What Does the Success of the Dragon Mean?
Fourth, it means that it can deliver not just inert cargo, but cargo requiring pressure and even basic life support (including biological experiments, such as mice).
Fifth, it means that NASA now has a vehicle capable of serving as a lifeboat at the ISS in the event of an emergency necessitating the evacuation of the station, and need no longer rely on the Russians for this service. While it doesn’t have a full life-support system (yet) it does have a pressurized cabin, and in an emergency people could return in it with nothing but scuba tanks for the short duration of the departure and entry. Moreover, it can in theory support the return of seven crew members, and not just three as the Soyuz does. That means that the station crew size could be expanded without having additional safety concerns. Beyond that, if a Soyuz and Dragon were docked at the same time, it means that there is a functional “ambulance” capability — a sick or injured astronaut could be returned to earth without having to abandon the station.
Sixth, it means that, were the Russians to have problems similar to those they experienced last fall, when they had multiple launch failures and couldn’t get to the ISS, NASA now has a way to get to the station in an emergency. While the Dragon doesn’t yet have a launch abort system (this is one of the items being developed as part of the commercial crew activities), it would be preferable to endure the higher risk of a loss of crew without one, than to abandon the hundred-billion-dollar ISS, as they actually contemplated last year. I haven’t polled them, but I’ll bet that, after this week’s flight, and the first two Falcon 9 missions, most if not all of the astronauts at NASA would be willing to take a ride in it right now, abort system or no, if it were an important mission. Their job is to fly in space, and they’re presumably willing to risk their lives to do so, as long as they understand the risk (as they didn’t really with the shuttle).
Bottom line, in terms of our ability to get the job done if it’s important, America has returned to space. The dreaded “gap” caused by the shuttle retirement didn’t even last a year, thanks to the foresight of the previous administration and the vision of an entrepreneur. Now it’s up to Congress to fully fund the request for commercial crew to enable the rapid development of even safer and competitive systems.
Go SpaceX! Now, we just need someone to make going back to the moon economically worthwhile…
Moon shpoon. Mars is waiting, Let’s Go!
Yaaaay! Barsoom.
Why not have a Moonbase? With the reduced gravity there it’s make a great jumping off point for Mars……..and beyond!
If you want to goto Mars, why would you want to expend fuel, after the expense of leaving Earth’s gravity well, just to enter and have to leave another gravity well?
Fuel wise it would be like taking a detour to south america on a cross country trip from New York to California. It makes to sense.
Freighters stockpile fuel on the moon, so for the launch from Earth you only need enough fuel to get to the moon. Mars launch vehicle is actally assembled on the moon and launched from the moon, a MUCH less stressful and fuel intensive event than escaping earth gravity and heading for mars all in one go. Being assembled on the moon, the Mars vehicle could be lighter and larger than one taking off from Earth.
A Mars mission from Earth orbit would require at least seven separate launches and the assembly of the Mars vehicle over the course of several months. That is with the use of nuclear engines. With chemical rockets the number expands to at least nine, possibly more. And a major difficulty is maintaining the hardware in a point in space. We would probably have to build some form of space station, call it a space dock if you will, to enable a real Mars mission. Doing all that on the moon with its light one sixth gravity, access to solar power farms, and fuel extracted from lunar ice rather than lifted from full Earth gravity makes a great deal of sense.
Fuel from the Earth will be the least expensive and quickest option if we go to Mars before spending a couple of decades on the Moon. Even then, if reusable transportation out of Earth’s atmosphere is perfected (SpaceX or someone), then I can’t see a business case for extracting water from the Moon for export since water on Earth is essentially free, and water from the Moon is hideously expensive.
As to where to stage a mission to Mars, Vladislaw is right, in that you would stage it at L1/L2 or a lunar orbit, but landing the mission elements on the Moon and expending massive amounts of fuel (and wear & tear) by getting it back into orbit would be pretty silly.
We also need to learn how to slow down in the Mars atmosphere or outside so that we can deliver anything of significant size. It should be interesting to see how the sky crane performs (they better release some awesome video.) IIRC this will be the largest thing ever landed on Mars.
Another argument in favor of a moon base is that it could be used to test the equipment and procedures that will be needed for a Mars colony, with a fairly quick return to Earth in case something went wrong. The Mars folks will be on their own.
The moon is already stockpiled with fuel – ice.
First there is the technical accomplishment, which is already outstanding by itself, and then there is the striking demonstration of a cost effectiveness that NASA (or any government agency for that matter), could not possibly match, or even come close to! We should remember that the great objects of pride in Europe, such as the tunnel under the English channel, are funded extraordinarily heavy government participations.
Great accomplishments without government funding, just like the Wright brothers did, isn’t that the American way?
Let’s not forget that NASA lent a supporting role to SpaceX, both in terms of money and expertise. This seems to me to be the perfect arrangement, NASA not as leader but as a supporter and encourager of the private sector. This is a much better buy for the taxpayer
To me, it’s the first interesting thing that’s happened in earth orbit since they repaired the HST. And now we can get those vital zero-g nematode experiments to the ISS without risking astronauts’ lives.
It means that conservatives have been locked out of space. If you what to play in this area you had better be a major democratic party donator, else expect crippling regulatory demands.
Ummmmm…
What?
Wait a few years. There will only be a hand full of companies involved and they will all be major contributors to the democratic party. I wish it was not so, but government regulations and lefty activists will insure that no republican donating or conservatively ran business will be involved.
BTW, I worked for one of the most important defense/aerospace contractors of all time. The company no longer exists. It was attacked by GAO witch hunts orchestrated by democrats for political gains and were coordinated with attacks by envrowackjobs and anti-military Marxist activist. At the same time democratic funding firms were caught in out-right theft and treason, but that was quit OK and those companies still exist.
