I couldn't agree with you more, Ben. Exciting times for commercial spacecraft development. And it's another big week for Elon Musk (his newest model Tesla model S electric sedan began to be delivered to the first customers this week). Musk is the type of entrepreneur that America loves, and you just can't help root for his success. Especially since the success of the Elon Musks among us translates to good things for America and the World.

Ben, I am one of those who, as you speculate, will want to be part of this dream (there is information circling that SpaceX will offer an IPO as early as the end of this year to raise more capital).

And thanks for the news article and video, Alan Boyle. Excellent and interesting as always.

ahh, right,did a previous articles mention anything about " Old Russian " copies?, so come once again, what is new? is it the " robotic production line"? I love learning, so am willing to be " up dated " :-)

"improved manufacturability by using higher-efficiency processes, increased robotic construction and reduced parts count"

Read: explosive hydro-forming of the thrust chamber and nozzle instead of time consuming machining, and auto manufacturing techniques like robots etc. instead of hand assembly and welding/brazing.

#1.3

Yes a 1940 Diesel can be made by " Modern techniques and robotics", but it still is a 1940 tech, what can you tell me about Hydrazine? and is that a bi product of rocketry, and how safe is it?

Yep. Made the mistake of starting that video with the volume turned up ....and my cat sleeping on my lap!!!!

Oh well, ....the scratches will heel.

"Those Soviet N-1 moon rockets had a nasty habit of exploding ."

That was mostly a plumbing and vibration issue, not the engines themselves. (not enough dynamics testing on the ground...we did, and found/fixed Saturn V's dangerous vibrational modes...even so, there were early issues that we didn't really know were fixed until Apollo-8 actually flew. It was more of a risk than is commonly understood.)

Lighten up Amerman!

NASA has done exactly what Congress has told them to do. If you were unhappy that they didn't get anyone beyond LEO since Apollo, you can thank all of the prior Congress' who cut NASA's budgets for manned splaceflight for anything other than the shuttle. NASA had lots of plans for follow-up Apollo like projects to the Moon and Mars. Congress allocated no monies. If you think they are wasting taxpayer dollars for SLS, then blame Congress who has allocated monies and specifically instructed them to build a heavy launch system.

Well said Jimbo.

NASA's accomplishments with focus on the difficulty of the tasks has always been amazing.

The waste of effort their bosses decide to make of this isn't NASA's fault.

The cost overrun issue with NASA (and other science-based agencies) is poorly understood by most. The problem is that when a project involves new and as yet, unknown, technology, the liklihood of a cost overrun soars. But so does the possibility of a cost saving.

Many space programs are full of the need for "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it" technologies. Different teams are supposed to have developed these new technologies or made the necessary new discoveries by the time the main project is ready for them. Surprisingly, this usually works and the technologies are available or the discoveries made within a reasonable distance of the project targets.

But sometimes, confounds appear and the technologies turn out to be tougher nuts to crack than anticipated. This is where the cost overruns start to develop. And suddenly minor technical issues can become major players on the critical path. The trick is to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

The other issue that most seem to skip over was the pervasive influence of the military over NASA during the Cold War. NASA's budget has always been tiny (more was spent on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 than on all of NASA.) But the military was always a huge supplement to basic NASA funding. But the military exercised two options that hurt NASA badly --- they filled the ranks of NASA leadership with ex-fighter jocks who supposedly had the "right stuff." These military types were frequently at loggerheads with scientists, but always won. And the military was not interested in anything beyond low earth orbit (LEO.) This is because the military wanted space platforms for reconnaissance, command-and-control, and as weapons platforms. As a result we got the less than useful Space Shuttle and the science dud of an ISS. Scientists wanted big dumb lifters and a station at the Eart-Moon LaGrange Point. We got what the military wanted --- and when it turned out that the Space Shuttle was a dangerous and expensive way to do business and the ISS was so expensive that "partners" had to be incorporated, the military took most of its budget and went home.

But more and more military influence is waning and science is coming into its own. More robotics and less manned space flight is a way of getting far, far more bang for the scientific buck. We are shed of the lame Space Shuttle and if the money pit that is the ISS can be de-orbited, there is some hope for the future. But the future will require two things --- a realistic view of what can and cannot be done and a realistic view of the steps necessary to achieve realistic goals.

As long as people pursue the manned flight to Mars mythology, progress will be inhibited. The truth is that for at least the next 40-50 years, a manned flight to Mars (or even Mars' moons) would be a kamikazi mission most likely to result in the death of the travelers. We simply do not have enough knowlege about long-duration spaceflight outside of the Earth's magnetosphere. The two killers are the muscle and bone atrophy due to weightlessness and the damage to human DNA from cosmic radiation. In theory we can ameriorate both with massive shielding and artificial gravity. But the weights involved for a Mars flight would exceed ALL that we have launched into space since the beginning of the US space effort --- something that ain't gonna happen.

