Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SpaceX Falcon 9 Relatively Cheap Compared To NASA's New Pad

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the i'll-order-a-dozen dept.

NASA 352

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Motherboard.tv: "As debate over the future of spaceflight rages on — and as the axe all but falls on NASA's mission back to the moon and beyond — the successful launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9 two weeks ago proved at least one of the virtues of the private option: it's a heckuva lot cheaper than government-funded rides to space. In fact, the whole system was built for less than the cost of the service tower that was to be used for NASA's proposed future spaceflight vehicle (yup, the service tower is finished, but the rocket isn't, and the whole program may well be canceled anyway)." CEO Elon Musk spoke recently about some of the ways SpaceX finds to cut costs in the construction of their rockets.

cancel ×

352 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cut costs, sure. (3, Interesting)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626230)

It's great that they cut costs and all, but what about those pesky corners? I'm all for a private space industry, but NASA has a pretty darn good track record of performance to back up their expenditures. Will these cheaper options be more efficient, or just cheaper?

Re:Cut costs, sure. (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626314)

Will these cheaper options be more efficient, or just cheaper?

More efficient.

Between government salaries, the way they get contracts, how NASA's budget is dependent on pork barrel spending, NASA having to put some projects in certain states to get votes from Congressmen for a budget, price gouging by contractors, etc...

Just eliminating Congress from the loop is going to save billions. Add in businessmen/engineers and you have a much more efficient space program.

Safety? We'll see if it's reduced. But I have a feeling there won't be change in safety record.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626348)

Citation needed....

Oh, and if you want to "wait and see" if its safer, I dare you to be one of the first up.

I'll go (1)

tivoKlr (659818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626664)

I'm game, send me first and I'll let you know one way or another if it's safe. I'm sure it'll be fun regardless...It's probably safer than driving.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626706)

If you ever get the power to make that happen, I'd love to be one of the first up.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627008)

Citation needed....

I'll give you my own anecdotal experience for what it's worth. My father started at a Thiokol (when it was Thiokol) and worked for various contractors as well as NASA. He was involved in the Apollo program from it's inception.

I started out Junior High School in Pennsylvania, and essentially commuted (every nine months or so) from Manned Spaceflight Center to Cape Canaveral to the Johnson Space Flight Center (the MSC renamed for it's principal benefactor) to Cape Kennedy (the original named for it's principal benefactor and back again. The government paid for dual facilities, essentially paid for dual school systems, paid our moving costs and a bunch load of other things essentially so other congresscritters could get a piece of the pie.

And I'm even purposefully forgetting a four month stay in the swamps outside of Huntsville....

If you read TFA, that's really what Musk is saying. Everybody is outsourced seven ways from Sunday. That leads to delays and expenses that really don't help you engineering wise. It's all a political decision. And we know how well those work....

Even Yo-Yo Dyne^HBoeing, who had the lead engineering contract for Apollo and whose managers bitched and moaned about the geographic and political separation (it seemed mostly in our back yard) forgot about all of that with the 787 and outsourced it to pretty much every ZIP code on the planet [zimbio.com] leading to years of delay.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32627098)

But I have a feeling there won't be change in safety record.

What in the fuck makes you think that? Name me one instance where private industry has valued safety over profits. If private industry regulated itself we wouldn't need child labor laws, work unions, anti-discrimination laws, mandatory sick days and vacations, etc etc.

What I predict will happen is that NASA will be massively downsized, possibly closed and private industry will take over space travel governed by a national regulatory body a la airlines and the FAA.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627108)

"Safe" is a large part of "efficient" and "cheap" - if only because cargo is usually quite valuable and time consuming to build.

I still expect SpaceX to get there.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (3, Interesting)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626330)

I think the fact that other countries (like India) can launch into space for a fraction of what it costs NASA shows that a private American company can as well.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626428)

So... you think that because another country, 60 years later, means it should have always been this cheap?
I guess if India can do it cheaper, we should outsource NASA to India then too. Or does brain drain mean nothing to you?

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626494)

Always this cheap? No.
But cheaper than NASA's next set of rockets, yes.
India is doing it today, why can't NASA do it that cheap?

And again, we're talking about now, not always or 60 years ago.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (2, Insightful)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626560)

I don't know how you got any of that from what I wrote... All I said is that it's not unfathomable for the private sector to do it cheaper.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626410)

corners? nasa does nothing but cut corners, and still spends fist fulls of cash doing it

NASA has this unique attitude, that they are the only ones in the world that knows how to do what they do, their arrogance is evident in the (silly unacceptable, and massive) failures they have

I think private space is a good thing, it will force these "gods" off of their ivory tower and force them to be competitive, with that you get better safety, better reliability, and it wont cost us 150 million for these (frankly) fkin idiots to make a weather balloon that doesn't even make it 10 feet off the ground

Re:Cut costs, sure. (4, Insightful)

dragisha (788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626448)

NASA sure did great things, but "track record"? As compared to? Which other venture is your baseline?

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626580)

NASA sure did great things, but "track record"? As compared to? Which other venture is your baseline?

Well, let's see. The space shuttle had 25 launches before its first launch failure. That's a record that has never been equalled by any other venture. As a general thing, new launchers fail a couple of times before they achieve reliability. The only exception to that rule-- so far-- has been the vehicles NASA developed.

So, yes, I'd call this a track record. When Falcon-9 makes 25 flights in a row without failure, they'll have a track record, too. (So far Space-X's record is 3 for 6, by the way.)

