SpaceX Capsule Returns To Earth With Lab Results

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Capsule Returns To Earth With Lab Results

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday October 26, 2014 @02:36AM from the home-sweet-home dept.

An anonymous reader writes SpaceX's unmanned Dragon spacecraft has splashed down in the Pacific Ocean carrying NASA cargo and scientific samples from the International Space Station. A boat is ferrying the spacecraft to a port near Los Angeles, where NASA said the 1.5 tons of materials will be removed and returned to the space agency by late tomorrow for scientists to pick apart. "This mission enabled research critical to achieving NASA's goal of long-duration human spaceflight in deep space," said Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station division at NASA headquarters.

60 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Curious economics of private spaceflight by CRCulver · 2014-10-26 02:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Back in the 1990s, I enjoyed reading Michael Flynn's future history beginning with Firestar . Flynn, an ardent libertarian, thought that as early as the turn of the millennium, private industry would be ready to offer all kinds of spaceflight services that the general public would rush to buy, such as FedEx delivery anywhere on Earth in 90 minutes. Years after Flynn's vision of when things would kick off, we finally are getting private spaceflight, but it seems like the only sure customer that these firms have is NASA. Isn't this less private spaceflight and more simple contracting out to aerospace firms that are friends to those in power just like in the olden days?
1. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by SuricouRaven · 2014-10-26 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem appears to be a lack of profitability. There's just nothing to do for money in space beyond geostationary orbit. It's just a big empty nothing, in the most literal way possible. The only resource to be had is energy, which is cheaper to make down on earth. There are potentially valuable rocks far away, but no economically-viable means of getting at them. The ISS is doing some useful research, but it's not there to run a profit. The only reason any private enterprise would want to go into space is to run a satelite or because someone in government is footing the bill for science or military purposes.
  Suborbital transport would be nice, but you're looking at a very limited market - the only advantage over first-class flights on a conventional aircraft is trip time, and who has enough money to pay that much extra to save a few hours? If that business model was viable, Concorde would have been updated and continued.
2. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by lawnboy5-O · 2014-10-26 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah the thing about (the modern American) ardent libertarian is that they are usually utterly, 180 degrees wrong. It's sort of like teaching Ayn Rand in a undergrad philosophy class on ethics or even metaphysics - it has no place to be taken seriously
  
  Those in power... you mean the people when their representation still had a modicum of integrity?
  
  Honestly - one non-sequitur leap to another - what is it that you are saying?
3. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, SpaceX (and other launch providers) do have paying customers besides NASA in the communications industry, and there are also companies that pay to launch smaller satellites (e.g. CubeSats) in the "mass margin" of bigger launches. Earth observation (in all spectra) is basically being revolutionized right now -- for relatively low costs, a company or university (or a consortium of the same) can launch dozens of small satellites to achieve continuous visibility of the entire Earth. The bottleneck now is actually communications -- satellites can get all this data, but there are only so many receiving stations for transmitting it to the ground.
4. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-10-26 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Space tourism has emerged as an unexpected market, at the same time as the increasing difficulty of mining on Earth is leading to interest in extracting valuable minerals from asteroids. And the more satellites we put into orbit, the more servicing is needed to maintain them. Meanwhile, NASA finds itself, perhaps intentionally, with no domestic way of getting astronauts and material into LEO. Why not exploit this opportunity to develop and sell both materials ferries and manned craft? Once the private sector develops a man-rated craft, there will be no limits to what we can do.
5. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Kjella · 2014-10-26 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Um, looking at the list of SpaceX customers there's MDA Corp, SES, Thaicom, Orbcomm, AsiaSat with several others planned in the future so there seems to be quite a bit of private satellite business. I guess it's less newsworthy than replacing the Shuttle as we've been launching satellites for decades, but it's there. There's not much else though as the costs are too high and outside LEO/GEO/polar satellite it's all just one-off missions so far.
  What I'm hoping for is that SpaceX will eventually use their "reusable" tech into making a rocket-powered lander for Mars so they can offer a standard "Earth to Mars surface" delivery system. That could enable a lot of other cool ventures, private and public.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by CRCulver · 2014-10-26 03:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Space tourism has emerged as an unexpected market
  
