SpaceX to NASA: Don't 'Fly Russian'

[MicroBalrog]

SpaceX to NASA: Don't 'Fly Russian'
Irene Klotz, Discovery News
 

Dec. 30, 2008 -- NASA has committed nearly $2 billion to a California start-up intent on breaking the status quo for launching cargo into space. Come January, SpaceX will see if the U.S. government is prepared to take the next step and buy into a plan for launching people into orbit as well.

Once the shuttles are retired in 2010, NASA plans to buy rides for astronauts traveling to the space station from Russia, which sells a three-person craft called Soyuz.

NASA's most recent contract with Russian space officials covers transportation and training for three astronauts to and from the space station, as well as a small amount of cargo delivery and return, for $141 million.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk says he expects to be able to fly seven astronauts to the station for about $100 million -- and have a ship that can stay behind to serve as an emergency escape vehicle to boot.

"It just seems insane to be sending cumulatively billions of dollars to the Russians at a time when we desperately need those dollars in the United States," Musk said in an interview with Discovery News.


SpaceX plans to begin petitioning Congress and the Obama administration in January for an additional $300 million to $400 million investment in his Dragon spacecraft. NASA earlier this month agreed to spend $1.6 billion on 12 cargo versions of Dragon to keep the space station resupplied after the shuttles are retired. The contract follows an earlier investment of $278 million in seed funds.

NASA also is developing its own rocket-launching system as part of a new exploration initiative called Constellation to ferry crews to and from the moon, as well as the space station. The spaceships, however, will not be ready until 2015 at the earliest, five years after the shuttle fleet's retirement.

Musk says because Dragon is designed to be parked at the space station it already is rated to the standards NASA uses for human spacecraft.

"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed," Musk said. "We already are required to carry biological cargo from the space station and return it to Earth -- things like plants and rodents and various life science experiments."

If the government is prepared to move quickly, Dragon could be ready to transport its first crew to the station in 2011, Musk added.

The company would match the government funds with its own $300 million investment.

"The alternative is NASA spend $70 million approximately a seat on the Soyuz, and if you have six to eight astronauts going to station a year, you're talking about a half-billion dollars per year going to the Russians for several years. In the meantime, all the manned spaceflight people who are at the Cape (Cape Canaveral, Fla., where the country's primary space launch site is located) are getting decommissioned because there's no manned spaceflight taking place," Musk said.

"The logic just seems overwhelming," he added. "It just seems like a no-brainer to me."
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/30/spacex-nasa-russia.html

Micro Sez: Glorious, glorious SpaceX! Forward!

[makattak]

"The logic just seems overwhelming," he added. "It just seems like a no-brainer to me."

Unfortunately, Congress is immune to logic.

[MechAg94]

"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed," Musk said.

   

That is what lacking on the spacecraft I have in my garage also.  :D

[PTK]

   

That is what lacking on the spacecraft I have in my garage also.  :D

I was thinking the same thing...  :|

[Tallpine]

"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed,"

When I get this one done and one more and I will have two 

[Manedwolf]

Is this the SpaceX whose test vehicles keep exploding?

Sorry, the Russians have been doing it for a long time, and we pay them. That's free enterprise at work.

"It's really only the ascent phase (including an escape system) and the descent phase where additional work is needed," Musk said.

We could offer you ham and eggs, if only we had some eggs. And if we had some ham to go with the eggs.

Sounds like the vapor isn't only in the fuel system there, guy.

[seeker_two]

Where is Salvage 1 when you need it?...

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

[MicroBalrog]

In actuality, SpaceX had multiple successful tests, too. Don't you worry. That baby is going to fly.

[Manedwolf]

In actuality, SpaceX had multiple successful tests, too. Don't you worry. That baby is going to fly.

One failure of a manned spacecraft is too many. They'll need to have hundreds of flights before they're rated for manned spaceflight.

I still think the company is the opposite of Scaled, and is vaporware. Dude, on one of their launches that didn't just blow up completely, the first stage sep HIT the second stage bell and caused an unrecoverable oscillation. They don't have their s__ together and won't for a long time.

[MicroBalrog]

One failure of a manned spacecraft is too many.

So I presume the Soyuz and Space Shuttle need to go, too?

[Regolith]

Yeah, expecting zero losses in a space program is completely unrealistic.  We can't even get zero losses when developing aircraft, let alone spacecraft, which is inherently more dangerous.

Also, stating that they are nothing but "vaporware" because they lost a few rockets is just as unrealistic.  NASA and the Soviets went through similar issues, and they had the full funding of their respective governments behind them along with the best and brightest scientists the world had seen.  Any upstart working on a shoestring budget is going to have similar issues.

