Slashdot Mirror
Falcon 1 Ready to Launch
DarkNemesis618 writes "SpaceX's new rocket, the Falcon 1 is set to launch February 8. Twice now it has been delayed for technological problems and then for structural. It's payload is set to be the FalconSat-2 satellite. What's interesting is that this satellite was built by the cadets at the USAF Academy. The satellite is going to be studying the effects of space plasma. It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore."
I guess if it launched 4 years ago, it could have been called the New-Millenium Falcon
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
This is not correct.
SpaceX is a different organization altogether.
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
It is good to see the cost of deploying satellites dropping. Maybe this will free the astronauts to do what they were meant to do, explore space.
There must have been some heavy editing going on at wikipedia if it said that.....
Sea Launch are using russian Zenit rockets and launch from a ship. (hence the name)
SpaceX have there own rocket and launch from land (a small island or an airforce base)
They don't have much in common besides going up.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Falcon-1 was built by SpaceX, which is not a part of the Sea Launch consortiun. See this wikipedia entry.
What's interesting is that this satellite was built by the cadets at the USAF Academy. That must be where the term "space cadet" comes from...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Actually, you're somewhat mistaken here. That Space.com page that was linked to refers to two different articles, one Zenit launch and one Falcon 1 launch. The Zenit is the Sea Launch flight, and is a MUCH bigger booster, and MUCH more expensive. The Falcon is a more or less (apart from subsystems and avionics) an independent, ground-up launcher by SpaceX, with nothing to do with Boeing and the rest of the Sea Launch groups.
-twb
It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore
Ever hear of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Orbital Sciences? The government hasn't launched any major satellite besides ISS on the Shuttle for a decade. Satellite launches are contracted out.
Worst...sig...ever!
Uhm no. Nowhere in the Wikipedia entries for either SpaceX or Falcon 1 is there an association with the Sea Launch consortium. SpaceX was founded by Elon Musk and he is fronting all of the costs associated with the development and launch from his own personal fortune.
Also given the nature of his lawsuit against Boeing and Lockheed, I doubt that he would want to be part of an organization that is run by Boeing. Secondly, the launch is from a facility in the Kwajalein Atoll on solid ground, not from a SeaLaunch platform.
It's not that four countries are working together as much as four companies.
I Pong
Anyone else worried about militaries getting even more involved in space?
Does it run Linux.....Sorry, I had to.
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
Christ, they even have those new TVs on the ISS? I still have an old CRT model...
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Secondly, we've had satellites, space stations, and an assortment of space probes out in space for over 40 years, so why are they only sending one up now? Wouldn't the "effects" of this space plasma already have made itself obvious with it's impact on military satellites already in existence? So what are they really testing, hmm?
Obviously I have a lot of questions, but something seems out of place with this mission. Shouldn't they have done this before they sent up human beings to the moon? I'm obviously totally uninformed or totally paranoid. Maybe both!
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
I hope nothing goes wrong and its apostrophe doesn't fall off !!
The space shuttle was only used for satellite launches when disposable rockets lacked the payload capacity. Falcon 1's tiny size changes nothing with regards to the shuttle's use with satellites. It does mean though that Titan and Atlas aren't the only solutions for smaller launches.
If by "ship" you mean a recycled oil rig, then yes.
#include <signature.h>
SpaceX is attempting to clone Falcon-7!
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
The only satellites that NASA has launched recently are the Chandra Space Telescope and the ISS itself.
The most recent US Government non-NASA, non-Military satellite was NOAA-18, launched May 20, 2005 on a Boeing Delta Rocket.
If you don't believe me, check the Launch Log.
There is no requirement that NASA must launch all US government payloads. The parts of the ISS, unfortunately, were designed to fit exactly in the Shuttle Cargo Bay. There is no law stating that they must be launched by the shuttle, however, it will be expensive to modify them to take launch loads from another launcher.
There are many launch providers in the world, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Orbital, China, Russia, India, Ariane, Japan... and others I can't think of right now. Elon Musk thinks he can do it much cheaper than the competition. Let's see how it goes first. Personally, I think he is going to run into a lot of unexpected costs and techinical problems as the Falcon 1 evolves into the Falcon 5 and 9. I'd be happy to see him pull it off, but I have my doubts.
And let the next space race begin. Except this time it's domestic.
I think this may be why my origami rocket won't lift off.
Well-said.
If by recycled oil rig you meant "self-propelled, semi-submersible drilling rig" then yes ;).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Odyssey
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
Prior to the Reagan administration, NASA was the only game in town for just about everything that went into space, incuding private payloads as well. Or you had to renouce your American citizenship (if you were American) and try the Russians. Sure, there were private contractors who did the actual construction of the vehicles and even largely ran the lanuch operations, but there was a NASA official at just about every other step along the way.
As an example of private payloads launched through NASA, the Telstar Satellite, while owned and technically operated by AT&T, was built and launched through a government procurement contract. The original process was so complicated that AT&T bought a couple of congress critters to reform the process, which led to the development of Intelsat for major long distance communication. BTW, the Wikipedia articles really whitewash the whole episode of how ugly the politics got for launching private space vehicles.
