He's probably checking to see if there are any job openings.

There are plenty of job openings at SpaceX. Take a look at the careers page at the SpaceX website.

http://www.spacex.com/careers.php

Oh look NASA is hiring too.. http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/

Falcon Heavy is indeed still on the short list, and SpaceX has signed their first satellite deal for it with Intelsat. It's 153 mT to LEO and 12 mT to GTO. It's also being looked at to launch 3 different Dragon-based Mars missions, and a possible Mars sample return mission. These are being discussed at length at a Mars exploration conference this week in Houston.

Doc,

Your thinking of Falcon Heavy. FH is in solid because, as someone from a satellite company said a few weeks ago, large com satellites are more efficient. But FH, although it'll be, when launched next year, the most powerful launch vehicle in the world, it's still be only 53 metric tons. The SpaceX "super heavy" would be around 150 metric tons to LEO which is 1 1/2 times more than Saturn V. In the FH press conference video of April 5, 2011, Elon briefly discusses - near the end - super heavy. The quite interesting press conference video and other FH info is available at the SpaceX website. In the video, Elon discusses the importance of bringing the cost-per-pound down.

Elon won't build a heavy or near-heavy lift launcher, unless there's a potential base of customers that needs that kind of payload capacity in a single launch. He's out to make money and lower launch costs.

SLS is not designed with commercial users in mind (any commercial entity who might be able to use it could never afford it) it has only one possible customer (Which would be NASA...the DoD needs nothing like that).

And SLS is out to maximize employment in certain states and Congressional districts, whether and whenever it gets finished. 'Lowering launch costs' are not part of the deal....

And with no other budgeted hardware for it except Orion, the best you could do with it, is duplicate Apollo-8, albeit with longer stay times in Lunar orbit.

"There are space supporters who'd like to see SLS cancelled."

I would be one of them.

NASA can carry out a perfectly reasonable program of human exploration of near-Earth space (including near-Earth asteroids) with existing EELV and Falcon launchers, with orbital assembly and refueling. And within existing budgets, without SLS.

Doc, or anyone else, educate me here, what is GTO?

In the discussion at the end of the April 5, 2011 FH press conference where Elon mentions super heavy, he said SpaceX was iterating the idea with NASA via a NASA RFP. NASA was looking for rapid development and low cost-per-pound - ideal, it would seem, but NASA went with SLS. So, I suspect super heavy is dead unless Elon wants to go to Mars on his own dime or some private company finds a need for that much capacity.

wghky,

GTO means "Geostationary Transfer Orbit." When lifting capacity is given, you'll see a number for LEO and another (lower) number for GTO. See the GTO Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_transfer_orbit

MelJM, Thanks

Some good points all; and sign me up too for the "Just Say No to SLS" campaign.

I enjoyed the photo of the returned cargo in the clean room, sitting on the classic brown folding table (just like the one I have on my porch). And I thought, why not? If it meets the requirements, it probably costs a fraction of the much more sophisticated items we normally associate with space operations. Space X's frugality is refreshing.

Mel, Falcon Heavy is the demonstration rocket that is planned to launch sometime in 2013. Any "super heavy" version would come thereafter.

As for SLS, the government needs it's own rocket. Whether it's SLS or man-rated variant of current launch capabilities, NASA does need it's own capability to get human beings to points of interest beyond LEO.

So, regardless of how you feel about SLS, can we not agree that NASA needs it's own capability?

If NASA doesn't have its own launch system, then people will complain the government is too dependent on the private sector; as opposed to now, where the complaint is that we are wasting money on a launch system when a private sector company can do it.

mob,

I'm not convinced - particularly when I read that the cost-per-pound to LEO of SLS is $8,500 and I see other criticisms as well.

Just a part of the criticism section of the Wikipedia SLS article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Criticism

The Space Access Society, Space Frontier Foundation and the Planetary Society called for cancellation arguing that SLS will consume the funds for other projects from the NASA budget and will not reduce per pound launch costs. Some estimates the cost per pound to LEO at $8,500.

