SpaceX plans privately funded manned lunar flyby for next year

Thanks for the insights, Jim. There are many businesses that depend on the taxpayers. I don't follow the space business at all, so I will defer to those with greater knowledge, but IIRC SpaceX was selected after winning a competition, was it not? And what happened to the other guys?
SpaceX was selected from a pool of competitors along with Rocketplane-Kistler to participate in the first commercial contract for third-party cargo deliveries to the International Space Station. The contract was structured to support the development of nascent space companies from startup to production/execution by dangling carrots full of money for them to reach for. Companies had to meet both technical progress and business development milestones, which were explicitly spelled out in the contract, and each time a milestone was met, NASA would pay out another tranche of cash. You can look up the various milestones in the Space Act Agreement (the contract NASA signed with SpaceX in 2006 for their initial cargo flights), here (Appendix 2 lists the milestones and the cash payoffs for reaching each one): https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf

Interestingly, since NASA was trying to help build up new spaceflight companies (but didn't want to foot 100% of the bills itself), some of the milestones involved the companies succeeding in meeting outside investment goals. Something like, "Secure $xx million of non-gov't capital investment, and get $10M from NASA". (The actual financing goals are not specified in the SAA. I'm not sure why, but would guess for business confidentiality reasons.)

The other company initially selected along with SpaceX was Rocketplane-Kistler. They made it through a couple of the initial technical milestones, but faltered in securing outside financing, and NASA ultimately terminated their contract about a year after it was awarded, after which RP-K eventually went bankrupt. NASA subsequently awarded RP-K's slot to Orbital Sciences Company (now Orbital-ATK), which was an established aerospace contractor, not a startup. They have gone on to successfully fly the Cygnus unmanned cargo vehicle to ISS, and have been selected for a follow-on unmanned cargo contract as well.

Several other companies competed for the initial cargo flight contract that SpX and Rocketplane-Kistler won. Most of those companies never really had a viable path forward, which is why they were not selected, and they disappeared pretty quickly after the selections were made. One notable exception is SpaceDev, which eventually became Sierra Nevada Corp, who lost out on that initial cargo flight contract but continued working in the background to develop their "Dream Chaser" lifting body vehicle. They competed for the contract to carry astronauts to the ISS, but lost out to SpaceX (Dragon v2) and Boeing (CST100 or "Starliner"). However, Sierra Nevada *did* win a follow-on contract for unmanned cargo deliveries to ISS, and they are continuing to work toward that goal. This is another excellent example of government/private enterprise interrelationship, as SNC's Dream Chaser is a derivation of a NASA concept that was investigated circa 1990.
 
Last edited:
We come from France....

960x540.jpg


Connie was hot. :D
 
How's their track record to date with launches?
Fully perfect on F9. One lost an engine and continued on the remainder. They also exploded one while testing it. However, the circumlunar mission needs to fly on a different rocket, FH, which is not flown yet.
 
I'd rather we just pointed the rocket carrying the nuclear waste at the sun, lol.

Yeah. I thought of that years ago. Seems logical, right?

It's a good until the heavy lifter decides to do its Challenger impression and rains stuff back down.

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
-JFK, 9/12/62

"We choose to go to the moon, because the Russians might beat us." FTFK. :) (Fixed That For Kennedy...)
 
Fully perfect on F9. One lost an engine and continued on the remainder. They also exploded one while testing it. However, the circumlunar mission needs to fly on a different rocket, FH, which is not flown yet.
Er, you have a strange definition of "fully perfect". Two F9s and their payloads have been lost. One of the losses occurred during fueling, but it was still a complete loss of rocket and payload, and it was caused by SpaceX not understanding the limitations of its own fuel tank design and not protecting those limits during their fueling procedures.

Even dismissing that one, the CRS-7 mission was lost in flight: https://goo.gl/Xnn5Vo
 
Last edited:
It's a good until the heavy lifter decides to do its Challenger impression and rains stuff back down.



"We choose to go to the moon, because the Russians might beat us." FTFK. :) (Fixed That For Kennedy...)

I'd never expect them to lift radioactive waste entirely via rocket, at least not with the current models. I think they'll have to come up with a way to get it into the upper stratosphere with conventional methods (think Bell X-1, but at 80K'), then use a payload rocket to get it into LEO where it could be mated to some thing that can get it to the sun, or at least close enough inside the orbit of any of the planetary bodies. However, I can't imagine any of it being cost effective since the nuclear industry generates something like 2K tons of nuclear waste each year, not to mention the 75K tons of waste currently in storage. I guess we'll just have to wait for the space elevator, lol.
 
