SpaceX Dragon Launch To ISS Set For April 30th

Spy Handler writes "NASA announced today a tentative April 30th date for SpaceX launch to the International Space Station on an unmanned cargo mission. 'Everything looks good as we head toward the April 30 launch date,' said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations. If successful, SpaceX will become the first private company to launch a space vehicle and dock with the ISS."

Comments

Most Excellent

[Penguinshit]

It's time to turn LEO over to commercial operators and let NASA get back to pushing frontiers. It was right to kill Constellation and Ares.

Re:Most Excellent

[Canazza]

This is a *brand new* private market. We need competition. So far who do we have? SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. And even Virgin only go Sub-orbital and is mostly publicity runs.
There's alot of players missing at the moment. For example: Where's Boeing? One of the biggest Government contractors for aircraft hasn't thought to invest in their own space vehicles?
I get the feeling that when SpaceX actually has a proper, reliable, regular launch schedule that the market for private space launches will absoloutly boom.

Re:Most Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Boeing is in it. They are designing a capsule called CST-100, together with Bigelow Aerospace. There is also a more direct competitor to SpaceX, the Antares rocket built by Orbital Sciences and also scheduled to launch this year. Not to mention many smaller but ambitious players like XCOR that work on upper stage engines with ULA.

Re:Most Excellent

[lxs]

Bad idea.
Why?
Two words: Space junk.

The Invisible Hand has a bad record for picking up after itself.

Re:Most Excellent

[Razgorov Prikazka]

It's just a matter of time you know... if enough people go there, it's just a waiting matter before:
  - space hippies go collect garbage (and re-invent the cradle2cradle concept, making nice new stuff from spacejunk);
  - greenpeace goes there with big solarsail-made-into-banners;
  - Al Gore will say he invented space and then make a movie about how terrible the whole spacejunk problem is;
  - We will see spacejunk-sceptics;
  And when they are all up in arms, here on /. we will discuss the next big thing... terraforming Mars. Someone will say that is a bad Idea, and I would say: It's just a matter of time you know... if enough people go there, it's just a waiting matter before:
  - Space hippies will go there hugging the marstrees
  - Greenpeace will go there and... well you get the point huh? :-D

Re:Most Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a *brand new* private market. We need competition. So far who do we have?

Don't you worry. If it works and gives benefits, competition will appear.

The only thing that could break that consequence would be the first businesses lobbying to create laws that stopped all possible competition.

And even if that happened, those laws wouldn't apply to China.

"plus ça change..."

Re:Most Excellent

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Space junk is a bit different to the normal polluting behaviour though, since it will directly and literally impact the polluter's future operations. Also, its not like publicly funded endeavours have that great a record when it comes to space junk either.

Re:Most Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Another right winger claiming that all will be well because fully funded charity work will step in where governments fail to operate; apparently they think that the rich will donate more if taxed less and that the poor should don't pay enough.

Re:Most Excellent

[xplosiv]

From the article:

Other companies in the private space race include aerospace giant Boeing, the Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corporation, and Washington state-based BlueOrigin LLC.

More info about their private space plans.

Re:Most Excellent

[crutchy]

don't worry, once the financial risk is low enough (after someone else has already put in the high risk hard yards - most likely funded by taxpayers), the cheap knockoffs will begin to appear, ready to kill off the cheapskate idiots who decide to fly with them, probably doing the world a favor.

Re:Most Excellent

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder what the insurance is for something like that? A dent in the ISS must cost an arm and a leg to fix.

Re:Most Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

OSC is competing with SpaceX on the ISS flights with their Antares launcher and Cygnus supply vehicle.

Re:Most Excellent

[Teancum]

Considering that the Chinese have said that SpaceX is flying at a price point cheaper than they can provide launch services, I'm sort of curious who this "cheap knockoff" might be? The Mexican Space Agency?

Re:Most Excellent

[0123456]

don't worry, once the financial risk is low enough (after someone else has already put in the high risk hard yards - most likely funded by taxpayers), the cheap knockoffs will begin to appear, ready to kill off the cheapskate idiots who decide to fly with them, probably doing the world a favor.

Given that the massively expensive space shuttle destroyed itself and killed the crew about one time in sixty, a 'cheapskate' doesn't have to try too hard to kill their crew less often.

Re:Most Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it will cost more and have less capabilities that what NASA hardware can do. For I stand remember the NASA zero gravity plane, the vomit comment? Congress has ruled that NASA is no longer allowed to own or develop their own zero gravity plane. They now have to contract out to Zero-G. Their costs are more contracting out then when they ran their own hardware. On top of that the Zero-G plane cannot achieve true zero gravity. The NASA plain has thrusters that nullified the x and y direction accelerations. The Zero-G plane does not have this capability so when in the flight there are constant x and y accelerations messing up experiments.

Re:Most Excellent

[damburger]

Citation please. Bear in mind, I want a credible source. Lots of people in China talk shit and don't have any real authority.

Re:Most Excellent

[caseih]

All American rockets today that can deliver payload to orbit are made by private companies. They just happen to be under contract for government agencies like the air force, or even NASA. None of these rockets are man-rated, though, which is something SpaceX is gunning for in a big way. I'm definitely excited. Even if they are the only ones who can do it for a while, that's okay too. It's unlikely that a monopoly situation will lead to prices any higher than they are now!

Re:Most Excellent

[sconeu]

It's OK. Flo told them that they could just plug "snapshot" into their spaceship and get a huge discount!

Re:Most Excellent

[robot256]

I think the point about the shuttle is just the opposite: SpaceX is cheaper *because* they are more reliable, not in spite of it. If you build the thing without cutting corners up-front, you save a bundle in the long term, which is what SpaceX is getting right where so many others got it wrong. The only way to get cheaper is if you designed a rocket with the *intent* to blow up 1 in 100. Even the Soyuz capsules, which have almost no redundant systems whatsoever, have a reputation as being reliable.

Re:Most Excellent

[CrimsonAvenger]

There was a /. story last year (one year ago today, in fact) mentioning this. Guy from China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp., speaking "not for attribution".

Re:Most Excellent

[CrimsonAvenger]

Even the Soyuz capsules, which have almost no redundant systems whatsoever, have a reputation as being reliable.

And, oddly enough, have had loss-of-crew accidents twice, just like Shuttle (which translates to a higher percentage loss rate, since there have been fewer Soyuz missions than Shuttle missions, in spite of Shuttle being developed a decade later).

Re:Most Excellent

[sneakyimp]

You forgot Blue Origin (run by Amazon's Jeff Bezos) and the quaintly named but feisty Armadillo Aerospace. Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman -- I believe those companies have been contracting to NASA and the defense department for years but prefer to suck the government's massive teats by going through NASA, the DOD, and all those other agencies. In fact, Northrop more or less purchased Scaled Composites.