So forgive me if I am not leaping for joy over a MAJOR lefty wrapping himself in the patina of capitalism. I don’t mean to mean to say that the Dragon was not a great accomplishment, I just don’t think it represents a precursor of free market capitalism in space.
The notion that Elon Musk is a “lefty” at all, let alone a major one, is ludicrous. And there is no evidence that he is an “Obama bundler.” He has held fund raisers for (Republican) Dana Rohrabacher at his factory.
Then whats he doing giving 35K to the Ones campaign? Only a lefty would give that much money to communist. But as I indicated, this is not the point. The point being that NO companies will be involved unless they are democrat donators. The only reason Elon Musk was aloud to play ball was because of his contributions. I am not saying this to denigrate SpaceX’s accomplishment, which is awesome, but he did not have the same impediments that have been place in the ways of some others who have had the same dream and are just as gifted.
Or did you not bother to read about what I wrote concerning what the lefties have been doing for the last 20 years. They have already destroyed one of the greatest companies this country has known, one that was instrumental in us winning WWII and was foundational in the success of our space program. That company no longer exist because it was anti-union and conservative and supported our military.
I am not talking about some abstract concept here, but what the lefties are actually doing right now. I am not talking from the view point of theory but about real measured data. As I indicated earlier, I have over 15 years experience in the industry. How many do you have?
Au contrarie – there is SOME evidence – a statement of a Congressman aware of Musk’s activity. You might not think the evidence has much weight. But it IS evidence.
Which congresscritter, and does LockMart have it’s paw up the back of their shirt?
There is no evidence in the public record, Christian. Pardon me if I am skeptical of a second-hand report of an anonymous congressman, who may have an axe to grind.
First SpaceX received 300 Million from US, second Elon Musk thinks that CO2 should be taxed. That last sure makes him sound like a lefty to me. Even if he is not, and the only reason he has donated mostly to democrats was to insure the success of his project, that just reinforces my contention that only democratic donators will be allowed to play. There is no way that he could have achieved this historic achievement without Obama’s blessing. AND he has only one customer, NASA!
If a republican tried to do this he would be castigated as a villain in the press and enviro-nuts would be picketing his facilities.
I’m getting really tired of people conflating what may or may not be Musk’s political leanings with his SpaceX accomplishments. If you want to go after Musk on something, make it about the Tesla Motor company, which may be another Solyndra. You can use Tesla as your Musk punching bag, but not SpaceX.
And I am tired of EVERYONE conflating the accomplishments of a single left leaning US government contractor, with an accomplishment for free market capitalism.
When I see businesses who do not have a D, building and sending up hardware on systems built and operated by companies who do not have a big D, I’ll be happy.
Until then I will believe what history has already proven to be true.
Bottom line; it is a great day for space exploration, its just not a great day for free enterprise.
Desertyote, until there is an evidence a more qualified company associated with R’s is being thrown over for base political reasons, your rants only show your ignorance. There are none such.
SpaceX is a private company that is out-competing every competitor. Not one comes close.
Funny how so many so-called conservatives are RINOs when it comes to space exploration, and want the crony capitalist cost plus model to be a government monopoly, and the only way into space.
And I am tired of EVERYONE conflating the accomplishments of a single left leaning US government contractor
You continue to assert, with no evidence, that SpaceX is “left leaning.” Why do you do this? And no, contributing to Obama doesn’t make one “left leaning” per se — it just makes one politically unnaive, when one is dependent on government not screwing you over.
Consider the possibility that he has been donating to mostly Democrats because he’s been under attack by Republicans, who are supposed to be in favor of competition and lower costs, for the last two and a half years.
Sorry, “Anonymous” in this thread is me, forgetting to fill out the form.
Desertyote wrote:
“It means that conservatives have been locked out of space. If you what to play in this area you had better be a major democratic party donator, else expect crippling regulatory demands.”
So, you believe that we will have Gibson Guitar-like cases in LEO? Or just what? The idea that high competence in the company Elon Musk manages was not involved is ludicrous. So, I’ll assume you admit that competence. Since SpaceX started its COTS work under the Bush administration, how did a Democrat funding bias get them in the door with COTS under Bush? Or was it just their technical competence?
What evidence do you have that Sierra Nevada Corp. is locked out? They have been in aerospace since the early 1980s, and have no “liberal” track record I know of. Boeing is neither pro-Democrat or Pro-Republican, but pro-Boeing. Why aren’t *they* locked out? In either COTS or Commercial Crew? Why are they usually the ones thought to benefit from the House’s immediate downselect brainstorm, if they are locked out?
That crony capitalism is a part of those things in the Obama administration that Obama cares about is a given. He shows little sign of caring about Spaceflight. When he found that some of his coalition cared about Space, he found some of his volunteers who knew about Spaceflight and NASA, and allowed them to craft a better Space Policy than his initial “cancel NASA for 5 years and give the money to schools” proposal. Then, not caring about Space, he ignored any part of it in any State whose electoral votes he can never get, …like Texas. He even refused to trade anything else to secure passage of his 2010 NASA budget.
In spite of Obama not caring, those volunteers crafted a better NASA budget, not a perfect one, but a better one than we had seen in NASA’s history. At least, better if you are interested in settling the Solar System. What evidence do you have that Obama cares enough about Space to feed it to his crony companies, or impose “crippling regulations”? That requires work!
Immediate downselect to a single company for Commercial Crew, and returning to cost+ contracts for managing it, are *far* closer than the COTS and Commercial Crew Programs’ Space Act Agreements as massive regulation and cronyism. Those are Congress’s ideas, not Obama’s. Then again, Obama is likely gone by January, and will have no power to feed *any* programs to his cronies.
Are you another who canna see *anything* but the fact that Musk donated to this administration, while he donated to Dana Rohrbacher, of impeccable non-progressive credentials at the same time?
This is the very definition of narrow-minded.
Give us some clue you have a broader view than who donated to who, ….yes??
