SpaceX Gets Huge Contract for its First Manned Space Flight

[josephpalazzo]

Long live capitalism...

SpaceX hit a big milestone on Friday with NASA confirming on Friday that the Elon Musk-led space cargo business will launch astronauts to the International Space Station by 2017.

...

NASA goal is to wean the country’s space program from its dependence on Russia for sending astronauts into orbit. The space agency plans to award two more private contracts for manned flights to the space station sometime in the future.

...

http://fortune.com/2015/11/20/spacex-astronauts-international-space-station/

[Baruch]

Like the rest of the MIC ... this is how the politicians transfer money back to their supporters.  I wouldn't trust Elon Musk to light a match, let alone a rocket (since he has elsewhere shown signs of insanity).  Of course the private sector has always been in bed with NASA ... this is no different ... but I can't see choosing this contractor as a sane move.  NASA meets Solyndra.

[trdsf]

I'm still appalled that even with all its faults, the Shuttle program was terminated without a replacement man-rated launch vehicle already in service or on the immediate horizon.  While I'm not exactly pleased with the idea of the commercialization of space, in the long run that's going to be the only way to open it up to more than just government-led programs that come and go at the whim of whichever politicians are in power -- or access that requires the good will of countries that cannot be relied upon from year to year.

So I'm good with this, and I will cheer their first launch as hard as I did Mike Melvill's first suborbital flight on SpaceShipOne.  As far as I'm concerned, Elon Musk has the right idea about space, and I quote: "I want to die on Mars.  Just not on impact."

[Baruch]

I'm still appalled that even with all its faults, the Shuttle program was terminated without a replacement man-rated launch vehicle already in service or on the immediate horizon.  While I'm not exactly pleased with the idea of the commercialization of space, in the long run that's going to be the only way to open it up to more than just government-led programs that come and go at the whim of whichever politicians are in power -- or access that requires the good will of countries that cannot be relied upon from year to year.

So I'm good with this, and I will cheer their first launch as hard as I did Mike Melvill's first suborbital flight on SpaceShipOne.  As far as I'm concerned, Elon Musk has the right idea about space, and I quote: "I want to die on Mars.  Just not on impact."

The purpose of the Great Wall of China wasn't to keep the barbarians out, but to keep the Chinese in.  The IRS doesn't want you to escape their reach ... unless of course you are a plutocrat.  This is why we can't have a reasonable manned space exploration.  We did have a follow-on to the Shuttle program ... but Obama cancelled it.

[trdsf]

We did have a follow-on to the Shuttle program ... but Obama cancelled it.

Yes, and I think that was the worst decision of his presidency.  It was unspeakably short-sighted, especially for someone who, like me, grew up in the glory years of the Apollo missions.

[PopeyesPappy]

Yes, and I think that was the worst decision of his presidency.  It was unspeakably short-sighted, especially for someone who, like me, grew up in the glory years of the Apollo missions.

Was it? The 2009 study that lead to the cancellation of the Constellation program estimated the cost of completing the project on budget at $150 billion. NASA has never been particularly good at estimating budgets for major programs so that was probably short of what it would really cost. Based on those numbers there were two options for continuing the program. Option 1 was a 50% increase to NASA's budget for the next 20 years. While that would have been nice the president doesn't doll out the funds. Congress provides the funding, and there's no fucking way they were going to go there. Not much Obama could do about that. Option 2 was divert funds from other areas within NASA. That would have required shutting down the ISS and cancelling practically all science funding. The latter would mean no Earth science, no planetary science, no astrophysics, no heliophysics, and no James Webb space telescope. I don't think option 2 is acceptable at all. In the meantime the Orion and heavy lift vehicle (both major parts of the Constellation program) development is continuing to the tune of about $3.5 billion per year.

Do you really think putting a sustained base on the Moon by 2020 was worth practically everything else NASA does? I don't.

[josephpalazzo]

Was it? The 2009 study that lead to the cancellation of the Constellation program estimated the cost of completing the project on budget at $150 billion. NASA has never been particularly good at estimating budgets for major programs so that was probably short of what it would really cost. Based on those numbers there were two options for continuing the program. Option 1 was a 50% increase to NASA's budget for the next 20 years. While that would have been nice the president doesn't doll out the funds. Congress provides the funding, and there's no fucking way they were going to go there. Not much Obama could do about that. Option 2 was divert funds from other areas within NASA. That would have required shutting down the ISS and cancelling practically all science funding. The latter would mean no Earth science, no planetary science, no astrophysics, no heliophysics, and no James Webb space telescope. I don't think option 2 is acceptable at all. In the meantime the Orion and heavy lift vehicle (both major parts of the Constellation program) development is continuing to the tune of about $3.5 billion per year.

