On Fourth Launch Attempt, SpaceX Falcon 1 Reaches Orbit

xp65 writes with the just-announced success of Elon Musk's SpaceX's long efforts to reach orbit with a privately-developed launching craft: "T+0:08:21 Falcon 1 reached orbital velocity, 5200 m/s Nominal Second stage cut off (SECO) — Falcon 1 has made history as the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit!" dbullard adds "This was a completely new vehicle — it's not using any previously developed hardware. All developed from scratch. No government supplied hardware, Russian engines, or old ICBM motors. My hat's off to the employees of Space X — all 550 of them. (Note — no 'cast of thousands,' just 550). They've got video of the entire launch."

Comments

Cost

[Annymouse Cowherd]

Exactly how much did this cost?

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how much did this cost?

Why? Are you thinking of buying one?
As they say "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it"!

Re:Cost

[QuantumG]

To develop? That's proprietary.

Want to buy a launch? $7.9 million.

Re:Cost

[Original Replica]

I had no luck finding exact numbers, but Musk was worth about $200million when he started this, but there have been some launches paid for by Uncle Sam, so the exact funding gets murky. The test launches cost between $7 to $12 million. I'd think it would be quite safe to say the total budget so far has been under $500 million, that would be Elon Musk's total fortune, plus matching funds from the government, plus considerable outside donations. $500 million is 1/32nd NASA's annual budget for comparison.

Re:Cost

[JonTurner]

>>Exactly how much did this cost?
You? nothing. Which is precisely why it's so significant. This is private enterprise, vs. a mandatory government space program. You get to choose whether to be a part of this, or not.

Oh, and as far as "cost", I think it's more accurate to consider it an "investment" for soon these space shots will generate income.

Re:Cost

[Kjella]

Looks like the prices are going to drop big if they manage to do what they intend though, from the same page they plan to go from $7.9M for 420 kg now to $9.1M for 1010 kg in 2010. Still not exactly cheap for my paycheck but I guess lower than the competition.

Re:Cost

[Reikk]

It cost just under $5 million and should reach to uranus

Re:Cost

[oldspewey]

$7.9 million? MASA will launch any payload and successfully land it on the moon for two hundred dollars.

Re:Cost

[jelle]

You do know that NASA's satellite launches are almost always done with rockets from outside contractors, don't you? That means that NASA may well (and will) hire SpaceX instead of the current contractor for launch missions, if their capabilities, reliability, and price makes sense.

For those very rare occasions that NASA uses the space shuttle to launch, the reason for it is usually that none of the available commercial solutions will work (payload size, of launch assist from astronauts, etc). And even then, the space shuttle is serviced and prepped by many contractors...

Re:Cost

[Antique Geekmeister]

Just because it comes from someone else's bank account does not make that 'cost' zero. Ignoring the 'cost' of that up-front investment, irrelevant of some unspecified 'income' that the project will generate, is how Dotcom companies go out of business: don't encourage that kind of sloppy thinking here.

It's also exactly the sort of question potential investors should be asking. Don't just blow it off with voodoo economics.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia claims Musk's net worth is $320 Million.

Re:Cost

[prisoner-of-enigma]

$7.9 million? MASA [aol.com] will launch any payload and successfully land it on the moon for two hundred dollars [wikipedia.org].

And how much in taxes does the average taxpayer have to pay to subsidize that $200 launch cost?

There is no free -- or even cheap -- lunch when it comes to any government-sponsored program.

Re:Cost

[Wonko the Sane]

maybe you should have followed the links...

Re:Cost

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Congratulations. That whooshing noise is the sound of the joke going over your head. Follow the fracking links in GP, and you'll see they're talking about a South Park episode.

Re:Cost

[Hurricane78]

420 kg?? We aren't that fat, you insensitive clod! ...yet.

And 1010 kg for 2010? I think there is a certain alarm bell going off in your brain, if you realize that you're weighing as much as your car... and still live enough to notice the alarm...

Re:Cost

[Rei]

Rocket launch prices don't scale linearly with payload mass. Launching small payloads is very expensive per unit mass. The Falcon 1 variants are a direct competitor to the Pegasus family, but at 1/3rd the price. *Assuming* they can keep their prices down (or even drop them, such as with reuse). This is always a tricky aspect; often what happens is that issues that came up in development or a market that failed to materialize increase prices. Whether that will happen with SpaceX, only time will tell.

One thing I find encouraging is, as Musk notes, how much simpler the Falcon is than the Pegasus. The Falcon is a standard two-stage liquid-fuelled rocket designed ground-up for simplicity and bulk production. Pegasus is partially made of hardware borrowed from earlier rocket programs. You're looking at five stages. The first has to be man-rated, since you drop the rocket from a plane. You have to maintain the plane. The first rocket stage is effectively a hypersonic aircraft, complete with flight surfaces. And so forth. So, I think there's a good shot of them staying cheaper than Pegasus, probably by a good margin.

Also, I just in general like the approach they've taken with the Falcon series; there are a lot of clever design choices. My favorite: the cross between balloon tanks and rigid tanks. Balloon tanks are very light but very flimsy tanks that rely on internal pressure to keep stable. This gives you a better payload fraction but makes them hard to handle on the ground without damaging them; you have to transport them inflated, for example. Rigid tanks are heavier, but easier to handle. The tanks on the Falcon are rigid enough to not have to be transported under pressure, but not to withstand the forces of launch without their internal pressure. It's a "best of both worlds" type situation.

Re:Cost

[ozmanjusri]

You? nothing. Which is precisely why it's so significant. This is private enterprise, vs. a mandatory government space program.

NASA has invested hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as part of a partnership with SpaceX to develop the first commercially-operated rocket designed to take cargo to the international space station. NASA has also invested in a second company, Orbital Sciences Corp. of Virginia.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/spacex-strikes.html

Corporate welfare FTW. You've been suckered again...

Re:Cost

[Rei]

Do remember that Musk is also wrapped up in solar power (SolarCity) and electric cars (Tesla Motors).

Re:Cost

[MichaelSmith]

$7.9M for 420 kg

I reckon thats enough mass for a partly reusable single person capsule. Add two million for the capsule and operational support and you are still at half the price of a trip to the ISS with the Russians.

Re:Cost

[Mr. Slippery]

You? nothing. Which is precisely why it's so significant. This is private enterprise, vs. a mandatory government space program. You get to choose whether to be a part of this, or not.

It's "private enterprise" whose main potential customer is the federal government. The payload for the first Falcon 1 test launch in 2006 was from DARPA; the third attempt carried USAF and NASA payloads. SpaceX has ongoing contracts with the USAF and with NASA. (All info from the wik.)

So, no. You don't get to choose, and instead of funding a publicly owned space launch capability, we give Elon Musk and other SpaceX investors a cut off the top.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot.

What the fuck is it with this company and idiots like you desperately trying turn this fiasco of a company into some sort of 'triumph of teh private sector'?

These clowns have only managed to get 25 percent of their ships to sub orbit and you are babbling about that being some sort of 'accomplishment'??? After decades of prior work by NASA and the Soviets these bozos have only managed to get one fucking ship to sub-orbit?

And you are running your mouth off about them actually being used to service the Space Station?

Here's some homework Einstein, go look up the launch and return success rate of the Russian ships.

Re:Cost

[metalix]

And they offer financing at 5% APR!!! I can't even get that low of a rate from the government to bail out my bank.

Re:Cost

[jacquesm]

He sure seems to have a streak for investing in 'nice' companies as well as being successful.

I'm very happy to see him succeed.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail!

Re:Cost

[Nutria]

So, no. You don't get to choose, and instead of funding a publicly owned space launch capability, we give Elon Musk and other SpaceX investors a cut off the top.

I guess you thought that Titan, Atlas, Delta, Saturn and STS were designed and built by gov't employees, eh, instead of The Martin Company,Consolidated-Vultee, Douglas Aircraft, Chrysler, Rockwell and Morton-Thiokol, plus dozens of other companies.

The bottom line is that the US has NEVER had a "publicly owned space launch capability".

Re:Cost

[Chris Tucker]

"The truth hurts, and the shoe fits. It is not my job to fill your life with joy."

But it is my job to laugh at you, and at what a credulous fool you are.

You, sir and/or madam, have pwn3d YOURSELF!

Rats off to ya!

Re:Cost

[Mr. Slippery]

I guess you thought that Titan, Atlas, Delta, Saturn and STS were designed and built by gov't employees

They were built by government contractors, and paid for by the government. They're as publicly owned as a school building built by a local construction company.

Would we get more bang for our taxpayer buck if we'd just hired engineers and designers directly? Maybe, maybe not. You lose some of the efficiency that competition can bring out, but on the other hand you don't have the stockholders and top management of Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, et. al., taking a percentage off the top.

The bottom line is that the US has NEVER had a "publicly owned space launch capability".

Who owned the rockets that sent the Apollo missions to the moon? Who owns the shuttles? The United States. Boeing might have made 'em, but we bought 'em. A bunch of moon rockets, or a shuttle fleet, is most definitely a "publicly owned space launch capability".

Re:Cost

[Nutria]

"publicly owned space launch capability"

Buying kit from someone else does not mean that you have the capability to make that kit.

Re:Cost

[SL Baur]

These clowns have only managed to get 25 percent of their ships to sub orbit and you are babbling about that being some sort of 'accomplishment'???

The US, Soviets/Russians, Chinese have similar numbers at a similar stage of development.[1]

This is a huge advancement. Space just isn't for the elite any more and it is about time! W00t! And hats off to the SpaceX engineers.

[1] How do American children count down? 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0 shit. - joke from the 1950's.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize the space shuttle is not a rocket right? Even the space shuttle is launched by outside contractors.

Re:Cost

[SnowZero]

I'm not sure the Orlando Sentinel will be very unbiased in its assessment of SpaceX, an upstart that threatens the established contractors, with many of their employees living and working in central Florida. That's like reading the LA Times for its opinion on copyright legislation, or the Detroit Free Press for their opinions on the success of import car companies.

The welfare you speak of is paying for launches at the going rate (which is well below development costs), and funding development of a manned rocket (dragon) that won a contract that NASA actively and openly solicited entries for. While not really "free", competition for best design for the lowest bid is hardly "welfare" either.

The existing aerospace contractors had become far too set in their ways and were hardly competing with one another on efficiency or cost. SpaceX seems like it could really change the game. Note that the old guard doesn't have to go away, it just has to adapt, and a new competitor will give them the urgency they seem to have lost.

Re:Cost

[johnsmith_12345]

I think he is trying to make amends for Paypal.

Cant really blame him....

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

you totally fail at history, ever seen a Vanguard rocket launch?

3/11 orbited successfully or about 27%.

Re:Cost

[im_thatoneguy]

Buying kit from someone else does not mean that you have the capability to make that kit.

When you own an exclusive contract on the rights to the kit. You pay for the materials and construction of the Kit. You have an open contract to do whatever you want with the designs for the kit. And you could hire another company to build another one from those designs. I would say you own it.

That's like saying Universal Studios doesn't own Jurassic Park because none of the executives acutally know how to write, direct, shoot or edit a film. They just bought the "kit".

Or it would be like Ford motors hiring the ex-volvo designer to redesign their cars. They didn't have the capability so they hired someone who did.

Welcome to The Way Things Work (tm). Sometimes you directly employ. Sometimes you employ contractor/freelancers to execute your project as if they were employees.

If you contract hire someone to write an application for you. It's your application. You can open source it. Close Source it. Give it away. Rent it. Whatever. It's yours.

It's not like Lockheed Martin can just decide it's going to sell the Space Shuttle or one of our ICBMs to China if it feels so inclined. The design is the US Government's. The US Government might have construction contracts as part of the 'fee' for design but make no mistake who "owns" the design to our aerospace technology. It's not Boeing, Lockheed Martin or any of the other contractors. That's why they're called "contractors". Look it up in the dictionairy. Contractor doesn't mean "contracted to build something for yourself which you then sell back to the person who contracted you to build it."

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

John Carmack, is that you?

Re:Cost

[icebrain]

Often when the "how much did that cost?" question is asked, they're thinking "how much of my money did that cost?", with their money being in the form of taxes.

Re:Cost

[Antique Geekmeister]

Then please address that appropriately.

Re:Cost

[JohhnyTHM]

There is no free -- or even cheap -- launch when it comes to any government-sponsored program.

Fixed that for you...

Re:Cost

[Teancum]

I know there are a whole bunch of folks interested in when SpaceX is going to IPO (if it ever will). Certainly such a public issue of stock, given a strong launch record and successful docking to the ISS would be a Wall Street darling.

It might give Elon the opportunity to get to Mars... which is one of his long term goals. I'm not just talking putting a spacecraft there, but he wants to walk on Mars for real himself. Since NASA won't send him there, he figures he has to build the company that can get him there.

D. Delos Harriman.... eat your heart out!

Re:Cost

[Nutria]

Or it would be like Ford motors hiring the ex-volvo designer to redesign their cars. They didn't have the capability so they hired someone who did.

The operative word is capability. Are you capable of designing and building a rocket or car?

Current Ford employees can and do design cars, and other of it's employees build them in really big factories.

Does NASA employee rocket designers and builders? No. (Well, it does employ rocket scientists to verify/validate it's contractors' designs.)

Thus, the US doesn't have a publicly-owned launch capability.

Re:Cost

[LingNoi]

You realise that the space shuttle is strapped to a fucking huge rocket right? See parent's post, your second sentence is exactly what he said.

Re:Cost

[GweeDo]

Well, considering I am not a Mexican citizen...I say $0!

Re:Cost

[e03179]

You realize that I hired a contractor to type this post for me?

Re:Cost

[mrdoogee]

-Si, Fly.-

Re:Cost

[cheesybagel]

Less than $100 million. Allegedly.

Re:Cost

[cheesybagel]

Less than $100 million. Allegedly.

Elaborating a bit: Elon Musk said he would pledge upto $100 million of his personal fortune to SpaceX. This includes Falcon and Falcon 9 development. He also had some paying customers and an additional $30 million investment which he claims was only if there was a need for extra flights past the first three in case of cumulative failures.

Re:Cost

[cheesybagel]

Check the launch success ratio of Boeing Delta III and then shut up. Even the alleged third success failed to insert the dummy payload in the proper orbit (20,600km instead of 26,000km orbit).

Re:Cost

[tftp]

$7.9M for 420 kg -- I reckon thats enough mass for a partly reusable single person capsule

You are off by an order of magnitude: the first piloted spacecraft needed 2.5 tons for the capsule and another 2 tons for the support hardware. Similarly, Apollo capsule was about 4.1 tons.

The bulk of the mass has to be there to protect the astronaut from the heat of descent; in your case, leaving 100 kg for the astronaut's body and 10 kg for the light spacesuit you have only 310 kg left for the hermetic enclosure, heat shield, water, air, batteries, radio and video, flight controls, and a parachute. It's tough to achieve even using modern materials - life-critical stuff that can survive the launch and save you during the descent tends to be heavy.

Yet another issue with one-man capsules is safety. The buddy system is normally used in dangerous situations. It would be sad to launch a man into space and then see him on video dying from a normally not a life-threatening situation just because there is nobody there to help him. Say, an air hose on his spacesuit kinked and he can't reach there himself.

Re:Cost

[AK Marc]

Are you capable of designing and building a rocket or car?

If I own designs of a car and there are multiple places that I can send the designs to and get it made, or build my own factory and make it, then I am capable of building it. It's done, it's been made, it's ready to go. You are saying that unless I own a production facility with workers sitting idle waiting to make it, then I am not capable of building it. The plans are in my hands and I can get any of a number of places to build it in a timely manner. That means to me that I can design it (I have the design) and build it (even if I have to contract out, but I could still build my own production facility if I so wished).

Does NASA employee rocket designers and builders? No.

They have designs and a list of places that would happily build any of the designs to spec, so the answer is Yes. They employ them, but as contractors rather than employees. Most think that a trivial difference of ease of gearing up and slimming down for projects, you see that as the absense of a capability they obviously have.

Re:Cost

[Nutria]

They have designs

I don't think so. They issue RFPs that specify capabilities, and then let LM and Boeing go and design and build test craft. Then NASA validates the mock-ups.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize the space shuttle is not a rocket right?

"A rocket or rocket vehicle is a missile, aircraft or other vehicle which obtains thrust by the reaction of the rocket to the ejection of fast moving fluid from a rocket engine." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket

Exactly how is the shuttle not a rocket??

A toast

[Iamthecheese]

To the long years of effort still ahead. May SpaceX be there to participate as man finally reaches for the stars.

Re:A toast

[felipekk]

I couldn't find the video for Flight 4, but found the video for Flight 3 (that failed to reach orbit) that is very interesting...

Re:A toast

[14erCleaner]

Almost fifty-one years after Sputnik, the private sector catches up, sort of. Woo-hoo, Alpha Centauri here we come.

Re:A toast

[Iamthecheese]

It's like a car. The first mechanically propelled vehicles were military ones, made by governments. Troop trains, steam ships, and so forth. There were very few of them and they were very expensive.

Next, someone put a steam engine into a moving carriage and a rich guy wanted to try it out, so he bought one. That commercal exchange marked the beggining of car sales. When the maker of that primitive automobile saw that he could make money selling them, he began to make more, and to find other rich guys to buy them. And when someone else saw that money was to be made selling cars, he made a whole factory for them.

While its true that the 1900s saw expensive, unreliable cars, the 1920s saw massive mobilization of a whole society. That first commercial transaction was the herald of our current urbanized environment.

You're the kind of guy who would point out the first pre-Ford cars and say, "Almost thirty-one years after the steam truck, the private sector catches up, sort of. Woo-hoo, Urban America here we come."

Re:A toast

[smoker2]

Where do you get this crap from ?
The military didn't invent mechanically propelled vehicles at all. The first steam engine was used for pumping water out of private mines. Richard Trevithic was the inventor IIRC, and James Watt improved the efficiency. The first trains were built privately in order to win competitions. Diesel invented his engine privately, Daimler Benz were a private company. Steam ships were initially merchantmen, and when Brunel invented the screw propeller he had to put on a "tug of war" between a paddle steamer and a screw driven ship, just to convince the navy that it worked.
Car analogies are bad enough without posting "authoritatively" on such a basic subject that you clearly know nothing about.

Oh, re: your sig. Actually it indicates a deeper issue with the viewer, quite apart from the fact that any personal association with child porn is a crime (unless you are a child involved).

Re:A toast

[khallow]

Almost fifty-one years after Sputnik, the private sector catches up, sort of. Woo-hoo, Alpha Centauri here we come.

"Sort of" is right. The thing to remember is that if SpaceX can deliver the Falcon 9 with the price point they claim, then it will be a game changer. As I understand it, the price of launching things into space by a US company will drop by a factor of 3 or 4. That's new. The Russians and Chinese are in that territory. but they subsidize their rockets. Having the cheapest launcher on the market being mostly unsubsidized. That will be different indeed.

Re:A toast

[Pinckney]

It's like a car. The first mechanically propelled vehicles were military ones, made by governments. Troop trains, steam ships, and so forth. There were very few of them and they were very expensive.

Not really. Trains were first used for industry, automobiles for commerce, and the first steamships were used for rapid trans-Atlantic voyages for private passengers. Most of the early development of airplanes was done by individuals, and even once they were adopted for military use, were still mostly developed by privately owned companies. Spaceflight is really an exception to this trend.

Re:A toast

[dlenmn]

The first mechanically propelled vehicles were military ones, made by governments. Troop trains, steam ships, and so forth. There were very few of them and they were very expensive.

That's a nice theory, but that doesn't make it true. Look at the history of the development of the steamship, railroad, or car. Most of the early development was by people looking to make a buck or simply to tinker, and development was not payed for by the military (although financing often came from government officials, because being rich often meant having a government position). Of course, that's not to say that the military was never involved, but they often became involved at a later stage once the technology had proved itself to some extent. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat#Early_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport#Steam_power_introduced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile#Eras_of_invention

Re:A toast

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get this crap from ?
The military didn't invent mechanically propelled vehicles at all.

One of his professors has probably been continually ranting about the military-industrial complex. And who ever lets reality get in the way of incoherent rambling?

Re:A toast

[tsa]

And let me add that the car was not invented in America.

Re:A toast

[Walpurgiss]

Being the child involved can also be a crime, as in the case of a teenage couple who were prosecuted for having some photos of themselves.
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html

Re:A toast

[I cant believe its n]

John McCarthy came up with the car.

You where talking about programming wheren't you?

Re:A toast

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the government accepts technology (i.e. after the developers have proved it can work), then they often subsidize research and work to further refine the existing technology. Governments have huge pocketbooks, and know how to reach the best people in their respective fields. This is why the nuclear bomb was developed so quickly after many years of private research (of course, incentive to win a war or survive is no small amount of motivation).

In "ye olden" days (that is to say, before the 1900's...), the government had little to do with research and development; most scientific discoveries have been done by private individuals or small groups of wealthy men. If a project did get subsidized or funded, it was because the researcher was a friend of the king or merchant or wealthy businessman who liked his proposal.

Only when governments began to see the benefit of helping to pay for R&D, or how existing technologies could be used for their benefit, did they start to fund projects. A prime example of this is the amount of effort put in to making a viable super-sonic jet, or Cold War era spy technology. But you have to realize that all these only came about within the last 60 years. Military and governments have been the ones to adopt and refine, not create and release to the public.

Re:A toast

[Anonymous Coward]

The first steam engine was used for pumping water out of private mines. Richard Trevithic was the inventor IIRC, and James Watt improved the efficiency.

No, the first practical steam engine was built by Thomas Newcomen

Re:A toast

[Anonymous Coward]

eh! over-rated, I can understand. redundant? thats just wrong. Agree or disagree, my post was in no way redundant. I demand satisfaction!

