SpaceX did it again
SpaceX is the first private company to put something into orbit, and the first to send cargo to the space station.
Space is now open for business!
Quote: AyecarumbaIt cost about $3,000 for the service. Is this what "privatization" is all about?
Do you have a problem with the price or with the fact that human remains were launched into space?
BTW NASA's New Horizons probe, currently en-route to Pluto, carries some ashes of Clyde Tombaugh, the astronomer who discovered Pluto.
Quote: AyecarumbaIt cost about $3,000 for the service. Is this what "privatization" is all about?
Compared to the cost of a conventional burial, it sounds cheap.
Quote: WizardI applaud this. In my opinion, NASA has been a waste of taxpayer money since the Apollo program. I'd be interested to see statistics on what it cost NASA to send a pound of supplies to the space station compared to SpaceX. Hopefully Paco will read this.
I wouldn't take the NASA-bashing that far - the one thing the Shuttle could do that nothing else could was to retrieve satellites so they could be repaired on Earth and then put back up rather than leaving yet another piece of junk in space while wasting millions of dollars building a replacement - but I'll see your applause for SpaceX and raise you a brass band.
Quote: NareedDo you have a problem with the price or with the fact that human remains were launched into space?
BTW NASA's New Horizons probe, currently en-route to Pluto, carries some ashes of Clyde Tombaugh, the astronomer who discovered Pluto.
My gripe is that the project is still underwritten by NASA to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars... Taxpayer dollars... my dollars. I don't have any problem with remains getting shot into space (and occasionally dropped into the ocean when launch failures occur,) as long as they are paying their full share of the cost. I don't think three grand covers it.
The "remains" shot into space are generally just a small portion of the cremated remains. On average, once cremated, the ashes weigh just a couple pounds. A small portion could be about an ounce of ash. Maybe less.Quote: AyecarumbaI don't have any problem with remains getting shot into space, as long as they are paying their full share of the cost. I don't think three grand covers it.
Although I have no idea how accurate it is, but http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-launch-costs.htm puts payload lift costs in the $1,800 to $25,000 per pound range.
$3,000 is probably the right price to cover the expense.
Quote: AyecarumbaMy gripe is that the project is still underwritten by NASA to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars... Taxpayer dollars... my dollars.
But it's not. SpaceX spent its own money developing the Falcon IX and the Dragon capsule. They are using it to sell NASA cargo service, for now, to the space station. If the contract with NASA doesn't forbid it, they can carry additional cargo in such launches.
And $3,000 for an ounce or two of ashes is a reasonable cost.
Quote: ThatDonGuyI wouldn't take the NASA-bashing that far -
I wouldn't, either. NASA did blaze a wide, deep trail for SpaceX and others to follow. And it isn't NASA's fault, entirely, to be dependent on ignorant politicians beholden t an even more ignorant public.
I have plenty to complain about the US space program. Apollo was a great triumph, but then there was no follow-up. Can you imagine a private company spending billions of dollars for a few Moon missions and then just folding up and going home? The shuttle was ok, a an experimental program. It needed follow-up, too, further developments and such. But governments are not good at that sort of thing.
Quote:the one thing the Shuttle could do that nothing else could was to retrieve satellites so they could be repaired on Earth and then put back up rather than leaving yet another piece of junk in space while wasting millions of dollars building a replacement -
As I recall, only a few such rescues took place. But the shuttle did serve as a stable platform to repair or service satellites in orbit. Capsules can't do that, and space stations are not mobile enough for such work. The Hubble Telescope would have been an unmitigated flop without the shuttle mission to fix it.
You don't even have data on how people would eat in space, what kind of containers, and data for why products would fail.
A private company can use all that was learned without replicating it. (one assumes) They don't need to build isolation chambers and test astronaut endurance and experiments like that. They don't need to invest in figuring out what kind of vehicles could travel on the hypothetical moon scape as those experiments were done in the lab and on the actual moon.
Quote: NareedBut it's not. SpaceX spent its own money developing the Falcon IX and the Dragon capsule. They are using it to sell NASA cargo service, for now, to the space station. If the contract with NASA doesn't forbid it, they can carry additional cargo in such launches.
