SpaceX

Everything else!

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

Post Reply
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

Huge (and surprising) win for SpaceX: Starship will be NASA's Artemis moon lander.
According to the Washington Post, documents suggest NASA was enamored with Starship’s ability to ferry a lot of cargo to the moon (up to 100 tons), not to mention its $2.9 billion bid for the contract, which was far lower than its rivals’.

"This innovative human landing system will be a hallmark in spaceflight history,” says Lisa Watson-Morgan, NASA’s program manager for the lunar lander system. “We’re confident in NASA’s partnership with SpaceX.”

What this means: For SpaceX’s rivals, it’s a devastating blow—especially to Blue Origin. The company, founded by Jeff Bezos, had unveiled its Blue Moon lander concept in 2019 and has publicly campaigned for NASA to select it for future lunar missions. Blue Moon was arguably the most well-developed of the three proposals when NASA awarded its first round of contracts.

For SpaceX, it’s a big vote of confidence in Starship as a crucial piece of technology for the next generation of space exploration. It comes less than a year after the company’s Crew Dragon vehicle was certified as the only American spacecraft capable of taking NASA astronauts to space. And it seems to confirm that the SpaceX is now NASA’s biggest private partner, supplanting veteran firms like Northrop Grumman and shunting newer ones like Blue Origin further to the sidelines. However, there’s at least one major hurdle: Starship needs to launch using a Super Heavy rocket—a design that SpaceX has yet to fly.

For NASA, the biggest implication is that SpaceX’s vehicles will only continue to play a bigger role for Artemis, the lunar exploration program being touted as the successor to Apollo. Former president Donald Trump’s directive for NASA to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 was never actually going to be realized, but the selection of a single human lander concept suggests NASA may not miss that deadline by much. The first Artemis missions will use Orion, and the long-delayed Space Launch System rocket is expected to be ready soon.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

The win isn't surprising. (It was a given that SpaceX would be the cheapest bid by far, and they're the only one with hardware flying, if not yet landing.) The surprising part is that NASA selected only a single provider. But then again, Congress left them little choice by drastically underfunding the program.

Of course, the Congresscritters are going to be furious (narrator: they already are), but they made this bed. NASA actually wants to go back to the moon this decade, and with the budget Congress gave them, this is the only way to do that.

Will be interesting to see where this goes once the new administrator is in place.


User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63524
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by Daehawk »

I wouldn't want to be an astronaut in this day and age.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

Zaxxon wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:03 pm The win isn't surprising. (It was a given that SpaceX would be the cheapest bid by far, and they're the only one with hardware flying, if not yet landing.) The surprising part is that NASA selected only a single provider. But then again, Congress left them little choice by drastically underfunding the program.

Of course, the Congresscritters are going to be furious (narrator: they already are), but they made this bed. NASA actually wants to go back to the moon this decade, and with the budget Congress gave them, this is the only way to do that.

Will be interesting to see where this goes once the new administrator is in place.
Heh, there were three threads this post could've gone into, and the US Space Policy thread in R&P was my first thought...but I decided it wasn't overtly political.

I was surprised because I thought NASA was looking at an Apollo-style lander with a descent stage left behind. Starship is something daring and new, a fully reusable unitary vehicle. Based on the concept drawings that I saw, I figured they'd go with Bezos' Blue Moon or one of their old-line contractors.

I need to know the particulars of how a Starship lander will work within the Artemis architecture. It seems that there will be just one to shuttle between the surface and Gateway, and astronauts will travel to Gateway via Orion/SLS. If SpaceX has a human-rated Starship and Super Heavy, that's pretty much your whole moon rocket. Why does Orion/SLS still have a role if the "lander" can make the whole journey?

I'm guessing that the lunar-shuttle version of Starship won't be Musk's fully developed interplanetary Starship. That's what I need to know more about.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

Kraken wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:53 pm I need to know the particulars of how a Starship lander will work within the Artemis architecture. It seems that there will be just one to shuttle between the surface and Gateway, and astronauts will travel to Gateway via Orion/SLS. If SpaceX has a human-rated Starship and Super Heavy, that's pretty much your whole moon rocket. Why does Orion/SLS still have a role if the "lander" can make the whole journey?

I'm guessing that the lunar-shuttle version of Starship won't be Musk's fully developed interplanetary Starship. That's what I need to know more about.
Berger has more detail on that. But I think we won't really know for awhile--Congress will certainly ensure that it's not all SpaceX, and there are sure to be more delays on SLS and Orion (and probably Starship). Who knows?

I do like this decision as a shot across the bow of sorts by NASA--to the non-SpaceX contractors, put up or GTFO. And a similar message to Congress regarding funding: if you want the pork to continue, get serious with funding.

Of course, Nelson could remove that spine when he takes the helm, and Congress has all sorts of possible retorts via the purse strings.
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

Yup, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Like, why are we spending billions to develop the SLS to take people to the moon if we are just going to hire SpaceX to do it a few years later?
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

jztemple2 wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:23 am Yup, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Like, why are we spending billions to develop the SLS to take people to the moon if we are just going to hire SpaceX to do it a few years later?
Sunk cost fallacy. We've already poured so many billions into developing SLS that it's *this close* to justifying billions more in operations. Plus the number of Congressional districts that are invested. NASA has always taken care to spread the sugar.

I should've used the R&P thread. :)
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

This guy has some of the answers I wanted. They start about 5 minutes in.

User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

I notice that some of the answers are that NASA doesn't really have an answer yet on the whole Artemis versus Starship moon lander plan. There's going to be a lot of questions asked about funding. I do like his last comment, wondering about how this will effect the Bill Nelson confirmation hearings. Nelson is at least an old Washington hand and will be prepared to deal with the wheeling and dealing needed. Still, I suspect that the party not currently in power will be trying to ask some embarrassing questions about all that money.

Speaking of Bill Nelson, being NASA Administrator is one of the most thankless jobs. I remember sitting in the management firing room in the middle of the night during a Space Shuttle countdown, trying to stay awake and making small talk. In walks Charlie Bolden, at that time the current NASA Administrator. He was there for the launch and just walking around, no entourage or anything. He was of course a former astronaut so he knew a number of people in the room. And he walks over and sits down next to me and my NASA counterpart who knew Charlie back when he was flying. My NASA guys introduces Charlie to everyone and then after some conversation he asks Charlie why the heck he took such a politically charged, thankless job. And Charlie replied, perhaps a bit wistfully, that when the President asks you to do something, you really can't say no :roll:
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

jztemple2 wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:35 pm I notice that some of the answers are that NASA doesn't really have an answer yet on the whole Artemis versus Starship moon lander plan.
But they do know that they can't go with the same old contractors who overpromise and underdeliver for years and years. "SpaceX is getting things done, so let's go with that" is a nice break with the past.

Also, if they're in line for $2.9B to design and develop a special-purpose Starship, SpaceX needs to get a lot bigger if they don't want to give up on their master plan for the vehicle. If I were a new aero-astro grad, I know where I'd want to work.

That image of Starship docked at Gateway, though. :scared-eek:
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

Kraken wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:02 am That image of Starship docked at Gateway, though. :scared-eek:
It is possible (likely?) that the Gateway is going away, which means it will now look like this:
Image

More on this story: After NASA taps SpaceX’s Starship for first Artemis landings, agency looks to on-ramp future vehicles
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

Kraken wrote:
jztemple2 wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:35 pm I notice that some of the answers are that NASA doesn't really have an answer yet on the whole Artemis versus Starship moon lander plan.
But they do know that they can't go with the same old contractors who overpromise and underdeliver for years and years. "SpaceX is getting things done, so let's go with that" is a nice break with the past.

Also, if they're in line for $2.9B to design and develop a special-purpose Starship, SpaceX needs to get a lot bigger if they don't want to give up on their master plan for the vehicle. If I were a new aero-astro grad, I know where I'd want to work.

That image of Starship docked at Gateway, though. :scared-eek:
Oh god no. I’ve heard horror stories about how they grind through engineers like coffee beans. Plus not much (any) room for working on exploratory missions there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

jztemple2 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:13 pm
Kraken wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:02 am That image of Starship docked at Gateway, though. :scared-eek:
It is possible (likely?) that the Gateway is going away, which means it will now look like this:
Image

More on this story: After NASA taps SpaceX’s Starship for first Artemis landings, agency looks to on-ramp future vehicles
Are you suggesting a Starship hull would replace Gateway? Possible. Gateway is more than just a pit stop or transfer hub though. A few years ago NASA sent out a request for proposals for instruments to be put on the Gateway, and I was on one of the APL submissions for a gamma-ray instrument. That tells me NASA is also looking at Gateway to be like a lunar Skylab; a place for astronauts to conduct experiments in lunar orbit and a permanent satellite for surveying the moon and parts of the solar system without Earth in the way. If NASA is still committed to lunar science then I don't see Gateway going away. Using SpaceX parts, maybe, but not going away.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

raydude wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:22 pm
jztemple2 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:13 pm
Kraken wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:02 am That image of Starship docked at Gateway, though. :scared-eek:
It is possible (likely?) that the Gateway is going away, which means it will now look like this:
Image

More on this story: After NASA taps SpaceX’s Starship for first Artemis landings, agency looks to on-ramp future vehicles
Are you suggesting a Starship hull would replace Gateway? Possible. Gateway is more than just a pit stop or transfer hub though. A few years ago NASA sent out a request for proposals for instruments to be put on the Gateway, and I was on one of the APL submissions for a gamma-ray instrument. That tells me NASA is also looking at Gateway to be like a lunar Skylab; a place for astronauts to conduct experiments in lunar orbit and a permanent satellite for surveying the moon and parts of the solar system without Earth in the way. If NASA is still committed to lunar science then I don't see Gateway going away. Using SpaceX parts, maybe, but not going away.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as you guys both know more about it than I do.

Gateway isn't meant to be permanently crewed, and the Starship lander has a 100-day loiter time (and will remain permanently in lunar orbit, except when it's on the surface). Given the huge amount of room in the Starship cabin, I don't see what Gateway contributes that Starship can't do. I presume that "loiter" means that it can remain crewed for 100 days at a time. Remember that the plan for interplanetary Starship is to carry up to 100 passengers. In this image, that double row of rectangular cutouts are windows, which gives you an idea of how much room there is on two decks. I assume that the lander version will use that space for cargo, since the mission spec only involves ferrying four astronauts. But that's still way, way more space than Gateway would have. Help me understand what Gateway will contribute that the permanently stationed Starship lander can't.
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

Science? In the form of instruments controlled from Earth?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

Why can't those instruments be installed in the parked Starship?
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