“Now it’s up to Congress to fully fund the request for commercial crew to enable the rapid development of even safer and competitive systems.”
No. Please. Leave the morons in Congress outta this; they’ll just screw it up like they do with everything the govt touches. The more that you accept govt money, the more that the govt will tell you what to do with your creation.
Just say “NO”, SpaceX.
Yep. With government money comes government control.
Uh, no. It does not mean the US is back in the Space Business. It means SpaceX is in the launch business.
Personally, I think that’s significantly BETTER.
SpaceX is a US company.
Contrary to what some people seem to believe, the United States is far larger than the United States government. SpaceX is a US company and therefore part of the US. The US is back in the space business.
This sentence doesn’t make sense in context:
“Vandenberg has an equatorial inclination, and a launch system pays a big penalty to go to inclinations below the latitude of its launch site.”
I think you mean:
“Vandenberg can only launch into a near-polar (>60 deg) inclination to avoid dropping stages on LA, so getting to an equatorial geosynchronous orbit from Vandenberg would be prohibitively expensive.”
You’re right about the latitude vs inclination in general, but only when a site can launch due east.
Otherwise, you make a lot of good points in the article.
(I’m OK with this comment getting deleted, but didn’t otherwise know how to let you know about this.)
You say “dropping stages on LA” like that’s a bad thing. Why?
That was a mistake introduced in editing. It’s been fixed.
The most efficient launch for an orbital vehicle is always directly west to east to take full advantage of the Earth’s spin. That places your vehicle in a low earth orbit with a sinusoidal ground track bounded by the latitude of your launch site. That can be changed during launch, but only at the cost of propellant with a corresponding decrease in payload to orbit. Polar launches are incredibly inefficient and wasteful of prop, but give full Earth track coverage, very popular with our intelligence community. Launches from the Cape pay a significant penalty to reach ISS as it was put at a 54 degree inclination to accommodate the Russian launch site at Baikonur Cosmodrome. The Cape sits at roughly 23 degrees, the inclination of most of our Spacelab independent science missions.
Vandy is well west of LA. Any booster that did not burn up in reentry is more likely to impact Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas.
Sorry, meant Vandenburg is well east of LA.
Durn ‘puter put down what I typed instead of what I thought.
No, Vandenberg is west (northwest, actually) of LA, at 34 degrees latitude. But there are no launches east out of it — the minimum inclination one can reach from there is 57 degrees.
No, the Cape is at 28 degrees, and the ISS is in a 52-degree orbit.
My bad, what I get for working from memory instead of looking at my old mission notes.
it’s easy for a site at 23º to launch into a 54º orbit. The ISS passes right over the cape on a regular basis. All you’re doing is launching a bit north or south of due east.
The loss is to a first approximation 1 – cos(54-23) or 14% of the 960 mph speed at which the launch site is moving to the east. That’s about 135 mph out of the 17000 mph delta-V required for a low orbit — less than 1%.
According to information on the Vandenberg website, the minimum inclination you can launch into from there is 51 degrees. This is just slightly less than the 51.6 degree minimum inclination the Russians have been launching into from Tyuratam (Balkinour) for decades. The latitude at that site is about 46 degrees but range constraints (not wanting to drop rocket stages on China – some people have no sense of humor) limits them to 51.6 degrees, regardless of whether they’re going to the ISS or sending a satellite out to GEO. That’s why the ISS is in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit (as were the Salyuts and Mir stations).
The Russians pay a huge performance penalty for launching satellites to GEO from Tyuratam. The biggest part of the penalty is the amount of energy it takes to lower the inclination to near zero degrees. Years ago, I read in Aviation Week that their Proton booster could put 20 metric tons into LEO. It could send 2 metric tons to GEO (the upper stage took up the other 18 tons) or 5 MT to Mars.
If SpaceX tried to launch to GEO from Vandenberg, it would face similar performance penalties. Good thing the Falcon Heavy is so massively powerful. Still, it seems unlikely they’d do that because its just so inefficient. More likely, they’ll modify their launch pad at the Cape (which used to launch Titan IVs) or build a new launch site such a the proposed one near Brownsville, Texas.
The first Falcon Heavy launch pad is being built at Vandenberg. There’s a lot of speculation as to what the first payload will be. Often, first launches carry an inert test payload so you don’t risk loosing something expensive. Personally, I’d love for them to send a Dragon capsule on a looping flight around the moon. This would require some modifications to the guidance system (which depends heavily on GPS signals that wouldn’t be usable) and boosting the TT&C subsystem to handle long distance commanding and telemetry. Not only would this flight be exciting, it would give SpaceX a chance to test their heat shield on a return from deep space. It was designed for this but it still needs testing.
It means the private sector can move mountains while the public sector can barely move it’s bowels. This country has been badly in need of a bowel flushing for over 50 years. No expert here, but I’d predict a lot of D’s and a bunch of R’s in the Peanut Gallery.
Many people gave their lives to further space program in the US and Russia, proving out technology and research. Hundreds of Billions spent by many Nations to find out what worked and what doesn’t. This is how it has always been, from first sailing ships to the latest satellite and rocket technologies.
No private company has resources to develop research and development programs required for space programs, their shareholders would simply not allow it. It is always Governments that fund exploration, then it is developed and refined by private companies once it is proven.
SpaceX is successful because they stand on the shoulders of Giants.
Yeah, and Space X’s Obama bundler is still standing on those tall government shoulders. No congressional funds, no tickie to launchie to space as the poster boy for Mr. Private Enterprise. Must be nice when you don’t have to compete with the Chinese like Solyandra. I bet in twenty years when they’re still dicking around in low orbit they’ll be complaints about six thousand dollar toilet seats and cost-plus incentive contracts at the taxpayers expense.
Isn’t “dicking around in low Earth orbit” precisely what we’ve been doing for the past 30+ years?
