E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The reactions to today's successful maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, a potential successor to the space shuttle, started streaming in long before the celebratory margaritas were poured. "My e-mail box has gone bonkers, and my phone has been ringing off the hook," SpaceX millionaire founder Elon Musk said. The eight-year-old company's fans were effusive in their praise, while others were in the "damn with faint praise" category. Here's a sampling of reactions from both sides, with an extra twist at the end:
STRONG PRAISE
• NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who once said he would do everything in his power to make sure SpaceX and other commercial launch companies were successful:
"Congratulations to Space X on today's launch of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Space X's accomplishment is an important milestone in the commercial transportation effort and puts the company a step closer to providing cargo services to the International Space Station. Preparations are proceeding for the first NASA-sponsored test launch under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services project later this year. COTS is a vital development and demonstration partnership to create a commercial space transportation system capable of providing cargo to the station. This launch of the Falcon 9 gives us even more confidence that a resupply vehicle will be available after the space shuttle fleet is retired."
• The Planetary Society, which has championed the "flexible path" space exploration strategy now favored by the White House:
"It's hard not to launch into hyperbole at the success of the first Falcon 9 test flight. It is a tremendous achievement. Hats off to our Planetary Society Board member, Elon Musk, and his SpaceX team. In advancing commercial spaceflight, today's flight of Falcon 9 could be the first small step towards relieving NASA launchers of the burden of low-Earth orbit, thus freeing the U.S. space agency to reach new worlds. ..."
• The Commercial Spaceflight Federation passed along praise from an assortment of space heavyweights, including former NASA astronauts Rusty Schweickart (Apollo 9) and Byron Lichtenberg (STS-9, STS-45):
Schweickart: “As a former Apollo astronaut, I think it’s safe to say that SpaceX and the other commercial developers embody the 21st-century version of the Apollo frontier spirit. It’s enormously gratifying to see them succeed today.”
Lichtenberg: “I expect that there will be a lot more astronauts in the future because of today’s success. Lower cost launches means more flights, which means more astronauts. We’ve only had 500 astronauts in the history of the Space Age, but I hope to see thousands more in the decades to come.”
• Space consultant Charles Lurio, a tireless campaigner for the New Space movement and a tireless critic of the way NASA operates:
"Today’s flight should go a long way toward countering the hoary, 'magical negative thinking' of the past that led many to deride commercial spaceflight efforts. Of course, some will attempt to keep purveying those old myths, but their squawking should now be seen clearly than ever as the pitiful gasps of another era. The Falcon 9 flight, like that of SpaceShipOne, and like many others quietly being marked at pioneering venues around the country, shows that the path to practical spaceflight and commercial innovation driving a 'space PC revolution' is wide open."
• X Prize Chairman/CEO Peter Diamandis, who helped put together the $10 million Ansari X Prize to reward private-sector spaceflight and counts Musk as a member of his board of trustees:
"The maiden voyage of the Falcon 9 marks an important milestone in commercial spaceflight, proving what is achievable by privately-owned companies that are dedicated to pioneering new technologies and making space more accessible. Overcoming the high cost of launching to orbit continues to be a challenge faced by space-related ventures, and the emergence of launch vehicles such as the Falcon 9 contributes to an increasingly competitive environment in the launch vehicle market – a condition which has the potential to drive costs down and open the space frontier to the rest of us. In the not-too-distant future, we hope to see SpaceX and other commercial launch providers transporting crew and cargo to orbiting outposts, the moon, asteroids, and even Mars."
• The Space Frontier Foundation issued a news release that ended with this quote from one of its always-quotable founders, Rick Tumlinson:
“Some have decried the new American space program and harkened back to the good old elitist days of Apollo, and what they see as the end of the 'right stuff' mindset that took us to the moon. Well, they are dead wrong. You want to see excitement and drive of the early days of Apollo? You want to see the Right Stuff right now? Go visit SpaceX or any of the other NewSpace firms and teams out there reaching for the stars. It is alive and well!"
• Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who has been pushing for an extension of the space shuttle program and the restoration of funding for NASA's internal rocket development project, was "very excited" about the Falcon 9 launch during a congratulatory phone call, Musk said. The Politico website quoted Nelson as saying SpaceX's successful test suggests that the Falcon will be in "full operation delivering cargo to the International Space Station a year from now." It's unusual for Nelson, who has seemed a bit doubtful about NASA's moves toward commercialization, to be so positive about SpaceX's prospects. Other members of Congress have voiced sharp concerns about what NASA's shift will mean for traditional aerospace jobs. They've also voiced sharp doubts about the capabilities of commercial launch companies (which, by the way, happen to include traditional aerospace companies). And that brings us to ...
FAINT PRAISE
• Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who once said commercial launch providers "cannot even carry the trash back from the space station," was quoted by Politico as saying that today's launch merely replicated what "NASA accomplished in 1964":
"Belated progress for one so-called commercial provider must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight program. As a nation, we cannot place our future spaceflight on one fledgling company's definition of success."
• Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, a Florida Democrat whose district includes NASA's Kennedy Space Center, sounded ambivalent about one of the Space Coast's up-and-coming employers:
"The successful test launch of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a significant step in the development of the commercial space industry. There is no doubt that commercial spaceflight will play an important role in the future of our efforts in space, and I believe private companies can bring new job opportunities for the Space Coast's highly skilled workforce. But we must both support the emerging commercial space industry and ensure a robust, NASA-led human spaceflight program in order to maintain our international leadership in space and keep our economy strong. I will continue fighting at every opportunity to minimize the human spaceflight gap, protect jobs, and ensure a bright future for the Space Coast."
• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, set a new standard for faint praise:
"This first successful test flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs. While this test flight was important, the program to demonstrate commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, which I support, was intended to enhance not replace NASA's own proven abilities to deliver critical cargo and humans to low Earth orbit. Make no mistake, even this modest success is more than a year behind schedule, and the project deadlines of other private space companies continue to slip as well. This test does not change the fact that commercial space programs are not ready to close the gap in human spaceflight if the space shuttle is retired this year with no proven replacement capability and the Constellation program is simultaneously canceled as the president proposes."
Hutchison's faint praise was particularly irksome to Musk, who has about 100 of SpaceX's 1,000 employees working at a test facility in McGregor, Texas.
"We do all of our engine testing and development in Texas," he told reporters. "We're one of the fastest-growing employers in Texas. Why is she trying to hurt a Texas company? That's wrong. And the people of Texas ought to be aware of that. The people of Texas ought to be electing politicians that are going to be working to help their state, not hurt their state."
It sounds as if the Falcon 9 launch wasn't the only fireworks display going on around SpaceX today. What do you think? Should politicians be judged based on where they stand on spaceflight issues, or do other issues (such as the oil spill aftermath) loom larger on the political landscape? Feel free to leave your comments below.
Correction for 11:11 p.m. ET: Of course Sen. Shelby is from Alabama rather than Arkansas. Sorry about that. ... Thanks for calling the error to my attention. Chalk it up to a long day at the end of a long week.
For more about the political dimension of space, check out Jeff Foust's Space Politics weblog, as well as Clark Lindsey's Space Transport News, Keith Cowing's NASA Watch and Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
The Wright Brothers first flew in 1903. Within 20 years we had commercial airliners operating. The 1st manned space flights happened in 1961. The first commercial manned flights won't happen until 2011.. 50 years later. I htink we have spent too long letting the military insist that every new spacecraft be a weapon as well, and spent too much time learning how to make a trip to.....?
I applaud Falcon 9 and Space-X. Now I want to see Falcon rockets launching people into orbit to work on solar power plants, or zero-gravity pharmaceuticals, or nanotubes or just about anything. We've learned all we will need to know for the foreseeable future about how earthworms react to zero-gravity. Let's get to work.
