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!

NASA Buying Private Companies' Suborbital Rocket Flights

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the dc-we-have-a-problem dept.


FleaPlus writes "NASA is spending a total of $475,000, split between Masten Space Systems and John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace, for a series of seven test flights of the companies' reusable suborbital rockets over the next several months, going to altitudes as high as 25 miles. NASA's goal is to foster a more cost-effective and flexible way to conduct microgravity and upper-atmosphere research. Jeff Bezos's suborbital spaceflight company Blue Origin has also been making steady progress this year on their $3.7M contract to test pusher-escape system and composite pressure vessel technologies, which NASA is interested in for orbital spaceflight."

cancel ×


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

frist piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33431246)

From my dick

Re:frist piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33431376)

Don't lie, we all know you don't have a dick. Atleast not on any physically measurable scale.

Pay per flight (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 4 years ago | (#33431282)

What makes this more interesting is that NASA won't actually be paying for the flights until they have flown successfully, and although Armadillo and Masten have been working towards the kind of capability NASA wants, they've mostly been plotting their own course, which means NASA has actually bought something here without specifying the requirements in infinite detail - like they usually do.

Re:Pay per flight (2, Interesting)

GlassHeart (579618) | about 4 years ago | (#33431702)

The other thing that is interesting is the "a total of $475,000." When was the last time NASA dealt in dollar amounts under a million?

Re:Pay per flight (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 4 years ago | (#33431830)

All the time. The problem is that normally no-one cares because the press is focused on the pork. This is one of the many initiatives that NASA does with "scraps".

Re:Pay per flight (3, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 4 years ago | (#33431992)

The truely screwed up thing is: NASA only has the freedom to do this sort of thing with "scraps" - all the "real money" is earmarked, with congress saying "build this project using these contractors". NASA has become a project management/procurement organization, which is sad in its own right, but they're not even allowed to do that correctly.

Re:Pay per flight (1)

stiggle (649614) | about 4 years ago | (#33433746)

NASA has a separate budget for promoting commercial launch systems and have been funding them since '06. Its not something new that Obama brought in.

Have a look at some of the COTS contracts where they pay per milestone reached. []

Re:Pay per flight (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33441644)

While that may be true, the current U.S. House of Representatives version of the NASA appropriation bill would eliminate this program altogether. Yes, it was something started by the Bush administration, but don't tell the Republicans that fact. They wouldn't believe you.

Re:Pay per flight (4, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 4 years ago | (#33432006)

When was the last time NASA dealt in dollar amounts under a million?

The Navy launched the Clementine moon probe [] for ~$100K in 1994 and sparked the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" mantra within NASA. This freaked the space industry powerhouses because it threatened a significant reduction in the fat they could carve out of their contracts with the government if it took hold as an industry wide standard. Fortunately for them, some notable failed projects built around FBC led to the abandonment of that policy and the continued largess for publicly funded space programs.

Navy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33437942)

Since Clementine was launched from Vandenberg AFB on a Titan II, I'm going to speculate that the USAF launched it.

Re:Pay per flight (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 years ago | (#33444688)

That price is three orders of magnitude off [] .

Total project cost was $ 80 million, using a Titan II converted surplus ICBM as the launch vehicle.

Some of the NASA contributions, such as the Orbiting Meteoroid and Debris Counting Experiment [] were in the price range you claim.

Re:Pay per flight (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#33431966)

NASA won't actually be paying for the flights until they have flown successfully

NASA has actually bought something here without specifying the requirements in infinite detail

Basically undoing the two things (in decreasing order of importance) that have caused so many problems and budget problems in the past.

The ridiculously detailed specifications not only meant the developer was highly constrained, it virtually guarantees that what you get is going to be a one-off made of fully custom parts which means ridiculous cost.

But when you hand that specification to the contractor, along with mega-bucks for them to develop it, then you virtually guarantee that the contractor will be late and then basically dare you not to send good money after bad, and admit you wasted mega-bucks.

I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.

Re:Pay per flight (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#33432880)

I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.

The problem is that this approach only works for a subset of projects, mostly those where the contractor is already developing that technology regardless of NASA or where the cost is low. No company is going to invest millions into developing something on the off chance that NASA might like it once it's done. They want detailed requirements so they know when they are done.

Re:Pay per flight (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about 4 years ago | (#33434096)

While I appreciate your sentiment, are you sure?
Why do you need a detailed requirements list other than "we'll pay up to $100 Million for each person you can launch to the ISS with a minimum of 10 people per year, and a maximum of 50. We will use the lowest cost provider available at the time of booking. Capacity must be first demonstrated by the company's CEO delivered to the ISS."
Does it matter if it is one person per capsule or ten, does it matter if it takes one day to get there or twenty provided that they are delivered alive and for the agreed price?

Re:Pay per flight (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33442028)

Having been on both sides of the fence when setting up a specification for a "request for bids" contract and writing up bids in private industry, I can certainly tell you that cutting cost is not the point. If you are genuinely looking at the cheapest option, you want to specify as few requirements as possible and leave the potential bids as broad as possible. On the other hand, if you are trying to scratch the back of a close friend, you specify in as much detail as possible all of the things you want in the bid and set it up in such a way that only one possible contractor can ever really fill the requirements in the bid.

It doesn't matter if this is a government agency or a large company, the process is essentially the same.

BTW, this also applies to "help wanted" advertisements when you see a list of requirements for a job. For those companies who are genuinely trying to cast a wide net of applicants, they will list the job duties very simply and broadly. Those job descriptions that are much more exacting and requirement knowledge of specific tools, software, or skills listing a specific number of years of experience usually are targeting to hire a specific person for the job and are only publicly posting the job because of formal policy or legal requirements.

For government procurement contracts, in almost every case the contract requirements are being set up to pay back a campaign donation or perhaps the bid terms are being written by the very company who is going to make the bid. If you are writing the terms of the bid request for a contract you are eventually going to bid on, don't you think you would write those terms in such a way to keep your competition from bidding on the proposal?

Commercial Payload Companies (4, Informative)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 4 years ago | (#33431304)

You know, it's kind of funny. Lately with all the hub-ub regarding the closure of the shuttle program, the small launch companies have been getting a ton of publicity. We have companies like SpaceX and Orbital working their way into the medium and heavy lift rocket arenas. We have Blue Origin, Masten, Armadillo, and a half-dozen other small rocket/sounding rocket/propulsion companies developing launch platforms for low gravity environments (moon, Mars) and suborbital flights. One thing that I can't seem to find a lot of, however, is small, commercial payload companies. There are definitely a few. Companies like Clyde Space [] for instance are starting to offer available payloads on cubesat buses. There are also companies like Interorbital Sciences [] that are trying to push the small payload/tubesat architecture. And, of course, there are dozens of startups competing for the rover portion of the GLXP. Nonetheless, I would like to see more small satellite companies start cropping up. It seems like there would be a market for a company that could develop a common, reliable, small payload bus (about 250 - 500 kg) that could guarantee a mission life of XX many years and a power base of XX many kW that customers could mount scientific payloads on to test technologies, gather a bit of data, whatever.

I guess that I am surprised to see commercial launch companies getting so much publicity, while the market for commercial satellite buses remains so small. It would be cool to see a company do to satellites what SpaceX is trying to do the launch market. Surely some science communities out there would pay to gather 0 g data for some field or another...

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (4, Insightful)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | about 4 years ago | (#33431456)

How can someone just whip out a "commercial satellite bus" business without having a launch vehicle? I'm sure as soon as the half-dozen companies you referenced (plus more that will inevitably be created) are fully functional, "payload launching" will be the next large commercial step.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 4 years ago | (#33438468)

Well I suppose I expected them to be developed in parallel. After all, why are all the launch companies racing for orbit if nobody has anything to put on the top of their rockets? I've been talking to some of the smaller launch companies lately and they are all very excited about their own projects and what they are capable of. Quite a few of them, however, when presented with the question, "What kinds of business relationships/partnerships have you explored for utilization of your launch platform?" have little more to say than that they will look into that after they get flying. Or, at best, they have one sister company that they are working with closely. I'm not a business major, so I don't know the reason for that type of attitude. But that's why I said that I find it surprising there are fewer payload developers out there than launch vehicle developers. After all, you can already launch on something like the Dnepr or Minotaur, it's just not as cheap as most folks would like.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1, Informative)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 years ago | (#33431524)

I guess that I am surprised to see commercial launch companies getting so much publicity

Surprised? The Obama administration is pushing the idea, so NASA is providing the publicity (one thing they were always good at). I'll be impressed when the rockets have more capacity than the surface-to-air missiles that were in use during the Vietnam War. Sounds like they still have a ways to go.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | about 4 years ago | (#33431938)

Wow, I wasn't aware there was any surface-to-air missiles that can fly a payload to high altitude and return it to the same launch pad it took off from, and do it again in under an hour. Who has been making these VTVL marvels that the rest of us completely missed?

Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 4 years ago | (#33434832)

Just because it is never done doesn't mean they couldn't make a SAM launch and then come right back to the launcher.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#33436070)

Actually, I have a friend who told me about a missile project where a stray -1 resulted in exactly that...

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 4 years ago | (#33432336)

I'll be impressed when the rockets have more capacity than the surface-to-air missiles that were in use during the Vietnam War.

Why? Different tools for different jobs. Sure, I'd be impressed if your car could launch into orbit or shoot down fighter jets. But those tasks aren't the point of your car.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (3, Informative)

quanticle (843097) | about 4 years ago | (#33431642)

This may be on a smaller scale than you're imagining, but there does exist one such service today: TubeSat [] .

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 4 years ago | (#33431892)

You know sitting hear reading this makes me feel that this generation could see some radical space stuff like our parents did in the 60's and 70's. Maybe its a bit premature but hopefully in the next 20 years we will get to see some real space exploration happen. Imagine bearing witness to the construction of a Moon base or manned Mars trip.

Growing up with shuttle launches gets a bit old, although the space station is pretty damn awesome.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1)

FutureDomain (1073116) | about 4 years ago | (#33432090)

Maybe both if we do the Mars to Stay [] program.
This is seriously good news. We need to let NASA work on the complex and not very profitable (it terms of money) exploration of Mars and asteroids, while letting private companies who have a strong incentive to make a cheaper and more reliable way to get to orbit let them commoditize it and make a buck in the process. The free market works when there's competition and the bad companies are allowed to fail.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 4 years ago | (#33431906)

The problem with Blue Origin is that they have a patent on "1-Click Launch" and will sue anyone else who uses it.

Re:Commercial Payload Companies... There are... (1)

jrst (467762) | about 4 years ago | (#33432248)

Take a look at Surrey Satellite Technology [] They have a selection of standard platforms and payloads (or BYO payload). Their standard platforms/payloads focus is EO and Comm/Nav, but not limited to those.

However, if you go to any of the majors, they'll also start with a standard bus; they just don't market that part heavily because the value/money is elsewhere. I doubt there are very many commercial sats/payloads built on a one-off/custom bus these days. Those that are most likely are relatively high volume (e.g., GPS, Iridium, etc.). (Hughes started doing that long ago for comm sats).

Good For Space Tourism (3, Interesting)

Kepesk (1093871) | about 4 years ago | (#33431338)

It's great to hear that both of these companies are getting some needed funding! Armadillo has said outright that they have a goal of putting tourists into space and Masten has hinted at it. I for one look forward to lighting a rocket under my butt and launching myself out of the atmosphere.

Re:Good For Space Tourism (2, Funny)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | about 4 years ago | (#33431652)

I for one look forward to lighting a rocket under my butt and launching myself out of the atmosphere.

Puh-lease! It's infinitely more sophisticated than that - you cling to the side and they stick your hands on with gaffer tape.

This is good. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33431358)

This is good news. This is capitalism in action, it's all thanks to capitalism. Free market, thank you free market.

Re:This is good. (3, Funny)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | about 4 years ago | (#33431460)

Along with heavy government regulation. Free market restricted by sensible government regulation, thank you FMRBSG.

Re:This is good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33433110)

don't forget the government funding!

thank you FMRBSGRAGF!

$475,000 (2, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about 4 years ago | (#33431370)


Not even a bump on a decimal point on a rounding error in NASA's budget. Signifies nothing.

Re:$475,000 (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | about 4 years ago | (#33431418)

tell that to Carmack and his company moron....did NASA give you any money? No...because you haven't done shit asshat.

Re:$475,000 (1)

pookemon (909195) | about 4 years ago | (#33432124)

What an angry little muppet.

Carmack is hardly begging for his supper.

Re:$475,000 (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33478324)

Did I say he was moron?

Re:$475,000 (1)

quanticle (843097) | about 4 years ago | (#33431670)

That's true, but you have to look at it from the perspective of these companies as well. For them a sum of $475,000 is quite a lot. This may be one of those small government investments that changes the world (like the activities of DARPA, for example).

Re:$475,000 (1)

guanxi (216397) | about 4 years ago | (#33432390)

For them a sum of $475,000 is quite a lot

It doesn't hurt, but I doubt it's much in their budgets either, especially split 3 ways. That's approx. one high-level employee per company, for one year.

Re:$475,000 (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33432412)

It signifies either less money spent on launches or more launches. Either is a win.

Uh oh (2, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 4 years ago | (#33431374)

I didn't know Jeff Bezos had a spaceflight company. Can we expect a flood of new patent applications where the idea ends with "in space"?

Re:Uh oh (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#33431410)

"Blue Origin soundproofing... in space, no one can hear you scream!"

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33432000)

I didn't know Jeff Bezos had a spaceflight company. Can we expect a flood of new patent applications where the idea ends with "in space"?

Nope, TVTROPES.ORG already demonstrated prior art on all of it.

Re:Uh oh (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 4 years ago | (#33435268)

I didn't know Jeff Bezos had a spaceflight company. Can we expect a flood of new patent applications where the idea ends with "in space"?

Sure. In fact, while the control panel for his rocket has all kinds of knobs and stuff, you have the option to deliver your satellite into orbit with a single click of the launch button. That way you don't have to worry about silly things like pre-launch checks, order confirmation, or other such nonsense.

Sure your satellite might end up in the wrong orbit - or planet - but that's a small price to pay for the convenience of one-click launch.

Re:Uh oh (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33442208)

Blue Origin is especially famous at delivering product without hype... or for that matter any publicity at all. You hear more about stuff happening inside of the National Security Agency than what is going on in Blue Origin. About the only time they show up in the news is when they do something that simply has to be put into the public record, such as purchasing 10k acres in Texas. That you hadn't heard much about this company or that it even exists isn't too surprising.

pak chooie unf (1)

benjamindees (441808) | about 4 years ago | (#33431490)

the pusher system is designed to push astronauts out of the way of danger.

Re:pak chooie unf (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | about 4 years ago | (#33431766)

You are malfunctioning. Shoving is the answer. In any case there are no stairs in space so the point is moot.

Actually cost effective? (3, Interesting)

LaissezFaire (582924) | about 4 years ago | (#33431822)

Hopefully this will actually be cost effective. The space shuttle was a boondoggle "reusable" space ship that had to be rebuilt nearly from scratch every launch. I care not a whit about reusable, but I do care greatly about cost.

Re:Actually cost effective? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33435884)

While I fully agree the shuttle BECAME a boondoggle I think that result came about more because of contractors and government mismanagement, not because of an inherent fault in the craft itself. It could have become a fairly efficient spacecraft with a pretty high degree of reusability. Instead they treated it more like a national monument, replacing components rated for 5X the number of flights they had been on, creating overly extensive safety/security procedures, and practically redesigning portions the craft for each flight. I don't know how reliable the number is, but I've heard that the shuttle only costs ~50 million per flight (fuel, ET, replacement parts), the bulk of the cost is all of the security, personnel, administration, facilities/grounds maintenance, etc that is tacked on.

Re:Actually cost effective? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33444978)

and yet, despite all of those "overly extensive safety/security procedures", two of them fucking exploded

maybe it just turned out that the shuttle's maintenance cost was a little more than anyone had imagined when the project started

Re:Actually cost effective? (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33442318)

Armadillo Aerospace is famous for the fact that their budget on rocket fuel is one of their largest expenses. Think about that carefully and note that for most rocket development companies that the office supply budget for their engineering teams is usually higher than their rocket fuel budget. Masten has somehow been able to figure out how to fly their rockets at a cost even cheaper than Armadillo. Seriously, these guys are about as cheap as it gets and still be able to fly up to higher altitudes on a rocket.

A half million dollars? That is what NASA spends on PR materials for each shuttle launch. And in this case there are going to be a whole series of launches done on these rockets for that price.

Re:Actually cost effective? (1)

LaissezFaire (582924) | about 4 years ago | (#33444066)

It sounds like Armadillo is going the right way, then. I wish them the best of luck.

WOW! A whole 25 miles up! (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 years ago | (#33433812)

Before we know it these advanced pioneers of space flight might even get to 50 miles like the X-15 managed .... 40 years ago.

Sorry , this whole nasa using private contractors launchers thing just makes me weep. Its like someone is rolling the clock backwards. What next - they proudly announce they're using private contactors to get them to 30,000 feet?

