It is easy to use superlatives like "safest rocket ever designed". But a lot of stuff can go wrong - fast - when you're sitting on a big pile of potential explosives that under other circumstances you'd keep a safe distance from. Until they actually achieve it, you shouldn't throw the superlatives around.<p>I will be the first to applaud if SpaceX achieves this goal. I am certain that they want to achieve this goal. But when you look at previous launch vehicles from existing agencies that had over 100 launches, their launch failure rate vary from 1.4% (the Space Shuttle) to 14% (US Atlas) with the Russian Soyuz and European Ariane both coming in somewhere around 5%. SpaceX would have to improve on existing rocket designs by several orders of magnitude just to get to a pretty crappy safety record.<p>So far SpaceX has had 8 launches with 5 consecutive successes. The initial failures were clearly part of the learning process. But their current string of successes does not provide any statistical evidence that they will prove to be safer in the long run than even the worst major rocket program. Sure they plan to be safe. But safety is based on seeing what happens, not what they planned to have happen.<p>In this light it is worth reviewing <a href="http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt" rel="nofollow">http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roger...</a> to see how safe people thought that the Space Shuttle would be. Initial estimates of the safety of a launch went from 1/100 to 1/100,000 with the riskier estimates coming from lower level engineers and the safer ones coming from upper management. Whenever you see numbers in the press, it is guaranteed that they represent the view from the top. We should therefore assume that they will prove to be shockingly optimistic until there is concrete data.
According to <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...</a> each Shuttle launch cost about $450 million.<p>This contract amount seems to suggest that SpaceX launches will come in significantly lower than the Shuttle - a very good sign for continued space research.
SpaceX is just one part of this program... <i>As part of the new agreements, Sierra Nevada will receive $212.5 million, SpaceX will receive $440 million, and Boeing will receive $460 million.</i><p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/03/nasa-awards-11-billion-in-support-for-3-private-space-taxis" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/03/nasa-awards-11-bil...</a>
To set an infinite value on the life of an astronaut is to set both the goals of the space exploration effort and the needs of the rest of humanity at naught.<p><a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/26/how-much-is-an-astronauts-life-worth" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/26/how-much-is-an-astrona...</a>
I'm impressed that there's $440M left in NASA (or over $1 Billion with Sierra Nevada and Boeing included) to fund a new space shuttle, somehow I was under the false impression that there wouldn't be any more of that type of thing.<p>Hats off, Elon Musk. Hats. Off.
Eventually one of these private space companies will have a highly public, challenger-type disaster. I wonder if a startup like SpaceX could survive something like that.
If you're reading this and are in LA, you might want to come to this party Saturday night (August 4th). <a href="http://blog.ancientlasers.com/come-party-with-bill-nye-to-celebrate-the-mars-landing/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.ancientlasers.com/come-party-with-bill-nye-to-ce...</a>
Awesome. So essentially, SpaceX will go ahead and add an escape and life support system to dragon. Plus, they will use the escape thruster for <i>ground touchdown</i> as well!
Every time I see something like a rocket or space shuttle launch, <i>I can't help but wonder how much of the weight and cost could be saved using alternative methods</i>. Even helium/hydrogen filled balloons could get them a good chunk of the way there. I know that would be horribly impractical for something the size of the shuttle and it's rocket boosters/fuel tanks, but if a balloon rig can get them to 120,000 ft they have gotten 15% of the way there (and overcome initial inertia) for pennys, and could probably shed a lot of weight that it normally uses to overcome those first 20 miles or so. Plus, at 120,000ft, gravity has already dropped from something like 9.8 newtons (sea level) to 9.68 (120,000ft). This might not seem like much, but it a good chunk of the way to the 9newtons that the Space Shuttle normally orbits at, and has to allow them to shed even more weight.<p>I'm obviously not an astro-physicist, physicist, or even that smart of a guy. I just can't help but think there are more efficient ways to get past 100,000ft without brute forcing the problem with rockets
$440M is pocket change compared to what the first shuttle cost and it is a small fraction compared to what I imagine a new one might cost. If they can pull it off, though, huge kudos to them.
Has SpaceX gotten a contract to manufacture the ship according to NASA's preset specifications, or has it been hired to design and manufacture a ship that fulfills NASA's requirements?
Is manned flight necessary anymore?<p>I feel that a lot of design overhead is put into making a shuttle or space station safe and livable for humans. Why not focus on the main mission: to conduct research experiments.<p>I know there is the romantic idea of human space travel, but if it's not ready yet, why not invest more in autonomous systems and more advanced robotics for the sake of conducting the actual mission and sparing the lives of some truly brilliant and extraordinary people (potential astronauts).
Note that it says "millions" and not "billions". If this was a research project to figure out how to bomb the shit out of people more efficiently, it would have said "billions".
So SpaceX is now officially a government contractor. This may be the beginning of the end for them. Can we name any govt contractor with a $400MM contract that has stayed true to its entrepreneurial principles and not fallen into the rent-seeking abyss?
"the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed"<p>Oh I wish they hadn't said that, they said the same thing about the Titanic.
I would hate to see SpaceX become an acquisition of NASA, or a nationalised company of the US Federal Government. Stranger things have happened, of course, but if Musk wants to retire to Mars, he had best be concerned with this.