Then we have this from the very informative article "The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?" by John K. Strickland, Jr. September, 2011. A SpaceX super heavy for NASA is discussed near the end of the article.

http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell wrote the following in a letter published in Space News (February 7, 2011):

"Based on SpaceX's proven track record in scaling tenfold in thrust from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9, we are confident we can scale tenfold again and develop a heavy-lift launch vehicle with a 150 metric ton to orbit capability. We can do so for no more than $2.5 billion, within five years, on a firm, fixed price basis with payment made only on achieving hardware milestones."

Musk was also quoted by Aviation Week (December 2, 2010):

"We're confident we could get a fully operational vehicle to the pad for $2.5 billion -- and not only that, I will personally guarantee it," Musk says. In addition, the final product would be a fully accounted cost per flight of $300 million, he asserts. "I'll also guarantee that," he adds, though he cautions this does not include a potential upper-stage upgrade.

Without another customer, a SpaceX super heavy rocket would almost be NASA's rocket except that it could be used by other customers, should they come along. I think it depends on what ideas the other space industry companies come up with. Anyway, I think Elon Musk is absolutely right about the importance of driving down the cost-per-pound. But, SLS was selected and the SpaceX super heavy wasn't. BTW, I'm not any sort of expert; I'm skeptical about SLS but certainly could not say that NASA made a bad decision; it will stick unless someone in Congress brings up the issue.

mob_barley:

"So, regardless of how you feel about SLS, can we not agree that NASA needs it's own capability?"

What do you think United Launch Alliance's Deltas and Atlases (and perhaps also SpaceX Falcons) are for? Commercial and government customers. (Note that 'government' doesn't always equal NASA. The Department of Defense buys launches for its payloads [X-37b being a well known example] all the time) NASA's Mars Science Laboratory, New Horizons Pluto probe, and Juno space probe to Jupiter rode an Atlas V. ULA will continue to sell NASA all the launch capacity it's able to pay for, I'm sure. They buy it. it's theirs.

But NASA did not ask for, has no specified or budgeted need for, yet would be the only possible customer for the Space Launch System.

MelJM:

"I'm not any sort of expert; I'm skeptical about SLS but certainly could not say that NASA made a bad decision; it will stick unless someone in Congress brings up the issue."

See above. Congress created the issue. It wasn't NASA's decision or request. Congress (which really has the last word on writing the checks for any of this) called for this launcher, and wrote the specifications. And did it in such a way, that only certain specific companies could possibly have met them. Example:

"(2) Modification of current contracts. — In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System."

This assumes strap-on solids will be part of SLS. No HLV design not using them need apply. If you're ATK, and the State of Utah where the development and production would be, that's a good deal. Only you can do that, only there can it be done.

But it's not the best deal, if you're looking for heavy-lift that's also as cost-effective as possible.

But then, that's not what Congress really wants out of this...

I think the next decade or so will see a markedly different look to space flight. There are a number of other private companies with some vary interesting--ideas that could never be funded by Congress. Examples are: Planetary Resources and Bigelow Aerospace. Looking at the list of Planetary Resources investors, they've got some serious money involved.

Ralph: try reading the article. There would be no SpaceX without the government contracts and programs.

Private industry can never bear the risks of true exploration, where the return is uncertain and the risks are high. Even Columbus needed government support to find the new world. Only after that investment, could private enterprise build business plans around how to make use of this new world.

In the same manner, NASA will now focus on 'the next frontier': Mars and the asteroids. While commercial space ventures can now start to take on more cost effective missions in low earth orbit, perhaps out to the moon if they can find a way to make money there.

As we come to understand the risks of getting to Mars and the asteroid belt, and develop the technology to address these risks, and discover the resources available to work with, then commercial enterprise can start building business plans to make use of the vast resources of the asteroid belt. Then NASA can leapfrog to the next frontier.

