Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Announces Dragon As First Falcon 9 Payload
BJ_Covert_Action writes "SpaceX announced recently that it would be integrating a stripped-down test version of its own Dragon cargo capsule as the payload for its first Falcon 9 test launch. The Falcon 9 rocket is currently scheduled to launch on November 29 of this year if everything goes according to plan. However, Elon Musk admits that launch day will likely slip to sometime early next year. The Falcon 9 is the heavy launch vehicle designed by SpaceX to be used as a cheap, commercial alternative to existing United States launch platforms. Having launched a few successful light missions with the Falcon 1 rocket, SpaceX is going to launch the Falcon 9 as its next milestone in commercializing the space industry. Utilizing its own cargo capsule as the first Falcon 9 payload will effectively give SpaceX double the tests for one launch slot on the Cape Canaveral range. The capsule that will be used is a test version of the full Dragon capsule that encompasses primarily the structure and a few components of the full version. It served originally as a ground test platform for the Dragon design team and now will double as an orbital testbed. If nothing else, the announcement upped the ante in the commercial space market by showing the SpaceX is capable and willing to push the envelope on its development schedules. It should serve as a proper motivator for other commercial competitors such as Orbital Sciences with their Cygnus capsule, which is also under development."
This makes sense. Falcon 9 is uninsurable without a successful launch, so it cannot be used to launch a valuable satellite payload. Furthermore, NASA's space station supply contract is potentially far more lucrative than participating in the competitive market for satellite launch services. Good luck to them. They are going to need it
an ill wind that blows no good
I didn't read the article, but wouldn't it make more sense to transport smaller lizards or even some amphibians?
I know dragons are fun and can light your space-cigarettes with their fire-breath, but lets be practical here.
Think, people... THINK!
...an African falcon or a European falcon?
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
Just don't aim that slug at the ISS...
I originally wanted to post this here http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/25/2328247/NASAs-Space-Plans-Take-Another-Hit, but an unknown error prevented me from doing so. My commentary is still relevant for this article:
I think that NASA should be stripped down and restructured. All manned missions and support operations with a military application should be converted to their respective military counterparts, the whole thing headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff. From Wikipedia, "their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize." The President and Secretary of Defense can tap the manned space capability of the respective military branches, and the JCS maintains training, policy and readiness. Oversight for military applications already has a process, which would remain in place.
NASA would be reduced or redesignated from it's current role to that of managing and conducing operations for unmanned space missions such as deep space probes and telescopes, establishing rules, standards and accident reviews for commercial space activities just like the FAA. NASA would also continue to provide tenantship to fixed orbital platforms such as the ISS, in conjunction with other participating nations. Every manned application is auctioned off to civilian corporations that meet specific minimal requirements. NASA would become the space analogy of the FAA, allowing a vacuum to exist allowing other responsible and qualified fair trade entities to step in and compete for the best possible road to commercial space business.
Suggested tag: ThereBeDragons!
Don't send the dragons to Space! There are enough fires as it is in Space!
Don't send the damn huge demonic creatures that sneeze fires and cough nuclear explosions, that's just cruel NASA, come on... guys...
I had no idea SpaceX had some such a long way since 2002. It seems they really have it together and best wishes. The case for a streamlined and slimmed down NASA is almost overwhelming now...look, if my baboos in India can send science to the moon, is seems logical that private companies can do even better. Yea, progress...
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
I think that NASA should be stripped down and restructured. All manned missions and support operations with a military application should be converted to their respective military counterparts, the whole thing headed up by Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Done!
NASA doesn't do any manned military space. It's the civilian space program.
In fact, there is a military space program, run by the pentagon, and the military space program has a considerably larger budget than NASA does. For some reason, though, it doesn't get the endless armchair quarterbacking that the much smaller NASA programs do. (Possibly because the military space applications don't send humans into space, and don't send probes to other planets, and human spaceflight and planetary exploration are what gets the public excited.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I had no idea SpaceX had some such a long way since 2002. It seems they really have it together and best wishes. The case for a streamlined and slimmed down NASA is almost overwhelming now...
