SpaceX Readies First Dragon Spacecraft

[Admin]

OK, now that it is clear that your previous hopping that SpaceX did it all alone was not based on reality, let's talk about numbers:

The same article provides other numbers. Let's assume that they are real.

First, it is clear that the article is evidently and quite blatantly biased against NASA and for SpaceX-like alternatives. Why do I claim that? Because the way the article presents the numbers:

They point out that SpaceX *CLAIMS* that they can transport a human for 20 Million per seat. OK, let's assume that they will be able to prove that (they only claim and are yet to PROVE that).

Now the article compares that with NASA's own numbers that an STS mission costs today 450 Million. OK, let's analyze that number and NORMALIZE the comparison: 450 Million divided by 7 (the number of seats), gives us roughly 62 Million per seat. So it means that SpaceX claims that it can bring an Astronaut to LEO for three time less than NASA (not +20 times as the article hopes that superficial readers will understand). Now let's continue analizing: SpaceX talks about cost "per seat" while NASA's numbers talk about "per mission" which is different. Basically NASA's numbers cover the entire mission, not only the transportation part, which the article tries to compare.

So basically I assume that SpaceX will be cheaper by about 30-50% per seat than the STS, which is still impressive, but not as devastating as the irresponsible journalist tries to imply (while glorifying the fact that SpaceX will be getting 6 Billion dolar in funding from the current Administration in 2011).

HOWEVER that is also irrelevant (together with a cost for building a Shuttle)because the article compares the SpaceX cost per seat with the STS program which is already finished (so no point in building a new Shuttle anyway, so why is that 1.7Billion even there?). What about comparing the SpaceX claim with what Constellation would have costed - and not the entire program, only the Ares part, dealing with LEO?

I assume that there would still be in the SpaceX favour but not as dramatically as the NASA bashers and the mainstream (largely clueless) media tries to imply, which leaves everything to only one argument: POLITICS!

I am sure that if this would have happened during the previous Administration, the mainstream media would argue that part of the gov funding goes to SpaceX because the previous Administration supposedly favored blood-sucking Capitalists over tens of thousands of laid-off families, but in this case, they actually glorify the layoff, while distorting facts and forcing them fit their ulterior political motives.

Now let it be clear: I think that NASA does need a certain streamlining, but what's been done to it is far from re-organization - it is rather a serious castration which hurts the future of the American manned Space Exploration.

Last, it is totally irrelevant if any of you think that America does not "deserve" a national Space Exploration program at all, and push for and "internationalization" of Space Exploration.

I also don't care to analyze why any of you might really want to see the US less of a Space Exploration leader that has been for so long, or claim that NASA's achievements belong to a specific person coming from a specific country. Don't forget that America has been, and will be a country of immigrants, so everybody deserves credit!

What is important ultimately is what the American people want for America, and not what somebody living in a foreign country wants for America to be. If the mid-term elections are a sign, it seems that the American people - especially in Florida which has traditionally been a bastion of the Democrats - do not really like what the Administration has been doing (especially to Space Exploration, but not only) during its first two years.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

OK, now that it is clear that your previous hopping that SpaceX did it all alone was not based on reality, let's talk about numbers:

I don't think that anything is clear here. Once Again: the entire concept of Falcon and Dragon, it's design, its fabrication, testing and final operation comes from SpaceX. NASA chosed SpaceX for ISS support flights and pays the costs. Simply because SpaceX is the only company right now which can do so that quick and by such low costs.

They point out that SpaceX *CLAIMS* that they can transport a human for 20 Million per seat. OK, let's assume that they will be able to prove that (they only claim and are yet to PROVE that).

Well, a seat on Soyuz costs about 50 million USD for a NASA astronaut (and about 20 million USD for a tourist if I remember correctly). NASA will train the astronauts, medically check and prepare them etc. (which for Soyuz flights is done by Roskosmos). SpaceX will bring them up and back. 20 million per seat sounds quite realistical.

Now the article compares that with NASA's own numbers that an STS mission costs today 450 Million. OK, let's analyze that number and NORMALIZE the comparison: 450 Million divided by 7 (the number of seats), gives us roughly 62 Million per seat. So it means that SpaceX claims that it can bring an Astronaut to LEO for three time less than NASA (not +20 times as the article hopes that superficial readers will understand). Now let's continue analizing: SpaceX talks about cost "per seat" while NASA's numbers talk about "per mission" which is different. Basically NASA's numbers cover the entire mission, not only the transportation part, which the article tries to compare.