Some said that America was in decline when we stopped the space shuttle program. Exactly the opposite is true. We just turned over mature technology to commercial enterprise. While China and India retrace our steps of 40 years ago, the US is expanding the frontier while opening up near space for commercial investment. We continue to stay one step ahead of the rest of the world.

The visionary projects, like missions to other planets, science probes, etc. will remain in the hands of NASA for a long time to come. But I agree that it is high time NASA gets out of the taxi and freight-hauling business. This is still risky, but routine enough that commercial enterprise can almost certainly do it more efficiently than NASA could.

Some people just can't be satisfied. They're upset when government gets involved in what should be business, but then cry like babies because that is precisely what NASA is doing. Can't have it both ways. Let private companies handle the freight, let NASA focus on the science and frontiers. In my opinion, the whiners are just looking for a reason to whine, not because they really had any love for the shuttle.

The main factor to keep in mind in the debate about government versus the private industry is that the world has and will continue to see great benefits from our government run space program. We will see benefits from a private space program as well, but I would imagine they would be not as far-reaching. My primary example of this is how companies like to keep innovation and invention proprietary. That is to say, if they come up with something really cool, they are going to be the ones to benefit from that thing. People may get some benefit on the back end but it's not going to be nearly as far-reaching as government run space program benefits are. For example, technology transfer from NASA to the world is prolific. They come up with stuff, and for the most part, they share it with the world. The same can not be said with a private company. A private company comes up with something and sell it to the world.

This may be an over simplification but the point is the same. There are very real benefits to having a government run space program.

And, like what was said above, there are things that government will do that industry can not (or will not).

*and just for the record, I view the space industry as "government and industry" instead of "government versus industry". On the one hand we all benefit, on the other only industry or the government can benefit.

Good points, Mob. I don't mean to say that NASA should get out of the business of space transport altogether. NASA does a great job IMO, and should continue to be involved because the benefits roll out to society much faster. But they can and do get blindsided by politics.

Commercial enterprise does in fact keep thing proprietary, which can delay transfer of technology, especially if there is little or no competition. But if there is effective competition, it can actually accelerate innovation. If company A develops an advantage, company B will dedicate resources to innovate something else to take that advantage away. You don't see that much in government-run programs.

For me the biggest issue is the political wrangling that leaves NASA funding twisting in the wind. They haven't got the funds to do everything. Now that SpaceX has Falcon/Dragon, and soon will have the Heavy Lift version, and as long as there are others that will soon join them, I believe that NASA should concentrate their efforts on the science and exploration projects. This will get the best bang for their limited funds. Preferably, they would get a much bigger budget to work with, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

You got it Ben; space is the new frontier for jobs and private enterprise. There will be jobs for welders, electricians and everyone else needed to build structures in near earth orbit, later orbiting Mars. We no longer live in a world of constantly diminishing resources. Zero G manufacturing, mining the asteroids ... the cost of everything will come down drastically when we no longer need to push everything out of this gravity well.

Steve, I agree with you for the most part, but I would argue that it will take a major manufacturing base (that we don't currently have) to get people into a position where we can have a manufacturing capability in space. And both of those things will need to utilize an extraordinary amount of our "diminishing resources".

This blossoming space industry will create many jobs here on the ground first and then to support the ongoing mission in space.

But, I'm right there with you, we NEED to create a manufacturing facility in space (perhaps at a legrange point), so that we need only to transport the raw materials to the facility so they can be manufactured into things that could not be launched from our gravity well.

It all depends on what kind of orbit you want to reach, but I believe the major reasoning is to not have to launch over the heads of a bunch of people.

Well lestweforget-3299938 , I'd have to say that it would be very difficult for many to gather up a team and complete the mission Space X has as a private company ....

Maybe the futuristic visions we may have had to follow the space shuttles , aren't what we are seeing occur now ....

But it is still , quite an accomplishment ....

Re-entry is clearly intensely hot and hazardous ....

And it does show dramatic scorching on the bottom of the capsule ....

As if it was torched ....

Space X still did a superior to me ....

Scorch marks and all ....

I meant say that Space X did a superior job to me ....

