Comments on: SpaceX Launches a Satellite

By: Andrew S

Andrew S — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 03:28:39 +0000

Musk did not found Tesla (though he frequently claims to have done so); he was the first major funder of the company, but didn’t join until about a year after the company was founded.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:42:48 +0000

Gopher; quote “A shuttle launch costs less than 70 million dollars.”

LMAO, are you crazy. The shuttle per launch cost between 450 million to 1.3 billion US dollars.

By: Karen Rei

Karen Rei — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:36:37 +0000

Gopher, you’re simply wrong. SpaceX was cashflow positive summer of last year. They didn’t win any significant COTS funding before December of last year. Please explain how that makes them beholden to NASA. Sure, they one round 1 of COTS funding, but it wasn’t a major disbursement — nothing at all like your typical Boeing or Lockheed rocket development contract. Most of SpaceX’s revenue up to that point had come from prepayment for private launch services.

The really big deal with the SpaceX Falcon series is not that it’s private, but that it’s almost entirely from-scratch, rather than evolved from earlier rockets. This allowed them to make some major mass production-aiding and cost-cutting design decisions that other stacks weren’t able to make.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:46:38 +0000

Well, clearly, if they’re not going to listen to Steven Weinberg, they sure as hell aren’t going to listen to me. Or a million people like me. Given that, whether it’s throwing good money after bad or not, NASA is likely to be contributing to the ISS mission for years to come. From my perspective, I say let’s not compound that error with tragedy by continuing to use the STS after its planned, and long overdue, retirement. For that reason above perhaps all others, I’m rooting for SpaceX to deliver on Dragon. I’m further hoping that Falcon/Dragon, and maybe human-rated Atlases and/or Deltas make it clear enough that we don’t need the Ares I, and put a halt to that boondoggle.

By: gopher65

gopher65 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:12:46 +0000

Low Math: The ISS is a basic infrastructure to build upon. Whether or not it becomes useful depends entirely on what we decide to do with that basic infrastructure.

Right now, due to money constraints and the shuttle retirement, they’ve cancelled essentially all of the decent science projects that were suppose to be sent up to the ISS. That’s like spending a quarter trillion dollars building highways out into the middle of nowhere, then building powerplants, sewage plants, and housing, only to decide that you’re going to abandoned the project to save a few billion dollars. It’s stupid.

I wouldn’t have built the ISS in the first place, but since that orbital infrastructure is there, and since the biggest chunk of money is already spent, we might as well try and use it for something. Duct tape a few useful experiments onto the side. Otherwise it’s a waste.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:06:05 +0000

Not that I give a rat’s tail about the ISS, but if we insist on using it, the sooner we retire the STS and move on to some alternative, the better. They’ll be examining Endeavor for damage from yet another external tank debris strike. I’ve little stomach for incinerating another seven good people to the tune of half-a-billion dollars, or whatever the current per-launch estimate is. If SpaceX can indeed provide the replacement, we needed it yesterday, forget about a few years from now. Almost anything would be safer than the Shuttle.

By: Pattyann

Pattyann — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:44:54 +0000

The future of space travel is in the private sector. I am excited for SpaceX and hope they continue to be successful! Smart, savvy companies who know what they are doing is what the country needs now more than ever.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:26:36 +0000

Whether it’s a true “private” enterprise or not, I don’t care. I’m just excited for the launch of their new Dragon capsule. This can potentially save the US manned space program. We don’t want a five year gap between the shuttle program and the Constellation Program. This launch is surely the start of something very significant indeed.

By: George

George — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:11:29 +0000

Well Im sure praying for companies like Spacex to get us into space cheaper and faster. I feel we will never get to the moon or mars if left up to Nasa and congress so I hope spacex gets cots D (manned flight) as soon as possible. nasa is to concerned with safety to much to ever get any exploring off the ground. Once falcon 9 dragon gets up and running and returning safely to earth spacex should put a an astronaut on board whether nasa likes it or not, barn storming space ships IM 50 now and doubt I will ever live to see men walk on mars unless Elon Musk does it. the cots program is the right way to do this prize money to fly. Spacex is now completely setup for any paying customer not just governments, ENTER Bigelow and practical light weigh space stations
As far as crazy innovation ideas why not add jets to the first stage. Maybe a jet ring around the base that has jet fuel and engines in the ring and drops of offs after getting the rocket to about 1000 or 2000 miles per hour. Jets could sure help drop over all space craft weigh right?? lighter and greener Or maybe just a add canard wings with jet engines and fuel in the wings and use the jets to help with the early boast and with control of the first stage recovery. How would jets compare to srbs ??
On the subject of government flight i think im leaning to the Jupiter Direct approach we have the that work force and tech now and its important to be flying something soon and not scrap it all like we did with the saturn years ago. I kind of wish spacex’s falcon 9 could fly the astronauts for nasa replacing the ares 1 and nasa just build the ares V now to make sure we have a good heavy lift capacity to fly to Mars. Robert Zubrin said years ago build the heavy lift rocket first and save the cost of all those shuttle flights to finish the space station. nasa should do the heavy lifting and get spacex to do the manned flight. I read that spacex does not plan to launch the first falcon 9 till November of this year? HURRY UP BOYS AND GIRLS

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:30:23 +0000

Perhaps I’m wrong about this, but my understanding was that ULA is essentially a govt.-supported private monopoly, a joint effort between Boeing and LM that exists largely to make the Defense Dept. happy. SpaceX is somewhat more entrepreneurial in its conception and business model, though, as stated above, it’s not without a measure of govt. dependence. In the case of ULA, however, that dependency was and remains complete, pretty much by design. Is this an accurate summary?