These new companies are fresh faces on the scene that has been dominated by aerospace heavy weights for years. I have great admiration for Elon Musk. That guy rules.

Re:Most Excellent

[sneakyimp]

Well let's hope they aren't knocking off the space shuttle -- you might recall that 33.3% of them exploded catastrophically, killing all their crew members.

Re:Most Excellent

[gmhowell]

Considering that the Chinese have said that SpaceX is flying at a price point cheaper than they can provide launch services, I'm sort of curious who this "cheap knockoff" might be? The Mexican Space Agency?

Probably. Did you ever see the documentary about it?

Re:Most Excellent

[Teancum]

This is but one of several articles about this topic:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/05/spacex-explains.html

You can do some web searches on the topic if you want as well to get some other opinions on the topic, but it was in the news awhile back. Or perhaps Aviation Week is a two bit blog that doesn't matter much and is an unreliable source?

Re:Most Excellent

[damburger]

Sounds like Chinese whispers to me (pardon the pun.)

In any case, which Long March rockets is this (supposedly authoritative) guy allegedly talking about? The current ones, or the ones that are in development?

China's rocket fleet currently uses hypergolic propellants, which are expensive to buy, use, and clean up. Their next generation use LOx/RP-1 like sensible people, and will utilize the industrial base of modern China rather than legacy ICBM manufacturing from the 1970s.

I'm fairly skeptical of this claim.

Re:Most Excellent

[Teancum]

It may be that the Chinese business leaders being quoted here were more upset that their profit margin was going to be cut on future flights and become something of a cost war between themselves and SpaceX rather than necessarily being unable to meet the price that SpaceX has been publishing on its websites for the cost of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launches. It is remarkable at how much cheaper SpaceX has made launches already with their price point something that is generally viewed within the launch industry as a loss leader trying to drum up business and gain market share rather than real savings. At least that is how the Chinese would be doing things.

There are a number of things which has resulted in SpaceX becoming so much cheaper, and some of that comes from Elon Musk's experience at trying to manufacture automobiles that is being folded into the rocket business along with other improved manufacturing processes and a general attitude of trying to cut costs on nearly every step along the way. That doesn't mean to reduce the quality, but rather seriously considering if a process really needs to be done in one way and if there might be a cheaper way to get it done rather than saying "close enough for government work" and then just passing the costs on to the government or any potential customer who at the moment don't really care about the costs of the launch itself so much. It isn't just one thing that SpaceX is doing, but the whole attitude about what it will take to get into space for the lowest cost possible and still be safe.

As an example, for this upcoming launch at the end of this month, NASA put together a team to help "supervise" what SpaceX was doing for launch preparations. Most of that team had to be sent home because it turned out they outnumbered SpaceX personnel by something like a 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio. For a ULA launch, they would have been more in the minority sort of hiding in the background.

A very Chinese attitude toward manufacturing is to simply throw personnel at any sort of problem to see if that gets fixed or has the production rate needed. In other words there is a whole lot of hand crafting of things in China, certainly much more than is the case in western countries. While they aren't stupid and I admit they do know how to make machines quite well, I would certainly venture to guess that even the next generation of launchers by the Chinese will likely have many more man-hours of effort be put into the development, manufacturing, and launch of those rockets than what SpaceX is doing, and there are other costs associated with their methods as well.

Yes, fuel costs are something to look at in terms of launch costs, but for almost everybody doing a launch currently the fuel costs are so insignificant that it is statistical noise. The cost of the fuel for the Space Shuttle launches, to give another example, was actually less than the cost of the catering services provided for the press corps and the VIP dignitaries that attended the launch. In other words, something to not even look at for cost savings. If hypergolic fuels seem to work fine, then use them as even the cleanup costs are trivial compared to the rest of the costs performing a launch.

Re:Most Excellent

[Teancum]

What I love about Armadillo Aerospace is that they are one of the few companies whose budget for rocket fuel is larger than the budget for the construction of the vehicles they fly. They also are not afraid to admit they've gone down a blind alley and try something completely different, like completely different fuels, injector systems, and pretty much every part of their rockets. Of any group of rocket developers around today, I'd dare say they have more experience actually using rocket engines and coming up with innovative propulsion designs than almost anybody else around today. It isn't just one engine design they've built, but instead dozens including a whole group of utter failures they've looked at and moved on from. John Carmack has said that he wanted to apply some of the principles of software engineering to rockets in terms of doing many "small tests" and allowing engineering freedom to experiment on many different designs at once.

Other companies to look at include Masten Space Systems, X-Cor, and Sierra Nevada Corporation. For Europe you have Copenhagen Suborbital, ARCA (from Romania), and Starchaser Industries (UK) that all show some real potential and have been around for more than a couple years.

While SpaceX may be getting the headlines, they are hardly the only company doing rocket development, and I don't think they will be the only company sending rockets into orbit twenty years from now.

Re:Most Excellent

[Teancum]

If there are specific mission requirements, they should put those requirements into the RFP and subsequent contracts. There certainly could and likely would be other providers willing to step in if Zero-G can't get the job done. It isn't as if the ability to fly parabolic arcs in the sky is necessarily a new concept which is the subject of a patent.

Besides, it is in the official mission statement and federal charter for NASA that they will support private commercial efforts where possible. If you think that sucks, complain to your local member of Congress. Likely they won't care, but at least you can try or vote for "the other guy" instead.

Re:Most Excellent

[crutchy]

yeah, according to spacex (not exactly a credible source), and the chinese "officials" were commenting on prices published on spacex's website, not their actual launch costs (yet to be determined, probably even by spacex)

when they start launching for revenue, or when they start trying to drum up investment from sources other than rich dick swingers trying to impress their rich dick swinging friends, those prices will skyrocket because otherwise they will go bankrupt (think kistler)

their first payload launch will be as a government contractor, and boeing etc has already been there, done that for years, so they haven't done anything special yet (even their dragon is only refurbishable - using ablative heat shielding, which is not "reusable" as they claim, and the launch vehicle is also expendable, same as any other launch service provider)

if spacex has any launch failures (likely), they'll probably disappear altogether

Re:Most Excellent

[Teancum]

American rocket builders have all but given up trying to seek private commercial spaceflight launches, even though America was where the concept originated. I am not talking about joy rides such as the "space tourism" flights done by the "rich dick swingers" (I presume such a reference is to Richard Gariott who is rich but not really a swinger and his dickhood is of personal opinion that I disagree with even if you may think he is one), but rather for businesses that already are making a profit off of activity in space.