  Even if a space tourism market exists, there is no guarantee it will survive. A Concorde market existed and it went bust nonetheless.
7. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  There we go again... NASA accounts for only about a quarter of SpaceX flights. It's just the Dragon program which is almost entirely founded by public money. Will the extra money speed up the advent of full reusability and cheap spaceflight? Yes. But instead of pointing out the great engineering and recalling how the manned NASA program went to hell after Skylab and the preposterous contracts with ULA, all I ever see on slashdot is the same "surely it can't be that good" politcal based fatalistic whining, just like here in Europe. Cheer up and don't always look for fireworks to piss on if there's no need!
8. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by khallow · 2014-10-26 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how saying "libertarian" causes some people to stop thinking.
  
  Those in power... you mean the people when their representation still had a modicum of integrity?
  Of course not. He's no doubt instead referring to bureaucrats, politicians, and businesses able to sell access for wealth and opportunity. I doubt most people feel the urge to fantasize that sort of power doesn't exist just because there is a "modicum of integrity" and someone said "libertarian".
9. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by itzly · 2014-10-26 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  What private ventures to Mars would ever be profitable ?
10. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  The same way saying "private space" seems to shut off critical thinking, eh?
11. Re: Curious economics of private spaceflight by WindBourne · 2014-10-26 04:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Less than 1\3 of spacex launches are us gov launches. They can now exist without them. However, NASA is speading up spacex's programs. And since these are saving America billions, it makes sense to continue.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
12. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think the problem is that even rational adults are unable to comprehend the reality of space; they fall back on sci-fi and TV shows. Space just simply isn't this densely-packed floating Wal Mart. It's an utterly empty, hostile, deadly vacuum with a few specks of dust here and there.
13. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by nitehawk214 · 2014-10-26 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Space tourism has emerged as an unexpected market
  Even if a space tourism market exists, there is no guarantee it will survive. A Concorde market existed and it went bust nonetheless.
  This is always my argument about suborbital travel. It is not seriously faster than Concorde was, and Concorde was so hideously expensive to operate that even the elite could not keep it going. Until there is a revolution in air travel that enables hypersonic flight at current prices, suborbital travel will not become a thing.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
14. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Alomex · 2014-10-26 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Flynn, an ardent libertarian,
  
  Ardent libertarian is the term used in polite society for "emotionally immature and intellectually unsophisticated". A libertarian society replicates the current status quo in terms or taxes and tariffs but with the difference that now you have no power over the revenue collector, which is as private corporation.
  In a libertarian society I can simply refuse you to drive on my highway because I don't like your face.
15. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  You're trying to use adult logic on someone who wrote "enable a lot of other cool ventures"?
  Eight year olds think like that, adults know better. Hell, adults knew better before Sputnik!
  Vannevar Bush:
  "Putting man in space is a stunt. The man can do no more than an instrument, in fact can do less."
  Now the Space Nutters will scream and spittle about sci-fi and cool stuff...
  "A belief may be larger than a fact."
16. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  How to make America libertarian:
  1) Add a copy of Atlas Shrugged to every motel room;
  2) Rename "Government" to "Government, Inc."
  That is it. A capitalist government is just a business granted a proprietary interest on its territory. If you don't like it, you leave it, just like leaving any land that doesn't belong entirely to you if you don't agree with the terms under which you stay on it.
  And before anyone gives me any, "But I didn't sign a contract with government!" bullfuck, no, but I didn't sign a contract to respect property over which you have an interest either, did I? I still don't get to whine like a bitch because I can't take it from you.
17. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by TWX · 2014-10-26 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Flynn, an ardent libertarian, thought that as early as the turn of the millennium, private industry would be ready to offer all kinds of spaceflight services that the general public would rush to buy, such as FedEx delivery anywhere on Earth in 90 minutes.
  Right now, there's simply no market for that kind of delivery, and launches are not able to be set-up and made in that short of a duration either.
  
  There's literally almost nothing on this world that is both so unique as to exist singularly and so instantly-needed potentially anywhere to justify the expense of launching that one thing into a suborbital flight on a rocket for delivery. Between warehousing of goods and relatively rapid transport of things by-air, just about anything the size and mass of a car can be transported to anywhere in the world in about a day.
  
