SpaceX's Falcon 9 Successfully Reaches Orbit

terrymaster69 writes "After an aborted launch attempt last week, SpaceX successfully launched its Falcon9 rocket Tuesday at 3:44 am EST. SpaceX's founder Elon Musk tweeted: 'Falcon flew perfectly!! Dragon in orbit, comm locked and solar arrays active!! Feels like a giant weight just came off my back :)' The Dragon capsule is scheduled to dock with the ISS on May 25th."

Comments

Congratulations

[AikonMGB]

Congratulations, SpaceX; this is a turning point in our space age =)

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations indeed.

)I do, however, reserve the right to take that back; for up to six months...)

Re:Congratulations

[Issarlk]

And still the same point where it was a few years ago!

Re:Congratulations

[Spritzer]

Having been a small part of this I can say that it's a VERY exciting moment. This is a giant leap toward the future of manned space flight, and everyone involved should be extremely proud of their efforts.

Re:Congratulations

[localman57]

Congrads indeed... finally we are at the point where NASA was in the 1960's!

And leaps and bounds above where we were yesterday. You fail to factor cost into your evaluation. In the 1960's low earth orbit was about developing the science to make it possible. Today, it's about developing the engineering to make it practical.

Re:Congratulations

[crazyjj]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).

So it could be a "turning point" in the space age alright. It could be the end of it.

Re:Congratulations

[h4rr4r]

NASA launches are already done by Boeing. Why would a different vendor change anything?

This means NASA will get more launches for their budget, if they get anymore cuts they have to have SpaceX just to survive.

Re:Congratulations

[Baloroth]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).

How is the ability to get to space cheaper and more efficiently a bad thing? For NASA or anyone else. There is zero reason to "slash" NASA's budget because of this: they are already working closely with SpaceX anyways, and will be commissioning them to launch flights. NASA runs the experiments and bigger scientific projects, like Mars rover missions and whatnot. The ability for them to get their projects into space cheaper can only be a good thing.

Really, if the government wanted to bail on space research they already could have. The DoD already has its rockets, the EU and Russia have theirs, really research is the only reason NASA exists anyways and is why they have existed for 20 years or so. This only helps that, by making the cost-to-orbit cheaper.

Re:Congratulations

[caseih]

You're right. A whole bunch of pork-barrel Republicans also see this as negative. I remember the sarcastic comments Republican congressmen made last test flight when they said, "congratulations to Space-X for doing what NASA did 50 years ago." Such ironic comments given Republicans' supposed private enterprise leanings, but easy to understand when you realize that NASA funding traditionally hasn't been about exciting science so much as a means of funneling large amounts of corporate welfare back into the home states of congressmen.

And really if you look back on the last 30 years of the space age, a lot has been accomplished by NASA. But almost all of the exciting science did not involve NASA's crown jewel space flight vehicles such as the Shuttle or Saturn 5 at all, but rather remote probes to the outer solar system, Mercury, Mars, Venus, and of course Earth, almost all launched on privately-made (though some designed with NASA's help) rockets like the Atlas, Delta, and so forth. Hubble is the one example I can I think of a scientific triumph that involved the Space Shuttle. Though with the money spent on the shuttle flights to fix and upgrade Hubble, I think they could have built and launched a couple of hubbles. I also think the Space Station is a success, and really was the purpose for which the Shuttle was built. However design by committee to do too many other things poorly means the Shuttle and the Space Station have cost orders of magnitude more than they should have. Had NASA developed a heavy lift rocket along the lines of the Saturn 5 I think the space station could have been lifted and built much more cheaply, and we probably would not have had a gap in manned flight that we now have.

The Space Shuttle was a fantastic vehicle, and a historic one, but it didn't do any of what it was designed to do that well, at least as far as economics go. Now that the program has ended and we can look back on it, we can safely say that from a program goals and outcomes point of view, the Shuttle was a costly lesson.

As for private rockets, as the other poster said, all rockets have always been developed under contract with NASA by private companies. As was said, Boeing has built a lot of rockets used to launch satellites over the years. The difference here is that NASA is only contracting the end result with Space-X (rocket launches). They did not have a hand in the rocket's design. This is a good thing I think. Space-X is still being held to NASA's strict standards for testing and reliability, but they aren't influenced by pork-barrel spending requirements, or being forced to design it a certain way (say with a solid rocket first stage). This is a very good thing and I hope it starts to spell the end of using NASA by Congress as simply a means of funneling tax dollars to specific subcontractors in specific states. Another real difference here is that Space-X is among the first companies thinking to build man-rated rockets, and feeling like they can do it economically and for less cost than the Russians, and certainly several orders of magnitude cheaper and more efficiently than NASA's own post-shuttle designs.

Re:Congratulations

[LifesABeach]

Am I the only one that thinks, "Why couldn't NASA have done this?" Must be something in the Tang.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Giant leap toward the future of manned space flight? Did they invent space rockets or space ships?

Soyuz has had several hundred successful launches along with many others. If you mean the involvement of private sector, then private sector has always been involved in space programs.

Re:Congratulations

[chispito]

For once, the mods are accurate. Very insightful. Thanks for sharing!

Re:Congratulations

[Brannoncyll]

As for private rockets, as the other poster said, all rockets have always been developed under contract with NASA by private companies.

Just as a clarification, the Ariane rockets in Europe are arguably the most successful rockets, launching almost half of all the commercial satellites. These have been developed by a private company, EADS Astrium (a subsidiary of EADS, a big aerospace and defence contractor) since the 1980s and produced/operated by another private company, Arianespace. The latter appears to be jointly controlled (in terms of shares) by EADS and the French space agency, CNES, so it might be considered as semi-private, but EADS is certainly a public company.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

However design by committee to do too many other things poorly means the Shuttle and the Space Station have cost orders of magnitude more than they should have.

The Space Shuttle's problems were not "design by committee" problems. If I had to pick the single biggest cause, it was having their budget radically slashed due to waning public interest in space post-Apollo and the increasing funding demands of the Vietnam War. This caused all sorts of compromises that either directly (aluminum frame instead of titanium, mandating a more complex thermal protection system) or indirectly (meeting Air Force design requirements to try to get Air Force funding) caused operations costs tradeoffs. Probably the next biggest fault was overambition. So little was known about reusables in space, and it was totally unreasonable to expect the first reusable orbital rocket to be a workhorse rather than a testbed. Heck, some of the problems were due to a lack of understanding of some aspects of rocketry in general, let alone reusables - for example, from the shuttle we had reinforced tough lessons like the famous one about the danger of debris against side-mounted rockets, but also less well known things like how because the side mount design puts most of your structural strength on the underside of your craft, you get a higher vibrational load from your main engines, which aren't linearly aligned with said structural support.

You *want* committees involved in design. No person is a god. Everyone has oversights, and it's *always* good to have multiple people there to point out when you've screwed up.

Re:Congratulations

[sneakyimp]

Read this page on the SpaceX site, especially this part:

As noted last month by a Chinese government official, SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they don’t believe they can beat them. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates.

and this part:

If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.)

The business-as-usual approach where the government hands NASA gobs of money so that NASA can in turn pay Boeing all the money they ask for is affected by SpaceX. It is my hope (and Musk's stated goal) to maintain low fixed costs for launches. If SpaceX delivers on this promise, that will mean that we can still maintain a presence in space for less money. Another thing to note: SpaceX is in California. I'd be willing to bet that Florida and Texas republicans will still want their pork projects for all the aerospace companies working out of Texas and Florida. Also, there's always the sacred cow of defense spending. Remember the X37-B? I'd be willing to bet more money gets spent on that in the future.

Re:Congratulations

[ceoyoyo]

This one is much cheaper.

Re:Congratulations

[nitehawk214]

Congrads indeed... finally we are at the point where NASA was in the 1960's!

And far further ahead of where NASA is today, considering SpaceX is close to putting people into orbit, where NASA is decades away if it will ever be able to do so again.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it correct to identify an industry as 'private' if its funding comes from non-market sources(ie government)? There is a term that defines entities that are nominally privately owned, but directed through statist means. That definition is economic fascism.

Re:Congratulations

[smelch]

No you aren't the only one. That's the way I feel about making computers too. "Why couldn't the government design the iPad?"

Re:Congratulations

[h4rr4r]

Yes, it is. Why would that hurt NASA?

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the sarcastic comments Republican congressmen made last test flight when they said, "congratulations to Space-X for doing what NASA did 50 years ago."

Nice troll there, but show me some PROOF about what Republican Congressman/woman said this. There must be a news story about such an inflammatory statement.

In fact, the vast majority of Republicans are cheering on SpaceX, for proving what can be done in private industry.

Re:Congratulations

[DesScorp]

As for private rockets, as the other poster said, all rockets have always been developed under contract with NASA by private companies.

Just as a clarification, the Ariane rockets in Europe are arguably the most successful rockets, launching almost half of all the commercial satellites. These have been developed by a private company, EADS Astrium (a subsidiary of EADS, a big aerospace and defence contractor) since the 1980s and produced/operated by another private company, Arianespace. The latter appears to be jointly controlled (in terms of shares) by EADS and the French space agency, CNES, so it might be considered as semi-private, but EADS is certainly a public company.

Not the same thing as Space X. These companies were created directly by European governments, often out of the remains of European government owned defense companies, many of them nationalized. Saying these companies are corporations is like saying that the US Postal Service is a corporation; technically true, but missing the forest for the trees. They were created specifically to serve their governments. Any private sector business is the cherry on top of the ice cream. Space X, on the other hand, was a private company from the ground up, specifically created for a perceived private space transportation market, the aim being to make a profit off of it for private investors. Government contracts will be part of that, but the aim of this company is to be the premier provider of space launch to private companies. NASA, for all the good it has done over the years, has been suppressing that private market. A company like Space X is long overdue.

Re:Congratulations

[Squidlips]

You are intertwingling the two NASAs. There is the Bad NASA (the manned pork flights) our of Houston and there is the Good NASA (unnamed scientific probes) out of JPL in Pasedena. Two totally separate mindset; one is to create jobs in Texas and FL while the other is to do science.

Re:Congratulations

[quacking duck]

Another thing to note: SpaceX is in California. I'd be willing to bet that Florida and Texas republicans will still want their pork projects for all the aerospace companies working out of Texas and Florida.

Not to defend pork spending, but Florida does have one huge advantage over California: it's the most south-eastern point in the US, and launching eastward from there gives any craft a free speed boost going into orbit. Any eastern state could do the same, but the further south you are, the more orbit options you have. I don't know where SpaceX's rocket parts are made (is it actually California, or is that just their HQ?), but obviously the further away this is from the launch site, the more costly the transportation.

There's no technical reason you couldn't launch eastward from California, except you'd be launching over land, and populated areas. For jettisoning booster stages (or falling debris from a failed launch), this is a bad idea.

Re:Congratulations

[ongelovigehond]

There's no future in manned space flight. It's a completely pointless exercise to send our fragile bodies up into space.

Re:Congratulations

[AikonMGB]

Speak for yourself, thank you very much.

Re:Congratulations

[Brannoncyll]

Not the same thing as Space X. These companies were created directly by European governments, often out of the remains of European government owned defense companies, many of them nationalized. Saying these companies are corporations is like saying that the US Postal Service is a corporation; technically true, but missing the forest for the trees. They were created specifically to serve their governments. Any private sector business is the cherry on top of the ice cream. Space X, on the other hand, was a private company from the ground up, specifically created for a perceived private space transportation market, the aim being to make a profit off of it for private investors. Government contracts will be part of that, but the aim of this company is to be the premier provider of space launch to private companies. NASA, for all the good it has done over the years, has been suppressing that private market. A company like Space X is long overdue.

With these defense/aerospace companies it is often difficult to tell how much of it was founded by governments and how much was private enterprise. If you trace back their histories you often find that they are formed from multiple mergers between private companies and privatised former-government setups, some or all of which are partially owned by the government. Its very confusing. However, EADS currently has almost 50% of its shares on the open market, which to me is the hallmark of a private company. Also, I understand that most of their business is with private companies; telecommunications and whatnot. For example, if you look at the launch history of Ariane 5, you see a very large number of communications satellites and only a few government contracts such as the ATV "Jules Verne" and science platforms like Herschel and Planck.

Re:Congratulations

[sneakyimp]

You make good points. Yes 28.5 degrees North and launching eastward gives a substantial boost to any rockets launched and so Florida and/or Texas will likely stay in the picture as launching point. I'd be willing to bet that NASA gave SpaceX the equivalent of free rent at the launch facilities (which are probably maintained by other contractors on NASA's behalf). The SpaceX information on the Falcon Heavy all list an 'inclination' of 28.5 degrees so I am guessing the assumption is all launches will happen from Kennedy in FL.