"If you think they are wasting taxpayer dollars for SLS, then blame Congress who has allocated monies and specifically instructed them to build a heavy launch system."

Indeed I do. and for specific micromagement/engineering requirements,in the SLS case...

All of you have good points worth making and discussing, but in my opinion it's not a black or white, either / or answer. I tend to think that this new Government / Commercial partnership model is exactly the right approach for now and the future of the American space program. It seems the natural evolution for a country such as the USA with an economic model based in competitive capitalism.

The first decades of the American space program probably had to be led by big Government goals and program commitments and an agency like NASA. Big programs and big goals require big capital and no expectation of immediate reward (profit). That's what governments can do. Research and development, pushing through boundaries, carrying the risks of big failures to eventually achieve successes. NASA did these things incredibly well, with what really amounts to somewhat paltry financial resources ... in the grand scheme of things.

The US Government (that means we, the tax payers) are still providing early funding for these commercial ventures, of course. That's the "partnership part. But people like Elon Musk of SpaceX have their own "skin in the game" Musk has provided $100 Million of his own money funding the SpaceX program. That's worth remembering.

"In the 40 years and $500 billion since Apollo, Nasa has not gotten a single American beyond low earth orbit, and Nasa can't even supply/crew it's own space station.."

NASA did not go beyond LEO because Congress never instructed or funded NASA to do so, just like Congress never funded a replacement for the Shuttle. Considering the side benefits of space exploration, I'd say NASA gives us a significantly better return on investment than a lot of other government agencies.

Love the way your thinking is going, Utah, even if some thoughts are a little...

We could just point all the rockets west to counteract the slowing effect that the moon has on the Earth.

But of course we'll be throwing away the Moon sooner.

"So, I hate to be Mr. Obvious here, or Mr. Pessimist, but has anyone else ever wondered about decades worth of testing of rocket engines with zillion pounds of collective thrust and their affect on Earth's orbit?"

How much is a 'zillion?'

Okay...what do you think a rocket in deep space would do, if it had some means to recapture its own exhaust? Newton's Third Law works both ways. If you could do that, the captures momentum would cancel out the thrust obtained from the rocket exhaust.

Where do you think it goes when you light it when anchored to Earth? (And let's take the case of a horizontal firing, like an ATK solid rocket test) That exhaust momentum gets transferred to the atmosphere, which is well coupled by friction with...the Earth. (a downward firing is even more clearly having no net effect)

Cancellation. (as well as getting lost in the noise of Sun-driven atmospheric motion, aircraft of all kinds...hey, jet engines are tested on static test stands, too, not to mention every aircraft that's idling prior to takeoff, not moving because brake and tire friction keep it coupled to Earth, until the pilot releases those brakes)

No, if Earth had no atmosphere, or you did this on the Moon (and the exhaust velocity was greater than orbital velocity in either case), you'd have a sliver of a point.

But only a sliver. Earth's mass = 5.972^24 kg or about 6.5 sextillion US tons. We worry about diverting asteroids, do you really think we can detectably change the movement of that much mass with chemical rocket tests? When we did nuclear weapon tests on the open on the surface, we were effectively driving Earth with a nuclear pulse rocket. No one has detected anything yet, and better people than I could tell you how infinitesimal any such change could be. ('The Day the Earth Caught Fire,' a Brit film about such tests moving Earth closer to the Sun, was a good film dramatically, but you have to swallow a massive armadillo to believe it could happen that way)

Sorry Utah, but the scale of the matter doesn't seem obvious to you...

The last time I heard this one, was a forum where someone worried that the probes we fly by Jupiter to get an accelerated 'slingshot' to deep space would affect Jupiter's orbit. Technically it's true. It does rob Jupiter (or whatever planet) of a piece of its orbital motion around the Sun. But the effect is related to the actual masses of the two objects. Take that value for Earth and multiply it by about 318. Jupiter has momentum to spare. That difference is non-zero, but also lost in the noise...unless you're slingshotting multiple Uranus or Neptune masses past it...

Besides, natural objects have ended up on such paths (including 'reverse' slingshots to the inner solar system, whereby Jupiter gains a meaningless amount...NEOs likely come from the main asteroid belt this way. Some even 'slingshot' one way or the other with respect to Earth if they don't hit us [and transferring some momentum, if they do], further making your rocket tests meaningless)

You need not worry.

Johnny Utah,

Wow, you really think this way? OK. Let's consider this. If our rockets testing on Earth, or in the atmosphere or in leaving the Earth altogether would have any detectable effect on Earth's rotation or revolution, there are other dangers you need to be concerned with first.

For example: Due to the slow heating of the sun, we have only a billion years left to live on the Earth before the rise in temperature becomes unlivable. Even if every person on Earth had a rocket big enough to escape Earth's gravity, the detectable change will take far longer than one billion years to cause any effects.

Human caused climate change is MUCH more of a worry that any nefarious rocket testing can ever do. . . . Perhaps you should worry about that first? . . . . Maybe?