I'd never expect them to lift radioactive waste entirely via rocket, at least not with the current models. I think they'll have to come up with a way to get it into the upper stratosphere with conventional methods (think Bell X-1, but at 80K'), then use a payload rocket to get it into LEO where it could be mated to some thing that can get it to the sun, or at least close enough inside the orbit of any of the planetary bodies. However, I can't imagine any of it being cost effective since the nuclear industry generates something like 2K tons of nuclear waste each year, not to mention the 75K tons of waste currently in storage. I guess we'll just have to wait for the space elevator, lol.
Years ago, I worked with a group that was looking at ways for disposing of nuclear waste in space. The eventual method was to put the stuff in the middle of a very, VERY strong sphere, and carry two of them on the Space Shuttle for ejection. Don't think they had any additional boosters to put them into the sun. But the spheres were intended to stay intact, even if they came back to Earth and impacted. Looked like large soccer balls.

Disposal into the sun gets them completely out of the way, but it's not really necessary. Put them into a ~1000-2000 mile orbit. Orbit life is essentially infinity, and it's in the Van Allen belts where normal spacecraft don't fly.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Years ago, I worked with a group that was looking at ways for disposing of nuclear waste in space. The eventual method was to put the stuff in the middle of a very, VERY strong sphere, and carry two of them on the Space Shuttle for ejection. Don't think they had any additional boosters to put them into the sun. But the spheres were intended to stay intact, even if they came back to Earth and impacted. Looked like large soccer balls.

Disposal into the sun gets them completely out of the way, but it's not really necessary. Put them into a ~1000-2000 mile orbit. Orbit life is essentially infinity, and it's in the Van Allen belts where normal spacecraft don't fly.

Ron Wanttaja

I suppose, but the Big Sky Theory in space still applies. Eventually someone or something (other space debris/satellites/meteors/etc.) will go plowing into the soccer-ball-'o'-waste and I'm sure the repercussions wouldn't be pretty. You'd think they'd want to avoid making the space around Earth look like the Pacific garbage patch.
 
...the nuclear industry generates something like 2K tons of nuclear waste each year, not to mention the 75K tons of waste currently in storage. I guess we'll just have to wait for the space elevator, lol.
Just drop it into the Marianas Trench.

Except possible side effects--

godzilla.jpg
 
Last edited:
I suppose, but the Big Sky Theory in space still applies. Eventually someone or something (other space debris/satellites/meteors/etc.) will go plowing into the soccer-ball-'o'-waste and I'm sure the repercussions wouldn't be pretty. You'd think they'd want to avoid making the space around Earth look like the Pacific garbage patch.
Too late! Some of the Van Allen belts were manmade, from blowing off nukes on orbit.....

Folks should be aware, too, that there are a number of nuclear reactors in low-earth orbit already. Russians used to power their radar reconnaissance satellites with 'em. Were designed to separate and put the nuke in a much higher orbit, but it failed at least once (Cosmos 954...I got involved with chasing that one down).

Offhand, while I think the 1000-2000 nm disposal would be very low risk, the solar-disposal concept is probably best. Does tend to bother the packrat in me though...at some point in the future, people might need some fissionables.

Just don't store the nuke waste on the moon. Bad things happen when you do that.... :)

Ron "Now we're sitting on the biggest bomb man's ever made" Wanttaja
 
"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision"

-Randall Munroe, XKCD
 
I suppose, but the Big Sky Theory in space still applies. Eventually someone or something (other space debris/satellites/meteors/etc.) will go plowing into the soccer-ball-'o'-waste and I'm sure the repercussions wouldn't be pretty. You'd think they'd want to avoid making the space around Earth look like the Pacific garbage patch.

Too late.

Too late! Some of the Van Allen belts were manmade, from blowing off nukes on orbit.....

Folks should be aware, too, that there are a number of nuclear reactors in low-earth orbit already. Russians used to power their radar reconnaissance satellites with 'em. Were designed to separate and put the nuke in a much higher orbit, but it failed at least once (Cosmos 954...I got involved with chasing that one down).

Offhand, while I think the 1000-2000 nm disposal would be very low risk, the solar-disposal concept is probably best. Does tend to bother the packrat in me though...at some point in the future, people might need some fissionables.

Just don't store the nuke waste on the moon. Bad things happen when you do that.... :)

Ron "Now we're sitting on the biggest bomb man's ever made" Wanttaja

Oh, Ron already covered it. But there's a bunch of folks about 80 miles from my house who spend all day making sure the junkyard up there doesn't run into the other pieces in the junkyard. :)

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision"

-Randall Munroe, XKCD

By definition, if the "sensible economic decision" is made, a non-sensible one would simply hasten the demise of the species. Or at least make its time left a lot more painful paying for a few someone's to be blasted off to nowhere.

The economics would change drastically if sending humans somewhere else was going to help the rest of the humans.
 
Back
Top