If NASA blew up three rockets in a row, they would be crucified by the press, and (more notably) by congress
look, if my baboos in India can send science to the moon.
NASA has learned, through bitter experience, that cutting the budget and screwing up a mission as badly as Chandrayaan did leads to a lot of time spent testifying before congressional subcommittees.
(In defense of the Indians, though, it's worth noting that it was their first exploration probe-- they did good, and learned a lot.)
is seems logical that private companies can do even better. Yea, progress...
NASA contracts almost all of their work out to private companies, you know. A few probes are built by NASA labs (JPL in particular), but mostly the spacecraft are bid out to industry, and the launch services are also bid out to industry.
The difference between NASA and spacex is spacex is doing their test launches without taxpayer money. If a rocket fails it fails on their own dime so they better learn something from it...and they do. Thats why launches 4 & 5 worked fine..duh!
It should not bother anyone to have failures BEFORE success, how many times did Edison fail with the light bulb? several thousand. How many years did it take the wright brothers to perfect glider control with three different glider models before they created the first airplane (four). The Apollo 1 fire was an example of a catastrophic failure, however it paved the way for later success.
Now compare that with the challenger and columbia diasters both times NASA knew about the design problem ahead of time and failed to act. Management both times ignored the warnings of the engineers.
When something doesnt succeed its a failure, if you knew it might fail and you didnt do anything about it thats screwing up
This sounds more like, after the debacle the Falcon I has been to date, nobody is willing to risk their payload even for the reduced prices (sometimes even free) that such launches usually charge.
Actually, the situation is that there are two complementary reasons in play. By using the static test Dragon capsule, they get valuable engineering data about the dynamics of the integrated system that they can use to make any adjustments in advance of the first Dragon COTS launch.
The other factor influencing the decision is that the Falcon 9/Dragon configuration does not use the payload fairing. By using the static test Dragon capsule for the Falcon 9 demo launch, they can extend development of the payload fairing without impacting the demo launch time line.
Not requiring a finalized Falcon 9 payload fairing until flight five gives them significant additional time to optimize the fairing. Acquiring valuable flight test data by using their already-built static test Dragon capsule just makes it the proverbial "win-win" situation.
If NASA blew up three rockets in a row, they would be crucified by the press, and (more notably) by congress
Which highlights just how true the OP's point was. Slimming down NASA and moving this sort of thing into the realm of companies like SpaceX avoids the kind of congressional hand-wringing that's inevitable when you have NASA responsible for things, but the hand-wringing is utterly pointless. You don't get to space (and we're not there yet -- we've just stuck our toes in the water so far) by being the kind of people that are phobic of failure. You have to be willing to fail, and fail repeatedly, and keep going, if you're ultimately going to succeed.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
My understanding is that they will be launching the Dragon as basically a test item, not a fully capable version of the capsule intended to dock with the space station. The first Falcon-1 launch carried a "mass simulator" - basically a chunk of metal to act as ballast. The reasoning is, as mentioned, it's uninsurable on the first launch and there is a high probability of failure on the first full launch of a new space vehicle.
Still, I can think of one group that would love to send up a ton of cargo, even if they knew it was risky: AMSAT. The ham radio satellite organization. Launch costs tend to limit their potential satellites to being tiny cubesats, which can be hard to fit much capabilities into. Their satellites are built very cheaply compared to other satellite producers and their biggest cost tends to be launching them. They could build one hell of a satellite with the kind of mass that the Falcon-9 could put up there, and given the possibilities, they may very well be willing to accept that there is a large risk it won't even make it. It could be the one realistic opportunity to have any chance of launching a really big payload.
If I were a VC like Paul Allen or the Google boys, I would be contacting SpaceX and offering to fund the escape tower. Get it started so that come the end of 2011, human flights can start. Also contact Bigelow Aerospace and help get them building. With relatively little money, private space systems can really be profitable. In fact, I would bet that for less than what Allen put into Charter Cable, he can help get this started, be a part of it, and then GET OUT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NASA is a dinosaur, a sad remnant of last century's dying paradigms. NASA's main reason for being in space is cargo delivery. If space travel was as cheap as land transportation, NASA would be a different type of agency. Unfortunately, space transportation depends on an extremely expensive, dangerous, complicated and primitive technology: rocket propulsion. NASA will never develop a solid business case that includes rocket propulsion as its principal technology. The reason is obvious. Rocket-based transportation is too damn expensive. I'm sorry but the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle will soon join the buggy whip and the slide rule where they belong, in the Smithsonian.