  If there were a market for delivery faster than that, I would expect surplus military supersonic jets would take up that market. Get something the size of a human being anywhere in the world in under twelve hours.
  
  Unfortunately we can see how supersonic really isn't in demand; the Concorde never saw its fleet expand beyond its initial, tiny order, and when it was retired from age and design flaws rearing their ugly heads there was nothing to replace it. If anything would justify instant transportation it would be passengers, not cargo, and if there simply aren't enough passengers to keep a fleet of fourteen flying, then I don't see how Flynn's dreams were in any way close to reality.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
18. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by peragrin · 2014-10-26 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Space tourism at even 250,000 dollars a flight has a really limited market.
  Until we can get the cost per pound into orbit down to a couple of dollars space tourism isn't going anywhere. private enterprises aren't really going to take off. We need radical engine and power designs.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
19. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by itzly · 2014-10-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I bet you can make an Oculus Rift space experience for less. For the really rich, wear the device in a jet plane taking off for added G force experience.
20. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by gman003 · 2014-10-26 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  SpaceX has flown missions for the Canadian, Taiwanese and Turkmen space agencies, and is contracted for the new versions of both the Iridium and Orbcomm satellite networks, among numerous other commercial payloads. NASA is currently their biggest single customer, but they're rapidly losing that status (Iridium has seven launches contracted, NASA only four).
21. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-26 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  We need radical engine and power designs.
  I'll call you once I get my hands on some radical laws of physics.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
22. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  "There's literally almost nothing on this world that is both so unique as to exist singularly and so instantly-needed potentially anywhere to justify the expense of launching that one thing into a suborbital flight on a rocket for delivery."
  Exactly. It's weird that the same people gushing over 1960s space propaganda also support 3D printing, without realizing they contradict each other utterly!
23. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-26 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  On the plus side, once you embark on a sightseeing tour to visit the volcanoes of Io, your chance of getting there alive will be greater than three thousand seven hundred and twenty to one.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
24. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by 0123456 · 2014-10-26 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Even if a space tourism market exists, there is no guarantee it will survive. A Concorde market existed and it went bust nonetheless.
  Concorde wasn't a destination, it was a way to get there. And it was still doing OK until 9/11. AFAIR, it was finally killed when the manufacturer refused to support such old hardware any more.
  The only question about space tourism is how fast we can ramp down the cost and ramp up safety. If anyone could go into space for a week for a few thousand dollars with no more risk of dying than a modern cruise liner, there'd be a vast market.
25. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by 0123456 · 2014-10-26 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  "There's literally almost nothing on this world that is both so unique as to exist singularly and so instantly-needed potentially anywhere to justify the expense of launching that one thing into a suborbital flight on a rocket for delivery."
  That all depends on how much the rocket flight costs. But, yes, suborbital delivery is unlikely to ever make financial sense if you can have those parts in 24 hours on a jet. Particularly if both then spend hours in customs waiting to be cleared once they arrive.
  