“No congressional funds, no tickie to launchie”
Say what? Congress is purchasing seats from SpaceX, but anyone can buy them. The prices are listed on the website. Currently there just aren’t any destinations in LEO besides ISS, but Bob Bigelow will fix that shortly.
“Must be nice when you don’t have to compete with the Chinese like Solyandra.”
The Chinese Space Agency has gone on the record admitting THEY cannot compete with SpaceX; not even on price.
“I bet in twenty years when they’re still dicking around in low orbit”
The Falcon Heavy can go to the Moon or to Mars in a single launch.
“they’ll be complaints about … cost-plus incentive contracts at the taxpayers expense.”
SpaceX doesn’t take cost-plus contracts. Fixed rate only.
Your ignorance is underwhelming.
First space pickup truck!
You mean SUV, don’t you? Space Utility Vehicle.
Mr. Simberg, it took me all of 3 seconds to ascertain that in the 2011 cycle, out of the $121,000.00 in direct contributions that Elon Musk made, ONLY $17,500.00 was to Republicans, and over $60K was contributed specifically to the DNC and the Obama campaign.
It took only marginally longer to find that Elon’s SpaceX and Fisker got TONS of Federal tax bucks since 2008.
Mr. Billings writes…….”What evidence do you have that Obama cares enough about Space to feed it to his crony companies, or impose “crippling regulations”?”
He cares not a whit about space sir. He cares about rewarding his donors with OUR money.
Since we’re talking about the COTS program, let’s remember that SpaceX was awarded their contract by the Bush/Griffin administration.
Much as it’s a rally cry for people that don’t like political meddling, in reality contracts (as opposed to loan guarantees) do have to be awarded in a fairly non-partisan fashion otherwise they get reversed on appeal. Or you get caught cooking the bid (I’m looking at you Boeing). Providing a competent bid does count, and as we can now see, SpaceX has proven that they are competent.
That still doesn’t make him a “bundler” or a “lefty.” And much of the funds that SpaceX has received since 2008, including the ten million that they will get for the recent flight are from a contract awarded by the Bush administration. But by all means, don’t let reality intrude.
NJ Mike wrote:
“He cares not a whit about space sir. He cares about rewarding his donors with OUR money.”
And you *still* have not explained how Obama got the Bush administration to sign a Space Act agreement with SpaceX that entitled them to those milestone payments once they had achieved their milestones. Why is it that Bush set up SpaceX to be rewarded by Obama? Or, is it not a reward program at all, but purchasing greater speed in development of a capability the US needs, at a price it can afford?
Could it be that you are *not* interested *at*all* in the fact that SpaceX has applied the last 100 years of liquid rocket research (Goddard was giving rocket lectures at Clarke Un. on it in 1912.) more swiftly than its 3 competitors, in a technical cost/value production seldom matched in the aerospace industry?
Could it be that the simple act of giving money to Obama makes you feel that *nothing* that SpaceX could ever do would earn them those milestone payments?
I have no interest in seeing Obama in the WH past January 20th myself. His space policy does not make up for his interference in the rest of our society. However, I do not automatically froth at the mouth when I find any businessman donating to any politician, because the pols have made it impossible to do business in aerospace without their favor.
We can work to end that, and a change in the House and Senate to Tea Party interests is a good start on it. Obsessing about the stuff ATK and the rest of the NASA/Congressional Complex want to distract people with wastes time/energy.
Musk’s auto company is called Tesla Motors or some such. They did get a loan from the government to retool their assembly line to make their expensive cars slightly less expensive.
The good thing about COTS and CCDEV is they paymemt come from performance. If SpaceX and others can’t perform, they wont get paid. This should prevent some of the crony capitalism.
Elon has an electric car company, and it has gotten some gov’t cheese, but it’s Tesla. Fisker is somebody else entirely.
NJ Mike,
Could you remind me when the COTS contract with SpaceX was signed? SpaceX is delivering on a fixed price contract that pre-dates the Obama administration.
And you’re confusing Tesla with Fisker. Not that Tesla didn’t get money, but they seem to be delivering and not igniting.
Capitalism in space…..now we are really off to other worlds quicker than most can imagine.
Mea Culpa on the Tesla/Fisker conflation. Of course, both are buring up but I was incorrect.
As for the COTS, what does that have to do with his donations?
As for who was President when it was signed? Well, the 2005 COTS for delivery/return with the USAF limited to $100mil was a contract awarded by the W administration.
As for the 2008 contract they are operating on now, well that was post democrat takeover of the House/Senate. What choice would W have had then?
But no, it’s real cool to have to go hat in hand to the freaking Russians or Chinese to get up in space, stand tall America stand tall.
NJ Mike wrote:
“As for the 2008 contract they are operating on now, well that was post democrat takeover of the House/Senate. What choice would W have had then?”
Simple, he could have stopped Commercial Crew, which was *always* deemed a threat to the NASA/Congressional Complex arrangements for perpetuating the cost+ money trough for NASA Club contractors, and keeping managers at Centers at higher GS levels than they would have been in managing small technology development programs.
“But no, it’s real cool to have to go hat in hand to the freaking Russians or Chinese to get up in space, stand tall America stand tall.”
For that you can thank the perpetuation of the Apollo myths, that “what we need to go beyond Earth Orbit is a *really*big*rocket*”. No matter that Von Braun’s original plans for BEO work started with orbital rendezvous and propellant depot work, before the rush of Apollo put that aside for the Saturn V type rocket and its faster program time.
What do his donations (to Democrats AND Republicans) have to do with anything? Given how intrusive government is, countless smart companies donate to both sides to hedge their bets. It’s sad that this has to be the case and is strong grounds for reducing the scope and interference of government, but people have to deal with reality today.
Marxist thinking has so infiltrated our culture we don’t even know when we are spouting it. Capitalism itself is a Marxist term. Free enterprise is what we want (more important open competition which is the opposite of cronyism.)