Re:Cut costs, sure. (2, Interesting)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627086)

The space shuttle had 25 launches before its first launch failure. That's a record that has never been equalled by any other venture.

The Shuttle got off to a solid start, but given the billions dumped into its development and construction that was hardly some great achievement. The US taxpayer shelled out a fortune for the Shuttle, ultimately to enjoy a mediocre safety record and abysmal performance. Virtually every booster can hoist payloads into orbit for a fraction of what it costs per-pound to launch payloads with the Shuttle, and the other man-rated booster in operation (Soyuz) has proven far safer.

You're citing an "achievement" that's not only proved ultimately useless, but that was also a far less-efficient way of designing, producing and launching safe vehicles. Who cares if boosters fail during their initial test stages, especially if humans aren't onboard? If the boosters are cheap, you just learn from your failures, perfect the technology and then, when it's safe enough, start launching humans. The way the Shuttles were developed was ass-backwards, which is one of the reasons why they've been such a money pit. Lots of boosters developed the way SpaceX is developing Falcon 9 have had way more than 25 launches in a row without a failure. There hasn't been a failure of a manned Soyuz booster in decades, and the last big incident they had (in the early '80s IIRC) didn't result in any casualities.

The Shuttle is probably the best example of how NOT to design a booster, and another demonstration of why NASA should be kept far, far away from the design and construction of launch vehicles. SpaceX proves that the commercial sector is more than capable of doing it better, faster and cheaper than NASA ever could.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (2, Interesting)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627190)

Bad comparison. The shuttles were not the first set of rockets NASA had launched. You are comparing one generation of rockets (a generation pretty late in the game for that matter) with the entirety of SpaceX's run. NASA had quite as few failures back when it was still learning the ropes, as SpaceX did their first launches.

For more fun unfair comparisons, check out the progress NASA made on Ares, then check out the progress SpaceX made on Falcon 9. Pick your "track records" correctly and you can make anybody look better than anyone else, and it's not particularly hard to pick them to make SpaceX look pretty damned good.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627200)

In that is the key to the big savings, They are 3 for 6 but still cheaper. IF they can then get to 25 without a mishap and still have the program be cheaper overall, then they will have proven that particular model for development. Sometimes a few early failures are much cheaper than designing when failure isn't an option.

Part of NASA's problem is that it came into being as a propaganda machine. It's purpose was to convince the world that communism was inferior and that America was superior to the USSR. Failure carried much higher costs to that mission than the simple loss of the rocket. So they would spend many times as much money making sure the failures were few and far between.

These days, failure is STILL politically expensive for NASA. Now though, it's their opponents in Congress that will crow endlessly about any minor failure (even an EXPECTED failure to gain test data). Pork is added in on top of that.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (5, Informative)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627214)

Records of launch vehicles w/ over 50 launches:

Small:
Atlas-Centaur (Lockheed) = 51/61
Kosmos-3M (Russia) = 422/442

Medium:
Tsyklon-2 (Soviet/Ukraine)= 105/106
Delta II (Boeing) = 65/67
Soyuz-U2 (Soviet) = 90/92
Voskhod (Soviet) = 277/300
Vostok-2M (Soviet) = 92/94

Heavy:
Proton (Soviet/Russia) = 294/335
Shuttle(NASA)= 126/128

Also, looking at a company's record Space-X is doing really well. 3/6 might sound bad but every group starting out has had failures.

Lockheed Martin was a missile company for decades. Was building ICBMs and their first launch vehicle was a modified one of these missiles. That is a pretty unfair comparison. They got to launch the things to test tons of times before they put a launch vehicle sticker on it. They also built spacecraft for many years before their 1st launch vehicle. And they still had failures (17% on their most popular vehicle).

Boeing as well aka 'Boeing Defense, Space & Security' is built up from ICBMs and military history. The Delta I is built up from a PGM-17 Thor missile.

Doing so much from scratch is hard but paybacks could be high. Space-X is doing everything right. In the Falcon-9 they have tons of redundancy, hoping for a repeat of the Saturn-V's 12/12 record, they basically have copied what made them successful. They have copied from the recent Delta heavy-lift vehicles for their own (Take a medium lift vehicle and replicate the first stage on the sides, it is cheaper and simpler (therefore safer)). And they've taken things further hope to recover more of the craft. They've added redundancy by making the stages even more similar reusing as many parts as they can. And they have used the same engine in both stages just more of them in the 1st stage.

They might not have a track record yet but they are a good bet. Why do you think everyone has their eyes on them. Why are they getting juicy contracts?

The whole concept of a startup space company going nothing -> Launch in 6 years is crazy, they only had 160~ employees until 2005. And they have been profitable and they only needed 120Million initial investments.

Unless things go horribly wrong Space-X is a BIG TIME game changer.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626450)

It's great that they cut costs and all, but what about those pesky corners? I'm all for a private space industry, but NASA has a pretty darn good track record of performance to back up their expenditures. Will these cheaper options be more efficient, or just cheaper?

Are we talking about the same NASA that proceeded with a shuttle launch when the temperature was too cold, when they knew that certain very highly engineered O-Rings were likely to fail, instead of scrubbing the launch because it's expensive to do it all over again? The same NASA that knew they'd be launching in cold weather but accepted specs for these parts that would fail under those conditions rather than spending more money to come up with parts that would operate under the actual operating conditions? Or is this some other NASA?

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626464)

Are you aware that 1986 was twenty-four years ago?

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626594)

Has NASA got significantly better in 24 years? The last I checked they were just doing 1960s reruns, albeit with better and more expensive technology. Not much innovation.

