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."
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?
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!
To develop? That's proprietary.
Want to buy a launch? $7.9 million.
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
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!
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.
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__()
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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?
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
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
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).
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.
$7.9 million? MASA will launch any payload and successfully land it on the moon for two hundred dollars.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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...
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
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.
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.
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
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
I imagine he'd do pretty badly, since he can't even calculate the failure rate correctly.
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.
When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I think he is trying to make amends for Paypal.
Cant really blame him....
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.