what will that say about the NASA Orion and Ares programs? If SpaceX can go from having no rockets to launching capsules and even people later on way before Orion and Ares will ever fly. Whats crazy is that Falcon 9 will be an all up test of the rocket while NASA has spent how many years and how many dollars and Ares 1-X was even the 5 segment rocket or have an upper stage.
- Status
If everything with SpaceX works out I would imagine that NASA will be pressured to use commerical services rather than Orion for mission at least in LEO. At the moment that includes only the ISS for space flight.
That is definitly the right way for NASA to go. Buying services from companies like SpaceX is going to be far cheaper than developing their own rockets and infrastructure to do the same thing. Thus NASA will have more money to spend on other operations.
That is definitly the right way for NASA to go. Buying services from companies like SpaceX is going to be far cheaper than developing their own rockets and infrastructure to do the same thing. Thus NASA will have more money to spend on other operations.
If Falcon 9 and Dragon are both successful in relatively short order, it will be the best thing that ever happened to NASA. Not only does it solve the ISS supply issue, but it allows NASA to outsource a huge portion of their current operations at far lower cost. They can stop worrying about getting people in orbit and use all their funds and capabilities on figuring out where to go from there. It would be a return to actual exploration instead of remaking the launchvehicle wheel over and over again.
There are two down sides farming out LEO launches.
1 Spacex is a for profit company. Profit can trump safety in parts and assembly.
2 Spacex controls the launch schedule. You can’t tell them “My launch is more important than his.”.
1 Spacex is a for profit company. Profit can trump safety in parts and assembly.
2 Spacex controls the launch schedule. You can’t tell them “My launch is more important than his.”.
Because SpaceX is not government funded, they have a lot less red tape to deal with than NASA does. Pretty much everything done by NASA (or any government agency) is strictly regulated by the government and certain funding dollars can only be used towards certain things, which makes innovation somewhat difficult. I've heard it described as trying to design a spacecraft with one hand tied behind your back.
That said, being for profit does not necessarily mean cutting corners or compromising safety. I mean think about it, if your company had a reputation for being horrifically unsafe, you wouldn't be likely to make a lot of money. Safety is in the best interest of the company, too.
Although I personally find manned space flight to be more interesting, NASA in recent history has done a much better job with space science and robotic exploration, so it would be nice if one day they could just focus on that while leaving the manned missions to private industry.
That said, being for profit does not necessarily mean cutting corners or compromising safety. I mean think about it, if your company had a reputation for being horrifically unsafe, you wouldn't be likely to make a lot of money. Safety is in the best interest of the company, too.
Although I personally find manned space flight to be more interesting, NASA in recent history has done a much better job with space science and robotic exploration, so it would be nice if one day they could just focus on that while leaving the manned missions to private industry.
samkent":3evqz5z7 said:
Moonfie is right. Your argument has a lot of holes in it. After all, the original Apollo CSM was build by a private contractor (North American Aerospace) to NASA specs, just as the Orion capsule is being done. The CSM was so crappy that it killed three astronauts without ever having to leave the ground. If Boeing had a reputation for building flying deathtraps, do you think that they would still be in the airliner business? If anything, the private sector has more of a motivation to provide safety.
I really hope they succeed. But considering the fact that private space ventures (Space Ship One) have only managed to repeat what NASA did in the early 1960's (the Bell X-15) and pretty much the same way, the X-15 was dropped from a B-52, it will be a long time before any private venture will put humans in orbit. As far as a private venture having the first colony on the moon, I'm not holding my breath.
bdewoody":nzs3avru said:
Maybe, maybe not. I think that commercial spaceflight has suffered the same paradigm that personal computers did during the late '70s-early '80s; i.e. why would the average Joe need a computer at home? The difference is that developing a manned rocket - even one that goes suborbital - is infinitely more complex and expensive than developing a personal computer. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak built the Apple I in Wozniak's parents' garage using parts bought from Radio Shack. In comparison, the SS1/WK1 combo cost somewhere around $20 million. The start up cost alone has prevented many would-be rocketeers from even beginning down the journey that Scaled Composites successfully finished.
Regardless, the Apple I was a watershed moment in the PC industry. Once people saw exactly what the average Joe could do with a computer at home, everyone wanted to jump on board. Likewise, I think that the X-prize competition was a watershed moment in commercial manned spaceflight. Now that Virgin Galactic has several hundred people lined up to take a 15 minute hop into space, more people are starting to take this new industry seriously. I don't think it will take quite as long as you think for commercial manned orbital spaceflight to fully develop.