And the 450 million are even beautified by NASA and old I guess. In fact, a Shuttle launch costs about one billion per launch: http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html

SpaceX should be, and will be way less expensive than STS because in comparison STS is a real monster program. It is not hard at all to undercut the STS program costs by something like Falcon 9. So there you are right that a comparison is useless in terms of payload mass and efforts. But in terms of carrying astronauts to the ISS including costs, the comparison makes sense because the Shuttle is the only thing NASA has right now and Falcon 9 / Dragon is the soonest option for NASA to get astronauts to the ISS and back. You can only compare what you have to offer, and that's just the Shuttle vs. Falcon 9 / Dragon if its about sending astronauts to the ISS

So basically I assume that SpaceX will be cheaper by about 30-50% per seat than the STS, which is still impressive, but not as devastating as the irresponsible journalist tries to imply (while glorifying the fact that SpaceX will be getting 6 Billion dolar in funding from the current Administration in 2011).

As the Shuttle costs roughly a billion per launch, SpaceX is going to be even cheaper than 30-50%.

As for the 6 billion USD: as far as I know, 6 billion is the total amount for the entire commercial sector, not just for SpaceX, over a period of 5 years.

What about comparing the SpaceX claim with what Constellation would have costed - and not the entire program, only the Ares part, dealing with LEO?

I assume that there would still be in the SpaceX favour but not as dramatically as the NASA bashers and the mainstream (largely clueless) media tries to imply, which leaves everything to only one argument: POLITICS!

I'm not quite sure if I understand you correct, but Musk already did compare Constellation, based on NASA estimations which we all know and which have been pointed out by the Augustine Commission. About 9 billion have been spend for Ares 1 and Orion. Result? Almost none which would bring anything even close to a launch pad and functioning. Required money to put a fully functional Ares 1 including Orion on the launch pad? Awesome 50 billion USD which is about 1/3 of the entire STS program costs just to carry a shrinked LEO version of Orion into LEO. SpaceX can't even nearly be that much expensive, because SpaceX doesn't even have such a wasting program structure and job machine to cause that much costs.

I think that I am mistaken regarding what the USA deserves and what not. Indeed it doesn't matter what me or somebody else thinks the USA "deserves" or not. But I think what many Americans think who are deeply interested in space flight and who look at it more carefully: that the taxpayer needs politicians and managers who take a greater care of reasonable space programs (which you can read across the web and in several space flight communites; my comments are even friendly in comparison). "Because it is expensive" is quite an irrational reasoning. It did work for STS only by luck as we know and for sure for the last time. Apollo sadly was wedged in a political race. Therefore Apollo 17 was not only the final but almost the only true scientific mission with Jack Schmitt as the only "civilian" and only scientist on the Moon. STS did offer way more scientific capabilities than Apollo (first of all Hubble and ISS) but was anything as intended in terms of costs and resources. It has eaten up a lot of money which was reserved for other scientific programs. It is for sure to any sane person that NASA can not just continue that way (and Constellation would have been nothing more than a rerun of Apollo). I think that not only Obama but also anybody else wouldn't spent 50 billion USD for something that costs more than the Shuttle but carries less and especially does less.

What NASA needs first is a reliable and efficient system for the future before planning for the Moon and especially "beyond". And I personally don't care if that system is designed by NASA or somebody else as long as the costs stay on the carpet in relation to the results (and I don't mean Falcon 9 / Dragon of course). I'm not suffering from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here

[Admin]

Well, a Soyuz seat is 50M now, but the Russians already announced at the beginning of 2010 that it will go up to 75M since there wil be no bilateral usage of space transportation - i.e. no Russian astronauts going up in a Shuttle anymore, and I suspect also because they realized that the Americans won't be having an alternative of their own and the Soyuz may well become the only alternative.

That must have been a terrible wake up call for those in the Administration who were more than happy to recklessly kill NASA on the altar of political correctness and irresponsible, Bolshevik-style re-distribution of funds. They have been scrambling ever since with reviving parts of Constellation more and more, while funding commercial space transportation such as SpaceX and now Boeing.

