SpaceX Given Green Light For First Launch To Space Station | Hacker News Reader

SpaceX Given Green Light For First Launch To Space Station

wired.com

105 pointsandyjohnson021 comments

I'm curious about the infrastructure investment necessary for commercial space flight - over and above developing the launch system and vehicle itself - and how this affects the economics of the business.

How do SpaceX communicate with the Dragon in orbit? Have they built their own global tracking/control network? Or do they use ground stations developed for commercial satellite control? Are existing (non-NASA) networks suitable in terms of providing uninterrupted connectivity with an orbiting vehicle?

Also, is sharing of ground facilities (fueling, launch, recovery) with other operators necessary for the business to be economic?

Interessting question, indeed. I'd guess that, for the time being, the existing infrastructure is used. Right now, I doubt there are enough commercial flights to justify a dedicated infrastructure, though I am sure there at least some plans to built one one day.

I assume the economics of the business are pretty much influenced by the infrastructure used, but I'm not an expert on it. Maybe the existing infrastructure is sufficient. Does any body now if SpaceX needs its own launch pads or can they existing ones? Or even better some of the existing ones?

EDIT: They used launch sites in Cape Canerveral, Vandenberg and apparently have one on Kwajalein Atoll, according to their website.

The SpaceX wikipedia page indicates that they have so far used US Military and NASA launch sites. But they are also planning to build a launch complex in South Texas. Not sure if its for their exclusive use.

There is also Spaceport America [1] being built in New Mexico. Seems to be open to anyone.

[1] http://www.spaceportamerica.com/

I believe that's "thinking of building", not "planning to build."

For a comercial programm aimed to promote space exploration it would be just logical to build non-exclusive launch sites.

And again Europe was not part of it...

From a commercial/competitive point of view, wouldn't an incumbent like SpaceX be better off building an exclusive launch site? Use it as a barrier to entry for competitors.

I agree with both your points though.

I'm not sure. My guess is that the lauch site is not biggest entry barrier, I think that's more the development and construction of the rockets and stuff. And the biggest customers in the western worlds like the NASA and the US military have there own sites, I guess they allow SpaceX competitors to use them too.

Again, I'm no expert on that, so please feel free to add some expertise!

Do they need a barrier to entry, beyond the difficulty of launching things into space at all? They seem to be going for the honorable strategy of running faster than everybody else, rather than trying to cripple their competitors.

> How do SpaceX communicate with the Dragon in orbit? Have they built their own global tracking/control network?

No, they're using the US government's TDRSS system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_and_Data_Relay_Satelli...), and I think they're also getting support from NASA's ground stations.

> Also, is sharing of ground facilities (fueling, launch, recovery) with other operators necessary for the business to be economic?

I don't think so - it seems like the cost of running the ground-based infrastructure is quite minimal compared to the actual operational costs of launching. Although SpaceX is using some of the original NASA/USAF infrastructure at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, it seems like they've built most of their facilities from scratch.

Some interessting points from Elon himself from the SpaceX homepage on that:

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

Also includes some costs and so on.

The major points here for me are:

1. Fast and cheap development

2. Profitable since 2007

3. Three own lauch sites at existing locations

> As part of the program NASA has invested $381 million in SpaceX. Musk didn’t give a specific number, but he estimated the SpaceX program has cost around $1 billion in total to date.

I didn't realize NASA had so much stake in SpaceX. Musk started it with ~$100M IIRC, though I thought he contributed much more since. A quick search didn't turn up the number I was looking for so I'll just monitor the posts here...

I don't think NASA holds shares in SpaceX - the word "invested" is wrong here.

I think what the article meant to say is NASA has awarded SpaceX $381m in contracts and development awards (through the COTS and CCDev programs).

Right. I shouldn't have continued the implication, but in a generic sense their stake is still valued at $380 (with perhaps some recoverable if Elon Musk suddenly disappears and SpaceX creates the Blob or something). I guess I was distracted thinking about the upcoming IPO. Last I heard was 2013Q1.

I think "invest" is the correct word. In the context of the financial industry, "invest" usually implies that you have purchased actual stock in a company. But in general, the word means that you have committed something of value to someone else, and hence, your well-being is tied to theirs. We also say that a teacher is invested in their students success because they have committed their time and effort to help those people succeed. In this circumstance, NASA has given SpaceX money, and if SpaceX does not succeed, that will hurt NASA. If SpaceX does succeed, that will help NASA. NASA could have, instead, used that $381 million to try to do it themselves; that money is now gone, and if SpaceX fails, NASA won't get a do-over. For those reasons, I think it's accurate to say to then say that NASA is invested in SpaceX.

Right. It's technically correct but it's misleading.

Again, I disagree. I think most people will understand it in the way I said above, because for most people, "invest" does not imply "bought shares of." Because of your involvement in the startup community, you tend to assume a specialized definition of "invest" rather than the general definition that most people assume.

99 times out of 100 (at least) on Hacker News, "invest" connotes an actual ownership share.

Which is related to what I said about being plugged into the startup community. This article, however, appeared in Wired, which is a more general magazine.

They developed three rockets and a reusable vessel for $1 billion? That's impressive!!

Now I totally see Facebook's $1B buyout of that photo-sharing iPhone app for hipsters as being reasonable.

Wait a minute.

I wish them all luck and success!

(Because I forgot in my earlier post).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com