Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Successfully Tested Draco Thruster
dj writes "The propulsion division of SpaceX has performed another important test. After the test of the Falcon 9's first stage Merlin engines, the smallest engine of the SpaceX family, Draco, has been put to test. During the test, the thruster fired for ten minutes, paused for ten minutes, and then was restarted for an additional minute.
The test was performed on a new vacuum test stand built by SpaceX, and put into operation in March 2008 at the SpaceX Test Facility outside McGregor, Texas."
That'd be a Nimbus 2001.
Squirrel!
to see some good news coming out of the space sector.
Given the current roller coaster that is diplomatic relations with Russia do you really want to be reliant on Soyuz? Also the ESA capsule although successfully tested for cargo is still vaporware as far as manned spaceflight is concerned as I believe they haven't decided if they are going to go down that road yet. With the shuttle being retired the Dragon Capsule looks like a good stopgap.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
>SpaceX seem to be doing NASA's job better than NASA these
>days.
Really? How many telescopes does SpaceX have in orbit? How many active probes does SpaceX have orbiting other planet, or on them for that matter? How many satellites has SpaceX put into orbit this year? SpaceX is doing some amazing stuff, but to pretend that they are ahead of NASA is just plain daft.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?
First, neither Soyuz or ATV are a US solution. Second, neither are a commercial sector solution.
Easy!
First of all - because they can!
Second, because they see a market with good potential for making even more money...
Dragon and Soyuz may look the same, but the difference in technology is over 30 years old.
It's like asking why Corvette C7 is being build, when a Corvette '67 did the job as well...
This is blinging
Choice is always good. Aside from that, SpaceX' stuff is all entirely privately funded and designed themselves, and as such doesn't have the same kind of legal snarls that using governmental technology would have: it is, if you like, a clean room reimplementation of space technology. (They are the only space company to build their launch vehicles, in their own factory, from scratch --- engines, tankage, the lot.)
Also, the Dragon is likely to be (a) cheaper and (b) here on time, when compared to the ESA or Ares capsule (assuming the Ares capsule's not going to be cancelled). And Soyuz, despite being really nice technology, is politically a bit uncomfortable, so it's always worth having a backup.
Really? How many telescopes does SpaceX have in orbit? How many active probes does SpaceX have orbiting other planet, or on them for that matter? How many satellites has SpaceX put into orbit this year? SpaceX is doing some amazing stuff, but to pretend that they are ahead of NASA is just plain daft.
You're missing the point (which, for the record was mindlessly obvious). SpaceX, in their area of specialisation (ie propulsion/cargo delivery) are showing a whole lot more progress than NASA. All too easy to purposely misinterpret to get on your soapbox.
I record my sleeptalking
http://www.thefabricator.com/FabStories/FabStories_Article.cfm?ID=2045
Goes into significant detail of why SpaceX is really revolutionizing the launch business.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Soyuz cannot stay in orbit very long. Six months I think, but they are working on extending it. On top of than comes of the problems of relying on an other nation, and what to do if Soyuz has problems.
About NASA, remember that when they test a small thruster, it doesn't make the news. It seems only their failures and problems are deems newsworthy.
Space shuttles, cheap orbiters, SpaceX ... all these are mere clockwork toys compared to the might of the Saturn V SI-C first stage and its five F-1 engines. Wernher von Braun out-rices you. Real astronauts fly to the moon. They find leftover bits decades later and think they're asteroids! You can't tell me these SpaceX girly men are going to do anything this goddamn indefatigably cool.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
>SpaceX, in their area of specialisation (ie propulsion/cargo
> delivery) are showing a whole lot more progress than NASA.
Are they? They are progressing rapidly, but are they progressing more rapidly than NASA did during its first six years? Are they ahead of where NASA was in 1963? Don't forget that much of the research and development that SpaceX is using to build their rockets was originally done by NASA. SpaceX is an impressive company, and I hope that they do well, but to claim that they are showing more progress than NASA is simply wrong.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
>Why are you comparing SpaceX, approximately 5 years old IIRC,
>to NASA, a defunct agency so bound up in red tape thatÃ(TM)s
>over 40 years old. If you want to compare do it apples to apples,
>not apples to oranges. What did Nasa do in its first 5 years?
Almost all of the Mercury programme occurred during NASA's first five years. The problem with NASA now is not that they are a "defunct agency", but that they are badly underfunded for the mandate that they have been given. Admittedly, the VSE is highly unrealistic, but if that is the path that the US wants to follow then the US needs to be prepared to fund it. Expecting NASA to push the boundaries of manned space flight and then not being willing to put up the funds to do so is a recipe for failure.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
The question isn't whether or not SpaceX progressed more rapidly than NASA did over 40 years ago (with a real federal budget). The question is whether or not SpaceX is ahead of NASA right now. NASA hasn't truly developed a new propulsion device to get the Shuttle into orbit, nor have they designed a replacement for the Shuttle. A craft, may I remind you, that has been having technical difficulties of late and caused more deaths than the original lunar capsule.