And on the contrary Moonwalker, the SpaceX funding subject is very clear: you gloated that SpaceX proved that a commercial entity can do it 100% self-funded, while one of the NASA bashing journalists proved you wrong, with numbers.

SpaceX became a serious contender only when it received gov money and resources (both through NASA budget) to finish and launch the prototype. Moreover, it will continue to be funded for the foreseeable future.  That subject is closed and there is no amount of dilution and diversion that can change that.

The only open subject is how cheap they will be able to pull this off without an impact on safety and reliability. For now, that is still questionable so the burden of proof, not speculation, lies on SpaceX. Let's move to other subjects now. For the record, I think they will manage to pull it off, that's inevitable, but when that happens, the cost will not be that far from NASAs or other space agencies. While technology can lead to better efficiency (like the Shuttle costing less than 20% to operate today than at the beginning), the present situation is not that dramatic yet.

Last, if you are not so sure about things, why argue? Call back when you are sure and backed by facts, not by speculation. Again, research before you post.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

you gloated that SpaceX proved that a commercial entity can do it 100% self-funded, while one of the NASA bashing journalists proved you wrong, with numbers.

I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.

Last, if you are not so sure about things, why argue? Call back when you are sure and backed by facts, not by speculation. Again, research before you post.

SpaceX is the first non-governmental body that has and does offer access to space. That's not a specualtion. It's reality

And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians.

NASA can be happy that SpaceX does exist and is capable to carry something into LEO and return it home. Because, this is another fact, NASA does not yet have a system to carry anything to the ISS by such low costs once the Shuttle is retired. That SpaceX gets 1.6 billion USD for 12 support flights does not at all contradict those facts. If you want something, you have to buy it. No matter if it's NASA, Iridium Communications Inc. or other future customers. Theoretically speaking, SpaceX could also offer tourist flights to the ISS in future (once Dragon is certified for manned flights) just like Russia already does.

As for Soyuz: I'm glad that Russia likely is going to increase their prices per seat. Because it will certainly help boosting the commercial sector in the USA. And if somebody else than NASA can do it by less costs but still safe, be sure the government would chose commercial systems for carrying humans into space for exploration rather than to fund uncertain monster programs.

[Admin]

Moonwalker,

Your later post is full of contradictions (you're contradicting yourself) that I see no point in answering it anymore.

/Admin

[davidrobinsonjr]

I find the back and forth interesting. This article is also interesting. Read the last paragraph.

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html

[Moonwalker]

I find the back and forth interesting. This article is also interesting. Read the last paragraph.

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100611-spacex-drop-dragon-flight.html

The article doesn't tell any news actually. The 248 million SpaceX got from NASA was a price which SpaceX won. Rocketplane Kistler got about 200 million USD by the way. The Orbital Sciences Corporation also won money. But we haven't seen anything from them yet regarding ISS support (and less than ever returning a capsule from space).

500 million USD for getting access to space, i.e establishing facilities, building and testing rockets and a recoverable, pressurized capsule, is pretty cheap. SpaceX got about 350 million from NASA and will get roughly 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. for carrying the Iridium satellites into orbit. SpaceX is profitable already, and as I said, works quite efficient with only about 1000 employees. They got the right people with the right amount of know how to do what no other small privately founded company did before: establishing access to space with a relatively low amount of money within only a very few years after starting at "0" experience. That's an awesome achievement.

Multiply 500 million USD by an awful factor of 100 and you would help NASA to at least finish the development of Orion and Ares 1 on time (excluding operating costs of course). Nuff said.

[Moonwalker]

To return to the actual topic:

Falcon 9 did not only carry Dragon into Orbit by the way, but also nanosatellites and CubeSat payloads (as the Air Force and Army will buy SpaceX flights in future as well) at an altitude of 11,000 kilometers, by reigniting the second stage after Dragon separation. And I have to correct myself: Dragon did splash down only 800 metres offset, and not 10 kilometers

More information of COTS Demo Flight 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COTS_Demo_Flight_1

[davidrobinsonjr]

And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians

Read the last paragraph again.

Your topic. Not mine.

[Moonwalker]

And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians

Read the last paragraph again.

Your topic. Not mine.

That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.