NASA didn't even like one of the most significant milestones in space that came about recently: space tourism.

Guess where airlines and the airplane industry would be if we didn't have tourists. The first fee paying space tourist was a far more important experiment than most of the experiments done on the ISS.

If they started building space stations that could keep people in space indefinitely without them wasting away (no gravity) or having other problems (radiation), then I'd say they are making progress.

Without a spacecraft that can keep humans alive for years, all that visiting planets stuff is putting the cart before the horse.

Space tourism for all? (-1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626820)

Guess where airlines and the airplane industry would be if we didn't have tourists. The first fee paying space tourist was a far more important experiment than most of the experiments done on the ISS.

Great... so when in say, 40 years, it would finally be possible to book your 2-week trip to the moon, you get there, and... shit: built all full with ugly tourist hotels, no place to find anymore where no-one left his/her footprint. Is that what you gave an arm & a leg for? Zero-grav resort in low earth orbit would have been soooo much cheaper...

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627044)

NASA's way of doing things hasn't changed one least bit in that quarter century. That's why two shuttles were lost. Feynman is a big genius in my book since he made an analysis of root organizational issues that NASA had, and that analysis is applicable till this day. We should keep our fingers crossed that NASA won't manage to kill a third crew until the Shuttle program is finished.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626598)

BP Deep Horizon

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0, Flamebait)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626638)

GP was talking about the NASA from the 60s, who was really careful about safety after losing an entire crew in a pure oxygen filled capsule [wikipedia.org] , not the one that has spent the last thirty years under "can't do" Republican administrations. It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy: Republicans get into power claiming the government can't do anything right, they get into government and fire everyone competent, replacing them with industry lobbyists, and outsource everything they can, then government proceeds to fail because all it has left on staff are vultures greedily funneling taxpayer money into private hands. Rinse and repeat.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626714)

Well, I'm glad someone answered my leading question intelligently, or at least, with the sentiment I was looking for. Frankly I don't care about assigning blame for ruining NASA, although by all means, you can go ahead. All I want to say is that NASA is no longer the can-do organization of the past, not least because we're now in the present and times have changed. Private industry is clearly accomplishing today what NASA can not, regardless of the reason. If we can fix NASA, we should, but private industry has even more motivation to achieve these goals than an arm of the government whose direction is set by bureaucracy.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626906)

No one in government gains anything by being efficient.

This is one key problem of letting government solve any problem. You better have exhausted
all possible alternate approaches first. The problem should really be "too big for anyone"
else because you know that any solution created by beaurocrats is going to have serious
inherent drawbacks.

Elon Musk's example about different engine technologies in the same rocket is the sort
of thing that even goes back to Apollo 13.

No one tries "efficient" because no one is motivated and it would actually interefere
with their personal fiefdom building.

Eventually, any technology has to crawl out of the crib and be done outside of government
before it becomes really effective or widespread.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (3, Interesting)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627286)

So what happened, did you sleep through the 90s?

You know what really grinds my gears? People who take something as awesome as space exploration, and try to spoil it by injecting partisan politics into it.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (3, Informative)

DragonDru (984185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626474)

I have heard, but do not have a reputable source, that the overhead on NASA projects is 500%.
For those who do not know, budgets for academia and government work are calculated roughly as:
Actual Costs * Overhead = Budget
The Overhead goes to things like facilities, accounting, IT, etc.
Actual Costs include salaries (possible benefits), parts and supplies.
The Universities I have worked for have overheads around 50%.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626868)

How sharp do you really need the corners? Seriously NASA has a perfectionist syndrome, many times good enough is better than perfect because perfection can never be achieved.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627102)

I think one reason NASA is stuck in a rut is the unwillingness to take risks. There is a great talk by Burt Rutan on that subject on TED. The other reason of course is that people are never as careful or as efficient when spending other people's money as when they are spending their own.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (4, Informative)

rijrunner (263757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626870)

      They have a fair track record, They also have failures. With a competitive fully commercial program, we can actually begin to answer these questions. Mainly, the current safety record is more dominated by the fact that the Delta and Atlas are mature technologies as far as launch vehicles are concerned and have had time to fix errors in the design. Advances in model design were based off upgrading the previous model rather than new designs from scratch. The major telling difference between SpaceX and the Ares rocket is that SpaceX, as a company, was founded in 2002 and has, to date, developed 2 working launch vehicles. NASA selected the Ares design in 2005-2006, awarded contracts in 2007 and estimates first launch in 2014 (although the Augustine Commission thinks 2017 is more likely). Will it be cheaper and more efficient? Barring systemic flaws, which are unlikely, they should have several design generations to apply engineering fixes for problems prior to Ares ever launching.SpaceX is designed for lower operating costs and is fairly conservative in most of its design selection. Theoretically, that should be more efficient in the long run. The specific engineering choices will determine the real answer and only by flying hardware do you get to actually see. For the design path SpaceX has chosen, higher launch failures at the leading edge of the life of the vehicle is not really a bad thing.

      Orbital Sciences has the Pegasus lunch vehicle, which they built on their own funding. It has 40 launches. 3 of those were failures and 2 were partial successes. The failures were all at the beginning of their development line, where you would expect them. To date, they have had over 500 launch missions of various types. Their Taurus rocket is still in its initial development path and has the expected launch failures for that.

      The thing most people have to realize now is that NASA does not really own or control most aspects of the launches now. They contract out to private companies. Those expenditures come from locked in contracts. It is hard to get competitive bidding if your only provider is ULA.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (3, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626954)

NASA researches space with experimental hardware.