SpaceX really is our only hope to continue manned space flight in the foreseeable future ('our' meaning the US). They are definitely ahead of NASA who hasn't even gone past the theory stage as far as we know, and even that seems optimistic.
Oh and remember, the Ares I is a expendable lifter like the Falcon 9. You can't compare it to the Draco as its not intended for manned use. NASA just flat out can't compete currently with this kind of thruster development, and they are going to have to rely on it unless Russia (who seems to have some animosity for America still and the Cold War is still fresh in both nation's eyes) gets buddy-buddy with us since the Shuttle is being retired!
cheap existing launch tech
You have a definition of cheap I have never before encountered...
I don't think NASA of 2008 is ahead of where NASA was in 1963. Sad.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Interestingly enough, you can just use the rocket exhaust to keep the chamber at vacuum using a properly shaped duct. Or just use really big pumps... but this kind of thing is done quite a bit.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
I think it's important to note that this is a step towards developing a team that will replace NASA for commercial space travel. NASA was created as an organization to explore the furthest reaches of space. To orbit when we were on the ground, to reach the moon, when we were orbiting. In the past there was no one to fill in the gaps where they had already tread so they stayed there. Often at a loss. But now that's what SpaceX is doing. Its a Commercial Agency running space missions rather than a government agency like ESA or the Russian Space Agency or whatever it's called. It's all about transferring the ability to the private sector to allow the government to extend further outward. And it's not reinventing the wheel, the Soyuz family of design is based on something that over 30 years old with some updates. Sometimes that works (like how NASA is going back to Apollo-like modules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Design ), but sometimes a complete overhaul leads to some great innovations.
Did anyone else read that as:
"SpaceX Successfully Tested Disco Thruster"?
And you seem to have invented a point that didn't exist.
It's the ones disagree with the OP who are inventing points. The OP said nothing about telescopes and so on. It's unclear what exactly he meant, but why not ask before inventing straw men in order to stand on your soapbox?
Space X was founded in june of 2002. Just six years later, starting from a clean sheet of paper and producing most all of the rocket themselves; structures, engines, avionics, falcon 1 successfully reached orbit. The falcon 9 is being prepared to fly next year, as is the dragon seven crew/cargo spacecraft. Could NASA or any of it's contractors do the same in as short a time? Look how long the Orion spacecraft is taking. Can't beat their prices either, at around 7 million, a ride on a falcon 1 is an excellent bargain! Don't deny their props, Space X is accomplishing astounding feats for such a young company.
One only needs to look at the lack of anything like Apollo in 30+ years.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Well, to be fair to NASA, SpaceX doesn't have to deal with a gargantuan bureaucracy, Congress, and the President in order to get approval to do anything or even get money and then wait for contractors to build something. Also, it should be noted that some of the people of SpaceX come from the very contractors that NASA relies upon, and so have the hands on experience and contacts to make it work.
It's really kind of a DUH conclusion. A small lightweight unencumbered company can out-perform a gigantic bureaucratic behemoth.
Gee, go figure!
Or
Q: Who would have ever guessed?
A: Any sane half-wit or better.
First, these thrusters are used to control the dragon.
Although I understand the need for a small on-orbit engine such as Draco, I don't quite understand the point of the 'Dragon' craft, given that we already have Soyuz, which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a safe, reliable vehicle. The ESA are also working on a more modern capsule design that seems to mimic the capabilities of the 'Dragon' to a T.
The dragon will be taking cargo up in 2010. It will carry 7 ppl up/down by end of 2011 (bigelow wants that). SpaceX will be making money by servicing ISS, bigelow, and heading for the moon by 2015.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Seriously, idiots like you were running off you mouth screaming that SpaceX did not have a successful launch. Now that they have one, you continue to run off the mouth. SpaceX is just getting started. They have shown that they are launching at a fraction of the price of l-mart and ESA. In addition, they are competitive with Russia and China who keeps it low by fixing their money against the dollar. the company is just getting started, and yet, you (and several others here) will continue to bash them in hopes that they do not win contracts. Yet, they are the BEST bet for NASA to continue. Obama is going to make massive cuts in gov to pay for reagan's and W's monster deficits and horrible economy. NASA will take it in the shorts (which is sad considering that they really do not use that much). BUT, the cuts are coming. SpaceX, Scaled Composites will most likely be putting men in LEO before Orion does.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
SpaceX is looking to put into orbit 7 ppl for less than what Russia will take 2. I would say that is a pretty good deal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
the NASA of today is actually doing a lot of leg work for putting us on the moon for a long duration mission. Back in the 60's, we got there and back, but had we put up a base, it would have cost a fortune. Now, our costs should be less, due to the ISS. While I grant you that we have some MAJOR screw ups with the shuttle and the ISS, it has taught us what it will take to stay alive for a LONG time in space. One of the biggest issues with the ISS for me is that the did not put the centerfuge unit up there. We really need to know what it will take to survive a trip to mars or anywhere in this solar system. Even now, we have no idea what will happen to us on the moon. We just know HOW to survive on the moon.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To compare SpaceX and NASA is silly. NASA does not built rockets. Boing and McDonald Douglas built rockets. NASA buys those rockets from contractors. What SpaceX is hoping to do is become a contractor and sell rockets to NASA.
