Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Reveals Plans For Full Launch System Re-usability
FleaPlus writes "During a talk at the National Press Club, SpaceX's Elon Musk revealed the company's plans for making their Falcon 9 rocket fully reusable. A rendering depicts the first stage, upper stage, and Dragon capsule all separately returning to the Earth's surface and making a controlled, rocket-powered landing. During the next few years SpaceX will be testing VTVL (Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing) maneuvers and re-usability with their Falcon 9-based 'Grasshopper' testbed, with up to 70 test launches per year. Musk stated that if reuse is successful, it would result in a 100x reduction in their already-low launch costs, a key step toward Musk's long-term aim of lowering the price of a ticket to Mars to $500K."
Musk also confirmed that the currently scheduled November or December flight of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule to the space station will likely be delayed due to the failure of a Soyuz rocket carrying a Progress re-supply ship to the ISS on August 24, 2011.
“It actually will likely result in a delay to our launch to the ISS,” Musk said, “and NASA rightly wants to have the appropriate level of astronauts with the right training when we arrive, so it looks like January for the launch to space station, and that is contingent upon the Russians meeting the schedule they’ve currently stating."
It sounds reasonable, but it also sounds like someone doesn't want SpaceX to have the enormous PR gain of launching a mission to the ISS when everyone else's pants are down.
You do know that the 1980s were 30 years ago, right? In fact, since the Shuttle R&D started in the 1970s (and of course earlier, using prior designs as departure), it's over 30 years. You do realize that all NASA spaceflight is R&D work, right? People at SpaceX surely know that.
How did it match the money poured into it? Even ignoring the tremendous return on investment from NASA budgets, anyone honest at SpaceX would tell you the new private industry owes a vast debt to NASA's programmes. That it can repay naturally in taxes from its profitable operations.
--
make install -not war
SpaceX has yet to put a person into space, let alone to the ISS, let alone returning safely, let alone a person on the moon.
All of this talk about how "SUPER CHEAP AND AWESOME IT CAN BE WHILE BEING PRIVATIZED" means NOTHING until they show that they can do it safely and repeatedly with a human being.
Just because you are unfamiliar with the real and significant scientific and engineering advances that were part of the shuttle effort, does not mean they do not exist.
You know, I am continually offended and amazed by the amount and quality of the scorn heaped on NASA by slashdot denizens. NASA did what it did, it's easy to look back thirty years and trash talk about how much better you could have done. The real evidence is that no one exceeded or even came close to NASA's accomplishment with the initial shuttles, for many years afterwards.
Noone was keeping private industry from going into space in, say, 1985 or 1992. 1992 was a great year. How many private shuttle flights were there? How many?
If you think the manned space program is too bureaucratic now, well, your government agrees with you, and that's why its taking the steps it is taking. But history is pretty clear that when the shuttles were first designed and built, they were innovations.
It's a political stance, unburdened by facts, that if only the government oppressor, which consumes all resources and innovative ideas, were somehow to be pushed back, Ayn Rand's nephew would show up and build us a wonderful and lucrative train track to Mars. The truth is, we use government as a means to organize ourselves for several tasks we feel everyone should contribute to, be it defense or education or assurance of clean drinking water. NASA did things then, and continues to do things today, for which there is not an immediate payoff but that we feel there is value in doing. Are we always right? Assuredly not. The evidence is clear though that many of the things which NASA did first, others have followed.
You know, I think that if I had to choose, I'd gladly take the Space Nutter religion over it's competitors.
Traditional Religion says that there is a man living in the sky and he sees everything we do.
Space Nutterism put a man in the sky, and has been able to keep them there off and on since the 1970s. Those men were able to see much, and the unmanned cameras we put up along side them have made tremendous contributions to farming, fire fighting, building, and anything else that relies on the weather or accurate maps.
Traditional Religion says that Heaven (and it's equivalents) are beautiful places full of delights and wonders that you'll get to see when you die.
Space Nutterism put cameras on the ground and in space and we now have beautiful, wonderful, delightful pictures of the heavens that anyone can see, just about any time they want.
Traditional Religion says you should live in peace with your fellow man, but you're free to kill them if they disagree on the name of your invisible sky man.
Space Nutterism has pulled together men and women from different nations, religions, and economic classes and caused them all to work together on projects that have made life better for the whole lot of us.
Traditional Religion gives us stories from long ago and states that if you just believe in the invisible sky man hard enough, amazing things could happen to you.
Space Nutterism gives us video, pictures, audio recordings, and the actual artifacts that have been to amazing places and done amazing things.
Traditional Religion says that, through your invisible sky man, all things are possible.
Space Nutterism says that through our own hard work and cleverness, all things are possible.
I believe you're mistaken: the Space Shuttle has been decommissioned in favor of NOTHING AT ALL.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Exactly. Most of research is learning 'what not to do'.
Douglas Adams quote:
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'm getting tired of hearing about what they're gonna do and would like to hear a little more about what they've done
Between June 2002 to December 2010, they: Designed, built and flew an entirely new rocket engine. And designed, built and flew two completely new launchers based on that new rocket engine. And designed, built, flew and landed and recovered an entirely new pressurised cargo capsule large enough to be modified to carry crew. And they spent about $600 million on all those developments. NASA and its prime contractors literally cannot do that.
Now they are working on man-rating their launcher. And making that launcher reusable. And building an entirely new type of launch abort system for their capsule. And make a crewed version of that capsule. And building an even bigger launcher. And building a new bigger rocket engine. And getting commercial and government customers for their existing launchers. And all for a shoestring contribution from NASA.
In the same period NASA and its prime contractors tried to build two new launchers based on existing hardware, with a new capsule, for several tens of billions of dollars. And failed. So they are now hoping to build one big launcher based on existing hardware, and a capsule, for several more tens of billions of dollars. And if they are very lucky, they will have it ready for manned launch by 2020.
And I'm revealing my plans for world domination with an army of supermodels.
And if you had already taken over several nations with a battalion of regular models, I would take you more seriously.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.