used for that mission. If the mission calls for adding or replacing a module on ISS (could still happen), carrying modules of the next 'spaceship' to ISS to be assembled there to go to Mars (instead of trying to launch the next vehicle from Earth (thereby restricting it's payload by what it takes to launch it)), servicing satellites in LEO, or returning a payload to Earth (which is valuable, and which you cannot do any other way), the Shuttle should be used. In the end, we'd likely use Dragon 85% of the time, and have 1 or 2 Shuttle missions a year, and that's okay. You take the hybrid on weekdays to work, and the SUV with the family on the weekend.

Don't get caught up in cost; innovation has a cost associated with it (and usually pork / ulterior motives, but that's another issue). The SRB / external tank combination on the Shuttle was a deadly result of compromise. Had the boosters been 1 solid welded piece (even if you kept the solid fuel, which was another compromise), STS-51L would have been a success (and we'd have gotten a much better view of Halley's comet), but nobody wanted to pay for it.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[tp1024]

To answer an anonymous American coward:

a) Please use metric units. We've lost one Mars mission because of that silliness (and others) already.

b) The payload of the Shuttle is mostly irrelevant. It brought an average of 11.6t into orbit. That's 25500 coconuts or something - far short of the maximum payload and in order to reach that average, it must have flown with no more than a few thousand pineapples mass in its cargo bay on a lot of occasions. Besides, ten Falcon Heavy will cost as much as a single Shuttle launch and each having a payload of one sperm whale or a dozen elephants - if there is an unexpected 50% cost overrun with the Falcon Heavy, that is.

c) When the Shuttle was used for transport duty, they put seven shaved apes into danger who had little else to do than twiddling their thumbs and pressing a button to lower the landing gear. (Ok, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But damn it, if you want to get dead stuff into orbit, you don't bring people along for the ride unless you *really* have to.)

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[khallow]

But, we have shot ourselves in the foot by getting rid of the Space Shuttle, instead of complementing it. With the shuttle, we had a sledgehammer to do everything from driving rebar to hanging pictures. With Dragon, we'll have a tack-hammer to hang pictures, and absolutely nothing more.

The analogy breaks down because all we're doing is hanging pictures. I never understood the point of the expensive tool that does everything poorly (or as in your analogy, are used for the wrong purpose just because they can) rather than a collection of specialized tools that do their assigned task very well.

And keep in mind that once you count the total cost of Shuttle operation, each launch has cost about $1.5 billion. Even worse, those prices hold with the only flight schedule proposed, two launches per year. Dropping the Shuttle buys a lot of Buck Rogers.

If the mission only calls for crew, or crew + small payload, or a simple docking mission to ISS, or a high orbit mission, Dragon (or Dream Chaser, etc.) should be used for that mission. If the mission calls for adding or replacing a module on ISS (could still happen)

Here's how I see it. NASA has designed its missions to require as many of the peculiar features of the Shuttle as it could get away with. There are several rockets currently in operation which could launch the masses of the components put up by the Shuttle. The heaviest ISS blocks weren't launched by the Shuttle but by Russia's Proton rocket. Sacrifice a little fairing size and you can put up as many modules as you want without needing the Shuttle.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[m50d]

The KH-11 spy satellites that have very similar dimensions and exactly the same optics as Hubble were flown into space using a Titan IIIE missle - which could have brought the telescope into a much higher and reasonable orbit.

It bears remembering that if this had happened we could never have installed the correction lenses for the misshapen mirror, and Hubble would've been pretty much completely useless.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[tp1024]

Sure.
But for the $8bn that the launch and service missions cost alone - without taking the cost of the upgrades or the telescope hardware into account - they could have build a fleet of at least half a dozen of those telescopes on the ground with proper optics, pay for their operation and launch costs and gotten away cheaper than they did with Hubble.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[Anonymous Coward]

a) Please use metric units. We've lost one Mars mission because of that silliness (and others) already.

No the problem was unlabeled units. "Metric" units are meaningless.

mTorr and kPa are both "Metric" units for pressure but 1 Torr != 1 kPa.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[DerekLyons]

So yes, the reuse quota is worse - but the amount of waste is less.