I watched a video on Elon Musk which stated that raw materials come in to the factory in Hawthorne, CA and rocket parts come out the other side. I believe most of their 1500+ employees are in CA (awesome vid of them cheering the launch here). Hawthorne is about a mile from LAX and they can probably just take the parts over to LAX and put them on a big transport and fly them. I'd be willing to bet that transport costs are but a tiny tiny fraction of the human resource cost of the project. Los Angeles has tremendous assets for this sort of work -- there's a hi-tech corridor around Glendale/Burbank with all kinds of operations. There's an enormous talent pool of skilled workers, access to sea, air, and land shipping, etc. Boeing's a little different but most of their employees are on the West Coast. Lockheed also has a lot of facilities in Cailfornia. As does Raytheon. If you want to hire talented and experienced engineers and rocket scientists (and support staff), there are a ton of them around Los Angeles.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. A whole bunch of pork-barrel Republicans also see this as negative. I remember the sarcastic comments Republican congressmen made last test flight when they said, "congratulations to Space-X for doing what NASA did 50 years ago." Such ironic comments given Republicans' supposed private enterprise leanings, but easy to understand when you realize that NASA funding traditionally hasn't been about exciting science so much as a means of funneling large amounts of corporate welfare back into the home states of congressmen.

It was Obama who cancelled the Constellation program and a Democrat led congress that cut NASA's budget. What do Republicans have to do with this?

Hate to respond to a political troll, but I'm tired of seeing Democrats do stupid stuff like this and then turn around and blame Republicans for it.

you say the same thing as the post you reply to - it's the republicans who want to maintain the NASA pork barrels and feel threatened by SpaceX, it's the democrats that actually cut the NASA budget.

Re:Congratulations

[Nethemas the Great]

Oh, come now. They make excellent computers. In all seriousness, government really doesn't need to be in a position of duplicating viable and affordable private sector alternatives. The private sector is far more adept at squeezing out economic efficiencies. The resources available to government would be better applied to research and other services that are either financially too risky or just simply not (yet) commercially viable.

Re:Congratulations

[FleaPlus]

Giant leap toward the future of manned space flight? Did they invent space rockets or space ships?

Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, he just made it cost-effective.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Many things that NASA currently has to plan a massive mission for can be done as a 'tag-a-long' on commericial flights, cutting the expense by huge margins.

I'd like to see some numbers at the cost of a space probe vs the launch expense of that probe.

I think that with such massive launch costs, probes are much bigger and more complex than necessary because they have to do so much to justify the launch price. I think of it like 'combined shipping'.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing NASA get out of the launch vehicle game and focus on exploration. I see NASA probes and test platforms lifted into space by commercial rockets as an improvement over the government run/administered space programs we are used to.

Re:Congratulations

[Nethemas the Great]

COTS was NASA and co's gambit to bypass Congress' inability to fully fund and support vehicle development to completion for essential launch services. NASA's budget isn't a monolithic entity. Congress allocates specific funds to specific pursuits. If COTS causes Congress to do anything to NASA's budget it be to shrink the allocation dedicated for launch services. However, that's because they wouldn't need it. Whether Congress chooses to reallocate those funds to other pursuits in NASA I suppose is anybody's guess.

Re:Congratulations

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing?"
No, one of two, I think this is the beginning of the end.
"So it could be a "turning point" in the space age alright. It could be the end of it."

I couldn't agree more.. Now we have wonderful things like patents and copyrights and IP law and profits in space, instead of science and exploration, benefiting all of man kind. We all know how IP spurs innovation right? I can see it now: "To see pictures of space just send $40 to Spacex and Subscribe now!" They will soon realize that getting into space is real real difficult, and making a profit out of it is even more difficult. By then NASA would have been cut down to a puny fraction of what they are now. And it will all end in a big profit less thud..

JFK's new revised speech for our century:
"We choose not to go to the moon in this decade, not because it is hard, but because it does not make money. So we will do the other things that make money.

Re:Congratulations

[rrohbeck]

The SpaceX people mentioned in the TV show before the aborted launch that they're looking into more launch facilities, especially in South Texas.

Re:Congratulations

[quacking duck]

I watched a video on Elon Musk which stated that raw materials come in to the factory in Hawthorne, CA and rocket parts come out the other side. I believe most of their 1500+ employees are in CA (awesome vid of them cheering the launch here). Hawthorne is about a mile from LAX and they can probably just take the parts over to LAX and put them on a big transport and fly them. I'd be willing to bet that transport costs are but a tiny tiny fraction of the human resource cost of the project.

Transportation costs would probably be minor by comparison, true.

And SpaceX won't be dealing with anything the size of the shuttle external tank, which had to be shipped by covered barge from around New Orleans. The Falcon components could also be transported by rail, since no one section of the rocket itself is wider than the old shuttle SRBs (Falcon: 3.2m, SRBs: 3.7m). The fairing, or payload capsule, is 5.2m though, too wide for train tunnels, so those parts probably have to shipped or flown.

There's probably some pages out there saying how the components are transported, but a quick Google didn't turn up anything useful.

Re:Congratulations

[CrimsonAvenger]

If I had to pick the single biggest cause, it was having their budget radically slashed due to waning public interest in space post-Apollo and the increasing funding demands of the Vietnam War.

The Vietnam War had little, if anything, to do with Shuttle's budget problems. US involvement in Vietnam ended about a year after Apollo, and about a year after spending on Shuttle actually began.

That said, you won't see me arguing much about the "radical budget slashing" at NASA, since it was reduced about 40% after Apollo.

And still isn't as much, in constant dollars, as it was at the height of Apollo.

Re:Congratulations

[hey!]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing?

Well, obviously not, but in the current political climate I'm pretty far to the left and I see this as a good thing. Except for people who have a vested interest in this question I should think you don't have much company.

Privatizing government *responsibilities* is a bad idea, because those tasks have to be carefully managed to ensure public interests are protected. It's that micromanagement where you can't control everything through a P&L statement that makes government inefficient, so farming out something like running prisons, providing police services or fighting wars to private contractors mans you've got the worst of both worlds: government inefficiency, and private sector indifference to the public good.

But we've always bought *stuff* from the private sector, whether it is weapons or tools or vehicles. And this is really not so radically different from the way we procured complex vehicles like the Space Shuttle or military planes, except that SpaceX is *operating* the vehicles as well. What matters is that the payload gets where it's going reliably; the public has no particular interest in *how* that is accomplished. So this looks like a good candidate for privatization to me, unlike fighting wars or running prisons.

Re:Congratulations

[GLMDesigns]

Couldn't disagree more. NASA in the beginning was tight engineering outfit and disciplined as an elite branch of the military. It has become a very bloated bureaucracy. NASA needs to focus upon cutting edge research and development and focus on issues that are not best suited to commercial enterprises such as (rogue asteroids, moon colonization, etc... ) Free enterprise, where investors put in their own money and follow their own ideas for solving the problem, is superior to a top-down,sclerotic bureaucracy in endeavors such as these. If government run bureaucracies worked in areas of commerce the Soviet Union would have thrived; the Chinese Great Leap Forwards would have worked and North Korea wouldn't be a basketcase.

Re:Congratulations

[Karrde45]

Senator Hutchison (R-TX)'s statement following the inaugural flight of Falcon 9 in 2010: "This first successful test flight of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs. While this test flight was important, the program to demonstrate commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, which I support, was intended to enhance not replace NASA’s own proven abilities to deliver critical cargo and humans to low Earth orbit. Make no mistake, even this modest success is more than a year behind schedule, and the project deadlines of other private space companies continue to slip as well."

Senator Shelby (R-AL): Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, whose state of Alabama is also a NASA stronghold, further decried the launch as a display merely replicating what “NASA accomplished in 1964.”
“Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation’s human space flight program,” Shelby said. “As a nation, we cannot place our future space flight on one fledgling company’s definition of success.”

Source: SpacePolitics.com

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job SpaceX!

Re:Congratulations

[Teancum]

How are you going to stop me from going up into space? Are you going to bribe some politicians (*cough* give campaign contributions) to pass laws prohibiting the exercise? Are you going to put a gun to my head warning me that you will kill me if I try to go into space?

I am not insisting that you go up, where you can remain a Luddite condemned to have you and your posterity remain on this rock we call the Earth while you starve to death on dwindling resources and technology that is falling apart because those who know how to repair the stuff you are using are moving on. You may have a point that your money shouldn't be used to engage in an endeavor you don't agree with, and if your argument is to stop spending tax dollars on something like this, you may have a point.

What I am challenging you here is why you should make such a bold pronouncement to deny me or my posterity from trying to go into space. If it is a pointless exercise, at least give me the chance to find out for myself.

Re:Congratulations

[Teancum]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).

How is the ability to get to space cheaper and more efficiently a bad thing? For NASA or anyone else.

The grandparent poster does have a point why this is a bad thing.

Government budgets are determined by how much you have spent last year, where spending more of your budget or indeed going over budget is rewarded with an even larger budget under base line budgeting systems. Obviously if you spent everything you had and needed more, you needed a larger budget and therefore deserve to get more tax dollars. If for some reason you have money left over at the end of the fiscal year, you really didn't need that money in the first place thus your budget will be cut.

So by giving NASA a cheaper option for going into space, their budget will need to be cut correspondingly cut back so the money can be given to those departments and agencies which can't seem to get their budgetary requirements under control.

Furthermore, SpaceX is a terrible company because most of its work force is concentrated in just one congressional district and just two other locations besides one foreign country where nobody votes in American elections anyway. To do a proper space program you need to put some part of the R&D as well as the fabrication needed to build the spaceship in as many of the 335 congressional districts as you possibly can, preferably in every single one of them. It doesn't matter if this spreading of the wealth costs more, what matters is that all of America has the chance to participate in this amazing adventure of mankind.

Just imagine how many people that an expanded NASA can put to work, and how many engineers stay employed when nothing actually makes the trip into space at all! Nobody has to die or even needs to remotely stay in danger as long as the engineers keep creating power point presentations showing off the latest SciFi research into superluminal flight concepts and ways to think America might be living on Mars in a hundred years or more. That is where government money really needs to go, where Microsoft can boldly go where no software company has ever gone before and expand its offerings to the most mundane of government bureaucrats.

P.S. I don't believe a single word of this.

Re:Congratulations

[Teancum]

There is a difference from a design by committee and a review by a committee. Most of the very successful engineering designs had a single designer who took the lead and made bold plans on how to get that design implemented. The rockets made by Werner von Braun are a good example of what a single person's vision can accomplish, even if there are hundreds or even thousands of people involved in the actual implementation of that idea.

I could point out other kinds of very bold designs for skyscrapers, bridges, ships, and other major endeavors that have been done by people over the years including major engineering accomplishments. Most of the projects that have been done by a single designer are the things which stand the test of time, are duplicated elsewhere, and subsequent generations try to emulate.

The Space Shuttle is a classic design by committee for a vehicle that not only didn't stand the test of time but had significant and insurmountable problems to the point it has all but killed even trying to build reusable spacecraft. There have been some important engineering goals which were attained through the Shuttle program, but imagine what it could have been had a lead engineer stepped up and put his name on the project and guided the whole thing with a personal vision.

BTW, that is precisely what the Falcon 9 has done. It is the vision of one person, namely Elon Musk. If something needs to be changed in the design, he is right in the thick of things to get it swapped out and can often make decisions right on the factory floor for key critical decisions that a NASA cost-plus project would take months or even years to review and implement (after the appropriate number of power point presentations over the issue being raised). Musk simply talks to the factory floor personnel and makes the decision in a few minutes or perhaps an hour of discussion on the factory floor. And you want to know why SpaceX is able to build the Falcon 9 cheaper?

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

Can you buy USPS stock? You can buy EADS stock if you wanted to.

Re:Congratulations

[sconeu]

CA also has one advantage. It's the best place in CONUS to launch polar orbits. This is one reason why polar shuttle flights were going to launch from Vandenberg. If you launch due south from there, any and all debris falls into the ocean, rather than on land.

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

Titanium isn't that great either. It doesn't melt at as low a temperature as aluminum, but it gets plastic and starts deforming at a much lower temperature than the melting point temperature, contrary to aluminum. The main issue was the USAF requirements. Large cross range (which meant it had to have wings), large payload to launch their spy sats (which meant the whole vehicle was incredibly more costly than the original Max Faget proposal).

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

The thing is NASA can't do today what it could do in 1964. Shelby is pork barreling hot air buffoon.

