JHendo

May 22nd, 2012 at 8:46 AM ^

One of the guys who worked on this project for Space X (at least the one guy I know), not only went to U of M by but is/was an Ann Arbor kid.  Privatized or not, when it comes to getting stuff and/or people in space, the Wolverines seemed to have cornered the market.

Edit: After the successful launch, on his Facebook status he of course wrote "Space, bitches. Space."

Mr. Yost

May 22nd, 2012 at 8:44 AM ^

For those of us completely ignorant to what exactly is going on and why exactly this is any more important than other launches...can someone fill us in?

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:21 AM ^

It's a big step to modify and certify a cargo container for manned spaceflight.  Something that SpaceX, as well as many other competitors are doing at the moment, but that's far away.  This mission doesn't really have anything to do with a US manned spaceflight program, or the future thereof.

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^

I wonder if people realize that the Apollo command modules were designed and built by North American Aviation (not NASA), the space shuttle was designed and built by Boeing (not NASA), the International Space Station was largely built by Boeing (not NASA), the shuttle boosters were designed and built by ATK (not NASA), and the list goes on and on. 

The American non-governmental aerospace industry has a crazy-rich and amazing history that many of us feel Elon is trying to usurp and claim for his own.  He's far from the first non-NASA entity to do anything of importance in space.  That's the issue I have with the hoopla surrounding this morning's successful launch.

southern_yankee

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^

I work for a NASA contractor and you are spot on.  I'm actually a little sick of people calling this a "commercial" venture as SpaceX has been funded at least 50% by NASA since about 2003 or 2004.

That being said, I congratulate them.  They did prove it can be done more efficiently and cheaper -- at least to this point. 

I wish them well on their rendezvous later this week, and hope they can get a man rated vehicle up soon.

UMAFA08

May 22nd, 2012 at 8:51 AM ^

The United States has no manned space program. When the space shuttle retired, we lost our way to send people and supplies to the international space station and simply put people in orbit. SpaceX is a private company that has more or less taken up that mantle from a commercial perspective. They do not recieve government funding and are not sponsored by NASA. As of right now, we have rely entirely on Russia to get people and supplies to and from the international space station. We shouldn't have to, but that's reality. SpaceX is trying to put the ball back in our court.

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:07 AM ^

" They do not recieve government funding and are not sponsored by NASA. "

Not true.  They've received funding, and will be receiving $1.6 Billion from NASA over the course of their contract to deliver supplies to the ISS.  Orbital Sciences Corp has the same contract with NASA and will be doing the exact same thing, although they started about 1.5 yrs behind SpaceX because they took over a failed competitor's contract. 

Yes, it's impressive that private industry is doing this mission to ISS, but most people don't realize that most objects launched into space these days with NASA on the side of them weren't built by NASA.  NASA holds the purse strings, but companies like Orbital, Boeing, Lockheed, Ball, etc, are the companies that design, build, test, and launch the actual satellites.  In today's day and age, NASA doesn't actually ... DO that much.

rocket_wolvi

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^

I'll agree with you that commercial space industry is much more than just SpaceX, but really, NASA doesn't do much?  That's a little preposterous.  Yes, NASA often contracts through Orbital and others for launches, but it's through NASA's funding and infrastructure that many of these launches are possible.  And regardless of the fact that there's been partnerships and contracts with these private companies for a long time, the SpaceX launch does represent a new chapter and a new step to opening space, which is damn exciting.

Naked Bootlegger

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:13 AM ^

How is SpaceX making $$$ off of this venture?   Not trying to be snarky here, but I would love to know the business model if they're not getting any gov't funding to shuttle supplies to ISS.  Maybe my question is better written in MGoSpeak:

(1)  Spend hundreds of millions (billions?) developing launch vehicle, including paying highly-educated UM grads

(2)  Fill space vehicle with supplies for ISS

(3)  Successfully launch into orbit

(4)  Profit (?)

 

EDIT:  I think MGoAero answered my question whilst I was slowing typing.

superstringer

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:31 AM ^

SpaceX will tell you (as they've told me) that they have run at a profit EVERY YEAR of their existence.