But what your tortured numerology obscures is that while the 'waste' is less - much less is accomplished. The Shuttle could deliver 34klbs to the ISS, while Dragon delivers only 13klbs. Nor can Dragon provide crew exchange while delivering cargo. Nor can Dragon deliver modules. Nor can Dragon deliver experiment racks... (Shuttle can do all of this in a single flight!)
 
Seriously, the doublethink here on Slashdot and elsewhere the topic is discussed is absolutely amazing. While you're busy convincing yourself that buying at Walmart is absolutely the best idea possible... you're ignoring the elephant in the room - that a crew cab pickup is being replaced with a subcompact. You get what you pay for.
 

But worst of all: The shuttle weighs 100t (with max payload) and carries only minuscule amounts of fuel itself. It can't reach higher orbits. In fact, the orbit that the Shuttle can reach is so low that the friction of the atmosphere necessitated regular lifting maneuvers that can now finally be reduced by 70-80% (fuel comprised a large part of the payload that the ISS has required so far) - by lifting the whole station into a 100km higher orbit (which is a trivial orbit to reach for any spacecraft, except for the Shuttle).

The Station altitude in the shuttle era varied (roughly) between 350-460km - the main limit on it's maximum altitude is in fact the Soyuz, not the Shuttle. (There's a reason why MIR was kept at around 375-400km.)
 

It's even worse for Hubble. It's in such a low orbit, that observations with it have been described by astronomers as akin to riding a bicycle over a cobble-stone road while trying to hold a telescope steady. And that's before you consider that it regularly has to deal with a huge planet getting into its field of view during observations.

Yeah, Hubble is so bad the lineup of researchers hoping to use it is only years long. Not to mention that the number of telescopes that *don't* have to deal with a huge planet obscuring their field of view can be counted on one hand.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[khallow]

It bears remembering that if this had happened we could never have installed the correction lenses for the misshapen mirror, and Hubble would've been pretty much completely useless.

As tp1024 noted, they could have bought a lot of copies of the Hubble telescope for the repair costs. Most of the Hubble's cost was development and Shuttle mission costs. This approach means that most of your development costs are spread over many vehicles rather than just one. And you aren't paying for expensive Shuttle flights.

They could have dealt with problems like the gyroscopes as well (which caused so much trouble over the years) by upgrading those over the years as telescopes are launched. And as a massive side benefit, you'd have far more space-based observation time since you'd have a number of these telescopes operating at the same time.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[tp1024]

But what your tortured numerology obscures is that while the 'waste' is less - much less is accomplished. The Shuttle could deliver 34klbs to the ISS, while Dragon delivers only 13klbs. Nor can Dragon provide crew exchange while delivering cargo. Nor can Dragon deliver modules. Nor can Dragon deliver experiment racks... (Shuttle can do all of this in a single flight!)

The last flight had 9,403 lbs of net payload on board (wrapped in the Rafaello module that was in the payload pay). Sure, Dragon is limited to some 6000 lbs of pressurized cargo - but it doesn't cost $1.5bn to launch. And trying to deliver both people and payload at the same time is why it is so expensive in the first place - that's anything but an advantage.
Two Dragon launches cost on the order of $200mio - if you don't reuse the Dragon. Seven astronaut tickets for the Soyuz cost some $55mio each - $385mio all told. (Btw. That's wildly overpriced. Launching a Soyuz spacecraft with 3 passengers costs on the order of $60mio. An American passenger basically pays for all three of them.) And that's before you consider that of the 7 astronauts on the Shuttle only 3 were going to or from the ISS and the other 4 were just along for the ride, not doing much that the others couldn't have done.
Furthermore, if you needed the shuttle to deliver modules to a space station, you should wonder how Mir was constructed. It's easy: you put some small, cheap engines on the module and launch it with a cheap, heavy duty rocket - and not an overpriced, fragile, manned shuttle.

