Make money launching sattelites. On Falcon-1 and Falcon-9. And do it cheaper (though it's no longer clear how much cheaper) than current launch providers. It's basically as simple as that.

But they also hope to provide post-Shuttle re-suply for ISS, including manned flights on Falcon-9 with their privately developed
'Dragon' capsule.

If it weren't so simple. You think foreign governments would let private industry mine the moon? I think not.

Privatization is nice in a way, but it always comes at the lowest cost and space isn't something you cut corners around.

BTW, last time i checked NASA is heavily contracted to private industry so i don't get the enthusiasm about SpaceX. It appears to be just as heavily aligned (and needs nasa to survive) with NASA as NASA's core contractors. Its just a newcomer but no different than any other space company if you ask me.

Cool to see a new company around but its still a chemical rocket brute forcing payloads to space and hoping they can simply refine it down so much that it just becomes commodotized & cheaper.

This is what we need, more privately capitalized space exploration programs; and less NASA.

The goal should be mining the moon (not digging up permafrost on Mars) and bring back those extremely valuable Helium 3 isotopes; we have known for decades this rare isotope (rare on Earth that is) represents a potentially tremendous lucrative energy source, clean and plentiful; and when it comes to energy that is one area that will always draw investment dollars, and grab the headlines!

Be the first to mine the moon and return with Helium 3 and you will be the richest man in the history of our planet; while also saving ourselves from these polluting and politically dangerous fossil fuels in the centuries to come.

I think its great that private companies are getting into spaceflight.

Sean

Hey people, this IS rocket science.

I'm guessing lucrative contracts

You'd end up with Nasa .inc, and paying the same high prices.

I congratulate the entire SpaceX team for getting this far and I for one am certain that, in the end they will succeed.

But one thing seems to be missing. (Please correct me if I am wrong), but NASA should have their own engineers working alongside SpaceX to provide every possible assistance. There is no value to the USA to NASA standing back and watching; they should be right up there doing everything they can to see SpaceX succeed.

Then again, if SpaceX succeeds without NASA, then how long will it be before everyone decides the SpaceX route is the better way to go with space exploration?

It was (apparently) a failure to separate this time…last time separation occurred and most of the second stage burn completed before the vehicle became unstable and the engine cut out. I think it's safe to say that the failures are unrelated. Fuel swirl or "something else", whatever killed the last one didn't have a chance to cause a problem this time.

What exactly do you feel was wrong with their explanation? Their explanation seemed to match perfectly with what was visible from the video feed, and they have plenty of other telemetry to look at. It was overcompensating control logic plus fuel sloshing in a rapidly-emptying tank. This time, the failure happened much earlier, at separation.

SpaceX is in a far more precarious position. Mainly because NASA and the big aerospace names will be a difficult act to follow when your on a tight budget.
They have the right attitude for pushing through this disappointment. I hope its rewarded with future success.

Losing countless rockets, a fire in the Apollo and 2 space shuttles hasn't killed NASA yet. Not to mention the failures of other boosters both for government and private flights.

is there a reason these investors just didn't buy into current technology in hopes to lower costs vs re-inventing the wheel and hoping you could just do it cheaper?