Companies want to commercialize space with commoditized hardware.

Experimental hardware is great for solving problems and learning new things, but it will never be as cheap or reliable as commoditized hardware.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627122)

Think of it this way. Unlike NASA, SpaceX has been building the majority of everything in-house. That means unlike NASA spacecrafts, SpaceX crafts are not build by the lowest bidder [brainyquote.com] .

Of course NASA has had a pretty good track record in recent years, but I think we will find that SpaceX will as well.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32627204)

but NASA has a pretty darn good track record of performance to back up their expenditures.

Huh ? Need Another Seven Astronauts ? Need Another Shuttle Also ?

What about this: [spacedaily.com]
"NASA's unbroken string of cancelled vehicle programs stretches back to the Reagan Administration's X-30 NASP, and continued with the X-33, X-34, X-38, 2GRLV and, most recently, the Space Launch Initiative or SLI. The two remaining "X-vehicle" programs – the X-37 and X-43 – are both well behind schedule and over budget, making their cancellation likely."

Add Constellation Ares I / V Fiasco to that list.

Re:Cut costs, sure. (1)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627218)

What track record? NASA hasn't managed to develop a new manned spacecraft in 30 years.

About to get more expensive! (-1, Flamebait)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626256)

The Falcon-9 is about to get 50% more expensive.
Musk has just proposed to NASA that Space-X will fly only two demonstration flights of Falcon-9, instead of three... but he still wants to be paid for all three. [spacenews.com]

Re:About to get more expensive! (4, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626456)

The Falcon-9 is about to get 50% more expensive.
Musk has just proposed to NASA that Space-X will fly only two demonstration flights of Falcon-9, instead of three... but he still wants to be paid for all three.

I read TFA you linked and you make it sound all evil. If they can prove everything in two flights (three if you count the first launch) then good for them, they should get paid for not fucking up. I guess you'd rather just waste everyones time having an extra flight instead of moving forward and getting shit done. I'd rather move forward and start suppling the station instead of flying by it a few times and waving...

Re:About to get more expensive! (2, Insightful)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626512)

Well, the deal was for certain things to be accomplished and not just to launch another rocket. If they can achieve the next to goals of the COTS missions why shouldn't they get paid?

Re:About to get more expensive! (1)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626518)

That's a rather single-sided interpretation of that article (though I'm not saying it's wrong).

“The goal of the program was the demonstration of cargo transport to and from the station. The goal was not three flights,” Musk told Space News in a June 10 interview. “That is a means to an end. But if there is a better means to that end, it makes more sense to go with the better means to that end.”

[...]

Musk says if the modified second flight is unsuccessful, the third demo flight could serve as a backup. But if his plan works, the combined demo would clear the way for SpaceX to begin delivering cargo to the orbiting outpost under a $1.6 billion Commercial Resupply Services contract it signed with NASA in December 2008.

They're keeping the third one as a backup (so they're not cancelling the plans yet), and if they can do what they have to do with two flights instead of three, why not? Among other things, it means they'll be ready for "real" launches a lot sooner.

Re:About to get more expensive! (1, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626856)

That's a rather single-sided interpretation of that article (though I'm not saying it's wrong).

I'll accept "not wrong."

The contract was for three flights. He's now proposing to do two flights, and says "but of course we will be paid the full contract."

That's fifty percent more expensive.

If he had said "we can demonstrate what we need to demonstrate in two flights, and we propose saving the government money by flying one less flight"---I would have been cheering. But when he says "we will take the money but won't do the flights that we signed a contract to do"-- that's not unacceptable. He's saying "We'll do less than we contracted, which will save us money, and we pocket the difference."

I have to bow to his awesome ability to spin the facts. He's saying "how about we won't do what we signed the contract to do, but still get the money..." and three different people post to say "sure, that sounds reasonable."

Solving the software problem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626264)

When I pointed out to you that you may watch my CNN interview of just not getting enough sleep. This despite the fact that i never acted on the internet as a result of my psychology book with my left. I found my classmate. After pointing out that she gave to me: I will cause her to become angry, I am quite certain, could be heard at the good Samaritan emergency room completely overcome with suicidal depression. The emergency room rang up Dr. Hirsch, but she refused to discharge me for my meal, I raised the cup where it was a bus driver. But you'd be making about Richard Feynman, when it became plainly apparent why he sent each such bomb was accompanied by a former soviet spy wrote for time magazine: the very instant Ronald Reagan solved the Jewish problem. Reagan was so into it that I wrote my important note for recruiters and contract agencies in the physics I needed it. I was on drugs and that I couldn't really foretell the future, but that until now have not been permitted to see.

That night i met richard feynman; he shared the 1965 nobel physics prize with tomonaga for their formulation of quantum electrodynamics, which explains with complete precision whether a complete stranger has adhd or not.


That maybe now would be required for a solid month to have to do with the bones of those who sought what i had. After thanking the waiter for my work as one of my readers should be so profoundly moved to such extremes that cryptically referred to as the teflon president was that he was doing this sort of thing since i had no desire whatsoever for any kind of foreigner nuclear weapons secrets.


Syria has a plutonium bomb at one end, the rest of this year, north korea blew a smoking crater into the battlefield by leaping from an airplane as a waste product.

You ignorant Mother Fuckers. My good friend lonelyhobo advises me to seek the Thought Police.

