Falcon 9 Development = Cost of Ares I Mobile Service Tower

This is a good example of someone taking a look at all of the costs of a program. Space X knew they had to build everything and so made some compromises on the vehicle to make ground ops easier like being able to process horizontally. Sure it might make the vehicle a little heavier but it lowers overall system cost by eliminating a mobile launcher or retractable assembly building. Another thing is being able to bring it out to the pad and launched quickly and returning it to the hanger quickly. This eliminates long pad stay which makes things much more complex because they have withstand hurricane force winds. Also liquid engine exhaust is much nicer to the ground hardware by not making acidic exhaust which forces exotic materials to resist.

For those who are passionate about opening up space to American society, the incredible affordability of Constellation and ESAS is a bug.

To Congress, and some at NASA, the standing army and billions in overhead required to operate the Ares family of launchers is a feature.

Yeah, but the Ares I mobile tower was going to the moon. ...i heard.

Okay Elon/Space X, just 'cause you got one successful Falcon 9 launch up, let's not get too cocky just yet. We respect your achievements, however I'd wait till I had a couple more successful launches, preferably involving paying customers with million dollar payloads, under my bet before I started boasting.

Space X says the majority of its future growth is expected to occur in Texas and Florida - will be interested in hearing the reaction of the politicians connected to say JSC (I don't expect it to matter much at KSC) to this announcement. Oh wait, I think it'll be something along the lines of "While we are grateful for this belated opportunity for job growth in our area, it will not be enough to mitigate the massive job losses expected due to Obama's ill-advised cancellation of the Constellation program."

I expect it's the startup headcount and KISS principle that allowed SpaceX to do it so cheaply. How many folks worked on Constellation? I'd be really curious to see a comparison on materials and man hours for the various boosters, Falcon, Atlas, Delta, Arian, LM.

true, but that horizontal integration isnt going to help you when you get to crewed operations. At that point you are going to need to build a launch tower of some sort otherwise the only way to get the crew out in case of an emergency will be a pad abort. Which could be overkill. So it is just delayed costs.

Speaking of costs - still waiting for somebody to give me proof of the cost of the Falcon's development. Because I'm not believing is is what was spent on the Mobile Launcher so far (nor do I believe what the total cost for the mobile launcher is when it is complete which is a few years away). I keep hearing "cheap" and "orders of magnitude cheaper" but I have never seen any actual numbers. I would like to actually know how much they have spent. Cant gauge the truth in their eventual launch costs if they arent divulging development costs. Yes, the COTS contract price is fixed for so many flights, but after that, adjustments will be made.

Dragon tracking: http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=36595

if it just got more funding ....

A hydrocarbon engine keeps us dependent on foreign oil and a greenhouse gas polluting fuel until carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels are developed for jp rocket engines. Elon Musk may end with a carbon tax on his rocket fuel someday!

A hydrogen fueled launcher like the one advocated by Boeing would be a much simpler and a much more environmentally benign space craft especially compared to the Falcon 9 heavy. Plus you could strap a couple of 5-segment SRBs on the core vehicle and an upper stage and it would become a heavy lift vehicle capable of launching more than 100 tonnes into orbit.

I think Boeing has the simpler and cleaner concept.

Marcel F. Williams

Folks:

Hate to ram this one down your throats again but:

"An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications."

Robert A. Heinlein, from 'The Notebooks of Lazarus Long' .

If America used one tenth of it's military budget and spent it the way Spacex does... it would rule the Solar System in a couple of decades. But governments just don't work that way so it'll be private interests the rule the Solar System in the end... whether you like it or not.

tinker

NASA and the private sector have a lot to learn from each other...

Nah, Ares-I was only going to LEO. Another, bigger and far costlier mobile tower would be needed for the other, bigger, nearly completely dissimilar and far costlier rocket that would go to the Moon and other BEO destinations.