Nobody has even mentioned the government red tape that a private venture will have to go through to get permission to launch humans into orbit. I have a feeling that obstacle will be tremendousPistolPete037":1d30yog0 said:
bdewoody":29wr90qt said:
Maybe so, but the red tape it will take to get permission for a private company to launch humans into orbit is probably going to be minuscule compared to the amount of red tape it takes for NASA to do anything at all. Also, Virgin Galactic is a multinational corporation, owned by interests in the UK and Dubai. I'm not sure what exactly that means in terms of red-tapery, but it's not like US government is the only power in question here. I'm not sure if they plan to launch out of the US right away or not, but launching out of other countries may end in more or less red tape, depending.
I think that having private industry involved will do more to advance space travel. If you compare this to the early colonization of America, it was when private companies got involved that things really took off. We needed the first corporations ever created to tell us that going to America was a profitable affair. If anyone is going to find the benefit of doing all this work, it will be when free enterprise gets in there.
Corporations were built for the sole purpose of absorbing risks among a large number of interested parties.
Corporations were built for the sole purpose of absorbing risks among a large number of interested parties.
When it comes to space, an accident could all but destroy the companies reputation. Safety means money, especially when you're dealing with something as dangerous as space travel.
There's nothing stopping Space-X being held to the same rigorous standards as NASA.
Agree 100%. This is my feeling on this issue from another thread. It is very similar to yours:tanstaafl76":35pvvzg0 said:
I don't even know why NASA is still wasting time and money on LEO rocket boosters. They need to get completely out of that business. Let SpaceX and others handle ferrying stuff into LEO. They do it cheaper and are way ahead of them anyways with state of the art rockets. NASA has been there and done that. To me the next frontier for NASA should be manned exploration of the solar system and beyond. I think that NASA should stop what they are doing with the whole Constellation project. It is basically a rehash of Apollo. Given time, I think that private companies will be able to provide rockets and spaceships for lunar exploration anyway. A more ambitious goal would be for NASA to design and build a manned deep space probe that would be able to explore and eventually colonize the solar system. A ship like this would be built in space and launched from orbit or perhaps from a Lagrange point. They can work with the private launch companies to deliver men and building materials to LEO so that they can concentrate on the design and building of the spacecraft(s). It may take 20-30 years to get it done, perhaps even longer than that. The people who would actually go on the mission may not even be born yet. Something like this makes more sense as a long term goal than the way they are going.
According to SpaceX, once they get funding for the crew escape system, the Dragon capsule will be able to do this:bdewoody":2nfnve8e said:
http://www.space.com/common/media/video ... 713_spacex
They've designed the Dragon to be configurable for either crew or cargo. Smart
Nobody has even mentioned the government red tape that a private venture will have to go through to get permission to launch humans into orbit. I have a feeling that obstacle will be tremendous[/quote]
I don't think the government will have a big problem with SpaceX launching humans into space for ONE TENTH the price that NASA spends doing it today and soon won't be able to do at all. Especially since they are already working hand in hand with NASA. They are the ones who need to deal with government red tape and run a lot of the interference for SpaceX. This is much further along than you think. You should really look into the synergy developing between SpaceX and NASA. It's not just about sending rich folks on sub-orbital flights like Virgin. SpaceX is looking to be a full service provider of people and material transport to LEO and beyond. I don't know about you, but I do not want to see our country have to depend on the Russians for this when with a little effort and colaboration between NASA and private industry we could do it ourselves.
I don't think the government will have a big problem with SpaceX launching humans into space for ONE TENTH the price that NASA spends doing it today and soon won't be able to do at all. Especially since they are already working hand in hand with NASA. They are the ones who need to deal with government red tape and run a lot of the interference for SpaceX. This is much further along than you think. You should really look into the synergy developing between SpaceX and NASA. It's not just about sending rich folks on sub-orbital flights like Virgin. SpaceX is looking to be a full service provider of people and material transport to LEO and beyond. I don't know about you, but I do not want to see our country have to depend on the Russians for this when with a little effort and colaboration between NASA and private industry we could do it ourselves.
hmm, I still say, even when there are private players doing human rocket flights regularly, you still want NASA to have its own rocket launches, because the Coast Guard and the Navy have their own ships, and when a private ship is in trouble, the Coast Guard doesn't call Carver Boat Corporation to provide a yacht for them, they use one of their own Coast Guard Cutters.
So...you need both.
--Brian
So...you need both.
--Brian
If they had an emergency they could go to the Air Force and get something launched if they needed it, there's no point in having a NASA homegrown LEO vehicle just "in case in we need it."
tanstaafl76":2y4zhndl said:
Well they are two totally different purposes. SpaceX products are for commercial space, NASA vehicles are for government use, USAF rockets are for military use. Are the USAF rockets even "human rated"? NASA needs its own separate launch program.
The Coast Guard has its own vessels, the Navy has separate vessels, and FOSS Maritime has its own vessels too.
I really think NASA should sell off the Space Station to become private property, no more NASA funding or ownership of it. Then SpaceX would have lots of market for its products.