This is not unique to NASA. The US Air Force does not build airplanes either and the Army does not build rifles.
Yes, a lot of ppl have. America's spacelab WAS a saturn V. The costs of retro-fitting in space has been looked at, and at this time, it is cheaper to launch it mostly built. Look at what has happened with ISS. And as to realizing that space is a big ocean, it is. And we are at about the equivalent of early 1500. How long did it take for nations to go back to America once Columbus had been there and back. LONG TIME.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NASA was founded in July 1958. John Glenn orbited the Earth in February 1962. Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon in July 1969.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Oh, how many shuttles have they launched? How many people ahve they put on the space station?
Don't confuse repeating what has already done with new equipment.
SpaceX is cool, but it's not yet in the same league as NASA.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Does this have anything to do with their third test flight where they apparently didn't take into account residual thrust in a vacuum, or is it something different?
Could they? yes they could, if it was a priority.
I wouldn't call their feats 'astounding'. If it was 1970, sure.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The question isn't whether or not SpaceX progressed more rapidly than NASA did over 40 years ago (with a real federal budget). The question is whether or not SpaceX is ahead of NASA right now. NASA hasn't truly developed a new propulsion device to get the Shuttle into orbit, nor have they designed a replacement for the Shuttle. A craft, may I remind you, that has been having technical difficulties of late and caused more deaths than the original lunar capsule.
SpaceX really is our only hope to continue manned space flight in the foreseeable future ('our' meaning the US). They are definitely ahead of NASA who hasn't even gone past the theory stage as far as we know, and even that seems optimistic.
Which is why they aren't going to develop a new rocket to get the shuttle in space, nor will they develop a similar craft. The Delta-IV Heavy and other products in the pipeline already allow similarly-sized or larger payloads, and we'll be sending astronauts up separately in Orion, which is far beyond the theory stage at this point. That, or my coworkers at a major subcontractor on the project are lying to us.
Oh and remember, the Ares I is a expendable lifter like the Falcon 9. You can't compare it to the Draco as its not intended for manned use. NASA just flat out can't compete currently with this kind of thruster development, and they are going to have to rely on it unless Russia (who seems to have some animosity for America still and the Cold War is still fresh in both nation's eyes) gets buddy-buddy with us since the Shuttle is being retired!
That first bit doesn't make a lick of sense, so I'll ignore it. The Falcon 9 and the Ares I are both scheduled for their first test flights in 2009. SpaceX has successfully tested their Draco thrusters, NASA has successfully tested their Launch Abort System, and the main propulsion system for Orion is heritage stuff. How is this not competing? It should also be noted that only the Falcon 9 Heavy has a comparable payload capacity, and that does not have a scheduled maiden launch. The only place where SpaceX is supposedly ahead is not in thruster development; the Dragon capsule is scheduled for it's first flight in 2009 as well, while Orion's isn't scheduled until 2014. Dragon has passed its critical design review, so it'll be interesting to watch but in this industry slipping schedules and cost creep are not uncommon...especially when astronauts' lives are at stake.
The point is that NASA and its contractors do a hell of a lot more than the public thinks they do, they just don't trumpet their successes as loudly. Not that it's a bad thing of course; anything to get people excited about space again, since the general public stopped caring about NASA 30 years ago.
This is more than slightly misleading. We flew Apollo no more than 15 times, with a total of 45 men. The shuttle has flown rather more than 100 times, with rather more than 600 men. Yes, on shuttle disaster kills more than one Apollo disaster. But Apollo managed one disaster with only fifteen launches, shuttle took 100 launches to get to two disasters.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Well, Space X had somewhat of an advantage compared to when NASA was founded. When NASA was founded no one had gone to the moon and thus had to research how to do it. Space X's main dilemma was to reproduce existing technology in a more cost friendly form, however that requires much less research then figuring out how to go to the moon.
Now I agree that Space X is doing a great job, and I think that in the realm they are specializing in, they do it better then NASA. However I think this is because that is all they do. NASA isn't specialized in just that one field. They have to manage many different fields from mars rovers, to satellites, and other such things. With that comes the inevitable problem that always happens when organizations get larger and larger, they get a lot slower. Now in this case I personally think that they're slow because they have a lot of retarded managers, which can happen in large companies more so than smaller ones.