And in that simple comparison, we sum up the fundamental problem with the Ares Launch System.

Just sit back for a second and look at this comparison like Mom and Pop would out in the heartland of America. Do you think they give a rat's ass about the federal government staying in the spacecraft and launch vehicle development game when companies like Spacex can do it so much cheaper? Do you think they'll wring their hands about the future of NASA? They WON'T GIVE A DAMN because NASA will have become irrelevant to their future.

Certainly SpaceX has shown very high productivity and the US could save a lot of tax dollars by applying their model to defense and healthcare, but by employing fewer workers, this may be deflationary unless we can find something productive for the displaced workers to do, which would result in lower tax revenues, etc..

Good perspective that too many space geeks (I am one but understand reality) don't realize. Space is important to us geeks, manned in particular, but it has to be put into perspective with everything else the government does. You can bandy about it is only a minute percentage of government spending all you want but for a family dealing with cancer in a child and no medical insurance men flying multi-billion dollar rockets to the moon aren't too important. While Elon himself grates on me what he has accomplished for much lower prices and in much shorter time spans is what could make a difference in more business going into space. This rocket out performs Soyuz FG by a large amount also and if it proves to be highly reliable could bring a significant launch business back to the US besides possibly propelling US astronauts into orbit. He does deserve the accolades for what he has accomplished.

You have got to be freaking kidding me. You're against higher thrust FIRST stage engines because they produce CO2, but you're FOR toxic perchlorate that pollutes groundwater AND the atmosphere.

Yes, LOX-H2 is cleaner, but it's also much less efficient for first stages. And the amount of kerosene used (and CO2 produced) is trivial compared to autos/trucks.

I propose that we spend the $700m a year we save not paying ATK to keep segmented SRMs in production on real exploration. Or planting trees, if it will make you feel better.

"SpaceX has been profitable for three consecutive years (2007 through 2009)..."

This statement is a little misleading. They've had positive cash flow, but they've only launched a single 180kg satellite to date. That "profit" is based on the promise of future deliverables.

I'm curious, does SpaceX pay NASA for use of our government facilities?

> You have got to be freaking kidding me. You're against higher thrust FIRST stage engines because they produce CO2, but you're FOR toxic perchlorate that pollutes groundwater AND the atmosphere.

He has already been told that H2 and O2 are made by burning hydrocarbons for power, so yes maybe he is kidding you. Maybe just dumb though

Marcel, have you really gone that far off the deep end? Where do you think they derive the hydrogen from? Hydrocarbons! Where do you think the power comes from for production and liquefaction? Hydrocarbons and coal mainly.

A hydrogen fueled launcher is simpler? Do tell...

As for SpaceX Falcon 9 development costs, we have to take their word for it because they're a private company and not required to disclose financial information. With that in mind, they've stated that development has cost under $500M.

As for horizontal integration and crewed vehicles, yes they will have to build an access tower but that does not outweigh the advantages. It works for Soyuz and I'm sure it'll work for SpaceX.

SpaceX leases pads from the Air Force not NASA.

What are some of you commentators going gaga about? This is a meaningless comparison, a silly marketing claim that only needs to be ignored. What exactly is SpaceX comparing? Does anybody know? How much of the taxpayer money that it received is being included here? How much should a mobile launch tower for the Ares I cost to develop? There are so many valid questions that need to be answered for any sense to be made of this vague claim!

It just goes to show that for some, this is nothing more than an ideological battle, facts be damned!

Wow Great question
I'm curious, does SpaceX pay NASA for use of our government facilities?
I dunno, I think SpaceX has and agreement with NASA in the form of a contract.
Why does the DOD give the Eastern/Western range to the USAF to manage ?Why does NOAA give weather data to the USAF and then to NASA and SpaceX? Why does the FAA take part in the discussions ?

