Space pioneer: This image shows an artist’s rendering of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule.
SpaceX
The next few years will see at least two new commercial spacecraft put into orbit.
A small fleet of privately developed spacecraft will head into orbit in the next few years--assuming that current levels of public and private funding can be sustained. If it happens, this will mark a new chapter in space exploration and research, as NASA comes to rely more on private companies for the technology to put manned and unmanned vehicles in space.
Progress reports from several private space companies at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics's Space 2010 conference, in Anaheim, CA, reveal new details of spacecraft design as well as testing and flight schedules.
To develop their new spacecraft, these companies have received financial assistance from NASA for reaching various milestones under the so-called Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Commercial Crew Development programs, which are oriented toward getting commercial providers to deliver cargo, and eventually crews, to the International Space Station. But since supplying the ISS is a somewhat limited market, and subject to the funding whims of Congress, the manufacturers hope to bring in additional revenue by opening up new markets for their vehicles.
Furthest along in developing a viable spacecraft is SpaceX, headquartered in Hawthorne, CA, and founded by Internet millionaire and energy entrepreneur Elon Musk. SpaceX is developing a reusable spacecraft, called Dragon, and a launch vehicle, the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 had a successful test flight in June. It went into orbit at 250 kilometers. The Dragon spacecraft, which resembles an Apollo capsule, successfully completed a high-altitude drop test using its reentry parachutes three weeks ago.
Orbital tests of the spacecraft are expected to begin later this year, prior to its first resupply mission to the ISS in 2011. Although the Dragon will initially just transport cargo, it is being designed with human passengers in mind, and should require minimal modifications before it can ferry crews to and from orbit. Beyond missions to the ISS, SpaceX plans to fly refurbished Dragon spacecraft under its DragonLab program, offering scientific or engineering researchers pressurized and unpressurized environments for experiments they want conducted in zero gravity or in the vacuum of space.
The partially inflatable habitat could be adapted for use on the moon or Mars, or for deep space itself.
The Dream Chaser will go into orbit on the nose of a rocket, then land gently on airport runways.
Scientists say they can get better use of the International Space Station now that its construction is complete and operational time extended.
>>> It's NOT a Blue Origin [nor Boeing] idea! >>>
.
"It features a new type of launch escape system that uses rocket engines mounted beneath the spacecraft to send it clear of danger. Similar spacecraft typically use an escape tower attached to the nose of the capsule to pull it to safety in an emergency. These escape towers must be jettisoned once the spacecraft is under way."
sorry, but.... It's NOT a Blue Origin [nor Boeing] idea! .....
http://www.newspaceagency.com/articles/03notblueoriginidea.html
.
"Private" S/C - so what has changed?
all this talk of "private" development is ludicrous. these S/C are not being developed privately at all. it is still NASA money (i.e., your tax dollars), to a NASA standard, under a NASA program. the only difference between this and the "old way" is that there is a govt COTR instead of a govt PM running the show. contractors have in the past, and will continue to do the nuts and bolts engineering. this entire approach is a sham, intended to co-opt the burgeoning real private space companies into becoming dependent on sucking from the Federal hog, so that the govt can control them.
Re: "Private" S/C - so what has changed?
.
I agree 100%
BOTH Orbital Sciences and SpaceX aren't TRUE "new.space" or "commercial" companies, since, nearly ALL their "products" are funded (or will be funded) ONLY with NASA (then, GOVERNMENT) money, so, both them, are, much more, like "small-Boeing" companies...
.
Re: "Private" S/C - so what has changed?
Disagree and agree. Most new industries start with the Good old government and industrial policy. In a way, libertarian/right denial of this is what has slowed down our economic progress. We are discussing this by the way on the government invented internet. Private markets just don't do things like the internet and space travel -- private markets are by their nature local optimizers and so cannot do global moves.
The trick is having the government get out. The gov. got out pretty well when it foisted the micro-chip, GPS and the internet. A private space industry even now starts with 60 years of gov. tech. It now needs NASA and military teats but will eventually be able to stand on its own ... as a libertarian marvel.
Re: "Private" S/C - so what has changed?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
Are you saying the libertarians are right or wrong? The beginning of this post seems a critique, the end an affirmation.
