End of an Era: Shuttle program coming to a close

[FoolKiller]

Regarding the contracts: Looking at Wiki, it seems as if the CRS contract is legally binding, and holds SpaceX responsive for failure to meet the terms. So it is completely in their best interest to meet their quoted rates and not rely on a bait and switch method. Similarly, their entire revenue stream for the next three years is reliant on contracts signed with these rates.

I too am testing Space X, as there are two other companies actively pursuing NASA contracts, one which has a CRS contract pending their testing milestones. This is true private competition, and that makes the margins for error even smaller.

As for space tourism, the figures for Dragon payload capacity seemed off to me compared to the Falcon 9 figures. Then I realized why. Dragon is just a capsule. It will never hold a satellite. Satellite launches will use Falcon 9/Heavy without Dragon. Dragon's cargo is just cargo for ISS.

That said, Dragon can launch on Falcon 9, which Space X has rated as cheaper than what we have been discussing, at $54 million per launch. Compared to the Soyuz rates of $20-$30 million per person Space X could offer tourism only flights for $10-$15 million a head (possibly less if their pricing stays stable), only fly with all seats filled, and add the cremated remains services (and whatever other niche private entity add ons can be done, like school projects or whatever) to those trips.

Similarly, they could mimic the Soyuz program by offering one seat for sale on an official ISS mission.

Whether they get into it will likely depend on if they need additional revenue combined with what it would do to their insurance, but for people wanting more than a sub-orbital flight they could definitely beat out Soyuz, assuming their claims are accurate.



Another physics-related question: Space X has taken control of the launch site at Omelek Island and upgraded it as their primary launch facility, capable of launching all but the Falcon Heavy, meaning they only need to use NASA's facilities for NASA missions and a the biggest of private missions. Does the closer equatorial proximity of Omelek give them significant advantages? It looks like it should help reduce costs for geosynchronous orbit satellites, but I know simple appearance can be deceiving on something like this.

 

[Danoff]

Regarding the contracts: Looking at Wiki, it seems as if the CRS contract is legally binding, and holds SpaceX responsive for failure to meet the terms. So it is completely in their best interest to meet their quoted rates and not rely on a bait and switch method. Similarly, their entire revenue stream for the next three years is reliant on contracts signed with these rates.

I wonder if they're basically at capacity. Additional work from them for now might be next-to impossible.

As for space tourism, the figures for Dragon payload capacity seemed off to me compared to the Falcon 9 figures. Then I realized why. Dragon is just a capsule. It will never hold a satellite. Satellite launches will use Falcon 9/Heavy without Dragon. Dragon's cargo is just cargo for ISS.

Makes a lot more sense.

That said, Dragon can launch on Falcon 9, which Space X has rated as cheaper than what we have been discussing, at $54 million per launch. Compared to the Soyuz rates of $20-$30 million per person Space X could offer tourism only flights for $10-$15 million a head (possibly less if their pricing stays stable), only fly with all seats filled, and add the cremated remains services (and whatever other niche private entity add ons can be done, like school projects or whatever) to those trips.

Similarly, they could mimic the Soyuz program by offering one seat for sale on an official ISS mission.

Now we're talking.

Another physics-related question: Space X has taken control of the launch site at Omelek Island and upgraded it as their primary launch facility, capable of launching all but the Falcon Heavy, meaning they only need to use NASA's facilities for NASA missions and a the biggest of private missions. Does the closer equatorial proximity of Omelek give them significant advantages? It looks like it should help reduce costs for geosynchronous orbit satellites, but I know simple appearance can be deceiving on something like this.

There is a particular breed of geosynchronous orbit called a geostationary orbit - where the satellite appears in the exact same place in the sky at all times. These are popular for communications satellites and are necessarily equatorial orbits. Launching from the equator is the only way to avoid having to spend propellant to change your inclination so that you can be in an equatorial orbit - it's the cheapest place to launch from if your target is zero inclination (which corresponds to geostationary). If you're launching to an inclined geosynchronous orbit, it's a disadvantage.