What this has to do with the cost of the mobile launch structure for Cx .vs. the SpaceX costs for its efforts thus far is for cost metric analysis maybe by OMB or Congress

Sure it might make the vehicle a little heavier

And yet, the dry mass of the Falcon 9 first stage is only 5% of its fueled mass. Quite impressive.

BTW: focusing on CO2 emission of a launcher is absurd until launch costs are much lower. Slap a $100/ton tax on CO2 emission -- enough to make coal-fired electrical generation uncompetitive compared to nuclear -- and the cost of a Falcon 9 launch will change only slightly. Carbon-containing rocket propellant is one of the last things that would be phased out if CO2 emissions are to be reduced.

Also: solid rockets produce lots of CO2 too. That perchlorate is combusting with a synthetic rubber, you know.

Do any of the cost numbers used for comparison include SpaceEx's investments, or is this a comparison to the NASA funding of the program? As a privately held company, is there anyway of confirming the profits they claim?

"A hydrocarbon engine keeps us dependent on foreign oil ... Elon Musk may end with a carbon tax on his rocket fuel someday!"

That's one of the lamest complaints ever written. You're digging deep aren't you?

Aside from the ridiculous dirtiness of SRB exhaust, have you even considered where the hydrogen fuel comes from?

@Jim Muncy

1. Boeing's personal shuttle doesn't use SRBs it just uses the LOX/LH2 core vehicle

2. The demand for super heavy lift launches (requiring SRBs) by NASA is likely to be only a tiny portion of total launches over the next 20 or 30 years

3. The environmental effects of solid rocket booster particulates is trivial compared to CO2 which could push us over the tipping point that could eventually result in placing the entire east of coast of the US underwater for future generations. Although this would actually be normal for Florida during an interglacial period.

4. Once space tourism really starts to gain momentum, there's going to be a lot more than just five manned space flights per year from US soil. Polls show that there are thousands of super wealthy people interested in paying to fly into space. And there's no doubt in my mind that there are billions of people around the world who would be willing to spend a few bucks per year for a chance to fly into space through a space lotto system and that could add hundreds of flights more. And once this higher rate of demand starts to dramatically reduce the cost of space flights, the demand for manned spaceflights will grow even larger.

So we should want these vehicles to have a minimal impact on the environment. If Obama and Elon Musk are so interested in clean energy then they should also show some interest in using carbon neutral fuels for US rockets.

Marcel F. Williams

"we are grateful for this belated opportunity for job growth in our area, it will not be enough to mitigate the massive job losses expected"

The cost necessary to hire so many people means it will never do anything useful. If we're gonna spend many billions on a jobs program, why not spend it on something more useful than a Moon program that doesn't really open up the Moon?

If Congress and the previous administration never funded it properly, what makes you think the next one won't axe it if Obama doesn't?

If you want to do Apollo again, you're gonna get the whole package, all the way up to the final 6th landing.

When SpaceX starts working on HSF launches, will they stay at LC-40 at CCAFS or will they move to the other side of the River onto LC-39? Someone asked me about that the other day and I had no idea.

Would be a real shame to see KSC mothballed, save for the Industrial Area.

SpaceX was assigned the right to use Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, one of two former Titan IV sites, as the launch pad for the Falcon 9 family through a real property agreement with the USAF. This is similar to how the Atlas V (LC 41) and Delta IV (LC 37)were made available to Lockheed Martin and Boeing respectively. It is made available for commercial use when there is no longer a government / defense requirement for the area.

SpaceX paid for the development of the launch facility primarily through internal corporate funds.

SpaceX paid for costs associated with review and approval of the vehicle and facility for compliance safety and other regs.

SpaceX paid the Air Force for the range costs associated with tracking the launch and flight termination, clearing the air and waters of vehicles and vessels, etc.

This has been the quickest and least expensive major launch system development. It was made possible in large part because the individual who was putting up the money was able to make the decisions. Some(and certainly not all) of the cost associated with government programs is designed to protect the taxpayers interests.