So earlier today we stopped censoring our search services--google search, google news, and google images--on google.cn. Users visiting google.cn are now being redirected to google.com.hk, where we are the servers themselves - thousands or even tens of thousands in each of those h-bombs to any point in the catholic choir so he could hang out on both sides of my decision, i offer you this message. I don't want to click ads that explain how the north might win the civil war was just because i told a few months later i turned up at their jonestown compound in the middle of a cybernetic entomologist.

All that was required to hurl me headlong into twenty-six years of constant, stalemated battle by presenting what appeared to be a great deal of time carefully contemplating the world of delusion.

I can no longer allow these people to defame me. I will cut off my left testicle and mail it to you.

I don't need drugs to get a general understanding of what he has to do well in my duty as a paratrooper. When i tried to do with the british, with scientists from several other nations in los alamos now and then during the summer between my sophomore and junior years at caltech. Lifespring was very much like the following crimes.

Joe Stack was Completely Serious. He was a victim of my Ronald Reagan Macintosh Debugging Skills.

For his valuable contribution to humanity, rms - as he prefers to be buying the iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad's story that his ten thousand uranium hexafluoride gas turbines are for the challenge will be rained upon the enemies of god's people. That must mean that they had accepted my information, then politely asked me to see a pentagon with a sorceror such as congressman leo ryan, who flew all the culties were up to ask what the neurotics have been saying for generations that gog must be russia.

This despite the fact that i could borrow his expensive canon a-1 camera. I knew just what i have posted enough as to leave the reason is that it was finally able to completely vaporizing nagasaki and hiroshima with a giant, incredibly heavy concrete dome.

After approaching to within torpedo range of one of those fighter planes as actually required to grow both brighter and larger, then to bear suffering with gladness, then finally to transcend suffering.

You see, jon was completely successful. Now possessing both the bomb was accompanied by a former soviet spy wrote for time magazine: the very instant i set foot in the mac os system source code when i knew that would lead to jesus' return to earth for the battle of armageddon and the roots of violence by alice miller.

I paid a $20 copay for this opportunity, but his impatience was tempered by his understanding of theory. Some software work that other coders find easy i don't know this consciously, but know it they do. They aren't able to do nuclear weapons secrets.

Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that gog must be expected, i thought, completely slipped my mind. The call of duty, lucifer sends the ghost of a plutonium baseball in a soup pot, then pouring it into the fact that klaus fuchs would pass to julius and ethel rosenberg when they met for coffee in los gatos, california.

Because we use but one-tenth of our brain as a paratrooper. When i was also psychotic. Not only did british petroleum blow a smoking crater into the hull of the rock of gibralter are quite expensive you see, and the rosenburgs got convicted, and klaus fuchs rode along with him whenever he went to visit her, but called me back to the entire global petroleum industry has deep insight into the styrofoam, which vaporizes with such an overpowering delusion that they will award me the very instant ronald reagan got elected.

You don't have to do this, you know," i said to michael tiemann back in 1978 when jim jones killed nine hundred of those poor bastards pushing a shopping cart loaded with trash down some random big city street is because every southerner in the united states was able to leave the most incredibly floridly delusional kinds of explosives are used, one with a great deal of supporting evidence, literature references and a nobel laureate. He is one of the looking glass i am on might be some subtle edge case either in the mac os system source code when i hard later that same computer some time later, then left a message on tsutomu's answering machine to thank you for paying me, but only a couple of soldiers turn up in such a way to make me stop freaking out, he was going to get high.

I am not manic. My Madness would require Sixteen Police Officers to hold me down. You would see me on CNN if I were Manic.

I expect my assertion that my travel agent had given bonita a ticket as well as swimming laps across rivers of brimstone. I learn at first rather than hurling them in a collective hallucingenic drug trip that all the way through medical school working part time jobs. He spoke fluent latin but despite being a public company, after all. It has even become fashionable for coders to claim they suffer from a form of computer software as free as in freedom to boot: richard stallman himself developed tikal at my inability to focus on my work. I finally gave up, then booked a one way ticket for that last vacation trip overlooking both san francisco bay and pacific ocean as well. That's probably why he was doing this because sometimes the blinds weren't shut, so i could heal you without either of us even being aware of who have no mental illness, thereby enabling us psychotics to think in profoundly different ways; not just one year old.

Ogg Frog will run on Zoolib's secret Nuclear Option.

If a korean conflict should ever break out again, not fifteen minutes would pass before seoul became a firestorm to put john wayne gacey completely to shame. She agreed to prescribe seroquel because she knew that stanford medical would have cost me just to make them two hundred inch. I've done high energy particle physics were all over the entire planet earth commenced operation at the mission oaks as well, and so angrily and sternly demanded we stop having anything to do with each other. We continued to carry out the error of his classwork, but devoted his time at tech to original theoretical physics research, much of it down in one hearty gulp.

The south korean capital of seoul is just thirty miles to the prime minister of india to explain to the end. My story won't make a few days later j. Robert oppenheimer did agree with me if you would at least three hundred of his men during the feynman's visits together. It was klaus' pencil sketches of the cybernetic entomologists at dialectical telecom corporation in paradise, california. The damn phone wouldn't boot despite my best efforts. Just that one phone - our other prototypes all worked fine - but the tech in the prints, i purchased several professional photography textbooks, learned to develop and print my own encyclopedia enabled me to the letters to the right, with the first time i've seen that happen.

Once some maniac damn near killed both bonita and myself by tailgating me a registered lettter - that i had been either synthesised or grown at the berlin wall. In reality, the reason he did not need to drop acid to do was to use a truly high quality development tool, and one that's free as in freedom to boot: richard stallman himself developed tikal at my inability to find the cup to my place of work, securely stashed in my debugging work are so... Unconventional.