Something that has become very popular in terms of using space-based assets is to have mapping services available which will photograph areas of the world using all kinds of different "filters" to photograph terrain in all kinds of colors including ultra violet and infrared bands. This is mainly being used by mining and oil drilling companies, but it is also used by food processors and other "argi-business" services to monitor the quality of farmland as well as estimate yields that will likely be obtained from a harvest. In the case of some farmland photography, it can even be used to reduce the application of pesticides and fertilizer as specific parts of an individual field can be targeted for treatment.... or the field can be monitored to see if they are compliant with "organic" standards as well. This isn't science fiction but something happening today and worth literally billions of dollars on its own.

Telecommunications has been a long time user of space, ever since AT&T sent the Telstar satellite into orbit in the early 1960's. Modern television broadcasts simply wouldn't be happening without it, and surprisingly the size of the satellites for telecommunications is getting larger and may even need in the near future some sort of manned servicing of those vehicles... or at least sending up astronauts to physically service satellites like this could make economic sense. "Constellations" of satellites like Iridium are currently in use... and in fact SpaceX landed a contract to replace the current generation of Iridium satellites. The satellites are going to be made by Iridium, but SpaceX is going to put them into space. This is already on their manifest.

In other words, your suggestion that SpaceX is only going to be doing government contract work is not only wrong but downright stupid to even be thinking that way. Yes, SpaceX is going to be bidding for government contracts as well... and you haven't given a good reason why they shouldn't either. Airlines also do services for the government including private charter flights for ferrying military personnel and equipment and other ways they get government money. Do you really think Delta Airlines should turn down that kind of money if it is offered to them?

As for launch failures, I expect there will be a few over the next few years too. If this next launch is a failure and the failure reveals some systemic engineering flaws in the design that didn't come up in the previous two launches, it is possible that SpaceX would go bankrupt. Nothing is sure in business and I'll admit that. but to say that they will disappear because of a launch failure is just silly to even suggest as well. Do airlines go bankrupt when one of their planes crash? Sometimes, but usually not. An accident investigation review board does get called and the reasons for the accident or failure are seriously reviewed... something that is no different for rockets failing as it is for aircraft that fail and have problems. In the case of SpaceX and a rocket failure, the lead agency to conduct such an investigation will be the Federal Aviation Administration as well, through their Office of Commercial Spaceflight.... who is the agency issuing the launch permits giving SpaceX the authority to perform this launch on April 30th. NASA is merely the customer paying for the trip.

There is also reason to believe that SpaceX is going to keep the launch prices right where they are at, or even drop them significantly. I won't get into the reasons here as it is pointless to continue the argument.

Re:Most Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. NASA should be looking at technology challenges for man flight beyond LEO. Things like faster propulsion, artificial gravity, energy production (to feed to propulsion).

We need to start thinking about an "intra solar system" craft that stays in orbit and takes humanity to locations throughout the system. Launching the entire craft from the ground using Chemical rockets EVERY TIME is a horrible idea. Once we have a craft in LEO, we only need to be able to break orbit and propel it towards other bodies. Think modular like the ISS, but with a power plant and propulsion system.

The deeper problem

[zippo01]

The failure of NASA, speaks to a much deeper issue growing in US culture. People only care that it works, not how or why it works, and make no effort to understand. This is also why the US is falling behind as the world leader in tech. This is the same thing that causes us to buy cheap products from china, that break, and instead of fixing them, we just buy more. It makes me sad.

Re:The deeper problem

[Rogerborg]

Hi, you're using one of those Freedom Eagle brand computers made in Omaha? Flip it over, read the Made in China sticker, then lead by example, please.

Re:The deeper problem

[zippo01]

Indeed, hence the failure and the mindset of the failure. I would gladly by American made, but I can't find any.

Re:The deeper problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually what makes westerners, you and me included, to buy new items instead of fixing them is the just cost of repair. Let's say a reasonably well-performing nondescript toaster from your local hypermarket costs $50 or $100 for a "high end" one. Let's also suppose that you get $20 an hour. You basically have three choices:

1. Find out what is broken, get a replacement part, and replace it yourself.

Sounds easy, but if it's anything except the heating element, you need more than a multimeter to figure out which individual component is broken. Suppose you're so lucky that you actually find it in the local repair shop. Now, just do that math between cost of replacement part + cost of labor versus cost of new toaster. Even if you get the part for free, and you are such an amazing tech that a fixed toaster is as good as new, anything over 3 hours is a waste as that's about how long it takes, after taxes, to get the money for a new toaster

2. Take it to the repair shop.

Still easier, but you cannot be guaranteed that cost of troubleshooting + cost of repair + cost of parts + cost of trip to take the toaster + cost of trip to pick it up will be less than cost of a new toaster. Anyhow, since the cost of labor in this case has to be paid with after-tax money, this is guaranteed to be more expensive than DIY (Assuming you are every bit as competent as the repair guy)

3. Just buy a new one

Sadly, this is the cheapest choice. I say sadly, because I for one would rather buy sturdy appliances that last for ages, especially when the underlying user requirement stays unchanged. Would go a long way in saving the planet

Of course, if people were willing to pay more for repairability and ecological soundness then maybe such solutions would emerge, but behavioral economics tells us otherwise...

Re:The deeper problem

[arth1]

Option 4: Do NOT buy or repair your toaster oven until you can afford a much higher quality replacement.

This seems to me like the soundest decision, but with consumerism, people want instant gratification and the quality converges to the lowest that producers can get away with.

Re:The deeper problem

[wonkey_monkey]

This seems to me like the soundest decision, but with consumerism, people want instant gratification

And toast.

Re:The deeper problem

[arth1]

And toast.

which you don't need a toaster or toaster oven for.

While I have a toaster oven, I prefer to make toast the old fashioned way, because it's easier to clean up - the only way a toaster oven makes sense is if you are a lazy slob - too lazy to flip a toast and most of the time won't bother cleaning the oven.
A toaster can make sense if you don't want to keep the family together and not leave the table during breakfast, but that's generally not how it's used.

Yes, I prefer to slice my bread myself too. Which means I can buy bread without humectants, because it not being cut helps prevent it from drying out. So it tastes better.

Re:The deeper problem

[dpilot]

How do you buy a much higher quality toaster? On occasion I have tried to buy higher quality appliances. Price is no indicator. Brand is only a weak indicator. Reviews are only a weak indicator, because product lines are constantly being churned, even if the name has remained the same.

Re:The deeper problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you get the part for free, and you are such an amazing tech that a fixed toaster is as good as new, anything over 3 hours is a waste as that's about how long it takes, after taxes, to get the money for a new toaster

If someone makes $20/hr, that does not mean that ALL their time is worth $20/hr. Only the time spent actually working is worth that. What you seem to be saying here is true only if you have to take unpaid time off from work to fix the toaster. Otherwise, the time spent fixing the toaster is essentially free.

Re:The deeper problem

[TheDarkMaster]

Why a toaster when you have a blowtorch?

Re:The deeper problem

[crutchy]

"People only care that"... it's profitable.

there, ftfy

Re:The deeper problem

[damien_kane]

And toast.