It's true that you can't deliver standard experiment pallets with the Dragon - but a) the ATV and HTV can do that. There's little use for yet another system. b) Strangely enough, the Russians can make do without those standard racks on their part of the ISS and c) It's not the Dragons fault that the Shuttle is too expensive and NASA didn't even manage to provide a cheap alternative cargo transport in time, even though they knew they were phasing out the Shuttle and had enough time to do that.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[hackertourist]

Missions that are too heavy to fit within the load envelope of Dragon don't necessarily need a Shuttle. ISS modules and other heavy infrastructure can be lofted on an unmanned Falcon 9 (or Falcon 9 Heavy, if you really need to shift some weight). Between Dragon, ATV and HTV the need to bring equipment racks to the ISS is covered.
Satellite repair has been done 10 times, 5 of which were to Hubble. The cost of these missions was so high that it's generally cheaper to launch a new satellite than to send up a Shuttle to repair it. Similarly, satellite retrievals have been rare. Both functions could be useful if a vehicle was available that can do this at 10% of the cost of a Shuttle mission. That should be the goal, not retaining the Shuttle.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[nojayuk]

The Leonardo module (not the Rafaello) was destined to become a permanent module on the ISS on Atlantis' last flight so it was not loaded fully with cargo. It normally carried about 9 tonnes, or three times the load of an unmanned Dragon cargo capsule. The modified Leonardo module did have some parts from the unused Donatello module on board though to adapt it for permanent attachment to the ISS.

As for the crewing levels, the Dragon capsule doesn't support spacewalks for external operations at the ISS as it has no airlock or space for spacewalk-capable spacesuits inside its tiny cabin. The Shuttle's extra crewmembers (absent the pilot and co-pilot) were mission specialists, usually running experiments in the giant payload bay or even in the crew compartment or spacewalking to assemble, repair and replace parts on the ISS. Dragon's spam-in-a-can design means any spacewalk operations will have to be carried out by the crewmembers of the ISS station requiring cargo launches to provide supplies and such for the spacewalks themselves rather than the self-contained Shuttle capability which lofted everything in one go.

The Shuttle was designed in the days of Apollo when the operational systems on the ground required everything to go up on one stack rather than having multiple units rendezvous in orbit within tight time slots. To replace that one-shot capability is going to require more than the same throw-weight in boosters to get all the bits needed in the right places at the right time.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[DerekLyons]

But what your tortured numerology obscures is that while the 'waste' is less - much less is accomplished. The Shuttle could deliver 34klbs to the ISS, while Dragon delivers only 13klbs. Nor can Dragon provide crew exchange while delivering cargo. Nor can Dragon deliver modules. Nor can Dragon deliver experiment racks... (Shuttle can do all of this in a single flight!)

The last flight had 9,403 lbs of net payload on board (wrapped in the Rafaello module that was in the payload pay).

*yawn* That's *one* flight and more tortured numerology to 'prove' that black is equal to white. You not only ignore other cargo delivered, you ignore downmass too.
 

And trying to deliver both people and payload at the same time is why it is so expensive in the first place - that's anything but an advantage.

It's just as expensive to deliver the people and cargo separately - and riskier to boot since you're now having multiple launches, multiple dockings, and multiple re-entries. Not to mention the advantage of having a trained assembly crew show up alongside the thing to be assembled.
 

(Btw. That's wildly overpriced. Launching a Soyuz spacecraft with 3 passengers costs on the order of $60mio. An American passenger basically pays for all three of them.)

BTW: you're utterly and completely wrong - a Soyuz booster *alone* (I.E. without capsule) costs $50 million.
 

Two Dragon launches cost on the order of $200mio - if you don't reuse the Dragon. Seven astronaut tickets for the Soyuz cost some $55mio each - $385mio all told.

So, for $200-$385 million you get six seats, and no cargo. Um... something seems to be missing from your equation. (Typical of your 'calculations'.) Compare that to $250 million (the actual cost of a Shuttle flight)... and where exactly is the advantage of not using the Shuttle?
 

Furthermore, if you needed the shuttle to deliver modules to a space station, you should wonder how Mir was constructed. It's easy: you put some small, cheap engines on the module and launch it with a cheap, heavy duty rocket - and not an overpriced, fragile, manned shuttle.

Sure. In a universe where small cheap engines and cheap heavy duty rockets exist... and you don't need to consume 25% or more of your boosted weight to allow the module to self deliver. But we don't live in such a universe.
 
Don't bother to reply further. You're not only completely ignorant of the topic you're writing on, your tortured 'logic' and 'calculations' just show that you're willingly so and unwilling to bother either to educate yourself or be educated.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[tp1024]

Try to look up "price" and "cost" in a dictionary. The price of a Soyuz to a commercial costumer is much higher than its cost of about $30mio (which incidentally is its price to the Russian government). I know, the government paying less for something than commercial rates is an entirely foreign concept to Americans. Also, the price for NASA astronauts is significantly higher than for private space tourists, who paid between $20mio and $35mio each.