I see the ultimate process as a rebuke of the most extreme libertarian model. The space industry is a confirmation of the idea that governments can accomplish good for its people that is not possible to accomplish in private industry. Without the government space program, there would be no GPS or Satellite TV. Even most international phone calls would be impossible. Try running a tech business today without being able to call back & forth between Asia & the Americas!
However, the government is a lousy manager of established tech. There is a time for it to get out of the way and we have more than reached it. We could have reached it a good 17 years earlier is we had had the right economic conditions. The 86 challenger disaster was the first opportunity, but the Crash of 87 and the generally poor economic conditions from late 87-93/94 made taking the risk of being the first in a new private industry seem too high.
When we lost Columbia in 2003 there were already some people playing with the idea of a private space industry because they had amassed fortunes in the WebWorld and then found that with the bursting of the bubble putting those fortunes back into the web wasn't attractive. Was too risky, in fact. They decided as long as I'm taking a risk, why not gamble on something truly great - like the ability to roam the planets? with these initial ventures in place because of economic and not technical developments, Columbia presented a repeat of the opportunity presented by the Challenger tragedy.
So the extreme libertarian position that the private sector can take over a government industry at any time and do it better is, I think, disproved by this example. It requires specific technical foundations and the right economic climate for the transition.
However, I agree that after transition, generally we see new economic efficiencies develop in a privatized industry. Even this is not guaranteed, though. Certain industries like energy (especially electricity) and medical services become less efficient in the hands of private industry.
So were you saying that this transition would prove the libertarian case? If so, I disagree. I think it proves the social democratic argument that government and industry benefit each other.
However, if your last paragraph was saying that the eventual commercial space industry would be a credit to private enterprise and capitalism, and would run well (after transition) under the general libertarian practices of purely private industry...well, that I agree with. Orbital and interplanetary transportation is not an industry like electricity or medical services where geography and time normally limit the ability of competition to function.
Re: "Private" S/C - so what has changed?
.
the (true) commercial space industry isn't good nor bad, but, simply, NOT READY to replace a space agency like NASA nor its vehicles
the new.space industry starts now and is at a "DC3-level", then, it needs, at least, ten years, to reach the (true commercial) "747-level"
.
Re: "Private" S/C - so what has changed?
The reason for that is that government is often the single largest client and often has no reservations about spending money. If they try to sell this private space vehicles to actual people, they won't succeed because people place constraints on what they want to spend, and spending a few hundred thousand dollars for minutes, maybe hours, in low Earth orbit isn't on their budget. However, if the government is looking for a replacement to the space shuttle, and wants to make it look "private" to save face, it will subsidize development of "private" space vehicles. Maybe then it will be just a few dozens of thousands of dollars and an "industry" will appear to blossom, but government will still be the primary customer for a long, long time. It's the truth of our time that government is willing to spend untold sums of money on subsidizing technologies (green, private space, fossil fuels), and when those investments fail they pass the cost on to taxpayers by raising taxes again.
are important. Yes, these companies are competing for government money. However government control over intellectual property is dramatically lowered in this system. It might take a lawyer to really appreciate: I only understand what I understand b/c of being married to one.
But in the old days, the ability of a company to use its NASA developed tech for private projects was subject to governmental *project* approval. While most patents/IP belonged nominally to the company involved, in fact control of IP by the government was pretty draconian - if you'll forgive the pun. In the new system, safety standards must be met in order for a company to launch a system from US territory, likewise more such standards must be met to have humans in the launch vehicle, but beyond that, the tech is not manufactured for NASA. It is manufactured for whatever purposes the developer desires.
an important part of understanding how this all worked is understanding sub-contracting. In order to win political approval for big$$ projects, the construction would be subcontracted to hell & gone with some of the manufacturing being done in as many congressional districts as possible. The tech was made for NASA, so to divert it to another purpose required a different governmental agreement at *every single step of the process and with every single subcontractor*. If boeing had wanted to launch a man-rated rocket with a man-rated capsule, it would not only have to get the US gov't to agree to the general idea, but each company that contributed a small part of the vehicle - an oscilloscope, say - would have to get separate permission to allow its technology to be used in that Boeing project toward that Boeing goal.
Moreover, certain tech, like the Shuttles, were simply deemed too strategic to allow to be owned privately at all. Thus there was no option to divert a shuttle launch to another purpose even if they could get every oscilloscope maker's contract modified.