Treating space as the common heritage of mankind is an example of Marxist thinking Because if everybody owns it, nobody does (and the state can tell you what you can or can not do with it.)
We are so blinded by Marxism that we can’t see the funding opportunity staring us in the face.
Congratulations SpaceX for making the future possible.
Elon Musk is now a viable candidate to finally replace Wernher von Braun as a public spokesman for the space program that the media and public will listen to. Von Braun died almost 35 years ago. Like von Braun, Musk is both a visionary with visionary goals, but also has the ability to create rocket and space vehicles to work toward accomplishing those goals.
With the success of the Space Station resupply flight, we expect further announcements from SpaceX. The cost of space access is actually going down right now, as a result of Musk’s deliberate and continuous launch cost reduction program.
Now that the last step of the current SpaceX mission is finished, is a fact, here is what has been accomplished – most of them firsts.
- Third straight successful launch of a Falcon 9 rocket placing a payload in LEO
- Full set of COTS maneuvers accomplished by the Dragon capsule
- Safe approach to the space station by the Dragon
- Capture and grapple of the Dragon by the Canadarm
- airtight docking of the Dragon at the station
- hatch opening and unloading of cargo
- inspection of the external cargo hold (trunk) by Dextre.
- loading of return cargo into the Dragon.
- separation of Dragon from space station
- Deorbit burn of Dragon
- separation from the trunk
- parachute deploy and accurate splashdown of Dragon
- Recovery of undamaged Dragon.
- Return of down cargo from the space station to the ground
What steps have I missed here – try and add some.
CONGRATULATIONS TO SPACEX AND ALL OF ITS WORKERS.
GOOD WORK !
Thanks to Rand for his continuing coverage and analysis.
John Strickland
You left out “deployment of the solar panels” and “opening and latching of the GNC bay door”. SpaceX had never done them before, and the failure of either would have ruined the mission before it started.
Occupation Date Amount Recipient
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX 4/15/2011 $30,800 DNC Services Corp
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X/CEO 2/15/2011 $5,000 Majority Cmte PAC
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 3/28/2011 $5,000 SpaceX
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHN/CEO 10/1/2011 $2,500 McCarthy, Kevin
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHN/CEO 10/1/2011 $2,500 McCarthy, Kevin
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHN/CEO 9/30/2011 $2,500 McCarthy, Kevin
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE EXPLORATION TECHN/CEO 9/30/2011 $2,500 McCarthy, Kevin
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 6/22/2011 $2,500 Fattah, Chaka
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X/CEO 4/14/2011 $2,500 Nelson, Ben
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACE X/CEO 4/14/2011 $2,500 Nelson, Ben
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CHAIRMAN/CEO 6/30/2011 $2,500 Rohrabacher, Dana
MUSK, ELON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90077 SPACEX/CHAIRMAN/CEO 6/30/2011 $2,500 Rohrabacher, Dana
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX 9/12/2011 $2,500 Rubio, Marco
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX 9/12/2011 $2,500 Rubio, Marco
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90280 SPACEX 4/15/2011 $2,500 Obama, Barack
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90280 SPACEX 4/15/2011 $2,500 Obama, Barack
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 8/24/2011 $1,000 Future Leaders PAC
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/C.E.O. 3/28/2011 $1,000 Brown, Scott
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 3/31/2011 $1,000 Cantwell, Maria
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 6/30/2011 $1,000 Cantwell, Maria
MUSK, ELON R
EL SEGUNDO,CA 90245 SPACEX/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 5/16/2011 $1,000 Stabenow, Debbie
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 8/18/2011 $200 Nelson, Bill
MUSK, ELON R
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 SPACEX/CEO 8/18/2011 $200 Nelson, Bill
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 4/6/2011 $-2,000 Bingaman, Jeff
MUSK, ELON
HAWTHORNE,CA 90250 2/10/2012 $-2,500 Nelson, Ben
Once you scientician types can calculate the nexus between politics and science, I’ll come back and ask you how appreciative DR was for the bare minimum donation. But looky who gots more???
So, tell me what happens when the wallet(uhhhbama)tells Elon to ‘lose’ a rocket in China? Hey, who cares if they improve even further their ballistic abilities?
Sorry, guys……..while there are few who despise Goobermint and it’s INABILITY to perform, I still ‘feel’ that Space Exploration belongs to us all, citizens of the USA.
The USA sent a man to the moon, now we can send a man to the………airport to catch a flight to China.
Once you scientician types can calculate the nexus between politics and science, I’ll come back and ask you how appreciative DR was for the bare minimum donation.
I suspect that he was pretty appreciative of the use of the SpaceX facilities for a fundraiser, where he took in a lot more money than Elon’s donation.
So, tell me what happens when the wallet(uhhhbama)tells Elon to ‘lose’ a rocket in China? Hey, who cares if they improve even further their ballistic abilities?
That is truly nutty.
Anonymous – feel free to email me at ruleoflaw@electionlawcenter.com for more information about this Obama fundraiser at SpaceX facilities if you have more details.
There was no Obama fundraiser at SpaceX HQ. The fundraiser was for “DR” aka Dana Rohrabacher. Republican.
And “Anonymous” was me, sorry.
Anonymous wrote:
“So, tell me what happens when the wallet(uhhhbama)tells Elon to ‘lose’ a rocket in China?”
“Lose” a rocket? As in drop one out of orbit? Why would China want a bunch of melted/vaporized rocket parts??? Reusability, that would allow the second stage to come down intact, won’t happen till after Obama is term-limited out of office, even if he survives this November, which I doubt. Even then the first stage would never reach as far as China.
As to Elon’s wallet, by then he’ll be listening far more closely to what will probably be his biggest customer for crewed Dragon, Bigelow Aerospace. You remember, right? That’s the Robert Bigelow who has been *warning* us about China and the Moon??
