3 ms·

Sure, but something that can assemble things in space (as well as raw materials) is going to be heavy and if its heavy its going to need a heavy launcher. Fuel

Sure, but something that can assemble things in space (as well as raw materials) is going to be heavy and if its heavy its going to need a heavy launcher. Fuel is heavy too. At the end of the day, you need a powerful rocket to do the heavy lifting. NASA doesn't want to turn into an agency that just gives seed money to SpaceX and wants its own heavy human-rated lifter and capsule. Not to mention, there's political will for NASA to continue being in the launch business and for good reason. SpaceX could land a monopoly on heavy launches and could raise its prices, get bought by a foreign power, go bankrupt, use shoddy designs, or who knows what else. edit: really -2 moderation? Downvoting for disgreeing now? Wow HN.

krschultz 15y ago
It's not seed money, it's buying from a private contracter. The Air Force doesn't build planes, it buys planes. The Navy doesn't build ships, it buys ships. The Army doesn't make tanks, it buys tanks. Now part of that process involves a lot of military oversight and specification to make sure things are up to their standards. I know that the military is involved in the design of systems from Day 1. But all of those things are made by private corporations and they have no commercial equivalent. NASA operates this way already to a large extent. Boeing, Lockheed, etc are primary contractors that design & build a lot of this stuff. What NASA is going through right now is a switch from that model to using straight Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) stuff. The government buys plenty of things off the shelf with no motification or input if it meets their needs. Space X just happens to provide lift capability instead of laptops, but in the end it really is no different as long as they're not launching people.
hga 15y ago
"use shoddy designs" Given that NASA's shoddy design of the Shuttle has killed two of them along with their crews, somehow I don't find that to be a strong argument. If SpaceX is going to "land a monopoly on heavy launches" then by definition their vehicles will be at least somewhat reliable.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  Call me when dragon has gone to space as many times as the shuttle and we'll compare safety records, thanks.
  - hga 15y ago
    Nope, long before it first launched we knew the Shuttle was a shoddy design: The SRBs saved money on development but are very bad for human flight, you want engines you can turn off. The insane fragile tile and leading edge heat protection, all to satisfy a "requirement" the Air Force didn't care about, a Vandenburg single orbit polar mission (to return to the same spot on Earth while it's rotated under you requires serious maneuvering using your initial high energy state). No crew escape system after the first few test flights with only pilot and co-pilot, who had SR-71 class ejection seats (the best available). The state of the art of "rocket science" simply isn't good enough to forgo this. Since then we've learned from the two fatal missions: The SRB joints were grossly misdesigned, forcing their O-rings to seal on expansion (any of us who've worked with a faucet or shower head know how terribly wrong this is). Especially after it was made in a more "green" fashion, the fuel tank sheds ice and insulation chucks with sufficient momentum to destroy the above mentioned fragile heat protection systems. That's all that immediately comes to mind, and I've already pointed out one Ares I inherited potentially fatal design flaw in the Senate Launch System. How many obvious design flaws can you or anyone else point out in SpaceX's systems? (I don't know, I haven't been closely following them.)
    - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
      I'm aware of the shuttles limitations and the politics behind them, but the Soyuz system isn't any safer. I'm just skeptical of this sudden "ZOMG DRAGONX SAFETY WILL BE AWESOME" assumption that so many pro-privatization types seem to have. Considering how many times their rockets have blown up already perhaps its best to be not drawing any conclusions thus far.
      - ugh 15y ago
nknight 15y ago
The US has rather strict rules regarding transfers of rocket/missile technology. The only way SpaceX could get "bought by a foreign power" is with the express approval of the federal government.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  Fine, how about they just become unprofitable after some accident or other event. Now the US has lost all its launch capabilities. Here comes the big bailouts. Why not just have NASA make its own rockets with private companies for certain tasks. I don't understand the rabid pro-privatization crowd's insistence that its one or the other. The military works the EXACT SAME WAY. They bring design specs and ideas to contractors, do x amount of engineering themselves, and let the contractors do the dirty work. I don't understand why the military gets to design their own stuff but suddenly our civillian space program should just be a check writing machine to Elon Musk and friends.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Characterizing people who disagree with you as "rabid" is not going to help your case, especially when one of those disagreeing with you is borderline-socialist and not generally a big fan of mass privatization. Nor is using the bloated, corrupt, horrifically inefficient military-industrial complex as your model for how spaceflight should be carried out. For once, a government agency is handling this right. They're transparently paying set, commercially-appropriate amounts of money to contractors that have a good chance of success, in exchange for meeting specific, objectively-judged goals. If something goes wrong, there are obvious fallbacks. Boeing/Lockheed and the ULA aren't going anywhere, the ESA has a good track record, and Soyuz is at least as reliable as the Shuttle ever was (and a hell of a lot cheaper). If SpaceX fizzles out, it's not the end of the world, or even manned space travel, any more than NASA's twice-over criminal negligence with the Shuttle was.

krschultz 15y ago

It's not seed money, it's buying from a private contracter. The Air Force doesn't build planes, it buys planes. The Navy doesn't build ships, it buys ships. The Army doesn't make tanks, it buys tanks. Now part of that process involves a lot of military oversight and specification to make sure things are up to their standards. I know that the military is involved in the design of systems from Day 1. But all of those things are made by private corporations and they have no commercial equivalent. NASA operates this way already to a large extent. Boeing, Lockheed, etc are primary contractors that design & build a lot of this stuff. What NASA is going through right now is a switch from that model to using straight Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) stuff. The government buys plenty of things off the shelf with no motification or input if it meets their needs. Space X just happens to provide lift capability instead of laptops, but in the end it really is no different as long as they're not launching people.

hga 15y ago

"use shoddy designs" Given that NASA's shoddy design of the Shuttle has killed two of them along with their crews, somehow I don't find that to be a strong argument. If SpaceX is going to "land a monopoly on heavy launches" then by definition their vehicles will be at least somewhat reliable.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Call me when dragon has gone to space as many times as the shuttle and we'll compare safety records, thanks.
- hga 15y ago
  Nope, long before it first launched we knew the Shuttle was a shoddy design: The SRBs saved money on development but are very bad for human flight, you want engines you can turn off. The insane fragile tile and leading edge heat protection, all to satisfy a "requirement" the Air Force didn't care about, a Vandenburg single orbit polar mission (to return to the same spot on Earth while it's rotated under you requires serious maneuvering using your initial high energy state). No crew escape system after the first few test flights with only pilot and co-pilot, who had SR-71 class ejection seats (the best available). The state of the art of "rocket science" simply isn't good enough to forgo this. Since then we've learned from the two fatal missions: The SRB joints were grossly misdesigned, forcing their O-rings to seal on expansion (any of us who've worked with a faucet or shower head know how terribly wrong this is). Especially after it was made in a more "green" fashion, the fuel tank sheds ice and insulation chucks with sufficient momentum to destroy the above mentioned fragile heat protection systems. That's all that immediately comes to mind, and I've already pointed out one Ares I inherited potentially fatal design flaw in the Senate Launch System. How many obvious design flaws can you or anyone else point out in SpaceX's systems? (I don't know, I haven't been closely following them.)
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    I'm aware of the shuttles limitations and the politics behind them, but the Soyuz system isn't any safer. I'm just skeptical of this sudden "ZOMG DRAGONX SAFETY WILL BE AWESOME" assumption that so many pro-privatization types seem to have. Considering how many times their rockets have blown up already perhaps its best to be not drawing any conclusions thus far.
    - ugh 15y ago

nknight 15y ago

The US has rather strict rules regarding transfers of rocket/missile technology. The only way SpaceX could get "bought by a foreign power" is with the express approval of the federal government.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Fine, how about they just become unprofitable after some accident or other event. Now the US has lost all its launch capabilities. Here comes the big bailouts. Why not just have NASA make its own rockets with private companies for certain tasks. I don't understand the rabid pro-privatization crowd's insistence that its one or the other. The military works the EXACT SAME WAY. They bring design specs and ideas to contractors, do x amount of engineering themselves, and let the contractors do the dirty work. I don't understand why the military gets to design their own stuff but suddenly our civillian space program should just be a check writing machine to Elon Musk and friends.
- nknight 15y ago
  Characterizing people who disagree with you as "rabid" is not going to help your case, especially when one of those disagreeing with you is borderline-socialist and not generally a big fan of mass privatization. Nor is using the bloated, corrupt, horrifically inefficient military-industrial complex as your model for how spaceflight should be carried out. For once, a government agency is handling this right. They're transparently paying set, commercially-appropriate amounts of money to contractors that have a good chance of success, in exchange for meeting specific, objectively-judged goals. If something goes wrong, there are obvious fallbacks. Boeing/Lockheed and the ULA aren't going anywhere, the ESA has a good track record, and Soyuz is at least as reliable as the Shuttle ever was (and a hell of a lot cheaper). If SpaceX fizzles out, it's not the end of the world, or even manned space travel, any more than NASA's twice-over criminal negligence with the Shuttle was.