This is great for Earth related work but going to other planets is an obtuse and genocidal idea when so much of humanity has no sanitation and our world is being destroyed by human activity. One dollar spent "going to mars" is a punch in the face to a child walking 4 hours each way for water. Stop treating the rest of humanity like garbage, they matter as much as you do whether you like it or not.
I agree with your sentiment but directing your anger against space exploration might be slightly off the mark. JFK 'we will go to the moon' speech said it was through such endeavors we focussed our energies and skills to solving problems, without the cauldron of war.
The entire NASA budget is the equivalent of operating one aircraft carrier battle group. We need to refocus our priorities and remember that which is the best of America, compassion, enterprise, vision and hope. We must alwys believe that our best day has yet to come.
1960, with all due respect, your thinking is rather short sighted in this instance. space is the future, other planets our salvation. the Falcon 9 flight is a very good thing specificaly because it is the first step to unburdening NASA of low earth orbit so they can focus on loftier goals.
by looking beyond our planet we can eventualy learn to mine the moon or asteroids, even mars for resources that are either rare or non-exsistant here on earth. who knows what miracle mineral we may discover out in space? I only know that nothing will be discovered if we do not look.
the point is that through space exploration and exploitation we can and will solve the earths problems, but only if we are willing to spend the money to get the ball rolling. NASA's budget right now is a dumbfoundingly small piece of the federal budget, something like 1% if i remember right.
sure, that 1% could probably help some 3rd world countries, give them some current tech and help raise thier quality of life. OR, it can be used to conduct new science, develope new tech and further the entire human race, pulling starving children out of the muck along with it.
So, this is a civilization that can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Do you know how much is being spent on those things already? Find out, before raiding someone else's pockets. Shutting down activity beyond LEO will not automatically one more drop of fresh water in one more child's mouth.
And the politics are very different. Most of these issues are in some other country, and strongly related to the way they govern. Some don't even admit they have a problem, much less seek U.S. aid. We don't have to negotiate with Mars first, to go there and do anything...
I said it in 1492, and I'll say it now. We can't afford to send this Chris Columbus fellow overseas! What good could that possibly do? We have people dying of the plague right here in Europe. We need the money to wrap more towels around our faces and pay the Catholic church to torture and kill the sinners who brought the pestilence upon us. I mean, it's not like someone in this "New World" is going to someday find a cure for the plague! We need the king's gold for it now!
John F. Kennedy said in his famous speech " ...by the end of the decade, we shall land a man on the moon, and return him *safely* to the earth..." not an exact quote, but pretty close. I highlighted the word safely because I consider what BP was doing in the Gulf of Mexico as equivalent to a "moon shot." However, they "landed" and got the oil, but totally forgot the second part. This is the part that so often gets forgotten. I have a house that I *could* paint using only a 6 foot ladder. However, I imagine painting those high gables would be a little tricky since I would have to stand on the top of the ladder. It could be done. I'll hire an illegal immigrant cause when he falls and become paralyzed I'll just say "hey buddy, this is a free market."
Every so often USA hits a home run. Its nice to see a big success after the oil spill, housing meltdown, and general malaise or 2 wars. The SpaceX success is huge for future space business, Lowering the cost to space is the key problem solved by Falcon 9. Its probably still to early to fully celebrate yet until useful payloads and ISS resupply are also successful but for a fantastic first step, Congratulations to SpaceX!!
Very cool! The launch was overall a success, good for them.
The news needs to find more people to talk to..
"Falcon 9, the Day After..."
http://nasaengineer.com/?p=180
Congratulations to the SpaceX team for their successful Falcon9 launch, however all they've done is reinvent the wheel NASA and the Russians invented 50 years ago. We still have to await more test launches before we see if the Falcon rockets can deliver the goods to the ISS.
What new technology did SpaceX actually bring to the table with Falcon9 Alan?
That's an easy one. They reinvented the wheel that the US and USSR created 50 years ago but for 1/10th the cost in real dollars.