Re:A toast

[jovius]

Let the Sun be our first destination!

Re:A toast

[mpe]

The military didn't invent mechanically propelled vehicles at all. The first steam engine was used for pumping water out of private mines. Richard Trevithic was the inventor IIRC,

Travithic was a pioneer of steam vehicles. He tried at least two designs of "road locomotive" before developing one which ran on rails, though it turned out that the tramways of the time were not up to handling the weight of a steam locomotive.

and James Watt improved the efficiency.

Watt was more into building stationary engines and was very much against high pressure steam.

Re:A toast

[networkBoy]

Ok I'm going completely OT for the most part here.
as to your first points AFAIK all accurate.
As your comment about the sig, true as far as it goes with it's assumptions, now on to the OT part:
you are looking at garden variety images, then you come across one as in the sig you commented on... What now. If you are repulsed, close the browser, etc. then what? Is it still a crime (thought or otherwise?)

Problem with our legal system is the answer is yes. A single questionable image is enough to fry you, even if that was not your thing and the viewing was accidental.

Congrats ...

[fewnorms]

May you be the first of many more private space companies; we sure need you guys.

Re:Congrats ...

[damburger]

Why? So there can be advertising on the face of the moon?

Why do we 'need' tacky, crappy private space companies firing off rockets that fail 3/4 of the time?

Re:Congrats ...

[Darkness404]

Lets see... So you don't have to pay more taxes? So we can actually get info about space without it being classified? So we can solve the energy "crisis"?

Re:Congrats ...

[damburger]

Taxes? Don't come the "Private is best" crap with me whilst your government is propping up failing banks.

Space being classified? Not really.

Energy crisis? You aren't one of these Helium-3 retards are you?

Re:Congrats ...

[Darkness404]

Taxes? Don't come the "Private is best" crap with me whilst your government is propping up failing banks.

The problem is, that the government tried to regulate the economy which in turn caused the banks to fail (along with some stupid decisions by the CEOs). Ever heard of the FDIC, Taxes and the minimum wage? All those things are things that the government put in to regulate (and thus end up ruining) the economy.

Space being classified? Not really.

In that talk, he suggested that all software developed by the Federal Government should be released to the public domain or a very, very liberal open-source license. That's not even a copyleft license. Does the American public have any access to the source code currently on the Phoenix? Are there plans to make some of the source code available? Well, no. There are no plans to make that available. And one of the issues that we have is that our spacecraft are designated as subject to international trafficking and arms regulations. So even -- Crypto regulations in exporting and such? Yeah. Yeah. I mean even though these are not military spacecraft, the technology used in them is space technology. And so the State Department does not allow us to release anything that we've done in terms of technical details to foreign scrutiny. Now, in fact as I said, we have a team of Canadians. The Canadians delivered our meteorology instruments, and we had to be very careful about our relationship with them and how much we could disclose to them.

From http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/the-software-behind-the-mars-p.html from the /. article http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/10/213211

Re:Congrats ...

[Chandon Seldon]

Taxes? Don't come the "Private is best" crap with me whilst your government is propping up failing banks.

If you are seriously asserting that banks in the United States have anything to do with "private companies" or "free markets", then you're either lying, confused, or uneducated.

Re:Congrats ...

[dhalgren]

On the other hand, private companies commonly release their code and other proprietary information to the public.

Oh, wait. . .

Re:Congrats ...

[GaryPatterson]

The failures were testing, as was the success. They'll have a higher record of success before they start actually taking on contracts.

But... you didn't actually think that it was easy to build a rocket and send it into orbit, did you? Your criticism seems to imply that you do, but surely no-one expects perfect launches the very first time.

Re:Congrats ...

[susano_otter]

Need them for what?

Re:Congrats ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are seriously asserting that banks in the United States have anything to do with "private companies" or "free markets", then you're either lying, confused, or uneducated.

Unfair moderation!

The architects of the current "banking crisis" in the US are none other than Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (and all the spineless Republican enablers).

My dick reached orbit on first attempt

[Anonymous Coward]

but you don't see it on the front page do you?

Frickin awesome

[marco.antonio.costa]

Elon Musk is friggin' Hank Rearden man.

Now he is really gonna swim in the money. Tip my hat to all involved. :-)

Re:Frickin awesome

[lysergic.acid]

ugh...

i know you meant that as a compliment, but i highly doubt someone like Musk would want to be compared with a protagonist form an Ayn Rand novel.

FYI, Musk invested much of his profits from PayPal in Tesla Motors. considering the altruistic goals (echoing the company's namesake) of the company to ultimately bring affordable electric vehicles to market, not to mention the various philanthropic projects funded by the Musk foundation, i really don't think it's appropriate to label him as the archetypal Randian objectivist.

he seems more like someone who's made his millions, and is now trying to use that wealth to better society rather than a staunch capitalist obsessed with acquiring money and power.

Re:Frickin awesome

[damburger]

Did you just mention a character from "Atlas Shrugged"? You do realise that makes you a self important retard, don't you?

Why will he swim in money? The global economy is in a bit of a state right now and I don't think many people are going to be that keen in putting their money into a launcher with a 75% failure rate.

Re:Frickin awesome

[QuantumG]

The Space Review has an article on the motives of entrepreneurs:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1216/1

The author, Bob Clarebrough, suggests that the "economic rational" motives proclaimed by Adam Smith are really only surface effects of the greater motivation: passion and vision.

Re:Frickin awesome

[marco.antonio.costa]

I know, I know, I'm more than anyone aware of the 'sexless caricatures that speak in long monologues' being a fine portrayal of Atlas Shrugged, which I like very much from the philosophical standpoint, but during that Galt speech I was going - like many others I believe - "jesus, won't he ever finish?".

So whether he is a staunch capitalist or an altruist doing it for humanity is besides the point. He WILL make loads of money, and it is obviously a motivation, even if he says he's doing it for selfless reasons.

In a free economy which follows the Rule of Law, bettering society and acquiring money go hand in hand, as always. When taking others property by force or fraud is not an option, producing and creating wealth becomes the only means to earn a living.

I disagree on your last point though. I see it as he's someone who made his millions by bettering society and sees no reason to stop while there's industry and initiative in him to keep doing so.

Re:Frickin awesome

[marco.antonio.costa]

Wow, you like cursing and insulting other people huh? Let's brush that silly ad hominem aside and look at the facts.

Many people have ALREADY put their money into F1 launches, check their launch manifest. And that was when, by your standards, they had a 100% failure rate. I expect SpaceX to receive more bids now.

The F9 and F9 Heavy uses the Merlin engine, but in multiple configurations for added thrust. Now, you would want to prove your concept in the smallest scale possible to minimize losses, so they did, the F1 flying around our rock as we speak.

Now if they say the F9 Heavy will take about 30 tons to LEO, don't mind if I believe they can deliver.

Re:Frickin awesome

[timothy]

Tesla Motors is altruistic?

I doubt it. They want to (at least I hope they want to) make a whole lot of money selling electric cars.

timothy

Re:Frickin awesome

[lysergic.acid]

i never said their motivations were completely selfless, but Tesla Motors shows that you can make money and make the world a better place simultaneously. they are a commercial enterprise after all.

but simply taking a look around their site and reading interviews by the company's founders, you can see that they have a true desire to reduce our society's dependence on oil (particularly foreign oil) as well as promote environmentally friendly technology such as electric vehicles.

in fact, they've also stated that, though the price tag on the Tesla Roadster is very high, they plan to reinvest most of the profits back into R&D to create a more-affordable sedan and make quality electric vehicles accessible to the general public.

Re:Frickin awesome

[timothy]

Sure -- but that's pretty Reardon of them to say / do :)

That's all.

timothy

Re:Frickin awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Influence is Power

Money is just a ... "complication". :-)

Re:Frickin awesome

[Cassius Corodes]

Despite all that Adam Smith is associated with today, he highlighted the importance of good morals in business to make society work.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Much the same thing was casually blurted out in the 1910's to 1930s - in various seminal essays and lectures - by a really fuzzy dreamer. Bertrand Russel was his name, I think.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Nutria]

they have a true desire to reduce our society's dependence on oil (particularly foreign oil)

And burn lots more mercury-spewing coal? And lose all that energy to transmission and conversion inefficiencies?

Sadly, gasoline (trailed slightly by diesel) is still the best fuel for powering wheeled vehicles.

as well as promote environmentally friendly technology such as electric vehicles.

Making lithium batteries is a pretty toxic process, and they need to be recycled carefully.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there is. So that it goes on to a 70% failure rate. Then 60%. And so on....

Just as everyone else in the game did.

And, oh, so that when they get my promotional flight for really really minor shareholders, there's money enough for a working parachute (XXXL, please). Plus, maybe, a 5min. portable airtank and mask. ;-)

Just remember old P.T.Barnum.

Call _those_ flights "adventure specials" and the adrenalin junkies will line up to flyyyyyyyy - and pay double as well.

Hmmm. Now, just find a good deal on unused ICBM nosecones, and.... profit!

Re:Frickin awesome

[orasio]

And that is where he fails.
People don't have morals where money is involved.

Re:Frickin awesome

[jacquesm]

correction, not ALL people. Some do, and it's great that they do.

Examples ?

Elon Musk gets an honorary mention today (not just for spacex)
Eckart Wintzen (dutch guy, sadly deceased)
Dean Kamen (not too sure about him though)
Nicolette Mak
Anousheh Ansari

I'm sure there are many many more.

Re:Frickin awesome

[moosesocks]

Sadly, gasoline (trailed slightly by diesel) is still the best fuel for powering wheeled vehicles.

What makes Petrol (Gas) better than Diesel?

Diesel has a greater energy density, and can be converted into power more efficiently (even taking the higher energy density into account). Modern diesel engines are also quite clean, and have pretty ridiculous emission control standards placed on them. The new diesel Volkswagens achieve comparable gas mileage to a gas-powered hybrid, while providing a considerably higher torque/power output.

What's the advantage of gasoline then? Diesel may not be popular in the US for personal vehicles, but it's used almost universally in delivery vehicles, non-electric locomotives, and about half of the personal vehicles in Europe.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Mr. Slippery]

And burn lots more mercury-spewing coal?

As opposed to using sulfur-spewing gasoline with toxic MTBE? Tough call, but it's a lot easier to clean up a few coal smokestacks than thousands of tailpipes.

(Of course, the long-term electricity solution is a combination of distributed renewables, orbital photovoltaic, "energy amplifier" nuclear reactors based on thorium fuel, and, eventually, fusion.)

And lose all that energy to transmission and conversion inefficiencies?

Less than is lost in the hideously inefficient and dirty operation of an internal combustion engine.

Sadly, gasoline (trailed slightly by diesel) is still the best fuel for powering wheeled vehicles.

Nope. Its only advantage is the existing infrastructure. Plug-in hybrids FTW.

Re:Frickin awesome

[lysergic.acid]

hey, don't forget Warren Buffet.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Nutria]

Diesel has a greater energy density

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density It all depends on whether you measure by mass or volume.

can be converted into power more efficiently

How so? Higher compression?

The new diesel Volkswagens achieve comparable gas mileage to a gas-powered hybrid

Please don't think I'm slighting diesel. It's why I tied it closely with gasoline.

Re:Frickin awesome

[lysergic.acid]

well, that's why it's important to switch to plug-in electrics. plug-in hybrids would be a good compromise to help us phase into the new all-electric infrastructure.

with plug-in electric vehicles on the road, we eliminate the hugely inefficient ICEs and replace it with centralized power plants. even if all power plants were coal-burning, they're still far more efficient automobile engines. and once our transportation infrastructure is plugged into the power grid, we can simply focus on moving to more sustainable energy sources.

there's already a lot of alternative energy sources being used for electricity generation. hydroelectric, geothermal, wind power, solar thermal, tidal power, etc. but without replacing gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles then none of these alternative energy sources can be taken advantage of. and even if we discover new, cleaner, more sustainable energy sources in the future, we wouldn't be able to take advantage of it unless we had plug-in electric vehicles.

so the argument that electric vehicles just pollute somewhere else is very specious. anyone with even moderate intelligence can see that it's ultimately just a banal excuse for inaction.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Nutria]

sulfur-spewing

Sulfur doesn't cause mental retardation...

with toxic MTBE

Congress said, "Oxygenate your fuel", so the oil companies oxygenated their fuel. Now they're mad at the oil companies for obeying the law.

orbital photovoltaic

Orbital photovoltaics are one of the least practical ideas ever conceived. There's too much (man-made and natural) junk up there to ever make it workable. Not to mention the cost of boosting all that mass into orbit, and the atmospheric heating and resultant climate change.

fusion

Things that make REALLY BIG BOMBS tend to be difficult to control. Don't hold your breath waiting for economically-viable fusion power.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Mr. Slippery]

well, that's why it's important to switch to plug-in electrics. plug-in hybrids would be a good compromise to help us phase into the new all-electric infrastructure.

Agreed. Plug-in hybrids are the immediate win; pure electrics (plus better public transportation and a reduction in car-centric public planning) are the long-term win.

Re:Frickin awesome

[lysergic.acid]

Things that make REALLY BIG BOMBS tend to be difficult to control. Don't hold your breath waiting for economically-viable fusion power.

fusion is used to boost the yield of atomic weapons, but the fission reaction is the main destructive component. the fusion reaction is just meant to increase the rate at which fission occurs, and only adds about 1% to the amount of the energy released by a nuclear bomb.

fission reactors are already in use in many places and have been for quite some time now. the fact that fusion/fission are also used in nuclear weapons does not exclude them from being viable or controllable energy sources.

Re:Frickin awesome

[compro01]

How so? Higher compression?

Pretty much. Between forced induction (Practically every diesel is turbocharged and turbocharging a diesel is easier than with a gas engine) and the fact that diesel inherently is more resistant to knocking, so you can push the compression significantly higher.

Diesels are about 45-50% efficient, compared to gas engines which are about 25-30% efficient.

Re:Frickin awesome

[TheLink]

Some people are working on making petrol engines more like diesel engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiesOtto

Re:Frickin awesome

[TheLink]

I think your 1% figure is way off.

Esp given very few pure fission nukes get to the megaton region (zero official examples?).

The megaton bombs involve fusion (and are often called thermonuclear bombs).

These are different from "boosted" fission bombs.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Bananatree3]

And burn lots more mercury-spewing coal? And lose all that energy to transmission and conversion inefficiencies?

Give me a break. The whole nation uses 50% coal, and electric cars are not even .001% of the electric demand today. They'll still be a tiny percentage 10 years down the road.

I do agree that America's power system needs serious upgrading. Power generation has to become local, and it has to become renewable. By driving it local you reduce transmission inefficiencies, and by going renewable you've got less pollution.

By railing against electric cars simply because they're not perfectly green is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The infrastructure today isn't all the green, so of course anything it produces won't be all that green. NOTHING is perfectly green, and being a green purist will keep us in the status quo. The production of electric cars may even be as dirty as production of regular cars for the first few years. The real qualifier is that ultimately, with local power production, the electric car greener than a gas car.

Re:Frickin awesome

[savuporo]

Its been demonstrated time and again that battery electrics are way cleaner than even any contemporary hybrid, "well to wheels" even if powered by coal-fired power plants.
Go look up Michelin Challenge Bibendum results for instance.
As to where did you pull your "toxic lithium", i have no idea, i'd guess you are confusing them with nickel-based batteries. Lithiums, and especially LiFePO4's are practically the most environmentally benign battery type around.

Re:Frickin awesome

[lysergic.acid]

i said the fusion reaction itself releases very little of the bomb's net energy, i didn't say that it had no effect.

the advantage of a fusion-boosted nuclear bomb is that the fusion reaction speeds up the fission process, which doubles the efficiency of the fission reaction (which produces the majority of the energy/destruction), thus allowing fusion-boosted weapons to be made much smaller while producing equivalent yields.

you can read more about the process here.

Re:Frickin awesome

[TheLink]

We were talking about fusion bombs not fusion boosted bombs.

The link you provide says:

Thermonuclear Weapons
Thermonuclear weapons, also called hydrogen bombs, get _most_ of their yield from the fusion reaction. As in the case of boosted fission weapons, they require a fission explosion (called the primary stage) to trigger the fusion (the secondary stage). However, unlike the boosted weapons, thermonuclear weapons contain a substantial amount of fusion fuel and most of their yield comes from fusion. These are the most powerful nuclear weapons, often with yields of a few megatons (a megaton is a million tons). A third fission stage can also be added to produce very high yield weapons. The most powerful nuclear weapon to have been tested so far is the Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton three-stage weapon exploded by the USSR on 30th October, 1961. However it is not necessary for a thermonuclear weapon to have such high yields. The B61 (Mk-61) class of tactical thermonuclear weapons deployed by the USA have yields which can be adjusted to be as small as 0.3 kilotons (300 tons).

Re:Frickin awesome

[nusuth]

That is just wrong. You are talking about fusion boosted fission bombs but the biggest nuclear bombs are thermonuclear bombs. The biggest of all (Tsaz bomba) got 98% of its energy from fusion reactions. Tsaz bomba is a bit unusual but most thermonuclear weapons have 60%-75% of their yield from fusion reactions.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

You are making statements about his goals, but good job in armchair quarterbacking...

His goals could be a simple as making more money (in a way consistent with his morals). While you might be correct, the entire point is that he's a bright guy who wants to see something happen in the real world, and in his control/reality. Since he's bright and successful and hasn't robbed anyone he's probably got a better understanding of what that process means than you or I. (Assumption noted.)

My guess would be that he likes to see good things come to fruition, much like many people before him (like um, maybe you or I?), but is aware that he can lose all his gains through poor choices and so is betting as intelligently as he is able. (ZOMG!)

Wow. Not so memetic once you break it down... I bet you or I could empathize right?

PS (forgive my use of asides...) (please?)

Re:Frickin awesome

[IrquiM]

It's possible to do both - trying to change society for the better and make money is not something that excludeds one another!

And here Musk is a good example!

Re:Frickin awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

rather than a staunch capitalist obsessed with acquiring money and power

Haven't actually read the novel, have you? It was the antagonists -- those who exploited the coercive power of government as their means -- who were obsessed with acquiring money and power, trampling the rights of everyone in their path, willing to destroy the lives and dreams of free-thinking people in order to achieve their riches.

If the protagonist was obsessed with anything, it was free will (which is the basis of capitalism) and the philosophy behind it.

Re:Frickin awesome

[hey!]

Well, one of the most satisfying things a person can do is help another human being. This may be wired into the human brain, if not it is wired into the human condition. Moral arguments against altruism are like moral arguments against sex: they can only be taken so far before they run up against human nature.

One has to be careful with generalizations, of course, but any successful person who does not turn his attention to good works is as much to be pitied as one who spends his life a virgin because he thinks God gave men penises to lead them into damnation.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Hells]

Not like exhaust-gasses are that clean...

Re:Frickin awesome

[Mr. Slippery]

Sulfur doesn't cause mental retardation...

Did I say that it did?

OTOH, mercury doesn't cause acid rain, and is less responsible for lung and heart disease. Different dangers.

Congress said, "Oxygenate your fuel", so the oil companies oxygenated their fuel. Now they're mad at the oil companies for obeying the law.

Can't speak for Congress, but I'm mad at the oil companies for choosing the cheap and toxic way to obey the law. Sadly, it's probably the cheapest for them, since they'll wiggle out of paying for the damage caused by using MBTE instead of ethanol or other alternatives.

Things that make REALLY BIG BOMBS tend to be difficult to control.

Fusion makes REALLY BIG BOMBS only in that it's used to kick-start a fission reaction. A fusion reactor operates very differently than a thermonuclear bomb. You have to work hard to keep a fusion reactor (or an accelerator-driven energy amplifier) going at all; with a fission reactor, you have to work hard to keep it from going out of control.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Nutria]

Fusion makes REALLY BIG BOMBS only in that it's used to kick-start a fission reaction.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

No.

The pressure from the fission bomb is used to fuse together the hydrogen atoms. That's what creates the megaton booms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb

You have to work hard to keep a fusion reactor ... going

Doesn't matter. It's the incredible heat and pressure needed to create the fusion which are uneconomical to control.

Re:Frickin awesome

[compro01]

I wonder what grade of gas that trick requires to get those numbers, as I can't see it being that effective with regular 87. Putting ethanol with its ridiculous octane rating (116 for E100 or 105 for E85) in that might give really nice results though.

Re:Frickin awesome

[sdguero]

i really don't think it's appropriate to label him as the archetypal Randian objectivist.

I beg to differ. In her books, Rand repeatedly advocated sacrifice to develop new technologies that advance the human potential. Rand was not against charity, as long as the giver can afford it. However, she was opposed to the idea of "charity as a virtue" when those monies could be better spent elsewhere. Similar as the "give a man a fish, or teach him to fish" analogy. I think Rand is largely misunderstood in this respect. See the link below for more info.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

Cheers.

Re:Frickin awesome

[Mr. Slippery]

The pressure from the fission bomb is used to fuse together the hydrogen atoms. That's what creates the megaton booms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design: "Such high-yield bombs are actually two-stage thermonuclears, scaled up to the desired yield, with uranium fission, as usual, providing most of their destructive energy." [emphasis added]

Doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. A reactor that stops the reaction when things break can be safe; a reactor that runs the reaction out of control when things break, can't be. That's also the advantage of accelerator-driven designs.

It's the incredible heat and pressure needed to create the fusion which are uneconomical to control

Fusion (though, obviously, not enough to produce power) can be done on a tabletop device. The best experimental reactor have put out about 65% of their input energy; doubling that certainly seems a practical, if long-term, goal. Controlling the necessary heat and pressure is no more uneconomical or dangerous than for other industrial processes.

It's not news because

[spazdor]

we can't use a telescope and a microscope simultaneously.