Do you really think putting a sustained base on the Moon by 2020 was worth practically everything else NASA does? I don't.

People have already forgotten the GOP's open declaration of obstructionism towards anything that Obama was going to do, including Obamacare which was initially a GOP initiative. I'm glad that now private enterprise is stepping up to the plate and will continue what was human's incredible journey into outer space.  See, capitalism can't be all that evil... :13:

[PopeyesPappy]

People have already forgotten the GOP's open declaration of obstructionism towards anything that Obama was going to do, including Obamacare which was initially a GOP initiative. I'm glad that now private enterprise is stepping up to the plate and will continue what was human's incredible journey into outer space.  See, capitalism can't be all that evil... :13:

SpaceX is probably doing less stepping up to the plate than you would like to think. Development of the Dragon crew module was performed with NASA funding and technical assistance. SpaceX received about $525 million for the initial phases of the project. Boeing received about $580 million for development of their crew module. Neither of those numbers include the cost of the NASA personnel that worked with them. The arrangement isn't that much different than the North American Aviation contracts NASA used to develop the CSM for the Apollo program. The biggest difference being that SpaceX and Boeing were given a freer hand to develop their own designs with NASA just providing a broad as opposed to detailed set of requirements.

[SGOS]

Private enterprise can step up to the plate, and build on the work of NASA.  NASA spent a lot of  money on research and development, and those expenses aren't mysteriously taken off the books.  This is the phase of passing the torch, but it's not like the expenses just go away, and further expenses come from somewhere, in this case, from other private enterprises, which ultimately come from the same economic pie.  Not to say there won't be benefits, although in fairness, NASA did not cut out private enterprises before.  They sent up satellites that make it possible for global communications built on by private enterprises.  No matter who undertakes the future project, it's still going to cost money.

However, you can make the argument that making it private, you get greater flexibility, although private or governmental, the costs will still be there.  You can make the argument that we didn't need a moon base, so we save some money, but not having a moon base, whether the project would lead to civilian benefit remains unknown.  When they started shooting this stuff up into space, I never anticipated the benefit to individual consumers.  Maybe someone did, but I doubt that most people did.  Now in retrospect, it seems like it was a good idea.

These are just some thoughts, but I have more.  Which way is cheaper?  Which produces more consumer benefits?  I don't know, but they seem like good questions.  And then there is the argument that part of the role of government is to stimulate free enterprise, but it's still going to come out of our pockets.  Is it a wash, or not?  But now were getting into ideology at the possible expense of accounting.

[josephpalazzo]

SpaceX is probably doing less stepping up to the plate than you would like to think. Development of the Dragon crew module was performed with NASA funding and technical assistance. SpaceX received about $525 million for the initial phases of the project. Boeing received about $580 million for development of their crew module. Neither of those numbers include the cost of the NASA personnel that worked with them. The arrangement isn't that much different than the North American Aviation contracts NASA used to develop the CSM for the Apollo program. The biggest difference being that SpaceX and Boeing were given a freer hand to develop their own designs with NASA just providing a broad as opposed to detailed set of requirements.

Agree with , and also with SGOS.

You need to see in the greater context that private enterprises do receive subsidies- the oil industry, for instance - or received knowledge developed by government funds - the pharmaceutical firms - the research is often done in university, and the knowledge is passed freely to these firms. As SGOS pointed out, NASA is passing the torch. First, it was mainly NASA, a government funded institution. Then NASA assisting private industry. And I believe the day will come that private firms will take on most of the cost, and the risk. In the greater picture, space exploration benefits, and in the end, we all benefit.

[PopeyesPappy]

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with what is going on. SGOS is correct that there are efficiencies to be found, and Joseph in correct that the desire to increase profits is a strong motivator for private industry to seek out more efficient methods. My main point was simply that industry wasn't doing this out of the kindness of their heart. They are being paid for it just as they always have been. The biggest difference between how it was done before and now is industry is being given more leeway to decide how to do it than previously. That could be a good thing as long as they don't try to squeeze too many nickles and cut corners that lead to expensive failures and lose of life.