  Exactly. It's weird that the same people gushing over 1960s space propaganda also support 3D printing, without realizing they contradict each other utterly!
  3D printing is also likely to be one of the technologies that lets us expand across the solar system. No-one's going to be doing overnight shipping of replacement parts to Mars any time soon... if ever.
26. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by 0123456 · 2014-10-26 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ardent libertarian is the term used in polite society for "emotionally immature and intellectually unsophisticated".
  No, you're confusing 'libertarian' with 'liberal'.
27. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  "Concorde wasn't a destination"
  Neither is space. It's baffling to me how you space fans can't grasp that.
  "AFAIR, it was finally killed when the manufacturer refused to support such old hardware any more."
  Making up alternate history, OK.
  "The only question about space tourism is how fast we can ramp down the cost and ramp up safety."
  Nah, there are other questions, such as who can afford this, and who would want to go, and who would want to go again, where would you go, to do what?
  "If anyone could go into space for a week for a few thousand dollars with no more risk of dying than a modern cruise liner, there'd be a vast market."
  Says who? People don't go on cruise liners because of the risk of not dying, they go because of the air, water, people, and destinations! People don't even go on MiG-25 flights and those exist RIGHT NOW and cost ten times less!
  What would you do with your "space tourism"? Stay inside your tin can in LEO eating freeze-dried rations and looking out a tiny porthole? Wow, such fun!
  What "vast market"? We're on the edge of a global economic collapse because the short-sighted greed of the few has concentrated so much wealth in the hands of so few, the rest of us are gliding along on debt!
  Jesus Allah Christ give me strength in the face of such pig-headed sci-fi enthusiasms!
  And you're a new breed of 3D printing/Space Nutter hybrid of completely delusional believer in fantasy horseshit. Also simultaneously such a psychopathic misanthrope he's against minimum basic income for all.
  You *have* to be a programmer, there's really nothing else that would allow someone with the world-view of a spoiled angry child to make it in the adult world.
  Space is *dead*. The Space Age promises are finished.
  Where is the equivalent enthusiasm for the leisure society and resources for all?
28. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  What would you do with your "space tourism"? Stay inside your tin can in LEO eating freeze-dried rations and looking out a tiny porthole? Wow, such fun!
  Cruise liners are full of old people, fully aware that they are dying of old age, enjoying the hell out of precisely that, QA.
29. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  On the plus side, once you embark on a sightseeing tour to visit the volcanoes of Io, your chance of getting there alive will be greater than three thousand seven hundred and twenty to one.
  On the minus side, given the radiation environment, it's the return trip I'm worried about! (but seeing a 200-mile fountain of sulphurous lava, you know, that might just make it worth it!)
30. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Alomex · 2014-10-26 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  Contrary to what you say, many studies have found that the better educated and informed you are the more likely you are to be a liberal.
  Of course it makes you feel better to state the opposite opinion as if it were a fact, which is yet another confirmation of the studies above.
31. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by khallow · 2014-10-26 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, good point. I wish people who have that happen to themselves would realize, "hey, maybe there's something not quite right upstairs" and think next time before they do that.
32. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  "That all depends on how much the rocket flight costs"
  Even if they're *free*, why go through the trouble?
33. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by khallow · 2014-10-26 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Concorde wasn't a destination"
  
  Neither is space. It's baffling to me how you space fans can't grasp that.
  Space is not a destination, it is a universe of destinations. Obviously, only a few destinations are within near future reach such as Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, some asteroids, etc. And even on the slim basis of what we currently know, there are a lot of people who are interested in visiting those destinations or in creating new destinations (such as orbital space stations). These are the space fans.
  
