4 ms·

Lunar entrepreneurs: privately funded SpaceX orbits Earth.

19 points by FrancofileL 17y ago

JunkDNA 17y ago
I love what SpaceX is doing and I really, really hope they succeed. I'm not sure if it's founded or not, but I fear we're at risk of losing a bit of institutional knowledge as the original crop of "rocket scientists" retire. In my mind, SpaceX is pushing the R&D process along, keeping that knowledge going and expanding it outside the traditional government-run, risk-averse space bureaucracy. I have to nit-pick about one thing in the article though: "Livingston said drugs are so profitable that pharmaceutical companies could become commercial space customers if they had routine and reliable ways to get crystallization experiments into space and back again." I have plenty of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and I have to say, if they're looking for money from this, they will be waiting a long time. This meme always makes for a nice tidy tag-line in a grant proposal for space research, but it's not really based in business reality. Protein crystal structures are certainly important in pharmaceutical development, but they rarely make or break a drug program. The problem is that protein structures obtained from crystals don't always accurately reflect what the protein does in solution. Furthermore, even if you do end up using a crystal structure to design a compound, your problem is only just beginning. The big problem with drugs is that they fail spectacularly when they get to the clinic because they have an unacceptable safety profile or they just plain don't work. The protein structure is fairly irrelevant in these cases because the rest of the biology is so maddeningly complex and unpredictable.
tocomment 17y ago
Surely it's not the first private company to launch something into orbit. Haven't Boeing and/or Lockheed been doing this for years? What's different/special about SpaceX?
- RK 17y ago
  Wasn't a government contract from start to finish?
- ori_b 17y ago
  Haven't Boeing and Lockheed been doing government stuff for almost all their launching? I could be wrong, but I don't remember hearing about their in-house rocketry.
  - tocomment 17y ago
    Boeing says they have commercial customers: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/deltaHistory.html http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/deltaHistory.h...
    - gaius 17y ago
      Yes but development of the Delta was 100% underwritten by the DoD. Kinda like how the 747 was subsidized by the AWACS contract... And they've the nerve to complain when the French government bungs a few Euros to Airbus.
      - evgen 17y ago
        747!?!? Try 707. All of Boeing's commercial airframe have been self-funded since before Airbus existed. There may be internal cross-subsidy from other defense projects (e.g. borrowing to develop A by using the federal funding of B as a loan guarantee) but no Boeing airframe you can buy today was started or funded as a DoD project.
      - billswift 17y ago
        747 was developed on an AF contract but it long predated the AWACS. It was developed as a competitor to the Lockheed C-5 in the 1960s for long-range heavy lift transport.
- physcab 17y ago
  These guys have tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace Andrew Beal is pretty famous, but he's better at banking than aerospace. There are lots of private companies building components for space exploration, but their margins are capped because their customer is the government. Atleast this is the gist I get from talking to my dad who is a program manager at Aerojet, which makes boosters for Delta and previously Titan.
roryokane 17y ago
I just saw a discussion about commercial vs. government space travel on XKCD IRC yesterday. I'm curious; did whoever submitted this read or participate in that chat and investigate? Is commercial space travel that popular a subject these days? Or was it just a coincidence?
- zandorg 17y ago
  It's just that it's SpaceX's 2nd successful launch, and nearly as important as the 1st last year. It's just recent news.

19 points by FrancofileL 17y ago

I love what SpaceX is doing and I really, really hope they succeed. I'm not sure if it's founded or not, but I fear we're at risk of losing a bit of institutional knowledge as the original crop of "rocket scientists" retire. In my mind, SpaceX is pushing the R&D process along, keeping that knowledge going and expanding it outside the traditional government-run, risk-averse space bureaucracy. I have to nit-pick about one thing in the article though: "Livingston said drugs are so profitable that pharmaceutical companies could become commercial space customers if they had routine and reliable ways to get crystallization experiments into space and back again." I have plenty of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and I have to say, if they're looking for money from this, they will be waiting a long time. This meme always makes for a nice tidy tag-line in a grant proposal for space research, but it's not really based in business reality. Protein crystal structures are certainly important in pharmaceutical development, but they rarely make or break a drug program. The problem is that protein structures obtained from crystals don't always accurately reflect what the protein does in solution. Furthermore, even if you do end up using a crystal structure to design a compound, your problem is only just beginning. The big problem with drugs is that they fail spectacularly when they get to the clinic because they have an unacceptable safety profile or they just plain don't work. The protein structure is fairly irrelevant in these cases because the rest of the biology is so maddeningly complex and unpredictable.

tocomment 17y ago

Surely it's not the first private company to launch something into orbit. Haven't Boeing and/or Lockheed been doing this for years? What's different/special about SpaceX?

RK 17y ago
Wasn't a government contract from start to finish?
ori_b 17y ago
Haven't Boeing and Lockheed been doing government stuff for almost all their launching? I could be wrong, but I don't remember hearing about their in-house rocketry.
- tocomment 17y ago
  Boeing says they have commercial customers: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/deltaHistory.html http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/deltaHistory.h...
  - gaius 17y ago
    Yes but development of the Delta was 100% underwritten by the DoD. Kinda like how the 747 was subsidized by the AWACS contract... And they've the nerve to complain when the French government bungs a few Euros to Airbus.
    - evgen 17y ago
      747!?!? Try 707. All of Boeing's commercial airframe have been self-funded since before Airbus existed. There may be internal cross-subsidy from other defense projects (e.g. borrowing to develop A by using the federal funding of B as a loan guarantee) but no Boeing airframe you can buy today was started or funded as a DoD project.
    - billswift 17y ago
      747 was developed on an AF contract but it long predated the AWACS. It was developed as a competitor to the Lockheed C-5 in the 1960s for long-range heavy lift transport.
physcab 17y ago
These guys have tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_Aerospace Andrew Beal is pretty famous, but he's better at banking than aerospace. There are lots of private companies building components for space exploration, but their margins are capped because their customer is the government. Atleast this is the gist I get from talking to my dad who is a program manager at Aerojet, which makes boosters for Delta and previously Titan.

roryokane 17y ago

I just saw a discussion about commercial vs. government space travel on XKCD IRC yesterday. I'm curious; did whoever submitted this read or participate in that chat and investigate? Is commercial space travel that popular a subject these days? Or was it just a coincidence?

zandorg 17y ago
It's just that it's SpaceX's 2nd successful launch, and nearly as important as the 1st last year. It's just recent news.