Folks are so consistently missing the point. When SpaceX human-rates the Falcon 9, then the U.S. will have an inexpensive, reliable, functional equivalent of Russia's Soyuz.

Well, not functionally equivalent, really. The Falcon will carry seven passengers to the Soyuz's three. Functionally similar but SUPERIOR -- and inexpensive -- and reliable.

@Mike Schriber

A Falcon 9 heavy requires 3 core boosters plus an upper stage in order to launch an Orion type of vehicle into orbit.

Boeing's vehicle would require only one booster with no upper stage.

So Boeing is proposing a substantially simpler vehicle than what Space X is proposing. Plus it has the added value of being able to be used as a super heavy lift vehicle when you add 5-segment SRBs to it. Boeing's come up with a 'game changing' idea, IMO, that would be mutually beneficial for both NASA and the emerging private manned spaceflight industry. NASA, however, appears to have modified Boeing's concept a bit in their latest HLV report by adding another engine to the core vehicle.

You can find out a lot more detail about Boeing's concept at my blog site.

Marcel F. Williams

I am certain that Space X's "all in" costs are a bit higher than we know- but I am equally sure that, even on close scrutiny, it is still the cheapest into space thus far (By any measure metric, or imperial- whoops!-ooh, sorry "experienced" NASA Mars Climate Orbiter Team)

I hate to slam NASA (whose mission I do support) but let's focus on the main "experience" argument of the more powerful Constellation supporters Hutchison, Shelby, et al. :

I am seriously considering creating a "Nasa Experience Wiki" page- where I list a rudimentary item/cost/complete/effective page/table for each of “experienced” NASA's wunderkind past high dollar solutions.

Starting with Nuclear rocketry though x-33, x-34, x-38, Transhab, Dart, through the Orbital Climate Observatory, Genesis, SBIRS (with Air Force), and my favorite “lost” pair- Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2.

Oh, and Lockheed is experienced, too – at knocking very expensive things over! (NOAA 19)

Need I go on with how great the “Experienced” team is? And I was nice and didn't once mention Hubble lenses or frightening Station cost overruns.

One could argue that some of these programs were born of Defense, or shuttered in a new administration, congressionally mandated, or poorly funded, and that a cost plus prime contractor- and not the NASA organization itself - was the cause of the waste or failure.

In my mind, those very issues are more reasons to support small, nimble private firms. To turn the argument around- to continue to trust a sprawling organization beholden to congressional whims, budget cuts and election cycles is putting all our space tech eggs in one basket.

I have for a while now, been confused as to how GOP Senators/Reps who should philosophically support small, efficient, effective ways of doing just about everything- have no problem supporting Big Gov/ Big Business/Business as usual. It then occurred to me that as long as NASA is viewed as an adjunct to National Defense- no rational argument can be made to these folks. For them, Space X is the moral equivalent of privatizing an Aircraft Carrier or Missile Base.

Alabama's Senator Shelby is the most inconsistent on this matter- as he is FOR open competition to Boeing for a new Air Tanker (He supports Airbus and jobs to his state) Yet he is AGAINST real competition in Space.

Maybe if Space X partnered with Airbus, went into the Tanker Business, and opened a plane plant in Alabama?

The congressional solution?- All companies must operate in all 50 states. We can be just like Europe and divvy up every project! (We all know how cost effective the Ariane V and A380 are, don't we?)

We have a big money problem in the US, yet we still want to do great things. Kudos to ALL players like Space X which will (perhaps) make our dreams afford ably match the new fiscal reality.

How can NASA regain our trust that they really mean to do things affordably? A start would be someone on the NASA side brave enough to suggest something as “radical” as restarting the X-38 as a lifeboat rather then cobble together an Orion lite. Perhaps it's too late- I wonder if there would still be rocket in inventory to even get a full size unit to station.