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

Just try asking Shelby how many delays and cost increases Ares I had before it was (rightly IMO) cut. Now congress added Ares V back to the program renaming it SLS. It is as expensive and useless as it was back when it had another name. Worse they aren't even intending to reuse work they did which was actually useful like the J-2X (which is like half complete) and instead plan to use the RS-68 for the second stage. RS-68 was originally meant as a first stage engine and I wouldn't be surprised if it cost as much to make the necessary changes than to complete J-2X. Then there are the discardable SSME engines in the base... the rocket is certainly not going to be cheap. The SSME was only cost effective in Shuttle because it could be reused like 10x without major maintenance between flights.

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

IIRC JPL is run by Caltech so it is not your average NASA facility to begin with.

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

They just carry the Falcon 9 to the pad by pieces on trucks: http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/122908-oversized.jpg

The Falcon 9 pieces are built in California, tested at Texas, then sent to Florida for final integration and launch.

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

The fairing is split in two halves IIRC.

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

Actually SpaceX seems to prefer keeping everything in-house as trade secrets rather than filing patents on anything.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

It's for people. The dragon will carry PEOPLE to the iss. Big difference.

Re:Congratulations

[timeOday]

large payload to launch their spy sats (which meant the whole vehicle was incredibly more costly than the original Max Faget proposal).

But isn't that what enabled the Hubble, which IMHO the Shuttle's signature achievement?

Re:Congratulations

[shutdown -p now]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).

A follow-up like you describe would be a negative thing, but that should not tarnish this launch - it is still a major milestone.

Ideally, what we'd see instead is routine launches relegated to SpaceX guys who do them cheaply and efficiently alongside purely commercial stuff, while NASA resources would be repurposed for harder (and more interesting) things.

Re:Congratulations

[tqk]

Congratulations indeed.

[(]I do, however, reserve the right to take that back; for up to six months...)

So, I guess we'll put you down in the "faint praise" column? Golf clap? What a cowardly pat on the back that is. In case you didn't notice, it worked! :-|

Re:Congratulations

[cheesybagel]

Sure. The Hubble isn't that different from a spy sat. The main difference is it is pointing to space rather than the Earth. The mirror for example was made by the same contractors usually used for the spy sats. Another thing that it enabled was assembling large ISS components. However it is arguable it if couldn't have been done cheaper with expendables anyway. The main point of the RLV was putting astronauts into orbit to begin with.

Re:Congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cowardly"?

No, fool - realistic.

You ever have a PayPal chargeback cost you a mortgage payment? I have. Sent the shit, got a signature - "Oh, i really don't FEEL like paying this." $5,800. Fuck PayPal.

We'll just see how he esteemed Mr. Musk does in this particular venue. I already know how he does in my little quadrant of the universe...

Re:Congratulations

[timeOday]

Yes, I have to wonder if it wouldn't have been cheaper to just build another couple Hubbles as needed and throw them up there, but that's been argued to death.

Many of the Shuttle's missions in its first decade were classified, so I suppose there's some chance they might have been doing something up there that required the Shuttle's full capabilities (i.e. not just putting up a bunch of spy satellites) although I can't imagine what that would be.

Welcome back to Space, America!

[localman57]

Yeah, it's still a little while until we get people up there in one of those things, but it's gonna happen. We're back, baby! Congrats to the Space X team!

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[crazyjj]

We're back, baby!

No offense, but we're not even back to 1969.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[h4rr4r]

But we are doing better than we were since then. The Shuttle was a huge step backwards, it took this long to recover from it.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[localman57]

Bullshit. In the 20th century, the American Government put rockets into space. In the 21st century, Americans will put rocket into space. Granted, SpaceX's first client happens to to be the government. But there will be other clients as well. Then, eventually, we'll have companies show up who's first client isn't the government. That's a whole new world.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure ULA has been doing this excact same thing with EELVs for decades.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[taiwanjohn]

Not quite the same thing.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[blueturffan]

We're back, baby!

No offense, but we're not even back to 1969.

No offense, but we haven't been back to 1969 since 1972.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[Alioth]

We're back, baby!

No offense, but we're not even back to 1969.

No, we're further along.

Saying "we're not even back to 1969" is like saying "We're still only at 1959" at news about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Sure, the 787 does pretty much the same thing as the original Boeing 707, but it moves more stuff for less money, and is a lot less expensive to maintain and a lot more refined. SpaceX's launcher is less expensive to maintain, moves stuff for less money and is more refined than what we had prior to 1969.

And SpaceX also cuts out the pork barrel spending, since SpaceX did all the specifications to make a space vehicle, not specifications to distribute work to various contractors in various politically favorable states, making things still more efficient.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[INowRegretThesePosts]

We're back, baby!

No offense, but we're not even back to 1969.

Can you possibly be serious? The Apollo program consumed nearly 10% of the GDP of a country which commanded almost 50% of the world economy.
Now we have a young private company, founded by an internet entrepreneur, launch this wonderful rocket into space. Can you really not see the vast improvement?

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[tp1024]

Apollo, at its very peak (in terms of cost) in 1968, cost 4.8% of the US government budget. Which itself is only a fraction of the US GDP.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[Anonymous Coward]

5% of the global economy... sometimes I have to stand back in awe of how much productivity was redirected and funneled into this project.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Thank you for correcting me. I had that number from memory; either someone passed me bogus information, or my memory corrupted data (should have used a journaled filesystem!). I am very embarrassed; I erred by about one order of magnitude.
Either way, commanding 4.8% of the government budget of the USA is a mighty feat indeed.
And SpaceX launching a rocket is also a mighty feat.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Actually I was seriously wrong about the numbers: Apollo commanded 5% of the US government budget, so its share of the global economy was less than 1%.

Despite this very embarrassing error, my main point still stands: Apollo was a pharaonic project and SpaceX's feat is impressive.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[Teancum]

ULA has given up nearly all commercial launches for more than a decade with just a few exceptions. Their costs are too high and most commercial payloads simply can't afford the prices that ULA charges.

Instead most of the commercial launches have been going to the ESA with Ariane launches or being done by rockets built by RKK Energia (which ESA even licensed now that Soyuz spacecraft are flying from South America). China has been able to get into the commercial spaceflight market and taken what few payloads didn't get snatched up by ESA or Russia.

It would be wonderful if ULA was more competitive, and perhaps with encouragement from SpaceX they might even get there. At the moment however and based on historical launches, that doesn't seem to be the case. Almost all of what ULA does are government launches.

Re:Welcome back to Space, America!

[cheesybagel]

The French already did Soyuz launches via Starsem. The difference now is they have a Soyuz launch at French Guiana which is nearer the equator and hence the payload to GTO has increased a lot.

More info and video

[daveschroeder]

SpaceX Launches Private Capsule on Historic Trip to Space Station

And don't forget the Space Launch System (SLS), which is the next iteration of (government operated) US human spaceflight.

Re:More info and video

[h4rr4r]

By next iteration you mean next pork barrel spending project?

That thing is designed for only one purpose, to keep the shuttle parts suppliers in business.

Humans will be flown on Falcon 9s and possibly Falcon XXs before the SLS even manages to go over budget.

Re:More info and video

[Nebulious]

SLS is joke. It's a rocket designed by congress. The design is intended to keep as many existing Space Shuttle Factories open as possible. The new components it does need get their contracts delivered right to the usual industry giants on a silver platter.

Re:More info and video

[daveschroeder]

If SpaceX delivers successfully on its manned spaceflight capability, I don't think anyone who actually cares about US manned spaceflight will be disappointed.

The fact that spaceflight has matured to the point that a private enterprise like SpaceX can now conduct this level of mission is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't obviate the need for government-supported and -operated space capabilities. The private sector isn't the only solution. They can apply what we've learned but do not have the same motivations of government space programs, which have resulted in nearly immeasurable advances and payoffs much closer to home.

The government acquisition and contracting system is far from perfect, but NASA, United Space Alliance, and United Launch Alliance are no slouches. ULA has success after success and knows how to reliably get research and military payloads to space. The fact that SpaceX is now in the mix is only a good thing. During this morning's press conference everyone involved from NASA to SpaceX was all smiles.

Re:More info and video

[localman57]

The space shuttle was a flying dump truck. The most awesomest dump truck ever, but still a dump truck. Falcon 9 is a flying dump truck. Just as there's no reason in the current age for the government to produce dump trucks, we're reaching the point where there's no reason for the government to produce a low-earth orbit vehicle.

Going to Mars, exploring asteroids, and other new ventures should now get NASA's focus. Those require the development of new ideas and science, and don't have a clear viable business plan to support private development of a turnkey solution.

Re:More info and video

[h4rr4r]

I don't believe the private sector is the only solution. I do know however that the SLS is as ill advised as the Shuttle program. It only exists to keep ATK and the rest of that bunch in business. Right now government space programs only motivation seems to be to keep their friends employed.

ULA/USA AKA Boeing has a history of charging ass loads of money and sucking off the government teat, I think you mean. These are the entrenched players that hopefully SpaceX will shake up.

Re:More info and video

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy test for government funded launchers: is at least the upper stage propelled by a nuclear thermal engine? No? Then politics has overridden engineering in its design.

Re:More info and video

[h4rr4r]

Going to Mars can be flown by private ventures. Sure NASA should focus on how to survive once we get there, but they do not need to build the rocket to get there.

Re:More info and video

[h4rr4r]

Why is that not also the measure for private launchers?

While I would love to see NASA get back into the Nuclear rocket game, your measure seems a bit unfair.

Re:More info and video

[daveschroeder]

So do you think the United States should divest itself of government-operated space launch capability? Should the lessons learned, capabilities gained, infrastructure created, and accomplishments of the last over-30 years be abandoned because the legislative, acquisition, and contracting landscape for government space operations isn't perfect? The "industry giants" in government space operations became "giants" for a reason.

SpaceX has shown that private enterprise has a place alongside government, but SpaceX isn't doesn't operate in a vacuum (pun intended!). Every launch on the SpaceX manifest through 2017 is happening via a US government launch complex, and for good reason. Just because existing space contractors benefit from SLS, it doesn't automatically follow that it's the "wrong way" to do things.

Space exploration is a key asset which serves to invigorate the national spirit, and government and private enterprise both have a significant place in the future of US space operations.

Re:More info and video

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're familiar with Elon Musk, he really does have very similar ambitions to NASA's stated mission. Hell, he even goes further -- he wants to retire on Mars. SpaceX is a tool for turning mankind into a multiplanetary species.

That said, I do agree that we have a need for government involvement in the space program -- trying new things, like manned deep space missions, better propulsion systems, docking with asteroids, and so forth -- not wasting their team increasing payload size to LEO.

Re:More info and video

[h4rr4r]

We don't have any now. They current space launch folks are all Boeing. They current industry giants got that way by doing well 40 years ago and now can charge any price they want. Mind you then price not a concern as we were racing the Russians to the Moon. Boeing is still trying to live in the cost is no object world as far as launches go.

Re:More info and video

[serviscope_minor]

Going to Mars can be flown by private ventures.

In theory, anything can be done by provate ventures. That doesn't make it true in practice. Getting to Mars is still difficult and unreliable, and generally uses different, purpose built systems each time. Doubly so as new ion/plasma based propulsion methods are being developed. That's still well ni the realm of basic (i.e. government funded) research.

Re:More info and video

[h4rr4r]

Researching those should be done by government research. Right now though, Falcon XX could be built and make it there.

Re:More info and video

[Anonymous Coward]

Making it there isn't the hard part; it's making it back that's the real "gotcha".

Re:More info and video

[icebrain]

There's a big difference between government-operated and government-produced, and it's the latter that GP was probably talking about.

It's one thing for the government to purchase launch services or to operate/maintain a launch site (parallels would be government hiring UPS to move some packages, or maintaining the airport). But the government (and especially congress) doesn't need to be making technical design decisions, like what the vehicle will look like, what engines it will use, and so on. The directive that SLS will use Shuttle-derived hardware is a blatant political bone to the existing companies, dictating sub-optimal equipment and configurations so as to keep those companies happy instead of finding a better solution freed of the constraints of said Shuttle-derived hardware (read: SRBs, VAB, crawlers, etc.).

Re:More info and video

[CrimsonAvenger]

Every launch on the SpaceX manifest through 2017 [spacex.com] is happening via a US government launch complex, and for good reason.

The good reason being that it's illegal to launch anywhere else in the USA?

Re:More info and video

[taiwanjohn]

Funny Elon Musk quote: "I think it'd be cool to be born on Earth and die on Mars. Just, hopefully, not at the point of impact."

It's near the end of this video.

Re:More info and video

[tibit]

Dave, honey, the would-be SLS service tower cost about as much as the entire Falcon 1 and most of Falcon 9 development program. $500M. The government is absolutely, completely over-the-top with their spending. You have no sense of scale whatsoever.

Re:More info and video

[tibit]

About those engineers: what, you think SpaceX hires people off the street, whose only exposure to the space program was via the media??

Re:More info and video

[saider]

Name one private company that could fund a Mars Mission and still remain solvent. Only the government has the money to be able to pursue a goal where there is no clear profit motive.

