I really am glad that SpaceX exists, and I <i>want</i> them to be successful. To me, it represents a grand intersection of my technical interests, the dream of space travel that was instilled in me since I was a child, and my moral belief that government has no place in this (nor in many other things).<p>SpaceX is making progress toward <i>real</i> commercial access to orbit. But is there any work being done by business farther out than that?
I have a slightly more pessimistic outlook on SpaceX, but I'll admit that I'm slightly biased.<p>My dad has worked on the Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets close to 30 years. These rockets are expensive (an order of magnitude more than SpaceX), but they can do one thing that SpaceX can't: guarantee success. If you had to put up sensitive cargo (commercial or military) that costs on the order of $100 million (and sometimes much much more), would you entrust a fledgling company with its sparse mission success record or the more established company with proven success? And if you were to hop on a rocket, would you pick the one that had a severe failure within the past few years, or one that has been operating as engineered for the past 20-30 years?<p>Rocket launching doesn't go by the typical startup mantra. Mistakes are very real, very expensive, and have much more human impact.<p>SpaceX seems more to me like fast food: their efficiency is awe-inspiring, but I worry at what significant cost?
Despite Musk's obvious vested interest, he's spot on here. The achievements of Musk at SpaceX, John Carmack at Armadillo and Burt Rutan at Scaled are impressive enough on their own merits. Consider that all 3 companies combined are spending a tiny fraction of what was being thrown at Orion and there's no contest.<p>The big aerospace companies seem to have lost their way - look at the Joint Strike Fighter or 787 debacles for example. Massive delays and cost overruns made sense under NASA's "cost plus" funding model. They need to get back to the "internal startup" philosophy exemplified by Skunkworks. Competitive commercial funding is the best way to get there.
I was slightly hopeful as I looked into their careers section. There are 99 open jobs apparently, which is great! And I'm just graduating with a BS in mechanical engineering, and they need interns doing tedious tasks as much as any other company right?<p>But of course, due to government regulations, they only hire US citizens and permanent residents. Unfortunately, that rules me out of even the slightest chance. Oh well..
The U.S. space program is a source of tremendous prestige to the U.S. government. People whose plans depend on the U.S. government's voluntarily letting private companies take over leadership of parts of the space enterprise should be aware of the strength of the government's need for prestige. (Prestige helps maintain moral legitimacy, which is necessary in the long term for the continued ability of exercise power.)
While I don't disagree with canceling the current tactical plan ("let's build Ares/Orion"), I wish he hadn't canceled the current vision ("let's return to the Moon/go to Mars"). Maybe the two were inextricably linked, but seems like whatever efficiency we gain through privatization could just as easily be squandered by a NASA stumbling around without a purpose or motivation.<p>The counterpoint to this seems to be this:<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/13/grand-challenges-21st-century-your-ideas-welcome" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/13/grand-challenges-2...</a><p>...which is a call for the next "Moon landing" scale project for the US to back. So at least at some level they're aware that these sorts of visions are needed, and (possibly quite correctly) the Moon return and Mars landing wasn't it.
Summary: Orion wasn't going to work, so it's good Obama canceled it. He's looking forward to private industry solving all the problems while NASA works on interplanetary stuff. He thinks the president's upcoming speech about space is going to be important, so to stay tuned for it.
Obama's speech sounds very interesting - I don't suppose it's being streamed anywhere?<p>EDIT: Found it - <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36569092#36569092" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36569092#36569092</a>
I don't agree with Obama very much, but this was a good decision. Bush clearly created this program in a quest to have his Kennedy-to-the-moon-the-cost-be-damned moment and it needed to be killed.