--Brian
Thinking about this, I have a question for anyone who knows or wants to chime in. Does NASA have to be the only customer that SpaceX services for manned flights? They do have international customers for satelite launches. What if the Euros, the Japanese, the Chinese or even some of the less technically advanced countries in the world want to use them for manned flights? It would definitely save them money. NASA has provided SpaceX with a launch complex at the cape, but could not other countries do the same thing, i.e. provide SpaceX with lanuch facilities around the world, in effect sub-contracting out a ready made manned space program. Could the US or NASA stop SpaceX from providing their services to anyone who pays? They are a private company after all.
Just perhaps we should wait to see if spacex is totally successful with their larger rocket projects before we have them taking totally over for NASA in getting people to and from LEO on a regular basis?
And even if the first launch is successful, that does not establish the kind of a safety record that would be needed for taking human beings into LEO. I would say that would take at least a half dozen, and perhaps even a dozen such flights.
I know that back in the beginning with such NASA projects as Mercury that was not the case, but then at that time we were in a race with the USSR (and the USSR seemed to be ahead at that time!), and so greater risks were indeed taken. But there is actually no such race going on at this time and it would be far better for even the pure private interests themselves (if they really want to sell even rich people on such trips) to establish such a record.
The trips for about $25 million to the ISS by very rich millionaires are an example in itself. These people are certainly convinced that the Soyuz capsules are safe enough to get them to and from the ISS, and further convinced that their stay on the ISS itself is also going to be relatively safe. We all know that there are still great dangers involved, but with the more established ways of getting into space most of these people seem relatively willing to take at least that much risk anyway!
As for Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic, all they want to demonstrate at this time is safely going to and fro from a sub orbital flight, and even doing that is going to take at least another two years or so (even if there are no problems at all, and the probability of problems is indeed also relatively great).
So just perhaps those of us that are really interested in human space flight should not just lay NASA in its grave for trips to LEO just yet?
That seems to make reasonable logic and common sense to me at least.
And even if the first launch is successful, that does not establish the kind of a safety record that would be needed for taking human beings into LEO. I would say that would take at least a half dozen, and perhaps even a dozen such flights.
I know that back in the beginning with such NASA projects as Mercury that was not the case, but then at that time we were in a race with the USSR (and the USSR seemed to be ahead at that time!), and so greater risks were indeed taken. But there is actually no such race going on at this time and it would be far better for even the pure private interests themselves (if they really want to sell even rich people on such trips) to establish such a record.
The trips for about $25 million to the ISS by very rich millionaires are an example in itself. These people are certainly convinced that the Soyuz capsules are safe enough to get them to and from the ISS, and further convinced that their stay on the ISS itself is also going to be relatively safe. We all know that there are still great dangers involved, but with the more established ways of getting into space most of these people seem relatively willing to take at least that much risk anyway!
As for Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic, all they want to demonstrate at this time is safely going to and fro from a sub orbital flight, and even doing that is going to take at least another two years or so (even if there are no problems at all, and the probability of problems is indeed also relatively great).
So just perhaps those of us that are really interested in human space flight should not just lay NASA in its grave for trips to LEO just yet?
That seems to make reasonable logic and common sense to me at least.
mj1":3d50y4wd said:
As far as I know there shouldn't be anything to stop SpaceX from providing services internationally unless they signed a contract that they'd serve NASA exclusively, which I don't think they would. However, there might be some tricky laws on the books regarding the export of SpaceX products and services, especially since I believe most spacecraft are classified as missiles, not aircraft still. I could be wrong about all of that, though, so please someone correct me if I'm completely mistaken.
mj1":t7p900wr said:
NASA doesn't have to be the only customer and likely won't be, assuming SpaceX continues and is able to fund a launch abort system for Dragon.
I don't know the details, but my guess is that ITAR would prevent Falcon LVs from launching in other countries, but flying paying passengers from an existing US launch site is not NASA's call. Since no one has ever done this, the rules are still being worked out.
BTW, NASA did not provide SpaceX with a launch complex. The SpaceX Cape Canaveral launch complex (SLC-40) is being leased from the Air Force and sits on Cape Canaveral Air Force Base, right next door to KSC.
neutrino78x":2zjfv4ov said:
USAF is part of the government
The US spent a lot of money to have the EELV fleet developed. The manufacturing facilities for both the Atlas V and Delta IV are underutilized. Human rating is overrated. Times are tough.
Why does NASA need its own "launch program?" It needs rides to the ISS. If NASA employees need to go from Florida to California they take a commercial jet.
And NASA has their own vessel. ISS. There might even be money at some point for more vessels, unless the government insists that NASA buy a fleet of Mercedes taxis when a Checkered Cab is available for LEO access.
The ISS is proving to be a great asset for SpaceX. Without it, there would be no government money to help with the costs of developing Dragon.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
Hubble telescope celebrates 34th anniversary with an iridescent Dumbbell Nebula (image)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Watch China launch 3 astronauts to Tiangong space station today
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram