6 ms·

The Space Shuttle was designed and built by a private contractor (North American Rockwell) after a competitive selection process among many private parties; eve

by codex 14y ago

The Space Shuttle was designed and built by a private contractor (North American Rockwell) after a competitive selection process among many private parties; even in the SpaceX case, the funding is provided by the government to private parties through the age-old bidding process. So I'm not sure what's so revolutionary here, especially given an almost zero potential for space profits absent government support. Mining the asteroids might be an opportunity the private sector could exploit in a few decades.

tsotha 14y ago
The big difference is SpaceX was able to keep the cost down because they put the money in up front and thus weren't forced by Congress to spread the work over 20 states. But that will change now that they have government contracts.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  I don't think so. The "spread the work around" will be through the diversity of COTS projects, of which SpaceX is only one. But SpaceX has contracts, which could keep them profitable for long enough to pay off investors. Then they can drop the bottom out of the space transport market.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    >I don't think so. The "spread the work around" will be through the diversity of COTS projects, of which SpaceX is only one. Congress certainly isn't above putting these kinds of restrictions on COTS project funding. If they can't, then they'll just zero out the COTS funding and fund everything through traditional cost+ projects. The biggest hole in the the thinking of space enthusiasts is the gap between their perception of space projects and How Things Work politically. To me and you it's all about science and fancy engineering and, you know, going where no man has gone before. To Congress these projects are just a way to bring jobs to the district and get campaign contributions flowing. That's where their consideration ends. They don't even care if anything actually works as long as the jobs are there. That's why Constellation is still alive, and why NASA has ten different campuses. That's why it took twenty years longer than it should have to kill the space shuttle. Hell, that's why mission control is in Houston instead of Florida. SpaceX will not be immune from the laws of political gravity. The only way they're going to be able to stay relatively efficient is to stick with the commercial market. But Elon Musk seems fixated on Mars, so I doubt that's how things will play out.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
The difference is extreme. In the Space Shuttle case NASA signed off on every little detail of the design and manufacture of the vehicle and told Rockwell to go build it, deliver it to them, and then they undertook operations with the vehicle. This is very comparable to, say, the US military procuring and operating a fighter jet such as the F-22. Now let's look at SpaceX's Falcon/Dragon. SpaceX financed, designed, and proved the Falcon-9 launch vehicle on its own. To its own specs. To its own design. And to its own internal budget. Similarly, SpaceX began designing the Dragon pressurized spacecraft on its own. NASA came along and offered up the potential for a contract for resupply of the ISS, they did not specify the design or method of construction of the launch vehicle and spacecraft to achieve this goal, nor did they fund the complete development costs of such a system. Instead, SpaceX stepped up and said "hey, we have something that we think could fit your needs" (as did Orbital Sciences Corp.) and then NASA provided some moderate funding to help with specialized development costs for ISS resupply and then extended the opportunity for ISS resupply contracts after a successful demonstration. This is comparable to buying a plane ticket. SpaceX's NASA contracts are quite lucrative for them (because they can provide a service at a lower price than the competition but it is a very highly priced service) but even without them they are poised to reap massive profits from bog-standard commercial launch services. They have a contract with Orbcomm to launch 18 satellites, and contracts with MDA Corp., SES, Thaicom, NSPO, Asiasat, SS/Loral, Argentina, Israel, and others to launch commercial satellites over the coming years. Because SpaceX is able to set the retail price of its launches at the current market floor (somewhere around the per kg price of the Long March, Soyuz, or Proton) despite their underlying costs being much lower they are able to pocket a healthy profit per launch, which should fatten their wallets mightily even over the next few years let alone the next decade or so.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Because SpaceX is able to set the retail price of its launches at the current market floor (somewhere around the per kg price of the Long March, Soyuz, or Proton) despite their underlying costs being much lower they are able to pocket a healthy profit per launch, which should fatten their wallets mightily even over the next few years let alone the next decade or so. Then once they pay off investors this way, we'll start seeing even more cost reduction.

by codex 14y ago

tsotha 14y ago

The big difference is SpaceX was able to keep the cost down because they put the money in up front and thus weren't forced by Congress to spread the work over 20 states. But that will change now that they have government contracts.

stcredzero 14y ago
I don't think so. The "spread the work around" will be through the diversity of COTS projects, of which SpaceX is only one. But SpaceX has contracts, which could keep them profitable for long enough to pay off investors. Then they can drop the bottom out of the space transport market.
- tsotha 14y ago
  >I don't think so. The "spread the work around" will be through the diversity of COTS projects, of which SpaceX is only one. Congress certainly isn't above putting these kinds of restrictions on COTS project funding. If they can't, then they'll just zero out the COTS funding and fund everything through traditional cost+ projects. The biggest hole in the the thinking of space enthusiasts is the gap between their perception of space projects and How Things Work politically. To me and you it's all about science and fancy engineering and, you know, going where no man has gone before. To Congress these projects are just a way to bring jobs to the district and get campaign contributions flowing. That's where their consideration ends. They don't even care if anything actually works as long as the jobs are there. That's why Constellation is still alive, and why NASA has ten different campuses. That's why it took twenty years longer than it should have to kill the space shuttle. Hell, that's why mission control is in Houston instead of Florida. SpaceX will not be immune from the laws of political gravity. The only way they're going to be able to stay relatively efficient is to stick with the commercial market. But Elon Musk seems fixated on Mars, so I doubt that's how things will play out.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

The difference is extreme. In the Space Shuttle case NASA signed off on every little detail of the design and manufacture of the vehicle and told Rockwell to go build it, deliver it to them, and then they undertook operations with the vehicle. This is very comparable to, say, the US military procuring and operating a fighter jet such as the F-22. Now let's look at SpaceX's Falcon/Dragon. SpaceX financed, designed, and proved the Falcon-9 launch vehicle on its own. To its own specs. To its own design. And to its own internal budget. Similarly, SpaceX began designing the Dragon pressurized spacecraft on its own. NASA came along and offered up the potential for a contract for resupply of the ISS, they did not specify the design or method of construction of the launch vehicle and spacecraft to achieve this goal, nor did they fund the complete development costs of such a system. Instead, SpaceX stepped up and said "hey, we have something that we think could fit your needs" (as did Orbital Sciences Corp.) and then NASA provided some moderate funding to help with specialized development costs for ISS resupply and then extended the opportunity for ISS resupply contracts after a successful demonstration. This is comparable to buying a plane ticket. SpaceX's NASA contracts are quite lucrative for them (because they can provide a service at a lower price than the competition but it is a very highly priced service) but even without them they are poised to reap massive profits from bog-standard commercial launch services. They have a contract with Orbcomm to launch 18 satellites, and contracts with MDA Corp., SES, Thaicom, NSPO, Asiasat, SS/Loral, Argentina, Israel, and others to launch commercial satellites over the coming years. Because SpaceX is able to set the retail price of its launches at the current market floor (somewhere around the per kg price of the Long March, Soyuz, or Proton) despite their underlying costs being much lower they are able to pocket a healthy profit per launch, which should fatten their wallets mightily even over the next few years let alone the next decade or so.

stcredzero 14y ago
> Because SpaceX is able to set the retail price of its launches at the current market floor (somewhere around the per kg price of the Long March, Soyuz, or Proton) despite their underlying costs being much lower they are able to pocket a healthy profit per launch, which should fatten their wallets mightily even over the next few years let alone the next decade or so. Then once they pay off investors this way, we'll start seeing even more cost reduction.