Also, I gave you all you needed to calculate the replacement of a Shuttle launch in terms of crew and payload. The skills required to get to whatever result you want don't go beyond addition and multiplication: One dragon to the ISS costs $100mio - you need two to replace a Shuttle mission's cargo. You'll need three seats in a Soyuz to replace the astronauts that the Shuttle actually brought to the ISS. $55mio each or $165mio to get the ISS crew into orbit in addition to $200mio for the cargo - in case you forgot. That's $365mio instead of the Shuttles $1500mio but you only have only brought three astronauts into orbit instead of the usual seven. You do, however, have 6 cosmonauts up there as well - but I guess those don't count.

You can probably strike a deal with the Russians to uselessly bring 4 more astronauts and 8 additional cosmonauts into orbit for $220mio and right back without staying on the ISS - just as the Shuttle did. But I don't see why you would want to do that or exactly what use they were in the previous Shuttle missions. However, the price for cargo ($200mio) plus 7 astronauts ($385mio) would then be $585mio to uselessly try and replicate a $1500mio Shuttle mission and giving 14 Russian cosmonauts a free ride into space as well.

Sorry, I grew up in a country where mental calculation is not a black art and you can reasonably expect people to be able to use it before accusing others of deliberate obfuscation.

Re:Far better than the Shuttle, if its reliable

[Zorpheus]

Would be interesting to know what it would cost to build another JWST. Maybe NASA would have less trouble with getting the funding for the development of it if they could build another one cheaply.

How many company logo's will be painted on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they put Nascar to shame?

Re:How many company logo's will be painted on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps they might license the Pan Am logo for at least one flight Open the pod bay doors, HAL

and thus

[Sprouticus]

give rise to the space-inductrial complex. And the rise of the space lobby.

It still amazes me that anyone with sense would endorse the privatization of any government entity when it has shown time and time again to become a syphon for government money. Until lobbying by corporations is eliminated I would take the inefficiency of NASA over private companies any day.

Mind you, Im not sayiing they private companies shouldnt exist. Unlike the prisons and military, there is a place for private spaceflight orgs providing other private organizations with launch vehicles. But government....no way.

Re:and thus

[osu-neko]

Mind you, Im not sayiing they private companies shouldnt exist. Unlike the prisons and military, there is a place for private spaceflight orgs providing other private organizations with launch vehicles. But government....no way.

I'm unclear why it's okay for NASA to pay Boeing/Rockwell for an orbiter and Thiokol/Allianet for boosters (aka how they've been operating the manned space program since the 80s), but if they go with one company (SpaceX) for an entire system instead, this is suddenly a bad idea?

Re:and thus

[samcan]

I think there are two different approaches to looking at the problem of corporations lobbying governments: you can blame the corporations, or you can blame the governments.

Let's look at blaming the corporations. On the one hand, we don't want our legislators being bought with nice trips to Tahiti and such. However, can we truly prohibit companies from speaking their views (assuming they aren't bribing legislators)? As we're a country founded on freedom of speech, it seems strange to say that some entities *cannot* speak. (I will not subscribe to the theory that corporations are people, though.)

Let's look at blaming the governments. Shouldn't we expect our legislators to remain above reproach? And if they don't, shouldn't we vote them out? Finally, let's say we managed to stop all lobbying by corporations. Couldn't our legislators be bought other ways by other people?

While I'm not saying we should have companies buying gifts for legislators as a way to influence votes, I think we should blame our legislators for not resisting. Imagine a legislator caught in a sex scandal. Us blaming the corporations would be like the legislator blaming the prostitute for asking him if he wanted sex. As citizens, we should expect our legislators to exercise some self-control, whether the situation involves prostitutes or trips to Tahiti.

Re:and thus

[Toonol]

give rise to the space-inductrial complex. And the rise of the space lobby.

God, wouldn't that be great?

Re:and thus

[khallow]

It still amazes me that anyone with sense would endorse the privatization of any government entity when it has shown time and time again to become a syphon for government money.