Oh, and as for the folks concerned that Space X has not yet factored in the price to embark Astronauts- I think “experienced” NASA/USAF has launchers of various sizes that will have gone unused. (Vandenberg Shuttle SLC-6/ the X-33 launch site at Edwards, and the New Ares Launch facility) Let's not bring up NASA's launch logistics waste- we'll be here all day.

I would suggest that, until NASA gets off the GAO's high financial risk list (it's been on since the list inception) it NOT be given any more multi billion dollar make-work mandates.

It's clear to me that the US has the technology base and the will/interest to soon get to Mars and beyond. The question is- do we need- or even want - NASA to do it?

If cost comparisons of various projects are to be made, doesn't it make sense to understand the underlying makeup of those costs? It certainly cost the tax payers to provide launch facilities to commercial entities. Shouldn't they pay us for those faciities and should not those costs be included in the commercial cost of operations? If it costs DOD $1,000 per toilet shouldn't the government be charging a commensuate fee for use of assets?

This is what happens when an organization is willing to take risks and does not have to carry a huge bloated bureaucracy along with it. NACA and NASA in its early days was like that but no more.

NASA is choking to death on too many managers who plan, plan, and plan some more and then slow down the technical people with endless meetings and reviews.

There are still good people and ideas at NASA but there are drowning in layers of managers afraid to make decisions and take risk.

It comes from the top and has for decades.

NASA needs to clean house or continue to watch it capabilities get worse and its infrastructure decay further into the ground.

Cut the technical people loose of all this crap and do the high risk stuff and leave the LEO stuff to the companies that can now do it like NASA once could.

We know exactly how much taxpayer money has been spent on SpaceX. The company has received $278M for the development of the Dragon cargo spacecraft and three Falcon 9/Dragon test flights under it's COTS award. The company has to reach milestones to receive incremental payments under the program. It has received about $250M so far. SpaceX has also been awarded a Cargo Resupply Services contract worth between $1.6B and $3.1B. This is for actual services (delivery of cargo the the ISS) and calls for a minimum of twelve operation flights.

SpaceX rents SLC-40 (which it refurbished at it's own expense) and range services from the Air Force.

It's not a silly marketing claim... it's a very telling comparison.

Space X can launch a retro spam can cheaper than NASA ever could. The next step is to have Bensen Space build and launch a Shuttle cheaper than NASA

> A hydrocarbon engine keeps us dependent on foreign oil and a greenhouse gas polluting fuel until carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels are developed for jp rocket engines. Elon Musk may end with a carbon tax on his rocket fuel someday!

Wow, it looks like anti-SpaceX folks have gone completely insane in the wake of Friday's success.

Hey, when are you folks coming out with "SpaceX Watch"?

The crew can sit for 2 hrs. to remove the fuel.If quicker,do like NASA does and use a slide wire.Pop it loose before launch.There is always a way.You can't beat them,why not join the admirers.

Well heck, Mr. Williams, nothing could be simpler. Anytime it likes, Boeing can develop its amazing design into flying hardware--both booster and spacecraft--with its own funds, plus, say, $278M from NASA. Then everyone will be able to judge the superiority of the design against the stupid little amateur's measly effort, for whatever criterion--safety, capability, or price.

I don't see why this is so hard. Boeing, all you have to do is what that stupid little amateur did! What are you waiting for? SpaceX didn't wait around for a government contract to develop the Falcon 9 and Dragon, so you don't have to either. Take the initiative and jump on it!

Ha ha. Good luck with that.

Why are you talking about lofting Orion? We're talking about access to LEO. Regardless, the net environmental impact between hydrocarbon and hydrogen fueled boosters is negligible. It's a non-argument and you appear to be bringing it up just to have something negative to say about SpaceX.

There's only one game changing thing going on right now and it is most certainly not coming from Boeing.

This just gets better and better.

Did you know that Boeing's total assets are worth 63 BILLION DOLLARS?