With the current system, the gov't does not purchase vehicles. It purchases services. If those launches consume a single-use rocket, fine, but they didn't actually *buy* the rocket. This means that there is no process other than safety processes that require government approval before using the tech for a vastly different purpose.
That means little in terms of the relationship to the government during NASA launches. However, now there exists the *option* of a private launch industry.
If people want the nitty gritty, here it is: Journalists are being casual (if not sloppy) when they describe NASA launches under the new program as "commercial space launches." However, the combination of Internet fortunes and government largesse is funding the development of vehicles that, after testing during government projects, can then be turned into a commercial launch industry. These NASA launches are a step toward that, but they are not that.
Ultimately, it is control (not merely nominal ownership) of IP that will distinguish the new era from the old.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> but SpaceX still doesn't release any real info about its Dragon >>>
.
could the "commercial space" REALLY replace the Space Shuttle???
or puts the $200 billion ISS under the serious risk to DIE soon?
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/072issdeath.html
some people are pro-Shuttle, others are against it, but ALL know the DETAILED Space Shuttle data
some people are pro-Ares1/5, others are against them, but ALL know the DETAILED Ares1/5 NASA studies
some people are pro-EELVs, others are against them, but ALL know the DETAILED Delta/Atlas/Ariane/etc. data and launches
well, now, some people are pro "commercial space", others are against it, but HOW they/we can be PRO or AGAINST it, if they/we STILL don't know the EXACT data and info of the "commercial" vehicles??????????
well, SpaceX hasn't given yet any detailed info and data about the Dragon
the specs available in the .pdf published on the SpaceX site aren't so clear
so, it's hard to evaluate this vehicle to know what it really can or can't do
these are the exact data we need to know from SpaceX about the Dragon:
- payload adapter mass ________
- empty service module mass ________
- service module propellants mass ________
- empty capsule mass ________
- ejected nose cone mass ________
- max LEO/ISS pressurized cargo mass ________
- max LEO/ISS unpressurized cargo mass ________
- max returned cargo mass ________
- cargo Dragon GLOW ________
- crewed Dragon GLOW ________
- Dragon LAS mass ________
- max crew life support mass ________
- max crew+seats+spacesuits mass ________
- max mission autonomy (days) ________
- max Falcon-9 "dumb" payload to ISS orbit ________
all data should be in mT (1000 kg.) or kg.
the data of the crewed Dragon should be for a full, seven astronauts, mission
could the "commercial" SpaceX give CLEAR data and answers to the space community, the american taxpayers (that will pay $2 billions to SpaceX...) and the (potential) investors?
remember that NASA and USA should RELY (mainly or only) on the Falcon-9 and Dragon for the next TEN+ years!!!
just read this article about the NASA "future":
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/062nasadecline.html
.
Reply
bobfitz1
1 Comment
Re: >>> but SpaceX still doesn't release any real info about its Dragon >>>
What a worthless post. SpaceX is actually designing engines, capsules, etc., integrating them and successfully launching them...NOW.
NASA has set up the terms of COTS and is getting from SpaceX any and all design details they care about, to judge compliance with the contract specifications.
As a private company, SpaceX is under no obligation to make all design specs public, just so folks who don't work for NASA can satisfy themselves they compare favorably to those for 30 year old shuttles or 10 years, 20 billion $ in the future canceled systems like Constellation!
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> but SpaceX still doesn't release any real info about its Dragon >>>
.
SpaceX does that with COTS/CRS funds paid by american taxpayers that have all rights to know how their money are spent
they know more about many military vehicles rather than about the "american Soyuz" called Dragon
at this point, the doubt is, that , a so silent and secretive, SpaceX has something to hide
.
Reply
delphinus100
20 Comments
Re: >>> but SpaceX still doesn't release any real info about its Dragon >>>
"SpaceX does that with COTS/CRS funds paid by american taxpayers that have all rights to know how their money are spent"
Remember that, when you ask for all the specifications of a U.S. Navy attack submarine from General Dynamics...
Yes, I know this is not a weapons system, but as long as the government customer is satisfied with the performance, there's no requirement that a contractor publicly divulge what may or may not be proprietary intellectual property. No, they don't owe us (or you) every single detail, especially with national and international competitors watching.
Heck, it's not even clear to me that *you* are a U.S. citizen...
Reply