“Sorry, guys……..while there are few who despise Goobermint and it’s INABILITY to perform, I still ‘feel’ that Space Exploration belongs to us all, citizens of the USA.”
So do we. That’s why we want *the*rest*of*the*Republic* to get access to Space, in addition to the Astronaut Office at JSC. SpaceX is a good start on that. We simply want to break the government monopoly, not eliminate government human spaceflight. In fact, we think it has a strong place in settling the Solar System, just not a majority place.
“The USA sent a man to the moon, now we can send a man to the………airport to catch a flight to China.”
Please get the destination right. The tickets read “Star City, Moscow, Russia”.
They will continue to longer than they should have, because Congress has been more interested in pork for NASA Centers and NASA Club contractors than in spaceflight. At the moment there is far more chance that Bigelow will build the first US lunar community than NASA ever had of doing so.
“… America has returned to space.”
SpaceX deserves every accolade, but the truly inspiring aspect of this seminal event are the future prospects it offers. Success at $1000/lb to LEO is fantastic; achieving reusable systems and $100/lb to LEO will be earth shattering.
It opens the door into space for us all.
I am amazed. And I have to take back my words in comments to previous posts you made about SpaceX. I never thought it would work. It seems to have worked quite well.
A question for the assembled experts. What is the cost of a comparable resupply/return mission using government rockets?
Also a rhetorical question, given that we have Delta and Atlas based systems, why didn’t NASA develop a simple supply/return vehicle using stuff from their parts bin? One would think that would be cheaper and provide a plan B in case we lost our ability to transport stuff both ways.
I’ve said many times that I haven’t been this excited about a space flight since the 1970s. And for an unmanned test flight, no less!
This mission was successful beyond anybody’s wildest dreams. It wasn’t just a home run; it was a grand slam into the upper deck. Absolutely thrilling.
Dragon was controlled by SpaceX’s own Mission Control in Hawthorne, while the ISS was controlled by NASA’s Mission Control in Houston. This flight was more than just a test of hardware and software. During the operations in the vicinity of the ISS, both teams had to work closely together. Publicly at least, I have heard nothing but praise from NASA officials for the competence and professionalism of the SpaceX people.
What is the cost of a comparable resupply/return mission using government rockets?
…
Also a rhetorical question, given that we have Delta and Atlas based systems, why didn’t NASA develop a simple supply/return vehicle using stuff from their parts bin? One would think that would be cheaper and provide a plan B in case we lost our ability to transport stuff both ways.
Currently, we don’t have anything capable of repeating what SpaceX demonstrated. SpaceX lists a Falcon 9 launch at $54 million. Once regular resupply missions are underway, NASA will pay $130 million for each flight (that includes a new Dragon capsule each time). A Dragon capsule is supposed to take up to 6 metric tons (>13,000 pounds) up to ISS and bring down 3 tons.
Orbital Science is planning to test fly their Antares rocket and Cygnus resupply spacecraft later this year. It will have a payload of 2 metric tons up but no return capability. If successful, they’ll be paid more than SpaceX for each flight, but please don’t ask me to explain why NASA is paying more for less capability.
Boeing is working on their CST-100 capsule. It’s intended to carry up to humans to the ISS and Bigelow space modules, but it probably wouldn’t be that difficult to develop an unmanned cargo version. The early flights will be on Atlas V boosters. Getting firm price information on Atlas V and Delta IV boosters isn’t easy but it appears they cost over $300 million each. Boeing wisely also designed their CST-100 so that it could be launched on Delta IV or Falcon 9 boosters.
The closest thing that NASA is actually paying to have developed is the Orion capsule being built by Lockheed-Martin. So far, NASA has paid over $5 billion on Orion development. The first unmanned test flight is scheduled for 2014 on an Atlas or Delta booster. It would be ruinously expensive to use Orion capsules as cargo carriers.
NASA actually doesn’t build much of anything. Instead, they traditionally have contracted for systems from companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. Almost all of the time, they’ve used cost-plus contracting which means the contractors have little or no incentive to control costs. The fundamental difference with the COTS constracts is that they’re fee for service. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences get paid for meeting certain development milestones and when they actually furnish the services. If the rocket fails, they don’t get paid. On a cost-plus contract, the government self-insures so if the rocket fails, too bad, so sad but you’ll have to pay for a replacement.
Sorry for the anon post, hit the wrong buttons; I am absolutely NOT tech-minded. My arguments regarding the USA and space are admittedly emotional.
As for ‘losing a rocket’, no I did not mean one that has been crashed etc….but really, what could go wrong filling a rocket full of USAF thingamajiggies(super secret code for spy stuff) passing it off to a third party and then carting it to our traditional ally, that paradigm of honesty, Russia? Mr. Billings, you and I will differ as I ‘feel’(putting it out there that this is an emotional argument) that this IS a place for the Government to represent us…..I am making my argument poorly, but that’s the problem with the emotional ones…..while I agree that businesses are deserving of free speech(CitUnited) with the transitory nature of ownership(which is accounted for in CitUnited) that this year he is a USA co., but next he may be in Lichtenstein……that’s all…….my concerns are bolsterd by his support of lefty pols, and his cynical lowball purchases of the righty’s…..
And Anon @ 2:57, did we ever get the jet back from CHINA that went down first year, W administration? The Stealth chopper from Pakistan? Furthermore, have you not been paying attention to the traitor in the Oval Office who keeps spilling our secret beans, following the path set by the Clintons? The Albright rule of opening up Oak Ridge, etc…..to all? Truly nutty? No sir your comment is truly naive.
And, America did NOT return to space. A private company, currently CURRENTLY based in the USA did. Semantics yes, but dammit that’s part of national pride….
Still, I’ll give you this about SpaceX……no muslim outreach mandated.
America is more than the government. SpaceX, an American company, has succeeded so it’s fully reasonable to say that America has returned to space.
