I find your comment amusing in light of my particular frustration with the near anonymity of SpaceX in relation to its accomplishments, especially in addition to the nearly universally unfavorable press it gets over at AviationWeek.com. And never mind that Orbital is not "working on the same thing" by any reasonable understanding of the phrase.
Let's get one thing out of the way up front: SpaceX launched, orbited, reentered, and retrieved a fully reusable capsule, one with an ablative heat shield that can be used hundreds, if not thousands, of times over. Disregarding the reusable aspects of the design, they're in the company of 3 nations. Include the reusability aspect and they're in the company only of the United States and the former Soviet Union. I have a degree in engineering. I have engineering friends, some of whom work in aerospace companies. Until this recent PR push, I hadn't found one of them who'd even heard of SpaceX, to say nothing of their groundbreaking and historical flight and recovery of a capsule with private funds. If that's "all the press," then I have "all the press," too. Go ahead. Ask me how it feels to be so famous!
The little press that they do get within the ossified aerospace industry has been terrible. AvWeek recently ran a piece which was focused on how SpaceX had "lost some of its luster" (not a direct quote, but close) with the slip from February to April for the Space Station rendezvous launch, as if any government-run space technology was ever delivered on time. A while ago, they found some blow-hard "space policy expert" to opine about how space was hard and how it was absolutely obvious that SpaceX was over-promising and destined to radically under-deliver. They ran another piece about how congress was unhappy with COTS. Only recently did they have to give some ground with a piece about how commercial space was "already having benefits" now that the launch is so near, and I was overjoyed with schadenfreude when they had to provide neutral coverage of the uninteresting and everyday fact that Space Station astronauts were rehearsing for SpaceX's visit to the station. There's a reason, I'm sure, that SpaceX chose Muse's Uprising as the theme song for their animation about their plans for full reusability. It fits.
Further, Orbital's offering is not even close. Orbital's vehicle is not reusable. It burns up on reentry, and therefore has no capacity to bring cargo back from ISS. And their price point is nowhere near Musk's. In case you're keeping track--and I mean the hypothetical "you", I'm not pissed at you, Metapony--that's less for more. Less than SpaceX for more money. Furthermore, the floor on Orbital's costs is the same trifecta that's always been around in aerospace: expendability, costs of disparate components, and integration costs. I'd love to see a viable competitor to SpaceX, but Orbital isn't even close.
Make no mistake, the battle is not between "government" vehicles and private industry. There are no "government" vehicles: Every vehicle gets built by private contractors. The battle is actually between the established aerospace industry, built around expendables and cost-plus contracting, and SpaceX, an innovative and disruptive aerospace company based around competition, reusables, and fixed-price contracts, with Orbital taking up the rear with the worst aspects of both models.
I know. I come across as a strident cheerleader. I hope that has less to do with any inherent fanboyism in my makeup than it does with my absolute perplexity at and frustration with the bare fact that SpaceX has done unprecedented, amazing, historic things, and hardly anyone knows about them at all.
That mirrors my point of view (I'm in aerospace). Maybe interesting to add: Aerospace is one of the most conservative industries I know, to the brink of overconvidence and beyond. The main reason here are, for me:
1. A duopoly for big aircrafts by Boeing and Airbus (you have to look at the development and industrialisation nightmares of the B787 and the A380 to see where that got them)
2. National monopolies for military aircraft almost everywhere, meaning not pressure to deliver on-spec on-time in-budget since these contracts are basically subsidies
3. Protected space-flight markets, also to a high degree to military aspects
4. High entry barries, e.g. development costs, costs for market penetration, regulations (both civil and military), etc...
Given the above facts, it's clear that the big guys everywhere do everything to protect their market share against others like SpaceX, the chinese (commercial airliners) and the like. But a situation like that also means death to innovation, we are cooking in own juice (if you can say that in english...). The only thing the hold Boeings Lockheeds BAes and EADS grip on the industry are the above mentioned facts, hopfully that changes with the raise of the likes of Embraer, the chinese and (as I personally hope because I like the indesttuctable designs) the recovering russians, some competition can only help.
Another reason why aerospace is slow on innovation and radical design is also safety, something you cannot discard. When lifes are at stake, you don't take any unnecessary risk. First because you are most certainly not allowed too by regulations and also due to a culture of not taking unnecessary risks rooted in security issues. This was different in the past, but raisning costs a and a more risk aware (i'm not giong as far to say risk afraid) public changed that a lot. Again a quasi monoploy didn't help neither.