raydude wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:22 pm Are you suggesting a Starship hull would replace Gateway? Possible. Gateway is more than just a pit stop or transfer hub though. A few years ago NASA sent out a request for proposals for instruments to be put on the Gateway, and I was on one of the APL submissions for a gamma-ray instrument. That tells me NASA is also looking at Gateway to be like a lunar Skylab; a place for astronauts to conduct experiments in lunar orbit and a permanent satellite for surveying the moon and parts of the solar system without Earth in the way. If NASA is still committed to lunar science then I don't see Gateway going away. Using SpaceX parts, maybe, but not going away.
I'm thinking that for NASA, the primary requirement is to get boots on the moon's surface this decade for the least amount of money. Having Starship means no extra logistics flights to the moon's surface to support the Artemis landings. And with the cargo capacity of Starship, there would seem to be no need for the Gateway for the initial landings. So the question (to me, at least), does NASA continue to pursue Gateway for a purely lunar/cis-lunar science objective using astronauts? Or do they focus on making it an unmanned lunar/solar system observatory? Or do they simply drop Gateway since they have another option...
Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:46 pm Why can't those instruments be installed in the parked Starship?
My thoughts as well. NASA will already, with the newly planned Lunar Starship (we've got to get a name for that particular role), have the capability to place a large vehicle in cis-lunar orbit. If I were SpaceX, I'd already be putting together a pitch that uses a LEO fueled Starship to replace Gateway. SpaceX will already be providing NASA with the reusable hardware for tanker operations. The Starship has plenty of capacity for science experiments (like a gamma-ray instrument :wink:) if you remove the twin airlocks and the gantry basket used for the moon landings.

Scott Manley probably already has this sussed out in Kerbal Space Program :D
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

jztemple2 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:43 pm Lunar Starship (we've got to get a name for that particular role),
Moonship. Duh.
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

jztemple2 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:43 pm
Kraken wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:46 pm Why can't those instruments be installed in the parked Starship?
My thoughts as well. NASA will already, with the newly planned Lunar Starship (we've got to get a name for that particular role), have the capability to place a large vehicle in cis-lunar orbit. If I were SpaceX, I'd already be putting together a pitch that uses a LEO fueled Starship to replace Gateway. SpaceX will already be providing NASA with the reusable hardware for tanker operations. The Starship has plenty of capacity for science experiments (like a gamma-ray instrument :wink:) if you remove the twin airlocks and the gantry basket used for the moon landings.

Scott Manley probably already has this sussed out in Kerbal Space Program :D
Yup, I had that covered as well:
raydude wrote: If NASA is still committed to lunar science then I don't see Gateway going away. Using SpaceX parts, maybe, but not going away.
Btw, IMHO it will be a sad day if NASA turns away from lunar science in favor of just getting boots on the ground. There is no reason that they couldn't do both and every successful non-Flagship planetary mission has shown it was able to do tons of science for not a lot of money. AND even get their missions extended to do even MORE science.

Point of clarification: gamma-ray and other spectrometer instruments only work well if the spacecraft is in permanent orbit; i.e. it doesn't go down to the surface. So, attaching it to the SpaceX lunar lander is a no-go if the lander is supposed to land.
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

raydude wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:21 am
Yup, I had that covered as well:
raydude wrote: If NASA is still committed to lunar science then I don't see Gateway going away. Using SpaceX parts, maybe, but not going away.
Yeah, I didn't express myself very well, did I? In my mind I was seeing the previous Gateway plan as needed by NASA to support a lunar landing, but only wanted by NASA for lunar science. If the SpaceX Moonship (thumbs up to Kraken :D) deletes the need for the Gateway physical vehicle to support landing, then in my mind it is an uphill fight for NASA to argue for a manned cis-lunar station based upon the bespoke hardware that is Gateway as currently planned. If NASA and SpaceX put their heads together they might come up with a new version of Gateway which as you said would use SpaceX parts but perform the same mission.

I think the biggest stumbling block would be the cost for a manned stationed versus unmanned. Since you are familiar with some of the instrumentation intended for Gateway, can you address whether it would need to be able to operate without human support at all, or perhaps just occasional human visits?
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

jztemple2 wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 2:35 pm
raydude wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:21 am
Yup, I had that covered as well:
raydude wrote: If NASA is still committed to lunar science then I don't see Gateway going away. Using SpaceX parts, maybe, but not going away.
Yeah, I didn't express myself very well, did I? In my mind I was seeing the previous Gateway plan as needed by NASA to support a lunar landing, but only wanted by NASA for lunar science. If the SpaceX Moonship (thumbs up to Kraken :D) deletes the need for the Gateway physical vehicle to support landing, then in my mind it is an uphill fight for NASA to argue for a manned cis-lunar station based upon the bespoke hardware that is Gateway as currently planned. If NASA and SpaceX put their heads together they might come up with a new version of Gateway which as you said would use SpaceX parts but perform the same mission.