I may be wrong but I think what Bolden was getting at was broaching the subject of how often can Dragon be reused. I think everyone is happy with Dragon so far but clearly there is more that needs to be done to assuage those looming concerns.

Though I agree we humans have put a lot of crap into our atmosphere, the only thing that keeps a breathable environment attached to this planet, I don't believe pollution affects re-entry.

Why not, Niki?

We are currently lining the Russians pockets with OUR money that SHOULD be at least keeping OUR shuttles flying UNTIL Space(popcap)X can come up with a space vehicle able to transport OUR astronauts...

.......INSTEAD of outsourcing American bucks AND jobs overseas.

Quit being a troll. Grow up.

@Niki: excellent troll; it has several of the key characteristics we normally look for:

- Baseless / pointless accusation

- Immediate changing of the subject to something completely unrelated

- Includes other people that have nothing to do with this thread

- Potential to elicit meaningless responses and hijack the discussion

8.5 out of 10 (if you could have somehow worked in Obama's citizenship in - e.g. something like "NASA doesn't need to find alien life - why aren't they investigating the one we have in the White House?!?!!!", I would have given you a 10, but still a solid effort)

Node4, that was funny. Keep it up.

Mad Man, I agree with the grow up comment.

Lestweforget, if we are going to complain then we should be saying that a shuttle replacement should have been in place before the shuttle was retired. After all, there has been a push to replace the space shuttle fleet for a very long time. In my opinion NASA should have had another launch vehicle at the ready in 2010, but alas NASA funding is one of those things that people don't really understand and as such it is continually the subject of congressional hackjobs. Congress controls the purse strings.

Niki, you've clearly never heard or read the full portion of that Bolden comment. It's constantly taken out of context. But to in an effort to hijack your troll comment and bring it back to the topic at hand I would just like to say that Charles Boldin is there because SpaceX's COTS Demo Flight 2 was done to show NASA that SpaceX is a viable business partner in supply missions to the ISS. In short, SpaceX is performing a service for NASA. And Bolden is the administrator of NASA. So, yeah, he has a vested interest to be there.

Niki, that bumper sticker political garbage might work on the idiocracy, but probably not around here. Try the political forums, you'll have better luck. But thanks for the laugh.

Yo dwighthuth (punctuation?)

GOVERNMENT assisted college education? Are you kidding me? Haven't you seen what the government has done to our elementary and secondary schools in this country? Hows that working for you?

Now...back ON TOPIC. The ONLY governmental entities that have PRODUCED in this country have been the military branches and of course, NASA.

I DO NOT trust the space program in commerical hands. It encourages risky issues such as get it built, get it flying ASAP.

Space orbiters should NEVER put itself in a position to be RECALLED.

FYI - OBH, having decimated NASA, now has his eyes set on turning our military into a military that has the strenght of most muslim nations. Yes, I'm paraphrasing but BHO has publicly stated this.

Sounds more to me like Boehner is saying go ahead and go to college. On your dime! Since when is it Joe the Tax Payers responsibility to put you through college? Don't want a loan? Don't take one out! Want to pay off some of your college debts? Get a job!

For the record, Obama did not "decimate" NASA. If you would like to debate this topic, I can go round for round with anyone on this subject.

Lestweforget, I would not argue against what would have said, except to say that the government and industry would do well to work together in these matters. Take military aircraft for example, the government pays a private company (or multiple companies) to build some airplanes and then the government decides how to use them.

It's been the same for the space industry. Private contractors build the stuff and the government uses it. Now, with what we are seeing in the private space industry, we are seeing companies build their own space capabilities and then they are selling their services to whoever needs them. And the list of people that need those kind of services really isn't all that long and it includes primarily the government. Then there are universities, other governments, and other private companies (telecom companies for example) that also need space industry services.

Regardless of who uses the space craft, it will be the private industry that builds it. You can't get away from that fact. So, if you trusted the Space Shuttle, or any other American space craft, then in one fashion or another, you have trusted the space program in commercial hands already.