Re:It's not news because

[marco.antonio.costa]

Huh?

Re:It's not news because

[spazdor]

To view microscopic objects in space.

Re:It's not news because

[marco.antonio.costa]

but why would we want to do such a thing?

Re:It's not news because

[spazdor]

At this point in the thread, it is traditional for an Anonymous Coward to jump in with a mention of 'black holes' which links to Goatse.

...We're waiting, AC.

Re:It's not news because

[marco.antonio.costa]

Oh... ok...

*looks around*

To paraphrase

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one small step for SpaceX, one giant leap for capitalism!

Re:To paraphrase

[dogdick]

OMGF.
That's one small step for a SpaceX, one giant leap for capitalism!

There fixed it for you.

Re:To paraphrase

[damburger]

Since when is 165kg in orbit a giant leap?

Re:To paraphrase

[andy_t_roo]

As long as the record was 0kg in orbit (via non-goverment means) getting anything there is a "giant leap" -- sputnik 1 was only 83.6 kg, and there are not many people who wouldn't recognise that that was a significant step.

YES!!!

[FleaPlus]

I've been waiting for their success for the past 5 years or so, and I'm absolutely ecstatic.

They have a couple more Falcon 1 flights scheduled for this year, with their first Falcon 9 flight next year. The Falcon 9 is considerably larger, and is the vehicle SpaceX plans to use for delivering cargo and crew to the International Space Station.

I imagine that there's been a number of announcements waiting in the wings for SpaceX's first successful flight. Perhaps we'll be hearing soon about a more formal arrangement between SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace with their private space station plans?

Re:YES!!!

[jacquesm]

Falcon 1 is neat, Falcon 9 will be a game changer.

I wonder how many successful launches of the '1' they will have to have in a row before risking 9 of them working in tandem.

The first few Falcon 9 launches will probably be quite risky again. (as 'a lot more risky than falcon '1' launches will be from now on).

If the chinese can do it ---

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Chinese can do it, that means the US, the Brits, and even the French have already done it, and a long, long time ago.

Re:If the chinese can do it ---

[Aranykai]

Right, like that whole gun powder and rocket propulsion thing...

Re:If the chinese can do it ---

[spazdor]

So, would you say a majority of American teenagers understand calculus?

Re:If the chinese can do it ---

[Anonymous Coward]

Put it this way, (or at least people in the middle east) put it to practical use way before they do.

grats!

[savuporo]

Nothing but congratulations ! Elon was completely at loss of words in the webcast, and it seemed like the entire gang is going to have one hell of a party ASAP !

Week of newsworth orbits

[im_thatoneguy]

I would say I'm even more impressed by this than by China's manned spaceflight.

This is something new and very interesting. It's relatively trivial for a nation of over a billion people and a strong centralized government to develop a space program. But a privately funded orbital rocket. That's a game changer.

Congratulations to China and especially congratulations to the groundbreaking team at SpaceX!

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[barzok]

It's relatively trivial for a nation of over a billion people and a strong centralized government to develop a space program

Especially when they've purchased a large quantity of the required technology from Russia.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[PAKnightPA]

I agree wholeheartedly. In the comments for the China spacewalk article there were a number of people who seemed to bash the US as somewhat of a space "has been"

While China's accomplishments are noteworthy, SpaceX together with Rutan's engineering at Virgin Galactic assure me that America will continue to be a leader in space.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[LWATCDR]

Interesting. Exactly when was the last time a US spacewalk was news?
Maybe back in 1965 or so?
So the US is now putting rovers on Mars and sending a probe to Pluto.
Manned space flight in the US has not really progresed enough over the years. But as far as being a space has been I just don't think so.
Call me when China gets to Jupiter.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[orasio]

Lamers.
China is big, and can easily leapfrog US space tech. They have the money. They can buy the expertise.
Some guy putting satellites in orbit is nothing compared to what China can build and buy.
China is also spending loads less money that NASA. Affordable space flight has been available for long, just not in the US. You are just catching up, and slowly.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[khallow]

"Slowly", eh? Well tell me who's moving fast.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[I cant believe its n]

Call me when China gets to Jupiter.

Ok, but will you still have the same number?

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[I cant believe its n]

Who!

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what what else is a game changer?

The phrase "game changer".

After reading through all the comments, I now realize that shooting rockets into space is actually a game. And now it has changed.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[orasio]

Catching up in making space flight affordable.
Russia was, and China is moving fast in that regard.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[khallow]

Russia was, and China is moving fast in that regard.

I don't buy it. China is moving faster than other parties. But it's not moving fast. My take is that someone like SpaceX can match the launch rate of China's program. And with a far superior position, namely, SpaceX would be paid to do so.

Re:Week of newsworth orbits

[jollyreaper]

This is something new and very interesting. It's relatively trivial for a nation of over a billion people and a strong centralized government to develop a space program. But a privately funded orbital rocket. That's a game changer.

Especially when that rocket is NOT funded by someone with a white persian cat who is never seen from the neck up.

What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is waiting around for these clowns to get their act together finally. Given their pathetically incompetent history the fact that they finally managed to not fuck up once again is certainly due to pure dumb luck.

Dream on if you think anyone is going to let these nimrods anywhere near something as valuable as the International Space Station.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[QuantumG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services

Are there any ACs on Slashdot who are not morons?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Smoke2Joints]

ill bite: i think youre being a little unfair. considering that no other private space-flight company has ever achieved an orbit in space (as opposed to suborbit), this is a monumental achievement. the gemini programs had their fair share of failures too, yet i dont hear anything but admiration and pride in the people involved there.

i say well done, SpaceX! this is a moment in history - no longer is spaceflight limited to governmental agencies. usher in the era privately funded space access, and may that lead to mass produced spacecraft for private use!

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I'm an AC and I'm completely hopeless. My parents are actually having another baby to try harder.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[damburger]

Just because there is a Wikipedia article about it, doesn't mean it will even become a reality.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

"monumental achievement"

LOL!

The fact that the guys finally managed to do something NASA was doing regularly back in the early 1960s with incredibly primitive technology, manufacturing, and computing power is a complete joke.

But, hey, if retards like you how somehow see this as some sort of 'victory' for 'teh private sector'...

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[QuantumG]

So what you're saying is that NASA is going to back out on COTS.. and basically just give SpaceX millions for doing nothing. Well I guess that's a bad thing.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[damburger]

It wouldn't be the first think NASA has thrown money at that didn't work out, would it?

And it would of course depend on Musk being able to make Falcon 9 work; far from certain.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[FleaPlus]

I'm curious, but between SpaceX and the Ares I, which do you think will be transporting crew to orbit first?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[FleaPlus]

And it would of course depend on Musk being able to make Falcon 9 work; far from certain.

What do you think are the show-stoppers?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[kesuki]

given the track record of the government during dubba's presidency, giving a private corporation $280 million to do nothing would be minor. after all they've spent Trillions of dollars on iraq, and are floating a 700 billion golden parachute for mortgage backed securities. without addressing the fundamental problem that lead to the failure of Mortgage backed securities and without helping people keep the homes they borrowed against...

i mean, he's such a generous guy giving his circle of friends trillions of dollars....

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[damburger]

Clustering 9 engines considering the shit they went through getting one to work. Its going to be some pretty fireworks.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[lysergic.acid]

this is completely OT, but the picture on that wiki page has got me wondering; why is it that we aren't exploring solar power technologies in space aside from photovoltaic cells?

for instance, most solar power plants on earth seem to use solar thermal energy based on Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems like parabolic troughs or solar power towers rather than PV cells. would solar thermal energy not be as efficient in space? how would the lack of atmosphere affect these applications? would it allow for better thermal insulation, or would the cold temperatures in space drain the heat transfer fluid of its stored energy?

obviously, terrestrial solar energy plants are massive and take up significant land area, but for something like the ISS, the system could be scaled down as you don't need to supply power to an entire city. i mean, if current solar panels are so inefficient, why is it still the only form of solar energy collector that's used in space?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[QuantumG]

Oh, don't get me wrong.. I'm not one of these geeks who thinks that SpaceX is going to have flawless launches from here on out and have a human launch capability ready to replace the Shuttle. I don't even think there's enough customers for SpaceX to really change the launch market.. but I do believe they will capture a lot of that market share and be a successful earner, and I believe they will eventually be delivering cargo to the ISS under COTS. As for Musk's long term plans to colonize Mars.. well that's his little pet project :)

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[damburger]

Why do you think either will make it?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[QuantumG]

There's a whole lot of people interested in it. Musk, however, isn't one them.

Washington, D.C.: Should not NASA be funding research to make Space Solar Power possible in this time of energy crisis as they did in the 1970's?

Elon Musk: No, I don't believe in space solar power. It will never be competitive with ground solar power. The cost of converting the electron energy to photon energy and then back again on the ground overwhelms the 2X increase in solar incidence. And that's before you consider the cost of transporting the solar panels and converters to orbit!

Washington, D.C.: What do you think of the future of Space Solar Power, especially built with Lunar Materials?

Elon Musk: Only good for people living on the Moon.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[QuantumG]

Painting NASA with the brush of Bush is a little absurd.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Pantero Blanco]

No one is waiting around for these clowns to get their act together finally. Given their pathetically incompetent history the fact that they finally managed to not fuck up once again is certainly due to pure dumb luck.

Dream on if you think anyone is going to let these nimrods anywhere near something as valuable as the International Space Station.

Both NASA and its Russian counterpart had several failures, some of which claimed lives. What makes you think these guys are any worse?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[vbraga]

considering that no other private space-flight company has ever achieved an orbit in space

That's not true: Orbital Sciences been doing this from a long time. SpaceX is the first creating all the stack, from the motors to the launch vehicle. United Launch Alliance also has Delta and Atlas too.

Spaceflight is not limited to governmental agencies since a long time.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[FleaPlus]

Clustering 9 engines considering the shit they went through getting one to work. Its going to be some pretty fireworks.

Are there any particular failure modes you have in mind that they might be prone to? Do you believe they'll be unable to replicate the procedures which led to success on this past flight? Why not?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[FleaPlus]

Ok... which do you think is more likely to make it?

Coincidentally, I created a market over on HubDub for this a couple weeks ago: http://www.hubdub.com/m15450/What_will_be_the_next_US_launch_vehicle_to_send_humans_into_orbit

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off asshole. Everything has to start somewhere. They're doing this completely from scratch. You probably couldn't launch a goddamned BOTTLE ROCKET without fucking it up, so shut your fucking hole.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[joshv]

He entirely ignores the fact that the earth has a somewhat finite surface area. At max we might be able to cover a few percent of the Earth's surface with solar cells (any more and we risk changing the Earth's albedo significantly), which catch usable sun for 8 hours a day on average. In space, surface area is unlimited, it's never cloudy, the sun shines 24/7, and the sun is twice as strong.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[kesuki]

well, politics makes strange bedfellows. do you honestly think that nasa with all it's expensive space missions can avoid political intrigue?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[damburger]

If they just replicate the procedures of the past flight the thing WILL blow up. Clustering is not a trivial problem at all.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[IvyKing]

for instance, most solar power plants on earth seem to use solar thermal energy based on Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems like parabolic troughs or solar power towers rather than PV cells. would solar thermal energy not be as efficient in space? how would the lack of atmosphere affect these applications? would it allow for better thermal insulation, or would the cold temperatures in space drain the heat transfer fluid of its stored energy?

Look up some Bonestell paintings from the 1950's - the satellites are shown to be using parabolic troughs for collecting thermal energy from concentrated sunlight.

As to why PV's are favored for space - number 1 guess would be weight as efficiency isn't as important as weight. Second, PV's can be scaled to smaller sizes than solar thermal. Thirdly, getting rid of waste heat isn't as easy in space as on earth (you need large radiating surfaces protected from sunlight.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

would the cold temperatures in space drain the heat transfer fluid of its stored energy?

All thermal power generation depends on temperature gradients. The cold temperatures in space are really just the lack of something which can hold the heat, a medium. If you have something hot in space, it is very difficult to cool it without shedding mass. All heat has to be radiated away since there is nothing that you could transfer the heat to. Power plants on earth are built near rivers which supply the coolant. There is no such thing in space.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[FleaPlus]

If they just replicate the procedures of the past flight the thing WILL blow up. Clustering is not a trivial problem at all.

Do you still believe it'll blow up even if they incorporate what they've learned from their clustered-engine test stand firings over the past year?

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[damburger]

They had the Merlin engine firing on a stand and flight 3 still fucked up, didn't it? Don't pretend to understand such things.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[CrimsonAvenger]

Clustering 9 engines considering the shit they went through getting one to work.

What are you babbling about? The first stage engine (the one they're clustering nine of) is the same as the one used in Falcon 1. And hasn't failed even once. The closest to an engine failure was on Flight 1, when a leaking fuel ignited and caused the propellant valves to shut and starve the engine.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious, but between SpaceX and the Ares I, which do you think will be transporting crew to orbit first?

My WAG is that Ares will be first. Basically because NASA can burn money as fuel if that's what it takes to get them to orbit.

SpaceX has to go slower and more delibrately.

Still, I'm rooting for SpaceX. Go SpaceX!

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[lysergic.acid]

well, couldn't you use some form of CSP system to power a steam turbine, and then simply condense the steam back into water in a separate chamber? there isn't a need to cool the water that much. it just needs to be cool enough to condense back into liquid form so that it can once again be evaporated to drive the turbine. it seems to me that as long as you collect the exhaust into a chamber insulated from the heat transfer fluid, it will naturally lose energy and condense.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[lysergic.acid]

well, i didn't mean the SpaceX project. AFAIK they don't have any satellites or space stations that need solar power--which is what i was primarily talking about in terms of solar power in space.

frankly, i agree with Musk. it won't be practical to use space solar for terrestrial power needs for at least another couple decades. i simply meant using small scale parabolic troughs for powering something like the ISS, since that seems to be simplest/cheapest method of tapping into solar energy--and more efficient than PV cells.

but in the far future we may be able to create a Dyson sphere, which would capture enough solar energy to be worth piping back to earth. but by then we'll probably have colonized several planets or even other planetary/star systems.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

My god what a complete loser.

No wonder this shitty and incompetent company only has fucking retards for fanboys.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Waffle Iron]

it just needs to be cool enough to condense back into liquid form so that it can once again be evaporated to drive the turbine.

Condensing gases give off large amounts of heat. That's why the condenser unit on an air conditioner needs to have a big fan blowing out hot air. If you can't radiate the heat fast enough, the whole condenser unit will quickly heat up until it's simply too hot for any more gas to condense.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Wonko the Sane]

it just needs to be cool enough to condense back into liquid form so that it can once again be evaporated to drive the turbine

It needs to be as cold as possible to minimize the back pressure on the turbine and maximize Carnot efficiency.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[camperdave]

I guess that direct light to electricity is more reliable (and lighter) than light to heat to steam to spinning turbine to generator to electricity. There are definitely far more parts to break down, but I think that there may be room for such mechanisms in the future.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[lysergic.acid]

ah, of course... i guess there's no way to exploit the coldness of space? i know vacuum cooling is out since that would drain the water supply.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[TooMuchToDo]

Number of vehicles SpaceX has gotten to orbit: 1

Number of vehicles you have gotten to orbit: 0

I have much more faith in their engineering than your arm-chair engineering.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Insanity Defense]

Clustering 9 engines considering the shit they went through getting one to work. Its going to be some pretty fireworks.

So far there have been 4 Falcon 1 launches and NO engine failures. The first failure was due to corrosion on a fuel fitting. The 2nd a rotational issue due to "sloshing" in the fuel tank. The 3rd a delayed cut off in thrust due to the difference in air pressure at the testing altitude vs the operational altitude. Each time the Merlin engine worked correctly. Each mode of failure was corrected resulting in the successful launch on Sunday.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any ACs on Slashdot who are not morons?

No.

damn. self-pwned.

Re:What A Bunch Of Fuckups

[Man Eating Duck]

no longer is spaceflight limited to governmental agencies. usher in the era privately funded space access, and may that lead to mass produced spacecraft for private use!

The good thing about this is, that, while they're standing on the giant shoulders of government research in space technology, they have a completely different focus. They're not part of political ploys and whims, but rather have an incentive to make accesss to space as cheap as possible, while not endangering the security of the payload.

Sending humans to space is not feasible for them right now, but it'll probably be within reach for them in the foreseeable future. This is a Good Thing. It is one of the areas where a free market will have a direct effect on innovation.

I applaud their belated success, and the fact that they and their investors have faith in the possibility of future commercial spaceflight. In the end it will benefit mankind as a whole.

Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[FleaPlus]

A few days ago the Washington Post had a pretty interesting discussion/interview with Elon Musk, the CEO/CTO/founder/funder of SpaceX. Some juicy tidbits, which are even more exciting in the context of today's launch success:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/24/DI2008092402502.html

Washington, D.C.: If and when you manage to get all the Falcons and Dragon up and running, what's next? Further incremental improvements on these or something more revolutionary? Also, where do you stand on the value of the various X-prizes (and equivalents)?

Elon Musk: Still a long way to getting *all* the Falcons and Dragons flying. We need to get F1 to orbit for one thing :) Then F9, F9 with Cargo Dragon, F9 with crew Drago and F9 Heavy. My interest is very much in the direction of Mars, so a Mars lander of some kind might be the next step. ...

Stillwater, Minn.: Mr. Musk, first of all, I've been following SpaceX via your website since before Flight 1, and I hope to join you all someday (I'm an undergrad ChEg at Notre Dame). Talk about the inherent advantages of your rockets over those designed by Lockheed Martin and Boeing (reusability, smaller size = significantly smaller cost, redundancies on the Falcon 9, etc.)

Elon Musk: The full answer for why SpaceX is lower cost is too long for this forum and I don't like to give soundbite answers if they are incorrect. The cost of a single use rocket is:

* Engines
* Structures
* Avionics
* Launch operation
* Overhead

We are better on every one at SpaceX vs competitors -- by a factor of two vs most international and four vs domestic. That is before reuse is considered, which could ultimately be a 10X or more additional reduction. ...

Cocoa Beach, Fla.: Congress mistakenly took the first step towards extending the shuttle program. Anyone in the know is aware that this is impossible given the cost of re-certification. Why then is this being supported at any level. Why isn't Congress saying anything about privatizing our space effort?

Marc Kaufman: Congress has put up some money for privatizing the space effort, and SpaceX has indeed been the main beneficiary. I think that Congress and NASA are waiting for a successful launch before going more deeply into expanding the privatizing.

Those initial steps taken by Congress regarding extending the shuttle program are a reflection of just how strongly people feel about the five-year gap, during which there are no current clear alternatives to paying Russia for Soyuz transport. Extending the shuttle could close some of that gap, and could also allow some very expensive and promising equipment--now absent from the rest of the shuttle manifests- to be delivered to the station. One grounded, $1.5 billion piece of equipment in particular has become very controversial because scores of institutioins and national space agencies helped pay for it. ....

Urbana, Ill.: Right now you have two rockets based on the same first-stage engine (Merlin). To launch Falcon 9 Heavy, you'll need 27 of those engines to fire simultaneously. Do you have any plans to develop a larger engine in the future so that such clustering is not necessary?

Elon Musk: Yeah, I think there is an argument for a really really big Falcon engine or BFE, as we call it :)

That would be equal or greater to the thrust of 27 Merlin 1C engines. Would be exciting to see that fire! ...

Calistoga, Calif.: Elon, Your business plan emphasis low man power as cost savings method, how does NASA documentation requirements impact your man power requirements? In other words, how many of SpaceX staff are on board solely to deal with NASA

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Sentry21]

Elon Musk: Depends on how common. If we can make reusability work well, I think we can get the cost per person to orbit down to a few million dollars within eight to ten years. If reusability works well and demand is strong, so that we can distribute overhead over a large number of launches, it could one day get to under $1M.

This strikes me as one of those quotes that people are going to laugh at 30 years from now, like the oft-repeated quotes on how someday computers will be 'only a few tons' and 'take up only one room'. At least, I hope so.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[randomc0de]

This strikes me as one of those quotes that people are going to laugh at 30 years from now, like the oft-repeated quotes on how someday computers will be 'only a few tons' and 'take up only one room'. At least, I hope so.

I think he means "one day" as in "one day soon, when I'll get a big fat bonus for having revolutionized space". Kinda like someone at IBM predicting mainframes would be cheap enough for almost any business to own (and they most definitely got to that point).

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Xiroth]

Eh, perhaps. Or maybe they will bring it under $1M - and keep it there. For 30 years. In 30 years, $1M is not going to be a lot of money - if inflation stays consistent with historical data, it'd be roughly the equivalent of about $150,000 now. At that price, buying a place on an orbital station and moving to space independently of any government starts becoming plausible.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Chandon Seldon]

The amazing shrinking transistor is a whole different kettle of fish from chemical rocket propulsion. Spaceflight may get cheaper, but there certainly won't be any price reduction like a 1960's supercomputer to the 1990's scientific calculator.

There could be a major breakthrough in (non-chemical) propulsion, but if so we're still looking at the "vaccuum tube" era where those "only a few tons" predictions were entirely appropriate and even optimistic.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, thirty years from now the tiny zinc-aluminum $1M coin will be the smallest unit of US currency.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[roystgnr]

There could be a major breakthrough in (non-chemical) propulsion

If rocket improvements are going to compare to transistor improvements, you're right - there's just no room for a half dozen orders of magnitude improvement with currently foreseeable rocket technology.

But wouldn't just a couple orders of magnitude in price reduction be pretty nice? Most of the cost of spaceflight isn't directly due to propulsion. You can literally manufacture most of your rocket fuel out of thin air, and even the rest is cheap enough to be negligible compared the the rest of your flight costs. What's historically been expensive has been the armies of engineers needed to design and operate orbital rockets, as well as the manufacturing costs of building or rebuilding a vehicle for every flight. SpaceX's actions have just proven that they've got a good shot at fixing the first problem, and their statements prove that they're at least working on fixing the second.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Nethemas the Great]

This strikes me as one of those quotes that people are going to laugh at 30 years from now, like the oft-repeated quotes on how someday computers will be 'only a few tons' and 'take up only one room'. At least, I hope so.

I regret that for the common man (sub $20K/flight) would require a fundamentally different technology for getting to orbit. Even if all the other costs were stripped out of the equation, there's just too bloody much fuel required to boost anything to orbit by means of chemical rocket.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[caliburngreywolf]

The only reason government agencies like NASA are more expensive is that they get bilked by the private companies they rely on. If we had a TRULY government agancy for space, one that wasn't beholden to give money to for-profit companies, we would see far more efficiency than any private enterprise could ever achieve. The reason private enterprise works better is that it is not required to rely on private enterprise.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[marco.antonio.costa]

Translating, if we had a true governmental agency that simply took from the private sector what it wanted instead of having to pay for it, we could get to space for free!

People and their pesky rights.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[marco.antonio.costa]

You forget that inflation results in increased prices. $1M is a price. It will, thus, increase along with the others.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

Project Orion says youre wrong (in the long run, assuming the sheep dont take over due to the estrogen like effects of modern chemicals).

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

Thirty years?

I give it about three.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[savuporo]

Even in that interview above, Elon says ( and this guy has got to have some authority on this ) that their major costs are
* Engines
* Structures
* Avionics
* Launch operation
* Overhead

The fuel cost of launching a person to orbit is on the order of few tens of thousands of dollars.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[FleaPlus]

The fuel cost of launching a person to orbit is on the order of few tens of thousands of dollars.

Yup. A misconception I often see is that huge amounts of fuel needed is a big part of the costs of spaceflight, since it composes the majority of the costs for just about any other form of transportation. In reality though, the costs of fuel in spaceflight are around 1% of the total cost.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Kjella]

This strikes me as one of those quotes that people are going to laugh at 30 years from now, like the oft-repeated quotes on how someday computers will be 'only a few tons' and 'take up only one room'. At least, I hope so.

Sorry, it'll probably be more like airplanes - they became cheaper and faster up to a point, then it stopped. With the death of the Concorde, maximum commercial operating speeds has actually gone *down*, not up. Rockets are much the same way, you can make cheap technology but you'll still burn ungodly amounts of fuel to reach orbit/escape velocity. Information processing can be miniturized, but getting mass into orbit really can't. If you look at the space elevator page, they say "down to 220$/kg" for a highly theoretical construct. If SpaceX could launch a Falcon 1e (not the current, but 1020kg payload version) at 1mio$ that's 1000$/kg. Even the space elevator wouldn't be that big a revolution at that point. And much lower than that, well then you'd better get real creative.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Abreu]

One... MILLION... Dollars! (puts pinkie in corner of the mouth)

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Chandon Seldon]

Project Orion is definitely not chemical propulsion. It may well be the right answer for interplanetary travel, and it's certainly the only current possibility for interstellar travel, but it's not going to get used by private companies for launches to orbit any time soon.

Personally, I hope (and reasonably expect) that we'll have other appropriate propulsion technologies to use before we get to the point where we can do the things that Project Orion would be a good match for.

Re:Recent discussion/interview with SpaceX's CEO

[Anonymous Coward]

The way things are going, if the cost per person is only a measly 3 million dollars, people will be flying to space every weekend to get away from the city. Never mind that a 2020 'million dollar note' is roughly equivalent to 15 pesos at todays market value.

Nice One! Although this time

[RevWaldo]

Nice One! Although the press release says this time around it carried a "payload mass simulator" which I'm guessing means "nothing we're gonna sweat over getting blowed up" - no satellites or Scotty's ashes or such.

Now if they can get a second Falcon 1 into orbit...

Next step - open-source space vehicles!

Re:Nice One! Although this time

[QuantumG]

Next step - open-source space vehicles!

Heard of ITAR?

Re:Nice One! Although this time

[FleaPlus]

Nice One! Although the press release says this time around it carried a "payload mass simulator" which I'm guessing means "nothing we're gonna sweat over getting blowed up" - no satellites or

When I was watching the webcast, Musk kept on joking about a "RatSat" when congratulating his employees after the successful launch. It sounded like they just had a metal cylinder with a drawing of a rat on the side.

Scotty's ashes or such.

You probably already know this, but just in case, the previous SpaceX rocket only carried a symbolic portion (1 gram or so) of "Scotty's" ashes. Assuming the family is still interested, they'll probably just try launching again on a future flight.

Re:Nice One! Although this time

[RevWaldo]

That was admittedly just a quip on my part. But if a group of very smart people globally sat around their computers and started openly designing a space vehicle, and created on paper a working design (i.e. the CAD software says it's good to go) could the feds step in?

(You know what happens now, right? Someone's gonna post a link beginning with "Well, actually...")

Re:Nice One! Although this time

[QuantumG]

Thing is, rocket design is pretty trivial. It's getting the damn thing to work that is the difficulty. But yes, publishing rocket designs will get you in trouble.

Re:Nice One! Although this time

[compro01]

The rest of the ashes were already scatted terrestrially, namely over Puget Sound in Washington.

Re:Nice One! Although this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Next step - open-source space vehicles!

Next step - a fully armed populace! Armed with Project Thor satellites, that is...

Next up

[nawcom]

Space X is going launch their first monkey into space with their commercial craft. Unfortunately the monkey they are hoping for won't be available until next year. And that's if the same monkey doesn't destroy the economy first. Silly chimp!

Re:Next up

[K'Lyre]

Yes, because the president has full control over the stock market.

Re:Next up

[Scaba]

Oh, I thought they'd be using Galileo, the great-grandson of Ulysses, the first monkey to travel in space.

Great day....

[Anonymous Coward]

He did it, He did it. Now private space has taken its greatest step to date. And we have Elon and his Space X crew to thank. Nothing can take this GREAT milestone from them.

Bob

Not THAT impressive

[damburger]

Looking what the Big Nasty State of China just did, private enterprise is looking positively lame. Even with this launch, Musk's rocket still has only a 25% success rate and can only launch a few kilos into orbit.

All you Ayn Rand fanboys seeking proof of the supremacy of the private sector, this is not it. If you want to really put your beliefs to the test, I suggest you look at the banking sector.

Why am I being so rough? Slashdotters seem more than willing to jump on Elon Musk's "entrepreneurial" cock but at the same time make racist statements when the Chinese government achieves a far more significant space milestone. Don't expect everyone to fall at the feet of this guy simply because he fits in with your ideological predispositions; he is quite far behind.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[FleaPlus]

Looking what the Big Nasty State of China just did, private enterprise is looking positively lame. Even with this launch, Musk's rocket still has only a 25% success rate and can only launch a few kilos into orbit.

Uh sure, and to get to this point SpaceX's total expenditures (over 6 years) have been around a half billion dollars. In contrast, China spends around $2 billion every year. China may be ahead of SpaceX for the time being, but it'll be interesting to see where they are a few years from now.

Slashdotters seem more than willing to jump on Elon Musk's "entrepreneurial" cock but at the same time make racist statements when the Chinese government achieves a far more significant space milestone.

Um, what? I didn't see much of that myself, although I usually only read at +3 or higher. Are the people who are congratulating Elon Musk the same folks who were making racist statements about Chinese efforts?

Re:Not THAT impressive

[damburger]

Perhaps I should take your lead then. Any articles about the Shenzhou programme (which, btw, is doing pretty well to cost only 20 times as much as Musks effort considering how much more they are doing) are dogged with comments about 'chinks' and how they must be faking it because they couldn't possibly grasp high technology, followed by some comments about Tibet by people who get awfully defensive about Iraq. It gets pretty ugly.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Gavagai80]

You're not impressed by 550 people pulling off something that took China the resources of 1.3 billion people plus a close partnership with the Russian space agency to pull off?

China's accomplishments are impressive, but no more so than the ESA's -- a government with immense funding learning from partners who already have the technology. SpaceX has pulled off a real, independent first -- more like Russia or the USA did in decades past.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet you're the heart and soul of a party.

Miserable git.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[damburger]

Please don't compare the Falcon 1 to the R7, because I don't want to piss myself laughing then have to change my trousers.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[damburger]

Depends what party.

People are cheerleading this fairly mundane flight (after a series of hilarious disasters, and there are more to follow I promise) simply because the idea of corporate space flight fits in with their masturbatory Atlas Shrugged fantasies.

I find it sickening for free market fundamentalists to be celebrating this whilst the rest of reality shows their belief system to be incredibly damaging. I mean, how many banks have had to be bailed out recently? How many have lost their homes?

Re:Not THAT impressive

[FleaPlus]

Perhaps I should take your lead then. Any articles about the Shenzhou programme (which, btw, is doing pretty well to cost only 20 times as much as Musks effort considering how much more they are doing) are dogged with comments about 'chinks' and how they must be faking it because they couldn't possibly grasp high technology, followed by some comments about Tibet by people who get awfully defensive about Iraq. It gets pretty ugly.

Sure, and as we've just seen, apparently stories about SpaceX's successes are dogged with comments about slashdotters wanting to jump on CEO's cocks. Fortunately both sorts of comments tend to get modded down pretty quickly as ignorant and/or irrelevant.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[damburger]

If you think having a go at people for being corporate fanboys is equivalent to racism, then you really are lost.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Why am I being so rough? Slashdotters seem more than willing to jump on Elon Musk's "entrepreneurial" cock but at the same time make racist statements when the Chinese government achieves a far more significant space milestone. Don't expect everyone to fall at the feet of this guy simply because he fits in with your ideological predispositions; he is quite far behind.

Vulgarity aside, you miss the point entirely. True, the Chinese have accomplished quite a bit. But they've had thousands of people working on it and spent hundreds of billions of yuan on it. Musk has only a few hundred and hasn't even spent a billion dollars. His project has accomplished a first for humanity -- a privately-financed launch platform. Praising him does not diminish the Chinese accomplishment, but Musk deserves credit for seeing this through to success. His objective was not to duplicate government launch abilities, it was to change the economics of launching. If his success continues, SpaceX -- and others like it -- will change all of humanity by vastly lowering the cost of getting into orbit.

If anything, you could apply your argument to the diminution of the Chinese. They've accomplished nothing that Apollo and Soyuz didn't already do forty years ago. Using your measuring stick, they have a tremendous amount of catching up to do. I don't subscribe to your measuring stick, mind you, but I thought you might easier see your argument's fallacies from a different perspective.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[damburger]

The Chinese have spent about 20 times what Musk has (going on what my opponents say) and have come out with more than 20 times the value in terms of their results. You can't even compare three man capsules and spacewalks to launching microsatellites on the same playing field.

He hasn't changed the economics of launching. Dnepr is still cheaper per kg than Falcon 1, and Proton is still cheaper per kg than Falcon 9 - and his price estimates for the latter are an optimistic assessment based on the laughable premise that a guy who didn't know how much thrust his engine would produce in actual flight can somehow get a cluster of 9 engines flying right on the first shot.

China is a developing nation with a space programme that will, when the Shuttle retires, eclipse that of the most powerful nation on Earth. Musk is a billionaire with a useless toy. Totally different situations.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[marco.antonio.costa]

Well, we can point out to the availability of credit practically free of charge from the Federal Reserve since 9/11 - that's a governmental intervention.

The Community Reinvestment Act that mandated banks extend loans to high risk individuals in 'need' while giving them the ability to repackage those high-risk mortgages and sell them in the market as a consolation prize - that's a governmental intervention.

Maybe you should stop quoting Joseph Stiglitz's buzzwords and start educating yourself on what actually IS a free market before blabbering nonsense about it.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[khallow]

SpaceX employs about 500 people. There was a crew of about 25 people down there actually handling the rocket. Yes, a 25% success rate sucks badly and SpaceX will need to work hard to stay alive. But they put, as I understand it, almost 200 kilograms in orbit. That's useful and something people will pay for. There's no one else who can get by with that little manpower.

Also consider that SpaceX was started in mid 2002. So over a bit over six years, SpaceX has developed two launch vehicles, the Falcon I and the Falcon V, two rocket engines, the Kestrel and three versions of the Merlin. They're also working on a manned vehicle, the Dragon. They've launched four vehicles with one success.

My take is that SpaceX is doing a hell of a lot with limited manpower. Further, the services that SpaceX provides are valuable and economical. This will be another step to greater commercial activity in space and a commercial manned presence. That outcome is far superior to China's feeble manned efforts.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Free the Cowards]

Fact is, white men just aren't the target of racism on this site. So it should come as no surprise that a story about a white man has no racist remarks in it, but a story about asian people does.

The true point you should be taking away is that Slashdot is full of jerks and assholes and there's no point in paying attention to any of them or acting as though they speak for the site.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that you are Still working for l-mart. In previous postings you griped about their not making it up there and that once they made it up, THEN you would not only give them credit. Now, not a thing. I am guessing that even if falcon 9 makes it on the first launch, you will STILL shoot him down. The funny thing is, that you lmarters do not see what is sneaking up on you. Welcome to the future.

As to china, well, gee. Easy to do it when you BUY AND STEAL working equipment.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could learn how to user the moderation system to your advantage and not read the posts that have been scored at -1.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The Chinese have spent about 20 times what Musk has (going on what my opponents say) and have come out with more than 20 times the value in terms of their results.

The amount spent by the Chinese is undoubtedly large, but no one outside the Chinese government may know the true cost. Given the secrecy surrounding the project as well as the government obfuscation (i.e. only announcing launches after they're successful), I'd suspect the number is a good deal higher than anything they've announced publicly.

Further, your claim that they're getting "20 times the value" is nebulous at best. You're guessing and reaching all at the same time. Do you have some kind of axe to grind that motivates you to so thoroughly abandon logic?

You can't even compare three man capsules and spacewalks to launching microsatellites on the same playing field.

Really? Why not? Both involve similar engineering and scientific feats. Both are fantastically expensive. The difference is in scale and efficiency only. China has the scale, Musk has the efficiency. It's as simple as that. Further, Musk isn't trying to reach the scale of China, Russia, or the U.S. His goal -- the one you're completely ignorant of -- is to make space access affordable.

It remains to be seen whether China can match Musk's efficiency or whether Musk can match China's -- or any other government-sponsored launch system's -- scale. However, in the sense that he's got a working launch platform that met all its design goals, it is huge success.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Free the Cowards]

Additionally, comparing money is pointless. The Chinese Yuan is severely undervalued, and Chinese can be hired for comparative peanuts, even highly skilled professionals. Any dollar amount you get by simply applying today's exchange rate to the number of yuan spent by the Chinese government should probably be multiplied by a factor of 10 or so to account for those factors if you want a fair comparison of effort. It may be better to look at man-years rather than money, but that gets really tough when you look at how much work ends up being sent out to other companies building components.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[khallow]

If you think having a go at people for being corporate fanboys is equivalent to racism, then you really are lost.

No, it's the same BS. Why are you so rabidly attacking SpaceX for being a corporation? Or upset because accomplishing something that people admire? I think it's your oily prejudice coming through.

Re:Not THAT impressive

[savuporo]

Um sorry, you arent really comparing apples here. SpaceX has done something impressive and well deserve their kudos, but it didnt take Chinese 1.3 billion people and Russian partnership to orbit their first ever orbital payload.
Their first satellite was launched back in 1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Fang_Hong_1

Re:Not THAT impressive

[Insanity Defense]

Why am I being so rough? Slashdotters seem more than willing to jump on Elon Musk's "entrepreneurial" cock but at the same time make racist statements when the Chinese government achieves a far more significant space milestone. Don't expect everyone to fall at the feet of this guy simply because he fits in with your ideological predispositions; he is quite far behind.

So because some people who post here refuse to consider that the Chinese might actually have accomplished what they say they did you are going to insult SpaceX and Musk? It's not the fault of SpaceX or Musk that some people refuse to give credit to the Chinese (presumably due to either political ideology or racism). So attacking the accomplishments of SpaceX and Musk only adds another injured party to the list.

Personally I think those who try to deny the accomplishments of the Chinese are being idiots. If they had not done what they claim by now the U.S. and Russia would be bringing forward evidence of it. The same as the U.S.S.R would have done if the U.S. had faked the Lunar landings as some claim. Of course your attacks on SpaceX and Musk are just as bad and you are no better than they are.

Congrats!

[GlobalColding]

Congrats on putting a nice crack in the mismanaged, overpriced, overpoliticised, goverment monopoly. Good Luck!

Re:Congrats!

[eskayp]

It wasn't good luck that finally got a Falcon up there.
It was trial and error and correction after basing their program on decades of research plus technology developed by both democratic and totalitarian governments.
If private enterprise is so enterprising why weren't they up there before NASA or the USSR?
It's good to see SpaceX provide an alternative means of access to space, but they had to stand on the shoulders of giants to get there.

Re:Congrats!

[Darkness404]

If private enterprise is so enterprising why weren't they up there before NASA or the USSR?

Ummm... Because they have to follow laws and don't have billions in capital? For example, the government can basically use whatever studies they feel like using, copyrighted or not, they can tax us and use all the money allocated for "defense" in order to fund the early rocket programs. Give a private company access to a few billions of dollars and tell them you can ignore all laws and tell them to make a rocket and they can.

Re:Congrats!

[FleaPlus]

It's good to see SpaceX provide an alternative means of access to space, but they had to stand on the shoulders of giants to get there.

Sure... governments are very good at developing the initial iterations of certain technologies, but atrociously bad at making it cost-effective and available to the masses. You typically need private industry for that, which is exactly what SpaceX is doing.

Re:Congrats!

[globaljustin]

the mismanaged, overpriced, overpoliticised, goverment monopoly

What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.

Sure NASA has problems, but they need to fix the problems, not mothball the whole agency!

Private industry will never replace public endeavor. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT GOALS. Sure both are going to space, but one is going to make money, the other is going for more altruistic reasons...you know...science (among many other reasons...don't flame me).

If you want to respond...please address my main point, which is: We can have BOTH successful private space development AND publicly funded scientific exploration...they are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, if it wasn't for publicly funded exploration (which did orbital flights 50 years ago ;) this company wouldn't exist.

Re:Congrats!

[CrimsonAvenger]

In fact, if it wasn't for publicly funded exploration (which did orbital flights 50 years ago ;) this company wouldn't exist.

And if it weren't for the pioneering work of Goddard, von Braun (back before he was funded by the Nazis), etc., then the publically funded exploration wouldn't have happened. They're symbiotic - each feeds off the successes of the other.

Re:Congrats!

[sketerpot]

What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.

They don't need to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. In fact, they're one of SpaceX's clients; they're trying to get out of the monopoly business. I wish NASA the best of luck on that.

Re:Congrats!

[SL Baur]

What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.

And you do not remember the Phoenix in the early 1980s.

If you want to respond...please address my main point, which is: We can have BOTH successful private space development AND publicly funded scientific exploration...they are not mutually exclusive.

Only on a level playing field. The (real) Phoenix got bogged down in government regulation and was shitcanned before it really had a chance.

I did not work on it, but another colleague of mine from NASA, did ...

Re:Congrats!

[FleaPlus]

the mismanaged, overpriced, overpoliticised, goverment monopoly

What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.

Not yet, but they're certainly working on trying to be anti-competitive:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I

Fortunately the government isn't doing a particularly good job of it (although they're certainly eating several billion dollars in the process).

sorry i'm late guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I got too close to my cock's Schwarzchild radius (which all hypermassive objects have) and time got really dilated.

Not only men, I hope

[YA_Python_dev]

May SpaceX be there to participate as man finally reaches for the stars.

Let's bring some women too.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Antique Geekmeister]

There are problems with women in space. The catheters they use for space suits are still pretty awkward, and menstruation is apparently very awkward. But heck yes, bring women. They're lighter and take less oxygen/kilo and fewer calories/workload.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[AgentPaper]

Not only that, but women are better psychologically suited to endurance missions: we're biased toward consensus, flexibility and efficient group dynamics, where men are biased toward rigid hierarchies and a "winner-take-all" mentality at the expense of the group. There were even a set of studies done by the US Navy (can't remember the citation off the top of my head) that recommended that all SSBNs be crewed by female sailors for just that reason - given the tours assigned to ballistic missile submarines, in which sailors must spend several months submerged and completely cut off from the surface world, all-female crews were thought to be less prone to psychological "breakage" under those conditions.

...Not to mention the fact that we're bound to get lost at least once as we move from Luna and Mars to outer-system and extrasolar planets, and you'd much rather have astronauts who know how to ask for directions... :-P

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Group dynamics "in space" must be different than anywhere else, then. Most women I know struggle to make it through an average day without "psychological breakage". And in my experience, groups of women usually break down to jealousy and infighting. It's the same on most reality shows... any situation asking the women to work together fails miserably.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[jacquesm]

I should hope the women on reality shows are not showing the same psychological make-up that women astronauts do, in much the same way as the drunks you see leaving bars don't have a whole lot in common with male astronauts.

Just because some in a group are making a mess of their lives does't mean all of them do.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Nutria]

we're biased toward consensus, flexibility and efficient group dynamics

A couple of quotes by women, about women:

"The chief excitement in a woman's life is spotting women who are fatter than she is."
Helen Rowland

"Working with women is a pain in the a**."
My wife

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Walkingshark]

Not only that, but women are better psychologically suited to endurance missions: we're biased toward consensus,

Right. Women are so good at getting along. Thats why the whole 'cattiness' meme is so perplexing. Women are just as competitive as men, and just as prone to antiscoial behavior.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Walpurgiss]

I apologize in advance for feeding the troll, but you can't forget Lisa Nowak.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=36260&in_page_id=34

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Eivind]

Don't think so. Group dynamics in purely (or nearly purely) female groups are typically much worse than in a mixed group, or even an all-male one. Conflicts in the workplace for example are typically worse in jobs dominated by females than in more mixed environments.