I think the biggest stumbling block would be the cost for a manned stationed versus unmanned. Since you are familiar with some of the instrumentation intended for Gateway, can you address whether it would need to be able to operate without human support at all, or perhaps just occasional human visits?
Our instrument was to be affixed to the outside of Gateway and operate completely autonomously from the crew. Not to get into too much detail but there is mention that "Experiments and investigations continue operating autonomously when crew is not present". So it appears all instruments had to have that capability. Which makes sense if Gateway wasn't supposed to be manned 100% of the time.
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

Lots of SpaceX goodness in this new post from NASASpaceFlight.com, Starship SN15 prepares for Static Fire tests – McGregor readies increased Raptor testing capacity
Starship SN15 is set to re-enter pre-launch testing Monday, tasked with setting the scene this week for a flight that could pave the way toward an orbital flight in the coming months. The groundwork for the push to orbit is taking place both at the Orbital Launch Site and elsewhere in Texas as a new dual-bay Raptor test stand nears completion.
Meanwhile, an artist's concept of the reentry of SN20:
Image

A look at the new test stand at McGregor:
Image
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

From Space.com, Elon Musk reminds us all that 'a bunch of people will probably die' going to Mars
"Honestly, a bunch of people will probably die in the beginning," barefoot SpaceX founder Elon Musk told XPrize founder Peter Diamandis in a recent interview about the first crewed missions to Mars.

SpaceX has had its sights set on Mars since Musk formed the company in 2002. And for years, Musk, who became a tech billionaire before launch SpaceX's, has been very candid about the risks that come with the territory of human spaceflight to the Red Planet. In fact, in 2017, Musk said at the International Astronautical Congress that the first humans to journey to Mars should be "prepared to die."
Although Musk has said similar things in the past, the context surrounding the statements has changed tremendously. Compared with 2017, SpaceX has made major strides in human spaceflight. The meaning of these statements continues to evolve as Mars becomes less of a "moonshot" goal and more of a tangible possibility.
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SpaceX

Post by Holman »

Do we have a thread for worries about the privatization of space travel?

What happens when NASA's efforts towards Luna and Mars are entirely in Musk's hands and then China makes him an offer he can't refuse?

Even worse, what happens when our fledgling off-world efforts are in Musk's hands and he personally starts putting the same pressure on Washington?

This is like the East India Company without freely available food and oxygen.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

You can post it in the Space thread.

I don't think you have to worry about Musk going rogue. As long as his launch sites are on US soil he is at the mercy of the US government and I doubt that NASA would ever support his building his launch sites in other countries. I also don't see China ever admitting that SpaceX can do it better than they can. They are about to put up their first big piece of their own space station and going to the Moon and Mars is probably on their radar, but only in Chinese designed and built spacecraft, IMHO.

Additionally, the East India Company was created to make a profit. No one I believe seriously thinks going to Mars is going to make money except for the companies that built the hardware.
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Kraken »

jztemple2 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:32 pm You can post it in the Space thread.
Or US space policy.
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

jztemple2 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:32 pm You can post it in the Space thread.

I don't think you have to worry about Musk going rogue. As long as his launch sites are on US soil he is at the mercy of the US government and I doubt that NASA would ever support his building his launch sites in other countries. I also don't see China ever admitting that SpaceX can do it better than they can. They are about to put up their first big piece of their own space station and going to the Moon and Mars is probably on their radar, but only in Chinese designed and built spacecraft, IMHO.