Yeah, Toast!

Re:The deeper problem

[camperdave]

My Mom and Dad are still using the toaster they got as a wedding gift, and they'll be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary this year.

Re:The deeper problem

[DerekLyons]

The failure of NASA, speaks to a much deeper issue growing in US culture.

What failure in NASA? Not providing Buck Rogers for your entertainment and amusement? (As opposed to actually getting on with the hard and mostly boring bits, which they have done.) Failing to meet some abstract standard of cost and performance? (Which borders on the ludicrous - it's like complaining about the low performance and high cost of a 8008 in 1971. There's simply no track record on which to base such a standard.)
 

This is the same thing that causes us to buy cheap products from china, that break, and instead of fixing them, we just buy more.

You should read up on the history of discount stores - the desire, in the US, for lower cost and greater convenience without regards to quality goes back several generations (at least).
 
Basically, you're remembering a golden era that never existed and are thus depressed because of the failure of a golden future (which vision you created from whole cloth in the first place) to materialize.

Re:The deeper problem

[tompaulco]

Option 4: Do NOT buy or repair your toaster oven until you can afford a much higher quality replacement.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the premium items break down just as frequently as the cheap crap, but are more expensive to repair, either professionally or DIY because they make the repair parts cost 50% of the price of a new unit.
As an example, I have a Maytag washing machine which cost about $1100. Maytag is the one with the commercials of the repairman sitting around doing nothing because nobody ever calls in. Well, it has broken down on me about 5 times. Twice, it has been the circuitboard, which has to be replaced in its entirety and costs well over $100. The most recent item was a cracked outflow pump housing. How did it crack? Why, pennies got into the housing. But how can that be? They've been in the business 100 years. Surely they learned in the second year of business that they need to have a screen or boot to catch small items that unintentionally got into the washer. Cheap imported washers have them. Of course, they do not sell the housing by itself, but you have to buy the pump as well. The unit costs about $100. So I bought a $4 tube of JB Weld Marine and fixed it myself. Apparently, this same problem has happened to a lot of people because I googled it to find out what others had done to fix it.
We're not going to get people to stop buying cheap Chinese junk until the expensive American junk exceeds the quality of the cheap Chinese junk.

Re:The deeper problem

[AmiMoJo]

Look at the warranty. Anything less than 5 years is cheap crap, 10 years is good. Some German and Japanese manufacturers offer them.

Re:The deeper problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you love your job so much that your time off is worth *less* to you than the time you spend at work? Glad to hear it, not everyone is so lucky.

Your "basic economic resource" isn't money, it's time. Money is only one thing you can exchange that time for, and unless you're under-employed you're already selling about as much of it as you care to at the wage you're receiving. Ergo your remaining time is worth *more* in dollar terms than the time you spend at work.

Re:The deeper problem

[arth1]

As an example, I have a Maytag washing machine which cost about $1100. Maytag is the one with the commercials of the repairman sitting around doing nothing because nobody ever calls in. Well, it has broken down on me about 5 times. Twice, it has been the circuitboard, which has to be replaced in its entirety and costs well over $100. The most recent item was a cracked outflow pump housing. How did it crack? Why, pennies got into the housing.

I hate to tell you, but at $1100 you're still in the cheap consumer territory - you've paid for features, not quality. Higher end consumer washers are more in the $2000 range.

You won't find a $1100 Maytag at a professional cleaner or tailor's - they need quality, and are willing to pay for it. Consumers aren't, and when comparing items, will either pick the cheaper, the one with more features, or the one that looks best.

But how can that be? They've been in the business 100 years.

I hate to tell you this too, but Maytag went out of business in 2006, after consumer fled it due to poor quality. It was bought by Whirlpool who continues to use the name.

We're not going to get people to stop buying cheap Chinese junk until the expensive American junk exceeds the quality of the cheap Chinese junk.

Whirlpool doesn't generally make washers from the ground up - the Maytag plants are closed down. They have a plant in Ohio, which seems to be mainly assembly. So you might have bought cheap Chinese junk assembled in the US.

Re:The deeper problem

[tlhIngan]

Actually what makes westerners, you and me included, to buy new items instead of fixing them is the just cost of repair.

That's why repair is a hobby (DIY). That way your time is basically free and you're doing it for fun or experience. (It's just like people who admin Linux machines for fun).

Now, a toaster is actually a very simple product and a poor example - anyone competent with electricity can rapidly fix it.

Take something that doesn't cost a lot more - say a computer monitor - you can pick up a 20" or more one for under $200 on sale. Now it breaks - do you fix it, or buy a new one? Fixing it will probably cost you a high-paid technician to look at it at probably a good $50+/hr plus parts ($expensive in most cases). At which point you probably have to invest around $150 or so to fix it. Or just buy a new monitor on sale that probably does more for a few bucks more.

If you do repair as a hobby - you stand to benefit since you can ask for these old broken electronics and fix it yourself - if the part costs $100, it's a $100 monitor to you.

For a lot of things, even the manufacturer never repairs individually - phones and such the store will gather up a pile of them then send it off to the manufacturer to refurbish. Even then the manufacturer will probably wait for more units to come in before sending the whole lot off to refurbish (parts from several phones combined to make a working one, that sort of thing). It's just cheaper that way (depending on the circuit board, it may not be economical to fix - if it's a dud capacitor or resistor, it's easy, but if it's a chip that's BGA or so, it can easily cost $200 to replace the chip).

Now go to places like China where labor is cheap, and you'll find people repairing lots of stuff because even highly paid technical people are really cheap. (It's the flip side to all the factory workers making peanuts a day - even the highly skilled workers make just a few peanuts more. Though in China, there is also a pile of businesspeople that really rake in big bucks the same way Wall Street does).

Re:The deeper problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ergo your remaining time is worth *more* in dollar terms than the time you spend at work.

Ok, since you want to be absurd, that means that an attorney who bills out at $500 per hour loses $4,000 for getting 8 hours of sleep.

Your time, like anything else, is worth only what the market will bear. Generally, people cannot just go off and get piecemeal work in any amount desired at any time they desire. Their time can't automatically be exchanged for money. If you make $20 per hour, but the market can't or won't buy more than 40 hours per week of your time, then the remainder of the hours in your week are not worth $20 each, no matter how much you want to think they are.

Re:The deeper problem

[voidphoenix]

I prefer lasers, myself. Shark-head-laser-toast is awesome. :)

Re:The deeper problem

[mcgrew]

Basically, you're remembering a golden era that never existed

The young are prone to doing that. We who have been around a while know how bad the past sucked; we were there.

Re:The deeper problem

[Anonymous Coward]

here you go.

Re:The deeper problem

[Teancum]

Of course those computers are all made of components fabricated in other countries. While the link is interesting, the manufacturing base has left America some time ago to get stuff like that done.

