

SpaceX Given Green Light For First Launch To Space Station - andyjohnson0
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/04/spacex-space-station/

======
andyjohnson0
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?

~~~
hef19898
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.

~~~
andyjohnson0
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/>

~~~
hef19898
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...

~~~
andyjohnson0
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.

~~~
pjscott
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.

------
hef19898
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

------
evoxed
> 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...

~~~
russss
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).

~~~
scott_s
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.

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

~~~
scott_s
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.

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

~~~
scott_s
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.

------
hef19898
I wish them all luck and success!

(Because I forgot in my earlier post).