And looky here:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=145209661
Who can’t be excited about the future of spaceflight at this point? I have been long been puzzled and perplexed by all the wailing and rending of garments over “the end of the space program”.
That was meant to be a link to the Sierra Nevada captive carry test in the right sidebar. I don’t seem to be able to link it directly.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=145064741
I think that’s it.
Re:Success of the dragon. That private enerprise can ALWAYS do it far better, cheaper and faster than government.
And that incentives matter far more than good intentions.
“Fifth, it means that NASA now has a vehicle capable of serving as a lifeboat at the ISS in the event of an emergency necessitating the evacuation of the station, and need no longer rely on the Russians for this service. While it doesn’t have a full life-support system (yet) it does have a pressurized cabin, and in an emergency people could return in it with nothing but scuba tanks for the short duration of the departure and entry.”
“Sixth, it means that, were the Russians to have problems similar to those they experienced last fall, when they had multiple launch failures and couldn’t get to the ISS, NASA now has a way to get to the station in an emergency. While the Dragon doesn’t yet have a launch abort system (this is one of the items being developed as part of the commercial crew activities), it would be preferable to endure the higher risk of a loss of crew without one, than to abandon the hundred-billion-dollar ISS, as they actually contemplated last year.”
Could a link be provided where even Space X signs up to these two assertions?
They aren’t SpaceX’s assertions — they are mine.
They are rather startling deviations from crew safety protocols. If you are going to assert them for Space X hardware, would it not be a good idea to see how they feel about it (or at least note that they are your unsubstantiated positions.)?
The Soyuz capsule is a proven design. It had two fatal accidents early on but has been quite reliable since. However, there were some close calls a few years ago during reentry. Now suppose they have another serious accident with a Soyuz capsule, what then? You have astronauts stranded in the ISS that may need to come down. In a pinch, a Dragon capsule could be quickly fitted for the mission. Launch it unmanned (no launch escape system needed), rendezvous with the ISS and berth it as demonstrated on this mission. The astonauts could enter and be returned quickly and safely. This would be in an emergency situation but it beats any other alternative.
An interesting disaster scenario (maybe Bruce Willis can star in the movie); however it has nothing to do with the situations posited in the source article.
Those were:
- “Fifth, it means that NASA now has a vehicle capable of serving as a lifeboat at the ISS in the event of an emergency necessitating the evacuation of the station, and need no longer rely on the Russians for this service.”
That is the replacement of the Soyuz with a cargo version of the Dragon (using “nothing but scuba tanks for the short duration of the departure and entry”) where no prior emergency had emerged.
- “Sixth, it means that, were the Russians to have problems similar to those they experienced last fall, when they had multiple launch failures and couldn’t get to the ISS, NASA now has a way to get to the station in an emergency. While the Dragon doesn’t yet have a launch abort system (this is one of the items being developed as part of the commercial crew activities), it would be preferable to endure the higher risk of a loss of crew …”
Nothing about an unmanned launch of the Dragon.
We could additionally go into the lack of Crew Impact Attenuation System etc., but what is the point? If we are going to go this far afield to avoid the issues brought up in the source material.
An interesting disaster scenario (maybe Bruce Willis can star in the movie); however it has nothing to do with the situations posited in the source article.
Those were:
- “Fifth, it means that NASA now has a vehicle capable of serving as a lifeboat at the ISS in the event of an emergency necessitating the evacuation of the station, and need no longer rely on the Russians for this service.”
That is the replacement of the Soyuz with a cargo version of the Dragon (using “nothing but scuba tanks for the short duration of the departure and entry”) where no prior emergency had emerged.
-“Sixth, it means that, were the Russians to have problems similar to those they experienced last fall, when they had multiple launch failures and couldn’t get to the ISS, NASA now has a way to get to the station in an emergency. While the Dragon doesn’t yet have a launch abort system (this is one of the items being developed as part of the commercial crew activities), it would be preferable to endure the higher risk of a loss of crew …”
Nothing about an unmanned launch of the Dragon.
We could additionally go into the lack of Crew Impact Attenuation System etc., but what is the point? If we are going to go this far afield to avoid the issues brought up in the source material.
They are rather startling deviations from crew safety protocols.
There is nothing “startling” about it. It is simply common sense. If there is an emergency aboard the station, a Dragon could be used to return crew. If there is a problem with the Soyuz, there is now an alternative to abandoning the station, even if it is a “deviation from crew safety protocols.”
I will bring up one point and then let this drop.
You (not Space X – Thank goodness) assert that the Cargo Version of the Dragon could be used as a CRV by simply adding scuba tanks for life support.
Skipping all the issues that brings up, what about crew impact attenuation.
- What are the loads upon successful parachute deploy?
- What are the loads upon landing even with a successful parachute deploy?
- What sort of seat/seat pallet system is required?
Unless you are ready to address those issues (and many others) then your statements cannot be taken seriously.
You (not Space X – Thank goodness) assert that the Cargo Version of the Dragon could be used as a CRV by simply adding scuba tanks for life support.
Yes, for a short (a few hours) mission, which is what a return from ISS would be.
Skipping all the issues that brings up, what about crew impact attenuation.
- What are the loads upon successful parachute deploy?
- What are the loads upon landing even with a successful parachute deploy?
- What sort of seat/seat pallet system is required?
The system was designed to carry crew from the very beginning, in terms of loads, through both ascent and descent. The seats already exist, and have been tested by NASA astronauts in Hawthorne. All that it’s missing is a launch abort system (in work), which will make it safer, and a full-blown ECLSS for long-duration missions, also in development. You might want to educate yourself a little on the system. This is all publicly available information.
Yes, for a short (a few hours) mission, which is what a return from ISS would be.”
According to you, but fortunately not (apparently) for Space X.
“The system was designed to carry crew from the very beginning, in terms of loads, through both ascent and descent. The seats already exist, and have been tested by NASA astronauts in Hawthorne.”