As any service becomes cheaper it becomes more ubiquitous. The price reduction is VERY big news.
Yeah, what Rudy said... Lots of good points raised here about how much actual innovation this represents, but the key point is the cost of access to space. That's why Musk started SpaceX in the first place: to get the cost of spaceflight down to the point where it makes economic sense to go to Mars, which is Musk's *true* goal. (That's how I first came across his name back in 2001, when he was talking about a reduced-gravity experiment using mice. Remember that?)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/09/03/astromice.mars/index.html
So, yes, this is just the birth of a new rocket capable of lofting a fairly large payload to orbit. The next step is to introduce a capsule capable of linking up with an orbiting space station (the Dragon). The next step is to create new private-sector space stations (Bigelow). The next step is to hop off those space stations to go elsewhere (Odyssey Moon? Bigelow?). Or go directly to the moon and Mars (SpaceX/NASA super-heavy-lifter?). It might sound like 1964 all over again, but at least maybe we'll get back on a track toward "2001."
How about SpaceX's commodity class engine? All SpaceX launch vehicles use it, from the smallest (using one) to the largest (nine).
This is exactly the type of thinking NASA and it's elected aplogists have to date, been incapable of...
What they did was create and test rocket systems for much less than one-half the cost of a single shuttle launch. At the rate they are going they will be delivering people to the ISS and still will not have spent as much as a single shuttle launch. I'd say that is a pretty spectacular accomplishment.
Politicians tend to only care about their own rice bowl.
When commercial space flight takes off, it will not be as important what politicians think. (Assuming they don't do a "Tucker" on it, God forbid).
regarding the importance of commercial spaceflight; in the short term you may be correct that it won't be that big of a deal economicaly compared to other industries. what i think is important here, however, are the long term implications. we are begining to lay the groundwork for a real commercial spaceflight infrastructure that will be invaluble once technology advances to the point where we are actualy going places like mars or the asteroid belt ect. More importantly, it will be invaluble when we start bringing things back.
It doesn't seem that the average politician thinks much longer-term than the next election cycle though, so hopefully they give this sector room to grow before they realize its eventual importance and strangle it.
While the test flight was successful that is no reason for anyone to be jumping on the Space X bandwagon as a viable option at this point in time. One successful launch cannot replace over 50 years of space knowledge and exploration. Also, how dare Elon Musk criticize Kay Bailey Hutchison for not being overly enthusiastivc because his company employs 100 people in the state of Texas. This number pales in comparison with almost 10,000 jobs that are going to be at NASA because a short-sighted president is cutting the constellation program. Almost 8,000 of those jobs being lost are in Texas which means that musks wmployment of 100 doesn't make a ripple when compared to the losses.
I have not read every entry in this thread, so perhaps someone else has made this point.
We have the finest fighter aircraft in the world - made by the US Aerospace Industry, not the US Government. The planes that won WWII were built by Boeing, Grumman, Martin, and others at the behest of the country in its time of need. I do not believe America has lost that ability. Those with space expertise honed during the government funded era will be quickly assimilated by our private sector and they will get it right. The Government's job is to help define the problem, point the way and sometimes help at the beginning with start-up, prototype funding. Let the private sector take it from there.
Thank you, HLDMD for cutting to the point. That is something that seems to escape the rabid ones...
So Shane, should all those "10,000 jobs" be subsidized by the "Govmint"? A lot of people these days are against that....
Elon Musk is attempting to create a new economic paradigm. JUST LIKE HE DID WITH PAYPAL!!! Plain and simple, this is change. Just like happened in 1957.
But wait, that's right, a lot of foks out there don't cotton on to change.
I live in Brevard County. Do you really think no-one else is affected by the changing of the guard??
don't blame Obama for killing Constellation. Constellation killed itself. it was a bad program, it was not what Bush and Congress asked for in 2004, and it should have been cut far sooner. we needed a Shuttle 2.0 and instead we got a 1960s design that continually failed to live up to expectations. I would refer you to comment 13.3 by WilliamGruff, Goat for a much better explanation than i could give.