Re:WOW! A whole 25 miles up! (1)

mangu (126918) | about 4 years ago | (#33434432)

Before we know it these advanced pioneers of space flight might even get to 50 miles like the X-15 managed .... 40 years ago.

40 years ago men had gone to the moon, the X-15 was already flying 50 years ago.

However, the X-15 needed the infrastructure of the USAF. It was launched from the wing of a B-52 bomber and landed on the dry lake bed at Edwards AFB. Probably, adjusted for inflation, $475,000 would be the cost of a single flight of the X-15.

Re:WOW! A whole 25 miles up! (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 4 years ago | (#33436206)

Yes , 50 , typo.

With NASAs supposed 60 years experience building something like the X15 should be a no brainer now so it would probably
cost a lot less than 475K a flight.

This is nothing to do with furthering space technology and everything to do with the accountants being in charge.

A few corrections...! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#33435802)

The Kármán line [] lies at an altitude of 100 km (approx. 62 miles) above the Earth's sea level, and is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.[2] This definition is accepted by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), which is an international standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics.

Of all the X-15 missions, [] two flights (by the same pilot) qualified as space flights per the international (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) definition of a spaceflight by exceeding a 100 kilometer (62.137 mi, 328,084 ft) altitude.

"The first X-15 flight was an unpowered test flight by Scott Crossfield, on 8 June 1959", which was 51 years ago.

Commercial launchers []
Main article: Space transport
The space transport business serves primarily national government and large commercial customer segments. Launches of government payloads, including military, civilian and scientific satellites, is the largest market segment at nearly $100 billion a year. This segment is dominated by domestic favorites such as the United Launch Alliance for U.S. government payloads and Arianespace for European satellites. The commercial payload segment, valued at under $3 billion a year, is dominated by Arianespace, with over 50% of the market segment,[11] followed by Russian launchers. See a complete list of launch systems.


The Ansari X PRIZE was intended to stimulate private investment in the development of spaceflight technologies. The June 21, 2004 test flight of SpaceShipOne, a contender for the X PRIZE, was the first human spaceflight in a privately developed and operated vehicle.

On September 27, 2004, following the success of SpaceShipOne, Richard Branson, owner of Virgin and Burt Rutan, SpaceShipOne's designer, announced that Virgin Galactic had licensed the craft's technology, and were planning commercial space flights in 2.5 to 3 years. A fleet of five craft (SpaceShipTwo, launched from the WhiteKnightTwo carrier airplane) is to be constructed, and flights will be offered at around $200,000 each, although Branson has said he plans to use this money to make flights more affordable in the long term.[dated info]

Re:WOW! A whole 25 miles up! (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 4 years ago | (#33438552) the X-15 managed .... 40 years ago.

The fatal flaw of the X-15 design was that it was a government funded prototype. If Congressional budget hearings have taught me anything during my short time on this planet, it's that the federal government cannot be trusted to properly fund high-risk, high-gain ventures. The X-15 was a great vehicle, like many military and NASA vehicles before it. Nonetheless, it failed spectacularly because Congress controlled it's budget.

That said, the sooner space access can be liberated from the choke-hold of congressional funding, the sooner you and I will be able to take a vacation to Mars.

Re:WOW! A whole 25 miles up! (1)

Teancum (67324) | about 4 years ago | (#33442616)

If you can design, build, fuel, fly, and safely land an X-15 for under a half million dollars, I would be incredibly impressed too. I don't think the price of an X-15 flight, even in the 1960's, was a half million dollars, much less trying to build one of those vehicles.

It is the cost here, not the bleeding edge achievement that is the big deal. Go ahead and spend the $100-$200 billion that has been projected merely to get a vehicle built that could go to Mars (the current projected cost of completing the Constellation vehicles). Far too long NASA has been about trying to get the best performance and setting records. They certainly haven't been about getting up into space on the cheap.

For myself, I say NASA should be doing more stuff like this.

D. D. Harriman lives (1)

karlandtanya (601084) | about 4 years ago | (#33433872)

This is the next step to the stars, folks.
Not by government-funded scientists and dreamers, but by entrepreneurs.
Government funding is still driving the process; what we're seeing here is the handoff.

Cognitive dissonance (1)

operagost (62405) | about 4 years ago | (#33435302)

Progressives will love this because it's populist, and they hate traditional NASA programs because they "take" funds that could be used for social programs. But it puts money in the pockets of capitalists, and adds "carbon" to the atmosphere. What to do!
Check for New 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>