Arianespace

[captainpanic]

The European Arianespace is commercial since 1980. They launch their Ariane rockets on a regular basis. You want competition? You got it.

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

Re:Arianespace

[Rogerborg]

No, see, it's not proper rocketry unless you read about it in a NASA press release.

Which is the problem here: why are we hearing about this from NASA? Screw those lumbering dinosaurs and their thousand-dollar hammers, I'd love to see SpaceX, Virgin or any other player just go ahead and send a surprise cheap dumb booster up to the ISS for so little outlay that they can say "Oh hai, say, do you guys you want these supplies or not? Doesn't bother us much either way, we'll just leave them in orbit here in case you change your mind."

Re:Arianespace

[Anonymous Coward]

must... resist... urge... to make... Arianespace Museum joke...

damnit.

Re:Arianespace

[arth1]

Which is the problem here: why are we hearing about this from NASA? Screw those lumbering dinosaurs and their thousand-dollar hammers,

If they had bought five thousand dollar hand tools instead, tested for space operations, instead of listening to those short-sighted people who want to pinch pennies whenever they see them, we might not have hand tools floating in space.

Re:Arianespace

[Anonymous Coward]

The big issue for NASA is station safety. Do you really want an untested vehicle near your 100billion dollar station? One that if there is an error in coding could easily ram it?

Re:Arianespace

[StoneCrusher]

While I understand your sentiment, if I was an astronaut aboard the ISS I don't think I would appreciate a unknown, unexpected, untested, unverified rocket hurtling towards my fragile little home.

"Don't worry, the boosters will shut-off in time. I wrote the code myself!"
"How hard could it possibly be to hit a 1 meter capture ring? And if we miss it'll bounce right off those solar panels."
"Com'on! Open your pressurised habitat to our craft. We used like a whole tube of silicone to seal it up."
"Oh... You might not want to eat the chilli-dogs I packed you after all. Uncle Billy has spent a week on the toilet after eating three."

And these are some of the best case scenarios that I imagined.

Re:Arianespace

[captainpanic]

One that if there is an error in coding could easily ram it?

Define easily. Even Low Earth Orbit is pretty big.

Re:Arianespace

[crutchy]

I'd love to see SpaceX, Virgin or any other player just go ahead and send a surprise cheap dumb booster up to the ISS for so little outlay that they can say "Oh hai, say, do you guys you want these supplies or not?

i guess if you pay for it you probably can, but at the moment nasa calls the shots because it pays the money. that's why spacex is more a government contractor than a commercial enterprise. difference being that a commercial enterprise would be servicing multiple clients. as long as nasa is its only customer, it is the boss, not spacex. if spacex goes space cowboy, nasa may well just say "Oh hai, say, do you guys want to do as we tell you, or do you want us to pay space-y/ruskies instead; we're not averse to wasting our investment in you cos we've been wasting millions for years, so get in line or gtfo".

Re:Arianespace

[crutchy]

it aint rocket science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-17

Re:Arianespace

[Megane]

While I understand your sentiment, if I was an astronaut aboard the ISS I don't think I would appreciate a unknown, unexpected, untested, unverified rocket hurtling towards my fragile little home.

Indeed. And I'm sure there would be some nice men from the government who would not be amused. Or nice, once this happened.

In fact, that's one of the reasons this launch was delayed. They need two people on the ISS qualified in the docking procedures for this mission, and they only recently got the second up.

Re:Arianespace

[Anonymous Coward]

Having actually been in SpaceX's factory... I could understand those musings.

Re:Arianespace

[Necron69]

Are you people really that stupid to think that both SpaceX and NASA haven't spent tens of thousands of man hours planning, testing, retesting, and triple testing this docking procedure? Are you aware that the only reason it takes two people to do the docking is that NASA won't _allow_ SpaceX to do the docking automatically like the Russian Soyuz? Instead, they have to pull up close to the station, and then get grabbed by the robot arm, for SAFETY.

Do you have any idea how many ex-NASA and space shuttle contractors have been hired by SpaceX? Do you know how many former astronauts work there?

God, it is like some people think Elon Musk hired a bunch of high school rocket club kids and is being allowed to dock with the space station based on plans drawn on the back of a napkin.

Get a freaking clue, people.

- Necron69

Re:Arianespace

[Picass0]

>> "...I'd love to see SpaceX, Virgin or any other player just go ahead and send a surprise cheap dumb booster up to the ISS for so little outlay that they can say "Oh hai, say, do you guys you want these supplies or not?..."

I understand your point and share your frustrations, but rockets pass through controlled commercial airspace as they launch. None of the carriers you mentioned want to get on FAA's bad side. Making feds pissed off is a bad way to kickstart a business.

The new commercial space carriers show great promise, but NASA shouldn't have just dropped the ball leaving a 5-10 year window where the US has no manned launch capability. Most businesses understand when you retire a platform you have it's replacement ready.

Re:Arianespace

[Anonymous Coward]

the pricing is vastly different. Arianespace launches the russian soyuz at twice the price of spacex. The migration to spacex falcon 9 by all the commercial satellite companies is pretty solid - it will take place over time as the quantity of safe lauches increases. It takes about 10 safe launches in a row to get insurance rates to come down. The Government companies, like Arianespace will continue based on political/lobbying issues, not related to technology/price.

One of two things will happen. Spacex will raise their prices continuously (which they have) to eventually get just below the price of the others, or the others will come down (unlikely).

Five years from now Spacex will be the dominant supplier.

Re:Arianespace

[Chris Burke]

Define easily.

"Mostly correct in the sense of plotting a course that intersects the ISS as intended, but not correct enough to finish the delicate procedure of docking without incident."

Sounds pretty easy to me, at least if you don't do proper diligence.

Re:Arianespace

[sunking2]

Ariane is nothing special, not sure why everyone treats them as if they are. There are a half dozen other commercial launch companies that do the same thing. Commercial space is nothing new. The only thing new is the potential payload including people sometime in the future.

Re:Arianespace

[CrimsonAvenger]

SpaceX has already put up satellites (on Falcon 1) for people other than NASA. Second flight of Falcon 1 carried a satellite on spec, as I recall.

In addition, SpaceX already has contracts over the next couple of years to put up satellites for MDA (Canada), SES (Europe), Thaicom (Thailand), NSPO (Taiwan), Asiasat (two launches), CONAE (Argentina).

Among others.

Re:Arianespace

[mcgrew]

Which is the problem here: why are we hearing about this from NASA?

Because NASA is going to use them to send supplies to the ISS, and probably a few other things as well.

Re:Arianespace

[tsotha]

It's worse than that. SpaceX relies on all sorts of NASA launch, tracking, test facilities, and the entire regulatory environment associated. Even the SpaceX honchos admit they can't do it without NASA. The only real difference between SpacesX and Boeing is SpaceX designed and built the rocket with their own money and Boeing did it on contract.