What you say is true to a point, male-dominated workplaces are often relatively rigorous hierarchies. But that is one organization that does -work- even though it has severe problems with for example flexibility.

Notice how ballistic submarines is a good example of an environment where, frankly, a rigorous hierarchy is probably the way to go.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[RNEMESiS42]

I was watching Sunshine with my girlfriend the other day, and it was at the part where Cillian Murphy (Capa) is getting bullied for some dumb reason. She turned over to me and said, "...and this is why men should never be allowed on long interstellar flights." I guess her female logic has some basis....

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

... and the behind her back bitching? Real good for the group :) Maybe women are different where you live.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[rwiggers]

...Not to mention the fact that we're bound to get lost at least once as we move from Luna and Mars to outer-system and extrasolar planets, and you'd much rather have astronauts who know how to ask for directions... :-P

Given the probability of finding someone to ask for directions, I think we would be better of with someone that can read maps. :P

Re:Not only men, I hope

[jollyreaper]

e are problems with women in space. The catheters they use for space suits are still pretty awkward, and menstruation is apparently very awkward. But heck yes, bring women. They're lighter and take less oxygen/kilo and fewer calories/workload.

No, you just have to convince them that a bigger space station will have better schools for the kids, then the wives will insist the husbands mortgage themselves up to their eyeballs to build it. "Suzanne researched this!"

Re:Not only men, I hope

[jollyreaper]

Implied here is that a larger space station would be spun for gravity.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[LanMan04]

My wife, who once worked in the "front office" area of a medical practice (staffed entirely by women) would disagree with you on this one.

Catty city. /Hiss Spit Slash

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, I would be terrified of a submarine full of women. You know they say women's cycle's all sync up when they live together, and you want to give them ballistic missiles?

PS: It's kinda not a good idea for a submarine to pop up and ask for directions. That whole secret hiding under the water thing it has going.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[bondjamesbond]

I beg to differ. My wife, who is a nurse, will be the first to tell you that a group of women in the workplace is almost always a recipe for jealousy, infighting, backstabbing, cliques, "A" lists, "B" lists and hissy fits.

I have a lot of law firm experience. Law firms have mostly female secretaries who constantly do the same as listed above.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[thedarkone64]

Not only that, the thought of ship-wide, all-women underwater pillow fights would definitely keep the moral in the rest of the Navy sky-high!

Re:Not only men, I hope

[shiftless]

Horseshit. I'll give an example: military basic training. At first all the men hate each other and there is frequent friction and conflicts. The women pull together early on and help each other along. By the time it's over, the men are now working as a team and are buddies for life, and the women have formed little cliques who all hate each other. Granted, this is anecdotal, but it's something I have been told by a number of people and witnessed firsthand when I was in basic training.

Hell, you don't even have to go to basic training, just watch how women and men act in everyday life. Women are full of drama. A woman will be sweet and kind to another's face and then call her a bitch as soon as the other's back is turned. Women are full of this kind of passive aggressive behavior.

Now when I say women, obviously I mean women in general, and there are exceptions, just like there are men who act the same way. But the point is, to say women in general work as a team better than men in general is laughable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Women dislike a woman boss more than a man. Women also do more gossip behind eachothers backs while men bring issues out in the open.

(As anyone in a position where they have staff knows)

Re:Not only men, I hope

[TheQuantumShift]

And have to admit we took that wrong turn at Alpha Centauri? No way.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm..., seems to be the same thing my mom told me in one of our more intimate conversations (I am an only son of her) : "Most women exist in a totally brutal, rule-free state of competition for men".

Make of that what you will.

Also, being a man (which may be totally biased), I noticed true compassion and sacrifice in real-world trials only on the part of men.

Re:Not only men, I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to 'bring' us like a totebag. A significant portion of SpaceX is female, including launch crew. We'll bring ourselves. :)

~anonymous woman coward.

Let's revisit his recent quote...

[JonTurner]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had a few words for his critics last month: "Optimism, pessimism, f-ck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work."

I guess he showed them!

Re:Let's revisit his recent quote...

[Rayban]

You mean "Him"?

Re:Let's revisit his recent quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "Her"?

Re:Let's revisit his recent quote...

[evilviper]

I guess he showed them!

Yes, I'm sure they're now totally in awe of his 25% success rate...

It's a bit early to start gloating.

Video?

[shoegoo]

I can't seem to find the video of the Falcon 1 Flight 4 (which the article is discussing). I only find Flight 3. Has anyone found the video?

Re:Video?

[jcwayne]

They couldn't get the license issued in time, so they had to remove the camera.

Re:Video?

[Hemogoblin]

Here is one I found:

Needs flash. I don't know how strong their server is though, hopefully it doesn't burn.

Re:Video?

[Narishma]

The video will be available on their website later but there was a live webcast of the launch.

Re:Video?

[darkjedi521]

You know, I can't tell if you are serious or not.

Re:video?

[FleaPlus]

any chance anyone posted some video of the launch somewhere? spacex hasnt got it up on their site yet, and i missed the fing webcast...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ

Re:Video?

[jcwayne]

Honestly, I'm not sure either.

Learn some fucking maths

[damburger]

Falcon 1: $7 million/165kg = $42,424/kg

Russian Proton: $85 million/21,600kg = $4,302/kg

The retards saying that Falcon 1 is some revolution in price need to shut the fuck up and check their facts.

Falcon 9 might beat (well, equal) Proton for price/kg if, repeat IF, it ever flies. This joker has got the simplest possible liquid fueled rocket flying after blowing up three of them, it will at least take him a while to figure out how to cluster engines.

But after all this work he will only be able to equal the price of the old Russia stalwart, whats the fucking point? Nobody in their right mind will buy a launch from a billionaire with too much time on his hands when they can choose a far more proven launcher.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[strack]

165kg is just the weight of the dummy module to put into orbit you moron. if you took the 5 seconds itd take to go and check the spacex website, youd see it can actually put around 1 tonne into orbit. and thats before any sort of reusuability is taken into account. so next time, think before you open your moron mouth.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[hattig]

If you've got ~165kg to launch, why would you pay $85m instead of $7m?

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[damburger]

Dnepr

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Cheerio Boy]

Falcon 1: $7 million/165kg = $42,424/kg

Russian Proton: $85 million/21,600kg = $4,302/kg

The retards saying that Falcon 1 is some revolution in price need to shut the fuck up and check their facts.

Falcon 9 might beat (well, equal) Proton for price/kg if, repeat IF, it ever flies. This joker has got the simplest possible liquid fueled rocket flying after blowing up three of them, it will at least take him a while to figure out how to cluster engines.

But after all this work he will only be able to equal the price of the old Russia stalwart, whats the fucking point? Nobody in their right mind will buy a launch from a billionaire with too much time on his hands when they can choose a far more proven launcher.

Oh right...I mean nobody would want to use anything flying that was made by bicycle manufacturers!

I mean after all cargo ships are made by proven large concerns so nobody would want anything to do with two guys in their backyard! Preposterous!

Your math statement may be correct however you fail in that you refuse to accept that people should even try to do better than the existing structure.

(And yes I know my airplane analogy is a bit flawed but it's the best I could come up with. Perhaps I'll start my own company to make better analogies.)

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[damburger]

If you had 165kg to put in orbit, you would piggy back it on someone elses larger satellite. Probably a Proton tbh.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[jcwayne]

if you took the 5 seconds itd take to go and check the spacex website

You must be new here.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[damburger]

They haven't done better. They have produced a more costly, less reliable version of established Soviet/Russian launchers and have given themselves far too much of a pat on the back for it.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Free the Cowards]

That's like comparing the MPG on a car versus a train and concluding that nobody will ever use a car.

Small launches are inherently more expensive. Not as expensive as you state, of course, since you fucked up on Falcon 1's payload, but more expensive. Economies of scale work well with rockets, so enormous ones are going to be cheaper per kilogram. But there's still plenty of room for small rockets, as often only small payloads are desired. For example, the Pegasus launcher is one of the smallest around, and because of that it's one of the most expensive per kilogram. And yet it has a fine niche in the launcher market.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Cheerio Boy]

They haven't done better. They have produced a more costly, less reliable version of established Soviet/Russian launchers and have given themselves far too much of a pat on the back for it.

Yes but they've done it as a private company not a government funded one. They are doing this highly separate from the established system and as a result they have to reinvent a whole lot of things using current technology.

_That_ is why they are patting themselves on the back so hard.

They need encouragement NOT disparagement to continue and hammering them because they didn't immediately produce a killer replacement for the existing heavy-payload launch units helps no one.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[DerekLyons]

Falcon 9 might beat (well, equal) Proton for price/kg if, repeat IF, it ever flies. This joker has got the simplest possible liquid fueled rocket flying after blowing up three of them, it will at least take him a while to figure out how to cluster engines.

Yeah, I've been pondering that as well... Folks here pan the Shuttle for a failure rate in the range of 2%, while singing hosannas to Soyuz with it's slightly greater failure rate...
 
And here they are claiming the Falcon, with a failure rate almost an order of magnitude greater and a fraction of the performance of either, is the rocketship of their dreams.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up already. You've been whining this entire thread. So what if they can't magically produce a super-space-vehicle out of thin air? You have to start somewhere, and that's what they're doing. They're starting, and they've succeeded, so let them pat themselves on the back. There's no harm done with or without it, anyway. With your attitude, no one would end up anywhere.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[mdielmann]

And, taking into consideration, how cost-effective was the first successful Proton flight, or those for the first year or so?
Moreover, how many rockets did von Braun wreck before we got to the Gemini program?

Sure, it's not cheaper than the established models, but that's no reason to think they can't further improve their product.

Also, it doesn't cost you one damned cent, which isn't something you can say about the national programs, assuming you're from one of the supporting nations. That's the beauty of private development.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Anonymous Coward]

Falcon 1: $7 million/165kg = $42,424/kg

Russian Proton: $85 million/21,600kg = $4,302/kg

The retards saying that Falcon 1 is some revolution in price need to shut the fuck up and check their facts.

Falcon 9 might beat (well, equal) Proton for price/kg if, repeat IF, it ever flies. This joker has got the simplest possible liquid fueled rocket flying after blowing up three of them, it will at least take him a while to figure out how to cluster engines.

But after all this work he will only be able to equal the price of the old Russia stalwart, whats the fucking point? Nobody in their right mind will buy a launch from a billionaire with too much time on his hands when they can choose a far more proven launcher.

Here are some maths worth noting...

Linus Torvalds started with a programming team of one, and in a few years his kernel moved throughout the globe eventually swallowing up GNU. And back then where was this kernel and some rag tag tools compared against the Microsoft empire? A hobby. Now look at 2.6 and how and by whom it is used.

Falcon 1 is a revolution: not because it's cheaper at this point, but in twenty years, it will be cheaper and more reliable than anything Russia or the US has to put up in orbit.

You may win the battle with your simple ratios of price/weight, but you will lose the war. Falcon 1 is the start of the privatization and mass replication of space travel.

Elon Musk is like the Linus Torvalds of space travel. One man, one vision, one purpose.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[The Living Fractal]

Assuming you are talking about the Russian ICBM rocket and not the motorcycle or some other vague thing, then you must be comparing it to the SpaceX effort and claiming some kind of debate victory with a single word.

Congrats on failing to address reusability in the overall cost, which will arguably make the SpaceX effort more effective in the long run. No, the proof isn't there yet, but then it isn't there yet to prove that Dnepr is better either. So...

I believe, in your own words, you should 'learn some fucking maths'. No, wait that's wrong. The maths are there yet. What you need to do is learn to STFU.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Anonymous Coward]

Love your math
check http://www.spacex.com/falcon1.php
and wikipedia.org although it is usually wrong but lists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_rocket

Proton 8K82K as 22,000 kg to LEO
  and 6,000 kg to GTO
Falcon 1 is $7.9M for 670 kg to LEO
  and 430 kg to GTO

I can't find any real price quotes for a Proton launch.
  I'm sure it depends on what they are launching and where too, oh and how many people you had to bribe.. but those bribes will be less than 200k anyways. :)

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Somegeek]

Wow.

You sure have been working overtime to dismiss this achievement any way you can; now resorting to lying about costs to orbit. This must be, what, 10 or more flaming attacks by you just in this one story?

I have been reading through your posts trying to guess why SpaceX disturbs you so much. At first I thought that you probably worked for one of the competing US aerospace companies, but you seem much to childish for that. If I were to guess I would say that you are a kid in Europe somewhere, (hmm, fluent in English, UK then), and that you dream of working for ESA someday. How did I do?

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[JshWright]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_rocket "Between the 1965 first flight and 1970, the Proton experienced dozens of failures."

If you want to get all "statisticy", sample size matters...

As far as cost per kilo goes, gasoline is cheaper (per gallon) if you buy it by the tanker rather than by the Honda Civic gas tank.

~JW

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[evilviper]

And here they are claiming the Falcon, with a failure rate almost an order of magnitude greater and a fraction of the performance of either, is the rocketship of their dreams.

Everyone's hopped-up on fantasies of how "privatization" will give us everything we want the government to do, for free. Politicians have been hyping the discredited theory for decades to eager listeners. It's no surprise the same irrational praise of corporations, and fear of government, should now extend to NASA.

It doesn't help that there's a good dozen or so extremely vocal, and utterly insane Libertarians here on /. who will promote such things to the heavens to advance their cause, no matter the reality of the situation.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Anonymous Coward]

volga.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[DerekLyons]

Had I discussed the Soyuz, you'd have a fucking point. But I didn't, did I? Learn to read you fucking moron.

And then, once you've learned read, try reading your own reference and examining the success and failure rate before you spout off 'facts' your little pea brain lacks the capability of understanding.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[SnowZero]

Had I discussed the Soyuz, you'd have a fucking point.

Ah, so you didn't say "while singing hosannas to Soyuz..." after all?

But I didn't, did I?

You did. So, I guess he has a point.

Learn to read you fucking moron.

Right after you learn to write. Sure, I know you meant to say "Proton", but it seems you are not willing to discuss anything without going totally apeshit.

Applying a little logic to the other poster's Proton example, I would expect he was referring to the difference between development and later production. Both NASA and the Soviet space programs had plenty of failures when they were developing new stuff from the ground up; Later rockets reused many things developer on earlier ones. They also had $30B-$40B budgets during the height of the space race. Let's see how SpaceX can go from here now that they've worked the bugs out of their base system.

No, I would not be willing to jump on a SpaceX rocket just yet, but I'm willing to wait and see if they can bring their idea of a ground-up redesign for cost efficiency up to the reliability they envision. I hope they succeed, because it would help the whole industry move forward.

And yes, inferring long term failure rates from a sample size of four is pretty stupid thing to do, especially when its the first four off the line. Clearly you have a brain smaller than a pea (using your comparison and a sample size of two).

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[solanum]

So then:

Falcon 1: $7 million/1,000kg = $7,000/kg

Russian Proton: $85 million/21,600kg = $4,302/kg

Better, but still not looking so good.... especially given that a lot of what goes up is over 1,000 kg.

Though as you say, if they sort out the reusability it will bring it somewhat closer - can't see it halving the price though.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Areyoukiddingme]

Pfft. A kid dreaming of working for a space agency? They still have those? The only ones I know of are about 8 years old. As soon as kids find out you have to do actual math to be a rocket scientist, they quickly lose interest.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[damburger]

Does the phrase 'ad hominem' ring a bell? Any criticism of your hallowed corporation must be attributed to a character flaw of the critic.

Fucking pathetic.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[Somegeek]

For my comments to have been an ad hominem attack would require that you had made a factual argument at some point. While you can apparently handle sophistry, honest facts are not to be found among your comments.

Specifically in this thread; you stated the costs per Kg to orbit for the Falcon 1, using in your calculations only the test mass that was lifted into orbit on this flight, not the obviously correct value of the available payload.

You then embarked upon yet another vulgar tirade using these fabricated numbers as the basis of your attack.

I was curious, watching all of your hatred spew forth around this story, and wondered if I might be able strike to the heart of it. Evidently I came close.

Cheers.

Re:Learn some fucking maths

[damburger]

Even if I used the mass which Falcon 1 is *theoreticlaly* capable of launching, Dnepr is still more economical.

You claim some kind of intellectual victory despite just being a little bitch. You think that somehow not swearing gives you supremacy over someone who has numbers on his side. You are wrong.

Inspiring

[localman]

I've seen plenty of launch videos before, but watching this and hearing them cheer when the stages separate... well, it warmed my heart. It's a beautiful example of bright people getting together to do something that people thought was unreasonable my many. That is one very small organization to break free from the surface of our little planet. Congrats to them.

All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a triumph for the private sector! Just think of the people queuing up to pay for their ticket on a launch platform with a 80 percent failure rate!

All hail the mighty power of 'teh private sector'! Take that 'teh government'!

Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Ah, STFU. They developed it completely from scratch. Lets see how well YOU do under those conditions.

Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[maglor_83]

I imagine he'd do pretty badly, since he can't even calculate the failure rate correctly.

Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh
4 launches
3 failures

i put that at a 75% failure rate

the failure rate on your calculations though looks to be at about 100%

Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[marco.antonio.costa]

Actually, if you consider that the first two launches were with the older Merlin 1A engine with ablative cooling, as opposed to the new Merlin 1C which uses a regeneratively cooled nozzle, the actual SpaceX success rate goes up to a respectable 50% with the current design of the Falcon 1.

Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[IrquiM]

And, considering the first failure of the 1c engine really didn't have anything to do with the hardware, but software, I'd say 100% success for the 1c engine but a 50% failure on separation!

Re:All Aboard! 80% Launch Failure Rate!

[Chris Burke]

So, uh, I guess this is your way of saying you're not very familiar with the development of rockets past and present. I see...

Depends on your payload...

[Overzeetop]

If your payload is only 150kg, then a Russian Proton is going to be pretty damned expensive. Not everyone needs to put 21,600kg into space. On the other hand, if your payload is 166kg, you still need another flight vehicle vendor (for now)

Re:Depends on your payload...

[damburger]

Ooops:

http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/dnepr_sum.shtml

Preempted by teh eveel commies once again

Re:Depends on your payload...

[Richard_at_work]

Actually, the Proton would still be cheaper - it just wouldn't launch 'only' 165kg, it would launch a package of satellites that together add up to near 21,600kg. Most heavy launchers go up with ballast as part of the payload, because it has to be a specific weight - if your payload is compatible, you can buy this weight for a lot less than a custom launch would cost you.

A challenge from the Falcon 1 team...

[Tetsujin]

When asked if he had a message for other companies developing their own orbital launch systems, a spokesman for the Falcon launch team responded, simply "Yes!"

"Come on!", he said, when asked to continue- followed by, "Show me your moves!"

Clearly the folks at SpaceX are feeling pretty confident about their achievement - but they welcome the challenge posed by their competition.

Re:A challenge from the Falcon 1 team...

[halsver]

He then Falcon-Punched the reporter into orbit for dramatic effect.

Re:A challenge from the Falcon 1 team...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Later, Harvey Birdman declined to comment.

Escape Velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

Escape Velocity of the earth is 7903.51007723324515848858 m/s. They are going a bit slow here. The rough calculation is (2*G*R)^.5 where G is acceleration due to gravity (9.805 m/s), R is the radius of the earth in metres (6370777.31167031686390488), you take the product of 2, G, and R and then take the square root of all of that. Its good that the Falcon finally made it (now they can fly 30 more and make boatloads of money per trip. They also can keep an American presence on the ISS.

Re:Escape Velocity

[QuantumG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Genius.

Re:Escape Velocity

[Tubal-Cain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_Velocity_(computer_game)

Re:Escape Velocity

[meringuoid]

R is the radius of the earth in metres (6370777.31167031686390488)

I would be fascinated to hear how you measured the radius of the Earth to the nearest proton diameter.

Re:Escape Velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief! Significant digits man!

Re:Escape Velocity

[m50d]

With a ruler. Duh.

Oi... what an idiot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that you mention clustering the engines as being a problem, considering what they went through getting one to work. Their failures were:

1. Corrosion.
2. "Slosh" in the second stage.
3. Stage separation timing.

Not a single failure can be attributed to the engines, which have performed beautifully. I can only conclude that you are every bit as much an idiot as you appear to be.

Sleep well.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[damburger]

Number three wasn't stage seperation timing. It was how long the engine would continue to produce thrust. Even as a sceptic I stared slack jawed at the screen when I read this. How the fuck did they let that get through?

These pricks you are cheerleading for have about as much quality control as a Chinese dairy farm, which is why they didn't know how much thrust their own damn engine produce before it was slamming their stages together. Check your facts before you call someone and idiot next time you cocksucker.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[FleaPlus]

Check your facts before you call someone and idiot next time you cocksucker.

When did I call you an idiot? I've just been trying to understand your reasoning. Why are you so hostile?

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[Insanity Defense]

Number three wasn't stage seperation timing. It was how long the engine would continue to produce thrust. Even as a sceptic I stared slack jawed at the screen when I read this. How the fuck did they let that get through?

Actually it was separation timing. They had it timed to be after the predicted end of thrust but the prediction and therefore the timing was wrong.

How did it get through? The extended thrust period was caused due to the difference in air pressure at the altitude at the end of burn and the sealevel (or nearly) that they did the original test burns at. With the lower air pressure more reaction mass was able to bleed through the system, end result longer thrust than predicted.

To lose 3 consecutive craft before getting the bugs out is regrettable but understandable.