Additionally, the East India Company was created to make a profit. No one I believe seriously thinks going to Mars is going to make money except for the companies that built the hardware.
Not to mention just one part of spaceflight is getting there. The other parts are staying there and phoning home. Staying there, by creating housing facilities and things that enable humans to live - is not a long-term money-making proposition. NASA may pay for the construction of facilities and equipment but it's not going to pay rent. Then there's phoning home. The Deep Space Network (DSN) stations are still under NASA so if Elon even tries to shut NASA out he will be unable to communicate with any of his facilities and spacecraft unless he signs up with an international partner. And even then he won't get the coverage he would normally enjoy.

Of course, there is the PR problem. You don't want to be known as the company that screws over NASA.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

Whew, while writing this, it grew into a somewhat stream-of-consciousness blob that may or may not make sense. See tl;dr at the end if it doesn't.

Add me to the camp that's not [yet] worried about Musk/Bezos et al taking over. I'd first discount Bezos for now, as Blue Origin has a long way to go to get to the point SpaceX is at now, much less to leap ahead of SpaceX into some dominant position.

So, looking at Musk. I've followed him, and SpaceX, and Tesla, pretty closely since 2012. I've read/viewed every presentation he's made, interview he's done, book written about him and his companies. I've followed nearly every Falcon launch since the Starhopper program. I own his products in the form of Tesla cars and panels. He frequently gets ahead of himself on Twitter, trips over his own feet in his public statements. He's done more than his share of dumb things (eg COVID stances, cave diver spat, etc). I think his SNL gig is as likely to be a train wreck as to be successful. But despite the seemingly common-knowledge belief these days that he's a typical billionaire looking to pump his net worth off the backs of the plebes, Musk actually really truly does want his life's legacy to be getting humans to become multiplanetary.

You and I can laugh at the audaciousness of that desire, or its arrogance, or whatever. But I really strongly think it's his one true wish. He'll be with SpaceX long after he's done as the top dog at Tesla. He started SpaceX before joining Tesla, and these days spends more time at SpaceX already. The dominant narrative now neglects to recall that he put his entire PayPal millions (back when he was nowhere near a billionaire) into startup commercial rocket and electric vehicle companies. These are not the actions of someone looking to become the world's richest person--in fact, I'd argue that they disprove any attempt to paint Musk in that light. It worked out for him, but not only was that not guaranteed, it wasn't something even remotely likely. He was far likelier to lose it all than to come out way ahead, and there were far more lucrative options available to him if merely increasing his riches was the goal.

That's one side of it--he's actually serious about getting to Mars, and not just getting there but doing so in a permanent fashion. And as the progress of SpaceX's efforts vs those of everyone else have shown over the past few years, he's extremely likely to be the first to actually do it (if anyone does it in my lifetime, that is). If the commercial launch market continues for several more years in this vein, Musk's relative power in the launch business will continue to rise. So yes, I do think there's some 'there' there in terms of worrying about too much power being concentrated in one person/company.

But as jztemple mentioned, SpaceX is going to be dependent on launch approvals and other pesky civilization-based things for some time to come. Moreover, Musk also actually really loves NASA. Without NASA's COTS and CRS contracts, SpaceX dies in 2008. And without Commercial Crew, SpaceX certainly isn't where it is today. And now the HLS award. He's well aware of who's buttered his bread to get to this point.

I'd highly recommend Eric Berger's Liftoff book about the early Falcon 1 days at SpaceX for a good overview of this. And Ashlee Vance's biography of Musk from several years ago. Finaly, while not a book per se, Tim Urban's series on Musk and his companies at WaitButWhy is excellent. I'd even say that if you haven't read these three, and done so with an open mind, you likely don't have a sufficient body of knowledge to evaluate Musk.

Long story short: Musk is a flawed dude who at the end of the day does have his heart in the right place. SpaceX has done wonders for NASA and vice-versa. They have a good thing going, and likely will for several years to come. They will need each other for many years to come. Even if Musk's long-term goal of a sustainable base on Mars comes to fruition, he/it/SpaceX will remain heavily dependent on others to keep it going. I'd bet large sums that him going rogue is not a thing that'll happen.