And $3,000 for an ounce or two of ashes is a reasonable cost.
Not just their own money. NASA and the U.S. Air Force have been feeding them development funds for some time now.
Quote: AyecarumbaNot just their own money. NASA and the U.S. Air Force have been feeding them development funds for some time now.
I'd hardly call $75 million underwriting the development of a $600 million rocket launch system.
The mission ends when Dragon splashes down off the coast of California with return cargo from the ISS.
<sigh>
How routine will space travel ever get when opening the hatch is newsworthy?
Quote: ThatDonGuyI wouldn't take the NASA-bashing that far - the one thing the Shuttle could do that nothing else could was to retrieve satellites so they could be repaired on Earth and then put back up rather than leaving yet another piece of junk in space while wasting millions of dollars building a replacement - but I'll see your applause for SpaceX and raise you a brass band.
That and repair them right in space. IHMO, NASA has given the USA the biggest bang-for-the-buck of all government research. Along with that, they are just terrible at communicating what breakthrus they have helped. It is amazing what they did with a bird that ran on the intel-80286 chip to the day the program ended. Americans have lost the understanding of what "pure" research is good for. Pre-1980s we had places like Bell Labs where they did pure research. Then some people decided that the Japanese were killing us because they did "applied research."
The old supercollider project was a good example. "What happens when you smash pieces of matter together at the speed of light?" "I dunno, lets find out!" But same as the moonshot was almost canceled this was not so lucky when some folks said, "what a waste, lets give that money to poor people." The USA no longer wants to "reach" as a society, the cancellation of the Shuttle Program is one more symptom of that. Sure, the Shuttle was technologically a Chevy Vega, but why did we not replace before we canceled it?
I'd surely rather we spend money on a good space program than another social program.
Quote: AZDuffmanI'd surely rather we spend money on a good space program than another social program.
According to the wikipedia article NASA's budget is at it's historic low since 1960 measured as a percent of federal budget.
It is sad that as of July 8, 2011 we don't even have a target date for return to space.
Kinda makes you scratch your head.....
Quote: avargovI heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson the other day say that the NASA budget was at less than 1/2 of 1% of the budget. And that another 1/2% would allow NASA to go to Mars by 2025.
NASA budget was 1% of federal budget when Clinton was first elected. It peaked at over 4% in the mid 1960's.
I was watching the TV series TIME TUNNEL, which began at the same time as STAR TREK. They assumed that we would be manning a mission to Mars by the mid 1970's.
IMHO, they, at least, give something back. If nothing more than a feeling of pride.
Quote: rxwineFor manned space program, I would count data and tests coming from military test pilots going back decades as all part of the space program eventually. What would that all cost a private company. A trillion?
Less than what it cost "NASA."
Because NASA dind't really develop any of the technology and methods used. Private industry did, financed with NASA money. Though I'll grant NASA did develop certain procedures, launch assmeblies, etc, and set standards for some of the rest.
But it also meant bungling the shuttle pretty good. It was a great idea, badly executed. for one thing, NASA ought to have demanded the Defense Department get its own effing space program. That alone would have bought them a smaller shuttle with simialr cargo capacity and lower operating expenses. For another, they forgot that the shuttle was, essentially, a test vehicle rather than a launch system.
In fact, I'd call all of NASA's man-rated launchers test vehicles. There were only a few Mercury launches. Gemini was a bigger capsule designed to test procedures for a Moon mission. Things like orbital rendesvouz, docking ships together, space walking, etc. Apollo was a launch system, though it requried extensive testing. And remember it failed a big test, when the Apollo I capsule burned on the pad with three astronauts on board.
Quote:A private company can use all that was learned without replicating it. (one assumes) They don't need to build isolation chambers and test astronaut endurance and experiments like that. They don't need to invest in figuring out what kind of vehicles could travel on the hypothetical moon scape as those experiments were done in the lab and on the actual moon.
That's all true. On the other hand, a government agency like NASA can't develop the kind fo systems SpaceX has developed.
To quote Larry Niven at his highest level of irony: "We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't put a man on the Moon."
The Dragon capsule successfully splashed down early on May 31st.
Mission Accomplished.
They showed them coming out smiling though. Or, I assume it was them.
