Slashdot Mirror
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."
Dragon Capsule,
Strong to save:
When venturing forth,
Bring Burma Shave.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Dragon is a few years away from being man rated.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So would the rescue craft be chasing the dragon?
"It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
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...
Flamebait
Serious inquiries only.
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.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Don't underestimate them.
Surely NASA is a "civilian" space agency, and the shuttle therefore a civilian craft?
Perhaps the correct term should be "non-governmental"...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
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.
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.
SSC
Hooray for government run stuff!!! Right now 0.7% of our taxes go to NASA. Imagine what NASA could do if it was 70%!!!!
...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)?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
ESA's Jules Verne was civilian, although not private.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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...
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
So SpaceX is preparing a surprise attack on the ISS?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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?
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them - in summer school."
Watch the rest of our country collapse from massive lack of funding?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
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...)
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.
Scam is all the PORK associated with most investment done by the government. ... Where every time there are overruns they come to the government for compensation (like most defense/space contracts).
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,
Now if your mentality is 100% decided that privatization is a scam, nothing I say will change your mind...
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.
Dude, the Tesla Roadster is no longer in production because Lotus (who made the body) ceased production of the body.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
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.
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?
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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.
give rise to the space-inductrial complex. And the rise of the space lobby.
God, wouldn't that be great?
How the hell does a post explaining TFS count as offtopic...
Posting anon to preserve the up mod to the above post.
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.
Get a web developer
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?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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?
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.
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.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
"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...
how long until
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.
Invenio via vel creo
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
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.
...I C Weiner? Ah, crud."
SpaceX Delivery Technician Philip J Fry
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
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?
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That was a project put forth by a conservative Republican member of Congress who was elected because he was so "fiscally responsible".
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
sigh. The dragon is a capsule. The falcon is the rocket. The rocket launches the capsule into space. recollection may be a bit fuzzy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Did you seriously just suggest that NASA has never landed on the moon?
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Shit, bad typo to make. No, I'm not a whacko conspiracy theorist, I meant to say Mars.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Got it.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
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.
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.