Good grief, and they can't scrape together $500M to kick some Musky butt? Come on, guys. You can pop SpaceX like a tick. We're waiting.

(Wow, $500M is something like .8% of $63B--I think; all those zeros run together.)

So lets see, SpaceX has a property agreement with the government and SpaceX paid for refurbishing of their "assigned" launch site. But according to another poster, the government has been funding SpaceX production to the tune of $278M for a Dragon Cargo ship and has something like a 3.1B contract for cargo resupply x12. Hmmm...I am beginning to believe that this is not commercial but govermercial.

You are only reading what you want to. SpaceX has indeed received government funding (call it a subsidy if you like) to develop the Dragon cargo version and launch it on three demonstration flights. It SpaceX spends more than $278M to do so it's their problem, not the government's. It would be unreasonable for anyone to expect SpaceX to fund three demo flights for NASA themselves. With regard to the $1.6B to $3.1B Cargo Resupply Service contract, it's a contract for services. You do expect the government to pay for services, right?

You're also neglecting the commercial orders SpaceX already has booked for the Falcon 9.

So, you were saying something about this not being commercial?

That is splitting hairs because it simply is how launch operations are handled worldwide.

Once Falcon/Dragon is online and available you will be able to personally get into space for around $20m per seat. If successful the Falcon 9/Dragon will be the "DC-3" of space. Predictable pricing and simple operation are key and SpaceX is looking to nail both those issues.

For heaven's sake Gary01, read the literature available before posting nonsense. I live on the other side of world to you and even I can follow what's happening.

Please read the following link before again commenting on the commerciality of SpaceX:

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

BTW SpaceX was working on Dragon Cargo/Crew module well before the COTS program was conceived.
SpaceX has received no other US Gov't funding. Everything they've done has been with their own and some private financing. Oh forgot the (I think it's 3) Falcon 1 flights that were paid for by the DOD and Malaysian Government.

If you're really interested, you can go back through the on-line sources and follow the full history of SpaceX and therefore get a better understanding of just how bloody good these guys really are. And it's not just Elon but now close to 1000 employees - all with stock options.

Cheers.
If you don't think so check out their launch history. Falcon 1 (2 stage, 2 engine LV) took 3 failures to make orbit. Falcon 9 (2 stage, 10 engine LV) took 1 launch to make orbit beating historical success rate of 50%. If that doesn't say something about them, then nothing does. And they're not getting cocky. Check out the SpaceFlightNow video interview with Elon Musk about what went into getting a successful first flight.

Cheers.

Cheers

There's nothing wrong with making money on a government contract. There's a LOT wrong with wasting money on a government contract, which is what we're all used to seeing from NASA and its traditional contractors.

As far as I know, SpaceX hasn't seen a dime of that $3.1B, and won't until it actually delivers the goods.

But I'm beginning to realize that stuff like this doesn't matter. Apparently, spending $100 is the same as spending $1 for the same services. That's the logic I'm seeing here. You guys must all be in bankruptcy.

I heard that SpaceX impressed the hell out of some NASA review team sent out today to assess the readiness of the first Dragon mission.

Hamptonguy above hit the nail on the head. What some of the folks in NASA and retired from NASA don't seem to understand is that the NASA model is broken and shattered. Knowledge can (and should) be transferred out from NASA (there is a heck of a lot of talented human capital there.) But NASA as an institution should never again be allowed to run a human spaceflight project. I speak as an insider and an outsider. Unless, that is, we are willing to literally rebuild NASA from the ground up. I mean scorched Earth, nothing will be spared rebuilding. With all the congressmen and women involved that is never going to happen.

yeah the carbon fuel argument is just too funny. I can see the headline now at ihatespacex.com:
"Elon Musk drowns the Eastern seaboard. Oh think of the children!!"

That and:
"SpaceX is supplying the government. OH THE SHAME!!!! HOW CAN THEY ?!? IN BROAD DAYLIGHT NO LESS!!!1!"

