And for question about faliure rates… doing something completely from scrath IS bound to have growing pains.

Well the payload is about the same.

Reminder: Innovation in the air industry has alway come from government-funded efforts. We should expect the same in the private space arena. SpaceX is following a path laid down by early aeronautical entrepreneurs. I.e., the profitable exploitation of technology whose development was subsidized by the taxpayers.

About all the shuttle is being used for now is completing the ISS, along with a service mission to Hubble.

Falcon, it seems, it really meant for commerical sattilites.
If it works, then it might save NASA some money on facilities. Maybe even govt agencies like NOAA that use sattilites might employ them.
This would allow more of NASA’s budget to go toward the new space vehicles meant for getting back to the moon.

We need someone to pick up the slack when the shuttles are retired. Hopefully it will be SpaceX (NASA has been considering using their Falcon and capsule as substitues for the shuttle until their next generation space vehicle is ready to fly.)

to paraphrase a bit.

Regarding why rockets are so touchy despite being “50 year old technology”, the main problem is that going into orbit is a very *energetic* thing. That means that the margin for error is extremely slim. Even slight errors or unexpected problems can destroy a vehicle. Absolutely anything is going to have design problems; no design is ever perfect. In a computer, this can lead to having to reboot your PC an awful lot. In a rocket, this can lead to a violent explosion. This is part of why rockets are so darned expensive; in an attempt to mitigate the mind-bogglingly large inherent risk, they test the hell out of the design before they let it fly. It’s also what keeps most companies from trying in the first place.

Now, they *could* just use a military design. This is what Lockheed and Boeing do. But SpaceX isn’t interested in rehashing an old ICBM design. They want to start over from the ground up, and for what they’re trying to achieve, that actually makes good sense.

Even in modern government-funded designs, it’s not uncommon to blow a few up, and this is why it is extremely rare for the first flight to carry a real payload, apart from perhaps a small test satellite that exists mainly to verify that it was placed into the target orbit properly.

(And if you think the procedures thing is bogus, take a look at a military airplane while it’s on the ground. Lots of things that say, “don’t step here”, “don’t get in the plane here”, and lots of bright red things that say “TAKE ME THE HECK OFF THE PLANE BEFORE YOU START IT.” I have a hunch that not all of those things were placed proactively. The first couple launches probably taught them a lot more about what NOT to do than what TO do.

And for Evolving Squid; it’s partially that; and partially IT’S ROCKET SCIENCE! Even though we were doing it a long time ago, it’s just not that easy. Couple that with a much lower acceptance of risk for each launch (ZERO FAILURE tolerances) and it gets harder. Then, you get to the worst part of it, COST! Yeah, so while the technique is there, the devil is in the details.

Putting something into space is 50 year old technology. How is it that it seems such a challenge?

I am also sure any space elevators will likely be privately financed as well, or a mix of government and private financing.

Okay, all snarkiness and bad attempt at humour aside, I wish them the best of luck! The more folks get into this business, the better chance we have at someone coming up with something truly innovative to get this supposedly intelligent ape out of the cradle.

GO FALCON! GO!