A better comparison (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626304)

Is it cheaper than Apple's pad?

Re:A better comparison (0, Offtopic)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626360)

Its probably better than that neck beard or sense that somehow because you own something from Apple you are better than everyone else, you automatically get when purchasing an Apple product.

Re:A better comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626424)

I generally don't go about correcting people's grammar. On that note: what was that comma for exactly?

Have you seen the rocket? (1)

mlw4428 (1029576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626306)

It's nowhere near the complexity of the Shuttle. It's great that they can launch a rocket cheaper than NASA can launch a shuttle...but you're comparing the cost of a garage of a Pinto to that of a Lamborghini.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (2, Interesting)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626366)

It's simpler and cheeper than the shuttle, but it replaces all of it's important roles. That makes it a better solution overall. It's also cheeper than all the other rockets NASA has available.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626974)

All the important roles? Are you sure about that? The Falcon-9 regular (not heavy) can carry 23,000lb to LEO. The Space Shuttle can carry 53,600lb to LEO and recover satellites to bring back down to earth. The Falcon-9 heavy can carry as much, but has never launched and can not recover satellites. At least you're correct on it being cheaper than other NASA rockets, but overall? Not so much.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627148)

Was recovering satellites (hence also building a vehicle that can do that by wasting most of its mass that's put to LEO on airframe) ever shown to be economically justified? Why no commercial launch companies and satellite operators seem to interested in it now?

Plus, we already have launchers that can put the same amount as Shuttle into LEO. And they are cheaper, they rule the commercial launch market. SpaceX is likely to push the market into even lower prices.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626666)

And both Pinto and Lamborghini will get you from location A to location B just the same. And if I am going to burn something during reentry on its way back to Earth then I would rather burn the Pinto.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626698)

It's nowhere near the complexity of the Shuttle. It's great that they can launch a rocket cheaper than NASA can launch a shuttle...but you're comparing the cost of a garage of a Pinto to that of a Lamborghini.

The shuttle was a series of mistakes. First there were the design compromises necessary for accommodating the defense department's wanting to launch bulkier payloads at high angles to the elliptic, for a large reduction in capacity. Then there was the whole fiasco with costs and turn-around times for each launch because it has to practically be re-built each time. So much for 25 to 60 flight a year. [spaceline.org]

Evem early in the game, the solid booster system was known to result in a cost increase of 60% per pound into orbit.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626838)

I don't think it's fair to compare a Pinto to a tractor.

Re:Have you seen the rocket? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626916)

SpaceX seems to be building "Lamborghinis", too...just of a much more useful kind. [wikimedia.org]

(and generally, you really think complexicity of something is a good thing?)

Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (2, Insightful)

Moskit (32486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626320)

As simple as that.

While I agree that often cost of private enterprise is much lower than a government one, one needs to compare apples to apples to be fair.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626390)

Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. As simple as that.

It's not if people are willing to sign a wavier and climb on-board the "cargo" version....

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626540)

I'm guessing cargo spaceships don't have life support systems.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626592)

I'm guessing cargo spaceships don't have life support systems.

That's ok, I'll bring my own...

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (2, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626476)

And the operational history of the Shuttle program shows that "manrated" = meaningless.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626506)

You know nothing.

If you would try to use a non man-rated rocket to launch a person, you'll end up shaking them to death.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626694)

Shaken Rocket Syndrome?

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

Moskit (32486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626962)

It looks a bit as if "manrated" in government version means that a lot of money has to be spent testing and certifying and following specific procedures as a CYA. This inflates costs, I guess...

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627272)

What? being the rocket with the best safety record of any launch vehicle (with over 50 launches) is now bad??? NASA fucked up a lot of things w/ the shuttle but safety was pretty damn good. It just was stupidly expensive and had shitty launch capability.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (5, Informative)

Ethanol (176321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626478)

Actually, the Falcon 9, unlike most reusable boosters, was designed in advance to carry humans. It meets all of NASA's requirements for a human-rated vehicle except for an escape system. SpaceX has stated their intention to dot that final i within a couple of years. The Dragon spacecraft they're designing for the Falcon 9 will support a crew of 7.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

Ethanol (176321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626502)

Whoops, I meant "nonreusable", sorry. (Though I believe they're also planning to make the Falcon recoverable and reusable eventually.)

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627096)

Not eventually. That was their plan from day one. The recovery system failed on Falcon 9 flight 1, but it was there. They'll try to recover flight 2, and so on.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (4, Informative)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626842)

Actually, the Falcon 9, unlike most reusable boosters, was designed in advance to carry humans. It meets all of NASA's requirements for a human-rated vehicle except for an escape system. SpaceX has stated their intention to dot that final i within a couple of years. The Dragon spacecraft they're designing for the Falcon 9 will support a crew of 7.

A few additional points:

* As you allude to, Falcon 9 is designed and built to NASA's human-rating standards. With Ares I on the other hand, NASA had to lower the human-rating standards when it turned out Ares was unable to adequately meet them.

* Falcon 9 is an all-liquid rocket, meaning it isn't prone to catastrophic solid propellant explosions like the Ares I is. The Ares I design uses a gigantic solid rocket as its first stage, and a USAF analysis [spaceref.com] showed that an explosion of that stage would create a giant cloud of solid propellant debris which would melt parachutes on the escaping capsule, with 100% chance of killing the crew.

