Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk Shows off the Dragon Capsule, Back From Space (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the recycling-our-way-to-the-stars dept.

Elon Musk appeared Wednesday at SpaceX's testing facility in McGregor, Texas — not far from Waco — along with NASA administrator Charles Bolden, to show off the recovered Dragon capsule that recently launched from Cape Canaveral to the ISS. He says the SpaceX Grasshopper reusable lift vehicle will start testing in a few months, and that once it's in service the cost of a flight to orbit may cost as little as 1/100 as much as it costs today. According to Musk, fuel is only a tiny part of what a space launch costs; boosters and other expensive items that currently only get used once are the main budget-busters. (Note that the Scaled Composites Space Ship Two also relies on a reusable first stage — and that theirs saves both fuel and wear & tear by using aerodynamic lift, AKA wings, for the first 50,000 feet.)

7 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. The relevance of the SS2 comment escapes me by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not sure why TFS includes the comment about Spaceship Two having wings, since SS2 is not intended to reach orbit.

    Nor is it intended to lead to an orbital vehicle.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:The relevance of the SS2 comment escapes me by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative
      That may very well be their goal.

      But SS2 isn't leading in that direction. I can't even see any technology developed for SS2 being of any relevance to an orbiter with an aerodynamic first stage.

      Note that an aerodynamic booster for an orbiter will require either:
      a) a hypersonic booster, or
      b) a VERY LARGE orbiter.

      Can't see any part of SS2 that points in either of those directions...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:The relevance of the SS2 comment escapes me by regularstranger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is that SS2 has no chance of making orbit after a few modifications, while SS2 is the next iteration of SS1. SpaceX is putting things into orbit. Comparing anything that SpaceX is doing with anything scaled composites is doing as far as reusability is concerned is stupid, done only by those who don't understand the difference between orbit and just touching the edge of the atmosphere for a short time. The fact that Scaled Composites is reusing their plane with attached rocket engine really isn't relevant. Besides, even if they do put things into orbit, they will only be able to put very small things into orbit. The concept of dropping a rocket from a plane doesn't scale well. SpaceX is making things to go to space and stay there. Scaled Composites is making interesting airplanes, with one that can go to space briefly.

  2. why do you think he's building ICBMs? by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Elon Musk" is a much better Bond villain name than "Richard Branson". The rest of your argument is superfluous.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  3. Re:Wait, what? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, what it sounds like is that the cost of hurling more space junk up there will go down by a factor of a hundred. For better or for worse, humanity doesn't seem to have it's act together yet for it to be cheap to drag more litter up into orbit.

  4. Re:Wait, what? by SomePgmr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know this is a problem, and I imagine smart people are trying to figure something out.

    That said, I can't help but marvel at the shrinking cost-to-LEO. Just a year ago I was talking to someone at a company that does tubeSat launches for $8,000. That's the launch and the satellite. And I heard that SpaceX does CubeSat launches on their Falcon 9 rockets.

    Now I don't know if the cost reductions would translate directly to that kind of mission, but if they can get the cost down to anywhere near 1/100, putting a satellite up will be easily within reach for an individual tinkerer. To me, that's just amazing... that you can put your own little satellite in space (for a short time), and not even be crushed if something goes wrong.

    Found the $8k one...
    http://interorbital.com/TubeSat_1.htm

  5. Re:Really, that much fuel? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 5, Informative

    When near empty, the stages are 10-30 times lighter, because they don't have much fuel, or in the case of lower stages, don't have the upper stages sitting on them. Most of the velocity is lost to a heat shield, so the landing thrust only has to take off 10% or less of the remaining velocity. So it doesn't take that much fuel to land. It takes less fuel than the weight of wings to land.