SpaceX launch attempt tonight

[Dragon]

http://www.youtube.com/user/nasatelevision/

Try that for the launch vid.

Note around 10 minutes, the difference between spacex and nasa...  nasa had these super durable expensive custom consoles in mission control, with built in screens, etc etc.  All very professional, durable, built to last, etc.  SpaceX has "kids" (30-somethings) wearing t-shirts and jeans sitting at moveable workstation tables looking at general purpose triple-monitor setups with what in one spot looks like a mission status projected onto a clear space on the wall.  The whole workspace could be reconfigured or partitioned for different or multiple missions in less than an hour, and it probably cost a mere fraction (a tenth is my estimate) of what it cost NASA to set up their original mission control facility with hardware that was obsolete within a year and difficult/expensive to modify for future missions.

That's the mark of a commercial/private program, set up from the start to respond to change and not spending excess money on frills, especially operations tech that will either be obsolete within a year, or which will need to be re-purposed quickly without costing the program a lot of money.

They sure looked like a startup company sitting at those tables but it gave me hope that they'll still be around launching rockets for a long time.

Thanks for the link.


Tax payer money at the time was bountiful and people held the belief that NASA was doing the right thing.  I agree, but, had things been handled a bit more frugally, I think less people would have been against the expenditures.

I hope the private sector can accomplish as much or more and not cheapen it at the cost of human life.  That is a tough line to walk and I wouldn't want to be the one to walk it.

 

[Motherland]

Calling this a private venture is a bit ridiculous. It's still using technology pioneered and designed by taxpayer funds to complete a mission payed for by taxpayer funds.
Unless NASA was there to pay for this it would never have happened. Unless NASA was there to pave the way it would have never happened.
Save a few rich maniacs who will waste all of their money setting up a space program, we'll never see any truly private venture (one that's not just state-outsourced programs) far into the future. No one is going to pay trillions of dollars, hoping to make anything back, on something with little to no chance for return.

[Delirium]

No one is going to pay trillions of dollars, hoping to make anything back, on something with little to no chance for return.

Motherland, they said the same thing about transatlantic crossing with aircraft, and if you go back further, with sailpowered ships.

Never say never... it may not be in our lifetime, but it will happen (if we don't annihilate ourselves first).

[Motherland]

Motherland, they said the same thing about transatlantic crossing with aircraft, and if you go back further, with sailpowered ships.

Never say never... it may not be in our lifetime, but it will happen (if we don't annihilate ourselves first).

I've no doubt that eventually we'll be in space, and that there will eventually be found legitimate reasons and great benefits of us being there and exploring it more fully. I think NASA's a great program.
But I think it's ridiculous to think that private investors will be the way to get there, considering that we've already spent trillions of dollars on it with not a whole lot to show for it, other than to say we've done it, which doesn't exactly help the bottom line at all for a private investor, so there's no point in it unless he's just in it for the fame, and, let's face it, even these guys have limited funds and they're extremely few and far between.
I have no doubt that private space travel and exploitation will be there eventually, but it will be long after state programs have created the technology and infrastructure necessary to make it profitable and worthwhile. We're still far from that point.

[Shuffler]

I doubt the computers were in the consoles.  You can quibble about it all you want but the consoles were waaaaay overbuilt for their purpose and were so customized they were probably very expensive to move/modify for each mission.  They simply didn't use them enough to justify making them that expensive.  Again you can argue about all you want but it was a very expensive approach to an operational requirement, and the solution was expensive and difficult to maintain and modify for new requirements.  One more reason why NASA has struggled with money for such a long time.  Who wants to fire the guys who are absolutely critical to maintaining and upgrading consoles designed decades ago but which are so durable they don't want to throw out and replace with something that looks (and is) cheaper?

They were not in the consoles, tons of wiring were. Don't forget the huge tube for the monitor.

[RTHolmes]

the bulk of rocket launches at this point are already funded by the private sector and are profitable commercial ventures. the ISS and manned flights attract all the attention because spacewalks make great footage, so its easy to forget how all those 1000s of satellites got up there.