First, they sell commercial launches -- they have a manifest going out about 10 years.  All of Iridium's new fleet will be launched on them, for example.  Argentina's CONAE is using them.  Etc etc.  These customers make ongoing installment payments, and these payments have run ahead of costs.

Second, they have a bunch of investors.  Musk isn't the only one; others have tossed in 9 digits of caysh.  They are all gonna get supermegaultra rich when it goes public someday.  (Which it will.)

Third, merchandising.... all the Lego toys that they are gonna sell... well I just kid about that, but actually, I did tell management they need to look into Lego and toy stores, and it's on their list of to-do's.

The FannMan

May 22nd, 2012 at 5:57 PM ^

I saw that movie about 2012.  All the rich investors are going to get onto the Space X ships when the world ends this year and we'll all be drowned by huge waves or fried by volcanoes!

Except, for some reason, the space craft will just turn out to be really big boats that will land in Africa which, it turns out, doesn't get flooded.

At least Wood Harrelson will get rocked (literally)!

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:09 AM ^

Let's hope this isn't too political of a comment, but - 1, privatization of the sea and air certainly has its benefits and is only natural, so privatization of space, I don't see why that should be different.  And 2, it's absolutely shameful we - the US and NASA, that is - can't put our own people into space any more.  Dereliction of duty over the past 15-20 years that we haven't been developing the Space Shuttle's replacement, and even worse if you ask me that we've all but abandoned the moon and Mars.  Therefore: go SpaceX go.  If we won't fund NASA so they can do it, somebody needs to, and it burns me up that we'd let Russia and China race past us in the space department.

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:16 AM ^

I appreciate the sentiment, and am glad that people are excited about space for the moment, but keep in mind that this is not a manned mission.  Yes, it's docking with ISS, but that's a far cry from being a manned mission.  The fact that it's 'docking' (a robotic arm is actually pulling it in to the ISS, it's not docking on its own) is the only difference from a normal satellite, dozens of which are launched each year.  The PR machine that is Elon Musk has once again swirled up the media and press.  Yay, congrats, but come on.  It's a satellite with food inside.  It's gonna be a bummer when everybody forgets about this tomorrow, and SpaceX's competitor gets zero press when they do the same thing later this year.  The aerospace industry is not fond of Elon's "I'm the hero the space industry needed, come bow at my loafers" attitude.  The industry was doing fine before him (do NOT confuse the industry with NASA, please).

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^

Beat him at what?  This is the second launch SpaceX has ever done with a payload aboard.  Among Boeing, Lockheed, Ball, Orbital, ULA, and others, SpaceX is clearly the least-accomplished (because they're the youngest, obviously).  This program is just one program.  Orbital Sciences has the same contract and will do the same thing.  They're not first because they took over Rocketplane Kistler's contract after they proved that they couldn't get it done and NASA pulled it from them.  So Orbital started 1.5 yrs behind SpaceX.  It's not a competition, guys; they're both guaranteed contracts with NASA. 

People that don't follow the aerospace industry don't know everything else that everybody else is going because they don't have Elon Musk going around tweeting about it and getting the media outlets all excited.  Is that stupid of the other companies?  No, because the public and people that watch the news are not the consumers of spacecraft and rockets.  His endgame is probably to rouse support for when he lets it go public.  Dude is a dot-com guy playing out his fantasy, not an aerospace engineer, remember.

RakeFight

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:54 AM ^

Not a competition?  These are private companies looking to make a profit doing similar things in the same industry... almost by definition, that is competition.  Just because they both have current contracts from NASA doesn't mean they're not competing for future contract from NASA... and pretty much anyone else who might be thinking about sending something or someone into space.

If I have never heard of Orbital Sciences, that means that Musk, for better or worse, is winning the PR side of the competition.  