Anybody remember the original design concept for the shuttle? Wasn't it about three times larger payload capacity with powered return from orbit and landing? What we ended up with was what congress funded.
I'd also like to complain (as usual) about all of the references to the age of the remaining shuttles. If anyone from D.C. spent the time to look inside one our shuttles after it was turned around from it's previous mission, they would find a pristene, "as new", continuously upgraded, vehicle capable of supplying crew and supplies to the ISS for decades to come.
Anyone remember the B-52? What are they on now? Version H ?
What craft is going to carry the components into space for a Mars or asteroid mission? We sure don't want to spend the money to carry all of that payload into space from earth in one launch.
Because of the nay saying chattering classes, the general public has no idea why today's event is a major milestone in the biggest and best space program in the world, that of the people of the United States of America.
Elon Musk not only should be recognized for being the national hero that he is, but he's also a prime example of why legal immigration makes this the greatest nation on Earth.
Wait Wait Wait Wait,.....As far as I can see Richard Shelby is completely right. Why Kill the Shuttles Now, when we have no replacement yet.
Right here and Now, We have ZERO shuttles. When will this company be able to replace the Shuttles?
This is NOT about politics. This is about America lacking heavy lifting Space capability TODAY. If and when the Falcon become a capable Space Player Great. Lets use it then.
paulbee
the problem is that the Shuttle, much as i love it, is a flawed design, it has killed 14 people. We cannot in good conscious keep putting people on top of it.
We also cannot give NASA a blank check to produce another $1B a flight vehicle when getting to LEO even though it is, is not rocket science anymore. We've been doing it for 50 years.
We need NASA to move out and let good old American enterprise follow in their wake.
By that logic, We would never have had Apollo, and Never gone to the Moon. Like it or not we will have manned spaceflight, and Manned Spaceflight will always be risky.
NASA is a very different animal now than it was in the Apollo days.
So, where was Shelby in 2004, when the decision was actually made...?
I might nitpick a detail here or there, but overall...right on.
This was about providing commercial manned and unmanned access to LEO, Eric. Not about technology development purely for its own sake. (Which is a desirable thing, but that's what NASA's for.) In your sense, Orion/Ares-1 wouldn't be doing anything 'new,' either.
Commercial aircraft cross the Atlantic non-stop every day (and have for many decades), 'duplicating' Lindbergh. Yet they aren't the Spirit of St. Louis, are they...?
I'm old enough to have witnessed the Apollo missions in "real time". And the Mercury and Gemini missions.
I'm sorry, but the Orion/Ares concept looked like an over-engineered retro version of the Apollo/Saturn-B5 system from the '60s.
How about some NEW ideas?
I apologize. I didn't check my own numbers. Total estimated development cost for Ares I is $40 billion, with an 8-year time frame. I seem to remember that SpaceX has been capitalized with just over $500M, and they've been in business since 2002. So assuming that SpaceX spent every penny they had to get to where they are today, that's a factor of 80X more for Ares I than Falcon 9, except that Falcon 9 has engine-out capability and is built for expansion.
What new technology does NASA actually bring to the table with Ares I or Ares V, Eric? For Ares I, I see a 1960's-era vehicle with a capsule that lands in the water and needs an entire fleet of ships to find and recover its occupants, unlike the Russian Soyuz, which (even though it's also 1960's-era) will land within a few acres of target range, on land. To start on Ares I we were required to retire the Space Shuttle. For Ares V I see a vehicle that we can't afford to start until we retire the Space Station.
It's interesting that as much money has been spent on the HL-20, when or if it finally flies it will be flown by Sierra Nevada Corporation. And as much money as has been spent on DC-X, when the follow-on finally flies it will be flown by Blue Origin.
And don't forget that basically all new technology development at NASA was cancelled to free up money for Constellation. So, Eric, if it's new technology you want, you'll have to wait for Shelby to allow Constellation to be cancelled to put all those programs back, and to get the heavy lift vehicle we've needed since Nixon cancelled Saturn and the nuclear rocket program that was scheduled to get us to Mars in 1978.
