I'm actually impressed. Successfully docked with the ISS on the very first mission. I wouldn't have expected the first flight plan to allow it to get closer than several thousand yards. They must have had very high confidence in their ability to maneuver safely in close proximity to the ISS, but I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to let high confidence trump high risk.
IP: Logged
12:29 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27111 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
They're working on a manned version. It would be nice to get to the space station without relying on the Russians.
Government funded or not, I applaud the effort and the results.
The space program, in past years, led to all kinds of technical advancements that gradually found their way into the mainstream, and were refined from there. I wonder where the science can go from where it is now. (It seems like many of the more recent advancements happened without the benefit of the space program. Flat screens, super-miniaturization of semiconductors, superconductors, telecommunications, computers, etc.)
I just wonder where the technology will advance next, and if the space program will even help it along.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
While this quote is really an urban legend, it makes me wonder. Where to from here? (Realistically, I believe the next major advances will be in the biomedical field. I believe that we are on the verge of some very major discoveries. I believe that cancer will be cured - and preventable - during my lifetime. If not that soon, then certainly during the lfetime of the Gen Xers. If we don't screw up, first.)
IP: Logged
01:07 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
It was Government funded, yet the news tried to pass it off as a "private business".
Other than that I thought it was cool.
Brad
Well, it was a private business but funded by a government contract. The difference between that and how Lockheed, et al worked for NASA is that NASA contractors worked on a "Cost +" model - they were paid for their materials and labor, plus a fixed amount for profit. If materials or labor went up, so did their payment. SpaceX is paid on a flat contract basis - $X to fly a mission. Their profit is dependent on them getting the job done for less than what the contract pays.
Yes, both were paid with government dollars, but the business models are different. One other important difference is NASA controlled the work for NASA contractors. SpaceX is a private company that NASA contracts to fly missions, but SpaceX is free to do their own stuff outside the NASA contract. If SpaceX wants to start flying commercial payloads or tourists, that can be done outside of NASA's roll. NASA at that point would be little more than "space traffic control" unless the destination was the ISS.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-26-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:46 AM
Shyster Member
Posts: 1085 From: Conroe, TX, USA Registered: Aug 2005
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: I'm actually impressed. Successfully docked with the ISS on the very first mission. I wouldn't have expected the first flight plan to allow it to get closer than several thousand yards. They must have had very high confidence in their ability to maneuver safely in close proximity to the ISS, but I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to let high confidence trump high risk.
Well, it was a private business but funded by a government contract. The difference between that and how Lockheed, et al worked for NASA is that NASA contractors worked on a "Cost +" model - they were paid for their materials and labor, plus a fixed amount for profit. If materials or labor went up, so did their payment. SpaceX is paid on a flat contract basis - $X to fly a mission. Their profit is dependent on them getting the job done for less than what the contract pays.
Yes, both were paid with government dollars, but the business models are different. One other important difference is NASA controlled the work for NASA contractors. SpaceX is a private company that NASA contracts to fly missions, but SpaceX is free to do their own stuff outside the NASA contract. If SpaceX wants to start flying commercial payloads or tourists, that can be done outside of NASA's roll. NASA at that point would be little more than "space traffic control" unless the destination was the ISS.
quote
On 9 December 2010, the launch of the COTS Demo Flight 1 mission, SpaceX became the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft.
Currently Spacex is funded through Nasa, a Government entity, not private funding by any stretch of the imagination. They received somewhere between 400 and 800 million initially from NASA (depending on where you look), and still receive funding today. On top of that they use NASA launch sites for no charge, in other words at the expense of taxpayers.
My issue isn't with how they use funding, but that they are being called "privately funded" when it's obvious that they are Government funded.
Brad
IP: Logged
04:06 AM
jetman Member
Posts: 7808 From: Sterling Heights Mich Registered: Dec 2002
My issue isn't with how they use funding, but that they are being called "privately funded" when it's obvious that they are Government funded.
Development of the SpaceX Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launch systems was indeed privately funded, but it is true that the only paying customers so far have been NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense. Having the Government as a customer, even a primary customer, does not make a company "government funded." The risk of development of the Falcon launch systems was borne entirely by SpaceX; their customers just purchase launches.
quote
Originally posted by Shyster:
First? No, they blew one up four years ago --
Let me clarify. I meant the first Falcon 9/Dragon mission that involved rendezvous with another orbiting object. See Falcon 9 Launches. Neither of the two previous launches of Falcon 9 failed, but neither involved rendezvous with and precision maneuvering in close proximity to another spacecraft or object.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-26-2012).]
Development of the SpaceX Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launch systems was indeed privately funded, but it is true that the only paying customers so far have been NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense. Having the Government as a customer, even a primary customer, does not make a company "government funded." The risk of development of the Falcon launch systems was borne entirely by SpaceX; their customers just purchase launches.
The "risk" was covered mainly by the US taxpayer. NASA gave a 400 million dollar grant, "seed money" as it were to help start the company, then they continued funding, and gave free use of the Kennedy Space center for SpaceX. I'm willing to bet on top of that we still pay as a customer for each launch. Around 100 million, or 25% of funding comes from private investors.
Brad
IP: Logged
01:22 PM
PFF
System Bot
E.Furgal Member
Posts: 11708 From: LAND OF CONFUSION Registered: Mar 2012
SpaceX started off with private funding, primarily from Elon Musk. NASA is one of their paying customers but SpaceX started about 10 years ago. NASA hasn't been funding them all that time.
SpaceX started off with private funding, primarily from Elon Musk. NASA is one of their paying customers but SpaceX started about 10 years ago. NASA hasn't been funding them all that time.