[Manedwolf]

They've launched four rockets.

Two blew up. The third had a timing error that caused a stage to hit the engine and take it completely out of control. They blew a DoD satellite and a NASA package to tiny bits.

Their fourth launch got up, but nobody will let them fly anything. All they flew was a test article.

I think the company's just running on borrowed time. Scaled already has the contract with Virgin, they're the future.

[MicroBalrog]

There are three dozen private space start-ups out there. Why is that one company 'the future'?

[Regolith]

They've launched four rockets.

Two blew up. The third had a timing error that caused a stage to hit the engine and take it completely out of control. They blew a DoD satellite and a NASA package to tiny bits.

Their fourth launch got up, but nobody will let them fly anything. All they flew was a test article.

I think the company's just running on borrowed time. Scaled already has the contract with Virgin, they're the future.

You ever take a look at NASA's early tests?  Their first attempt, the Vangaurd TV3, rose a few feet off the ground, stopped, fell over and exploded.  And their success rates, even when they did get it right - with the Explorer I missions and the Jupiter C rockets - they still managed to screw up every third or fourth launch, with many planned payloads never reaching orbit.

And again, this was with government money greasing the wheels and a lot of damn good scientists.

One in four is not that bad for a non-government effort, given the enormous monetary and intellectual investment that is necessary in order to achieve orbit.  If this stuff were easy, there wouldn't be so few countries with spaceflight capabilities.

[mfree]

Their shtuff is a little more together than you think, they just integrated their 9 engine model today, which should launch rather soon.

[Manedwolf]

There are three dozen private space start-ups out there. Why is that one company 'the future'?

There's something to be said for having video of manned spacecraft in successful operation, not just CG renderings of what they'll have "someday".

[AJ Dual]

There's something to be said for having video of manned spacecraft in successful operation, not just CG renderings of what they'll have "someday".

Don't let black sky and the curvature of the Earth fool you, there's a HUGE difference between sub-orbital flight and achieving orbit. The engineering challenges, dynamic loads etc., to reach escape velocity are orders of magnitude different.

If it weren't, the x-15 program would have become the basis for America's manned space program, and not the rockets. Nor would the Space Shuttle have been such an enormous money sink. Making spacecraft out of airplanes is a false economy for all but the first few miles of the flight, or if you're only going sub-orbital. Once you're out of the atmosphere, every bit of aerodynamic structure is wasted mass-fraction that could have been fuel or payload.

Don't get me wrong, Rutan and the people at Scaled Composites are geniuses, but "Spaceship"One (my quotes) and the Virgin/SpaceshipTwo project are really just a media relations stunt to keep the money rolling in. Although that tells me this means they're more than just engineering geniuses. 

I'd lay 10-1 odds that when Rutan gets serious about getting into space, what actually makes orbit looks nothing like an aircraft. And he's already done rocket/capsule style designs back when NASA was first casting about for concepts for the CEV/Orion/Constellation system or "Son of Apollo" to replace the wasteful Shuttle.

[MechAg94]

Didn't someone design and test a vertical take-off and launch vehicle back in the 90's? 

[Manedwolf]

Didn't someone design and test a vertical take-off and launch vehicle back in the 90's? 

If you mean the DC-X, it didn't work out well.

Yeah, it looked all Flash Gordon, but...



It showed its flaws when it fell over and burned.

[MechAg94]

Okay, I remember now.  Supposedly the landing gear failed.  It was still an interesting concept and different from other ideas.

[AJ Dual]

Okay, I remember now.  Supposedly the landing gear failed.  It was still an interesting concept and different from other ideas.

Yes, a very simple failure, and one that had no bearing on the actual VTOL technology, certain maneuvers, the engines, the flight software, and the streamlined design/build/logistic train that the DCX was a testbed for. It was a huge success for such a shoestring budget.

IIRC, when it fell over on landing and burned, it was already on "gravy time" past it's initial budgeted set of flights. It was never intended to do more than go a few thousand feet up and maneuver, then land. The main point was to prove that a rocket only landing and hover was possible. The DCX was never intended to actually address the challenge of getting a SSTO vehicle with a useful payload into orbit.

IMO, unless there's an unforeseen technological revolution, SSTO launch technology is a dead-end right now, because materials science and the engineering just isn't up to the task of a craft that's light enough, yet strong enough, with enough thrust efficiency to get a useful mass-fraction, of payload vs. ship vs. fuel into orbit. (The Moon and Mars are a different animal though, places the lessons learned from the DCX may pave the way for reusable landers for.)