Yes, as many others have said, we have to keep emphasizing that the big achievement of SpaceX is the huge cost reduction they've achieved for equivalent functionality. That's the whole point, actually. It's why Musk founded SpaceX. If the costs don't come down we're not going anywhere anytime soon.
Is this the Bill I know from Northrup Grummans & Tandem?
No. Sorry!
I would rather see a fully-funded effort by the government because the private sector always cuts corners. Our goal, however, should be to remain the world's leader in space exploration.
So let me ask you this: would you prefer to fly on a government airliner cross country, or a private commercial airliner?
Last time I checked, commercial aviation was the safest form of transportation on the planet.
Government can afford to blow up a few people accidentally and they can continue, if a private company blows up a few people accidentally, it probably costs the company its very existence.
Safety is of higher importance to a private company than it is to government. They don't get to try again. And innovative efficiencies are not necessarily "cutting corners"
I wonder if Senator Shelby knows how many Rockets were blown up in the early days before ever reaching sub-space. SpaceX has put three payloads into orbit by it's 6th launch. Success starts at the top. Elon Musk has hired some of the best people in the world and provides us with the best resources with which to accomplish our job. He told us "if we want to be and extraordinary company then we must accomplish extraordinary things". He also told us "that the difference between just launching a rocket and actually putting something into orbit is the difference between someone who can sail a ship across the english channel and someone who can circumnavigate the earth".
FANTASTIC!
How can anyone complain?
A rich millionaire spends all his money to create a successful space program and succeeds!
Isn't that what "America" is all about?
Politicians complain because it removes some of their "power".
NASA has always been a political tool. It is used to fire up nationalistic pride, show the world our technological superiority, and employ highly trained engineers and scientists. I think a lot of people lost focus of what the space program during the 1950s-1970s was politically all about. During that time it was as much about showing the world we could put humans on the tip of an ICBM and bring them back safely. If the United States government could do that imagine what they could do if they are sloppy and wanted to send an ICBM to Moscow. It was also to make people see that the American system produced the best scientists.
I do think this is a great achievement for that company, but it is not an achievement for anyone else. Are we suppose to have some kind of nationalistic pride if Wal-Mart successfully lowers their price on hairspray? They are a private company and can help the Unites States space program as much as any other nation. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is protecting the jobs that are in states. Johnson Space Center employees 3200 people in the Houston area while this space company employees 100 in the whole state. Of course this company would have a fast rate of employment, if they hired 10 janitors they have an increase of 10%! I hope the head of this company uses better arguments for him to put people in space that what he used against the Texas Senator.
We cannot forget that all space funding is done by the government. There is no profit sending humans into space unless the government funds this. Politically, why should the government fund a private company to explore space if the private company gets the credit? Instead of other nations coming to the government for help with their space program they will go to these private companies. The government loses their soft power.
Are you saying that it is better for us tax payers to keep paying fat bloated cost plus contracts that go up in price faster than the rocket itself, to legacy aerospace contractors?
Or to pay someone to safely do the job at a set price, who if they can't do it for that price, they lose money?
The US Space Program CANNOT continue without getting rid of the fat bloated old way of doing business. Period! We just can't afford it. SpaceX and its rivals are the only way we can sustain any kind of manned presence in space, bar buying rides from PRIVATE Russian rocket companies.
Now let me see, who would I rather buy a ride to space from if I were an American? A private Russian company or a private American company?
Seems like a no-brainer to me!
It would appear at first glance that this is a success.
However, I have never been a fan of low-earth orbit, even the the Space Station.
Rather than putting a new focus on Mars, our government should be supporting the greater effort of colonizing the Moon. Studies have shown that the Moon has water and all the neccessary materials to build whatever they need up there.
Also, Astronomy Projects should be proposed to be based on the dark side of the Moon since this would be the perfect place to have one.