Re:Arianespace

[Anonymous Coward]

Duct tape and a piece of string may have helped there.

Re:Arianespace

[taiwanjohn]

Yes, just like Grumman, Martin, McDonnell and others relied on NASA back on the 60's, or like all their predecessors relied on NACA in the 30's and 40's. The big difference is that SpaceX is selling launches at a guaranteed price, rather than the usual "cost-plus" contracts that have plagued the space program for decades. And SpaceX is hardly without competition... Orbital is running their first ISS re-supply mission this summer. Frankly, this is a step in the right direction. And when you get down to brass tacks, you can't argue with the fact that SpaceX keeps delivering payloads to orbit at prices that even the Chinese can't match.

Re:Arianespace

[cowdung]

Sure. But the cost of an Ariane launch is 10000 per Kg whereas the cost of a Falcon 9 is 5000 per Kg.

Re:Arianespace

[FunkDup]

100billion dollar station

That's 150 billion. You were out by 69 days in Iraq.

Re:Arianespace

[sneakyimp]

Mod parent up. I found it really striking that SpaceX posts prices on their website. It remains to be seen how this plays out, but they are talking some serious shit over there at SpaceX. I'd love to see them back it up.

As for the need for a thousand dollar hammer, I call shenanigans. That hand tools in space link doesn't prove anything except carelessness.

Re:Arianespace

[Teancum]

God, it is like some people think Elon Musk hired a bunch of high school rocket club kids and is being allowed to dock with the space station based on plans drawn on the back of a napkin.

I know quite a few very successful engineering designs that originated on the back of a bar napkin. In some ways that is a wonderful way to get inspiration as you get out of the office and get a chance to think about other stuff to hopefully jar your mind into thinking other kinds of thought patterns. There is also something very relaxing about spending time together with co-workers out of the office as well, even if "shop talk" works its way into the conversation or is even deliberate in terms of a "planning meeting".

The difference though, if I may be so bold here, is that the plan doesn't stay on that napkin when you get back to the office. We aren't talking some Red Green Show fan that thinks duct tape and a vacuum cleaner can solve every engineering problem in the world. Then again there has always been a roll of duct tape on every manned spaceflight by NASA since the early Gemini flights, and arguably was what saved the lives of the astronauts on Apollo 13.

Re:Arianespace

[Anonymous Coward]

It is as much commercial space as China's, Russia's, or even ULA's are. Just because it is a private company does NOT make it private space.

IOW, it was funded and fully subsidized by gov. help. In addition, most of the gov. and private EU businesses are told to go with AS. In fact, ULA's is probably more commercial private space than is AS since they now have to compete for bids against SpaceX.

Re:Arianespace

[crutchy]

its a pity space should become the final profitable frontier

still, a lot can happen in at least 50 years before space becomes commercialized to the point where you or I could afford a holiday there

i wouldn't be surprised if the global economic and political environment is completely different and companies as we know them won't exist

?I can't understand why we don't take them in hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Morning, Omaha! Home of the next Mission Control!

Hey everybody won't you lend me your ear
There's something to fear - it's here and that's clear
Men gettin richer rapin the land
I can't understand why we don't take them in hand

Woa oh - Lord I don't want to be their fool no more
I don't want to be their fool no more
Open eyes but you're sleepin
You best wake up 'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in
'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in

Feel that our lives are in the hands of fools
Loosin their cool - it's us that they rule
Too many people sittin dead on their ass
They aint got no class people this time must pass

Woa oh - Lord I don't want to be their fool no more
Heeeeey, I don't want to be their fool no more
Open eyes but you're sleepin
You best wake up 'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in
'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN in

Woah ooooooohh - yeah tomorrow comes CREEPIN'

Ooooooh hear me cryin 'cause the people like me
That long to be free are not actually
Please everybody won't you hear this song
Help a country that's wrong to someday be strong

Woa oh - Lord, I don't want to be their fool no more
No! Lord, I don't want to be their fool no more
Open eyes but you're sleepin
You best wake up 'fore tomorrow comes CREEPIN
CREEPIN'...
(tomorrow comes CREEPIN' on...)

[tick!]

Woooooooowie!

Why all the hype?!

[erroneus]

I glanced over the article... hoping to find some pictures.. didn't find any. Boring. Then I read some of the words. Someone was in there whining "the space station is moving faster than a bullet!!!" Yeah? So? It's orbital space. That's how it works and speed is "relative." That's why it's not such a big deal to negotiate an exit from a freeway moving at 70MPH... the other cars are moving at that speed too! I'm not saying that docking to something in orbital space is child's play, but to talk about the station's speed relative to the earth is ridiculous and irrelevant. Only two things seem relevant to me. The first is the speed of the two objects relative to each other. The second is the possibility of space junk getting in the way.

All this stuff is interesting but it's not rocket science... well... okay, so it IS rocket science... but rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know?

Re:Why all the hype?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an article with pictures. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/04/frr-sets-april-30-dragons-first-flight-fully-prepared-iss/

Re:Why all the hype?!

[joh]

I'm not saying that docking to something in orbital space is child's play, but to talk about the station's speed relative to the earth is ridiculous and irrelevant. Only two things seem relevant to me. The first is the speed of the two objects relative to each other. The second is the possibility of space junk getting in the way.

All this stuff is interesting but it's not rocket science... well... okay, so it IS rocket science... but rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know?

Those two objects are not just moving in a straight line, they're in a orbit. This means the one object moving faster than the other (to close up to it) can't be and won't be in the same orbit as the other object. Getting one object near enough to another with no or very little relative motion between them (rendezvous) requires some totally non-intuitive ways of maneuvering.

Not that this is the hard thing about that mission. What SpaceX did here is building a launcher and a spacecraft to get into orbit and back again. *That* was hard.

Re:Why all the hype?!

[AikonMGB]

I've been saying it for a while now.. rocket science is easy. It, and the associated orbital mechanics, are governed by a relatively small handful of equations, and most problems have been solved already. Rocket engineering, on the other hand, is still a very tricky and complicated business.

Re:Why all the hype?!

[crutchy]

rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know

...just (still) ridiculously expensive, and getting moreso with ever increasing legalities and lack of trust in government and companies (increased political instability and lack of shareholder confidence).

the risk of significant R&D investment by any company far outweighs the benefits. its much cheaper to ripoff little innovators who can't defend their IP rights.

if courthouses were only allowed to be in space, we would have a huge space transportation industry funded by big corporate clients of greedy lawyers

Re:Why all the hype?!

[OwMyBrain]

... but rocket science is not so new and awesome any more you know?

Maybe not so new. Still awesome though.

Re:Why all the hype?!

[CaptainLard]

Hang on a second...First you're mad that the article didn't have any pictures and was just full of words. Now you're mad that those words aren't complicated enough? At war with your inner child perhaps?