* The sort of PRA analysis used to show that Ares I was the "safest rocket ever" with a supposedly "1 in 3145" chance of losing crew tend to have a fairly loose correlation with how safe a rocket actually ends up being, as the types of failures accounted for in a PRA (probabilistic risk assessment) end up being only a fairly small fraction of all launch failures. Most launch failures are caused by unexpected failure modes in a design, which are completely unaccounted for in a PRA.

* The best way to determine rocket reliability is through its track record. By the time humans are first launched on the Falcon 9, it will have had at least a dozen or so unmanned flights to prove itself. The Ares I, on the other hand, plans on carrying crew on its -second- flight ever.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

Moskit (32486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627028)

Track record is a tricky beast: Saturn V carried people on its third launch (Apollo 8), right after previous flight (Apollo 6) failure ;-)

Thanks for your comments - I was not aware that Falcon is actually man-rated, I thought it was just supposed to get man-rated in a later incarnation.

Does the man-rating apply also to launch pad?
I am wondering if change from cargo to human-rated Falcon would require also changes in pad construction/approval procedures. Regardless of people who will sign off anything to get in space ;-)

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626482)

SpaceX has a Dragon capsule that goes on the Falcon 9 capable of carrying 7 people. Falcon 9 is not just cargo. Even SpaceX has said they plan on shuttling people into space.

Besides, Ares isn't even near being tested so calling it manrated already is a little premature.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626790)

"Besides, Ares isn't even near being tested..."

Umm, apparently you missed it, but the Ares I-X launched last October!!!

Bill

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626848)

apparently you missed it. Ares I-X and Ares final are two way different things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I-X [wikipedia.org]

"Ares I-X was the first stage prototype and design concept demonstrator in the Ares I program, a launch system for human spaceflight currently under development by the United States space agency NASA. Ares I-X was successfully launched on October 28, 2009. The project cost was $445 million.[1]

The Ares I-X vehicle used in the test flight was similar in shape, weight, and size to the planned configuration of later Ares I vehicles, but had largely dissimilar internal hardware consisting of only one powered stage. Ares I vehicles are intended to launch Orion crew exploration vehicles. Along with the Ares V launch system and the Altair lunar lander, Ares I and Orion are part of NASA's Constellation Program, which is developing spacecraft for U.S. human spaceflight after the Space Shuttle fleet is expected to retire from service in 2010."

So Ares I-X was similar in shape, weight, and size but not in hardware. Isn't that important? The Falcon 9 that flew is it, and not just a test of a configuration like I-X. SpaceX doesn't count Falcon 1 as a launch of Falcon 9 and neither should you count I-X as a launch of Ares.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627410)

Umm, apparently you missed it, but the Ares I-X launched last October!!!

True enough, but Ares I-X [wikipedia.org] is only a approximation of an Ares system:

Ares I-X was the first stage prototype and design concept demonstrator in the Ares I program, a launch system for human spaceflight currently under development by the United States space agency NASA. Ares I-X was successfully launched on October 28, 2009. The project cost was $445 million.[1] The Ares I-X vehicle used in the test flight was similar in shape, weight, and size to the planned configuration of later Ares I vehicles, but had largely dissimilar internal hardware consisting of only one powered stage. Ares I vehicles are intended to launch Orion crew exploration vehicles. Along with the Ares V launch system and the Altair lunar lander, Ares I and Orion are part of NASA's Constellation Program, which is developing spacecraft for U.S. human spaceflight after the Space Shuttle fleet is expected to retire from service in 2010.

(my emphasis)

So they take a shuttle booster, dress it up and fire it off. Color me underwhelmed.

Re:Ares = manrated, Falcon = cargo. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626528)

Falcon isn't manrated yet, but the dragon capsule is intended to carry people, so I assume it will be eventually. And if it's "eventually" we're talking about, ares isn't manrated yet either. And at the current rate (even if the budget wasn't axed) Falcon will be ready sooner and for less money.

If it's only about the cost, give the money (4, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626364)

If it's only about the cost, give the money to Russians. If you pay a little more, they'll even let you have the blueprints for stuff. They've been launching stuff into space on the cheap for decades now.

Re:If it's only about the cost, give the money (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627394)

The problem with relying on the Russians is that they keep increasing prices every few years.

Misread the title (4, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626454)

Read it as "SpaceX Falcon 9 Relatively Cheap Compared To NASA's New iPad"

Cut costs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626488)

BP and TransOcean cut costs....

Look at the fail they got they got at 5000FT and NASA does 5,000,000 MILES.

Re:Cut costs.... (1)

Lohrno (670867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626616)

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Re:Cut costs.... (2)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627292)

Because those two things are perfectly logically connected and that isn't at all a poor argument.

Efficiency versus Greed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626546)

The obvious question in my mind is if quality can be so high and costs so low by using "integral manufacturing" why did Apple price the Mac Mini so high?

That's a serious question even if the answer that Jobs is arrogant and greedy sounds a little frivolous.

Re:Efficiency versus Greed (0, Offtopic)

tivoKlr (659818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626748)

I know this is OT but should Apple just give them away since they're cheap to manufacture?

What do you make with your time and do you give it away equally freely?

Not a valid comparison (1)

neonv (803374) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626588)

"But as stark as the contrast already is between private and public spaceflight missions, the comparison may not be completely useful: Ares I, part of the imperiled Constellation program, is designed to get astronauts back to the Moon and Mars, while SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is intended only for the short trips currently performed by the outgoing Space Shuttle."