What next?
"Elon Musk spotted running a stop sign" ?
"SpaceX fires someone" ?

Many comments on this site have mentioned the $270 million SpaceX has gotten so far from the government in support of their efforts.

What I don't see mentioned very often are the "in kind" contributions made by various agencies such as maintenance and improvements to SLC 40 done under the aegis of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Additionally, the FAA and the Air Force did the Environmental Assessment on the impacts of SpaceX's use of SLC 40 which on their dime - it resulted in a finding of "No Significant Impact" - this finding allowed the requirement for a full-up Environmental Impact Statement to be waived.

Not only would an EIS been costly to prepare, having to do so could have put SpaceX's aggressive schedule at risk.

Activities such as these tend to greatly blur the line between a true commercial activity and governmental partnership.

Hey, if you are bored go to the GPO website and pull up the Environmental Assessment report - it covers everything from the expected impact to Sea Turtles to the disposition of expended upper stages:

"Upper stages that achieve Low Earth Orbit would be programmed after spacecraft separation to burn residual propellants to depletion in a vector that would result in reentry in two to three months for a soft-water landing."

Soft water landing?

No Mike, I think it is looking like "govermercial". A combination of commercial and government. Not strictly commmercial. And yes, I would call the development a government subsidy. How many "commercial" entities do you know which receive government subsidy to start up? Although lately, one could argue that Obama's takeover of auto and financial industries were subsidy. Does this portend badly for the "commercial" enterprise in the future?

For most Congressanimals it's a simple matter of re-election calculus. LockMart, ATK, and their hundreds of subcontractors pay for campaign donations, lobbyists, and the wages of tens of thousands of voters; whether they ultimately produce anything more than a few million PowerPoint slides is almost irrelevant.

Obama's proposed reforms of US space policy are entirely correct. NASA should concentrate on space research and exploration, and leave space transportation and exploitation to the private sector.

So, by your logic Boeing is "governmercial" as well? What about all those companies out there who's main business is with the government. Are they not commercial? What about all the companies that receive government grants for research or tax break for location their operations in a specific state or city? Are they not commercial either?

By the way... according to reputable sources, SpaceX is high on the list of launch companies for the new Iridium Next constellation. Maybe they'll just turn down that business because it's not government and they're not a commercial operation, eh?

Ahhh, see? At the end, the Obama stuff comes out and it starts to make more sense. Sigh...

> Does this portend badly for the "commercial" enterprise in the future?

No

Okay,

I don't have any problem with Boeing's HLV architecture, except it could use liquids instead of solids for super heavy. It's the fixed costs of SRMs that are the problem, not the variable costs.

But your fundamental point is WRONG. As several other posters have poitned out, where do you get the liquid H2 from? How much CO2 is produced in that process?

Assuming you're right about climate change (and I don't), that doesn't mean that ALL carbon sources are morally or economically equivalent. Cars can be plug in hybrids with nuclear electricity. Rockets not so much.

I'm sorry, even in my fantasies of human space colonization, rockets won't produce anywhere near as much CO2 as other current sources do. So please stop moralizing about Falcon 9.

Besides, the rocket equation still says: first stage needs thrust, 2nd stage needs impulse. Therefore, it's MORE EFFICIENT to use kerosene on the first stage and hydrogen on the second. And MORE EFFICIENT means less total impact on the environment. Last time I checked the dictionary, anyways.

- Jim

And if say five years from now, there are multiple commercial crew services flying both to ISS and wealthy space passengers, with NASA still developing technologies for deep space exploration missions with the first NASA-developed deep space flight still a decade or more away, will Congress and the American people note the destinction, or will the same members now baying at the moon for Constellation start cutting the NASA budget, more and more a s commercial carriers get all the publicity? This is the beginning of a shift in space activity away from NASA, like it or not. End of an era.