Now, back to Bezos. I'd actually be more worried about him given how ruthless he's been with Amazon as it's grown. But since I don't see a future where BlueOrigin takes over and SpaceX falls well behind, I see Bezos as competition to Musk/SpaceX rather than as someone who has any realistic likelihood to be in a sole leadership position over commercial space.

And just to flip things around a bit and look at this from another perspective: I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that SpaceX has pushed the world far forward relative to where we'd be had the company not come along (from a space capability perspective). As someone who agrees with Musk/Bezos that we've got to get to a point where we're not just on this one rock, this push is worth a lot. When I imagine where we'd be without SpaceX, it's not a vision that makes me happy. What, SLS as our hope of a Mars mission sometime in 2040? Lol. Remember that SLS replaced other, canceled launch programs that date back prior to SpaceX's first launch, and years prior to the first successful Falcon 1 launch. SpaceX has literally done everything it's ever done in a span of time where our legacy crewed projects intended to replace the shuttle program have yet to obtain a single successful launch.

Tl;dr - I don't want to reach a point where we have a couple of mega-corporations that colonize space and take over the world(s) as a result. But I view that as not super-likely, and I definitely think that relative to the alternative of not having billionaires pushing us forward, I'll take my chances. If we instead lived in a timeline where the citizenry elected competent leaders who had a relatively unified vision of a spacefaring future and provided adequate public funding to allow a government-run space program that achieved the goal of getting us onto other rocks in a permanent fashion by now or the very near future, I'd take that timeline. But we don't, and thus I can't. So I'm OK with this one.

SIde note: SpaceX obtained approval from the FAA today for the next 3 Starship launches. The first might be as soon as tomorrow.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SpaceX

Post by Holman »

Thanks for the information-rich replies, everyone!

Zaxxon, you make a case for trusting Musk, but I think the problem is that *anyone* eventually amassing such an independent degree of control over the future of humanity in space is a huge problem.

NASA is controlled by elected officials. Its course can be managed by popular will in what I still believe is a responsible democracy. But who controls Musk? Asking me to believe that he means well doesn't cut it, since oligarchs never quite seem to land on altruism as a limiting principle. But don't ask me; ask the authoritarian kleptocracies around the world who know this quite well.

Maybe I'm just anti-capitalist, though. The idea that whole nations and populations are dependent on the goodwill of the 1st and 2nd richest businessmen on the planet makes me feel nervous rather than secure.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

Holman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:07 pm Thanks for the information-rich replies, everyone!

Zaxxon, you make a case for trusting Musk, but I think the problem is that *anyone* eventually amassing such an independent degree of control over the future of humanity in space is a huge problem.

NASA is controlled by elected officials. Its course can be managed by popular will in what I still believe is a responsible democracy. But who controls Musk? Asking me to believe that he means well doesn't cut it, since oligarchs never quite seem to land on altruism as a limiting principle. But don't ask me; ask the authoritarian kleptocracies around the world who know this quite well.

Maybe I'm just anti-capitalist, though. The idea that whole nations and populations are dependent on the goodwill of the 1st and 2nd richest businessmen on the planet makes me feel nervous rather than secure.
I agree with you--see the hypothetical at the end of my prior post. I'd much rather have that scenario. Unfortunately we can't (at least not now or in the near future), and I do believe that developing our capabilities in space is of vital importance.

To put it another way: our practical choice isn't billionaires or the American government. It's billionaires or China. Or maybe American billionaires vs China vs other billionaires.
User avatar
jztemple2
Posts: 11542
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:52 am
Location: Brevard County, Florida, USA

Re: SpaceX

Post by jztemple2 »

I'm sure I'll be dead long before any of this really becomes a concern, so you folks can have at it. I'm just happy to watch pretty rockets go up into the sky :wink:
My father said that anything is interesting if you bother to read about it - Michael C. Harrold
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SpaceX

Post by Holman »

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:12 pm I agree with you--see the hypothetical at the end of my prior post. I'd much rather have that scenario. Unfortunately we can't (at least not now or in the near future), and I do believe that developing our capabilities in space is of vital importance.

