I didn't realize the cost of fuel is only $200-$300k for a space launch. That's ridiculously low considering it costs more than that in fuel to cross the Atlantic ocean in a 100-foot yacht.
SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
131–140 of 158 posts
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly.
The context here is NASA moving slowly and the possibility of SpaceX launching without their involvement. Can you think of a single customer for that? Try to get Russian permission to got to the Russian side of the station without NASA involvement or just hang out in the Dragon until you get tired of using diapers?
Such as visiting a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space station? They have a demo in orbit, an ISS module in the pipeline, and a manifested launch of a bigger unit on the SpaceX manifest. I thought this was pretty well known, guess I was wrong!
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#133If SpaceX can fly out their 2015 manifest, that will be impressive. This is the year the Falcon Heavy is supposed to launch. Their first manned flight has apparently been postponed; it's been "2-3 years" away for 2 years now.[1] I notice they've stopped putting dates on their manifest for future flights.[2][3] SpaceX is doing a great job, but they're behind their own schedule. They're two flights behind on ISS resupp…
Its an interesting question about how much they can do without NASA backing up their clearance requests with the FAA. Some of the early SpaceShip One clearances were a real nightmare for Scaled Composites, I don't know if it was just a lack of rulemaking or general government ineptitude.
At some point though SpaceX will have the space port and the rocket and the gear to just tell the FAA that they are going up on such and such a date with the following orbital parameters. Plus you have to notify folks that care so that they won't wonder if a missile just launched out of Texas (not that the orbital track would put Russia or China in its path but still)
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#134I love how the writer phrased Google's incentive for investing as "Google has a practical goal in linking up with SpaceX. It wants to beam the Internet to hard-to-reach regions of the planet so it can take in more advertising revenue." While... "'Space-based applications, like imaging satellites, can help people more easily access important information, so we’re excited to support SpaceX’s growth,' Google spokesman A…
Agreed, it's a bit silly to assume that all Google cares about is ad revenue. Plus, improving internet accessibility and making more revenue aren't mutually exclusive. Why do self driving cars? Def no ad revenue there.
sure there is. if you make self driving cars, instead of spending my time driving, I'll spend that time on my phone, tablet, or laptop. More time spent online = more ads clicked. I work from home, but I still end up driving for several hours a week. Some people drive several hours a day. Lots of ads getting clicked if everyone has a self driving car.
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#135>> "SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash" Re: Google investment of $1B. I'm not an accountant, but when did taking investment money constitute making a business "profitable"?
Can we just agree these kind of titles are horrible? Random (I know it's not) capitalization, weird structure. It's just hard to parse.
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their first manned flight has apparently been postponed; it's been "2-3 years" away for 2 years now. That's not entirely on them. With manned spaceflight, they're on NASA time.
Can SpaceX, at least from a technology and legal standpoint, launch a manned flight without NASA involvement? If so, is it that it just makes no commercial sense? Or is the idea that the flight is far more likely to succeed with NASA's expertise?
Legal? If they get permission from the international wotsit that is responsible for the ISS, then yes. Technology? Well if they get permission, they will get access to the required knowledge about docking and procedures and stuff. The ISS isn't nearly as secretive as the cold war era space race, and there are as of yet no commercial interests in there.
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, yeah, which takes more money. There may not be any amount of money that'll make the Air Force certify a civilian radar for the purpose.
Unless you spent the money in getting your candidates into senate etc.
The Senate doesn't vote for the military's acquisition process.
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggressive scheduling is a tactic. Because no matter what the schedule, human nature dictates that things are likely to slip.
Spin it all you want but a failure to meet schedules isn't really acceptable. You either failed to deliver or failed to manage your project estimation process.
Only in life-threatening situations, like idk, rescue missions or critical supply missions. In all other cases: delay is preferable over a botched launch.
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can SpaceX, at least from a technology and legal standpoint, launch a manned flight without NASA involvement? If so, is it that it just makes no commercial sense? Or is the idea that the flight is far more likely to succeed with NASA's expertise?
Without NASA there is no customer for manned spaceflight.
Would it be a chance to send up Lance Bass?
Re: SpaceX Profitable as Musk Pulls in NASA Contracts, Google Cash
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggressive scheduling is a tactic. Because no matter what the schedule, human nature dictates that things are likely to slip.
Spin it all you want but a failure to meet schedules isn't really acceptable. You either failed to deliver or failed to manage your project estimation process.
Everything has a cost, project estimation included. Maybe the cost/benefit is such that putting effort into more accurate estimation isn't worth it.