Some of the statements being made here are ridiculous. CO2 released by SpaceX launches? Yes there will be CO2 released as does the Atlas 5 and Delta 2. But Florida consumes 20 million gallons of gasoline a day. Do you think SpaceX launches will even be noticeable? How absurd can you get in trying to find fault with what he accomplished.

And the funding as well. SpaceX has funded development of both rockets fairly much by themselves. There was almost not government involvement in the design and manufacture of them. That is a huge part of what kept the cost down. Now they are selling these services to the government. That completely makes sense just as they are selling them to comm satellite operators. And since the government has a need for supply services it is logical that they would purchase these from SpaceX for what is likely far less than a Boeing or Lockheed which has a high cost structure because most of their space related activities are strictly for the government. They also will be paid $1.6B for about a dozen supply missions. I doubt any of the large aerospace companies could match that price by a long shot.

Another thing I noticed and experienced is the cynical attitude of some folks out here at the launch site. There were many honestly hoping there was going to be a huge explosion or big failure. Whatever you may think of NASA's or Obama's current plans that is a poor attitude for anyone interested in the advancement of space capabilities to harbor. Certainly there may be some personal angst about this success on your job and view, but this is truly a big step forward in the overall big picture of the space industry. And also of bringing back more of the launch services to the US.

Ok Mike, I see your point although many of those companies cited were not start ups and received contracts for work performed.

I think it's possible NASA could adopt the SpaceX model of development, possibly by spinning off groups as private concerns, keeping the science, pure research, and program management. This kind of thing happens all the time to big companies with new management that shakes things up, but I expect it would mean NASA would employ a lot less people.

Has NASA Watch now just become an echo chamber for the commercial sector? You're seriously going to post a SpaceX press release and treat it as gospel? SpaceX is a private company. Private companies don't release their finances. Where's the analysis? Where's the verification? Where's the pursuit of truth? Or are you just content with providing SpaceX free advertising space? This website is a joke, Keith. You're no journalist. Or at least certainly not a credible one.

Editor's note: then I guess I need to ask Mr/Mrs "nwittry" why you continue to come back to this website if it is as bad as you seem to think it is? Find another place to go and I promise that you'll feel much better!

SpaceX is getting paid for work performed. The COTS grant buys three demo flights.

If, out of 280 mil, they can afford three flights AND dragon capsules AND have money left over for development cost, than that is a major success.

This argument about "commercial" is a red herring. Obviously Boeing and SpaceX are both private companies doing work for the government. That's not the issue.

1) Not using a cost-plus contracts encourages frugality.

2) Decoupling design and production decisions from politics allows frugality. (i.e. they don't have to use an inappropriate giant SRM because it comes from a certain state.)

3) SpaceX has non-government customers. So the cost of development is paid off by selling to multiple end users, not just the government. Upshot: The US taxpayer did not pay for it all.

If they fail to get other customers, than the experiment failed. But sometimes experiments fail, and we'll still have a rocket & crew capsule.

We should be giving SpaceX a bump because if this works, than there is a new exporter in America selling product overseas. That is worth a little grant. If giving them a bump makes them less "commercial", who cares? Its a great idea.

Once the Dragon/Falcon 9 vehicle is operational and safely flying somebody's astronauts and passengers to orbit and back, any public official that wants to continue to buy rides on the aging and expensive Soyuz should be fired. Also, why allow the Russians to put up progress resupply flights as barter for their ISS partnership costs when Musk can do it for a pittance? Time to pay up or get out, Ivan. I just have to wonder howmuch of the Russian manned space program will continue without the American taxpayer's buying flights on their rockets, and forcing space tourists to pay millions when Musk will gladly do it for a fraction of the cost? The days of highway robbery by the Russian Federation to anyone that needs their services absent any competitor are over. Let those strutting Russians who live in the Yuri Gagarin past and strut about as a great space power start paying the bills themselves. Bet the Russian government starts cutting back?