To put it another way: our practical choice isn't billionaires or the American government. It's billionaires or China. Or maybe American billionaires vs China vs other billionaires.
You're probably right.

I just worry because the popular narrative is that billionaires opening space will be great for everyone (rather than just great for billionaires).
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SpaceX

Post by Isgrimnur »

Billionaires that want to put stuff into space pay other billionaires or governments to put their stuff there. You can get a cubesat up there for about $40k. But space has always been an expensive endeavor, and likely always will be.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

Holman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:18 pm
Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:12 pm I agree with you--see the hypothetical at the end of my prior post. I'd much rather have that scenario. Unfortunately we can't (at least not now or in the near future), and I do believe that developing our capabilities in space is of vital importance.

To put it another way: our practical choice isn't billionaires or the American government. It's billionaires or China. Or maybe American billionaires vs China vs other billionaires.
You're probably right.

I just worry because the popular narrative is that billionaires opening space will be great for everyone (rather than just great for billionaires).
I hear you. There's certainly no near-term future bases on the moon, Mars, or wherever which include housing and services for the poor. And even if/when we get somewhere with significant populations elsewhere, The Expanse is probably our best realistic outcome. That's not particularly warm-fuzzy generating.

But I still think we need to do it.
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

Holman wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:18 pm
Zaxxon wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:12 pm I agree with you--see the hypothetical at the end of my prior post. I'd much rather have that scenario. Unfortunately we can't (at least not now or in the near future), and I do believe that developing our capabilities in space is of vital importance.

To put it another way: our practical choice isn't billionaires or the American government. It's billionaires or China. Or maybe American billionaires vs China vs other billionaires.
You're probably right.

I just worry because the popular narrative is that billionaires opening space will be great for everyone (rather than just great for billionaires).
You don't need to go into space to reap the benefits of getting other people into space. Lots of technologies developed as part of the space program found their way into applications here on Earth. And lots more technological advancements from building bases on the Moon or Mars will also find applications on Earth. Even if technological advancements fall under the domain of SpaceX there's nothing that says the Chinese or some other company wouldn't copy it and make it cheaper.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: SpaceX

Post by Holman »

My issue really boils down to putting absolutely crucial and (in the short-term) irreplaceable infrastructure in private hands.

Yeah, I know we do a lot of that already anyway. But as our communications and military and economy become more space-based, it seems a shame to run such risks.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
raydude
Posts: 3894
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:22 am

Re: SpaceX

Post by raydude »

Holman wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:11 am My issue really boils down to putting absolutely crucial and (in the short-term) irreplaceable infrastructure in private hands.

Yeah, I know we do a lot of that already anyway. But as our communications and military and economy become more space-based, it seems a shame to run such risks.
If I may, I think your thinking is that SpaceX is the only US game in town. It is not. At least not with respect to launch vehicles. The US military industrial complex is still perfectly happy using ULA rockets so if push comes to shove NASA can always go back to launching on Delta Heavies. It may be the only company with a currently certified human component but again if push comes to shove NASA can always just wait and see if Blue Origin and others can get their capsules up to speed. In the meantime SpaceX would be suffering a huge PR loss. And oh by the way, good luck talking to your components in space if NASA decides to shut you out of the DSN.
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19319
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: SpaceX

Post by Jaymann »

Zaxxon wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 9:13 am
Wait a minute, what about the other four?
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: SpaceX

Post by Zaxxon »

Jaymann wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 11:35 am
Zaxxon wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 9:13 am
Wait a minute, what about the other four?
Crap, knew they should have put someone in charge of counting!

They're still on the ISS.
Post Reply