Multi-stage rockets seem wasteful, and may be from a cost and logistics standpoint, but they confer huge efficiencies in terms of the actual physics of getting a mass into orbit. You get all the earlier stages kinetic energy, but ditch all their mass penalty as soon as they're exhausted.

[go_bang]

I very much we will see single stage to anywhere, let alone SSTO, until we see working anti-gravity generators.

[Tallpine]

Multi-stage rockets seem wasteful, and may be from a cost and logistics standpoint, but they confer huge efficiencies in terms of the actual physics of getting a mass into orbit. You get all the earlier stages kinetic energy, but ditch all their mass penalty as soon as they're exhausted.

Seems to me that the most efficient solution would be a pure rocket driven payload launched from a high altitude "mother ship" aircraft. 

[AJ Dual]

Seems to me that the most efficient solution would be a pure rocket driven payload launched from a high altitude "mother ship" aircraft. 

True, however, there must be hidden costs or expenses with this approach, if there weren't, we'd be doing more of that kind of launch already.

You can count the working examples of this approach on one hand. The X-15, Spaceship One, The Pegasus Launcher, and that ASAT missile launched from the F-15 during the 80's. Forgive me if I've forgotten one, but I still have my pinky finger left. 

And, if you want to be nit-picky, the X-15 and Spaceship One, and the Virgin/Spaceship Two, are only sub-orbital.

Then, if you want to discuss really useful payloads, say like, Space Shuttle, Apollo/Saturn V, Arianne V, Energia-sized ones, the carrier aircraft has to be HUGE. Larger than the current crop of big planes like the B-52, 747, Airbus A380, Antonov, C-5Galaxy etc. And to be a useful first stage, that aircraft also has to fly much higher and faster than any of those examples, while being much larger with more cargo capacity.

The development costs for large aircraft like that are already large, the saving grace is that there's a world market for hundreds, perhaps thousands of them to amortize those costs over the entire commercial air transport and cargo market. (And IMO, the A380 has already screwed the pooch except for the EU subsidizing them...)Such a large, high, and fast launch craft would cost even more to develop, but the demand for them would only be a handful of them.

So I think that while the first stage reusable launcher aircraft concept is attractive initially, when you try to expand it to the larger payloads a space station, Lunar or Mars missions, or the "fourth stage" booster that interplanetary probes and geosynchronous satellites require, you start running into the cost and complexity problems that have made the Space Shuttle such a waste in the first place. The very thing all these X-space systems are trying to get away from. It might work out for a crew-only or small low-earth orbit satellite launcher, but you're going to need to keep spending on traditional boosters in parallel for the larger payloads anyway.

I think it keeps coming back to the idea that there are no "tricks" for getting into space. Regular old KISS rockets seem to be the way to go for now. And maybe pray that large scale carbon nanotube production pans out, and we can make a space elevator someday.

[Tallpine]

Then, if you want to discuss really useful payloads, say like, Space Shuttle, Apollo/Saturn V, Arianne V, Energia-sized ones, the carrier aircraft has to be HUGE. Larger than the current crop of big planes like the B-52, 747, Airbus A380, Antonov, C-5Galaxy etc. And to be a useful first stage, that aircraft also has to fly much higher and faster than any of those examples, while being much larger with more cargo capacity.

The development costs for large aircraft like that are already large, the saving grace is that there's a world market for hundreds, perhaps thousands of them to amortize those costs over the entire commercial air transport and cargo market. (And IMO, the A380 has already screwed the pooch except for the EU subsidizing them...)Such a large, high, and fast launch craft would cost even more to develop, but the demand for them would only be a handful of them.

Yes, but in the long run it would save billions or trillions.  Look how long the B-52 and C-130 have been flying.

I think the main problem has been political, at least as far as NASA is concerned.  I remember reading somewhere (don't know now if this is true) that the original plan for the shuttle was something air launched, but the up front development costs were so huge that they fell back to "off the shelf" type vertical launch technology.  (I've also read that all the 1950s air launch technology was just tossed aside in order to race to the moon :( )

The shuttle, by any reasonable cost and time analysis, has been an unmitigated failure.  It has never been "operational" in the true sense of the word, and the per pound cost for payload for the "re-usable" shuttle exceeded multi-stage throw away rockets.  :rolleyes:

Given enough time and free enterprise funding, Rutan and Co. are going to get there.  Right now they are about where we would have/should have been about 1963 if NASA hadn't started doing the human cannonball approach.  By now, we probably would have had routine civilian orbital space stations, "shuttles" to the moon, and trips to Mars.