Which is why they survived and Kistler did not. Kistler had arguably a better design, but SpaceX (and not just Musk) had the business acumen to raise enough capital to actually implement their design. And that's what matters for *commercial* spaceflight.
Quote from: simonbp on 03/29/2012 06:01 amWhich is why they survived and Kistler did not. Kistler had arguably a better design, but SpaceX (and not just Musk) had the business acumen to raise enough capital to actually implement their design. And that's what matters for *commercial* spaceflight.That is so "incomplete" at best. NASA funds, the bulk of the "$800M", cannot be characterized as venture capital. SpaceX modified their plan to bring in NASA as their anchor customer. Kistler contracted out everything. SpaceX builds almost everything in house. SpaceX has had incremental progress. Kistler had a pretty much all-or-nothing system. "Better" is your opinoon, and one that is probably not widely shared around here. Falcon 9R is "better" and the CGI video is wonderful, but I don't expect to see any part flying for years. And implimenting a design is not the key to commercial space. Getting a revenue stream that exceeds your cost is.
Quote from: mr. mark on 03/29/2012 02:17 amOk, so say I win the Mega Millions lotto and get the 500 million dollar prize. Wonder what SpaceX could accomplish with a 100 million dollar donation to manned Dragon? I'd be more interested with what Bigelow would do with a spare $100M. OK, maybe it would end up as nothing more than mess of really cool scale models, but isn't the thinking that we already have too many LV/spacecraft candidates, but not enough places to go?
Ok, so say I win the Mega Millions lotto and get the 500 million dollar prize. Wonder what SpaceX could accomplish with a 100 million dollar donation to manned Dragon?
The next major project I'd like to see some billionaire announce is the development of a cycler for cislunar space that more or less permanently runs back and forth between the earth and moon
I think there is probably an early market for tourists to a LEO Bigelow station in addition to the market for sovereign clients and commercial human tended research,
ULA via its partnership with XCOR is showing flickers of recognition that reducing costs might be the key to the future.
If there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.
Kistler had arguably a better design
Sorry, clarification, how much in your opinion has been NASA funds? "Bulk?"SpaceX also has a flight manifest that extends for a number of years and includes around 50% non-NASA so how does that translate to an 'anchor' customer. Would I be correct in assuming that you believe that without the NASA contracts, SpaceX would not have attracted those other launches? Cost had nothing to do with it? Just a few questions.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/29/2012 02:35 amIf there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.Have you been listening to the hearings? Congress can't stand commercial. Better said, Congress's donors can't stand commercial.
Quote from: Antares on 03/29/2012 03:29 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/29/2012 02:35 amIf there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.Have you been listening to the hearings? Congress can't stand commercial. Better said, Congress's donors can't stand commercial.I have been listening to the hearings. KBH is my hero, and I wish she was my senator instead of Dick Durbin. Remember when Congress added more money to COTS for risk-reduction ? We added milestones, but neither company has launched anything since then. It's their job to have some oversight on how the taxpayers money is being spent. That's why they would prefer more standard FAR contracts, and an earlier down-select to fewer companies. NASA is just asking for an open checkbook on Commerical, which isn't going to happen. In the end, NASA is required to grade and select only 1 proposal, right ? Doesn't this mean there can only really be a single provider of crewed access to the ISS ?
We added milestones, but neither company has launched anything since then.
It is just ULA looking for another supplier and not some ground breaking event.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2012/03/26/at-home-with-elon-musk-the-soon-to-be-bachelor-billionaire/A little bit in there on SpaceX. I hope that the launch goes well on April 30th. Seems like there is a lot of press interest in the venture.I wonder if a paying customer would be able to take Dragon for a spin around the earth without a launch escape system?
Quote from: Antares on 03/29/2012 03:29 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/29/2012 02:35 amIf there are specific tasks that should be funded, and it can be justified as something that definately removes risk from the schedule slipping even farther to the right, list them out. Put the list in front of the appropriations committee's now.Have you been listening to the hearings? Congress can't stand commercial. Better said, Congress's donors can't stand commercial.It's their job to have some oversight on how the taxpayers money is being spent. That's why they would prefer more standard FAR contracts, and an earlier down-select to fewer companies. NASA is just asking for an open checkbook on Commerical, which isn't going to happen. In the end, NASA is required to grade and select only 1 proposal, right ? Doesn't this mean there can only really be a single provider of crewed access to the ISS ?
Quote from: Geron on 03/29/2012 05:34 amhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2012/03/26/at-home-with-elon-musk-the-soon-to-be-bachelor-billionaire/A little bit in there on SpaceX. I hope that the launch goes well on April 30th. Seems like there is a lot of press interest in the venture.I wonder if a paying customer would be able to take Dragon for a spin around the earth without a launch escape system?No time to read atm, but the sound of the link isn't good. "the-soon-to-be-bachelor-billionaire"
not terribly relevant to SpaceX, other than that it clearly has personal impact (and a presumably small monetary impact) on the CEO/CTO.
Quote from: simonbp on 03/29/2012 06:01 amKistler had arguably a better designThe Kistler design was full of unobtainium. It was a bunch of usual suspect, former NASA and contractor managers. That was the only reason it survived as long as it did.Quote from: beancounter on 03/29/2012 08:12 amSorry, clarification, how much in your opinion has been NASA funds? "Bulk?"SpaceX also has a flight manifest that extends for a number of years and includes around 50% non-NASA so how does that translate to an 'anchor' customer. Would I be correct in assuming that you believe that without the NASA contracts, SpaceX would not have attracted those other launches? Cost had nothing to do with it? Just a few questions.I for one believe precisely that. Without NASA, SpaceX is either nothing or, actually, MORE viable. Until being rerouted by COTS, SpaceX would have gone the Falcon 1-Falcon 5-Falcon 9 route and really could have revolutionized space launch. NASA's siren call led SpaceX into space capsule development. I firmly believe that the rhetoric would be far less and the results far greater, but everyone believes their estimate of an alternate reality is the accurate one.