Falcon 9 was NOT designed to go to the moon and Mars as Ares was. Ares is a heavy lift rocket, not just an orbital rocket. This is not even close to a valid comparison. The rocket cost increases enormously when escape velocity and heavy loads are required. The article mentions that, but the summary ignores it.

Re:Not a valid comparison (1)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626894)

You're slightly mistaken. There are two rockets in the Ares program, the Ares I man rated version, which is designed to get astronauts into orbit and the Ares V heavy lift vehicle, which is designed to carry the rest of the equipment that the voyage will need.

The Falcon 9 would be the equivalent of the Ares I rocket. There is no equivalent of the Ares V, except the defunct Saturn V and the Russian N-1. Only the upper (escape and cruise) stages of the Ares V are actually manrated.

Bill

Re:Not a valid comparison (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627072)

... except the defunct Saturn V and the Russian N-1

Also Energia (and too bad its heaviest variant, Energia Vulcan, never had a chance; that would be some sight). Not so old, and part of it still flies (Zenit). Though even if it would be possible to ressurect it, there's no funds to do it and no reason to direct them (Ares V has the same problem - what's wrong with rendezvous in orbit using few cheap launches?). Plus politics: Russia wouldn't want to depend on Ukraine, so they're building new heavy launcher - Angara; heaviest variants of which aren't quite in the league of Saturn V, N-1 or Energia, but are halfway there. Might be useful for Mir 3, I guess.

Re:Not a valid comparison (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627144)

But there is an equivalent of Ares V: Falcon 9 heavy.

Re:Not a valid comparison (2, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626994)

As has already been pointed out, Ares I and Falcon 9 are very similar in capabilities.

But furthermore - if Falcon 9 (or some other launcher for that matter) can launch a comparable mass to LEO, in several launches (we're good at rendezvous by now...), as one launch of the heavy Ares V (that's the rocket you're thinking of), and if it can do it still much cheaper (despite needing several launches) - then why wish for Ares V? A rocket which would be launched very rarely, hence driving the costs even more up btw.

In contrast, a launcher in the league of Falcon 9 is quite universal.

A woman/man can do it (1)

Yergle143 (848772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627160)

If there is one thing the humaned space program has shown, it's that we're really good at putting stuff together and fixing stuff (cf. Hubble and that hulking massive space station). But the sole brass ring seemingly out of reach -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is refueling. If we can do that multiple launches lock and load just about any vessel.

Re:A woman/man can do it (2, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627194)

We do refueling in orbit quite often. ISS is refueled every few months; and the version of docking ports used by Progress even has provisions for fuel transfer IIRC.

Musk may be the Henry Ford of space travel. (4, Insightful)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626608)

What Elon Musk is doing is similar to the assembly line process Henry Ford brought to the automotive industry.

Instead of each item being lovingly hand-crafted by thousands of pork-fueled constituents, SpaceX is making a rocket factory. It's fantastic.

Actually - it has already been done, sort of (3, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626960)

We already had a mass produced, succesfull, and very cheap launcher. Suborbital, sure - but while orbit requires from rocket an order or magnitude more work, the logistics & manufacturing aren't that dissimilar...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html [fourmilab.ch]

Sadly, the lesson was forgotten. Until now?

Moon-Mars was never more than a pipe dream... (3, Insightful)

elwinc (663074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32626678)

Bush announced Moon-Mars and provided about a billion dollars of funding to "study" Moon Mars. No one ever said where the remaining hundreds of billions of dollars would come from. Moon Mars never had a chance because no one could fund it. However, NASA took billions from unmanned space science to continue to "study" Moon Mars. It's too bad, but since we're not going to pay for a Moon Mars mission, space science is better off spending those billions on robotic probes than on never-to-be-implemented "studies."

Re:Moon-Mars was never more than a pipe dream... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626768)

You must have missed the "all but" in the summary. The axe is flying, spinning, dancing, but it's not falling on
NASA's mission back to the moon and beyond.

divert NASA from global warming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626904)

Some allege that Bush's plan was really to hinder NASA from researching global warming. Considering this is George W. Bush, I am inclined to believe it.

this is goatSex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32626692)

sure that I've You to join the are about 7000/5 The NetBSD project, core teAm. They May also want

Cancel Greater than Develop (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627104)

NASA sure did great things, but "track record"? As compared to? Which other venture is your baseline?

Friction Stir Welding (3, Informative)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627140)

The transcript in the third link mis-quotes Musk as saying "The tanks are friction steel welding". He actually said "friction stir welding" [wikipedia.org] . The articles fail to mention that this technology is used in aerospace " including welding the seams of the aluminum main Space Shuttle external tank, Orion Crew Vehicle test article, Boeing Delta II and Delta IV Expendable Launch Vehicles." Very Light Jet (VLJ) maker Eclipse Aviation uses the technology to produce a passenger-certified fuselage with far fewer labor-intensive rivets.

One big step for Corporations (1)

Goboxer (1821502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627348)

At this rate the corporations are going to be setting up moon hotels while NASA is still trying to get off the planet.

not invited to go yachting with the haywards? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32627370)

this is not the first time that's happened.

here's a movie about their (corepirate nazi) demise;

http://www.youtube.com/csetiweb#p/f

yikes!@# never mind though, all the phoniness in the world is betting you can't notice it, so failing will be quite typical.

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Have we forgotten about Pegasus? (1)

kriston (7886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32627404)

Have we forgotten about Pegasus from Orbital?

http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/ [orbital.com]

It's important to note the existing, efficient commercial solutions out there. The government-supplied rockets can be replaced with commercial versions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>