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:04 AM ^

Orbital is a ~$1.5 Billion revenue per year company with 3 major locations in the US and about 10 times as many employees as SpaceX, and has been publicly traded on the NYSE for over a decade.  It appears frequently in the trade magazines and just celebrated its 30th anniversary.  The fact that you don't know about it doesn't mean much, because it could probably buy SpaceX today if it were for sale.  Not to mention how many times over Boeing or Lockheed could buy SpaceX.  PR doesn't count for crap in the aerospace industry.  These aren't personal computers or cars, people.  PR means next to nothing.

RakeFight

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^

Then I would say that what SpaceX has accomplished with only about 350 employees is pretty impressive.  

I'm not sure why you assume that I've never heard of Orbital... I've followed this small cap company for years as an invester.  In fact, I would argue that now is the time to get in on Orbital stock... at it's 52 week low after missing earnings estimates during a poor 1st quarter.  Although the risk is high... probably not diversified enough to not take a huge hit with a launch failure or a cut in government funding.

My point is this... SpaceX is a start-up in a young, but established industry.  Apple was a start-up at one time, and while I would never claim that SpaceX is Apple, there are strong similarities between their business models (technology designed and built in house to optimize efficiency, productivity, and cost effectiveness in an industry encumbered with large, less effecient competitors burdened by the constraints of outsourcing and relying on "how it's always been done" thinking in a fast moving industry (read: IBM in this analogy)).  SpaceX's PR machine is turning heads (including mine).  Will it be a good investment when it eventually goes public?  Impossible to know right now.  But will investers like me be looking at it closely when it does?  Yes we will.  For that reason, all of their PR does mean something.  Hell, just the fact that we're arguing about their PR means that is working.

Plus, this is a successful American company... what's not to celebrate?

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58 AM ^

Sorry, I misread that you hadn't heard of Orbital.

It's worth celebrating, but all I'm saying is let's not ignore the rest of the industry and all that they do, which is a lot of amazing stuff (considering NASA itself barely does anything anymore) just because they're not good-looking with an interesting accent and an active Twitter account.

gbdub

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^

Elon has a PR machine aimed at the general public, which is a novel strategy. The reason nobody else has done it is because the general public doesn't buy space launch services - generally it makes more sense to advertise to your potential customers. Time will tell if it pays off, but such a strategy would probably be a tough sell at a publicly traded company. Make of that what you will.

superstringer

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:43 AM ^

There is a reason SOME in the industry are not fond of Elon.  HE IS SHATTERING THEIR BUSINESS MODELS.  His public price for a Falcon 9 launch is less than HALF that of his competitors.  Huge companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Arianespace... they can't compete.  He has figured out, you don't need to have their massive budgets and huge number of subcontractors etc.

Know who loves him?  The CUSTOMERS.  People trying to put satellites in orbit -- the users, you and me.  SpaceX is so much cheaper, and now showing it is just as reliable.

Then you say, "The industry was doing just fine before him."  No, it wasn't.  US companies don't even launch commercial satellites anymore.  If you want to launch a satellite (and you're not the Dept of Defense), you HAVE to go to foreigners -- Arianespace, Japan, Russia, etc.  Is that "doing fine"??  And Arianespace, pretty much the only dependable partner ( you want to trust Proton?), charges well over $100M for a launch.  Is that doing "fine"???

Your comments tell me, YOU ARE OLD ECONOMY.  You just don't like that someone has figured out how to do all of this, on shoe-string budget.  Maybe your job is threatened.  Maybe you don't want to admit, all you've believed is now shown to be wrong.  But it is.  Like Neil Armstrong, your comments are just... well... making yourself look foolish.

Truth is, Elon is an economic visionary.  Why did he start SpaceX?  Because HE WANTS TO GO TO MARS.  He needed a cheap rocket... hence, Falcon, Falcon 9, and soon the Falcon Heavy (three Falcon 9s strapped together, essentially, a Falcon 27 if you will).  ALL of this is in furtherance of that plan.  This is a master plan, he's not just saying, oh I can go to the ISS too.