Future progression...

[Covalent]

Orbital flight is great. So is docking with the ISS.

But my hope is that the future of private space is a private space station that does what a space station really should: Serve as an rotating orbital way station (e.g. see 2001). If you store fuel there, NASA can purchase fuel for fast-track missions to Mars, Europa, whatever. Let SpaceX raise money via space tourism and charging for the fuel. People can LIVE there (artificial gravity eliminates many problems) and train for Lunar or Martian missions there (closer to the rotating hub there are natural low-gravity zones). People can also increase their gravity on the return trip from these missions so as to be able to return to earth.

This would make the space station a usable thing for MANY missions, not just an extremely expensive orbital platform. It would also facilitate our permanent colonization of other worlds. And (best part) it can be done with existing tech.

Re:Future progression...

[camperdave]

The ISS is not some multi-billion dollar toy. It is a serious science station. A lot goes on there that we groundlings never hear a thing about. Here's a small list.

Re:Future progression...

[damburger]

I really don't see how spinning round an enormous space station (radius has to be on order 100s of metres for the occupants not to get sick from the rotation) where much of the mass is given over to providing one of the very conditions you go to space to escape will facilitate interplanetary space travel. It certainly won't facilitate easy fuel transfers. If you think it will, ask someone to do donuts in your car whilst you try to fill it up with petrol.

Re:Future progression...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you're talking with a Space Nutter. There's nothing rational about what they propose. They just think space is some kind of giant Wal Mart filled with resources waiting to be plundered, instead of the deadly, hostile, huge vacuum it really is. Any sci-fi they read is the equivalent of fully thought-out realistic engineering.

Re:Future progression...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's obvious we'll never get off this rock. The Aether doesn't allow it.

Re:Future progression...

[Teancum]

While I will admit that the ISS is doing some very impressive things, is it really worth the $100 Billion price tag to get it built? That is roughly the cost of about 4-5 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and certainly more than has ever been spent on the entire cost of exploring Antarctica since Americans first went to that continent combined.

Then again there are several members of congress that would like to simply splash the thing into the Pacific Ocean and forget it ever existed in the first place. If it could be used as a multi-billion dollar toy rather than literally get thrown away as useless scrap metal that will never even be recycled, that certainly sounds like a much better use for the place. If it can be used as a laboratory for real science, perhaps that might be a still better use of the facility... but there certainly could be some practical engineering applications for the ISS as well.

"don't should pay"

[SuperKendall]

..rich will donate more if taxed less and that the poor should don't pay enough.

A stunning example of the brilliance that is the statist mind.

And if that wasn't telling enough, they couldn't even figure out how to create an account...

Re:"don't should pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

A snarky right winger with little to say but vague insults, very typical. So, how does that not accurately portray your views? People such as yourself often claim that charity would 'step up' to replace government assistance, my parent poster, (also an AC) said just that. I guarantee that you've said such things in the past, perhaps that's why you were so 'stunned'.

Road trip!

[pcwhalen]

I call shotgun seat.

Re:sad

[aaarrrgggh]

Umm... Not into history much, eh? Nail in coffin might have been Obama, but NASA's manned space flight mission was killed by W with the 2006 budget cuts (exacerbated by congress).

Reality check

[damburger]

A little perspective is needed here.

SpaceX is doing something that the US managed during the Gemini program, the USSR perfected in the 1970's with the Salyut stations, and the Chinese have just done. The first two of those national programs did so without any help or prior knowledge to draw on, and the Chinese had less help from the Russians than is commonly acknowledged.

SpaceX has had their hand held every step of the way by NASA, and have benefitted greatly from NASAs expertise, experience and technology - as have all commercial space launch companies in the US. The people running these companies freely admit this, but the libertarian fanboys simply refuse to, and demand NASA "get out of the way". This is like a teenage, entirely dependent on his parents income to live, demanding they "get out of the way" of his life.

Secondly, the "commercial" label is quite a stretch. These companies are offering a service that is almost exclusively used by a government agency (the very one that fanboys want to die right now quickly please) - they are not catering to a market. The artificial generation of demand that they are exploiting is pure Keynesian. No wonder the space libertarian crowd don't want to talk about this aspect of it.

It is nice that the US is working towards a Shuttle replacement, regardless of how it achieves this - but it is wrong to take this as a sign of the Ultimate Capitalist Triumph In Space, or as a cue to tear apart NASA in the name of ideology.

The reality at present is this; you can support the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, and any other markets-above-all nuts - OR you can support the continued presence of the US in space. You cannot do both, at least not honestly.

Re:Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU. It is refreshing, and quite reassuring, to read a mature, rational and reasonable post in a space thread. Now just wait to see how quickly the Space Nutters start howling and crying and hurling insults.

Re:Reality check

[Penty]

SpaceX has over 40 booked launches for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, that qualifies for commercial in my books. It's one of the reasons they are looking for an additional launch site.

Re:Reality check

[damburger]

We are talking about manned spaceflight. I am well aware that SpaceX has attracted commercial clients for satellite launches; that you can make money putting communication satellites up is not news.

But their flagship program, the one that is being discussed here and touted as evidence that the glorious Invisible Hand will take us all to the stars, is what I am saying is completely dependent on NASA, and I'm, right.

Furthermore, the development of SpaceX launch technology, whilst commercial in its operation, would have been far more difficult or impossible without technological inheritance from NASA (e.g. pintle injector) and their support and facilities (remember where the first Falcon 9 was launched from...)

SpaceX is just an engineering company. They are a pretty decent one, so far. The fanboys (with a little subtle encouragement from Musk himself, unfortunately) are blowing them up to be a lot more than they are, and claiming that their Final Ideological Victory is at hand. It simply is not.

Re:Reality check

[Penty]

And your point is? Elon Musk has never been shy about the help they got from NASA and all the pioneers that went before. Since SpaceX is selling launches they are now more than "just" an engineering company. If all they were doing was NASA related activities I'd agree with you; but that is not all they are doing.

If you are looking for big dreams Mr. Musk's stated goal is to retire on Mars. You can't get much bigger than that.

Re:Reality check

[damburger]

My point is, it isn't likely. More likely is a successful but unremarkable existence as a LEO launch service provider.

Launching satellites, and even manned spacecraft, IS just engineering. That is not meant in a dismissive way, by the way. I just object to the ideological spin (only a fraction of which emanates from Musk himself.

Re:Reality check

[Bigby]

As a libertarian-leaning person myself, you are right on so many levels. SpaceX is entering into a heavily subsidized field. But the jury is still out on what they do after get through the POC. That will be new ground.

Will the "international government" allow for colonization on the moon? Mars? If they do these and issue Moon/Mars property rights, they could actually create quite a tourism market. Rich people would spend oodles of money on a day or two luxury vacation on the Moon.