A lot of the private satellite launch business that NASA used to get can now to directly to companies like SpaceX.
quote
Funding
As of May 2012, SpaceX has operated on total funding of approximately one billion dollars in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity has provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M. The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. NASA has put in about $400-500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts. SpaceX currently has contracts for 40 launch missions, and each of those contracts provide down payments at contract signing, plus many are paying progress payments as launch vehicle components are built in advance of mission launch, driven in part by US accounting rules for recognizing long-term revenue.[36]
Call it what you want, it's Government funded. It only exists because of the Government, and without the money that the Government gives it it would fold.
Brad
IP: Logged
04:11 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
really, doubt that, all ya need is a single worker.. as they be outside work force, unlike nasa that could lock down..
You don't understand the process a payload goes through to be installed on a rocket. It's a massive undertaking inside a secure perimeter with many, many people double and triple checking everything that's done. You don't have to do a "lock down" because the processing facility is going to be a high security area to begin with. It's not as simple as sneaking a suitcase into a bus luggage bin.
IP: Logged
04:32 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Call it what you want, it's Government funded. It only exists because of the Government, and without the money that the Government gives it it would fold.
Brad
I did a search for your quote and found the Wikipedia article you quoted from. Here's some more info from the source Wikipedia cited for your quote.
In the past, NASA would pay contractors like Boeing or Lockheed Martin to build equipment which NASA would own and operate. Here, NASA is paying SpaceX for services, not equipment, which saves the government money and risk. However, NASA has to give some money upfront, hundreds of millions of dollars in fact, which SpaceX has used to fund its buildout. By partnering with NASA, not competing with it, Musk has managed to go farther and faster than others in not only creating a commercial space venture, but turning a profit. ... The company has signed about $4 billion in contracts for over 40 missions, both with private customers and NASA, and those agencies have come up with down payments. "I think we've received about $400 or $500 million in NASA funds so far," Musk says.
They definitely need the NASA contracts. There's no need for ISS supply or crew missions without a NASA or ISS. Like I said before - some of the contracts do come from the government and are paid for with government money. It's still a private company.
It's like the difference between you owning a garage and hiring a temp worker from Manpower to do your oil changes, and then deciding to change models and instead just send all of your oil changes to the Jiffy Lube down the street. Sure, Jiffy Lube is getting paid for those oil changes from you, just like your Manpower temp was getting paid from you, but the temp worked for you. Jiffy Lube is a private business your garage does business with.
IP: Logged
04:45 PM
E.Furgal Member
Posts: 11708 From: LAND OF CONFUSION Registered: Mar 2012
You don't understand the process a payload goes through to be installed on a rocket. It's a massive undertaking inside a secure perimeter with many, many people double and triple checking everything that's done. You don't have to do a "lock down" because the processing facility is going to be a high security area to begin with. It's not as simple as sneaking a suitcase into a bus luggage bin.
and what you are not looking at is if someone makes it part of the rocket.. not the payload... think out of the box. terrorist do.. doing stuff like this outside a sercure base.. is not a great idea.
IP: Logged
05:02 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
renting a ryder or u-haul truck is so much easier. the only way i can really see this approach being cost-effective is if you wanted to set off an emp device at high altitude.
IP: Logged
05:13 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by E.Furgal: and what you are not looking at is if someone makes it part of the rocket.. not the payload... think out of the box. terrorist do.. doing stuff like this outside a sercure base.. is not a great idea.
It still has to get inside the facility to be assembled into the rocket. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not as simple as you may think.
IP: Logged
06:05 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
They definitely need the NASA contracts. There's no need for ISS supply or crew missions without a NASA or ISS. Like I said before - some of the contracts do come from the government and are paid for with government money. It's still a private company.
It's like the difference between you owning a garage and hiring a temp worker from Manpower to do your oil changes, and then deciding to change models and instead just send all of your oil changes to the Jiffy Lube down the street. Sure, Jiffy Lube is getting paid for those oil changes from you, just like your Manpower temp was getting paid from you, but the temp worked for you. Jiffy Lube is a private business your garage does business with.
I don't care, it's just a friggin cup game. As I said in my original post before I was attacked for calling a spade a spade, Good for them for going.
Brad
IP: Logged
06:48 PM
E.Furgal Member
Posts: 11708 From: LAND OF CONFUSION Registered: Mar 2012
I don't care, it's just a friggin cup game. As I said in my original post before I was attacked for calling a spade a spade, Good for them for going.
Brad
not all of it.. it allows companies to come up with ideas without having to ask washingtons ok.. it also.. changes it from one think tank (nasa) to many outside nasa
Clearly. Your opinion on this subject is already set firmly in stone. That's your choice.
quote
... I was attacked for calling a spade a spade ...
Attacked? Here? Only in your mind. In fact, it is your posts that strike me as being the most hostile and aggressive in this thread, (Just my opinion, of course.)
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 05-28-2012).]
IP: Logged
07:29 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Brad, care to post some links to the articles that are the source of you opinion? They seem to be lacking in this thread and others. A link would be helpful to back up what is essentially just your opinion.
quote
Attacked? Only in your mind. In fact, it is your posts that strike me as being the most hostile and aggressive in this thread, (Just my opinion, of course.)
You should see his posts in the Trayvon Martin thread. He is absolutely foaming at the mouth if someone posts anything that hints at Zimmerman possibly being guilty of murder. He has gone so far as to tell people FU and call them douchebags, just because he can't back up what is essentially just his biased opinion. He has earned the negative rating I have given him and I urge others to do the same. Maybe then he will get the message about his opinion being just that, his opinion and not fact.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-26-2012).]