Re:More info and video

[serviscope_minor]

Researching those should be done by government research.

Part of research is then using it to build something to see if you were right and to find out what you missed. That means the government should still be working on it.
Falcon XX could be built and make it there.

Hopefully, maybe, probably, possibly.

Getting to Mars has proven exceptionally hard. Besides, the XX is a heavy launch *concept* and won't be going anywhere beyond LEO (or perhaps GTO) even when it is build. The actual getting to Mars bit isn't even a concept yet.

Getting to Mars with chemical rockets is very slow, makes rather inefficient use of launch vehicles, and is almost certainly not the best solution. Ion engines of some sort offer vastly better specific impulse, but of the ones suitable for such a mission, they are only in the early prototype stage, with lots of help from NASA.

Mars is still the domain of basic, government funded, research.

Re:More info and video

[Brannoncyll]

Going to Mars can be flown by private ventures. Sure NASA should focus on how to survive once we get there, but they do not need to build the rocket to get there.

Aside from prestige, how would you go about convincing a private company to fly to Mars? There's nothing there that is commercially exploitable. The best approach IMO is to create government contracts to lay the groundwork for exploiting mineral resources in near-Earth asteroids. Once money can be made from such ventures, private companies will invest in more advanced craft to fit the purpose, which by their nature will have many characteristics with the type of vehicle necessary to fly to Mars.

Re:More info and video

[harperska]

No, the best test for a government funded launcher: is the first stage a SRB built by ATK?

Re:More info and video

[Guspaz]

The SLS is estimated to cost $41 billion for R&D and four launches, and is expected to have a cost-to-leo of $8500 per pound. SpaceX is claiming that the R&D on their Falcon Heavy will be ~$2.5 billion, and they'll have a cost-to-leo of $500-1000 (with the lower figure depending on them getting stage recovery working).

Why does the SLS need to exist? It won't be able to do anything that projected private sector products won't be able to do for a fraction of the cost.

Let me put it in perspective: the Falcon Heavy is projected to put cargo into orbit for 3% of the cost of the shuttle (~1/30th the cost).

Re:More info and video

[Guspaz]

We don't really need the Falcon XX for a moon or mars mission: there is no reason why multiple smaller launches by something like the Falcon Heavy can't be used. This does require orbital rendezvous, and those are hard, but not impossible.

For example, the Saturn V took 119 tons to LEO, and a Falcon Heavy will take 53 tons (with 70 a possibility with a new second stage under development). Two Falcon Heavy launches, which would cost in the ballpark of $200m, has the lift capability of a manned lunar mission. Mars would require more launches, but when you can launch 15 Falcon Heavies with the capacity of almost seven Saturn V for the price of a single shuttle launch, well, it changes everything.

Re:More info and video

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Should the lessons learned, capabilities gained, infrastructure created, and accomplishments of the last over-30 years be abandoned because the legislative, acquisition, and contracting landscape for government space operations isn't perfect

I don't want to argue for or against government involvement, but what you said above is a straw-man. The infrastructure/technology created could be privatised. The debate is between continuing government involvement or privatising the current assets; no one is arguing that the infrastructure should be bulldozed and the documents/books be burned.

Re:More info and video

[jnaujok]

Just to be pedantic -- Elon Musk has said he could design the Falcon XX for $2.5B. Bigelow Aerospace can put up a "Mars Mission" space station using BA-300's for less than a Billion dollars more. Assuming six launches of the Falcon XX to put those six BA-300 segments into an interplanetary transfer orbit at $150M each (SpaceX's estimated cost per flight of the XX) and you have a total of right around $4.5B. Now, Apple has a warchest of $80B in cash, so Apple could launch not one, but about 30 missions to Mars and remain solvent.

Whether they'd get a return on their investment is a tough question, since I'm not sure whether FoxConn will set up slave labor camps on Mars to make iPads or not.

Re:More info and video

[fritsd]

Every launch on the SpaceX manifest through 2017 [spacex.com] is happening via a US government launch complex, and for good reason.

Question: why don't they launch from the equator, e.g. Kourou or Sea Launch?

And, talking about "capabilities gained", the Falcon burns kerosene and liquid oxygen, which presumably is a *lot* cheaper to organize the plumbing for than e.g. the Ariane 5's liquid oxygen and *cryogenic* liquid hydrogen. AFAIK you only need pressure to keep oxygen liquid. Sure, the Ariane 5 and Space Shuttle may have larger payload capacity, but at the cost of much higher complexity to keep the fuel cold before use, I think. Compare the picture of the Ariane 5 Vulcain rocket engine (here) to the picture of the SpaceX Merlin rocket engine; the latter looks a lot simpler to my untrained eye.

And what's the point of a solid rocket booster; you can't turn the thing off when you need to, you have to wait until it's burned out??

Lastly, I'd be nervous if a commercial company used hydrazine (eeewwwwww...) in huge quantity so we should be happy they use kerosene.

Re:More info and video

[brokeninside]

My previous comment upstream on this thread was modded down as a troll but there are at least two private organizations with the means and the motivation for not-for-profit space exploration: the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Re:More info and video

[DerekLyons]

Let me put it in perspective: the Falcon Heavy is projected to put cargo into orbit for 3% of the cost of the shuttle (~1/30th the cost).

On the other hand, the Falcon Heavy has a fraction of the capabilities of the Shuttle. It has no ability to return payloads. It has no ability to launch operators and payloads on the same flight. It requires the payloads to provide all of their own support. Etc... Etc...
 
In fact, the only way for a Falcon Heavy based program to even fractionally replace a Shuttle based system is for the Falcon to supplying a space station... Which increases your fixed costs (as the station must be supplied and supported whether or not it's in use), and limits you to payloads and projects suitable to the station's construction and orbit. (If your station is in a 40 degree orbit and you need a 60 or 20 degree orbit, you're screwed.) On top of that, since the major costs of a station aren't the launches required to put it in place... you don't save as much money as you might think.
 
It's not just about cost, it's also about capabilities.

Re:More info and video

[queazocotal]

"On the other hand, the Falcon Heavy has a fraction of the capabilities of the Shuttle. It has no ability to return payloads. It has no ability to launch operators and payloads on the same flight. It requires the payloads to provide all of their own support. Etc... Etc..."
This is of course true.
However.

This is arguing that you need a helicopter to compete in construction, you can't make do with much cheaper trucks.

Technically the shuttle is more flexible.
If, two people offer to build you a house - one has a helicopter, one has a truck - are you going to pick the one that ends up with the house needing to be custom-made out of lightweight materials at vast cost...

Re:More info and video

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to Mars can be flown by private ventures. Sure NASA should focus on how to survive once we get there, but they do not need to build the rocket to get there.

who should focus on how you survive while you are on your way? radiation shielding is a pretty huge, unsolved problem.

Re:More info and video

[Anonymous Coward]

They are launching at government facilities because they do not have their own launch site yet. They are working on building one.

Re:More info and video

[DerekLyons]

This is arguing that you need a helicopter to compete in construction, you can't make do with much cheaper trucks.

The level of illogical thinking required to believe that simply boggles the mind.
 

Technically the shuttle is more flexible.
If, two people offer to build you a house - one has a helicopter, one has a truck - are you going to pick the one that ends up with the house needing to be custom-made out of lightweight materials at vast cost...

Since the 'house' in question requires the same lightweight materials and custom building in either case... well, there's no reason to chose between one or the other on that basis. Your comparison also fails because launch costs, while not quite down in the noise, don't dominate "house" construction in space anyhow (because of the aforementioned lightweight materials and custom construction).

Re:More info and video

[Anonymous Coward]

The SLS is a private sector project, except it has an unlimited buudget paid for by the taxerpayers in the blue states, to give people in the red states jobs.

Re:More info and video

[serviscope_minor]

Dave, honey,

Wow, patronising. I do hope you're not like that AFK.

the would-be SLS service tower cost about as much as the entire Falcon 1 and most of Falcon 9 development program. $500M.

I couldn't find this, so [citation needed].

Also, what infrastructure facilities does the Falcon 9 need, and how much do those cost?

The SLS tower is presumably much larger since the SLS is designed with 7x the payload of the Falcon 9.

Re:More info and video

[CrimsonAvenger]

Getting to Mars has proven exceptionally hard.

So hard that we've been doing it four 40+ years.

Besides, the XX is a heavy launch *concept* and won't be going anywhere beyond LEO (or perhaps GTO) even when it is build.

It's a concept at this point. It must be noted, however, that all of the hardware was tested this morning (Falcon XX uses three Falcon9 first stages, plus one Falcon 9 second stage).

Note that Falcon XX can put 19000 kg into GEO. Which implies enough deltaV to put 19000 kg into a an orbit to Mars (it takes about the same delta-V to reach Mars as it does to reach GEO).

The actual getting to Mars bit isn't even a concept yet.

Hmm, a quick Google shows that JPL is already considering a Mars mission using Falcon XX, with Dragon as the lander. They want to fly it in 2018, assuming they get the budget next year....

Getting to Mars with chemical rockets is very slow, makes rather inefficient use of launch vehicles, and is almost certainly not the best solution.

If the choice is ~$200 million for a Falcon XX to Mars in 2018, or ~$2 billion for a design study that might turn into usable hardware by 2030, I know where I'd be putting my money, if I wanted to do some science on Mars....

Re:More info and video

[Karrde45]

I believe he's actually referring to the $500m Ares I Mobile Launch Tower

It was the smaller portion of constellation. SLS is roughly in the same class as the Ares V, the larger half the constellation fleet, which would undoubtedly have been far more expensive than the Ares I platform.

Re:More info and video

[Captain Nitpick]

Why does the SLS need to exist? It won't be able to do anything that projected private sector products won't be able to do for a fraction of the cost.

The SLS has one thing the currently-projected private sector boosters don't have: maximum payload capacity. The Falcon Heavy is only supposed to hit 53,000 kg to LEO ("only"). SLS is supposed to be around 100,000 kg. It's basically the Space Shuttle, and those were damn powerful engines. They just had the drawback of hauling 68000 kg of orbiter on every trip.

Falcon X might beat SLS, but that's almost purely concept art at this point. But then, my confidence in the SLS project isn't really any higher.

Re:More info and video

[queazocotal]

If launch becomes less expensive - then design margins widen, you can make stuff heavier, incorporate more spare subsystems, launch more consumables, ... all in the same budget.

You do not simply design the same way, and fly exactly the same hardware.

With launch costs at under a tenth of current ones, if you can't work out how to do space more cheaply, you need to get out of the way.

Much of the expense comes from lightening everything.

The 'shirt sleeve' environment of pressurised craft is in many ways pretty similar to earth.
Unless fluids or convection is involved - stuff tends to 'just work'.
You may need to add fans, but the modifications required are small.
If a kilo of wasted mass costs you not $10K, but $1K - suddenly a _lot_ of the time it becomes much cheaper to buy a commercial part, and test it, rather than spending $20K to design a fresh part - where that is sensible if you've got only one launch opportunity in the budget, and you're screwed if it doesn't work.

Re:More info and video

[bcrowell]

Space exploration is a key asset which serves to invigorate the national spirit

Two problems with this:

1. It isn't true. It doesn't invigorate the national spirit. The average American isn't interested and doesn't care. That's why launches stopped getting televised back in the 80's. What would invigorate my own sense of national spirit would be if we'd give trials to the people at Guantanamo. What would invigorate my stepmother's sense of national spirit would be if the government showered money on a few really good ballet companies like ABT. What would invigorate my next-door neighbor's sense of national spirit would be to see Bobby Labonte win a race.

2. Even if it were true, it would be an invalid reason for spending public money on the space program, analogous to the Romans spending money to entertain their people with lions eating Christians, or the Egyptians spending money on the pyramids.

Re:More info and video

[tibit]

I am like that when someone pisses me off. The cost I refer to is the entire thing. Test stands, launch facilities, failed launches and successful ones, every fucking thing. How can one not be patronizing when people just have no clue about how much can be done for under $1B. I wonder if SpaceX could pull off JWST for $1B. I think they probably could, but our government would much rather give out pork.

Re:More info and video

[cheesybagel]

NASA should be spending money on propulsion, ISRU, and life support R&D right now instead of trying to design another Saturn V with Shuttle components.

They could fund lots of asteroid prospecting missions using current vehicles without needing the large launcher. Arguably it would also be better to have propellant depots along the way to Mars or the Moon rather than trying to launch everything in one go. Unless they use nuclear propulsion or whatever it doesn't make sense to do frequent to the Moon or Mars using a single launch IMO.

Re:More info and video

[cheesybagel]

I think the private sector could build a large gridded ion engine quite easily. If they use commercial solar panels as the source of electricity they don't even need to do much additional R&D to get the thing working.