Example.  To make the Dragon crew-worthy, it has to have an escape capacity in case the rocket blows up.  Elon got NASA to pay about $75M for very powerful thrusters on the Dragon (called Super-Draeco's), which are so strong they can burst the Dragon away from the Falcon even during liftoff, in case of trouble.  But if they are strong enough to pull the Dragon away, then they are also strong enough to land it.  Anywhere.  So the same system being funded by NASA as a crew escape system is ALSO the LANDING SYSTEM for landing on hard surface in California... the Moon... Mars... etc.  SpaceX trumpets this.  They have an all-in-one vessel that can land on any hard surface in the solar system.  (Probably Venus is the exception there, for obv reasons.)

 

superstringer

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:56 PM ^

I have been to SpaceX's facility in Hawthorne CA twice, met with Elon briefly, spent much time (business related) with their very impressive President Gwynne Shotwell, met some of the mission management for COTS Demo 1 and Demo 2/3, etc.  But I also have an Aerospace engineering degree from UM, so I'm not a neophyte here.  I have heard first-hand the stories of how OLD ECONOMY relics like Neil Armstrong and plenty of lobbiests (sp? eng. degree here) for Boeing / Lockheed / thousands of entrenced vendors have been trying to undermine SpaceX at every step of the way.

And of course now it's politicized.  Obama killed Constellation in favor of commercial entities, so some on the right side see SpaceX as "Obama's" company.  Some right-of-center folks were actually saying, hey you can't privatize space, you need NASA to do it.  And SpaceX was like -- HUH???  Republicans saying its a BAD thing to privatize???

That's how nuts this is.  "If you're for it, I'm against it."  So if Obama is for it, then....

Put politics aside.  Why is this NOT a good thing?  Srsly.  They are getting it right -- the damn thing works.  As Norm would say, "Pay the man, Shirley."

gbdub

May 22nd, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^

It's not a left vs right thing. It's an entrenched interests thing - congressional members with former shuttle assets in their districts (both democrat and republican) are strongly opposed to anything that might threaten continued employment for those shuttle employees, even if that means a less effective space program with fewer total jobs.



Pork is non-partisan.

gbdub

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^

SpaceX has made some great technical strides. But before we start touting the death of the "old" business model, we should wait a few years. After all, SpaceX has only delivered one "operational" mission to orbit, and this launch is only the second flight of the Falcon 9 with a functional payload.



SpaceX is advertising a low price for their launchers - but actually turning maintainable profit margin at that price will require reusability and a high launch rate. These are significant hurdles that SpaceX has yet to meet. Not saying they won't just that gloating is premature.



It's also worth noting that launch costs are only a small part of space mission cost. Generally, the satellites on top of a rocket are worth much more than the rocket, so saving a few tens of millions on the launcher may not be the customer's biggest concern.



The shuttle was supposed to be really cheap. Pegasus (the first privately developed space launcher) was supposed to be really cheap. Both rose significantly in cost because the launch rate was lower than predicted and it turned out that customers wanted a lot more mission assurance and unique engineering on each vehicle, and that costs a.lot of money. Elon is not the first guy to think he was smarter than everyone else in the industry. So I wish him luck, but some patience and humility is still in order.

superstringer

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:35 AM ^

Government can't afford it, because goverment overpays.  They only think the "NASA way."  Bloated budgets, too much middle-management, and subcontractors in every state to maximize political leverage (which also maximized cost).

Neil Armstrong, first man to walk on the moon and staunch advocate for the Olde Way of doing things, said SpaceX is a mistake because they "dont know what they dont know."

Actually, Neil, you don't know what you don't know.  SpaceX can do it exactly right, but for a tiny percent the cost NASA was spending.  NASA gave SpaceX about $300M... but NASA was spendign $100B on Orion/Ares/Constellation.  You do the math.

Finally, we're getting it right.  Give it to the entrepreneurs and privateers who smell cash (or Mars, in Elon's case) at the end of the rainbow.

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^

If you want to hand over an industry from NASA, industrial giants that have been around for decades, other privateers who have actually proven themselves more than twice, and fools like Neil Armstrong, to a South African dot-com guy who got out of the internet biz at the right time and knows how to work the media and stir up a frenzy, and has all of 2 successful launches of consequence under his belt then be my guest. 