But do not let the preceding get you down because a new and fabulous era of space travel is about to be born. We are on the verge of a breakthrough in physics that will make almost every current approach to energy production and transportation obsolete. There is clear evidence that we are swimming in an ocean of clean energy, lots and lots of it. A new form of transportation and energy production technology will arrive soon, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel.
My advice to NASA is this; take what you can get for now but prepare yourselves to become a regulatory agency. Otherwise you'll be a mere cargo cult for aging engineers and other assorted baby boomers. Soon, space travel will be so cheap and so safe that your services as a payload delivery organization will no longer be needed. Everybody and their aunt Mary will be in the space and energy business. Sorry SpaceX. You, too, will be a mere footnote in history of space transportation.
The Problem With Motion
I would categorically disagree with you, sir.
NASA has been in the manned military business for years. One of the stipulations (aka limitations) that the Pentagon placed on the Space Transportation System program was for the Space Shuttle to have low-earth orbit capability for satellite retrieval. Why would the Pentagon want to retrieve satellites or impose such a directive on the 'civilian' STS program, knowing it would sentence that vehicle to a vehicle lifespan shortening harsher environment with a narrower band of non-military applications? Much of the 80's was dedicated to such a requirement. Tell me what really happened on STS-53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-53, it was the 10th and final DoD mission, which is still classified.
Part of the promotion, a large chunk, of the STS program was it's civilian applications with a quick-launch turnaround time and projected lower cost due to reusable parts.
Come now, to say that NASA "doesn't do any manned military space" is completely wrong. A federally funded, executive-branch accountable, Congressionally oversighted organization like NASA has been servicing the DoD for years. Since much of it is classified and was presumably piggybacked on overt legitimate scientific missions, the real question in this new age of budgetary accountability becomes, how can we depend on NASA to focus on it's core mission when there is an executive level, military mandated override that may or may not be what the general civilian population wants to foot the bill for?
Is the STS program in it's final days? Thankfully yes. Please don't spread the disinformation that NASA doesn't do military, the DoD kept them gainfully employed for many good years.
Also, please show some references for the US military's own manned space program.
US Air Force Space Command - much of their ballistic mission capability was transferred to AF Global Strike Command. The USAFSC's space mission is defined as:
"Spacelift operations at the East and West Coast launch bases provide services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct of DOD, NASA and commercial launches. Through the command and control of all DOD satellites, satellite operators provide force-multiplying effects -- continuous global coverage, low vulnerability and autonomous operations. Satellites provide essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and fleet operations and threat warning. Ground-based radar and Defense Support Program satellites monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile attack on North America. Space surveillance radars provide vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the nation and the world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command#Space_capabilities
Are you suggesting that the AF has a manned space program? With the exception of former AF pilots that migrated to NASA to fly the shuttle, I'd love to read what you've got.
US Army Space And Missile Command - again, their primary mission is missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Space_and_Missile_Defense_Command
Does the Navy have a space program?
Please share what you have so I can learn!
That was DOD's. NASA provided the launch vehicle, and the crew, but it is NOT a manned military space. Basically, all they did was retrieve a sat, and they have launched others. They were doing nothing more than simply transporting sats.
OTH, a manned military space system would be the MOL had we launched it in the 60's or one of the many Chinese Manned Space stations system that are scheduled to start launch in 2010.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
USSR did have manned military space systems. In particular, Almaz and all of the early Salyut systems were actually military missions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It says it has a maximum of 29,610 kg LEO capability - which would make it higher than any other rocket and half the launch cost of Ariane, so why don't they go to town with this and put everyone else out of business?
If NASA blew up three rockets in a row, they would be crucified by the press, and (more notably) by congress
The DOD and NASA blew up MANY more than that in it early days. And like SpaceX, they took some heat for it.