Re:More info and video

[DerekLyons]

If launch becomes less expensive - then design margins widen, you can make stuff heavier, incorporate more spare subsystems, launch more consumables, ... all in the same budget.

That's the theory as espoused by people who know pretty much nothing about the issues. The reality is very different however.
 
For example, as compared to the Shuttle a payload launched on Falcon has enormous weight penalties against it before it even gets off the cocktail napkin. (To replace all the support and services provided by the Shuttle that aren't provided by Falcon.) And given the great expense of the subsystems, it's very unlikely they'll add more spares - especially because that adds to maintenance and support workload. (And the educated will note they don't do that on Earth in extreme environments either.)
 

You do not simply design the same way, and fly exactly the same hardware.

I never said you did - I said you're ignorant of the ways the differences will manifest. There's a difference.
 

Much of the expense comes from lightening everything.

That's the article of faith among the faithful. And it's wrong - because the environment, the need for extreme reliability, etc... etc... all play a large role too, and they aren't going away.
 

The 'shirt sleeve' environment of pressurised craft is in many ways pretty similar to earth.

In a universe where all the equipment is inside the pressurized volume... that's relevant. But we don't live inside such a universe, and likely never will.
 

If a kilo of wasted mass costs you not $10K, but $1K - suddenly a _lot_ of the time it becomes much cheaper to buy a commercial part, and test it, rather than spending $20K to design a fresh part - where that is sensible if you've got only one launch opportunity in the budget, and you're screwed if it doesn't work.

In a universe where lowered launch costs don't mean lower budgets and remove the constraints of reliability, vibration resistance, extreme environments, atmosphere and environmental restraints (I.E. no outgassing, high fire resistance) etc... etc... That would be a true statement. In reality, it's cloud cuckoo land fantasy. Weight is far, far from the only constraint.

Re:More info and video

[blueturffan]

It's a concept at this point. It must be noted, however, that all of the hardware was tested this morning (Falcon XX uses three Falcon9 first stages, plus one Falcon 9 second stage).

I believe you're referring to Falcon Heavy. Falcon XX is a different beast

Note to North Korea...

[biometrizilla]

"Now THAT's how you put a satellite into orbit!", signed Elon Musk.

Re:Note to North Korea...

[Ihmhi]

On the first spacewalk, slyly plant a North Korean flag on some random american satellite, with the Korean for "BOOSH, BITCHES!". Wait a few months and watch NASA flip their shit trying to figure out how the North Koreans did it.

Well done!

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Fair play to the SpaceX team, its a world first for private enterprise.

Ref: "giant load off his back"

[Cragen]

Oh, NO! That "giant load off his back" means he's experiencing weightlessness which means he stowed away on the capssule! Abort! Abort! (Grats!)

Re:Ref: "giant load off his back"

[Vulch]

It's rumoured that several items on the countdown checklist involve confirming the actual whereabouts of Elon Musk...

Excellent work.

[nozzo]

What a milestone in space history.

Video of the launch

[Solozerk]

A HD video of the launch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNJG8MPcIc
SpaceX always releases amazing videos of their launch :-) in this one there's even a camera to watch the solar array deploying in orbit.

Re:Video of the launch

[hey]

Nice to hear they are all metric.

Re:Video of the launch

[bill_mcgonigle]

What's the part that occasionally rotates to the left, then quickly returns?

Re:Video of the launch

[amliebsch]

I believe it is a roll control thruster that operates off of stage vent gas.

Re:Video of the launch

[waferbuster]

One of the comments on the Youtube video summs it up perfectly. That was the most *nominal* launch in history. Everything worked as designed. Beautiful! Congrats to the entire team.

Re:Video of the launch

[bill_mcgonigle]

oh, clever. Thanks.

USA rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I love America (even though I am not American). Few countries *even have* a space-reaching rocket, while in the US multiple *private companies* have it.

Re:USA rocks

[localman57]

Well, come on over, then. We need more people with a can-do attitude. Visa applications are avaialble at your local embassy...

For those who don't know, Elon Musk was born in South Africa, and left to avoid Military Service in the 80's (which propped up the Apartheid government). He came over here, built paypal into a powerhouse (thorugh a merger, he didn't found it), founded Tesla motors, and he built a rocketship. Hell yeah.

Re:USA rocks

[Ihmhi]

For those who don't know, Elon Musk was born in South Africa, and left to avoid Military Service in the 80's (which propped up the Apartheid government). He came over here, built paypal into a powerhouse (thorugh a merger, he didn't found it), founded Tesla motors, and he built a rocketship. Hell yeah.

Oh yeah? Well this morning, I played the Torchlight 2 beta and got an Engineer all the way to Level 12! And then I'm going to the dentist in an hour!

Man, fuck those guys that put my life into perspective. ):

Re:USA rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, in an international market you want all the smart educated people with a can do attitude on your side! Oddly we still make students that come here for an education promise to go home once that education is complete!

Re:USA rocks

[melted]

>> Visa applications are avaialble at your local embassy

US visa and naturalization process is completely fucked in the head. We let in millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico, but god forbid a qualified, highly educated foreigner moves here from Eastern Europe, China or India. Oh no, that would be too much strain on IRS counting all those taxes he/she'd be paying.

Re:USA rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Well, come on over, then. We need more people with a can-do attitude. Visa applications are avaialble at your local embassy...

Sorry, but I am too coward to leave my family and friends.

Re:USA rocks

[cellocgw]

Well, come on over, then. We need more people with a can-do attitude. Visa applications are avaialble at your local embassy...

Forget it. I get a Platinum AMEX card or nothing!

Re:USA rocks

[alnjmshntr]

The reason for conscription in those days was not so much to prop up the apartheid government as it was to fight a proxy war against the Soviets and Cubans.

Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[scharkalvin]

It may be possible to certify the man rating of the Dragon spacecraft before the Falcon launch rocket. So the Dragon may be able to return astronaughts to earth FROM the ISS before it is used to bring them up there (since no ride on the rocket would be required if the Dragon is sent up empty).

Re:Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, whenever it's be mroe safe than old fashioned Russian way of doing it?(though probably much cheaper...)

Re:Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired...
The question is, whenever it will be safer, than old fashioned Russian way of doing it?(though probably it will be much cheaper...)

Re:Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[Megane]

That's an interesting idea, but there is no need for it. Once a Soyuz is up, it doesn't cost any more to get down. Even the custom-fitted Soyuz seat is needed for the ride up. One of the rules on ISS is that every crew member has to have a seat on an escape vehicle, so the Soyuz that they rode up on stays docked. Even crew that was brought up on Shuttle and left behind on ISS had a Soyuz seat ready, because the shuttle took someone else back to free up that seat. And there's no other way up right now, so everybody has a Soyuz seat ready.

On the other hand, this will mean that we will now have a decent downmass capability. Soyuz had very limited downmass, and theoretically you could put cargo return capability on a Progress, but nobody did it, because it was cheaper to just let the "trash" burn up. Now they can afford to return stuff that wasn't worth returning before, allowing more reuse and analysis of what had to be classified as "trash" before.

In the end, the one thing the Shuttle could do that Crew Dragon or Falcon Heavy won't ever be able to do is return full-size modules. It will only be able to return what you can stuff through the hatch, but that's not too bad of a limitation.

Re:Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[Megane]

Sounds like the title of a Three Stooges movie. Hmm, I wonder what new ways they could figure out to abuse each other in microgravity...

Re:Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[dlgeek]

The Soyuz has a limited on-orbit lifetime though. After the recent loss of a cargo Soyuz, there was a threat we'd have to abandon the station if the currently docked capsule expired before they could re-certify the platform and launch a replacement mission. Being able to fly a rescue dragon to the station for re-enty could be a posisble way to avoid this in the future by allowing a crew to stay up longer.

That being said, it's of course incredibly unlikely that we'd see such an convergence of event during the short time between the certificiation of Dragon and that of Falcoln that would cause NASA to pay for such a flight. Since I doubt you could even fit much cargo on the passenger version on the empty ride up, it'd be incredibly expensive to do except in the case of extreme emergency.

Re:Man rating of Dragon and Falcon

[DerekLyons]

That's an interesting idea, but there is no need for it. Once a Soyuz is up, it doesn't cost any more to get down.

On the other hand, they've already had to perform unplanned on orbit maintenance to a Soyuz...
 

On the other hand, this will mean that we will now have a decent downmass capability.

We had decent downmass capacity - far exceeding that of Dragon.
 

In the end, the one thing the Shuttle could do that Crew Dragon or Falcon Heavy won't ever be able to do is return full-size modules. It will only be able to return what you can stuff through the hatch, but that's not too bad of a limitation.

Falcon/Dragon cannot provide "free" (byproduct) water to the station. Nor, as currently configured and contracted for and with current plans, can it provide reboost capability. (Or, yes it may be able to do it in the misty future, but that's going to be expensive and it currently not on anyone's radar.) It's currently, and for the foreseeable future, very limited in the amount and configuration of unpressurized cargo it can deliver. (Again, future improvements to that are currently not on that radar.) Nor can it deliver specialized equipment and trained operators in a single flight. (Which increases your total program risk.) Etc... etc...
 
The Shuttle was a full sized crew cab pickup truck - Falcon/Dragon is a subcompact, and is never going to be anything but. Falcon Heavy is a stack of power points and not currently on NASA's radar.

IPO

[vlm]

1) screw the FB IPO thats a pump and dump scheme of the largest scale. I want to buy shares in spacex, they're actually doing something interesting, valuable, and apparently profitable. Which is probably why they're staying out of the stock market (the old saying, bad money always drives out good money...)

2) I wanted to ask for a spacex tee shirt for fathers day, but all I can find is a couple IP violators, people ripping off newswire photographers, that kind of product. Their might be "real" shirts out there... where? I would think a tastefully done black tee shirt sold directly by spacex to wealthy /.ers could be a significant funding source for their operation. Well, honestly all it would probably pay for is free donuts and coffee on Friday, but I'd feel cool contributing to that too.

Re:IPO

[Infiniti2000]

Their might be "real" shirts out there... where? I would think a tastefully done black tee shirt sold directly by spacex to wealthy /.ers could be a significant funding source for their operation.

I couldn't find anything and I doubt there is anything yet. I sent SpaceX an e-mail so maybe they'll decide to get something setup. I'm pretty sure it would be real easy to do and only take a day or so.

Re:IPO

[rasmusbr]

I doubt that SpaceX has time to think about general public PR beyond the obligatory webpage and social network presence.

Who knows, maybe they would be open to outsourcing it to a company that already sells merchandise to geeks? Try mailing your favorite geek stuff supplier and ask if they can get SpaceX stuff.

Re:IPO

[Megane]

You didn't google for "spacex merchandise"? http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2012/04/spacex-swag.html (which is also a pretty good blog about KSC stuff, with lots of photos to give you a serious nerd boner) I suspect that JSC Houston probably has a visitor complex with merchandise too.

Re:IPO

[Megane]

More: http://www.thespaceshop.com/spacex.html which means they did eventually get that stuff on their web site.

Also, the linked blog entry has a comment that says the Apollo Saturn V Center (also at KSC) has the merch.

Re:IPO

[TheDarkMaster]

I agree. If I were an investor in stock market, SpaceX would be an investment much more interesting (and perhaps even profitable!) than Facebook.

I still remember the time when stock exchanges served for you to become a partner in companies that you found interesting, not the current casino.

Re:IPO

[cmdr_klarg]

I wanted to ask for a spacex tee shirt for fathers day, but all I can find is a couple IP violators, people ripping off newswire photographers, that kind of product. Their might be "real" shirts out there... where? I would think a tastefully done black tee shirt sold directly by spacex to wealthy /.ers could be a significant funding source for their operation. Well, honestly all it would probably pay for is free donuts and coffee on Friday, but I'd feel cool contributing to that too.

Here you go:

http://www.thespaceshop.com/spacex.html

Enjoy!

Re:IPO

[0123456]

Please explain how using government money to send Tang and Cheez Wiz barely out of the Earth's atmosphere is valuable or interesting?

Because the same spacecraft, if successful, will later be used to put tourists in orbit.

And SpaceX have plenty of non-government customers lined up for Falcon launches in the future.

Re:IPO

[hackertourist]

Why settle for a t-shirt when you can have a scale model Falcon 9 instead

Re:IPO

[sneakyimp]

Write Elon Musk a fan letter. It's worth a try. Be sincere.

Re:IPO

[Karrde45]

Kennedy Space Center's souvenier shop sells some SpaceX gear (which I assume is authorized)

Seemed very slow

[k2backhoe]

In the video it seemed to take 60 seconds to reach 225 m/s, or around 3.5 m/s/s. That's only 1/3 G!! Did the takeoff seem slow to others? Even manned rockets accelerate a lot faster than that! What's wrong with my analysis or their rocket?