Failures during development are expected.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[FleaPlus]

I'm also curious, but at what point would you consider SpaceX deserving of congratulations? Their first successful Falcon 9 launch? Their first manned launch? Their first launch to a private space station? Their first circumlunar navigation? Their first lunar landing? Their first Mars landing?

Would you consider them deserving of kudos at that point, or would you still find something to gripe about them?

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[Geoffrey.landis]

I'm also curious, but at what point would you consider SpaceX deserving of congratulations? Their first successful Falcon 9 launch? Their first manned launch? Their first launch to a private space station? Their first circumlunar navigation? Their first lunar landing? Their first Mars landing?

I, personally, will say that they're deserving of congratulations with their first successful launch to orbit.

Conrgratulations, Space-X!

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[jacquesm]

hah! excellent post.

SpaceX wrote history today, anybody not in the mood to congratulate them is either:

- jealous
- working for a competitor
- stupid

Let it go and see this for what it is, a private individual with a lot of cash did us all a great service, if only to show that it can be done.

That's a shitload better than all the bozos on the millionaire party circuit that can't think of anything better to do than to 'launch' their own perfume or fashion line.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[Walkingshark]

He probably bet against the launch making it up in Vegas and lost all his money. Ha ha!

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[enos]

Why not just stick an accelerometer on the thing? I'd think they'd already have some on there anyway. Wouldn't that make it trivial to detect end of thrust?

Predicting it seems like a round about way to get no more than an estimate.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[TheLink]

Predicting it that way seems to be asking for trouble.

It's like asking a blind man to drive a car and press the throttle at the right moment just based on timing.

Add a few sensors and log a warning if stuff happens out of the expected timings.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one of the things that bug me. It is far from trivial to test a rocket engine in artificial vacuum (or in any pressure controlled chamber.) However the mechanism of gas expansion providing thrust is so well understood that, they need not test it to be able to predict it. They ought to have calculated the amount correctly, first time. That part is not rocket science. When I first learned about the reason of falcon 3's loss, I thought "well that should have been trivial to account for, but hindsight is 20/20." If they have just glossed over the fact that engines provide thrust longer than they do on ground tests, that is somewhat understandable. Then I learned that they have known about the problem, but couldn't account for it. That is just mysterious. That is thermodynamics 101 you idiots! How can you make rest of your "rocket science" work and not be able to account for work potential of a known amount of gas with a known temperature and pressure, operating in a well defined environment?

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[n3tcat]

Would you consider them deserving of kudos at that point, or would you still find something to gripe about them?

Welcome to slashdot, apparent friend of user 6935. Please feel free to register your own account and get to know the other participants in this PvP arena.

Re:Oi... what an idiot...

[Eponymous Bastard]

How about, at the point where they reach a 10% failure rate.

Right now, any possible savings in fuel and vehicle costs will be taken up by the added insurance costs for the payload. And forget about manned launches.

video?

[strack]

any chance anyone posted some video of the launch somewhere? spacex hasnt got it up on their site yet, and i missed the fing webcast...

PR fail

[mgabrys_sf]

Cnn, MSNBC, Ruetters and AP have nothing on this.

Either they didn't think this would work - or someone at Space X might want to send an email - or something.

OOPS...

[jcwayne]

Sorry everybody, we recently outsourced our PR department to China. It seems they released the news of our successful launch a few days ahead of schedule. Live streaming video of the actual launch will be available on Wednesday.

-SpaceX

Crew?

[aussie_a]

So how many people were inside the shuttle? The "article" didn't seem to mention it.

Re:Crew?

[FleaPlus]

The Falcon 1 rocket was unmanned.

Re:Crew?

[Areyoukiddingme]

No Falcon 1 is ever expected to be manned. They don't plan on getting it man-rated. In theory you could pack a person and their life support equipment into one of them, but the resulting vehicle probably can't get very far while in orbit, and the expense and difficulty of getting the paperwork done to allow you to use it is such that you'd much rather get a bigger model rated instead. Which is exactly what they plan to do with the Dragon capsule and the Falcon 9 launcher.

Re:multi-engine test stand firings

[FleaPlus]

Also, in case other readers aren't sure what I'm referring to:

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/spacex_9enginefire.html

August 1, 2008 - Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX ) conducted the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early.

At full power, the nine engines consumed 3,200 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second, and generated almost 850,000 pounds of force - four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft. This marks the first firing of a Falcon 9 first stage with its full complement of nine Merlin 1C engines . Once a near term Merlin 1C fuel pump upgrade is complete, the sea level thrust will increase to 950,000 lbf, making Falcon 9 the most powerful single core vehicle in the United States.

âoeThis was the most difficult milestone in development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and it also constitutes a significant achievement in US space vehicle development. Not since the final flight of the Saturn 1B rocket in 1975, has a rocket had the ability to lose any engine or motor and still successfully complete its mission,â said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. âoeMuch like a commercial airliner, our multi-engine design has the potential to provide significantly higher reliability than single engine competitors.â

âoeWe made a major advancement from the previous five engine test by adding four new Merlin engines at once,â said Tom Mueller, Vice President of Propulsion for SpaceX. âoeAll phases of integration went smoothly and we were elated to see all nine engines working perfectly in concert.â

Are they going to recover any of the stages?

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, I wonder how many times each rocket can be reused.

Launch Site

[sortius_nod]

For anyone bored enough, the launch site can be found here:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=9.048616,167.743839&spn=0.006198,0.011373&t=h&z=17

Recommend you don't click

[smittyoneeach]

That link may contain a disturbing impressionist view the taxpayer position on the Wall Street Bailout.

I agree... 80% is a bit high...

[gamefreak1450]

...but I'd feel perfectly safe with a 75% failure rate :)

oscillation

[teridon]

What's with the horrible oscillation at the end of the video there?

Also, watching the glow of the rocket nozzle as it heats is impressive. :)

Re:oscillation

[Beezlebub33]

Actually, several things bothered me about the video. First, what is all the liquid on the camera? That doesn't seem right; I don't remember seeing anyting like that on a NASA launch.

Second, during the separation, at the very end of the video, it seemed to run into the main body. Was that intentional? it wouldn't seem so.

See http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=13 at the end.

Re:oscillation

[Free the Cowards]

The main thing that should bother you is that video says "flight 3", when today's successful launch was #4. That should pretty much explain the rest of the anomalies.

Re:oscillation

[TerranFury]

Second, during the separation, at the very end of the video, it seemed to run into the main body. Was that intentional? it wouldn't seem so.

The video you refer to is of an earlier, failed launch. My understanding, which might be mistaken, is that the lower stage continued producing thrust after it separated, and this caused it to ram into the upper stage. If that's true, then this is in complete agreement with what the video appears to show.

There's a video of the latest (successful) launch here. I also think that this video is from this launch as well, but it's not complete.

As for water: Actually, you'll see water in some NASA launches too; it's to damp vibrations during launch.

Re:oscillation

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with the horrible oscillation at the end of the video there?

Also, watching the glow of the rocket nozzle as it heats is impressive. :)

The "featured video" is a video of flight #2, which failed to reach orbit due to the oscillations. It took me a few minutes to figure that out -- their website design is a bit unclear. To see some video clips of the recent flight #4, you need to go to the "Video Gallery" link. Right now, only edited highlights available, hopefully video of the entire flight will be available soon...

Just checked Youtube, video of full flight is there.

albedo

[zogger]

I'm not seeing any big problem throwing black solar panels on top of already mostly black roofs. Black shingles or tar and gravel on flat roofs, makes little difference if there's a panel there or not - except you get a lot more electricity with the panels;) - and for that matter, they have total roofing panels now, the panel *is* the roof. Big @$$ wind chargers are better for centralized power, solar PV is better for smaller scale de-centralized power, IMO, in most but not all circumstances, some places just don't have the wind, no way around that. Where I live wind power just sucks, but solar rocks, that's why my wind charger isn't even installed, but my panels are up working. That's PV, solar thermal, probably better as centralized large scale once you are dealing with high pressure and hot fluids or gases and turbines, etc. PV is about as simple as it gets once it is installed. As to total surface area needed, let's see how covering the roofs go first, only a few tens of millions of roofs more to go so far...

Ya,solar power works well in space, but you'd need a few quadrillion dollars to get any usable amounts up there and use microwave power transmission for back to earth. It is a non starter for a few more generations methinks...it will become practical once the space elevator is working, but not before that. It's dandy to run space stations though.

Re:albedo

[Walkingshark]

You might be overestimating the overall surface area covered by "black roofs." There is still a lot of undeveloped surface area out there.

Re:albedo

[zogger]

Just saying I am not too concerned over changing the albedo with massive solar pv deployment, all the black roofs covered might be a good first test, if the effects are even measurable.

Re:albedo

[Walkingshark]

Ah, good point. I misunderstood what you were saying.

Look Ma, no Germans!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a wonderful coincidence!

This must certainly be God's hand at work.
That'll show those heathen commie pagans the supremacy of U.S. Hollywood/pulpSF-style Small-Town Capitalism.

See, who needs German engineers anymore?
Now F*x Kneews can more easily avoid talking about that (ha!) "space" "walk"(Dr.Evil quote-mime. Er, DEQM?)

( And, no. Of course I didn't RTFA, that sort of thing is for weak of faith - or worse - you bunch of snickering heathen pagans!@). ;-)

Has to be said...

[ZonkerWilliam]

You the MAN Elon!

LOL! Recycled Linux/Open Source Retorts

[Anonymous Coward]

The dopes making excuses for this pathetic company aren't even trying. They're just recycling the same old damage control posts used a damage control for shitty open source software.

Re:LOL! Recycled Linux/Open Source Retorts

[Duncan Blackthorne]

That whole reply makes NO sense to me. Does it make any sense to anyone else? Bueller?

Re:LOL! Recycled Linux/Open Source Retorts

[marco.antonio.costa]

Well Duncan, that's a beautiful example of the nonsensical idiotic AC comments we get from time to time here for no reason whatsoever.

*chuckes* Only in Slashdot folks! Good night!

Oscillation Overthruster

[Dolphinzilla]

I agree - there was some growing instability in the end probably as the air density got less - it may have reached orbit but it may not have been in one piece. Kind of odd how the video ended just as it started to get really wild - I'd say them boy's need to do a little work on their control system tuning - seems like it has a bit too much gain :-)

Re:Oscillation Overthruster

[bbn]

You were probably looking at the video of the second launch attempt. That launch failed due to those oscillations.

The video of the fourth and successful launch does not seem to be available yet.

Re:Oscillation Overthruster

[marco.antonio.costa]

heh, I think you're looking at the flight 2 video that got into trouble in the 2nd stage.

today's launch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ

Not an orbital velocity

[veriti]

To achieve a full orbit, the velocity must be 7.8 km/s or about 23 Mach. 5200m/s is not enough to stay in orbit. It more like suborbital flight.

implied

[globaljustin]

You get to choose whether to be a part of this, or not.

Are you implying that public funded space exploration is wrong for some reason? If so you are dead wrong. I can type out a great defense of NASA's existence and mission if need be...

Re:implied

[Teancum]

I do think there are a number of things that NASA has and is doing wrong in terms of its general attitude toward spaceflight development and its focus towards a useful mission that NASA can play.

NASA can and should be in the space exploration business, not the business of providing space transportation services. Travel to low-earth orbit may have been remarkable back in the 1950's, but it isn't even news any more. Heck, even this launch... which I do believe to be not just newsworthy but down right historic... is just a footnote in science columns right now if it is being covered by "mainstream" news media at all.

Recent announcements by Mike Griffin and NASA that the new Ares V rocket is going to be in the commercial spaceflight business makes me really question what, if anything, NASA really intends to do in the near future. Perhaps that was just a mistake on a power-point slide I was looking at, but the "mission" of NASA certainly not very well defined at the moment.

Re:implied

[KGIII]

If you have the time than please do. Not for my sake because I'd likely agree with everything you said. But, rather, for the sake of those who are probably a bit younger than you and I and actually have doubts about keeping NASA running.

Re:implied

[Singularitarian2048]

globaljustin, would you point a gun at me yourself and force me to give money to NASA? Please don't.

Re:implied

[GaryPatterson]

globaljustin, would you point a gun at me yourself and force me to give money to NASA? Please don't.

He doesn't need to. If you're a US taxpayer, your own government will force you to pay up.

Still, there are worse things to be forced to pay for.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty. It takes resoures from people without their consent that they earned with their own sweat and hard work.

I don't care how valuable your pet project is to humankind -- if you fund it with the barrel of a gun it isn't worth it. That's (one of) the reason Musk's effort is amazing. He has done it (well, mostly), with his own cash.

I would however like to see you defense -- I believe it will be ripped apart here with great haste...

Re:implied

[Chris Tucker]

"Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty. It takes resoures from people without their consent that they earned with their own sweat and hard work."

The air is thick with the stench of Randroid droppings!

"I'm trapped on Gilligan's Island, but I'm not paying ANY income taxes!"
                                                                                    Mary Ayn Rand

Re:implied

[snowraver1]

Have you ever used a satellite? No satellite TV? Satellite Radio? Communications, Google Earth? If NASA didn't spend the money investing in space vehicles, the Russians would have been the only players in the space game for a long time. This was during the Cold War too, so that just asking the Russians to launch a satellite was not an option.

NASA blazed the trail that Elan Musk is now paving. Science needs large amounts of capital, and many discoveries are not marketable in a profitable way, so there is little incentive for private funding, but are valuable to the world nonetheless. NASA is a prime example of this.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

Satellites used for the profitable uses that you mentioned are privately funded.

NASA is a civilian agency -- not a military agency, so any justification based on national defense falls flat.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

Mao! Is that you?!

Re:implied

[snowraver1]

The satellites are, but who launched them? Who put the research dollars into the rockets? Who paid for the failures, and eventually made the process quite reliable? NASA did.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

It is true that the early history of NASA was obviously targeted towards national defense -- and thus justified. However, the work would have been eventually done using private capital if the end result -- satellite communications for example -- were profitable -- and therefore sustainable.

Re:implied

[snowraver1]

The startup capital for a satellite and launch are already extremely high. Imagine, adding rocket development & testing. The exploration of space is for in the public interest. I agree that NASA has to get out of the transporation game now that private options are available, but NASA still has a key role in space exploration.

Re:implied

[bluemonq]

Companies are rarely if ever focused on the long term, especially in the case of publically-owned companies, whose shareholders tend to demand short-term profits. Are you suggesting that any individual or group of individuals would have been willing to foot the bill for something like this fifty years ago?

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

No, I'm suggesting that companies are smart. If you can't show value in anything shorter than fifty years it isn't worth doing. Break it down into smaller, valuable steps.

Shareholders don't demand short-term profits -- they demand risk-adjusted and time discounted profits. Just like you do whenever you collect a salary.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

The exploration of space is for in the public interest.

Your opinion -- not fact. If you believe this strongly, I suggest you make a case for it at your local bank and apply for a loan to start a business.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

Recent announcements by Mike Griffin and NASA that the new Ares V rocket is going to be in the commercial spaceflight business makes me really question what, if anything, NASA really intends to do in the near future.

I really hope this isn't true. All this will accomplish is the crowding out of private capital and further delay of a real spacefaring economy. When will people realize that our (American) strength comes from private efforts -- not a statist programs?

Re:implied

[SL Baur]

Are you implying that public funded space exploration is wrong for some reason? If so you are dead wrong.

I'm not the person you're responding to, but I used to work for NASA in the 1980s and I think that yes, public funded space exploration is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

We could have had something like this about three decades ago if there weren't so many stupid government restrictions in this area.

Re:implied

[SL Baur]

Heck, even this launch... which I do believe to be not just newsworthy but down right historic... is just a footnote in science columns right now if it is being covered by "mainstream" news media at all.

That's a pity. This is historic.

I despise the current Chinese government, but I applaud their efforts at moving off Earth. Competition Is Good. Keeping all of one's eggs in one basket is never a particularly safe idea. Whether or not you believe Algore and the GW crowd, the undeniable fact is that Earth goes through major climate change periodically. The sooner we get some people away, the better. Perhaps you have to be a parent to understand the feeling.

Re:implied

[DerWulf]

would you care to refute his points?

Re:implied

[fbjon]

No it is a fact, not an opinion. Not exploring space for economic reasons is idiocy, and private interests are hardly going to do any exploring any time soon.

Re:implied

[Teancum]

On the other hand.... if the current delays and typical government mis-management along with normal NASA-style bloated overhead continue to plague the Ares development process, that rocket isn't going to be ready for it first flight for nearly a decade. In that period of time, it is likely that nearly a dozen different private spaceflight companies are going to come to the surface, and the Falcon 9 is certainly going to be ready and capable of manned spaceflight well before the Ares I is even ready.

Companies to watch include Armadillo Aerospace, Blue Origin, Scaled Composites, and Bigelow Aerospace (who've given up on even developing the rockets... they're just making spacecraft and flying the hardware on other people's rockets).

Solving the Ares pogo issue with shock absorbers is IMHO an awful hack to an already bastard rocket system that has too many congressional fingers in its pot... even if one of those congressional fingers is my own district. I will be shocked if the Ares I even flies at all.... and NASA is going to have some congressmen asking tough questions about what they are doing if SpaceX continues with their successful record.

I give it at best a 50/50 chance that the Ares rocket system is going to even make it onto a launch pad right now. But I'm a major critic of the program and not a "True Believer"(tm) in NASA.

Re:implied

[Naturalis Philosopho]

You really believe that you're being deprived of your liberty? Then vote. Get people to vote with you. Or do you only believe in the kind of liberty that is given to you, not taken; just a whiner who want's "liberty" without working to preserve it?

Hats off to Musk. He's worked for his (and indirectly humanities) great benefit, and is showing wonderful success.

Re:implied

[Antique Geekmeister]

That's OK: it may e a footnote in scientific terms, but in *business* terms, it's a huge matter. It's an active embarassment to NASA, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and the other big space businesses of the USA. Like PC's taking over the tasks of IBM and Cray big iron, it's a very exciting business shift away from Congress funded space endeavors.

Re:implied

[Teancum]

Hardly. The bulk of the satellites that went into space that have been sent up by the USA were developed and paid for by military contracts. All of the major branches (yes, even the Marine Corp) have been involved with spaceflight to some extent or another. While the U.S. Army isn't directly involved too much any more, the bulk of the Marshall Spaceflight Center (including Werner Von Braun) came from the earlier Army rocket program. Both the U.S. Navy and the Air Force are even today heavily involved in spaceflight.... so much so that their budgets for spaceflight are even today larger than NASA's.

Yeah, I'll admit that NASA did get involved with developing quite a bit of the science about the environment of what it is like in space, and took many of the early risks. But it wasn't just NASA either.

BTW, the one unsung private company that did most of the early pioneering for private spaceflight? AT&T (the old pre-DOJ breakup Ma Bell). They got into the game so early that they had to get special permission just to build a satellite in the form of a congressional resolution. In spite of what Elon Musk and others in the current spaceflight industry think of government regulations in their field, nobody had to go through a harder time than AT&T and the Telestar satellite.

The efforts of AT&T (and the huge amounts of money they dumped into their program... not being subsidized but in fact underwriting NASA's programs at the time) are one of several companies that you should be also looking at in terms of who has paid for this. NASA hasn't ever been nor even today is the only game in town for spaceflight in America.

Re:implied

[ckaminski]

I took one look at that lollipop capsule and knew Ares I at least was doomed. Lollipops don't stand up too well.

I'm a much bigger fan of DIRECT nowadays.

Re:implied

[ckaminski]

Sure, take your libertarian ass to some island somewhere and live your paradise. In the real world, we need roads, rails, power, phone, satellites, fresh water, pipes to carry the water, pipes to carry the sewerage away.

All of which have to be paid for by someone, so why not a giant collection of taxes. Compliance is far easier that way, and you can tax each according to his means.

Unless and until you agree to put a coin slot on your toilet, I'd reckon you'll have a hard time convincing me that taxes are bad.

NASA is an artifact of the time when the Soviets were a moment away from annihilating our way of live. Maybe they've outlived their useful live, but I'm not about to denigrate my ancestors for funding something they thought they desperately needed. I do however, take exception to throwing more money at this Ares program...

Re:implied

[Chris Tucker]

"would you care to refute his points?"

No. Libertarianism is the Scientology of politics. No point in arguing/debating with Randroids. The response is always the same:

"The.Free.Market.Solves.All.Problems. All.Glory.To.The.Invisible.Hand."

My time would be better spent and far more productive by picking my nose and flicking the boogers at you.

Re:implied

[insllvn]

The inherent flaw in Libertarian property rights is the principle of original acquisition. Your so-called liberty based morality fails to take into account on any level the historically unequal distribution of resources that results from the seizure of property through force or coercion. Further, libertarianism assumes, for no reason whatsoever, that I am morally superior (or at the very least deserve a larger share of resources) simply because I am more talented/intelligent/lucky than the next guy. Are the handicapped inherently less deserving of needed resources simply because they were born less capable of providing for themselves? Should a percentage of the old starve because they were too stupid to set aside funds for their retirement? Is this consistent with your conception of justice?

True free market principles have failed to produce a favorable outcome anywhere. See: The Great Depression, Argentina under the Chicago Boys, the current deregulation clusterfuck with sub prime mortgages.

In short, Libertarianism is a failed theory clinging to flawed moral reasoning to justify why the rich should get richer.

Re:implied

[insllvn]

And what if my local bank has closed its doors because the president shares your retarded free market ideals and deregulated the market causing a massive economic meltdown?

Re:implied

[mrdoogee]

Does anybody here wonder what will happen if SpaceX does continue their success? I'm reminded of a man who once built a better, cheaper, and safer version of the status quo, and the Government helped the established players squash him. I worry that with our corrupt gov't, the Falcon may just become another Tucker.

