NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS

On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
...

When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As
things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them.
Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and
bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be
richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put
someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a
crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust
that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space
Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start
Flying."

I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a
large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious
launch company.
The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they
showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be
developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The
importance of that can not be overemphasized.
Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new
launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3
billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one
would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in
the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million
is like pocket change to the major defense contractors.
Here are some estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_L...#Program_costs

So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production costs.
If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...forgotten-word

My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using
reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a
dedication to that idea:

1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ?
Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation?
By Andrew Chaikin
"The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says
Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we
did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The
qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was
necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the
engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the
end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to
do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...tml?c=y&page=4


Bob Clark