this whole thing is confusing.
So NASA already have all the tech/know how/patents and asked this private firm to build a new set of vehicle. NASA have to hand over them some/all free IP, otherwise these won't happen, or spaceX need to blow 10+ rockets before all of these.
Is it true now all NASA IPs are free to the world? If there is a steady business model here Boening or Lockheed Martin are in a much better position to compete.
spaceX is like ... Netscape and boening like MS.
Here's video of what Friday's (May 25) scheduled "berthing" of the SpaceX Dragon cargo ship with the International Space Station would look like:
I will say "Go USA" and the space travel or inter- continent travels with the rockets will be a reality sooner than we think. NASA did the R&Ds and the it is time for the commercial phase, just like the airplane travelling in the early days. Do you know how long it takes from one side of the earth to the other side of the earth like USA to Middle east or India, it is about twenty hour flight time but with the rocket going into the space and then come back, probably saves at least half or more the travelling time.
I always admire the risk taker like Elon Musk, he is the kind of person to explore the new frontiers, let us give him the due credit. Basically he single-handedly competes with other nations like China and Russia in the space exploration.
The latest on SpaceX mission to the International Space Station via Elon Musk's Twitter account (@elonmusk): "Dragon fly by of Space Station planned for 12:47 am California time. All systems green".
While the tweet did not indicate the date, it is presumably early Thursday (May 24).
The key word here is "risk." Few entrepreneurs have stuck their neck out farther than Elon Musk. Most of what he made on the sale of PayPal went directly into SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity. While I have yet to be convinced that SpaceX is capable of designing a safe manned spacecraft, what they have so far managed to pull off is, to quote veteran space journalist Miles O'Brien, "tectonic."
I think we all hope that the rest of the mission goes as well as the start. It certainly provides new hope for the future of space exploration which I think many of us anticipate will see much commercial development as opposed to government development.
I'll say "Go USA" and "Go Humanity"! As messed up as things are in this country right now, someone can still be creative and determined, and endeavor to do great things regardless of whether they were born here or not. That gives me hope in our country and in our economy.
I haven't read NASA's actual mission statement, if they have one, but I would much rather my tax dollar go to probes to Pluto, robots on Mars and telescopes that can peer billion's of years into the past than to doing something that hasn't change all that much in 40 or 50 years.
That's pretty much the point. Generally technology doesn't become broadly commercially viable until it reaches a point where it's no longer the exclusive domain of genius.
Space flight will not be private and commercial until it is routine enough and old enough technology to be lower cost and more reliable. There are uncountable commercial products that came from NASA IP. Space-X is using publicly funded technology and infrastructure as a base, but so does everyone else when they pull their car out onto a public street.
It's impossible to say if Space-X will end up profitable, but it is a very significant milestone in getting space travel out of R&D and into the hands of commercial ventures. Low earth orbit should be low-tech commercial at this point in the evolution of space travel. NASA needs to focus on real research, exploration and discovery. That's where NASA's value lies. Not in being a trucking company.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.