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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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).

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.