This is still used as an example of how the government should not operate in space, and that the bureaucracy for getting things into space has always been there. Only now are totally private launch systems even being developed, and even in the case of SpaceX there is still government money involved. Just not as directly and SpaceX decided to take matters into their own hands in regards to the launch. It was originally scheduled to be at Vandenburg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara, but got tied down in bureaucratic B.S. to force them to either delay the lanuch for a considerable length of time or find another place to launch.
The launch log you reference only goes up to May 31 of last year. Don't forget Pluto New Horizons that just launched. NASA truly launches nothing. Contractors do all the launching, USA (United Space Alliance, a Boeing and Lockheed Martin combined effort) preparesthe Shuttle, and their joint efforts with NASA put the Shuttle into orbit. Also NASA places a lot of science satellites on Boeing and Lockheed rockets (Delta and Atlas) and occasionally Pegasus (Orbital Sciences) Likewise, the US military doesn't launch satellites, they contract it out. The military does launch test rockets, but those don't deliver payloads to orbit.
Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
What's interesting is that this satellite was built by the cadets at the USAF Academy. The satellite is going to be studying the effects of space plasma. It appears NASA & the shuttle are not the only ways for the government to launch satellites anymore.
:: government as :: kitchens
cadets
feet
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
This gives now meaning to "Hand Luggage".
"Please safely stow your sattelites in the compartments above your heads"
"Secondly, we've had satellites, space stations, and an assortment of space probes out in space for over 40 years, so why are they only sending one up now? Wouldn't the "effects" of this space plasma already have made itself obvious with it's impact on military satellites already in existence? So what are they really testing, hmm?"
Whatever this space plasma is, the testing is probably to find the less significant effects of it. Just because it's there doesn't mean that we don't know exactly how it works.
Benjamin Franklin managed to discover some sort of electricity (with his famous kite experiment which actually just generated some static, not fried him to a crisp). But he didn't know about the individual electrons in the metal of the key, or how more electrons are passed through that metal. He just knew that electricity was there but didn't completely understand it.
Same goes for us with "space plasma".
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Third time is the charm, as they say.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I think the most interesting example of military space was the USSR's Polyus orbital weapons platform:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_spacecraft
The USSR launched this back in 1986, but it had a launch "accident" and was unable to successfully deploy.
I'm a big fan of Elon Musk, who started SpaceX with the money he got from selling PayPal to eBay. He's a pretty good example of someone who grew up with dreams about space who's trying to make those dreams a reality. I think his efforts with towards dramatically decreasing the cost of space launch are quite important, and crucial for his (and my) long-term goal of making humanity a multi-planet species.
...
...
...
...
...
...
This set of notes by Michael Belfiore from their pre-launch press conference for their launch attempt last year is a pretty interesting read and gives great insight into what Musk wants to do with SpaceX. Some excerpts:
SpaceX's second Gen rocket engine will be the biggest rocket engine in the world, though not the biggest in history. The F1 engine that sent people to the moon is no longer in production, so Musk doesn't count that.
Q: What customers will you put on Falcon 9?
A: We haven't thought a lot about it because it's speculative, but big customers would be NASA, Bigelow Aerospace, which is launching its first subscale space station module next year, and potentially people who just want to go to orbit and just spend some time on orbit. Also we could do a loop around the moon, which actually wouldn't require a huge rocket. [Space Adventures recently cut a deal with the Russian Space Agency to do just that, so that may be what inspired Musk to say that.]
Q: When will you go to space?
A: I'm not doing this to go into space myself, per se. I want to help build a space faring civilization. It would have been very easy for me to pay to go to the International Space Station myself. I want to help other people get to space.
Musk: The expansion of life on earth to other places is arguably the most important thing to happen to life on earth, if it happens. Life has the duty to expand. And we're the representatives of life with the ability to do so.
Q: When will you fly cargo missions to the space station?
A: I hope in the next 3 to 4 years.
Another question from me: Are you developing a manned vehicle right now, or have you thought that far ahead yet?
A: I can't comment on that right now.
Q: What's next in the entreprenurial space field?
A: Lots of people doing things--Paul Allen [who funded SpaceShipOne], Jeff Bezos with Blue Origin, John Carmack with Armadillo Aerospace...Musk thinks we're heading toward a Netscape moment, when someone turns a profit, and hopefully it'll be SpaceX, and then investment capital will start to flow in.
This rocket (the whole family) was named Falcon after Millenium Falcon. See http://www.spacex.com/media21.php That's what happens when geeks go into space business. Go, Falcon, go!
Probots?
;)
:)
Prob(e)-bots?
Or are you talking about sexy robots on streetcorners?
Seriously though, your post had an excellent point on exploration vs. adventure. It's a shame more of us won't get to venture into space soon
Wow! This is the Bright Sky project! Odyssey launch etc...
English is not my mother tongue, so forgive me for asking: shouldn't it be "its payload"..?
NASA were not over-optimistic. They were outright lying. Recent evidence reveals that the development of the shuttle wasn't really over budget - it cost about as much as internal NASA estimates said it would. It did cost quite a bit more than what they promised to the congress, though. In other words - they lied so the project wouldn't get cancelled and relied on getting more money down the road.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
4 years ago USAF cadets were too busy getting drunk and raping their peers to build anything.
Its nice to see they've got proper schedualing down now.
There are a plethora of other launch vehicles out there.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Fucking nigger
Black Invention Myths