Re:implied

[Bodhammer]

There is an concept in economics called the velocity of money. It is measured as the number of times money changes hands in a year. I pay the butcher $1 in January, he pays the baker that dollar in February, and the she pays the candlestick (LED carbon friendly candles of course) maker $1 in march, etc. The velocity of a free market dollar is ~12.

Now if I pay that $1 in taxes, it takes the government 3 months to spend that money due to bureaucratic overhead. The velocity of a taxed dollar is ~4.

4 minus 12 is -8 or for every taxed dollar, the gross national product is reduced by $8. This is why tax cuts stimulate the economy so much. You and I deciding what something is worth is more efficient than the politicians.

This is why Musk can do so much with so little compared to NASA.

This is why Libertarians believe in the free market. It is not Randoid philosophy, it is the way the world works.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

The free market didn't ask to be bailed out -- that was the regulators. Fannie and Freddie weren't free either.

Markets clear.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

It's Austrian Economics actually.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

Exactly how do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac resemble the free market to you? The current "financial crisis" is not a failure of the free market as espoused by the Austrian school, rather, it is a failure of fiat currency.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

All of which have to be paid for by someone, so why not a giant collection of taxes. Compliance is far easier that way, and you can tax each according to his means.

Why should _my_ means determine how much of _your_ sewage I am responsible to clean up?

Re:implied

[cheesybagel]

Uh, the government (actually the DoD) has paid for flights, so in a sense they actually funded SpaceX a bit.

Re:implied

[turgid]

Otherwise, all but the very rich would drown in sewage. Even the very rich would have to put up with the stench. Have a read about Victorian London, the Great Stink, and Bazalgette's sewers.

Re:implied

[ultranova]

Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty. It takes resoures from people without their consent that they earned with their own sweat and hard work.

You are wrong for two reasons.

First, even if we accept your premise that taxation is stealing, stealing doesn't violate your liberty. It violates your claim to ownership. And if you claim that being deprived of the exclusive rights to something - which ownership means - means that your liberty has been lessened, we must conclude that your claim diminished other people's liberty in the first place, and thus the way to maximum liberty is to abolish private property altogether, since anything else unfairly diminishes the liberty of everyone except the owner.

Secondly, the only reason why all that sweat earned you anything except calluses is that you live in an ordered society. If you didn't, your precious property - all of it, and not just a the taxman's portion - would belong to whoever could take it from you by force. Since an ordered society means one where everyone plays by certain rules, it follows that every member of this society had a part in your success; and as such, it is only fair that they should receive a portion of it. Taxes represent that portion.

In other words, quite complaining, pay your taxes, and be happy that you don't live in the proverbial jungle of the Libertarian dreamworld where you'd lose all rather than just a portion.

I don't care how valuable your pet project is to humankind -- if you fund it with the barrel of a gun it isn't worth it.

And that's another thing where you're wrong, and why I hope that Libertarians never gain power anywhere they can do real damage. Survival of the human species in the long run depends on colonizing space. As long as we live in a single planet, or even a single solar system, we're sitting ducks. Survival of mankind is far more important than whether you are forced to do something you don't want to or not.

Those who sacrifice liberty for safety don't deserve either, but neither do those who would sacrifice all of humanity rather than give up a tiny portion of their personal liberty.

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax individuals. The fed can only tax the states. So you basically do not support the Constitution.

Additionally, your socialist system of resource allocation is woefully inefficient and has no chance of generating the kind of discretionary investment that would be required to colonize space. Like it or not, the only economic systemt that will ultimately explore the cosmos is Capitalism -- the only system that is compatible with liberty.

Wake up, some people _should_ earn more than others.

Re:implied

[osu-neko]

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tax individuals. The fed can only tax the states. So you basically do not support the Constitution.

I'm guessing you're a time-traveler from the 18th or 19th century. You might want to read an updated copy of the constitution, paying particular attention to the 16th amendment.

(I'm assuming you're a time traveler, since otherwise it would follow from what you're saying that you do not support the Constitution, and you seem to be saying that's a bad thing.)

Re:implied

[lessthan]

Well, okay, why is it wrong? Do you really think that if the government didn't have NASA that there wouldn't be "stupid government restrictions" on firing large missiles into the atmosphere and beyond?

Re:implied

[ThreeE]

The 16th amendment makes no changes regarding the taxing of states vs. individuals.

Perhaps you should read a bit: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Re:implied

[Chris Tucker]

Shorter Bodhammer:

"All.Glory.To.The.Invisible.Hand!"

Re:implied

[SL Baur]

Do you really think that if the government didn't have NASA that there wouldn't be "stupid government restrictions" on firing large missiles into the atmosphere and beyond?

The existence of the Space Shuttle was used to hinder privatization, so yes.

And the Space Shuttle was an utter (and expensive) failure compared to its original design goals - "NASA expected the Space Shuttle fleet to ultimately complete 25 to 60 missions per year. Plans called for up to 20 launches per year from each of three launch pads." http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/shuttle-program.html

I do not hate Dick Nixon because he was the usual scum sucking Washington swine dog of a politician they all seem to be. I do hate him for approving the Space Shuttle and perhaps ruining my chances forever for going to into space.

Re:implied

[lessthan]

Thank you.

Re:implied

[Teancum]

These are not government cost plus contracts, and certainly the government didn't act as anything other than a normal customer for SpaceX. The COTS funding is a little bit different, but even that is a really unusual method of government financing... even if it is much more typical in ordinary business purchases.

This certainly isn't something exclusive for government service, and while the government money is going to help provide a valuable market, it certainly isn't the only market that SpaceX is aiming for.

The U.S. Government certainly didn't provide the seed money to get the rocket development started.

Re:implied

[SL Baur]

I have an axe to grind, no doubt about it. Before I accidentally clicked the wrong button I meant to link:

"Never forget, space flight is COOL!" - http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312074/history.htm

Re:implied

[DerWulf]

Weird how the libertarians are always right though, hu? http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw. Only the Austrians have seen this recession coming and only they know how to fix it ...

Re:implied

[Chris Tucker]

"All.Glory.To.The.Invisible.Hand!"

You know, citing Ron Paul in any instance is prima facie evidence of self-delusion.

You might as well be quoting from 'Dianetics', while expecting to be taken seriously.

Re:implied

[DerWulf]

I don't know what you are taking but I'd like some ;) ... you are making libertarians out to be completely beyond reasoning with but while doing so appear like a child sticking fingers in his ears and going "nah nana nah". Your dismissal proves nothing. The Austrians (Mises.org, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul etc.) on the other hand have predicted the current crisis to such a precise degree that it can be taken as evidence that libertarians indeed have a much deeper and sounder understanding of economics then any other school of thought ... How can you dismiss that?

Re:implied

[Chris Tucker]

"How can you dismiss that?"

Very easily. Libertarians are selfish loons who worship a dead selfish loon who held that selfish behavior was the ideal.

Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to this: "I got mine, fuck you, Jack!", and of course, "All.Glory.To.The.Invisible.Hand!"

I could point out that numerous left wing economists have, for quite some time, been pointing out that the Libertarian deregulation of the diverse financial markets would (and did) lead to exactly the situation we're in right now.

I could, but I have better and more productive things to do with my time. Such as pick my nose and flick the boogers at you.

MOD PARENT UP

[Iamthecheese]

I was talking out of my ass.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[KGIII]

Which is why you've been on my "foes" list for a long time now and relates directly to my signature. On the other hand, facts not withstanding, it was actually a good rant. I applaud the program and wish that there was more that I could do to help but, alas, that's... You know... Rocket science. I'm usually lucky if I can tie my shoes.

Re:A lame toast

[globaljustin]

Grand parent sounded ridiculous with his 'toast' to man finally reaching to the stars...there was, you know, the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo programs, whatever the Soviets called their programs, dozens of probes, satellites, etc...all done decades ago.

I applaud what SpaceX is doing, but I cannot stand when people praise them like retarded donkeys while pretending they are space pioneers. They are pioneers of funding...the stuff they are doing has already been done several times. If you look at what they're doing IN CONTEXT it's still remarkable!

As far as the analogies that the parent is speaking of...let's just drop the BS...you can look right through the 'government does it first' and the 'private industry does it first' counter argument and see its just your standard liberal vs. conservative circular argument.

Sure the military and other gov't agencies have pioneered several technologies (the internet springs to mind...ARPANET anyone?), and private industry has had its successes as well.

We can, you know, have both...

Even better - space midgets

[spineboy]

Have a bunch of obese people of very short stature. They can live off their own body fat, saving food supplies.
Fat will always be the bodies most energy efficient and weight efficient way of transporting food for our astronauts on long missions where weight will be an issue.

Re:Even better - space midgets

[Antique Geekmeister]

That's vaguely funny, but completely wrong. The fat being transformed back to energy is quite inefficient: it's far more effective to send up the fat as food, and not pay the water and oxygen and space costs of storing it as live fat in the body, especially because it will change the size of their space suits. Also, a lot of midgets have a lot of other medical issues, and limited body strength. Sending up all that spare organ space just to get a really short pair of arms up there seems pretty inefficient.

Now, people with their legs chopped off might be more effective. I bet there are quite a few military veterans right now who'd be happy for the ride, and have a lot of upper body strength to bring to their efforts.

Re:Even better - space midgets

[Abreu]

Now, people with their legs chopped off might be more effective. I bet there are quite a few military veterans right now who'd be happy for the ride, and have a lot of upper body strength to bring to their efforts.

Read "Falling Free" by Lois McMaster Bujold, it describes a race of humanoids genetically designed to live in zero-g.

Their most obvious trait is that they don't have legs; they have four arms.

Private Enterprise != Free

[Comboman]

You? nothing. Which is precisely why it's so significant. This is private enterprise, vs. a mandatory government space program. You get to choose whether to be a part of this, or not.

Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[Nutria]

Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.

Which was "encouraged" by Democrats (Janet Reno: if you don't make lots of home loans to poor black people who can't afford it, we'll prosecute you for housing discrimination) who then killed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which was designed to regulate the FNMA and FHLMC.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[TubeSteak]

Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.

Considering that the banks & financial institutions operate in essentially a walled garden, setup by the various regulatory agencies & the Federal Reserve, you can't exactly claim that the enterprise they've been engaged in is "private".

Especially when you look at some of the biggest players (Freddie, Fannie, Ginnie, the Fed Reserve Bank) and discover that they're all quasi-public in nature.

To keep this on topic: The only real problem with privatizing the space industry is that NASA will lose a lot of generally useful institutional knowledge as the people associated with the Shuttle program are moved to other projects, retired, or go into private industry.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[TooMuchToDo]

Isn't it good if people move from NASA (highly bureaucratic red tap environment) to the private sector (either to SpaceX, which will expand to provide more launch capabilities, or to Boeing or Lockheed)? Shit actually gets done.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[guyminuslife]

Right! Private corporations are so much more efficient when they go to the moon.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[TooMuchToDo]

Basic research is done with regards to getting to orbit. That's it. Game over. Now it's time for business to commercialize it and drive down the costs. This is a good thing. The government can pay business to get basic science payloads to space and beyond, and it'll be cheaper than vehicles such as the shuttle (which cost $450 million per launch).

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html

Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?
A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[TubeSteak]

Isn't it good if people move from NASA (highly bureaucratic red tap environment) to the private sector (either to SpaceX, which will expand to provide more launch capabilities, or to Boeing or Lockheed)? Shit actually gets done.

Not exactly.
When you split up a group of knowledgeable individuals, you lose their collective wisdom and break up their organizational culture.
There's a reason I said "institutional knowledge" and not "skilled individuals"

As for Boeing or Lockheed and "shit gets done", how often do they finish big government projects on time and on budget? Hell, how often do they accept anything big other than with a cost plus contract?

If I had to choose between a private contractor wasting tax payer money or civil servants wasting the exact same amount, I'd just as soon keep it in house. That said, SpaceX doesn't seem like it's going to be a waste of taxpayer dollars, because even after you add in their profit margin, they're still vastly cheaper than the Boeings & Lockheeds of the aerospace industry.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[rufty_tufty]

Really?
What about research into
* aerospike nozzles?
* Composite fuel tanks
* Air breathing rockets

The list goes on.
There's lots more research to do with technologies that can help us get to orbit cheaper. Just because we have a solution that just about works doesn't mean that it's the best solution and that no more work needs doing.
Yes private industry could do this research, but I see no reason why that kind of research isn't exactly the sort of thing NASA should be researching. Let private industry drive down costs of current technology while NASA researches the next technology. Just get NASA out of doing logistics and designing rockets that others in industry have an equivalent capability.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[JesseMcDonald]

Do I get to choose whether or not I'm part of the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street bailout? That was private enterprise too.

The bailout itself is a mandatory government program, not private enterprise. If you're upset about your hard-earned income being taxed away to prop up failed corporations -- and why shouldn't you be? -- then place the blame squarely on those responsible: the politicians.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[peacefinder]

The assertion that over-regulation cause the current financial problems is not well supported by the facts. See this rebuttal.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[g8oz]

Aha! It was all Janet Reno's fault! I knew it! And those endless generic subdivisions in Phoenix and Las Vegas were meant for black people.

Seriously though, that is a very selective and limited analysis. There was more than enough encouragement from the deregulation happy Republicans. And adjustable rate mortgages pushed by a Fed subservient to a spend-your-way-to-success *Republican* White House are what has brought millions of Americans to brink of foreclosure and thus screwed Wall Street.

And lets not forget the role of the absurdly low capital gains tax rate in encouraging risky behaviour and an 'asset bubble' in the financial industry.

But I know, blaming minorities has always been a fun and profitable strategy for right wingers.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[osu-neko]

The bailout itself is a mandatory government program, not private enterprise. If you're upset about your hard-earned income being taxed away to prop up failed corporations -- and why shouldn't you be? -- ...

Perhaps because when the government has done this sort of thing with our money in the past, it has usually actually turned a profit? If the government invests $700 billion and makes back a trillion +, we end up better off in the long run. That sort of thing doesn't upset me. I'm more upset when you cut my taxes while you're running a deficit. I know damn well I'm going to have to pay for that spending anyhow, except now I'll have to pay for it, and pay interest too. That's a tax increase, not a tax cut. Reagan and W. have raised our taxes more than the most wildly liberal spender ever did. We could build enough bridges to nowhere to actually get somewhere with all the money we squander on paying the interest.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[Z34107]

It's not a "right-wingers blaming minorities" kind of thing. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed to force banks to make loans to "underserved populations" - i.e., people who have no shot of ever paying back a loan.

Banks are more than happy to make loans. It's how they make money. In a perfect world, banks would make as many loans as they possibly could, because we all know that they're evil money-grubbing plutocrats, and making loans makes money.

But, the "making money" part only happens if the loan is paid back. So, whether or not you can pay back the loan is naturally a major concern for a bank - would you loan $100 to a friend if you knew he would never pay you back? If he already owes five other friends money? Yet banks are required to give $300,000 to perfect strangers on a daily basis.

Refusing to give a stranger $300,000 because you don't think you'll ever see them again is usually a wise decision. Unless they're a member of a minority group. Then, it's most likely "racism" and a grand opportunity for politics at the expense of a group of monocle-clad stereotypes nobody likes anyway.

The CRA practically created the subprime market - banks were compelled by law to make loans to borrowers who couldn't even afford down payments. The original intent of the law (avoiding the more cynical reasons of race-baiting politics) was to help develop "distressed" and "inner-city" areas, but it created a new problem: You can't refuse to make an equally bad loan to someone because he's not "inner-city" enough. Once banks were forced to hand out subprime loans, they had to give them to everybody.

Banks are given "report cards" based on how many of these loans they've made. Refusing to make them, especially for a reason as silly as "they can't pay you back", gets you a "substantial noncompliance" rating. Good luck ever opening a new branch, offering new services, merging, or doing anything else requiring regulatory approval.

Of course, one bad piece of regulation isn't the sole cause for the entire housing bubble. But, if you have to start pointing fingers at those evil, racist conservatives, Greenspan would be a better scapegoat.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[JesseMcDonald]

Perhaps because when the government has done this sort of thing with our money in the past, it has usually actually turned a profit?

[Citation needed]. Make sure to count profit as the private sector would -- subtracting foregone interest and externalized costs (regulations, licensing, monopolies, etc.)

As for the rest, I mostly agree. It's way off-topic, but I'm against government spending as much as I'm against taxation. Both create imbalances by transferring wealth from some groups to others, but only spending can directly waste significant non-monetary resources. On the other hand, the government can only deficit-spend because their lenders trust their ability to tax in the future. Take away that power and the easy credit would dry up overnight.

Your real concern, however, is that you'll eventually be taxed more to pay the interest on the deficit, which is an objection to taxation (present and future), not spending per se.

Re:Private Enterprise != Free

[volkris]

Absurdly low capital gains tax rate encouraging risky behavior? What an absurd statement!

As if having a low tax rate made investors somehow ok with losing money through betting on riskier investments?

YouTube link

[bbn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ

This shows the fourht launch.

The video on spacex.com is for previous launches. I suppose they are all getting drunk now, instead of updating the website.

5200 m/s?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'm curious where that figure came from.

It's considerably less than orbital speed in low Earth orbit. It's the kind of orbital speed I'd expect at 15,000 Km radius, not the 7,000- Km radius Falcon 1 is nominally intended for, where orbital speed is a lot closer to 8,000 m/s than to 7,000 m/s, much less 5200.

Re:5200 m/s?

[bbn]

They only lifted 165 kg. But they claim Falcon 1 can lift 420 kg to an orbit of 185 km. How much farther up can it go with 255 kg less load?

Maybe it was more important to demonstrate high altitude than heavy cargo capability.

Re:5200 m/s?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want to claim to be "the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit", then they should have done so -- not done something different with some handwaving to argue that they could have achieved orbit by using different parameters.

Re:5200 m/s?

[QuantumG]

There was more telemetry after the 5200m/s report, they just haven't posted it yet.

Re:5200 m/s?

[FleaPlus]

There was more telemetry after the 5200m/s report, they just haven't posted it yet.

Yup, and apparently they also tested a restart of the second stage after coasting for a while, so the final velocity is quite likely higher.

Re:5200 m/s?

[CrimsonAvenger]

They only lifted 165 kg. But they claim Falcon 1 can lift 420 kg to an orbit of 185 km. How much farther up can it go with 255 kg less load?

Checking the data sheet for the Falcon, it peaks out at about 2000 Km above Earth with a payload the size they were lifting. Which is 8400 Km radius.

Orbital speed at 8400 Km is 6900 m/s.

Re:5200 m/s?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yup, and apparently they also tested a restart of the second stage after coasting for a while, so the final velocity is quite likely higher.

The second burn of the second stage was probably to circularize (God, that's a clumsy word!) the orbit. Even so, to put the payload into orbit would've required almost a five minute burn, and that second burn would have had to be within a very few minutes of the end of the first burn.

Otherwise, the Falcon's trajectory would've looked like an ICBM's trajectory - hitting atmosphere within about fifteen minutes of the end of that first burn.

Re:5200 m/s?

[FleaPlus]

Yup, and apparently they also tested a restart of the second stage after coasting for a while, so the final velocity is quite likely higher.

The second burn of the second stage was probably to circularize (God, that's a clumsy word!) the orbit. Even so, to put the payload into orbit would've required almost a five minute burn, and that second burn would have had to be within a very few minutes of the end of the first burn.

Otherwise, the Falcon's trajectory would've looked like an ICBM's trajectory - hitting atmosphere within about fifteen minutes of the end of that first burn.

Yup. A story just came out with the full details:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/004/index.html

The rocket initially reached an orbit stretching from a low point of 205 miles to a high point of 404 miles. The orbital inclination was 9.3 degrees.

SpaceX released information before the launch indicating that the rocket would target an orbit with an apogee, or high point, of 426 miles. But Musk said the rocket hit an orbit very close to prelaunch predictions.

After coasting through space for several minutes, the second stage engine restarted for a brief firing to circularize the orbit at an altitude just shy of 400 miles, according to U.S. military tracking data.

"Restarting rocket upper stages is not a trivial matter, so there was definitely a big icing on the cake there," Musk said. "I would have been happy if we just made it to orbit, but the restart was definitely great."

Re:5200 m/s?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Nice to see that they have the capability to restart the upper stage's engine reliably. We'll assume reliably, anyway, till proven otherwise.

The burn to circularize the orbit (change from 205/404 to 400) would have required a deltaV of about 90 m/s. Which represents a second burn no longer than 10 seconds. About what one would expect, really, if the vehicle were in an elliptical orbit and wanted to pull perigee up a couple hundred miles.

I'm still wondering where that 5200 m/s figure came from....

Dumbfuck

[Anonymous Coward]

This coming from the retard who posted this drivel:

"Elon Musk is friggin' Hank Rearden man.

Now he is really gonna swim in the money. Tip my hat to all involved. :-)"

LOL!, what a retard.

I'm working the warhead myself...

[tjstork]

I figure that, once I get my cold fusion bomb working, Space X and I will team forces to RULE THE WORLD!

75% Fail Rate After 4 Decades Of Prior Work

[Anonymous Coward]

What a complete joke.

Over forty years of public designs, data, people experience to leech off of.

Over forty years of computing power, manufacturing, material advancements to help.

And these incompetent dopes at SpaceX have only managed to get 1 out of 4 right.

FAIL.

NASA, the Russians, the Chinese are laughing their asses off at the joke SpaceX turned out to be.

easy to answer... poor socialisation

[toby]

I've met this type on irc as well. Don't sweat it; for them, empty, profanity-laced insult exchanges serve for (a) masculinity proof; (b) intellectual sparring; and/or (c) ego gratification. It's a common cultural antipattern in a certain (unnamed) country.

Re:easy to answer... poor socialisation

[FleaPlus]

I've met this type on irc as well. Don't sweat it; for them, empty, profanity-laced insult exchanges serve for (a) masculinity proof; (b) intellectual sparring; and/or (c) ego gratification. It's a common cultural antipattern in a certain (unnamed) country.

It's kind of a pity though, because damburger seems to be at least somewhat well-informed about the technical aspects of spaceflight, and I thought it might be good to get his views minus the trolling. Oh well.

Re:easy to answer... poor socialisation

[Chris Burke]

It's kind of a pity though, because damburger seems to be at least somewhat well-informed about the technical aspects of spaceflight

I can't say I get that impression. Strip away the trolling, and it seems he mostly has no idea what he's talking about but has read enough space.com headlines to use the right words. See suggesting that SpaceX failures means clustering 9 engines will be disastrous, even though none of them involved engine failures.

Re:easy to answer... poor socialisation

[damburger]

If you think clustering problems are related in some way to individual engine failures, you are even more of a retard than you falsely believe me to be.

Re:easy to answer... poor socialisation

[Chris Burke]

Sorry, you're the moron who suggested they had problems getting one engine working. And you've done everything you can to prove yourself stupid and ignorant in this thread, it has nothing to do with belief. Why are you still even posting, just to make sure there's no doubt? Don't answer, I don't actually care.

get back to me

[vaporland]

when there's someone aboard - until then, big whoop...

That's proprietary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! We don't like "proprietary" here.

Get off and return when the ship is open sourced!

Stop F-ing Up The 'Freemarket' Wankfest

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making all the Libertarian/Ayn Rand fucktards run around covering their ears

Re:A toast? I just want the flying toaster!

[aqk]

Screw all this orbital crap!
I'm too old and it would make me seasick!

I just want my flying car, the one that Popular Mechanics promised me back in 1968!
And I think Popular Science also said I'd be able to buy one by 1985 or so!
I'm STILL waiting, guys!

Don't worry about the power- I'll supply it with my portable Tokomak that they also promised me by 1995...
.

now for the reusability

[strack]

The really interesting bit will be when they fish the lower stage out of the ocean, and see what they will have to do to get it suitable for another flight. I hear that it might be only a few valves that would need replacing.

In fact

[WindBourne]

I would say that it is in just about EVERYbodies interest to see him succeed. Solar City is singlehandly lowering the costs of solar PV installs. Likewise, Tesla motors has renewed the interest in Electric cars AND serial hybrids. In fact, GM says that if not for Elon and Tesla, they NEVER would have done the volt. Of course, they still might not.
And WRT Spacex, Musk is changing the game. Many ppl on this site certainly hate him. Surest way to tell if somebody works at lmart, raytheon, Boeing, etc is to find a rocket science guy and ask what they think of spacex. If they work at one of the standard companies, they will RIP spacex. If not, the love them (conditionally). And if person is not rocket science, then they just seem to love them unconditionally :) . Unlike Bill Gates, this man is creating all new industries. Even now, Spacex will make bigelow possible. The two should lead to other rockets being finished, for example, Scaled Composites SSIII. That is suppose to be LEO for ppl. But the ONLY way that will be of use is if there is a destination. If simply a rocket ride, then SSII is far far cheaper. Bigelow is the destination. But Bigelow would not happen WITHOUT spacex (or some form of cheap LV).

link to high qual youtube

[isthisorigional]

it's not up on their site yet, so until then here's the launch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ

The fourth one stayed up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up!

defense

[globaljustin]

this is not an exhaustive defense...at all...not even close

Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty

This sounds like a anarcho-capitalist argument against all taxes. I don't have the energy for a political discussion, but I think it's important to acknowledge going in that the core of critics like you is not about how to do science or anything of that nature...you're against all taxes.

I would however like to see you defense -- I believe it will be ripped apart here with great haste...

don't flame this topic...please. I'm a left-leaning libertarian, just fyi.

I think space exploration should be funded by the government because of the inherent nature of this type of exploration. It's expensive, requires decades of planning and preparation, and has very high stakes. It really is 'the final frontier' and as the original US astronauts liked to call it, "pushing the edge of the envelope."

I advocate government funded scientific endeavor of all types. We're talking about space, but the benefits of expanding our knowledge through space exploration are seen in practically ever scientific discipline.

Here's a ridiculously cursory list:

1. Survival of our species. Depending on who you talk to, we may have already ruined it. Climate change is a recognized fact. Of course there is always an asteroid, war, overpopulation, pandemic, FPS video games, etc. Take your pick. Space exploration as I (and many others) see it is a way to expand the human presence beyond our world, and in doing so dramatically increase our chances of moving past the dangerous times in which we live.

2. Science. I shouldn't have to go into this too much on /. Seriously...this is /. Space exploration lets us look deeper into space with telescopes, which allows us to test our theories about how the universe, and our planet came into being in the first place. It helps us understand how the most fundamental aspects of our existence function...idk, like say, gravity. Like I said, this is /. and I think this point is self-explanitory.

3. Technology. The trip to the moon pushed the US to develop technology that wasn't necessarily 'marketable' at the time, and may not have ever gotten developed. I really don't have time to put up links with specifics, but increased computer capacity for guidance systems and all the communications technology spring to mind. Private exploration can take risks with technology that may not make financial sense at the time but reap huge rewards later.

Corporations are risk averse and profit from defective design (DRM anyone?). Public endeavors have fewer limits on what they can do.

4. Promoting increasing knowledge. I know some hardcore anarcho-capitalist is going to say "it's not the government's job to blah blah blah"...that's a straw man argument. I'm not advocating Soviet style government mandated work programs! I'm saying that because of our space endeavors in the 50s and 60s generations were inspired to get involved in science and engineering. That's priceless.

That's 4...in no way presented to represent all the reasons why public funded space exploration is a good investment.

Now, if you want to talk about how NASA's mission and policies need to be focused and reformed, of course we can improve!...that's a different discussion. This discussion, if you read the parent is not about that aspect. This is about whether the US should even do it in the first place, and the answer is a big fat yes.

Re:defense

[ThreeE]

You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).

Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.

What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.

Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.

Re:defense

[ThreeE]

You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).

Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.

What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.

Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.

Re:defense

[CmdrGravy]

I'm not sure you've explained how it is NASA has come to stop all this wonderful private enterprise which will be sending people to the moon, exploring Mars, Saturn and all the rest ?

If the private sector really is as vastly superior to NASA as you say then surely the private sector would be by far the major player in space by now with huge fleets of rockets and regular scheduled flights to all the nearby planets. Not only would they have done it cheaper I bet they'd have done it long before NASA ever got around to it. So, why has NASA stomped on the private sector so hard and prevented it from even looking to space for a profit ?

Re:defense

[Teancum]

Here are a few things that I'm aware of that NASA did to help build and develop the computer industry:

* Developed the first timeshare/multi user real-time operating system. It was also the first "real-time" operating system in terms of having hardware interrupts like are found on modern CPUs and multi-tasking operating systems. One of the first of these computers was used for launch control at Kennedy Space Center, and another early one at Johnson in Houston.

* Provided much of the early seed money and capital for integrated chip manufacturers. While there were other customers, NASA at one time was purchasing some insane quantities of the early chip fabs... something like close to 80% of all world-wide production at the time. A great many of these ended up in the Apollo Guidance Computer (mostly discrete gates like the 7400 series) but they did end up in other projects as well.

* Pushed computer technology in general. While they certainly weren't the only employer or organization using computers in the late 1950's and 1960's, NASA and their contractors did employ a significant fraction of the total number of electrical engineers and software developers in America at the time. NASA contracts helped to develop some of the first FORTRAN compilers (COBOL was a Navy project).

* Indirectly started the personal computer revolution. I say this sort of tongue in cheek here, as it was the shut down of NASA and the huge layoffs resulting in the cancellation of Apollo that pushed Silicon Valley into trying to find another venue to absorb all of the talent that had previously been tied up in building spacecraft and support systems. Bright, intelligent, but unemployed people often are quite successful in terms of finding a new niche. This may have happened anyway, but the push from having a huge glut of engineers (10's of thousands were laid off from Apollo) all wanting to do something new and exciting... just like they got through doing by sending people to the Moon.

On the whole, I'd have to agree that America "got its money back.... with interest" from the Apollo program. While the Shuttle program hasn't been nearly so successful in terms of getting a return on investment, it still hasn't been terrible and on the whole has been quite beneficial to America in a whole bunch of ways.

My #1 complaint about NASA right now is that they want to re-create Apollo and do it all over again. The first time was useful, but I'm not so sure about the second act. Unfortunately, they really aren't pioneering new techniques or really doing much in terms of original design either... other that minor variations of the same old theme.

If NASA got back into the serious space exploration business... by aggressively exploring the rest of the solar system (including exploring many more asteroids, landers on all of the major moons, underwater vehicles on Europa, etc.), getting people to Mars, establishing international spaceflight standards such as vehicle docking systems, and manned spaceflight well above low-earth orbit.... yeah, I think such a program would have tremendous value to the American people and continue to be a leader in technological ideas in the world.

Unfortunately, that is not what I see in NASA today. It is unfortunate as well.

Re:defense

[e03179]

Dude. We are talking about the Space program here. The GP laid out the case that the Space program has benefited most all taxpayers. Yes it cost us a lot of money, but the free market and the taxpayers got a lot out of the deal. That's called an "investment" and we all experienced a great return on investment. Did we have to do it? No. But we did and look what happened.

The GP is not talking about some $10M gov study on yellow blind mice and their ability to sense magnet fields. He's not talking about bridges to nowhere literally, politically, and fiscally. He's not talking about $500M embassies in Iraq. We can debate that X amount of Gov funded (taxpayer funded) programs are not beneficial to the mass amount of taxpayers. However, the Space program had a large return on investment (just like the highway system, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc.).

Re:defense

[ThreeE]

See also: the broken window fallacy.

None of the projects you mentioned had or have anything remotely resembling a return on investment. Moreover, they were paid for by robbing people.

Re:defense

[AK Marc]

You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).

So you are for robbing people to kill innocent Iraqi civilians, but to provide for the common defense by allowing an evacuation of the planet is something that you don't agree with. It sounds like you don't agree with the common defense, but that you agree with whatever you want, then come up with statements to support it. I guess you are opposed to most of the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's a lot more in there than just the "common defense" and that's the *only* thing you support. So we should abolish the stupid piece of paper holding us back, right?

Re:defense

[ThreeE]

Take your holier than thou attitude and Iraq war posturing elsewhere -- I didn't say a word about Iraq much less killing anyone. Clearly, providing for the common defense assumes that we don't have a drunk at the wheel.

But even your 4th grade analysis shows that the preamble only has one item listed as something the government "provides." Everything else is just income redistribution dressed up in fancy clothes.

Re:defense

[khallow]

This is an important point and NASA's destructive influence has been subtle. There's few examples of NASA openly destroying markets. Perhaps the best example is what I understand to be called the "welterweight" launch market, launches of say a few kilograms. Apparently in the late 80's to early 90's, a number of businesses had formed (six is the number I've heard). They all promptly died when NASA announced it was making its own welterweight rocket. That rocket didn't get built either.

In the mid 90's, E'Prime Aerospace attempted to develope a launch vehicle based on refurbished MX missiles. Congress withdrew permission to use those missiles, ending E'Prime's attempt. Somehow the company survived that. Later Orbital Sciences was able to get permission and developed the Taurus launch vehicle. NASA wasn't directly involved, but the development of a new launch platform should have been of interest to them. They would have been influential enough to swing the decision one way or the other.

IMHO, there's strong indications that NASA bribed Russia to deorbit Mir. Given how long it's taken to assemble the ISS, this represents a significant loss of space science and technology development.

The Ares I is being produced despite the US having two viable near future launch vehicles, the Delta IV Heavy and the Atlas V Heavy. We could be looking at manned missions on these commercial vehicles now, not Ares I launches seven or more years down the road.

The more powerful way in which NASA has crippled space launch is by providing highly profitable "cost plus" contracts (the cost of providing the service, up to a point, is covered by the contract) to launch providers, but conditioning the funds paid for a service on what price the company offers to other customers. This isn't all NASA's fault. Congress has imposed rules on such contracts due to a pathological fear of "excess" profit and most government agencies do similar things. Nonetheless, a company with a relevant service has a choice, accept cost plus contracts or attempt to compete on the open market. They cannot do both. The result is that SpaceX is the first US launch company that intends to compete on the open market. SpaceX does have contracts with NASA and the DoD. To my knowledge, these are all fixed price contracts.

NASA also is responsible for establishing an oligopoly in the 80's and 90's of launch providers (Titan, Delta, Atlas, and later Pegasus). Each launch provider had its own niche market and there was no competition in most niches. Only recently have we seen genuine efforts to stir competition between launch providers with the EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program which produced the Delta IV and the Atlas V. This was done by the Department of Defense not NASA, and may account for why NASA is actively avoiding use of these launch vehicles.

Re:defense

[AK Marc]

Take your holier than thou attitude and Iraq war posturing elsewhere -- I didn't say a word about Iraq much less killing anyone.

You used the same wording that has been used to send us to war. I didn't "posture." I stated facts. The "common defense" is the reason that was given for invading Iraq. If you don't like that, don't complain to me, complain to the people that used that as the excuse, weakening you position that defending your neighbor is somehow a noble cause.

Everything else is just income redistribution dressed up in fancy clothes.

Govenrnment is redistribution dressed up in fancy clothes. Redistributing power, money, and such. It's what it's supposed to do. Even providing for the common defense is just redistribution. It takes my money to defend you. And it takes my money at gunpoint. My question is why do you think it worthy to steal from me for your benefit, when I can't suggest the same for, say, corn subsidies, without generating your ire? (not that there's anything good about the subsidies, but that it's a convenient example that you won't accuse me of being partisan for picking)

Re:defense

[globaljustin]

look man, i know you think that reducing taxes will solve all your problems, but you've got to stop being so myopic.

If you want to do it right...

[WoollyMittens]

... you always have to do it yourself. I'm glad a private effort is finally starting to take over where governments started to slack off several decades ago.

Screw cost - how did they land?

[spineboy]

Maybe you know since I can't find much about it. On a slide show I thought I saw a water/parachute landing.

I'm also assuming that there was no one on board? Their website seems worfully inadequate on seemingly important details.

Re:Screw cost - how did they land?

[icebrain]

The first stage is recoverable. Not sure if it's reused, but certainly useful for analysis.

Re:Screw cost - how did they land?

[Teancum]

There are some other aspects to this mission that haven't been publicized too much yet, like the second stage engine cold restart (manuvering the payload to a higher orbit), and the parachute recovery of the 1st stage.

Apparently the first stage parachute did deploy, but I'm not sure if it was recovered. That was a secondary issue and something that didn't directly impact simply getting the spacecraft to orbit.

There is an intention to attempt to refurbish the 1st stage for re-launch, together with overhauling the Merlin engines for re-use as well. The 2nd stage can't be recovered so easily, as it gets to orbital velocities and requires atmospheric re-entry.

The business model for the Falcon 1 is, however, to treat the 1st stage as expendable, and assume that if it does get recovered that the employees of SpaceX just got a Christmas bonus. From a business viewpoint, this is a healthy attitude to have.

Remember this?

[Spacezilla]

"Optimism, pessimism, f-ck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work."

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=638755&cid=24508563

Interesting to go back and reread those comments now, see who thought the CEO was "a man who gets things done" and who thought he was "a man who can drive your company in to the ground faster than a failed Falcon 1" and "a man who is altogether too comfortable with profanity and who cares little for the problems faced by his team".

Disclaimer: I didn't post in the original discussion, but I was also curious if that attitude would work when launching rockets. I guess he proved it did. :)

What can you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

..except congratulations SpaceX, world.

Now THIS...

[matushorvath]

...is a huge step for mankind. Really!

Orbital speed? My 4$$11

[rew]

Why does the space shuttle orbit earth in about one and a half hour? Because low earth orbit takes you around the earth in about 1.5 hours.

Orbital speed is over 7000 m/s and 5200 is simply not enough.

Re:Orbital speed? My 4$$11

[FleaPlus]

Orbital speed is over 7000 m/s and 5200 is simply not enough.

After the second stage shut off at 5200 m/s they apparently coasted for a while and then tested a restart of the second stage until they got to their final velocity.

Re:multi-engine test stand firings

[Kjella]

Not since the final flight of the Saturn 1B rocket in 1975, has a rocket had the ability to lose any engine or motor and still successfully complete its mission,â said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX.

I hear what he's saying and I'm sure it can survive an engine quietly losing thrust, but I wouldn't quite bet on it with any of the more spectacular failure modes.

As I read this, I was thinking:

[Trogre]

It's been a long road
Getting from there to here
It's been a long time
But my time is finally near

And I can feel the change in the wind right now
Nothing's in my way
And they're not gonna hold me down no more
No they're not gonna hold me down

'Cause I've got faith of the heart
I'm going where my heart will take me
I've got faith to believe
I can do anything
I've got strength of the soul
And no one's gonna bend or break me
I can reach any star
I've got faith, I've got faith, faith of the heart

Liquid fuel and no Russian engines?

[Sam Lowry]

Liquid fuel and no Russian engines? Hm... I guess, there were Russian engineers, then.

no cheaper?

[jcupitt65]

Is it really any cheaper? Their website quotes a price of $7.9m to get 420kg to LEO, or about $20,000 per kilo. This is just about exactly what we pay now. There's no cost advantage as far as I can see.

Re:no cheaper?

[mrcaseyj]

Grandparent was talking about the bigger Falcon 9 rocket. The Falcon 9 page quotes 37 Million for 12500 kg to low earth orbit. that's about 3000$/kg. It's like a lot of things, when you buy in bulk you save a lot of money. If they can deliver that price then it will be truly revolutionary.

Re:no cheaper?

[khallow]

As the other replier noted, I'm talking about the Falcon 9. My take is that existing rocket makers are already taking it into account. Boeing abandoned the Delta II which would be a direct competitor. And my impression is that Orbital is speeding up work on its Minotaur rocket. The Russian's Angara rocket, under development supposedly would be in the Ares I weight class (20-25 tons to LEO).

On the Edwards article about space elevators, if one is built, it'll be because rockets built the market for it.

Re:no cheaper?

[jcupitt65]

Ah, OK, I'm dumb, thanks.

That looked scary...

[MaunaLoa]

While I am impressed with the flight I found the video a bit scary... When the 1st stage separated it looked like it (at least!) almost hit the nozzle of the 2nd stage on the right side. Further, the 1st stage didn't just fall straight back but did so at quite an angle (implying the trajectory of the 2nd stage changed quite a bit after separation). Then, the nozzle of the second stage glowed bright red in more and more placed as the flight progressed. Is that normal (to the degree observable)? Towards the end of the flight the whole vehicle started to swing back and forth quite a bit, with growing amplitude. Chris

Re:That looked scary...

[Geoffrey.landis]

While I am impressed with the flight I found the video a bit scary... When the 1st stage separated it looked like it (at least!) almost hit the nozzle of the 2nd stage on the right side. Further, the 1st stage didn't just fall straight back but did so at quite an angle (implying the trajectory of the 2nd stage changed quite a bit after separation). Then, the nozzle of the second stage glowed bright red in more and more placed as the flight progressed. Is that normal (to the degree observable)?

The red glow is normal, I believe-- it's a radiation-cooled nozzle.

Towards the end of the flight the whole vehicle started to swing back and forth quite a bit, with growing amplitude.

That part looked a little scary to me, too, especially since the control on the upper stage was exactly what went wrong on the second flight....

Submarines

[dreamchaser]

Submarine operation is probably a very good model for a long term interstellar trip. You *need* to have discipline and a command hierarchy when you operate under such hostile environmental conditions and in such close quarters.

Re:Submarines

[Eivind]

Probably, yes.

That's the thing, one reaches a tipping-point, but it's not reached on something that limited in size and duration. (~100 people, several-month mission)

If you where having 10.000 people on a 10 year mission, a mixed crew and a more "civilian" organization would definitely be the way to go. But for a smaller/shorter mission, a strict command-hierarchy is likely to work better.

I don't know where exactly the tipping-point is, neither does anyone else I suspect.

With inflation, make that $30m dude

[cheekyboy]

Citigroup predicts conservatively that the price of gold will be 2000-3000 dollars with in a year or so.
Translation - expect the US$ to fall 70%, and if youre lucky, no revolution.

it could be the END of ALL space agencies SOON

[Anonymous Coward]

.
.
in the long term, the SpaceX success starts the END of ALL space agencies, since, NO one government agency of the world will be able to compete with private space companies on LOWER COSTS and FASTER development TIME
.
then, NASA may survive about 15-20 years from now if it will succeed in the ESAS plan or less than 10 years if the Orion/Ares-1 won't work (or will be delayed to 2018 or later) or LESS than 5 years if the VERY DANGEROUS and USELESS Hubble Servicing Mission 4 will FAIL, as explained here:
.
http://www.ghostnasa.com/
.
.

Re:A lame toast

[Jawnn]

Grand child looks like a tool for not getting the sarcasm...

Re:A lame toast

[globaljustin]

yeah, now that I read it again, you could be right

First Private Liquid or First Private?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

If they were the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit, then who was the first privately developed ANY fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit?

Re:First Private Liquid or First Private?

[FleaPlus]

If they were the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit, then who was the first privately developed ANY fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_rocket

The Pegasus, built by Orbital, used a solid rocket motor developed by the company which is now known as ATK (the company doing NASA's Ares I and V).

Re:multi-engine test stand firings

[Areyoukiddingme]

Supposedly it can handle some of the more spectacular failure modes. They spend weight to build in interior partitions between engines that are supposed to be strong enough to prevent major disruption of adjacent engines even in the event of explosive failure. I haven't heard them say they're going to actually test that though...

Stage One Recovery Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that one of the potential cost savings for this vehicle is the re-use of the first stage. Does anyone know if they successfully recovered it?