Elon and SpaceX are fine, they'll make it probably, but the amount of jock-sniffing going on around the country today is ridiculous.  If people paid attention to the aerospace industry beyond Elon Musk, they'd be thrilled to find out that we do awesome stuff like this all the time!  It's an amazing industry!  Pay attention to the whole thing, and not just Elon, please!  That's all I ask.

wlvrine

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:40 AM ^

I don't have a dog in this fight but you are looking with disdain upon Musk's self promotion while at the same time saying "Pay attention to the whole thing, and not just Elon, please!"

If stealing the spotlight is a waste of time and no one in the industry cares then you (they) should act like they don't care, but if it is bothersome and they wish people would notice what they are doing instead then they should build a better PR machine.

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

You're right, part of this is my jealousy that he's getting all the press for doing things that are largely in line with what everyone has been doing for decades.  I wish my corner of the industry put more emphasis into PR, that's for sure.  But, would that be a prudent expense?  Probably not.  I hope SpaceX does well for the sake of being a productive part of the aerospace community, not for the sake of stroking Elon's ego, though.

wlvrine

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^

I think it would be a good idea.  The giants in aerospace would only have to spend a fraction of their budget in comparison to the percentage that SpaceX uses for PR.  They could do the same thing Reagan did to the Russians.  If the Giants raised their PR budgets by 1 or 2% then SpaceX would probably need to spend 5-10% of their budgets on PR in order to keep up.

gbdub

May 22nd, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^

But keep up in what way? The question isn't whether SpaceX is winning the PR battle with the public (they clearly are). The question is whether that battle is worth fighting in the first place. Because the reality is that the public can't buy what SpaceX sells.



I do think there is some value in PR in that it may put pressure on NASA to support commercial space flight. But it will be very very tough to supplant the entrenched interests of the former shuttle suppliers who currently have their congress critters shoving the SLS down NASA's throat.

wlvrine

May 22nd, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

True the general public is not buying what SpaceX sells, but if SpaceX is the only company who operates a slick PR machine then we may end up with a scenario where the tail wags the dog.  Perception becomes reality.  SpaceX plants the idea that they can do all things.  They are confident and capable.  They are in the vangaurd of space exploration!  voila'

INCEPTION!

gbdub

May 22nd, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^

Again though, being the vanguard of space exploration doesn't pay the bills. Private industry has the technical ability to send people to the moon and beyond, but using the funding for a publicly traded company to do it without a clear business goal would be fiduciary irresponsibility of the highest order.



In order to make space flight routine, which Elon claims as his goal, you need to make it a business. Going places for the sake of going there is cool, but there's a reason Steve Jobs meant more to the world than Steve Fossett.

wlvrine

May 22nd, 2012 at 2:38 PM ^

The phrase I used "vangaurd of space exploration" may have been too specific.  I meant for it to be applied in a broader sense.  Perhaps "Leaders in space technology"  or "pioneers in the field of aerospace" would have been more appropriate. 

I don't know thing one about SpaceX's mission statements, or business goals, but if they wish to compete with the giants who have more money and more influence then they need to work on perception.  This is what I mean about the  tail wagging the dog.  If it becomes common knowledge (through propaganda) that SpaceX is the bomb when it comes to aerospace technology, then contracts are sure to follow.  Those contracts will pay the bills.

Jfox1020

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:31 AM ^

From pay pal to space.... They had a great piece on 60 min for the guy that started company.. He has spent a fortune on a dream and it seems to be coming true.. Even if Buzz and Niel dont like it.. New Generation my mgoblogers

MGoAero

May 22nd, 2012 at 9:37 AM ^

Orbital Sciences Corp's founder Dave Thompson did the same thing 30 years ago, except he wasn't a billionaire to start.  And they've launched over a hundred satellites aboard their stable of Pegasus, Taurus, Minotaur, etc rockets.  The Pegasus was the world's first privately-funded rocket, back in the early 90s.  Again, congrats to Elon and his investors, but it's not really the first time any of this has been done.  It is the first time the aerospace industry has had a superstar PR whiz in it, though.