  As I see it, peoples' wealth continues to grow while the cost of access to space declines. Eventually, it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space. When that happens, I think we'll see a lot more going on in space just from people who choose to visit various destinations in space.
34. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Concorde flew commercially between 1976 and 2003 that's more than 27 years...
35. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Kjella · 2014-10-26 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  This is always my argument about suborbital travel. It is not seriously faster than Concorde was, and Concorde was so hideously expensive to operate that even the elite could not keep it going.
  That's something of a misrepresentation, the elite never lacked the money and the rich have only gotten richer so it was more that they wouldn't than that they couldn't. Improved communication lowered the demand to send bigwigs between Europe and the US, I imagine the ~2*4 hours saved on a business trip was a key selling feature for the Concorde. That's fast but video conferencing is even faster. As for leisure travel I think the standard has gone up, travelling first class on a subsonic plane can be quite luxurious so the rich are not in that big a hurry to make the trip as short as possible.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
36. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Teancum · 2014-10-26 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  You nailed the idea that it is economics that impacts spaceflight, but it really is the marginal cost of getting anywhere which is part of the equation. The other part is the legal ability to do anything in space is also similarly limited... by virtue of the Outer Space Treaty and the sentiments behind the Moon Treaty.
  In other words, it is far more than simply valuable rocks too far away without the means to get them. It is also getting those rocks and having them immediately confiscated when you bring them to the Earth or try to do anything else with them. Sure, there are some folks who wax philosophically that rocks are yours for the taking, but until somebody actually tries it will be a huge unknown... not something you can base a business plan off of.
  The Concorde was viable as a business, but there were some legitimate reasons why that airplane was phased out of service even though it left a gaping hole in terms of an economic niche. There were numerous reasons why other competitors to the Concorde never emerged (many of them regulatory I might add... not strictly economic). The nail in the coffin for anybody trying to push harder into that market turns out to be the hyper-paranoid security at modern airports that make any sort of time savings offered by supersonic passenger flights entirely meaningless when you need to spend several hours at an airport before you board the plane in the first place. Previously when you only needed a fifteen minute security screening, it wasn't too awful. Furthermore, the Concorde was pretty much range limited to just trans-Atlantic flights where the real benefits for such flights needed something that went much further, like a flight from Los Angeles or San Francisco to Tokyo.
  Hopefully reusable launch vehicles might make a significant impact on the economic picture that will enable the marginal commercial spaceflight activity which needs below $1k/kg to LEO. I am excited to see what might develop in that economic environment.
37. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by 0123456 · 2014-10-26 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to what you say, many studies have found that the better educated and informed you are the more likely you are to be a liberal.
  Well, yes, because 'educated' people have spent years being taught liberal dogma, and being told how wonderful they are for doing so.
  'Education' has very little to do with intelligence. Quite the opposite, in most cases.
38. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by 0123456 · 2014-10-26 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Even if they're *free*, why go through the trouble?
  Are you even smart enough to have any idea how retarded that comment is?
  Damn, Slashdot has gone downhill since Betageddon sent most of the smart posters elsewhere.
39. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Immerman · 2014-10-26 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  >Until there is a revolution in air travel that enables hypersonic flight at current prices, suborbital travel will not become a thing.
  I don't follow - would not suborbital flights obviate the need for hypersonic ones? You get to your destination faster, and spend most of your travel time is spent in near-vacuum where concepts like "hypersonic" and "air resistance" are largely irrelevant.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
40. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Immerman · 2014-10-26 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Because nobody would ever want to experience weightlessness, see their world as a "blue marble" with their own two eyes, or fly around a lunar dome by flapping wings strapped onto their arms. There's just nothing there to compare to sitting in a giant sandbox next to a large frothy pool of brackish water, like hundreds of millions of people pay good money to do all the time.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
41. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Space is not a destination, it is a universe of destinations."
  Only in your mind. I think you fail to grasp the sheer size of the vast nothing that surrounds us, the fragility of our bodies, and the weakness of our technology.
  http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
  http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
  " Obviously, only a few destinations are within near future reach such as Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, some asteroids, etc. "
  How is it a "destination" if you can't get out of your tin can and there's nothing there? (Forgetting for a moment that we can't even *get* there!)
  "As I see it, peoples' wealth continues to grow " ...wow. You're not just a little delusional, you're full-on in another dimension. We're so wealthy we don't even have Concorde anymore but you're dreaming about the asteroids... and the "etc"!!! Nice touch!
  You're a loon. Very likely an under-35 programmer with no kids. You'll see how "wealthy" you are after marriage, kids, and a house. See how much you have left over for your "universe of destinations"! Bahahahahaaaa!!!!
  "it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space" ...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
  Oh my god....!!!!
  This exists NOW and is cheaper!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
42. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  We're so wealthy we don't even have Concorde anymore
  The loss of the Concorde is not so much a demonstration that we don't have wealth, but rather the government is not very good at generating or even just maintaining wealth. The Concorde, much like NASA, was initiated and developed for political reasons much more so than economic reasons. The Concorde project started because government was curious whether the technology from supersonic fighter jets, which were just entering service at the time, could be applied to transport aircraft. The curiosity is partly due to the Cold War that was happening (the Soviets were the ones who developed and operated the only other supersonic transport)
  When the political will to support the Concorde waned, it's not surprising it could not stay afloat on its own.
  
  Very likely an under-35 programmer with no kids. You'll see how "wealthy" you are after marriage, kids, and a house.
  It's worth noting that wife and kids are expensive largely due to the rise of socialism in developed nations. Socialism kept wages stagnant while increasing the cost of living, especially the costs associated with having a family (education, health care, insurance, housing, etc)
43. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by khallow · 2014-10-27 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting how I can even name several such destinations and you still insist on claiming that space is empty. This argument started out dead.
  