As opposed to being a government entity which is a siphon for government money? Even in such a situation, you have a diminishing of government power. The private entity can be sued and its leaders held accountable for criminal actions. Why are you amazed again?

Re:and thus

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Consider the airline industry. Sure, the gov't has need of a few of its own private airliners (notably Air Force One, but also NASA 905 (the Shuttle ferry aircraft) and a handful of bizjets) but most government employees who have to travel buy a ticket on a commercial airine same as everyone else. Same deal with cars and trucks - with rare exceptions (or special military needs), the gov't buys off-the-shelf vehicles or hires freight services same as anyone else. Thus it should be with space transport.

Re:and thus

[robot256]

A large chunk of the inefficiency at NASA itself is caused by, you guessed it, privatization of capabilities and variable cost contracts. It wouldn't matter that the work was being done by contractors instead of civil servants if the companies actually had an incentive to be efficient, but they don't. SpaceX, unlike all the other contractors NASA uses, is offered fixed-price launches, meaning they bear 100% of the financial risk and have every incentive to be efficient. I can only see this as an improvement.

correction to be more accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be "berthed"... not "docked". There is a difference!

You break it...

[Anonymous Coward]

you buy it.

Assuming the Russians let them...

[alispguru]

The ISS is run by an international partnership, under various Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). Any bets that the Russians won't submit lots and Lots and LOTS of "safety concerns" documents, to maximize the time they are the sole means of access to the ISS?

Re:Assuming the Russians let them...

[Anonymous Coward]

They already did when I left that organization. Though considering some of the design processes we were seeing at SpaceX when it came to man rating, I don't blame Russia's throwing up safety concerns.

But what do I know, I just used to work on the ISS. Commence all the slashdotters that don't know what they're talking about flaming me now. I don't care, that organization was broken beyond recognition.

Re:Assuming the Russians let them...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they won't.

Re:Assuming the Russians let them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Already have, starting the moment SpaceX talked about reducing the number of flights, but realistically they aren't able to delay things very long.

Re:Assuming the Russians let them...

[blueturffan]

Just curious -- did you work on the ISS program, or did you actually work ON the ISS?

Re:Assuming the Russians let them...

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked in operations for the ISS.

WOULD live

[Chris Burke]

WOULD, not WILL.

The use of the future conditional indicates full awareness that said chickens are merely hypothetical, and development from the egg stage not guaranteed, and thus any possible egg-basket-spilling dances of joy are premature.

So, no.

or we can stop

[nimbius]

trying to create a privatized golden calf of the space age, recognize good engineering when we see it, and just use the damned soyuz.

Re:or we can stop

[Anonymous Coward]

We are recognizing good engineering. The Falcon 9 costs between 50-60M per launch with 7 astronauts. Soyuz carries, what, 3? And the Russians charge 60M per seat. Soyuz has a great track record, but so does Atlas and Delta, and nothing will ever get a track record if you never try it. Should we just use Soyuz forever? No more rockets just Soyuz from now on? Space technology must now stop because nimibius says so.

I don't think comments can get much more shortsighted than yours.

Combination of Tests Makes Sense

[FurtiveGlancer]

Economically and technically, this combination of tests is a win-win. The longer flight required to accomplish both phases of testing (rendezvous and docking) will be a much more significant test of the Dragon's capabilities and endurance. The test regimen will still proceed through all required testing steps, likely with a pause for analysis between the two phases. It also saves the money required for a separate launch and may well accelerate the first operational flight of an unmanned Dragon supply vehicle. SpaceX wins, NASA wins, and we the people win. That's a rare combination.

use of the term "civilian"

[Anonymous Coward]

I _have_ sometimes heard "civilian" used to mean "those outside of our special organization", even when that special organization is not military.

Package delivery for

[ThatsNotPudding]

...I C Weiner? Ah, crud."

SpaceX Delivery Technician Philip J Fry

FAILURE?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if if fails and crashes into ISS will they suddenly cut off the webcast like the other times? I'm not feeling the love for Falcon given their lack of transparency. I was all into them until the first time I watched a Falcon 1 launch and they were all puffy chested until the moment something went wrong with the rocket and then suddenly it cut off and they vanished like the launch had not happened. Very Soviet. Don't trust them at all now.