Slashdot Mirror
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."
Exactly how much did this cost?
To the long years of effort still ahead. May SpaceX be there to participate as man finally reaches for the stars.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
May you be the first of many more private space companies; we sure need you guys.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!
Elon Musk is friggin' Hank Rearden man.
Now he is really gonna swim in the money. Tip my hat to all involved. :-)
Send your spendthrift head of state this
we can't use a telescope and a microscope simultaneously.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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?
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 !
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
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!
Right, like that whole gun powder and rocket propulsion thing...
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Are there any ACs on Slashdot who are not morons?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
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!
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
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!
Congrats on putting a nice crack in the mismanaged, overpriced, overpoliticised, goverment monopoly. Good Luck!
I got too close to my cock's Schwarzchild radius (which all hypermassive objects have) and time got really dilated.
May SpaceX be there to participate as man finally reaches for the stars.
Let's bring some women too.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
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!
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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?
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?
Since when is 165kg in orbit a giant leap?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I'm curious, but between SpaceX and the Ares I, which do you think will be transporting crew to orbit first?
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.
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?
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?
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 :)
How we know is more important than what we know.
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)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
Bow-ties are cool.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ah, STFU. They developed it completely from scratch. Lets see how well YOU do under those conditions.
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.
This space intentionally left blank
Painting NASA with the brush of Bush is a little absurd.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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?
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.
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
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.
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?
If you've got ~165kg to launch, why would you pay $85m instead of $7m?
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
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.)
"Bah!" - Dogbert
If you had 165kg to put in orbit, you would piggy back it on someone elses larger satellite. Probably a Proton tbh.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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.
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...
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.
if you took the 5 seconds itd take to go and check the spacex website
You must be new here.
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
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.
well, politics makes strange bedfellows. do you honestly think that nasa with all it's expensive space missions can avoid political intrigue?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Yes, because the president has full control over the stock market.
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.
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
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.
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?
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.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
So how many people were inside the shuttle? The "article" didn't seem to mention it.
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
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
That link may contain a disturbing impressionist view the taxpayer position on the Wall Street Bailout.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
...but I'd feel perfectly safe with a 75% failure rate :)
Oh, I thought they'd be using Galileo, the great-grandson of Ulysses, the first monkey to travel in space.
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.
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. :)
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
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.
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.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
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.
You the MAN Elon!
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.
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.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
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 :-)
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.
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.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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...
Thank you Dave Raggett
That whole reply makes NO sense to me. Does it make any sense to anyone else? Bueller?
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.
I was talking out of my ass.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
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...
Thank you Dave Raggett
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.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
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.
..........FULL STOP.
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.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I imagine he'd do pretty badly, since he can't even calculate the failure rate correctly.
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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.
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
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.
It needs to be as cold as possible to minimize the back pressure on the turbine and maximize Carnot efficiency.
I figure that, once I get my cold fusion bomb working, Space X and I will team forces to RULE THE WORLD!
This is my sig.
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.
you had me at #!
when there's someone aboard - until then, big whoop...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_Velocity_(computer_game)
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...
.
.
- aqk
F U
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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.
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.
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. :) . 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).
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
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
it's not up on their site yet, so until then here's the launch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ
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.
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!
this is not an exhaustive defense...at all...not even close
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.
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.
Thank you Dave Raggett
... 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.
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.
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.
..........FULL STOP.
"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. :)
Number of vehicles you have gotten to orbit: 0
I have much more faith in their engineering than your arm-chair engineering.
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.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
...is a huge step for mankind. Really!
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
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
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.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Liquid fuel and no Russian engines? Hm... I guess, there were Russian engineers, then.
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).
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.
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.
I would be fascinated to hear how you measured the radius of the Earth to the nearest proton diameter.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
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
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. - Philip K. Dick
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!
This is blinging
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.
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.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
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...
The enemies of Democracy are
Grand child looks like a tool for not getting the sarcasm...
yeah, now that I read it again, you could be right
Thank you Dave Raggett
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?
simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
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...
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.
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.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
With a ruler. Duh.
I am trolling
Fucking pathetic.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
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.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?