These two projects should be our nations near-future goals.
If we as a country don't start colonizing the Moon, some other country like China will do it and get a jump on us as far as space domination. And, they will dominate, just as surely as they are now dominating our economy.
Apparently, our country's leaders have chosen the short-sighted goal of being re-elected, as opposed to leading planet earth into a bright future. Cutting NASA's budget as an example of curtailing our nation's spending spree is ridiculous.
Our politicians are too short-sighted to fathom a "Hubble Telescope on the farside of the moon" as anything more than a "How can I get re-elected" from this.
Obama has accepted really bad advice on this one, and the result is we have surrendered the moon to China, Russia, and Japan. Maybe if the Pentagon had pointed out what a great launch platform the moon would make for "National Security" we'd still be going back. The plan he has been advised to support, may look like fiscal responsibility within the next election cycle, but it abandons our nation's future.
I am not so concerned about the faint praise from Kosmas, Shelby, and Hutchinson. Clearly they are impressed by SpaceX and its accomplishment, however all three seem to be more concerned about the effect that it will have on the legacy industry. We are all frightened about the lack of support currently being provided to NASA projects and the SpaceX achievement will probably be used to justify that the industry should go strictly commercial....Kind of like when the Government threw their employee retirement accounts into the Stock Market.
I am not so concerned about the faint praise from Kosmas, Shelby, and Hutchinson. Clearly they are impressed by SpaceX and its accomplishment, however all three seem to be more concerned about the effect that it will have on the legacy industry. We are all frightened about the lack of support currently being provided to NASA projects and the SpaceX achievement will probably be used to justify that the industry should go strictly commercial....Kind of like when the Government threw their employee retirement accounts into the Stock Market.
Hello. Perhaps I am off topic but I read a lot about 'faint praise'. The expression is 'feigned praise'.
With the success of Virgin's space ship and the speed in which they have moved I think that it's ridiculous that we as a country are going to go back to using rockets again. I mean really, like Senator Richard Shelby said this has been done by NASA before back in the 60's. Rather than excepting the fact that NASA is going to loose their grasp on the space program and real entrepreneurs (the commercial sector) of our day and age are going to take it from them. Commercial space flight without NASA's input is going to pave the way for America. Rockets! Come on we are well beyond this in technology.
Virgin's ship IS a rocket, albeit one that is launched from a much higher altitude. it also can't carry anything near the payload of even the Falcon 1, or get as high into orbit. or stay there for that matter. it barely gets into space at all.
it looks like a fun ride, and if i had the cash i'd buy a ticket in half a heartbeat, but its a thrill ride, nothing more. it may be that a larger version could be made to carry more passengers from place to place on earth quickly, but for actualy putting things in orbit its hard to beat the ground launched rockets used for decades.
now, i may be proven wrong. thats whats so exciting about invention and development like this. :D
ps: as has been stated many times in the comments in this thread, while it may seem thatspaceX has "recreated what nasa did in the 60s", they did it for like 1/10th of the cost, maybe less. THAT is what is important about this.
The launch brought tears to my eyes. This is just the first step in a march of 1000 miles.
Google Povenmire Finootch - he is a great space program fan.
This is a tremendous achievement! Essentially, a private American corporation has accomplished what only a few countries in the world can accomplish. Maybe NASA accomplished the same thing in 1964, but it won't take the private companies anywhere near as long to take the next large giant steps. Even more important, we don't have to worry about some "old men" in Congress shutting off funds.
Hopefully, these efforts will become profitable in the relatively near future, when that happens nothing will stop humanity from reaching for the stars.
By the way, I didn't vote for Hutchison for Governor, after these comments you can be sure that will never change my mind about voting for her in the future.
Brad Fregger
Austin, Texas
www.fregger.com/bio.htm
Hey guys, you really REALLY need to get rid of this light blue on white text in the comments. This is completely impossible to read.
Agreed. Better contrast would be appreciated here, too...