It is not a matter of just looking at the seats, it is a matter of assuring the loads imparted in a nominal flight will not injure (kill) an occupant. That has not been assured in any way for Dragon at this point and (as far as is available on the public record) Space X does not claim that it has (only you do). The fact that you do not even seem to understand the issue calls into question your claimed expertise.
“You might want to educate yourself a little on the system. This is all publicly available information.”
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the issues on which you claim to be an expert, as your knowledge is severely lacking.
This is enough of this bravo sierra. If the readers of this site choose to take you unsubstantiated assertions (which even you have admitted Space X does not back) as factual that is their privilege, but I think anyone reading this exchange would have reason to wonder.
Have a nice evening.
That has not been assured in any way for Dragon at this point and (as far as is available on the public record) Space X does not claim that it has (only you do).
Why do you continue to flaunt your ignorance in this matter so publicly? SpaceX has claimed that Dragon was designed to carry crew from the beginning. You really should do some research, instead of continuing to embarrass yourself here.
The article means the vehicles basic structural design was made with the intent for it to be able to be developed into a crewed vehicle.
Space X has not yet developed (among other things):
- ECLSS
- CIAS
Nor do they claim to. Without those systems (and others) the Dragon cannot carry passengers. That is the reason for the Commercial Crew Program (which hopes to have vehicles flying in 2017). If Space X already has (as you imply) the Dragon ready for crewed flight then they should not need any Commercial Crew money, but they sure are asking for it.
As for me (or anyone else who dares disagree with you) showing”ignorance”, name calling seems to be your specialty, so you regularly show your own ignorance coupled with a totally unjustified arrogance.
You play your games by the rule “He who posts last wins.”
So say whatever else you wish, I am through with this conversation.
Space X has not yet developed (among other things):
- ECLSS
- CIAS
Nor do they claim to.
They are in development.
Without those systems (and others) the Dragon cannot carry passengers.
Untrue. A crude ECLSS could be put together very quickly, if need be, and they can fly without a “CIAS” (I have no idea what this acronym is for, but I assume that it is for launch abort). It is simply less safe (though actually, one can design an escape system that actually introduce more hazards than it eliminates, as NASA did with the Orion LAS). If there were an emergency situation, there would be no shortage of volunteers to fly without one.
If Space X already has (as you imply) the Dragon ready for crewed flight then they should not need any Commercial Crew money, but they sure are asking for it.
It is not ready for crewed flight per NASA specifications — that is why they are asking for NASA funds to get it there. Without NASA funds, they could fly other people who are willing to risk it now, and they would eventually develop the other systems on their own — it would just take longer (since they have always planned to fly passengers). But everything I wrote in this piece remains true, sorry.
Considering all the wisdom and logic of the counter arguments I withdraw from the field, smarter for the experience. I thank you, and wish a good weekend to all.
I know we can all agree a sunny weekend beats the rain and clouds we’ve been having here!
It’s nice that it worked. It’s a whole lot better than if it failed. And yet, really, what has been proved? Forty years after this sort of thing was first done, with FAR better engineering facilities thanks to computers, and with several space technology generations behind us, a private company was able to repeat old successes and take government money for doing so. Hoorah? And the big difference is they’re doing it for set fees instead of cost-plus? Is that the progress we’ve made in space in forty years? Does that really promise to reduce the cost per pound to orbit by 10x? Is there yet any economic reason to put men in space?
I’m underwhelmed, and even a bit mystified. I sort of see Elon Musk as the new Milo Minderbinder, bringing the benefits of private enterprise to about the last place on Earth (?!) that it seems to be an issue. And ditto for all other private space programs. When they start funding their own launches, somebody send me a note.
When they start funding their own launches, somebody send me a note.
You must’ve missed the first 4 launches of the Falcon 1 and the first Falcon 9 launch.
You’re missing the point. SpaceX is radically changing the economics of space launch. They – a single private company – are doing what it took whole nations to achieve before, and they’re doing it for a fraction of the price. They have over 40 flights scheduled on their manifest and only 1/3rd of them are for NASA. The rest are commercial companies who’re hiring SpaceX because they can get the job done a lot cheaper. Even the Chinese admit they can’t compete with SpaceX’s prices.
The NASA flights are fee for service. If a SpaceX launch fails, they don’t get paid. That’s completely different from how other companies have done government space launch before. The government self insures space launches, so if there’s a failure, the government eats the cost. The contractor might lose an award fee but they still get paid for the rocket. On a cost-plus contract, they’re guaranteed a profit no matter how high the price gets. SpaceX is selling fixed-price launches, and their price is about 1/6th the cost of an Atlas V or Delta IV.
If Space X already has (as you imply) the Dragon ready for crewed flight then they should not need any Commercial Crew money
SpaceX received $75m for the specific purpose of developing a LAS. Since a LAS is not actually required for crew (because it’s only for safety very like a seatbelt in a car.) You can drive a car without a seatbelt and you can fly in a Dragon without a LAS.
You are right that they didn’t need it. They got it for a specific purpose. To suggest that they couldn’t act as a crew lifeboat if they didn’t have it is just plain wrong.
Elon himself said a person could have taken the first flight of the Dragon (not the mockup on the first F9 launch) and would have had a nice ride, which answers your concerns even if you don’t agree.
When someone actually does fly aboard the Dragon; will that address your concerns?
From this article…
A prototype Dragon was equipped with seats, lighting, environmental control and life support systems, conceptual displays and controls, cargo racks and other interior systems
The milestone was the seventh of 10 under a development program that runs through July 31.
I always smile when I see the GE D-2/ Russia’s Soyuz / China’s Project 921/1 – Shenzhou.
GE published their design details at the American Astronautical Society Symposium in December 1962 …. a Soviets were saved years in design work. Too bad GE did not license and collect $$ for each one made and launched !!