Re:Seemed very slow

[macshome]

The Shuttle only pulled up to around 3G on launch as well via a combination of throttling down and course changes.

Re:Seemed very slow

[Sez Zero]

I didn't look at your analysis, but ten minutes from launch to spacecraft separation seems fast enough to me. Faster means more fuel and stronger (heavier) rockets and spacecraft. Why go faster, especially if you are trying to become a low-cost leader?

Re:Seemed very slow

[tp1024]

Gravity works even after take-off. Thrust at lift-off is a bit less than 1.3 times the weight.

0.3g is left, so long as the rocket is flying vertically, which it does, at first.

Re:Seemed very slow

[necro81]

Acceleration is slowest right after launch, because that's when you have greatest mass. It is also when you most have to content with atmospheric drag. As you get higher, you've burnt off a lot of propellant mass, you're past maxQ, acceleration increases. Listen to some of the other time-velocity marks in the video, and you'll see this bears out.

Re:Seemed very slow

[k2backhoe]

With rockets, faster acceleration means LESS total fuel to orbit, not more (assuming you can just use the same fuel either faster or more slowly). The shorter time you are fighting the 1G, the less total fuel you use up. Imagine takeoff to orbit at 1.01G (1G earth, .01G motion). instead of 2G. You take forever to achieve orbit and the first 1G is wasted all that time. The only advantage I see is (as you say) lighter engines and structure. Still seems low compared to any other rocket I have ever seen.

Re:Seemed very slow

[quacking duck]

We've been spoiled by shuttle launches, where the solid rocket boosters propel the shuttle stack upwards at much greater acceleration. Most liquid-fuel-only rockets, including the Saturn V if you watch old video, will launch much more slowly, especially right after launch.

Re:Welcome back to space?

[Neil Boekend]

The fact that education is cut means they don't know what they miss...

Re:RSA rocks

[Infiniti2000]

Thanks to a South African entrepreneur.

Which is just fine by us. We're supposed to be a melting pot. It only makes the case stronger with immigrants succeed so well in the U.S.

Re:RSA rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

That had to move to the US to make something of himself.

Good on him and good for the US.

Disclaimer: I'm from Germany.

Re:RSA rocks

[localman57]

And the attitudes and opportunities to bring him here. He was an American all along, it just took him a while to realize it.

Re:Welcome back to space?

[h4rr4r]

The North Koreans cannot even get a satellite into LEO, what makes you think they have a man rated launcher?

The Space elevator needs technology not yet invented, deep space missions are being planned.
None of those other nations have a way for the average man to go either. Falcon 9 lifts half of what the shuttle was rated for to LEO, Falcon Heavy will toss twice as much as the shuttle to LEO.

Re:Welcome back to space?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering its proven the US over spends on education, a cut in education is simply not likely to hurt anything.

The real problem isn't education spending, but broken programs like no child left behind which effectively prevents teachers from teaching. Not to mention a general lack of cultural interest in things like science, math, and physics. And it doesn't help that US companies are working hard to out source these jobs to foreign countries.

No, a reduction in education spending is actually sane. Hell, in my own state, Texas, we literally waste tens of millions every year on stupid shit we simply don't need, on duplicate facilities and staff. All so they can then justify a larger budget and higher salaries.

The problem with America's education system has little to nothing to do with spending.

Re:Welcome back to space?

[serviscope_minor]

The North Koreans cannot even get a satellite into LEO, what makes you think they have a man rated launcher?

Er, NK already have a man-rated launcher. Well, it's man-rated given the value put on life in NK at any rate.

Absolutely inspirational

[benjfowler]

Makes me feel motivated, seeing what a small team of super-talented people with high standards, working their guts out, can achieve.

A great example for all of us.

T-shirt

[Corf]

A google search for spacex shirt leads to thespaceshop.com in the second hit, from which one click leads to their entire selection of Spacex merch: http://www.thespaceshop.com/spacex.html. They look pretty legit to me.

Re:RSA rocks

[smpoole7]

> Thanks to a South African entrepreneur

No, thanks to an AMERICAN. He immigrated here, accepted citizenship and is now an American. I welcome people like him. If he ever shows up at my doorstep, I'm grilling burgers for him -- anyway he likes. :)

SpaceX could get us to mars.

[Lumpy]

A mars ship could be launched as modules that are connected in space. and Space X already has a heavy lift plan to do just that.

Re:SpaceX could get us to mars.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the one Constellation had?

Re:SpaceX could get us to mars.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Had that fully working did they?

Re:SpaceX could get us to mars.

[0123456]

You mean like the one Constellation had?

No. This one is actually affordable.

Re:SpaceX could get us to mars.

[robot256]

lol no, SpaceX can do it with rockets that won't explode and/or vibrate shit to pieces, and actually abort non-catastrophically. The Congressional Launch System never had that kind of flexibility in design.

It is a very positive step

[Shivetya]

because it is no longer the exclusive domain of government. While government focused efforts can be very good at times it can also hold back progress as well.

Re:Welcome back to space?

[h4rr4r]

It might meet their safety rating, but it does not even make it to LEO. If you want to launch people into the Sea of Japan, it would be cheaper to use a catapult.

good grief, it's a joke...

[Thud457]

I woulda bought one, but they don't take paypal.

BTW, that's the KSC online shop, not directly from SpaceX, WTF?

Re:good grief, it's a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the government is acting as a clothing contractor for their contractor. NASA is now in the garment biz while private enterprise is taking supplies to LEO. Kinda makes your head spin.

Re:good grief, it's a joke...

[vlm]

BTW, that's the KSC online shop, not directly from SpaceX, WTF?

Theres two classes of "product" I'm trying to avoid. Examples below:

1) I could steal a pix of cmdrtaco from the new york times without paying for copyrights and put it on a tee shirt with the caption "I love /. (tm)". The KSC online shop probably prevents that as I doubt they wanna get busted as IP pirates or gray market cloners or whatever phrase.

2) I could use my limited artistry skills to draw a parody of cmdrtaco's face and put it on a tee shirt with a caption "I love /.(tm)" and post it on cafepress. Note I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee, contractor, or have any financial relation with /, other than sending a couple bucks as a subscription years ago. So I'd be using their reputation for my personal profit.

I wanna avoid option 2 as well. If the KSC product is "officially licensed by spacex" then I will press the buy button myself, but oddly enough they do not mention that anywhere on the page that I could find. Otherwise its merely a black tee shirt where someone printed a company name on it... I can make that myself.

Its like the subtle difference between wearing a random blue polo shirt and dockers and calling it a best buy uniform, and wearing a genuine embroidered best buy tee shirt and dockers. I was thinking of wearing that for Halloween one year... probably best that it didn't work out.

Anyway, TLDR, I want a spacex tee shirt, not a tee shirt that has the word spacex written on it.

Re:good grief, it's a joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww that's too bad. Maybe you should be a big boy and get a real form of payment to use online.

Re:RSA rocks

[b0bby]

> Thanks to a South African entrepreneur

No, thanks to an AMERICAN. He immigrated here, accepted citizenship and is now an American.

That really is a big difference between the US & a lot of other countries - you can truly become an American, no matter where you're from. It's not just words, people really do accept immigrants (despite the anti immigrant rhetoric which is so much in the news) in a way that I haven't seen in say, France or the UK. Third generation immigrants still don't seem to be a part of French society; third generation Americans almost always are completely assimilated. When my wife became a citizen, it was pretty moving to see the other people at the ceremony from all over the world being welcomed. It wasn't just typical bureaucratic form filling, it really was an open armed welcome, complete with video welcome from the president.

Awesome but...

[RogueWarrior65]

Why does it take three friggin' days to dock with the ISS? I never quite understood why it takes so long to do that sort of thing? Seems to me that orbital mechanics is well understood and computer processing speeds are fast enough to handle navigation with maneuvering thrusters.

Re:Awesome but...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why does it take three friggin' days to dock with the ISS? I never quite understood why it takes so long to do that sort of thing? Seems to me that orbital mechanics is well understood and computer processing speeds are fast enough to handle navigation with maneuvering thrusters.

Well, one reason is that matcing orbit quickly requires more deltaV than they're willing or able to spend.

Re:Awesome but...

[sahonen]

Perhaps one day when we have more experience we will be willing to launch a vehicle directly into its target orbit - One hour from the launch pad to being in sight of the ISS should certainly be possible. However, in this circumstance, caution is the ruler of the day. This will be SpaceX's first ever attempt at an orbital rendezvous. There's nothing on board that is using consumables to survive, there's plenty of time to slow down and get things right while remotely piloting a never-before-flown spacecraft into an incredibly expensive space station with several people on board.

Re:Awesome but...

[Anonymous Coward]

On this particular flight, SpaceX has to demonstrate it's ability to precisely control their spacecraft before they can approach the ISS. It will take on full day to do a fly around and a mock abort. If all goes well with that, they will approach the station and do another mock abort only closer and then they will receive clearance to dock.

Normally it takes a day or so to get aligned with the station due to the small amount of fuel on board the orbiting space craft. They have to *nudge* the craft into alignment with small bursts.

Re:Awesome but...

[0123456]

Why does it take three friggin' days to dock with the ISS? I never quite understood why it takes so long to do that sort of thing?

First the rocket needs to launch in the correct orbital plane, regardless of where ISS is in its orbit. Then it has to synchronise the orbit so that it can perform a transfer from the initial parking orbit to where ISS is.

If you wanted a direct launch to ISS you'd have to wait until the ISS orbit crosses your launch site, and it's in the right place in that orbit. Which won't happen very often.

Or you could cut the payload to zero so you can carry enough extra fuel to match orbit during the launch. But that rather defeats the purpose of launching something there in the first place.

Re:Awesome but...

[icebrain]

Why does it take three friggin' days to dock with the ISS? I never quite understood why it takes so long to do that sort of thing? Seems to me that orbital mechanics is well understood and computer processing speeds are fast enough to handle navigation with maneuvering thrusters.

Gemini XI demonstrated first-orbit rendezvous and docking in 1966. Apollo missions did it in less than two orbits after lift-off from the moon. But there are reasons it isn't routinely done for ISS launches, and it has nothing to do with not understanding orbital mechanics, or computing power, or anything like that.

Taking a day or two to get to rendezvous not only allows for a larger (read: more flexible) launch window, but also provides a good time for the spacecraft to do systems checkout, allows more flexibility for the launch vehicle in achieving orbit, and provides more maneuvering flexibility for the spacecraft.

Re:Awesome but...

[Vulch]

And a less often publicised reason: It has proved very difficult to predict who is going to be throwing up once they reach orbit, but two days is almost always enough to get over it. An unmanned craft with fuel to spare could do first orbit docking, but if you've got a crew on board you probably don't want a vomit soaked control panel at the wrong moment.

Re:Awesome but...

[hob42]

So we built this computer controlled car from scratch and we programmed everything ourselves, but we know the physics involved very well and have done a lot of software simulations, so we're confident that we can accelerate this car to 125 miles per hour and bring it to a stop in 3.7 seconds to a point exactly 1.5 inches from a target. Would you like to volunteer to be our stopping post, for our very first time we've ever actually tried this car outside of a simulator? I'll even give you a remote control panic button if something goes wrong, although we haven't ever tested that before either.

Keep in mind that there are six people on the ISS, and before it's cleared to get within even a mile, it has to check out many brand new hardware systems that have never been used and prove several abort procedures to show NASA that it is safe to approach and dock. Although NASA has had a hand in testing and review of this stuff, everything about it is brand new and could fail spectacularly. They've got a pretty busy schedule over the next few days, it isn't just sitting around waiting for it to "catch up" with the station.

Re:Awesome but...

[Guspaz]

They did launch directly to the ISS, but they will keep their distance for a while. The three day delay is not so it can catch up to the ISS, but so that they can do lots of testing and checklists before they're allowed to actually approach the station. There are a ton of firsts happening on this mission, and everything needs to be checked out before they dock. Once they start that process, they'll get a bit closer, do some testing, get a bit closer, do some more testing, get a bit closer, do some more testing, etc. The mission checklist is pretty extensive, in terms of "approach to X metres, get go/no-go, approach to Y metres, get go/no-go, approach to Z metres, get go/no-go, etc"

Re:Awesome but...

[toruonu]

I think it would take a lot less, but as this is the first attempt by a private company they are going to do it safe. The first two days are spent mostly on learning and testing the maneuvering of the dragon, then they will pass within 1.5 miles of ISS and attempt a series of maneuvers to prove that they are capable enough and only after that are they allowed to move to 3m and be pulled in by the ISS robotic arm. So it would probably happen a lot faster once they have proven themselves, the software etc, but the first time out they're taking their sweet time to test stuff the first few days. Well that's at least what I picked up from the webcast event today before and after the launch.

Re:Awesome but...

[Kjella]

Why does it take three friggin' days to dock with the ISS?

Well in this case because it's a test run and the Falcon 9 will have to prove their maneuvering capability in space before they let it too near an absurdly expensive space station. It could and will go faster in the future...

Re:Welcome back to space?

[jamstar7]

NASA plans a deep space mission, and Congress immediately cuts its budget.

We could have already had a full blown colony on the moon if we haddn't gone 'quick & dirty' with Apollo. A lot of the Gemini missions, particularly those involving Skylab, were equally applicable to building a construction shack/outpost in NEO as they were to get the expertise needed for the Apollo LEM docking once the ascent stage got off the moon. We could have had dozens of missions to the moon with durations of weeks not hours, but to do it right meant we would have lost the race to the moon. The only way to make it in time was to 'Plan B' it with Apollo. Problem was, when Apollo was done, there was nothing to come after it, and no logical 'next step'.

That's one way to look at it

[brokeninside]

Another way to look at it is that once manned space flight is a reality for private firms, the resulting complications that arise from conflicting interests will result in NASA being re-engineered at least in part as a law enforcement agency. And, once that happens, they will be in a veritable arms race with private concerns. That will drive all sorts of new research and development.

current human space travel 2% fatality rate

[peter303]

The real soul searching will happen when the first private astronauts or passengers die. Note this fatality rate is comparable early airplane travel and climbing Mount Everest.

Re:current human space travel 2% fatality rate

[dnaumov]

The real soul searching will happen when the first private astronauts or passengers die. Note this fatality rate is comparable early airplane travel and climbing Mount Everest.

Airplan travel fatality rate is a LOT lower than 2%.

Re:current human space travel 2% fatality rate

[MarcoAtWork]

he said "EARLY" airplane travel

Re:current human space travel 2% fatality rate

[icebrain]

GP said early airplane travel. Think 1920s, not 2010s. Though, I still doubt the fatality rate was quite 2%.

Re:current human space travel 2% fatality rate

[Anonymous Coward]

*early* airplane travel

Re:current human space travel 2% fatality rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Early airplanes crashed often, quite true. But rarely were the crashes fatal. The first trans-American airplane flight took months because the plane crashed 16 times (out of 70 takeoffs/landings) and had to be fixed each time. By the end, only a handful of the original parts remained on the plane. If I remember right, the worst injury he got during that trip was a broken leg.

Now, he eventually did die, but not during that flight. You chance a low risk enough times, eventually it'll kill you. But even in the early days of aviation, the fatality rate was nothing like the rocketry rate is today after a centuries of rocketry / 70 years of manned rocketry.

Insurance?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Seeing that Falcon 9 is a private vehicle does it need to carry comp and collision? What about uninsured driver? PIP? And is LEO 'no fault'?

(I ask only partly in jest)

Re:Insurance?

[Bigby]

I can only guess the government is giving them free insurance. Much like the government allows companies to pollute my property to a certain extent.

10% of SpaceX employees NASA alums

[peter303]

According to a NPR piece last week. These are mostly rocket scientist who really want to work on space, but pushed out of or escaped from a shrinking NASA.

In some sense a bit of continuity with the old wisdom is a good thing as long as it doesnt stiffle new ways of doing things.

Re:10% of SpaceX employees NASA alums

[CannonballHead]

I'm confused... 10% = most?

sideways shuttle = odd

[fritsd]

The space shuttle was a flying dump truck.

You don't say.
Dutch cartoonist Jos Collignon was right: picture of space shuttle.

I always wondered why the thing had to be strapped *SIDEWAYS* to its fueltank and booster rockets.

Re:sideways shuttle = odd

[deroby]

Maybe because when put elsewhere the engines would fry some other part of the 'package' ?

Re:sideways shuttle = odd

[fritsd]

IANARS, but I thought that all modern rockets work like this: burn the largest, first-stage rocket using oxygen from the air, when it's burnt empty then you push the empty metal stage away (I don't know how; maybe explosive bolts or something), then you're already well above the troposphere and stratosphere, after the (heaviest) first stage has been dropped off it exposes the engines for the second stage (don't know if they use oxygen from the air at this altitude or oxydant fuel they took along from the ground), you burn them for the large delta-V push to get you into orbit (large push because the spaceship itself has significantly less mass at this point). If necessary repeat for a third stage (in case of the Space Shuttle, that would be its own engines).
I'm thinking, the air resistance must depend mainly on the surface area of the projection viewed from above of the launching spaceship, that must push the corresponding column of atmosphere to the side. If it's all stacked on top like e.g. a Saturn V, Ariane 5 or Soyuz, it's a minimal surface, but if it's two thingies bolted next to each other, surely that's twice as big. Maybe that only matters in the troposphere though, because the density of the air drops off quickly (what's the equation for that, actually: gas pressurized by gravity. is it exponential?)

Re:sideways shuttle = odd

[amliebsch]

No rockets use oxygen from the air even during the first stage; it's simply not concentrated enough even at sea level. What you're describing is something like a ramjet or scramjet, but those are still in active development and don't work at all at low take-off speeds.

Re:sideways shuttle = odd

[Anonymous Coward]

You could just go and look it up. The shuttle's odd configuration was dictated by the facilities used to service and launch it. If the orbiter was stacked "on top", the first stage needed to lift it would need to be about the size of a Saturn V. The stack would not fit in the Saturn V assembly buildings, and each launch would be hugely expensive. The shuttle was supposed to be a low cost, quick turnaround vehicle that would eventually make spaceflight routine. Reusing Saturn V infrastructure and having the only throwaway part be a fuel tank was part of that.

Re:Welcome back to space?

[h4rr4r]

Why the fuss about a moon colony?
The moon seems pretty worthless, check out the deltaV needed to get from there to anywhere vs from earth. Then realize anything leaving the Moon already paid a lot of DeltaV to get there from earth.

The Moon is pointless as far as I can tell.

A Moment of Silence and Respect please...

[JSC]

According the The Reg, James Doohan's ashes are aboard. Boldly go, Scotty. We miss you

Re:A Moment of Silence and Respect please...

[Jeng]

I wonder if that might have been part of the reason for a very cautious launch. They didn't want a million geeks pissed at them for blowing up Scotty.

Re:A Moment of Silence and Respect please...

[Anonymous Coward]

No please.

He's going where he wanted to all the time.

No time for sorrow this.

Re:A Moment of Silence and Respect please...

[alnjmshntr]

Actually they mentioned in the press conference, his remains were actually in the second stage, not in the capsule.

Re:A Moment of Silence and Respect please...

[Kittenman]

According the The Reg, James Doohan's ashes are aboard. Boldly go, Scotty. We miss you

James Doohan was an actor. You do know that, don't you? Would you be as misty-eyed should (say) Cary Grant's ashes go up?

Re:A Moment of Silence and Respect please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, really? And here was me thinking he really was the chief engineer aboard the starship Enterprise, who for some unfathomable reason decided to live out his last days in our time.

And who the fuck is Cary Grant? Don't answer that, if I gave a fuck I would look it up myself.

Re:RSA rocks

[taiwanjohn]

Ironically, his family came from America. He's named after his grandfather Elon, who lived in Minnesota.

Immigration rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Which is just fine by us. We're supposed to be a melting pot. It only makes the case stronger with immigrants succeed so well in the U.S.

The US should vastly increase legal immigration. The anti-immigrant attitude is based largely on the idea that "immigrants take our jobs" which, in my arrogant opinion, is outrageously idiotic. Each immigrant does take a job, but he also creates wealth and spends money on the American economy, thus creating additional jobs. And if immigrants did increase unemployment, then additional Americans (USA-born) would increase unemployment by the same logic. Therefore the greater the population the bigger would be unemployment. Therefore tiny island countries would be unemployment-free worker paradises, which AFAIK does not happen.

And even if the immigrant sends money to his family overseas, those dollars will eventually be used to buy American goods, thus increasing exports.

Increasing legal immigration, would reduce ethic tension, illegal immigration, crime and tax evasion, thus benefiting the USA. It would also benefit immigrants, who just want a nice honest job.

Can anyone explain to me how immigration harms America?

Re:Immigration rocks

[sneakyimp]

What would be nice is if we could deport some of our dregs at the same time. Like those Westboro Baptist Church a-holes. Send them over to the Middle East and see how they like it in the promised land.

Re:Immigration rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the planet isn't white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP), so the law of averages dictates that as immigration increases, the WASP share of the population will decrease. This scares the shit out of old WASPs, who tend to vote Republican.

Re:Immigration rocks

[omnichad]

Because the low-income employment of one new person doesn't provide enough income to provide enough new employment in service industries. They have to keep money for themselves to build a savings, they pay taxes and reap benefits of taxes. Hypothetically, let's say there's 1 job position available in the entire country. Someone takes that job for $22k/year. Yes, they go to Wal-Mart and to McDonalds, and spend a lot of their money. But they still extract $22k/yr. from the economy and put back maybe $10k/year. A net drain.

The same thought process would apply to other population control measures as well. Of course, you'd then say that population growth or growing your economy via exports is just one big pyramid scheme, and you'd be right. If we didn't live in a world of income inequality, then more people coming in would be just fine. But since we are a nation of people who strive to have more and more wealth, more people is just competition.

Re:Immigration rocks

[darkwing_bmf]

You have a misinformed view of economics. If you take a job for $22k a year, you aren't taking away $22k from the economy. You're adding to the economy by whatever you're employer benefits minus 22k. Also, there is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs. We would have run out a long time ago if that were the case. There is always something that needs to be done because human wants are unlimited.

Re:Immigration rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Well, at least that source of anti-immigrant sentiment is going to decay.

Minority babies now outnumber white infants in the US, preliminary Census estimates show, a finding that indicates racial and ethnic minorities will become the nation's majority by the middle of the century. Just under half of all children under 3 are non-Hispanic whites, down from more than 60% in 1990, the AP reports. Meanwhile, 80% of seniors in America are white, as are 73% of those aged 45-64.

(http://www.newser.com/story/121760/white-babies-now-a-minority-in-us.html)

Great news, IMHO.

Re:Immigration rocks

[TheSync]

Someone takes that job for $22k/year. Yes, they go to Wal-Mart and to McDonalds, and spend a lot of their money. But they still extract $22k/yr. from the economy and put back maybe $10k/year. A net drain.

Why is McDonalds paying the employee $22k/year? Because they are receiving more than $22k/year in income from hamburgers due to the employee (likely $50k/year).

Why do people purchase enough hamburgers to pay McDonalds $50k/year for that employee? Because they are hungry, and the burgers are worth $50k/year to them!

Every voluntary exchange of goods is a net benefit for both sides of the transaction (or else one or the other would not engage in it), and thus a net expansion of the economy of the country (and world).

Voluntary exchanges are never a "net drain" to the economy, they always expand the economy.

A "net drain" to the economy are barriers to voluntary exchanges, say not allowing someone to hire someone else because of where they were born. By killing transactions through regulations like that, you reduce the total economy.

Low-skilled immigrants play an important role in allowing higher-skilled workers to specialize in their high-skill roles (see Khan Academy on Comparative Advantage and Specialization), allowing high-skill workers to be more productive.

Re:Immigration rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Increasing legal immigration, would reduce ethic tension, illegal immigration, crime and tax evasion, thus benefiting the USA. It would also benefit immigrants, who just want a nice honest job

I meant of course *ethnic* tension.

I also forgot to say that absorbing more people into America helps it compete with China. Not that America must reach 1.3B, but at least some 750M would be nice to maintain economic and military superiority over that large evil tyranny.

Re:Immigration rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of US Immigrants do not become Billionaires, and they send their paychecks back home. This is a bad news. Immigrants suck wealth out of this country. They do not create wealth. Mexicans alone are responsible for draining $25 Billion a year from our economy into Mexico.

Re:Immigration rocks

[MaWeiTao]

If only things were so black and white.

Immigration is extremely beneficial for a nation. When immigrants come here to study and work; when they thrive essentially. But if you've got a significant percentage of the immigrant population segregating themselves into closed communities or becoming a burden on social systems then there is a problem. The host nation benefits from immigration when there is integration because it opens channels for communication, understanding and embracing new ideas.

What happens when, for whatever reason, they are not productive and instead use our social programs without paying into them? Insensitive or not questions need to be addressed because we don't have the money to throw around. Even if we withdraw from all foreign occupation that doesn't mean we should be throwing money at this sort of thing instead of devoting it towards more beneficial programs like science and infrastructure. These are the things which in the long-term will produce more jobs instead of merely creating dependence. Certainly, there are a lot of Americans already in this situation. But why aggravate the problem before properly addressing it?

There's the constant claim that Americans are terrible towards immigrants, ironically perpetuated Americans themselves. The fact of the matter is that the US continues to be one of the friendliest towards immigrants. It's still relatively easy to immigrate to the US, compared to pretty much any other country. The requirements to come here are much lower and it's relatively easy to get established. In a lot of countries you can't even buy property without some kind of permanent residency status, in the US you don't even need a green card.

And I haven't even touched on illegal immigration. Perhaps granting these people legal status would be beneficial. But that's not a guarantee and it raises questions of fairness. Is it fair that people who couldn't be bothered to follow the rules deserve instant citizenship when legal immigrants are not? And doesn't that encourage increased illegal immigration when those people know it's only a matter of time before they're awarded the same status?

The situation is never clear cut. And even though some people take things too far it doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate concern buried in there.

Re:Immigration rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I agree with much of what you said. I think I have expressed myself bit poorly. I owe you and the American people an apology.

I didn't mean to paint the US as being more xenophobic than other nations. I am aware that the USA is far more immigrant-friendly than many other countries. I heard that the USA takes more immigrants than all other countries combined. I also heard that legal immigrants are treated very well.

Regarding poor-skilled immigrants who can't support themselves: I think that this is partially caused by their illegal status. If they were legal, they would more easily find a decent-paying job. Why don't we let them in for a given period (say, 5 years) and then give citizenship to those who managed to support themselves? The American market is FULL of opportunities, even for low-skilled people. Only hard work is needed. A *huge* number of immigrants (much more than the US currently allows) could come and support themselves, making America a greater nation.

Regarding illegal immigration: it is indeed a problem, because I think it fosters crime. But it would be much smaller if the US increased legal immigration. And, I don't oppose Arizona-like laws. And more border vigilance. Perhaps a border fence (I heard claims that the fence would harm the environment, but this could be exaggerated tree-hugging bullshit. Since I haven't studied this idea carefully - it doesn't impact me here in Brazil - I don't have a strong opinion).

What do you think?

Re:Immigration rocks

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I also don't have a strong opinion on amnesty. I find it hard to make an opinion on it.

And, what is the problem with people who don't learn English?
There are some German-speaking people in the South of Brazil, and I see no problem with it.

Maybe the problem is not cultural diversity itself, but those idiotic leftists who think that communities should be immune from the police. Here in Brazil we have a related problem: the shanty towns of Rio de Janeiro, while having the same ethnicity as the rest of the city, became communities on their own. And full of drug traffic. Every time the police entered the shanty towns, the left would libel the police and paint them as oppressors and violators of human rights. This made politicians very afraid to send police there. It was made worse by the fact that some leftists "intellectuals" taught guerrilla warfare to the drug dealers. Drug dealers with guerrilla training, holding advantage of terrain (due to the geographical features of the shanty towns and due to knowing the civil population) and heavy weapons (rifles, Submachine guns, hand grenades and even anti-helicopter bazookas) are very hard to face. But I digress.

Re:Immigration rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain to me how immigration harms America?

Mexico is a resource rich country that should have prosperity similar to the USA. It doesn't because of its political system and culture. If too many people move to the US and don't absorb American expectations and attitudes about government, we will adopt aspects of their failed systems. We want immigrants that want to be Americans, they will refresh the American dream. We do not want immigrants that just need work and want American to be more like their home country, but right now that is what we have got. There are just too many people flooding across the border that don't want to be Americans but just need some money to send home and it's fucking up our culture, and our culture holds our unique view of governments place (under our collective foot) that in my view has been the reason for our prosperity.

Re:Immigration rocks

[Whorhay]

On top of all that, every dollar that the employee is paid is coming back into the economy through one avenue or the other unless they are stuffing it under their mattress. Although in many illegal immigrant's cases they are sending back home to relatives and so it's not being spent back into our national economy immediately.

I could be completely wrong about the following but I don't see where I could be. Money put into a savings account is better for our economy than buying stock. When you buy stock all you are doing is trading investments with another person. When you deposit a dollar in a bank account the bank will then leverage that dollar and loan it out to multiple people, hence allowing that dollar to be spent many times over.

Re:Immigration rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

I could explain 17 different factors that would show "harm". You would just dismiss them anyway. Mostly though, the flame war you are trying to start is about ILLEGAL immigration. Another point that is lost on the politically correct.
I give Elon all the credit he deserves, I haven't decided whether being a draft dodger is good or bad yet. I wonder what he would do if given the choice here in America.

This Is Awesome

[jdev]

This is a fantastic thing. Take a look at NASA's goal.

To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

Being the tow trucks to space has very little to do with that. NASA has done that for more than half a century now and I'm personally very happy to offload that responsibility to private entities.

So what does this mean for NASA now? I'd say it clears up their responsibilities for space exploration. More rovers. More probes. And if we can justify it, more manned space flights. If private entities can handle sending things up to orbit, then I see that as a good thing.

Mod parent up and grandparent down!

[INowRegretThesePosts]

There is no reason to think that the privatisation of space access will reduce science research.
In fact, science research will become much more efficient because rockets will be far more cheaply manufactured by competing private companies. Rocket technology will progress faster.
There is no reason to think we will have less Mars probes.

Do you think we would have more Antarctica expeditions if ships were built by the government?

AYN RAND

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Just had a posthumous rectal orgasm!

Re:Not all private ventures are for-proft

[INowRegretThesePosts]

?
I didn't understand that.

Re:RSA rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be tempted to serve FalconBurgers :)

0% for Soyuz in the last 40 years

[tp1024]

Quite unlike another manned spacecraft that was recently (and quite deservedly) retired.

Re:0% for Soyuz in the last 40 years

[HuguesT]

You chose your 40-year window quite well. Komarov died in Soyuz 1 in 1967 when his parachutes failed to deploy, and Volkov, Dobrovolski and Patsayev died in Soyuz 11 of a depressurization event in 1971. Since then no other deaths, but there has been two other almost fatal problems with Soyuz capsules, most notably with Soyuz TM5 in 1988.

Overall the fatality rate in Soyuz is 1.75% and the one in the Shuttle is 2%. Not a statistically significant difference in my opinion.

Re:0% for Soyuz in the last 40 years

[tp1024]

You're right. When it comes to current space travel, 40 years is of cours much too long.

can't tell if trolling or just stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you STFU if you're to goddamned dense to get the fucking joke.

Re:RSA rocks

[Saffaya]

That really is a big difference between the US & a lot of other countries - you can truly become an American, no matter where you're from. It's not just words, people really do accept immigrants (despite the anti immigrant rhetoric which is so much in the news) in a way that I haven't seen in say, France or the UK. Third generation immigrants still don't seem to be a part of French society;

Then I'd like you to explain how this son of immigrant managed to become president of France, if what you say isn't bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy#Family_background

"Sarkozy is the son of Pál István Ern Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa[5] (Hungarian: nagybócsai Sárközy Pál [nboti arkøzi pal] ( listen); in some sources Nagy-Bócsay Sárközy Pál István Ern),[6] a Hungarian aristocrat, and Andrée Jeanne "Dadu" Mallah (b. Paris, 12 October 1925), whose Greek Jewish father converted to Catholicism to marry her French Catholic mother."

Re:RSA rocks

[localman57]

One counter-example does not an arguement make. The US also elected the son of a Kenyan to be President, but I'd hardly say that our race issues are solved. The ability of someone who is obviously not of the majority genetic stock in a country to get a taxi late at night is a better indicator of social harmony than a rise of one gifted indivdual to the top layers of the government.

Elon Musk is THE man

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if he can only apply his great economic talents to similarly cut the cost of relatively low tech electric cars to a comparably affordable level.
There is apparently some expat South African mofo in the US trying to gouge people by selling electric cars north of $100,000. Unbelievable.

Re:RSA rocks

[jnaujok]

I don't know any native-born American who is anti-immigrant. In fact, I am a third generation American, and I never even found anyone who'd call me anything but an American, and that includes my wife's family, who came over on the Mayflower. About the only people I know in America who'd call me anything but an American are those with names like John Crazy Horse. Of course, they do have some basis for that...

I have absolutely no problem with, and I don't know a single person who does have a problem with, every person who fills out a legal visa application and shows up in the country to work and become part of the productive society. I do, however, know a lot of people who are anti *ILLEGAL* immigrant -- cutting through a fence, sneaking into the country, stealing someone's identity through their social security number and then using it to take a $7 an hour job from a worker because the employer knows he can pay the illegal $4 an hour to do the same job since they can't complain about minimum wage violations. Then jumping on the welfare system or other public programs that don't report illegals, to add to their income with taxpayer money. That kind of crap is what's destroying a lot of the entry-level jobs in this country. And largely, that's not the fault of the illegal immigrant, but the fact that there's estimates of as many as 20 million illegals in the country means the problem is wide-spread. We tried amnesty in the 1980's and it was a disaster of epic proportions, as all it did was cause a new rush for more illegals to get into the country. After all, if we did it once...

My 18 year old son can't get a job right now with teen unemployment in the city over 70%, but not one of the clerks at the local McDonalds speaks a word of English. You try to figure out why that is...

There's no "anti-immigrant rhetoric" in the news, except for the lefties *claiming* that the republicans hate anyone who isn't white. It's the tired old democrat playbook of race warfare they've been going to since the late 1960's. Every Republican I've met is in favor of Immigration, heck the republican from Texas (whose name escapes me) keeps doubling the H-1B visa rate every year, despite the fact that it keeps depressing salaries in the computer programming field.

Sorry, I know you are talking about how accepting most Americans are about immigration, but that one line about anti-immigrant feelings just steams me.

Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Re:RSA rocks

[alnjmshntr]

God save the Queen. It makes me proud to be British!

Re:RSA rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't become President.

The most fantastic thing....

[Anonymous Coward]

The most fantastic thing wasn't that they managed to launch it without hickup, but that they used the metric system during the launch.... Amazing...

I can't wait to see

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see what the patent wars for this will eventually look like.

Three cheers for privatization.

Re:RSA rocks

[MachineShedFred]

What if he wants them cooked with hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide?

His ex-wife got the planet

[Dareth]

His ex-wife got the planet. He is required to leave, even if it means making his own ship, as part of the divorce settlement.

Re:His ex-wife got the planet

[gmhowell]

I would be happy to leave the planet if it meant I never had to deal with my ex-wife again.

Re:Not all private ventures are for-proft

[busyqth]

Both the Mormons and the Catholics need living room.

Re:RSA rocks

[HuguesT]

Very seriously, how do you know ? What have you really seen ?

You could make the case that a large proportion of Americans are still not well integrated in the mainstream in the US, after many many generations: the African-Americans. Despite people like Obama, it's quite literally the elephant in the room.

France or UK are also quite welcoming societies in actual fact. The recent elected new government in France has lots of people originally from all over the world, look it up, it is actually quite stunning. The former president's father was from Hungary.

In Australia, of all places, there was for a long while a very strong anti-immigrant sentiment fueled by some politicians. They were putting refugees in camps in the desert!

Most countries should realize that immigrants are people willing to get out of their way to participate in a better society for a better life.

I think you are missing "political control"

[tlambert]

How is the ability to get to space cheaper and more efficiently a bad thing?

Access to space has been relatively controlled by economic expense. I'm pretty sure the real reason access space has been kept expensive and most recent designs have not been of the DC-X variety is to require use of runways and other infrastructure has to do with politics and fear of kinetic bombardment weapons.

I expect that Blue Origin, Masten, and others are likely aiming to change this, although I expect there to be prohibitions on sales of used vehicles to certain individuals and organizations (John Travolta was allowed to buy his 707 on a technicality).

-- Terry

Re:Not all private ventures are for-proft

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Not at all.
While there some rare places on Earth that are possibly overpopulated (such as Bangladesh), most of Earth is facing *underpopulation*.

The total fertility rate in much of Earth (including Europe) is below replacement level, which means that these places are growing only due to demographic lag and immigration. This harms the economy and is cultural suicide.

And, while fear-mongers claim that the population is "growing exponentially", in reality the population
is projected to reach 9B at 2050 and then start falling.

Re:Not all private ventures are for-proft

[brokeninside]

Both the LDS and the Church of Rome allow for the existence of extraterrestrials and both emphasize evangelism.

See where I'm going with this now?

Re:Not all private ventures are for-proft

[brokeninside]

I was thinking more of evangelism than procreation.

Unless I'm mistaken LDS theology posits extraterrestrial life. The Church of Rome started making headlines somewhere around the late nineties or early 00s about allowing that extraterrestrial life might exist and be sentient.

Elon Musk = Tony Stark?

[Snausagez]

Saw an article comparing the owner Elon Musk to a real life Tony Stark. So, I did this: :^) http://earth2eddie.blogspot.com/2012/05/tony-stark.html