Good article, bad headline.

The Falcon 9 on the pad has some hardware that is not the same as what will be on the flight vehicle. What's on the pad now is essentially a facilities test vehicle, somewhat analogous to Saturn V SA-500F (except that *some* of this Falcon 9 will actually fly).

Fingers crossed for SpaceX!
It will be interesting to see what happens if SpaceX has an operating man-rated Falcon 9 Heavy with a Dragon capsule before NASA's Ares I (or whatever replaces it).
Even more interesting is if SpaceX achieves Elon Musk's goal of making the entire rocket reusable (source: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/)

To go from hangar to liftoff in under 60 minutes would be very impressive. If Spacex can lower launch costs by even 75%, it will have a dramatic affect on space exploration. Those are some great photos. Go Spacex!

space X isn't going to have man rated anything in place until they put in place the systems controls and configuration controls associated with man rating, or even AF satellite rides. and then they will have a launch vehicle that will be just as costly as Atlas with far lower performance... and the only thing re-useability will add is cost. It won't trade well at less then 40 or 50 launches per year. who else tried to sell that... oh I remember, Shuttle.

don't be so quick to assume the existing launch business is so costly just because nobody thought of a smarter way, or that there's some conspiracy between NASA and BA/LM to keep the goose laying eggs. the only thing unique about SpaceX is he's spending private money to build and bust. so far all his failures would have been prevented by good design practice in the "old" launch business

I agree with Nemo, bad headline. What was erected on the pad is a pathfinder. Some of it will be later torn apart and reassembled in a flightworthy wehicle.

Go SpaceX!

With Dragon and -Heavy, this is the crew-exchange and bulk hauler of tomorrow. At roughly $37M per 12 tons to LEO, if they are successful, Falcon 9/9-H will greatly change the launch market, esp. for USA.

SpaceX business model probably involves a fast ramp-up once they have the system working - not efficient at 2 flights a year but shows serious economy-of-scale at higher flight frequency. Announcements toward reusability & 1-hour pad times lend credence to their success - Elon must think they can do it.

He is banking on a lot of you buying flights, capsules and habitats in the coming decades. The best way to support SpaceX or other providers is to build more payloads - govt, academic and private. Figure it out and fly the above the sky.

(1,000,000 new aerospace jobs in the private sector)

Yes, fingers crossed for SpaceX. If they manage to send 3 out of 4 Falcon 9 into the drink (as they did with Falcon 1), that's going to be bad.

Basic economics. The existing launch business is as expensive as it is because it can be. Successful competition might change that, though there's no guarantee SpaceX can be that competition. Note that government- and labor-subsidized foreign competitors don't compete for US government payloads.

@rocko fritters -- "the only thing reusability will add is cost"

Even if worse comes to worse and you're correct, there's something else it adds: destiny. Imagine you're a stingy taxpayer with no use for space. Let me walk you out to a steaming rocket engine, one that's just been to orbit, one that badly wants to go up again. Do you honestly have the heart to box that thing up in a shipping container and bury it? Just refurbish it and fly! As for building copies of EELVs so they can join their siblings at the bottom of the ocean (like Apollo first stages), that will get old real quick. Taxpayers don't like buying things that disappear. For NASA programs to reach their potential, they should be like the space shuttle, Hard To Cancel.