Time, what color is the sky in your world?

lestweforget, did NASA fold after the loss of Apollo 1? Or Challenger? Or Columbia? All of those losses were preventable, and a certain amount of negligent human management played a factor in the loss of those three crews. And that was WITH government oversight.

Risk is an inherent part of space travel. Now, if we enter profit into the equation, how many customers will a private space business have if they lose payload? Or lose a human crew? The consequences of those loses, in business and PR, is pretty high. If there are two or three options for cargo and/or human transportation, and one suffers a loss, don't you think that company might find business a little hard to come by for awhile?

Can't quite figure where you are going with this. First you whine about NASA getting out of the taxi and freight services, then you want them to dream big. Make up you mind. NASA doesn't need to do it all, and is certainly not the most efficient way of doing it. If you want them to dedicate their limited funds to making heavy lift vehicles, then don't fret about going to the moon, mars, asteroid or wherever. If you want them to dream big, then what's the problem with a commercial company doing the freight? And if you want them to do both, then don't whine about BHO. He didn't gut the system - Congress did. And that predates even GWB. Congress allocates the money, so if you want NASA to become a big bloated government agency that tries to do everything on its own, then complain to Congress.

Personally, I'm happy to see that NASA can stop having to use the limited resources of Russia to do the freight hauling. Once commerical companies get into it and provide some competition, NASA and the other space agencies of the world can start concentrating on all those visionary projects like colonizing the moon, going to Mars and/or asteroids, and more. Now I'm guessing you want NASA to do all that too, so I just state it again - look to Congress for the funds. I'm not too optimistic about it, but they control the checkbook.

On top of what Brisaber said, I'm glad NASA retired the shuttles, they were a dead end. Lots of hauling capacity to LEO for sure, but nothing else - and incredibly expensive and dangerous for that job to boot! Which meant there was little money left over in NASA's budget for anything else. I agree, let someone else haul the freight for a while.

Good points Brisaber and Jimbo. Please note what else you can do with a Dragon capsule: http://mars-one.com/en/ Since NASA has set it up so they don't reuse the initial group of Dragons that fly, they are already being considered for other research on Earth.

Time4aPurge said:

..it really shows how fast "we" went from the worlds preeminent space power to a 2nd rate space faring nation. NASA no longer has a heavy lift space vehicle. NASA no longer has the capability to send astronauts to the space station,. NASA no longer has the capability to place over sized or heavy research satellites into space...

First, the notion that America is a 2nd rate space faring nation is laughable. This isn't the first space access gap we've had and it probably won't be the last. Also, you're comment seems to state that the use of capsule's means that we are a 2nd rate space faring nation. That is also laughable. The Space shuttle was an amazing machine. It could launch 25 tons into low Earth orbit along with 7 crew. ...But what if you just want to launch the crew and not tons of cargo?? Well, like America has done for many years (even prior to the shuttle retirement) you send them to Russia and hitch a ride on the Soyuz space capsule.

Second point, NASA has many rockets at their disposal. The Delta IV Heavy is just one example.

Which brings me to my third point; NASA stopped using the space shuttle to launch satellites long before the shuttle fleet was retired. All satellites were launched via other means. We do, in fact, still have the capability to launch large satellites.

Lastly, what we are seeing is a complete disregard for fact when it comes to peoples understanding of how Obama has affected the American space program. Folks seem to think Obama has killed NASA or gutted NASA, or "caused the complete destruction of NASA".. but it's just simply not true.

In 2010 Obama basically froze NASA's funding levels, which prevented Congress from scaling them down. Obama has consistently asked for larger amounts of funding to go to NASA to encourage NASA's plans to foster an American Private Space industry. Folks seem to forget that NASA would like to have the support of a broader more vibrant commercial space industry. Folks seem to think commercial space is some kind of Obama initiative. It is not. Obama did not come up with the COTS program (Commercial Orbital Tansportation Services). The COTS program was announced in 2006.

People seem to love to lay all this blame at the President's feet (and it doesn't matter who the President is either).