And as far as SpaceX is concerned: NASA open up a huge window of opportunity to disrupt space flight by retiering the shuttle which left almost overnight only the russians. And Elon Musk took that window, among others.
It's kind of like comparing SpaceX to Virgin Galactic.
Sure, both are likely to succeed within the year at their target goals, but it's apples and oranges.
I suspect that Virgin Galactic will eventually orbit, but I think their real money could be made in suborbital point-to-point, acting like an ultra-elite airliner, which they had (have?) as phase-2.
While Virgin will be testing that, the Dragon Heavy will likely be moving people into low earth orbit. Sometime after that, StratoLaunch might roll something onto a tarmac somewhere.
I don't think SpaceX is really seeking attention. They don't depend on consumers or the aerospace industry at large. Musk certainly doesn't strike me as the kind of person who craves attention. The interview on the Daily Show was the first I had ever seen with him.
They definitely do some amount of PR - in addition to Must going on Jon Stewart he also did a great interview with 60 Minutes earlier this month.
Although they don't directly need consumer support, getting your name out there helps with recruiting the best engineers. I know several people who were tops in their field and heard about SpaceX, dropped what they were doing and applied.
It also helps them with public support. It's very possible that the majors will come in and try to use lobbying to crush SpaceX. Having the public on your side will help SpaceX beat that back later.
Orbital has done a lot of awesome things. ORBCOMM was pretty amazing at the time -- they were just more on the government contract only side than SpaceX (although both are less so than Boeing or the other big aerospace contractors).
I'm just a software guy, not aerospace, so I'm surprised to hear SpaceX is not widely known in the field. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like they are. Thanks for sharing your perspective on it.
Let's get one thing out of the way up front: SpaceX launched, orbited, reentered, and retrieved a fully reusable capsule, one with an ablative heat shield that can be used hundreds, if not thousands, of times over. Disregarding the reusable aspects of the design, they're in the company of 3 nations. Include the reusability aspect and they're in the company only of the United States and the former Soviet Union. I have a degree in engineering. I have engineering friends, some of whom work in aerospace companies. Until this recent PR push, I hadn't found one of them who'd even heard of SpaceX, to say nothing of their groundbreaking and historical flight and recovery of a capsule with private funds. If that's "all the press," then I have "all the press," too. Go ahead. Ask me how it feels to be so famous!
The little press that they do get within the ossified aerospace industry has been terrible. AvWeek recently ran a piece which was focused on how SpaceX had "lost some of its luster" (not a direct quote, but close) with the slip from February to April for the Space Station rendezvous launch, as if any government-run space technology was ever delivered on time. A while ago, they found some blow-hard "space policy expert" to opine about how space was hard and how it was absolutely obvious that SpaceX was over-promising and destined to radically under-deliver. They ran another piece about how congress was unhappy with COTS. Only recently did they have to give some ground with a piece about how commercial space was "already having benefits" now that the launch is so near, and I was overjoyed with schadenfreude when they had to provide neutral coverage of the uninteresting and everyday fact that Space Station astronauts were rehearsing for SpaceX's visit to the station. There's a reason, I'm sure, that SpaceX chose Muse's Uprising as the theme song for their animation about their plans for full reusability. It fits.
Further, Orbital's offering is not even close. Orbital's vehicle is not reusable. It burns up on reentry, and therefore has no capacity to bring cargo back from ISS. And their price point is nowhere near Musk's. In case you're keeping track--and I mean the hypothetical "you", I'm not pissed at you, Metapony--that's less for more. Less than SpaceX for more money. Furthermore, the floor on Orbital's costs is the same trifecta that's always been around in aerospace: expendability, costs of disparate components, and integration costs. I'd love to see a viable competitor to SpaceX, but Orbital isn't even close.
Make no mistake, the battle is not between "government" vehicles and private industry. There are no "government" vehicles: Every vehicle gets built by private contractors. The battle is actually between the established aerospace industry, built around expendables and cost-plus contracting, and SpaceX, an innovative and disruptive aerospace company based around competition, reusables, and fixed-price contracts, with Orbital taking up the rear with the worst aspects of both models.
I know. I come across as a strident cheerleader. I hope that has less to do with any inherent fanboyism in my makeup than it does with my absolute perplexity at and frustration with the bare fact that SpaceX has done unprecedented, amazing, historic things, and hardly anyone knows about them at all.