If you want to target the space station from the equator, you're in big trouble since it's inclination is over 50 degrees (this was done to help soyuz get there). I would be shocked to discover that anyone launched anything from the equator that was headed for ISS. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's incredibly wasteful. ISS is on the high end of inclinations that can be reached from the cape, let alone the equator.

It should go without saying that retrograde or polar orbits are idiotic launching from the equator (I'll refrain from saying impossible). Iridium satellites are apparently polar.

 

[FoolKiller]

There is a particular breed of geosynchronous orbit called a geostationary orbit - where the satellite appears in the exact same place in the sky at all times. These are popular for communications satellites and are necessarily equatorial orbits. Launching from the equator is the only way to avoid having to spend propellant to change your inclination so that you can be in an equatorial orbit - it's the cheapest place to launch from if your target is zero inclination (which corresponds to geostationary). If you're launching to an inclined geosynchronous orbit, it's a disadvantage.

I was thinking geostationary but said geosynchronous. Communications are my specialty, so you'd think I'd get it right. I know enough that I was able to show the Dish Satellite guy the best spot to set up my dish.

That said, Omelek is not on the equator, but is the closest rocket facility controlled by the US, so they still have some corrections to make.

If you want to target the space station from the equator, you're in big trouble since it's inclination is over 50 degrees (this was done to help soyuz get there). I would be shocked to discover that anyone launched anything from the equator that was headed for ISS. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's incredibly wasteful. ISS is on the high end of inclinations that can be reached from the cape, let alone the equator.

Do we have any further north launch pads capable of handling a heavy launch? I know Space X has used Vandenberg in testing, but it's not a listed location on their sales page.

It should go without saying that retrograde or polar orbits are idiotic launching from the equator (I'll refrain from saying impossible). Iridium satellites are apparently polar.

Yeah, I'm watching Iridium to see if their approach works. This global satellite broadband concept sounds too much like a pipe dream. I've been hearing satellite broadband talk for over a decade now and every attempt has been disappointing in performance. I do like the constellation idea for phones in uncivilized areas though.

 

[Danoff]

Do we have any further north launch pads capable of handling a heavy launch? I know Space X has used Vandenberg in testing, but it's not a listed location on their sales page.

Vandenberg is the natural go-to on that. Kodiak? Not sure how large a rocket they can handle. I know that we borrow Russia's launch sites a fair amount for polar orbits. Recently GRAIL (NASA) for example launched from Plesetsk Russia (63 degrees north) to achieve polar orbit.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Dragon departing the space station tonight and will splash down in the morning. (8:30 PST)

 

[photonrider]

The Dragon just splashed down. The Year of the Dragon seems to have taken off.

Lovely thread. Enjoy reading all the contributions.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, SpaceX has shown a new reason why private might be better than government; PR. In Apollo 13 there is a line that one of the networks said NASA made going to the moon look like a trip to Pittsburgh. And to be honest, to those who don't understand the science involved or the tiny details it does feel that way.

But SpaceX released a video a few weeks back that chronicles the Dragon test mission in a way that presents the excitement and the importance of what is happening. It even manages to make lifting the Dragon from the water with a crane appear to be an exciting event.



And when you think about it, even the naming of their craft is done with PR in mind. Falcon. Dragon. It is the same sort of naming conventions you see in sports cars, like Mustang, Viper, Thunderbird, Cougar, Firebird and so forth. The name creates an image in your head. As compared to naming things after ancient mythological themes. The closest NASA came to making it exciting was having a shuttle named Enterprise. And that wasn't one meant to fly, and was from on a show that had as much in common with dramatic westerns as it did space adventures.

But the Falcon. If you don't think about a bird of prey you probably think, "It's the ship that made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs."

And while science should be above this, it is expensive. Very, very expensive. It takes investors. Then it takes many customers with deep pockets. And the only way that works is if you can say,