[Moonwalker]

It is very interesting what one sentence like "that not only big governmental agencies do have the power and resources to launch rockets into space" does cause to some people. Neither Falcon 1, nor Falcon 9 and Dragon is designed, manufactured, tested and operated by NASA or one of its usual long-term partners like Boeing. It seems that many people can't deal with the fact that NASA is politically forced to completely buy efficient engineering capabilities, know how and operation from a small privately founded Californian company.

Not to imagine what would happen if SpaceX will man-rate Falcon 9 and Dragon. Oh dear, I can smell big NASA program fans going to "explode" literally

[spaceboy7441]

And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians

Read the last paragraph again.

Your topic. Not mine.

That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.

I think this is where the issue comes into play. You are contradicting yourself. Read your post above and the one below with the bold sections

I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.

[Moonwalker]

And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians

Read the last paragraph again.

Your topic. Not mine.

That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.

I think this is where the issue comes into play. You are contradicting yourself. Read your post above and the one below with the bold sections

I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.

What's so hard to understand? Falcon 1 is the first private rocket that launched into Space. And it's an independent proprietary concept and development by SpaceX, just like Falcon 9 as well. That NASA funds the required expenditures to test and operate Falcon 9 and Dragon, because NASA simply is the customer, is not a contradiction in my point of view.

I think the main issue is, like I've already mentioned one post before, that many people can't deal with the fact that NASA is forced to completely buy the engineering capabilities and access to space from a small privately founded Californian company, which does offer what no other small company did offer before in history. And I think this is because many people are victims of the old fallacy that only something like NASA can launch rockets, paylaods and men into space / to the ISS. But SpaceX already proved otherwise. They do so as well by just a few hundred million USD and with only 1000 employees. No speculation, no wishful thinking. Just current facts.

[Admin]

Moonwalker,

The subject has lost its interest to me because it is clear that you are more interested in bashing NASA (and sometimes the US) at any cost, than promoting a healthy discussion about the future of Space Exploration.

I hope that other people reading your posts actually take the time to research your claims and see them in the correct context.

/Admin

[spaceboy7441]

And I've already mentioned the key-facts several times: SpaceX is a privately funded company which sent the first privately funded rocket into space, which will send cargo and possibly humans to the ISS for NASA, and which got the biggest commercial contract in space flight history. And they do so on their own, based on their own scientists, engineers and technicians

Read the last paragraph again.

Your topic. Not mine.

That news article, and also the last paragraph, does not contradict the fact that SpaceX is the first privately founded company that offers cheap access to space. NASA did neither design, build and test the hardware, nor do they operate it. It's all done by SpaceX, not by NASA, no matter if the money comes from the US government or from the Moon SpaceX won the COTS price and will receive 1.6 billion USD for sending cargo to the ISS at least 12 times. That this money is used for funding the required expenditures should be plausible. If you want something, you have to buy it. Just like SpaceX will receive 500 million USD from Iridium Communications Inc. to send their satellites into orbit.

I think this is where the issue comes into play. You are contradicting yourself. Read your post above and the one below with the bold sections

I gloated and I'm still gloating that space flight is not only bounded to something like NASA. Falcon 1 was fully privately and commercially funded. It carried a commercial payload into orbit. And just as Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon also are, once again, independent proprietary concepts and developments by SpaceX. No NASA involved here. NASA is a customer, just like Iridium Communications Inc. also is a customer of SpaceX.

What's so hard to understand? Falcon 1 is the first private rocket that launched into Space. And it's an independent proprietary concept and development by SpaceX, just like Falcon 9 as well. That NASA funds the required expenditures to test and operate Falcon 9 and Dragon, because NASA simply is the customer, is not a contradiction in my point of view.

I think the main issue is, like I've already mentioned one post before, that many people can't deal with the fact that NASA is forced to completely buy the engineering capabilities and access to space from a small privately founded Californian company, which does offer what no other small company did offer before in history. And I think this is because many people are victims of the old fallacy that only something like NASA can launch rockets, paylaods and men into space / to the ISS. But SpaceX already proved otherwise. They do so as well by just a few hundred million USD and with only 1000 employees. No speculation, no wishful thinking. Just current facts.

They aren't being forced. You really need to do your research. It is just one of there options. They are still working on a HLV. NASA isn't over like you are making it sound. I am with Admin, you are more interested in saying NASA is over and isn't good at what it does. I am done with this discussion as well.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/orion-forefront-test-flight-manned-debut-evaluations/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/heft-sls-hlv-design-decision-april-2011/