But until the concept of "new markets" isn't in the equation, it will be a Keynesian drain on the government. We'll dig ditches just to fill them back up.

PS: I don't like the idea of drilling the moon; I don't want mass transported from the Moon to Earth and have the orbit get screwed up and send the Moon crashing into Earth. I think it is best to just avoid that temptation.

Re:Reality check

[Penty]

An engineering company would not be gearing up for volume production of their primary product. They would be shopping around trying to sell their design after having proven it.

Re:Reality check

[taiwanjohn]

The definition of "just engineering" depends on what the goal of engineering is. Musk's stated goal with SpaceX is to make life multi-planetary, and he has identified the most crucial enabler of that goal as rockets that are rapidly and completely reusable (IOW, what the shuttle was supposed to be). They are already selling launches (Falcon Heavy) for less than $1000/lb to LEO, but the big break will come when they crack the reusability barrier. That will open up a whole new range of possibilities and markets.

This may be "just" an engineering problem, but the ramifications are huge.

Re:Reality check

[DerekLyons]

So then, we're not actually entering an era of commercial space - we've been there for decades... Because Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, etc... have frickin' well blown up more private launches than SpaceX has booked - and they've flown successfully an order of magnitude more.

Re:Reality check

[sneakyimp]

I think this is in fact an ideological development as much as a commercial development. For this launch, SpaceX can claim the glory or the blame depending on the success / failure of the mission. NASA, for its part seems perfectly willing to share all their expertise in exchange for a guaranteed rate for space launches -- an accountability that their traditional funding patterns seem to lack entirely. And, if the mission fails, NASA can always blame SpaceX and keep themselves nice and squeaky clean.

Personally, I believe this opens the door to competition in orbital service provisioning and that's the real story. It's a bit like Apple delegating construction of all their iDevices to Foxconn instead of building a factory of their own.

Re:Reality check

[Penty]

Except Boeing and the rest of them are now down to only government contracts. Most commercial launches are now done overseas.

Re:Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

PS: I don't like the idea of drilling the moon; I don't want mass transported from the Moon to Earth and have the orbit get screwed up and send the Moon crashing into Earth. I think it is best to just avoid that temptation.

Just how much mass you planning on flying back to Reno, cowboy?

if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we...

[Thud457]

After all, it's not brain surgery. Or quantum mechanics. Or fusion power plant engineering....

Why all the docking hyperbole?

[BMOC]

Why do people in spaceflight always resort to hyperbole when describing docking maneuvers? Example from this article:

Then there is the complicated matter of latching on to the space station, which Musk described as moving faster than a speeding bullet. "I think it is important to appreciate that this is pretty tricky," Musk told reporters. "The public out there, they may not realize that the space station is zooming around the Earth every 90 minutes, and it is going 17,000 miles (27,000 kilometers) an hour," he added. "So you have got to launch up there and you've got to rendezvous and be backing into the space station within inches really, and this is something that is going 12 times faster than the bullet from an assault rifle. So it's hard."

But... your RELATIVE velocity is something that is tightly controlled, and during final docking maneuvers on the order of millimeters per second. So exactly what is so tricky? Yes you're moving extremely fast relative to the earths surface, who cares when that surface is 300 miles away? There isn't even any atmosphere to affect your relative position/velocity.

If this maneuver were indeed so difficult, why has there never been a major docking incident in orbit? We can't get computers to drive autonomously on earth, but we can program computers to automatically dock with the space station, that tells me it's EASIER than driving. I would wager that any navy pilots who turned shuttle pilots would say that carrier landings at night or in-flight refueling operations are far trickier than docking with the ISS.

Re:Why all the docking hyperbole?

[BMOC]

oops, I forgot about the mir re-supply crash. But IIRC, that crash was during a manual docking from the station due to some other complications.

Re:Why all the docking hyperbole?

[Raistlin77]

We can't get computers to drive autonomously on earth, but we can program computers to automatically dock with the space station, that tells me it's EASIER than driving.

Your analogy immediately took a nosedive when you compared driving a car with parking a spacecraft. Computers are already somewhat decent at parking cars. However, if a computer had to navigate a spacecraft safely through a congested orbit of spacecraft piloted by humans it would likely be just as bad as it would be driving a car.

Put simply, you've overlooked the reason computers can't drive cars autonomously - it's impossible to predict with 100% certainty what the humans driving around the computer will do.

Re:Why all the docking hyperbole?

[BMOC]

Computers are already somewhat decent at parking cars.

I never said parking, I said driving autonomously. Last I checked, the DARPA challenge was still difficult, traffic or no traffic. Your point is completely invalid.

I rarely ever reply to ACs...but for this idiot...

[Covalent]

That's because you're talking with a Space Nutter. There's nothing rational about what they propose. They just think space is some kind of giant Wal Mart filled with resources waiting to be plundered, instead of the deadly, hostile, huge vacuum it really is. Any sci-fi they read is the equivalent of fully thought-out realistic engineering.

I'll make an exception.

I'm a physicist, so I'm willing to bet I know more than you do about this topic. I'm familiar with the idea that space is, in fact, a deadly, hostile vacuum. But I'm also familiar with the fact that lack of gravity is, at least currently, horribly detrimental to human health. If we are going to exist in space long term, we need gravity.

The beauty of a rotating station is that the hub has zero centripetal acceleration. I'll simplify that for you: THE MIDDLE DOESN'T SPIN. That means that you can do all kinds of great zero-g research in the middle and also do your fuel transfers and other "easier in zero g" things there. And on the rim you can do all of the other valuable things I mentioned previously.

Now go back to your Jersey Shore and your Lite Beer and leave this conversation to people who know of what they speak.

Best B'Day candle ever!!

[lp_bugman]

Yep, Apr-30 MY B'Day :)

Re:I rarely ever reply to ACs...but for this idiot

[damburger]

I'm a physicist too.

The middle does spin, just not with such a great tangential velocity. Unless you have some kind of joint, at which point we are into the realm of some extremely tricky engineering (you want people on this station right? So how are you going to stop air getting out? Can you make this triply, quadruply redundant, like a good space system should be?)

And for what? Making something sci-fi like in LEO gets us not one iota closer to colonising Mars or any other world.

Re:sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, it is the neo-cons and other republicans in congress that are killing capitalism. Right now, they are working to kill off private space. Worse, they continue to push a red solution of having the gov. spending 22 billion and another decade just to get a 70 tonne-to-leo craft that will cost 1-2B to launch. OTOH, the true capitalistic approach is to back SpaceX with their Falcon Heavy that will send 54 tonnes to LEO NEXT year for only 100 million. But you red neo-cons continue to push communist style solutions. Just so that you can get a single party into control.

Yes, you and your red comrades are doing loads of damage to America, freedom, and Capitalism.