Time4aPurge, you can cherry pick what different American officials say all you want but it doesn't fool me. I pay enough attention to these issues to know when someone is regurgitating false and misrepresented information. And that's exactly what you are doing. Bolden has indeed said that it could take a long time for America do regain some of the capabilities we have lost. But you are taking that comment out of context. Bolden was broadly criticizing the way Congress has funded NASA of the years. After all, why wouldn't it take another 25 years to get back to the moon. We haven't been there for about 40 years. What's another 25 years among friends? If Congress thought going back to the moon was a priority we have gone back already. And I'm saying all of this as a staunch NASA supporter and I also feel that it's in America's best interests to build a research base on the Moon. But I am simply arguing that you are taking these things out of context in your attempts to smear the current administration.

The facts are this: America does not have the capability to launch American astronauts into space on American launch systems. America is currently working on restoring an American human-launch capability. Congress needs to do more to support that effort. The President needs to do more to support that effort. Specific missions need to be outlined.

Lumping a bunch of blame on a public figurehead is easy but it's utterly useless. Finding the facts and understanding the current state of the American space program is also easy, but it does require you to stop regurgitating misinformation of those interested parties in government and media.

Just a thought.

Capsule design is extremely efficient for cargo launch and recovery. Why do you think the Russians STILL use it? I love the look of the Shuttle, but it isn't a safe design with our current technology and materials. Plus, you don't need wings in space and since NASA is moving on to targets past LEO a Shuttle-type design simply will not work.

President Obama has increased NASA funding every year he has been in office until this year, where it is basically the same as last year. But please, keep spewing bumper sticker garbage, the idiocracy loves it.

Indeed - not sure why this line is repeated so often. Not sure if is due to our incredibly short attention span these days or the old "repeat a lie enough times" axiom. The retirement of the shuttles was announced back in 2004 - four years before President Obama was elected.

President Bush effectively canceled the Shuttle program by closing down the supply chain during his first term in office. By the time President Obama took office, it would have cost far too much to restart the supply chain.

It's the "repeat a lie enough" axiom combined with the short attention span. That's really how all news organizations use sensationalism in their headlines. Fox news is particularly "good" at it. I try to keep an eye on both liberal and conservative media in order to maintain a good handle on what crap both sides are spewing.

Anyways, people in general have horrible memory. For instance, the shuttle replacement debate seems to end during former President George W. Bush's administration even though replacing the shuttle has been on the table for quite a bit longer than the year 2000. It comes up a little in VentureStar conversations. And if I'm not mistaken it goes back even before VentureStar and the Clinton years.

Anyways, the last space shuttle flight happened on Obama's watch and I think that is the core component of the "Obama killed the shuttle campaign." People who look at the situation quickly realize that it takes years to shut down a program as big and involved as the shuttle program. It's certainly not as simple as "oh, we're not launching those anymore". And it's certainly not like Obama was elected and then put forward a presidential decree that the shuttle was kaputsky.

The hardest thing for me to wrap my mind around is that so many people buy into the "Obama killed NASA" junk. It's like people don't even pay attention to NASA but still profess to care about it. If you care about it and look deeper than just media reports it's quickly obvious that NASA is an enormous administration that does a LOT with the approximately .5% of the federal budget it gets per year. Just because the Space shuttle fleet is retired a good cross section of America seems to honestly believe that NASA has or is just about to close their doors. It's just not true. And yet the perception remains. And with all the conservative news that I watch, I really don't know where this idea is coming from. None of the talking heads seem to be saying anything like that (as far as I am aware). So, I don't really know where the NASA-is-dead thing comes from. The anti-Obama stuff is pretty simple to guess where it comes from.

The best thing we can do is let people know the realities of the current state of the American space program. And we must remember that not everyone who says otherwise is a troll. Some folks are good people that have just paid attention to the misinformation machine.

The actual statement my Bolden is a bit different. See the comment above by one Warren S. Levine who did some checking.

Indeed!