NASA contracts almost all of their work out to private companies, you know. A few probes are built by NASA labs (JPL in particular), but mostly the spacecraft are bid out to industry, and the launch services are also bid out to industry.
But the difference is that NASA tells just a FEW private companies how to do the job. Now, they will simply request a service. BIG difference.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
China currently does this, but it is so that they can hide their budgets from the foreigners. While it allows for a number of things (quick progress), it also prevent systems from being used for mankind's use. Worse, it means that ALL OF THE SYSTEMS are logical targets in a war. OTH, NASA would not be that kind of a target (even though USSR has actually painted a laser on a shuttle's window several times back in the 80's).
As other have pointed out, NASA does a great deal more than just manned space. They do lots of robotics missions, astronautics, etc.
It really makes sense that NASA remains separate from our military.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You say DoD doesn't do manned space missions, I say they do. They pay for them!
My bad, that entire sentence was incorrect. It should have read:
You say NASA doesn't do military manned space missions, I say they do. The DoD pays for them!
---
Space Craft Feed @ Feed Distiller
I suspect that more than confidence that this is about he is at the end of what he can spend. My guess is that if falcon 9 is successful, he will follow up with the next one within 3-4 months. I believe that with falcon 9's launch, he gets some good money from NASA, but it is on the first real launch of dragon that he makes LOADS of money. I would also guess that if falcon-9/dragon is successful on this trip, then congress/NASA will throw money at him for COTs-D.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
shut up
Exactly what I meant to say - thx. I'm old enough to remember the dream that by 2001 we would be drinking martinis on the way to the moonbase, as promised by A. Clarke. Look where we are now. (Can't even get a free beer on a decrepit 757.) NASA seems to be one of the last Ma Bells. I'm glad they are finding private companies to provide services, in fact, if they did not use SpaceX, where would they be now without a shuttle craft for the next 5-10 years? Kudos to SpaceX for bailing out America.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
If NASA blew up three rockets in a row, they would be crucified by the press, and (more notably) by congress
NASA blew up many, many more than three rockets in a row. Heck, they even blew up rockets on the launch pad... live and on nationally broadcast television. One rocket even blew up about a month before Alan Shepard made his first Mercury flight.
Was NASA crucified by the press and congress? Absolutely. Jokes were made about the ineptitude of NASA on the night-time comedy shows like the Tonight Show and other variety programming. Making rockets is a tough business and even seemingly small things can make a significant difference when you are at such razor thin margins of getting things to happen.
Criticizing a private company trying to accomplish the same thing is very disingenuous here and lacking a significant historical perspective on spacecraft of any kind. Also, only one Falcon 1 rocket "blew up" in the sense you are implying here as well, and that wasn't really a blow up either unlike some NASA rockets that did literally blow up like a bomb and have nothing remaining other than some randomly scattered pieces of metal. That Falcon 1 launch had some parts that exhibited some galvanic corrosion due to is exposure to the surf of Omelek Island where it was launched. Selecting different metals for the fasteners did the trick to fix that problem... or do you think SpaceX is going to make that same mistake on the Falcon 9?
Source: SpaceX doubles down on inaugural Falcon 9 mission
"Worse, it means that ALL OF THE SYSTEMS are logical targets in a war. OTH, NASA would not be that kind of a target ..."
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is co-located with Kennedy Space Center. CCAFS is still an active military space port facility. Plus, while NASA may be a "civilian" agency, it's still a government agency. If someone decides they need to start taking out US space capabilities, I highly doubt the "civilian" distinction is going to matter to them, even if the attacker was of the fair-minded type. (To say nothing of the type that prefers high-profile civilian targets.)
Just sayin'.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
NASA contracts almost all of their work out to private companies, you know. A few probes are built by NASA labs (JPL in particular), but mostly the spacecraft are bid out to industry, and the launch services are also bid out to industry.
And a step further: JPL itself is staffed 100% by contractors. It's an FFRDC -- Federally Funded Research and Development Center. See the JPL welcome page and look for "FFRDC".