The real question is if Space X had been founded with the same type of money it has now, but with the knowledge that NASA had when it first started, could it have gotten this far? My bet is no. NASA paved the way for stuff like this, but I think it is clear that NASA is no longer a viable entity for paving the road to space anymore. NASA does some neat experiments, and the rovers did a great job...but I think anything as large as a shuttle/manned space mission is out of their league in its current form.
"Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?"
You mean they are doing things faster now than NASA did 50 years ago? I can't imagine the fact that they have access to technology thats 50 years more advanced, most of which BECAUSE of NASA has anything to do with it.
I'd also like to point out, NASA put a man in orbit 6 years after founding, and on the moon in 11. When you actually compare things logically, SpaceX really isn't that impressive. Considering things like video game consoles get put on export control lists because they have so much processing power they could easily perform the task of getting a rocket or missile to a target in real time, I think its rather ignorant to pretend that SpaceX is really breaking new ground. They are just doing the same crap NASA did 50 years ago, with the benifit of being able to look at most of NASAs research, mistakes, and successes.
SpaceX is the cheap chinese knock-off of NASA, its not impressive, its expected, and in my opinion, they are doing a damn shitty job of it considering what they have to work with. 'Rocket Science' really isn't that complicated, we know the formulas now, and we know they are VALID and work.
I suppose you think the Compaq was bad ass for cloning the PC and obviously was far better at making computers since they could recreate the PC in a shorter period of time ... not that they were making a copy had anything to do with it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You did not say "comparatively cheap." "Cheap" means any dork can go buy some parts and launch himself into space.
I don't know why everyone is getting so excited about private spaceflight as if it's a new thing. Arianespace have been around since 1980 and have pretty much cornered the market in satellite launches.
huh? whatever happened to Orbital as a stopgap. Did they get too expensive?
How the hell did that get "informative", "troll"?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
My brother-in-law works in the McGregor area and tells me that SpaceX had informed local government when the test was to take place. Local government, well... being local government, failed to properly inform the populace of McGregor. When they test fired the engine (at night), it lite up the sky like daylight for about 20 miles around, while creating the noise typical of a rocket launch (in other words over 150 dB). This apparently caught the attention of most of the populace, who thought WWIII had landed in their backyard. It made the evening news in Waco (about 20 miles east of McGregor). FYI_1: the SpaceX test platform is located about two miles southwest of McGregor. Google Earth has high quality images. FYI_2: SpaceX has taken over the old Rocketdyne solid rocket propulsion development plant in McGregor. The history is Philips Petroleum -> North American Aviation Rocketdyne -> Rockwell Rocketdyne -> Hercules -> Alliant Techsystems -> closure and for sale -> SpaceX. There may have been something before SpaceX.
I never made the original contention, I just read the post and interpreted it how it was obviously meant to be interpreted, rather than the way that makes it easy to poke holes in what the person is saying. Easy to perceive gross generalisation in what the original poster said - but also obvious that it wasn't the poster's point. Don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my time being constructive, than arguing semantics.
I record my sleeptalking
So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?
The same reason Airbus and Boeing make similar aircraft. Because they want to be the one to sell it to you.
A question for you. Why shouldn't they be working on this? Because someone else currently does? Really?
The Falcon 9 and the Ares I are both scheduled for their first test flights in 2009.
It's a bit misleading to state that the Ares I-x is the first flight of the Ares I. It's a test flight of the first stage, and it's not even a full length first stage. The true dates to compare are the dates that people fly on both rockets. For NASA, the stated goal is 2015. Elon Musk has stated that he could do it by 2012 if COTS-D was funded. Even allowing for the fact that SpaceX generally takes longer than Elon originally estimates, Falcon 9/Dragon could debut at the same time that Ares I/Orion does, at a fraction of the cost and manpower.
Hell, these idiots at SpaceX could have just fucking copied the proven and reliable and cheap existing launch tech.
There's no existing reliable and cheap launch vehicles at this time.
Why is everything measured on getting people up into space? The Mars missions have accomplished a lot more scientifically with less budget and it all gets ignored - What about the Voyager deep space probes etc.....? Getting people up there does have a certain "wow" factor, but I would say managing to remote control probes/vehicles over millions of km is much more impressive and efficient. People need so many support systems that swallow up useful payload, and don't really end up doing more than a machine could, it's just a waste
~We demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty~
Before that NASA was NACA and were established in 1915.
NASA does not built rockets.
Ares I and V are counterexamples. Keep in mind that everyone of significant size contracts out work. Even SpaceX contracts out around 10% of their work.
Easy to perceive gross generalization in what the original poster said - but also obvious that it wasn't the poster's point. Don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my time being constructive, than arguing semantics.
You may be on the wrong site, this is slashdot.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?