  "it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space" ...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
  Well,
44. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by khallow · 2014-10-27 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting how I can even name several such destinations and you still occasionally insist on claiming that space is empty. This argument started out dead.
  
  "it will get to the point where some of modest means can save up for a trip to space" ...or you're 80 and never got over the gee-whiz Space Age propaganda. Do you really think there's just this massive amount of people of "modest means" (How? I thought we're all getting so wealthy?) waiting to go to space?
  Well, yes, of course. People are getting wealthier, space is a very attractive lure for some fraction of people (I'd say at least 1%), and there's a lot of people.
  
  The popularity of just taking a ride on a MIG is an indication of this latent demand.
  
  You're a loon. Very likely an under-35 programmer with no kids. You'll see how "wealthy" you are after marriage, kids, and a house. See how much you have left over for your "universe of destinations"! Bahahahahaaaa!!!!
  The obvious rebuttal is learn basic finance.
45. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Muad'Dave · 2014-10-27 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  How about just using the existing ones?
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
46. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by SuricouRaven · 2014-10-27 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure lots of people would want to. Few of them could afford it. You need people able and willing to throw a few million dollars away on a recreational experience - the number of people who fit those criteria is rather small.
  Some estimates I've seen put the minimum cost at a quarter-million, but that's just for a brief suborbital flight in a single craft - no orbital hotels or zero-gravity baseball.
47. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by nitehawk214 · 2014-10-27 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but to get out of the atmosphere you need to be going hypersonic speeds. Today it can only be done with rockets. In the 90's Aerospike egines was supposed to make hypersonic, suborbital and even SSTO flights possible. There is no commercially produced Aerospike engine yet.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
48. Re:Curious economics of private spaceflight by Immerman · 2014-10-27 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all, you only need to be going hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere if you are assuming a ballistic path or only air-breathing engines - there's no reason a winged plane couldn't climb to the edge of the atmosphere at relatively sedate speeds before beginning serious acceleration. The only reason orbital launches don't do such a thing is they need ~20x as much energy to get to orbital speeds as they do to get to altitude, and no plane can carry that kind of weight. A sub-orbital rocket plane would need only a fraction of the fuel to carry the same payload.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
there has to be a better way by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 02:56 · Score: 0

There has to be a better way to get ice, than harvesting 1.5 tons of ice from passing comets! Did you check the freezer?
1. Re:there has to be a better way by R3d+M3rcury · 2014-10-26 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. There isn't any in there. I put the so-called "ice trays" in there and there's still no ice.
  I think mine's broken.
Re: What's Bennett's take? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 02:59 · Score: 0

Bennett is going to be busy carefully analyzing the scientific results brought back from the dragon capsule, so it might be awhile before he weighs in on anything. Yet again he is the smartest man alive so he might be done and posting later today
Re:What's Bennett's take? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 03:09 · Score: 1

Bennett said he appreciates your interest in his opinion, but now he wants you to shut up.
The Real Question by CanHasDIY · 2014-10-26 03:31 · Score: 1

That's all well and good, but will they earn enough science points to unlock the next tier of equipment?
I vote bigger rockets. All Perhaps love bigger rockets.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Re:The Real Question by CanHasDIY · 2014-10-26 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  All Perhaps love bigger rockets.
  Fuck.
  You.
  Autocorrect.
  That should say "Kerbals " not Perhaps. Joke ruined.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
2. Re:The Real Question by fibonacci8 · 2014-10-26 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping you were talking about research in Sid Meier's Alpha Centaur or Alien Crossfire. Please don't go, the drones need you, they look up to you.
  
  --
  Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Just for the Record by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-26 11:15 · Score: 0

I love NASA
but I hate
arugula.
I keep wondering about that. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-27 06:31 · Score: 0

Where does this liberal education everyone else apparently gets come from? We sure don't get any here in the middle class USA. The public schools we get to attend teach that Reagan was a hero, and atheists aren't real Americans.
Wait, is this like that legendary "liberal media" I keep hearing about? The only place I've ever seen any of that was in Greenwich Village, something called "Utne Reader". But my local bookstores don't carry it.
The Blob! by tmjva · 2014-10-27 07:13 · Score: 1

We all know it returned with The Blob! (Or will it be the Andromeda Strain?)

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT