Falcon 9 Prepares For High Stakes Launch

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Falcon 9 Prepares For High Stakes Launch

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @03:15AM from the take-us-out-of-the-world dept.

happylunarnewyear writes "The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since 2002 is assembled and upright on Launch Complex 40. Falcon 9 will undergo fueling testing and live firing tests before the launch occurs as soon as next month. The stakes couldn't be higher, either. The much politicized proposal for a change in direction for NASA, which includes scrapping the Constellation program in toto in favor of privatization and a new heavy lift vehicle, veritably rides on this rocket. If the launch goes well, the plan for increased reliance on privatized cargo missions and eventually privatized manned missions will soar with it. However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9. Given the stakes, this launch is one of the most important in recent history. From the article, 'President Obama's proposal to shift transport of US astronauts to the space station from government launchers to privatized ones could suffer politically if there's a high-profile problem with the first mission of the Falcon 9, by far the most talked-about newcomer vying for the opportunity.'" Reader FleaPlus contributes related news about NASA's proposed funding for scientific payloads on commercial space flights, which would be a huge boon to researchers.

190 comments

Cape. Which Cape? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

My first thought was Cape Town in South Africa ("the Cape") and that set me off thinking "how splendid! space exploration from below the equator". If you've read The Outward Urge recently, it would be on your mind too. Uh. Anyway, it's that other ordinary Cape. So nothing to see here, move along, eds please delete etc. etc.
1. Re:Cape. Which Cape? by mcgrew · 2010-02-23 03:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "The Cape" is not thought of a South Africa anywhere BUT South Africa any more than Cape Giruardo is thouight of as "The Cape" anywhere but Missouri. However, Cape Canaveral is known as "The Cape" to anyone who follows space exploration.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:Cape. Which Cape? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  Cape Canaveral was the original name, and was technically restored. But for those in the space industry, the Cape is, and always will be, Cape Kennedy.
3. Re:Cape. Which Cape? by mcd7756 · 2010-02-23 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You've got to be kidding. As someone who grew up on Merritt Island and had many friends whose dads worked at the Cape, we did not want it changed to be named after Kennedy.
  From the wikipedia article:
  
  Although the name change was approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names of the Interior Department in 1964, it was not popular in Florida, especially in the city of Cape Canaveral, Florida. In 1973 the state passed a law restoring the former 400-year-old name, and the board went along. The Kennedy family issued a letter stating they "understood the decision"; Jacqueline Kennedy also stated if she had known that the Canaveral name had existed for 400 years, she never would have supported changing the name. The NASA center retains the "Kennedy" name.
  It would have been more appropriate to have renamed Cape Cod as Cape Kennedy, as that was the Kennedy stomping grounds. There's even a museum about Kennedy there. Cape Cod was named in 1602 and Cape Canaveral named in the first half of the 16th century. It was inappropriate for a Texas politician to name a Florida historical site after a Massachusetts politician. Thankfully, in 1973, the mistake was corrected.
  
  --
  Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
4. Re:Cape. Which Cape? by Idiomatick · 2010-02-23 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Europe has recently built a space port in Guyana. Which is only a few degrees north of the equator. Mind you, scientifically speaking the equator is the best place to launch spacecraft from.
  http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers_Europe_s_Spaceport/index.html
  
  SpaceX has a launch pad on Omlek Island which is near the equator as well:
  http://maps.google.com/maps?q=9.048167,167.743083&ie=UTF8&ll=9.102097,168.046875&spn=128.203692,316.054688&z=2
Falcon Punch by psergiu · 2010-02-23 03:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?
;-)

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
1. Re:Falcon Punch by LWATCDR · 2010-02-23 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I am hopeful but I talked to a friend of mine about the falcon 9.
  He is worried about the reliable of the system. I take his worries very seriously because he is an engineer on the Centaur program aka he is a real rocket scientists. He is also a space nut so he is really looking forward to the test launch and is hoping it goes well.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
2. Re:Falcon Punch by Geoffrey.landis · 2010-02-23 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?
  Not exactly; the Falcon-9 was actually being funded by the old program. The idea was to fund multiple developments, not just one-- the COTS (Space-X and Orbital) to develop new cargo launch vehicles to station, and the Ares to develop exploration vehicles.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
3. Re:Falcon Punch by Whalou · 2010-02-23 03:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago. They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.
  
  --
  English is not this .sig mother tongue...
4. Re:Falcon Punch by jgtg32a · 2010-02-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  He's an engineer working as a scientist?
5. Re:Falcon Punch by jgtg32a · 2010-02-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  They could call it the "New Millennium Falcon"
6. Re:Falcon Punch by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 04:11 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  WWWWHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH....
  GP is an elaborate set up for "Falcon Punch", the tagline of a Nintendo video game character (Captain Falcon).
7. Re:Falcon Punch by confused+one · 2010-02-23 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he's a scientist working as an engineer... like me. except I do sensors, not rockets.
8. Re:Falcon Punch by cheesybagel · 2010-02-23 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I would bet it is more reliable than Delta III was. They have done first and second stage tests already, as well as mechanical tests. They will also be doing a hold down test with the full first stage firing. This is all before they even get to launch the thing.
  Compare that to Delta III which had so many solids you could only actually test the thing upon the actual flight. Guess which one should be more reliable...
9. Re:Falcon Punch by Usually+Unlucky+ · 2010-02-23 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  So why did you pick the US rocket with the worst record to compare the falcon 9 to?
  
  Why not the Atlas V or even the Delta II, both have nearly perfect records.
  
  --
  -
10. Re:Falcon Punch by FleaPlus · 2010-02-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad they were not ready for launch 10 years ago. They could have called it the Millennium Falcon.
  I think he's alluded in past interviews that the Millennium Falcon was one of the reasons he chose the name. He's also stated future plans for developing a "BFR" (Big F'ing Rocket) and "BFE" (Big F'ing Engine), a pretty obvious reference to the BFG. This seems to provide some pretty obvious proof that Elon Musk is a huge dork.
11. Re:Falcon Punch by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Faaallcccooooooonnnnnnn HANDSHAKE!!
12. Re:Falcon Punch by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-02-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  He is worried about the reliable of the system
  I am assuming from this that he has looked over the design details of the Falcon, observed the results of the unit testing of the system, that sort of thing?
  Otherwise, he's providing nothing more than his uninformed opinion. I can get those at Starbucks, and they're worth just as much as his....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
13. Re:Falcon Punch by cheesybagel · 2010-02-23 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I picked Delta III to show that even experienced design teams from major aerospace contractors are no guarantee of success. It is hardly the only example. Both Ariane 5, Ariane 5 ECA first flights were total losses and those are actually pretty reliable rockets in general (unlike Delta III).
  Delta II 7925 exploded on launch and was a total loss. There were also a couple of partial failures. The Delta family has been in use for a long time and most bugs were worked out when the rocket was still called Thor. One reason why SpaceX even bothered with Falcon 1 was to work out the bugs in their Merlin engine and other launch systems design prior to making the large rocket. If you read interviews with SpaceX people, they often mentioned that Thor was one of the templates they used for design (e.g. horizontal assembly and vertical launch).
  Atlas V is a great rocket, but is not used very often. NASA should have gone for EELVs instead of dumping money into Ares I.
14. Re:Falcon Punch by Idiomatick · 2010-02-23 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that Saturn V type multiple engine design really sucks. I heard all the Saturn V rockets failed. Plus they use the same engine everywhere first stage second stage even on the Falcon 1 they've tested. They must be such terrible engineers that they can't come up with new ones........
15. Re:Falcon Punch by Idiomatick · 2010-02-23 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  The Falcon rocket is actually named in honour of the Millennium Falcon. The space craft getting launched with it is called Dragon. Named after Puff the Magic Dragon because all his friends told him he must have been reaaaally high when he decided he was going to make a space company.
16. Re:Falcon Punch by Nutria · 2010-02-24 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I am assuming from this that he has looked over the design details of the Falcon, observed the results of the unit testing of the system, that sort of thing?
  Nah. Just a bureaucratically-bloated afraid-to-take-chances Big Aero employee trying to damn with faint praise an upstart competitor.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
17. Re:Falcon Punch by LWATCDR · 2010-02-25 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I would call it an informed opinion. He has been working on the Centaur for a number of years and knows what types of issues they are still having.
  The Falcon 9 has 9 engines on the first stage and 27 on the Falcon Heavy. As he put says it isn't going to be easy to get all that plumbing working at the same time.
  He has actually talked with the SpaceX folks since there pad is right next to where his last shot was.
  Dudes this was an informal talk between friends he had with me. It was not a formal criticism and frankly he hopes they do well.
  I swear you guys are way too "sensitive" on this board. As I said he is also a big Space fan is hopping that all goes well for them. He was just pointing out areas where he has seen problems in a very mature system like the Centaur.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I don't get it... by geegel · 2010-02-23 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

SpaceX along with Orbital got contracts for delivering cargo to the ISS way before Constellation got canceled and there are plenty of alternatives to send cargo to begin with (Arianne is the first to pop in my mind)
The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult. It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.

--
right...
1. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Falcon 9 was supposed to be a stop gap from the time the Shuttle retired till, at least, 2015 when Constellation may have been usable. Now it's all up to SpaceX, Orbital, et al. to do the heavy lifting.
  SpaceX is also developing a Dragon Crew module to take astronauts into space, but this year-maybe-they'll be testing the Dragon Cargo module and dock with the ISS. If SpaceX is successful, and the test of Ad Astra's VASIMR engine in 2011-2012 go as planned (probably not) we should see some huge developments in space exploration/science/commercialization.
2. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-23 04:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult. It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.
  This "storm in a teacup" is about access to space. Falcon 9 has the possibility of greatly reducing the cost of doing anything in space, including activities beyond Earth orbit. Earth to orbit is an ante that everyone has to pay. It drives the overall costs of a mission since typically the launch costs are planned to consumed 10-20% of the total mission no matter what the cost per kg is supposed to be.
  
  For example, supposed missions are planned with 10% of total spending going to launch costs. If launch costs were suddenly halved, it wouldn't do much for missions already being constructed. They would just see a 5% drop in overall mission cost. New missions though could plan on those lower costs. How would they exploit it? By increasing the mass of the craft while reducing its cost per kg. In other words, they don't work as hard to reduce the mass of the spacecraft, saving money in the process. There's other effects. More activities become viable, being justifiable at a lower cost. The launch vehicles will operate more often, allowing both a further substantial reduction in price and better reliability of the launch vehicle.
3. Re:I don't get it... by bjaustin · 2010-02-23 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  True, getting cargo to the ISS isn't a big jump in capability given that the Russians have been doing this for years and last year the Airane launched the ATV which docked with the ISS. It would be beneficial (as well as cheaper) to have the ability to do so domestically for not only keeping tax dollars within the U.S. economy but also from the standpoint of maintaining the U.S. rocket industrial base. However, if this launch goes poorly - and there's a decent chance it will considering the challenges and newness of the vehicle - there will be a good number of politicians from Alabama, Florida, and Texas pointing to the failure as indicative of the challenge being above commercial space companies' capabilities, even though the Atlas and Delta have been flying for decades but had initial setbacks too.
4. Re:I don't get it... by geegel · 2010-02-23 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the math doesn't add up. SpaceX got awarded a 1.6 billion dollar contract for 12 flights to ISS, that's 133 million bucks per flight. Ariane 5 has a cost of roughly 120 million bucks for flight. Where is the cheaper part?
  
  --
  right...
5. Re:I don't get it... by icebrain · 2010-02-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Does the SpaceX contract include the delivery vehicle? Cause I really doubt that Ariane 5 figure includes an ATV.
  
  --
  The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
6. Re:I don't get it... by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  The 133 is for everything. And the cargo contract was designed to help get USA private space re-launched.
  OTH, The 120 for Ariane is base price. The real launch is about 160-200 million. In the end, EU will fly Ariane and some private space, and America and most likely most of Private Space will fly SpaceX, L-Mart, Boeing, and OSC. Once BA goes up there, I think that will see several launches per month from the American side.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
7. Re:I don't get it... by angelwolf71885 · 2010-02-23 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  this is Ariane 5 to SpaceX... cheaper.....no im sorry the answer we were looking for is cost effective... ps Aies was so much cooler and better and could of been mass produced like skittles by partnering with ALL the flight development company's
8. Re:I don't get it... by twostar · 2010-02-23 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the contract includes nonrecurring engineering costs. Basically the engineering time to meet NASA requirements for docking to the station that wouldn't have been there just to launch into orbit. SpaceX's website puts per launch costs at around $45-50 million.
9. Re:I don't get it... by confused+one · 2010-02-23 05:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not only does it include the delivery vehicle (Dragon); but, the delivery vehicle is a pressurized cargo container that is rated to be safe for humans to enter and certified to autodock with the ISS... or will be once they're done certifying it.
  ESA's ATV (the first one was the Jules Verne) is the equivalent. ESA's cost was on the order of 200 million euro, in addition to the Ariane 5 launch vehicle that put it into orbit. Development cost was 1.35 billion euro.
  So, yes, SpaceX Falcon9 + Dragon is cheap.
10. Re:I don't get it... by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I give the chance of success to be quite high. First, they have done the testing of separation, monitoring, nav, etc via Falcon 1. Likewise, they tested Merlin on the Falcon 1. Basically, the 2'nd stage is nothing but a stage 1 of Falcon 1. So, that leaves running the engines in parallel. Well, the folks down in Texas will tell you that SpaceX did a number of tests of that. Never had an issue with it. Then add the fact that NASA, and DOD are all working with SpaceX to make certain that this bird flies right, and I think that it is a pretty safe bet that this one will be right. I do have to say, that I would have preferred more than that just 2 successful falcon 1 launches. But, then again, SpaceX does have other customers who do not want their schedule known. IOW, it is quite possible that there were more launches.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
11. Re:I don't get it... by Alinabi · 2010-02-23 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  So, yes, SpaceX Falcon9 + Dragon is cheap.
  Cheap, fast, safe: pick any two.
  
  --
  "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
12. Re:I don't get it... by bjaustin · 2010-02-23 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I simply disagree. There is far more to the Falcon 9 than just ganging together engines and while the Falcon 1 was an important step it had much less energy, mass, and size than the Falcon 9. I also don't believe that they never had an issue in a single Falcon 9 Stage 1 test. They may never have had one that blew itself apart or was otherwise significantly damaged but I have a hard time imagining that they simply added 8 more engines and it ran right from the first test fire. And SpaceX's own track record will tell you that test fires will only tell you so much and some problems will only become apparent when you go off to fly it. I very much hope they succeed in this first flight of the Falcon 9 but I think it is far from a safe bet that they will.
13. Re:I don't get it... by cheesybagel · 2010-02-23 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Following a string of failed and canceled NASA projects, there is no Shuttle replacement after its retired. Ariane is not a US rocket, and it cannot presently transport crew. Neither can the Japanese H-IIA rocket.
14. Re:I don't get it... by confused+one · 2010-02-23 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  It looks like they're going for Cheap + Safe. As fast as possible.
15. Re:I don't get it... by bughunter · 2010-02-23 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  The cheaper part is that Musk can afford to take a loss and underbid, because he's got deep pockets. Therefore he can offer a package deal that includes development and testing of a new system. Most major aerospace companies operate on very thin profit margins, and don't have cash reserves like that for R&D.
  Musk, on the other hand, has options.
  I wish him luck.
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
16. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-23 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  And when you multiple those cost x2 to equate to a low fidelity simulation of the delivery capability of the Shuttle on one flight (one Ariane 5/Falcon 9 flight for less cargo* than the Shuttle can deliver and one Ariane 5/Falcon 9 flight for fewer people)... The question of who is cheaper starts to get really interesting. (Assuming the lower bound of $250 million for a Shuttle flight priced at marginal cost is reasonable.)
  
  This is one of the things we discovered when we added up the costs of using Russian Soyuz and Proton boosters as replacements for the Shuttle. The Shuttle seems more expensive because it swallows money in such huge chunks, other boosters sup more daintily but accomplish much less. (In the same way people often don't realize how renting an apartment costs more in the long run than purchasing a house.)
  
  The other problem of course is determining exactly how much a Shuttle flight costs - since you can't buy one 'off the shelf' like you can more conventional launches.
  
  * The Ariane 5 has a gross cargo capacity roughly equivalent to Shuttle's net capacity, but it's net capacity is significantly less due to the need to provide free flight capability for the delivered payloads.
17. Re:I don't get it... by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  First, they did not put 9 engines together and simply test it. If you will recall (or simply google), you will find that they started with 3, then 5, then 9. My understanding is that they did have issues. In fact, one guy that I talked to said that even in the test runs, they have had engine fail (apparently, engine out means massive outage to many of the engineers). They have also adjusted various items, things that were not accounted for. HOWEVER, they still run it on the ground for the length multiple times.
  
  Personally, I would be amazed if they had a failure similar to falcon 1-1. However, I would not be surprised to see something minor such as an engine failing part way up. But hey, that is the point of this launch.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
18. Re:I don't get it... by Alinabi · 2010-02-23 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  If so, then it will be ready when pigs reach low Earth orbit. However, I think they are going for cheap and fast.
  
  --
  "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
19. Re:I don't get it... by Martin+Blank · 2010-02-23 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting that SpaceX has more than the $35 billion in assets that Boeing and Lockheed each have? He must have raise a lot of money very quietly in that case.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
20. Re:I don't get it... by confused+one · 2010-02-23 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  China launched Pig Sperm in 2005
21. Re:I don't get it... by FleaPlus · 2010-02-23 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not only does it include the delivery vehicle (Dragon); but, the delivery vehicle is a pressurized cargo container that is rated to be safe for humans to enter and certified to autodock with the ISS... or will be once they're done certifying it.
  Not only that, but NASA apparently insisted on a brand-new Dragon for each and every delivery, which increases the price quite a bit. SpaceX said "sure, if you insist," and is reusing each of the ISS cargo Dragons afterwards as DragonLabs.
22. Re:I don't get it... by confused+one · 2010-02-23 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Which, as it turns out, is good for the various university programs that can / will take advantage of the DragonLabs launches.
23. Re:I don't get it... by bjaustin · 2010-02-23 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  First, they did not put 9 engines together and simply test it. If you will recall (or simply google), you will find that they started with 3, then 5, then 9.
  I did not say that. I said there is more to the (successful launch of the) Falcon 9 than just running the engines in parallel as you asserted.
  
  My understanding is that they did have issues. In fact, one guy that I talked to said that even in the test runs, they have had engine fail (apparently, engine out means massive outage to many of the engineers). They have also adjusted various items, things that were not accounted for. HOWEVER, they still run it on the ground for the length multiple times.
  I'm confused by your "Never had an issue with it" comment then because you list things they have had issues with. If it weren't tough to do multiple engines on the same stage, the N-1 would have worked. I'm familiar with SpaceX but I'm not privy to the details of their test campaigns. Sure, they've done a number of full duration test fires of their full engine - it would be foolish not to. But as I said, there's only so much that can tell you. Your only real indication of whether or not it's going to work is to go launch it.
  
  Personally, I would be amazed if they had a failure similar to falcon 1-1. However, I would not be surprised to see something minor such as an engine failing part way up.
  
  We'll soon see but, back to my original point, if it's anything less than achieving the intended orbit, the politicians benefiting from Constellation will use it against the proposed changes at NASA.
  
  But hey, that is the point of this launch.
  I couldn't agree more.
24. Re:I don't get it... by camperdave · 2010-02-23 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you think your cell phone system access fees, text message fees, and talk time overage fees go to?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
25. Re:I don't get it... by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-23 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the Falcon 9 has been in development and testing for a long time, especially if you factor in the Falcon 1 which the 9 is based on, and they sure don't seem to be rushing the first launch of the 9, with test firings beforehand and no commitment to launch on a specific date.
  So, cheap and safe looks like what they're going for.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
26. Re:I don't get it... by holmstar · 2010-02-23 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Musk made his money with paypal, not mobile phones.
27. Re:I don't get it... by photonic · 2010-02-23 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  If I understand it correctly, Dragon should not be docking automatically to the station. Instead, it will simply fly to and hover at some distance next to the station, from were it can be picked up and docked using the robotic arm. This will still require very strict rating of its control system, but the requirements on position accuracy should not be as strict as with docking. I guess the main advantage of this is that you don't need a complicated docking mechanism like the Russian ball-and-stick system, but just the passive side of a common berthing mechanism. Disadvantage is obviously that you need a working robot arm to dock and (more critical in case of emergency) undock.
  
  --
  karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
28. Re:I don't get it... by holmstar · 2010-02-23 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Based on the SpaceX website, the per launch costs of Falcon 9 are about 45-50 million. That is FAR below the cost of an Ariane 5 launch.
29. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-23 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  That's be useful - if and when the Falcon 9 enters revenue service.
30. Re:I don't get it... by RalphTheWonderLlama · 2010-02-23 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and also good for NASA for the same reason. They might buy the DragonLabs too for themselves or whatever research project that's out there they want to support... and they provide another way for SpaceX to advance the Dragon on each iteration, giving them more capability launched to ISS long term.
  
  --
  simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
31. Re:I don't get it... by RalphTheWonderLlama · 2010-02-23 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's correct. Constellation/Orion was to be using a new, much nicer soft docking mechanism (Low Impact Docking System aka LIDS). Dragon is using an easier approach with the use of the robot arm. It allows for flexibility and they don't need to build docking into it from the beginning which speeds development without sacrificing anything major, though they might add it in later. They might actually use Orion's docking mechanism in some form in the future as well. Bigelow is interested in licensing it for their modules as well.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Impact_Docking_System
  
  --
  simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
32. Re:I don't get it... by camperdave · 2010-02-23 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Sorry folks. I got him and Burt Rutan mixed up.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
33. Re:I don't get it... by camperdave · 2010-02-23 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Then I apparently got him and Richard Branson mixed up.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
34. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-23 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  And when you multiple those cost x2 to equate to a low fidelity simulation of the delivery capability of the Shuttle on one flight
  No you don't. Because you don't need the capability of a Shuttle past some point this year or next. After 2011, you'll be doing the same work with a Soyuz capsule or a Shuttle flight. Guess which one is going to be more expensive? Getting a manned version of the Dragon would greatly reduce the cost of accessing the ISS and reduce NASA's dependence on Russia at the same time. It doesn't make sense to cough up a billion or more dollars per flight to put up a few people and a couple tons of payload.
35. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  And when you multiple those cost x2 to equate to a low fidelity simulation of the delivery capability of the Shuttle on one flight
  No you don't. Because you don't need the capability of a Shuttle past some point this year or next. After 2011, you'll be doing the same work with a Soyuz capsule or a Shuttle flight.
  Just one acronym - MPLM.
  
  With the Shuttle no longer flying, we can't send cargo and passengers on a single flight. Each Shuttle flight will have to be replaced by two or more flights of other boosters.
36. Re:I don't get it... by Nutria · 2010-02-24 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the things we discovered when we added up the costs of using Russian Soyuz and Proton boosters as replacements for the Shuttle. The Shuttle seems more expensive because it swallows money in such huge chunks, other boosters sup more daintily but accomplish much less.
  You've neglected the point that it's gob-smackers easier to build a dozen (yes, I just pulled that number out of my ass) expendable rockets than it is to build and maintain a single Shuttle.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
37. Re:I don't get it... by Nutria · 2010-02-24 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting that SpaceX has more than the $35 billion in assets that Boeing and Lockheed each have?
  You're conflating liquid and fixed assets.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
38. Re:I don't get it... by Martin+Blank · 2010-02-24 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  They each have access to more than $9 billion in cash, not to mention billions in lines of credit. SpaceX's resources are still dwarfed.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
39. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-24 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's ok. The ISS doesn't need MPLMs.
  
  With the Shuttle no longer flying, we can't send cargo and passengers on a single flight. Each Shuttle flight will have to be replaced by two or more flights of other boosters.
  So what? There are going to be several cargo vehicles going up to the ISS whether the Shuttle flies or not. The Progress vehicle, ATV, HTV, and probably some unmanned COTS-based vehicles. And keep in mind that they aren't doing much up there on the ISS except maybe generating somewhere around 100-200 papers a year (about the R&D output of a teaching university). I'm not going to support extending the Shuttle and more than doubling the annual cost of the ISS. It simply is not worth it.
40. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you are correct, I've neglected to make my scenario a fantasy. Sorry, but I prefer facts.
  (I.E. the number of launchers isn't all you've pulled out of your ass.)
41. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's ok. The ISS doesn't need MPLMs.
  That's an interesting claim since MPLM's have figured into ISS design and operations for nearly two decades, they've flown a whole raftload of them to ISS, ever since the post-Columbia return to flight they've been stuffing spare cargo space with spares to make up the loss of future MPLM flights, *and* they're planning on stuffing an MPLM to the gills with spares *and leaving attached to the station* after spending tens of millions of dollars to certify it to do so (as such capability was not designed in) before the Shuttle stops flying.
  
  In short, you're full of bullshit.
  
  With the Shuttle no longer flying, we can't send cargo and passengers on a single flight. Each Shuttle flight will have to be replaced by two or more flights of other boosters.
  So what? There are going to be several cargo vehicles going up to the ISS whether the Shuttle flies or not. The Progress vehicle, ATV, HTV, and probably some unmanned COTS-based vehicles.
  Why do you think there has been such a recent push by NASA to develop unmanned cargo capacity (NASA or COTS) *despite* the fact that Progress, ATV, and HTV have been part of the planning for over fifteen years now? Why do you think NASA suddenly thinks there is going to be a shortfall in cargo capacity? (Hint: The acronym is MPLM.)
42. Re:I don't get it... by Nutria · 2010-02-24 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  I.E. the number of launchers isn't all you've pulled out of your ass.
  Whether it's 10 or 12 or 5, my point is still the same: it's simpler, cheaper and faster to build lots of semi-expendable vehicles than a few of "the most complex machine ever built".
  Accepting, though, the occasional spectacularly flaming loss of life would make any manned space vehicles lots cheaper. Imagine if Spain and England had modern Western attitudes: the government would not have allowed anyone to set to sea in those rickety little tubs.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
43. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Whether it's 10 or 12 or 5, my point is still the same: it's simpler, cheaper and faster to build lots of semi-expendable vehicles than a few of "the most complex machine ever built".
  What part of 'you pulled that out of your ass' is so hard to understand? It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables. (Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
44. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-24 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think there has been such a recent push by NASA to develop unmanned cargo capacity (NASA or COTS) *despite* the fact that Progress, ATV, and HTV have been part of the planning for over fifteen years now? Why do you think NASA suddenly thinks there is going to be a shortfall in cargo capacity? (Hint: The acronym is MPLM.)
  Because without a substantial drop in cost of moving payloads to the ISS, such as might be provided by COTS, the ISS will be near useless. Basically, I've heard of two huge obstacles that keep the ISS from being used. The first is that experiments can't be adjusted and moved in and out of the station easily. Sure there's a astronaut to tend things, but if you want to make a major change in the equipment, you're out of luck until you can fly up the equipment needed for the new configuration. Shuttle doesn't fly often enough to matter there. Chances are nothing else will fly enough either (and keep in mind that too many dockings will mess up the microgravity environment which some of the experiments depend on, due to excessive vibration). So that's just a bit of tough luck.
  
  The second problem is that it is damn expensive to do anything in the ISS even with free rent. COTS isn't a perfect fix, but if it works, it will lower the cost of putting stuff in the ISS and perhaps might make the ISS useful for something other than an orbital construction project.
  
  That's an interesting claim since MPLM's have figured into ISS design and operations for nearly two decades, they've flown a whole raftload of them to ISS, ever since the post-Columbia return to flight they've been stuffing spare cargo space with spares to make up the loss of future MPLM flights, *and* they're planning on stuffing an MPLM to the gills with spares *and leaving attached to the station* after spending tens of millions of dollars to certify it to do so (as such capability was not designed in) before the Shuttle stops flying.
  So what? Recall if you will, that the ISS was designed from early on as an excuse to keep flying the Shuttle. That whole ecosystem has fallen apart. We're down to three working Shuttles and will soon be down to two (the third serving as a salvage queen). Using the Shuttle is wholly unrealistic for a number of reasons. As I've mentioned before, when we enter the two launch a year regime that would come with the Shuttle extension we'll be paying more than a billion dollars per launch (this both will raise the cost of doing stuff on the ISS, compete with COTS which is one of the few high value projects to come out of the ISS, and siphon money from other purposes, like doing stuff beyond Earth orbit). It's cheaper to end the Shuttle, splash the ISS, and build a new ISS using Delta IV and Atlas V. There's no margin of error for losing another orbiter. Nor will NASA be able to maintain its reliability record in the face of such infrequent launches. They'll lose experience to retirement, the launch crews will get sloppy due to infrequent practice, etc. I wouldn't trust any organization to perform well under those circumstances.
  
  Ultimately, the Shuttle has to be ended, now or a painful, costly later. That means no more MPLMs. STS-133 and STS-134 are a good stopping point.
45. Re:I don't get it... by Nutria · 2010-02-24 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables.
  As opposed to rebuilding and rechecking much of the Shuttle after every launch?
  I never said that rockets are simple; I said that they are (a lot) simpler (and therefore cheaper) than the Shuttle.
  Otherwise, "we" would have left expendables far behind, in the rush to build more Shuttles, instead of what we are doing, which is (for the foreseeable future) abandoning winged craft.
  (Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
  OK. Maybe I'm just repeating hype.
  So what is? A Nimitz-class carrier? A Seawolf submarine? The Large Hadron Collider?
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
46. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think there has been such a recent push by NASA to develop unmanned cargo capacity (NASA or COTS) *despite* the fact that Progress, ATV, and HTV have been part of the planning for over fifteen years now? Why do you think NASA suddenly thinks there is going to be a shortfall in cargo capacity? (Hint: The acronym is MPLM.)
  Because without a substantial drop in cost of moving payloads to the ISS, such as might be provided by COTS, the ISS will be near useless.
  Wrong.
  
  Basically, I've heard of two huge obstacles that keep the ISS from being used.
  Wrong on both counts.
  
  [[snippage khallow dodging the fact he's wrong, again.]]
47. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-24 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  It simply isn't true, you vastly underestimate the infrastructure required to build, prepare, and launch expendables.
  As opposed to rebuilding and rechecking much of the Shuttle after every launch?
  If the Shuttle had to be rebuilt after each launch, you'd have a point. But it isn't. You also should consider this - work done on the Shuttle after each launch is work preparing it for the next, and expendables need work to be prepared for launch too. (And that pre launch preparation includes building the expendable.)
  
  I never said that rockets are simple; I said that they are (a lot) simpler (and therefore cheaper) than the Shuttle.
  They are also much less capable than the Shuttle - and when you stack up enough of them to match the capabilities of the Shuttle, the advantages of simplicity and low cost are lost.
  
  Otherwise, "we" would have left expendables far behind, in the rush to build more Shuttles, instead of what we are doing, which is (for the foreseeable future) abandoning winged craft.
  If 'we' hadn't invested so much in a first generation machine and then expected it to perform as a nth generation machine, that might be true. Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle and mistaking the failings of the Shuttle as a single vehicle for being the failings of an entire class of vehicle.
  
  (Not to mention the Shuttle isn't the most complex machine ever built, not by a long shot.)
  OK. Maybe I'm just repeating hype.
  So what is? A Nimitz-class carrier? A Seawolf submarine? The Large Hadron Collider?
  All good candidates. Though if you count her missiles, an Ohio class moves up on the list too.
48. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-24 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Believe what you want. Certainly, the US deems the ISS important enough that it'll chuck somewhere around two billion a year on it after construction ceases sometime this year or next. My take is that the ISS is a white elephant that has hindered space development for somewhere around a couple of decades. For me the telltale that you are full of shit is simply that you never talk money. It matters how much a Shuttle launch or a kilogram on the ISS costs. When you ignore the economics of space development, you ignore the most important obstacles of space.
  
  My view is that the players who will end up dominating in space will get good value for the money spent on their efforts in space. Russia looks to be one of those players. China maybe as well. US is not in the running despite spending as much as the rest of the world combined. There are too many money sinks like the ISS and not enough productive efforts like COTS.
49. Re:I don't get it... by Nutria · 2010-02-24 21:15 · Score: 1
  If 'we' hadn't invested so much
  There's that "money" thing again.
  Or are you saying that NASA and Big Aero failed in cost-effectively designing the STS?
  Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle
  What are those false lessons?
  A couple of bad lessons (not necessarily related to the Shuttle) are
  
  the irrational obsession with crew safety (space and rockets are dangerous; people are going to die no matter how redundant and thus expensive you make the vehicles), and
  
  putting all your eggs in a few really expensive baskets leaves no money for designing and building better baskets.
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
50. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-25 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's ok. The ISS doesn't need MPLMs.
  That's an interesting claim since MPLM's have figured into ISS design and operations for nearly two decades
  I felt there was a bit more to add here. NASA plans to run the ISS through 2020, perhaps even well beyond without any more MPLMs. That's at least nine years of operation. You agree implicitly that they can do so. Maybe operating without MPLMs hampers the operation of the ISS in some way or adds risk to the overall mission. But that sort of decision is amenable to cost/benefit analysis, with a large cost coming from continued use of the Shuttle.
  
  My view is that NASA has determined, correctly, that neither continued use of the Shuttle nor MPLMs are beneficial to the operation of the ISS and the future plans of NASA and the US in space.
51. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-25 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  It matters how much a Shuttle launch or a kilogram on the ISS costs.
  Right. That's why when I pointed out that COTS wasn't a cheap as you thought, you started a line of bullshit about other issues and now circle back to money again claiming I never discuss money.
52. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-25 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I felt there was a bit more to add here. NASA plans to run the ISS through 2020, perhaps even well beyond without any more MPLMs. That's at least nine years of operation. You agree implicitly that they can do so.
  I did no such thing - I pointed out how NASA is urgently seeking replacement capacity to replace MPLM's.
  
  My view is that NASA has determined, correctly, that neither continued use of the Shuttle nor MPLMs are beneficial to the operation of the ISS and the future plans of NASA and the US in space.
  ROTFLMAO. If the capacity provided by Shuttle and MPLM's are not needed, then why is NASA scrambling so hard to find vehicles that replace that capacity?
53. Re:I don't get it... by DerekLyons · 2010-02-25 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  If 'we' hadn't invested so much
  There's that "money" thing again. Or are you saying that NASA and Big Aero failed in cost-effectively designing the STS?
  Big Aero is a red herring. And it's a mistaken assumption that I'm talking about money alone, because I'm not. I'm also talking about reputation, and national pride. It has nothing to do with the design per se but how the design evolved.
  
  The money problem is simple: NASA overpromised and underdelivered, Congress overdemanded and underfunded. Everything else springs from that simple premise along with a generous helping of political pressure on NASA to keep the prestige and job pumps running.
  
  In the wake of Apollo everyone wanted a huge high prestige project - but nobody wanted to actually pay for it. As a result, when problems arose (some of them due to immature technology, some of them due to underfunding and schedule pressure [1]) nobody ever went back and examined the basic assumptions. Nobody ever said we can't actually do this without more money or more experience. Like Titanic everyone assumed the ship was unsinkable[2], after all hadn't we just gone to the fucking moon?, and steamed full tilt into the ice field.
  
  Instead people are learning a lot of 'false lessons' from the Shuttle
  What are those false lessons?
  Well, there's a wide variety - but they all stem from one flawed premise: Expecting a first generation engineering prototype vehicle to behave like an nth generation mature system. Essentially holding a Wright Flyer to 747 standards. (That's perhaps a bit extreme in overall magnitude, but it serves as a general indicator of the problem.)
  
  the irrational obsession with crew safety (space and rockets are dangerous; people are going to die no matter how redundant and thus expensive you make the vehicles)
  Well, they won't get any safer unless we try and there no particular reason not to try. There's nothing magically dangerous about spaceflight that can't be fixed with experience and engineering. The problem is that, again, we're looking at the Wright Flyer v. 747 issue again - trying to leap too far with each step with little patience for actual test programs to gain that needed experience.
  
  putting all your eggs in a few really expensive baskets leaves no money for designing and building better baskets.
  As such things go, the Shuttle isn't particularly expensive, not significantly more than any other engineering development program seeking the same goals.
  
  The problem is that Congress and the Administration won't budget the money to develop new eggs. Partly because NASA has proven so inept at doing so, which is itself partly due to them never being allowed to try and fail and learn from failure. NASA is institutionally afraid of failure as stain on their image and because Congress treats failure brutally. Congress won't accept failure because they insist in not funding smaller development projects and thus every project is a huge chunk of national prestige. It's a Gordian knot combined with positive feedback loops. (Ask any engineer what happens to a system with no negative feedback loops, only positive ones.)
  
  If Congress had been willing to hand to NASA, no strings attached, the amount of money the Federal government spends on entitlement programs in Los Angeles alone... (And if NASA would cut through it's hidebound bureaucracy) we could field a new generation of spacecraft every ten years or so. But neither Congress or NASA will ever indulge in a program where failure will be the natural course of things while we learn.
  [1] For example, the joint rotation problem that killed Challenger was discovered IIRC in 1974 - but there was neither tim
54. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-25 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's why when I pointed out that COTS wasn't a cheap as you thought
  My apologies, I forgot that you actually did mention money once.
  
  I don't know how cheap COTS launches will get. I do know that you used the highest possible cost for Falcon 9 ($133 million is what NASA is offering for a number of manned SpaceX flights early in the Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles' learning curve) and the lowest cost for the Shuttle, $250 million, which is some sort of marginal cost of launch, excluding refurbishing costs. The Shuttle number is at least a factor of 5 too low. Actual marginal cost of launch including post launch work is $450 million (in whatever year that cost analysis was done) plus a huge fixed amount, somewhere around $1.5-$2 billion dollars per year. At two launches a year, that means the Shuttle costs somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 billion dollars per launch. We also have the EELVs. You can buy roughly three launches of the relatively expensive Delta IV Heavy for the cost of a Shuttle launch in the post-2011 era. In summary, you can buy a huge number of commercial flights for the cost of continuing the Shuttle.
  
  I hope this answers your concerns about my bullshit.
55. Re:I don't get it... by khallow · 2010-02-25 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  ROTFLMAO. If the capacity provided by Shuttle and MPLM's are not needed, then why is NASA scrambling so hard to find vehicles that replace that capacity?
  NASA needs to replace some of the capability not the capacity. The ATV and HTV already have enough upmass to replace the Shuttle (as it turns out, the ATV literally is a slightly gimped MPLM and the HTV is a bit bigger). They burn up on reentry (as does Progress) so downmass (returning payload from the ISS) is a capability only present in Soyuz and the Shuttle. Hence, NASA does have a need for downmass and crew transport. As I mentioned earlier, NASA also needs cheap transportation logistics in order to entice potential customers to use the ISS, but that isn't a capability provided by the Shuttle. What NASA doesn't need is the capacity of the Shuttle. It's not going to return at once 25 tons of bulky payload from the ISS. They don't need to move 7 people at a time either.
56. Re:I don't get it... by Nutria · 2010-02-25 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  I think we agree on all the political stuff.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Ha ha! by Mr+Z · 2010-02-23 03:35 · Score: 2, Funny

What about Falcon 7?

--
Program Intellivision!
dilemma by jbeaupre · 2010-02-23 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history, and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer, Falcon has a dilemma. If they are going to suffer a launch failure, is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one? Engineering wise, you want to fail early so you can fix early. But politically and economically, it could be a disaster.
Just a thought.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
1. Re:dilemma by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  The cosmic ballet goes on.
2. Re:dilemma by ZankerH · 2010-02-23 03:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  SpaceX has already had their share of "catastrophic launch faliures" with the Falcon 1, which had quite some faliures before they managed to get it right. Falcon 1 now uses the same engines, avionics suite and design philosophy as the Falcon 9. It was basically a test for the bigger rockets, and I'd say they have all the experience and data they need to pull this one off.
  
  Godspeed, SpaceX. They earned this.
3. Re:dilemma by Kjella · 2010-02-23 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The alleged dilemma would only arise if there was a decision that makes a failure more likely now and less likely later. In practice I expect they do their damndest to avoid it both now and later, but somewhere there'll be a flaw sooner or later. As for what is best, a baseline that works is clearly better. Yes shit can happen because of a bad tweak or poor QA or external damage but having a design you know it basically working is a helluva lot easier than one that is not.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
4. Re:dilemma by khallow · 2010-02-23 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too.
5. Re:dilemma by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-23 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For SpaceX I would wager that launch #2 is the best one for them to have a catastrophic failure on with the Falcon 9. If they can get this first launch to its target safely and successfully, then everyone will turn towards Orbital to watch their maiden launch in 2011. That will give SpaceX the breathing room it needs to blow something up, collect data, and rehash the design.
  
  Then again, SpaceX really does have a team of badass, top of the line engineers. If any company can pull off a HLV launch record without some sort of catastrophic cluster, its these guys.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
6. Re:dilemma by jbeaupre · 2010-02-23 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I didn't mean to say there was a decision on when to blow up or how much effort into making a good rocket. More the moral dilemma of do want any hypothetical failures early or later. I agree: get the best rocket on the pad you can. But even design flaws can take time to have any consequence (Challenger explosion, for example). Others show up on the first launch.
  The dilemma isn't on choosing which to have. It's the choice of thinking "Dear God, if it's going to explode someday, let it be today so that we learn of our mistakes early" vs "Dear God, if it's going to explode someday, don't let it explode today so that we stay in business long enough to correct our mistakes."
  I just think it's an interesting quandary.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
7. Re:dilemma by jbeaupre · 2010-02-23 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I think they'll do great. Falcon 1 taught a lot. Falcon 9 is still a different beast with new challenges. I'm curious about the mental state of the guys sending it up. Assuming there's going to be a failure (which may be a false assumption, but history shows a lot of rocket designs fail eventually for whatever reason), when is the gut-feeling optimal time for a failure. Maybe launch 1, maybe not. Probably before they start using a crew module.
  Just food for thought.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
8. Re:dilemma by cheesybagel · 2010-02-23 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Most new rocket systems fail on their first launch (e.g. Delta III, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5) it is rare that they do not fail on the first launch. SpaceX is doing a lot of testing, but things can still go wrong.
9. Re:dilemma by element-o.p. · 2010-02-23 07:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just to add an extra consideration: not all failures are catastrophic failures. My thought would be, "If it is going to fail, let it fail in a way that is not catastrophic and that lets us analyze the failure so that we can correct it in subsequent launches." This way, you validate the overall design, learn from your "failure" and still don't scare off potential investors or clients.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
10. Re:dilemma by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-23 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  So, something more like Falcon 1 launch 2 rather than launch 1.
  Yeah, I'd hope for that too. But hey as long as I'm hoping, I'm going to hope for success!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
11. Re:dilemma by dtmos · 2010-02-23 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too.
  True, but any engineer will tell you that you learn far more from your failures than your successes. Failures teach you what technical parameters -- including those that you may have overlooked or considered unimportant, like O-ring behavior at low temperatures and the effects of foam striking tile -- are required for successful operation. They also give you a clue about margins of safety: Without a failure, one can theorize but never truly know how close a design is to disaster. With failures, it's possible to know how far the envelope can be pushed -- which engineering trades (weight for strength, battery size for operating lifetime, etc.) can be made, and which cannot.
  I've always considered the quandary discussed in this thread -- whether failures should be desired at the beginning of a development program, or later on -- to be the fundamental problem of all product development programs. It's common in all commercial engineering with which I'm familiar: In a large company, a product team whose first prototype is a flop is frequently not allowed the opportunity for a second try, since there are always more potential products to be developed than engineers to develop them, and it's too easy to reassign the engineers to another, "more successful," project. And yet, there is nothing more expensive than engineering changes late in the development cycle, especially if they are the result of catastrophic public failure.
  I've come to the conclusion that the important ingredient, surprisingly enough, is faith: The engineers and their management have to have a belief, not supported by independently-verifiable facts a priori, that such-and-such technology is achievable and will be successful. This faith will enable the project to survive its early failures, where much is learned by the engineering staff but without external evidence of progress, to produce a final product that is both reliable and successful.
  In hindsight, it's common to look at such programs and see them as a "natural" progression of technology, much like the development of integrated circuits in the 1960s, without realizing that, at the time of the start of their development, the arguments against them were at least as compelling as the arguments for them. This viewpoint is often encouraged by situations like the Cold War, in which vast sums of public money are spent on an incredible variety of technology development programs; the successful ones (like missiles and integrated circuits) are remembered, and the unsuccessful ones are not. (I'd give examples of some of the unsuccessful ones, but none come to mind. . . .)
12. Re:dilemma by Idiomatick · 2010-02-23 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  From SpaceX: "Another notable point is the SpaceX hold-before-release system — a capability required by commercial airplanes, but not implemented on many launch vehicles. After first stage engine start, the Falcon is held down and not released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems are confirmed to be operating normally. An automatic safe shut-down and unloading of propellant occurs if any off nominal conditions are detected."
  
  I'm sort of shocked that other companies don't do this but I can see it being helpful.
13. Re:dilemma by khallow · 2010-02-23 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  True, but any engineer will tell you that you learn far more from your failures than your successes.
  If one looks at the fatal accidents of the Shuttle program, an odd aspect becomes apparent. In both cases, the failure mode was observed in prior launches. For example, Feynman notes that considerable burn through on the o rings was accepted prior to the Challenger accident. Similarly, ice and foam strikes were common and looked for at each launch (the foam strike that doomed Columbia was seen by ground video within hours of launch). In each case, the cause was known ahead of the actual accident (an engineer warned of fragile o rings at freezing temperatures prior to the launch of Challenger and there was a debate about the foam strike on Columbia for almost its entire stay in space).
  
  The problem in each case was human error on the ground. The deciders chose to ignore the warnings from previous launches as well as the warnings of engineers for the current launch.
  
  But my point here is that while one successful launch is not as good a learning experience as one failure, a lot of successful launches may well be more valuable. With the Shuttle, each of the failures had been preceded by close calls from previous launches.
  
  For a final example, during the Second World War, the UK military was trying to figure out where to armor their bombers. This is the exact inverse of your engineering problem in that the failures never made it back and for the most part, could not be studied. They could only study the successes. Statistician Abraham Wald figured out that the bombers should be armored exactly where the returning bombers had never been shot.
  
  I think in a large enough program, you could deliberately break rockets and components. For example, launch some first stages with deliberate flaws. That might be useful failure testing (at least it tests your telemetry collecting ability).
14. Re:dilemma by dtmos · 2010-02-23 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  ...but that is exactly my point. Feynman himself noted the "victory disease" that developed at NASA when successful launch followed successful launch -- those warning of imminent disaster were dismissed because, well, they just couldn't be right, and they had a history of successful launches to prove it. All the detractors had as evidence was charred O-rings, and some wacky theory about cold-temperature elasticity.
  In these cases the successful launches were less than valuable -- they actually taught the wrong thing. They taught that the system was safe when, in fact, it wasn't, and the fact that they were really close calls wasn't apparent until the system actually failed. The failure showed just how close to the edge they actually were.
  In any engineering system at all, there is a substantially infinite number of ways in which it could fail. Just list the number of ways a torch (flashlight) can fail, beginning from first principles:
  --mechanical opening of the electrical circuit;
  --battery failure (as opposed to simple exhaustion, which can be considered at the design phase);
  --switch failure;
  --bulb failure;
  --etc.
  It's very, very difficult to look at this list and predict a priori (meaning without any field failure experience) the failure rate of each of these failure mechanisms, so that the overall failure rate of the system can be predicted. Any engineer will tell you that there are always failure mechanisms that are not fully understood (people and programs don't live forever); any manager will tell you that engineers are always concerned about what might go wrong (it's what separates them from marketing droids, who are always concerned about what's expected to go right). For this reason, there's a natural inclination for managers to stop asking engineers about possible disaster scenarios -- and to stop listening to the engineers when they bring them up. A lot of it is just fatigue.
  Wald's famous bomber studies actually prove my point: He actually had failures; he just didn't have access to the crash sites. The correct comparison would be a hypothetical one, to some poor sot asked to figure out where to armor the bombers, when none of the bombers had ever been shot down. Without any failures (i.e., if the bombers always came back), the "correct" deduction would be to continually reduce the amount of armor on the bombers, since the weight of the armor could be traded for more bombs, fuel, or traded for higher aircraft performance (speed, rate of climb, or service altitude, since the plane would be lighter). The armor engineer could protest, citing his studies of how easily such a plane could be shot down, and perhaps even showing bullet holes and other evidence of near-disaster, but his cries would fall on deaf ears, until the planes started being shot down -- i.e., until the first failures occurred.
How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?
1. Re:How is this more private than before? by sgage · 2010-02-23 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I, too, don't understand the hoopla. What is wrong with Atlas and Delta, both of which are configurable for all sorts of capacities? There they are, they work fine. I don't see how the future of US launch capacity is on the shoulders of Falcon. Surely I'm missing something here?
2. Re:How is this more private than before? by Cold+hard+reality · 2010-02-23 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Falcon 9 is much cheaper.
3. Re:How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:52 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's about the cost. Falcon 9 is almost an order of magnitude cheaper than anything else out there. They are also one of the few who have list prices for their launches. I commend them for that.
4. Re:How is this more private than before? by vlm · 2010-02-23 03:53 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?
  Here's my interpretation. In the old days, private/public referred to whom owned the company. Now a days its reversed, and public means they own a part of the govt, and private means they're going it alone without owning a part of the govt.
  Delta/Atlas is owned by Boeing/Lockheed which are big enough businesses to own a senator or two, maybe a couple reps, so its sort of public.
  SpaceX is small enough that I doubt even the local alderman returns their calls, so they're private. In fact its surprising the govt is allowing them to succeed, at least so far, since they aren't getting their "cut".
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
5. Re:How is this more private than before? by ZankerH · 2010-02-23 03:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Surely you're missing the projected launch costs. SpaceX has the most cost-efficient launcher out there, and they also have had several successful launches with the Falcon 1, which is effectively a smaller version of the 9, sharing the same engines, materials etc. If they succeed with the Falcon 9, this will be nothing short of a revolution in the low earth orbit launch market.
6. Re:How is this more private than before? by vlm · 2010-02-23 04:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What is wrong with Atlas and Delta, both of which are configurable for all sorts of capacities? ..... Surely I'm missing something here?
  Falcons cost about $10M
  Delta 4 cost about $140M to $180M. Ariane 5 about the same.
  Space shuttle launch costs about $1500M
  All lift "about the same amount", but the costs vary by well over two orders of magnitude.
  Standard slashdot car analogy, is that as commuter vehicles, both a KIA and a Ferrari will transport roughly one driver and a briefcase, but there is over two orders of magnitude difference in cost.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
7. Re:How is this more private than before? by khallow · 2010-02-23 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  The valid comparison is Falcon 9 to the Shuttle, Ariane 5, and Soyuz. All three are government owned rockets (though Soyuz and Ariane 5 have been commercialized and Ariane 5 might have a private stake). And the idea of putting astronauts up on a commercial launch vehicle is revolutionary.
8. Re:How is this more private than before? by OctaviusIII · 2010-02-23 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I believe Delta and Atlas were made to government order. Falcon, however, was not.
  
  --
  What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
9. Re:How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 04:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's more the nature of the contract.
  Delta and Atlas were developed using cost plus methods with a high degree of government involvement and oversight in the creation of the vehicle requirements. The EELV's (Delta and Atlas) were government projects in the same way as a new fighter aircraft, or ship is procured.
  COTS (the contract SpaceX is operating under) is completely milestone based, you successfully complete X, we pay you Y. If you fail you get nada, zero. SpaceX is more like how the goverment buys tickets for employees on commercial airliners. Falcon X is not a goverment project
10. Re:How is this more private than before? by compro01 · 2010-02-23 04:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Where are you getting that $10M figure from?
  SpaceX's site says $44-49M.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
11. Re:How is this more private than before? by Somegeek · 2010-02-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  One of the obvious differences that others have mentioned is cost, but the reason is more important. The others were developed under government contract and on huge government budgets. This results in rockets that cost over 100 million USD to launch. SpaceX is a private company developing their own technology primarily using their own money, allowing them to develop vehicles that cost significantly less to launch.
  
  --
  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..
12. Re:How is this more private than before? by DarthVain · 2010-02-23 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and the concern is getting your KIA to do 200mph. Which would you rather be in?
  It might be 2 orders of magnitude cheaper, but is it equally safer?
  Russian Cosmonaut: "Dey Amerkins 'ave fired a missile at ISS!"
  Russian Ground Control: "It is just payload, do not worry!"
  Russian Cosmonaut: "ORLY!"
  But seriously good luck to them, at that price it opens up all sorts of options, particularly the participation of private industry in areas that used to only be realistically available to large nations.
13. Re:How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  If they succeed with the Falcon 9, this will be nothing short of a revolution in the low earth orbit launch market.
  Oh so if their first launch reaches orbit, they'll make the payload stage do a barrel roll while in orbit? Cool!
14. Re:How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  True, but would you rather be seen cruising to work in a Ferrari, or a Kia?
15. Re:How is this more private than before? by vlm · 2010-02-23 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Where are you getting that $10M figure from?
  SpaceX's site says $44-49M.
  My mistake, I was reading about the falcon 1.
  Point still stands, its cheap compared to its competitors.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
16. Re:How is this more private than before? by Powys · 2010-02-23 05:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?" -Armageddon
17. Re:How is this more private than before? by compro01 · 2010-02-23 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Falcon 9 isn't very comparable to the Ariane 5. It's got about 2/3s to half the lifting capacity.
  Falcon 9 will lift 10 tonnes to LEO or or 4.5 to GTO.
  Ariane 5 will lift 16-21 tonnes to LEO or 6-10 to GTO.
  The competitive Falcon 9 heavy (which will be one of the (if not the) biggest rockets outside the super-heavy stuff if/when it gets done) is still in development.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
18. Re:How is this more private than before? by hardburn · 2010-02-23 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody made significant plants to human-rate an EELV until fairly recently, and those plans are still barely more than a feasibility study. Falcon 9 was intended to carry a crew module from day 1.
  
  --
  Not a typewriter
19. Re:How is this more private than before? by zerospeaks · 2010-02-23 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Elon Musk has stated the goal is 500 dollars a kg, and is achievable. At that price, slashdot could put something in space.
  
  --
  http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
20. Re:How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Falcon 1 costs about $10M per launch, but has a payload capacity of 670kg
  The heavy launch vehicles all lift about 25000-30000kg.
  The Falcon 9 is expected to cost about $40-50M per launch, with a payload capacity of about 10000kg
  The Falcon 9 heavy, which will basically be a Falcon 9 but with a first stage 3 times as large, is planned to have a payload capacity of 30000kg, and is slated to cost about $80M per launch.
  Still a lot cheaper, but not that much cheaper.
21. Re:How is this more private than before? by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-02-23 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  The competitive Falcon 9 heavy (which will be one of the (if not the) biggest rockets outside the super-heavy stuff if/when it gets done) is still in development.
  Note, for the record, that the Falcon 9 Heavy consists of a Falcon 9 plus two extra Falcon 9 first stages in parallel.
  In other words, about 99% of Falcon 9 Heavy will be tested when the first Falcon 9 flies - all that'll be left is software and the physical disconnects between the three Falcon 9 first stages.
  Not that software is necessarily a small thing....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
22. Re:How is this more private than before? by element-o.p. · 2010-02-23 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  If I'm in the 'hood, I'd rather be in a Kia. A Ferrari would be roughly equivalent to a bullseye.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
23. Re:How is this more private than before? by DerekLyons · 2010-02-23 09:37 · Score: 1
  Where are you getting the $1500M figure from? The marginal cost is on the same order as the Delta and the Ariane.
  Further, they don't lift "about the same", at least not to ISS. The Falcon, Ariane, and Delta have roughly the same gross capacity as the Shuttle's net capacity - but the actual net capacity of the expendables is sharply reduced by the need to provide free flight capacity for their payloads.
  Or, to put it in an automobile analogy;
  
  The Shuttle is an eighteen wheeler that can drive directly to the loading dock and unload its full capacity.
  The expendables are eighteen wheelers that are barred from entering the parking lot. You have to offload a single pickup truck (with the cargo in its bed) from the eighteen wheeler and drive it to the loading dock.
24. Re:How is this more private than before? by RalphTheWonderLlama · 2010-02-23 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I always wondered what a barrel roll was
  
  --
  simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
25. Re:How is this more private than before? by RalphTheWonderLlama · 2010-02-23 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're kind of just bunching them all together there, but the Shuttle probably doesn't belong in that group. It has significantly more capability than any of those, and as a poster above mentioned, doesn't necessarily cost more.
  The reason this is more private is because it actually is like using an Atlas V or Delta IV instead of Shuttle or Constellation. NASA has used those first two launch vehicles before, but not for ISS missions. They planned on needing quite a bit of launches to ISS in the future so they came up with COTS to pick commercial providers and stimulate commercial space. ULA (Boeing/LockMart) were participants with their Atlas V and Delta IV, but SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won the contracts in the end. Guess why.
  
  --
  simple, fast homepage with your links: http://www.ngumbi.com/
26. Re:How is this more private than before? by SETIGuy · 2010-02-23 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  The competitive Falcon 9 heavy (which will be one of the (if not the) biggest rockets outside the super-heavy stuff if/when it gets done) is still in development.
  Note, for the record, that the Falcon 9 Heavy consists of a Falcon 9 plus two extra Falcon 9 first stages in parallel.
  In other words, about 99% of Falcon 9 Heavy will be tested when the first Falcon 9 flies - all that'll be left is software and the physical disconnects between the three Falcon 9 first stages.
  Not that software is necessarily a small thing....
  Not that the hardware is a small thing either. To quote Han Solo, strapping three rockets together ain't exactly like dusting crops. It'll be several dozen man years of engineering to do that.
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
27. Re:How is this more private than before? by khallow · 2010-02-23 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  The Falcon 9 isn't very comparable to the Ariane 5. It's got about 2/3s to half the lifting capacity.
  It depends how you compare them. My meaning was in comparing all vehicles which could service the ISS in any way, now or in the future. As it stands now, we have or might have the Shuttle. COTS has two contenders at the moment, Falcon 9 flying a Dragon capsule and Taurus II flying a Cygnus capsule. Only the Dragon aims to handle crew. Russia has both the Soyuz and Proton, the latter is strictly unmanned. The EU has Ariane 5 which might be manned at some point in the future. Finally, there's the H-II which lifts Japan's HTV to the ISS. Of these many vehicles, only the Shuttle, Ariane 5, and Soyuz are or could be manned vehicles.
28. Re:How is this more private than before? by MaDeR · 2010-02-24 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it is troll, but good troll. :)
  
  --
  What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
29. Re:How is this more private than before? by Nutria · 2010-02-24 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  It'll be several dozen man years of engineering to do that.
  And if there are several dozen engineers working on the problem???
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
30. Re:How is this more private than before? by SETIGuy · 2010-02-24 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  It'll get done in a year. That still doesn't change the fact that a flight of the Falcon 9 heavy is an entirely different thing than an Falcon 9 flight even if they share the same parts. If you strap three 747s together, what you get won't fly like a 747. What you get is an entirely new thing. If you don't keep that in mind you'll end up with an Arianne 5 first-flight repeat.
  
  --
  Support SETI@home
31. Re:How is this more private than before? by Nutria · 2010-02-24 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't keep that in mind you'll end up with an Arianne 5 first-flight repeat.
  [SARCASM]What do you think we are, Europeans??[/SARCASM]
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
32. Re:How is this more private than before? by khallow · 2010-02-24 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  It'll be several dozen man years of engineering to do that.
  And if there are several dozen engineers working on the problem???
  They still have to test it. There are certain things that don't get done faster even if you have a zillion engineers working on the problem.
33. Re:How is this more private than before? by Nutria · 2010-02-24 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  They still have to test it. There are certain things that don't get done faster even if you have a zillion engineers working on the problem.
  I was, in fact, demonstrating the "Pregnancy Fallacy" to my son just the other day.
  While they're on the up-slope of the time-people curve, though, the design and construction will get done sooner, meaning they can start the testing sooner.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by fandingo · 2010-02-23 03:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.
1. Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Author is a hype-mongering self-absorbed lamer in toto
2. Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by Chris+Burke · 2010-02-23 04:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Oh is that what that meant?
  I thought the summary was saying that the Constellation program had been canceled in Dorothy's little dog. Which makes sense to me; I never saw how a heavy-lift rocket could possibly fit inside a little terrier.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
3. Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.
  Just FYI, "in toto" does mean "completely" when used in legal documents, but in general writing it retains the original latin meaning "as a whole" as in: NASA scientists are a bright bunch in toto, although Chuck is an idiot and Sue just got the job because her brother is a celebrity.
4. Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.
  Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur!
5. Re:Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by Ifandbut · 2010-02-24 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  So...why would total not have been good enough?
Re:Yaaawwwwn by Cold+hard+reality · 2010-02-23 03:51 · Score: 1

They aren't sending it for your benefit.
The first new rocket... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:53 · Score: 0, Informative

The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since last years Ares 1-X. There, fixed that for you
1. Re:The first new rocket... by khallow · 2010-02-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Another fix here is that it's the first new orbital launch vehicle since 2002, well, assuming it launches.
2. Re:The first new rocket... by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ares 1-X was an SRB with a payload and a few minor mods. IOW, not a new rocket. Falcon 9 is the first truly new rocket that America has had in quite some time.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Frosty piss by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:55 · Score: 0

Falcon 9 Prepares for High Steaks Launch!

Fixed that for ya. Mmmmm, high steaks
MODERATORS!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 03:56 · Score: 0

Mod Parent Up!
crashing down? by markov_chain · 2010-02-23 03:56 · Score: 0, Redundant

However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
What if the rocket gets into the wrong orbit due to some sort of thruster malfunction? Huh? Huh?

--
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
1. Re:crashing down? by geegel · 2010-02-23 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  The standard procedure is to abort the mission, by blowing up the rocket. The end result is the same, it will come crashing on Earth.
  
  --
  right...
2. Re:crashing down? by kaiser423 · 2010-02-23 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Bad orbits are typically unstable and do come crashing down. It's generally considered a successful launch if the spacecraft can boost itself to a stable orbit and get some work done. The launch people just get dinged some money since that ends up shortening the life of the spacecraft due to using extra fuel to get to a usable orbit.
3. Re:crashing down? by Somegeek · 2010-02-23 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  If it's going into orbit, even the wrong one, they do NOT blow it up.
  
  --
  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..
Re:Yaaawwwwn by mcgrew · 2010-02-23 03:58 · Score: 1

That doesn't mean that you won't benefit from it. They don't manufacture automobiles for your benefit, either -- they manufacture them to make a profit. But I, for one, am glad they manufacture automobiles.

--
Free Martian Whores!
So if I understand this... by FlyByPC · 2010-02-23 03:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket. If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding. If it doesn't (especially if it fails catastrophically), NASA comes out ahead?

I'm glad I'm not anywhere near the Cape right about now, y'know? Just saying.

--
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
1. Re:So if I understand this... by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Just the opposite. If this works and CONgress approves of Bolden's plan, then NASA will get an increase. If Falcon 9 fails, then NASA and Bolden will have a VERY DIFFICULT time arguing to CONgress to kill Constellation. As it is, the 1999, and 2002 CONgress did a great deal of damage to NASA, but may have helped make the case. the neo-cons of the time forbade NASA to develop transhab or VASIMR. Thankfully, NASA spun those off into separate companies and helped fund one of them. Bigelow and Adastra are now making the case for the new set-up.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:So if I understand this... by Last_Available_Usern · 2010-02-23 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Losing funding for launches doesn't mean you lose funding for everything. Also, they have facilities and expertise that make them valuable to whoever may assume launch functions. If I own an arena, I might stand to make more money just leasing out the venue and providing concessions instead of trying to create the entertainment value as well
3. Re:So if I understand this... by confused+one · 2010-02-23 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Umm... It's an Air Force facility located adjacent to the NASA facility.
4. Re:So if I understand this... by confused+one · 2010-02-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, Bigelow and Adastra are two of the companies that they're talking about contracting with for this "new", advanced, ground breaking technology.
5. Re:So if I understand this... by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  They are the important ones. BA will give us the private space stations and Mr. B wants to be on the moon. They devote a lot of effort to not just figuring our the station, but how to land and protect these on the moon. Hopefully, they are working with the other companies esp. Blue Origin, L-Mart, and Boeing (all with stakes on landing on the moon).
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
6. Re:So if I understand this... by FleaPlus · 2010-02-23 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...NASA's facility is being used for the launch of a new rocket. If it works well, NASA stands to lose funding.
  Incorrect, NASA's actually getting a funding increase under the new plans.
Why, Superman's of course! by maillemaker · 2010-02-23 04:20 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How do you think those rockets fly, anyway?

--
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
He's not in there. by shadowrat · 2010-02-23 04:34 · Score: 1

Falcon's not in the vehicle! It's all a publicity stunt!
Oh, was TFA on a different Falcon?
If Henry Spencer's still out there... by ArtFart · 2010-02-23 04:44 · Score: 1

...he may be able to start using his old signature: "There is only one spacefaring nation today, Comrade."
More importantly by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 04:54 · Score: 1

Delta and Atlas were fully funded by the feds. Falcon was mostly funded by Musk. Falcon 9 is 100% new. Delta/Atlas are one offs from many decades ago. BIG difference.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:More importantly by cheesybagel · 2010-02-23 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Delta IV and Atlas V first stages and engines are essentially new (RS-68, RD-180). Sure the second stage uses the RL-10 Centaur engine, but there is not that much in common between those rockets and their predecessors. Especially Delta IV.
2. Re:More importantly by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The RD-180 was developed by Russia in early to mid 80's, while the RS-68 is from early 90's. All pretty old.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
3. Re:More importantly by cheesybagel · 2010-02-23 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, RD-180 was designed specifically for the Atlas program. It is based on the RD-170 engine from Energia, but it first flew in Atlas III in like 2000. Also, 20 years is not a long time in the space launch industry. Not that old when you have improved R-7 rockets based on the one that launched Sputnik and Gagarin still in use today.
  RS-68 was a pretty new design that used less parts, and an ablative nozzle to decrease costs, which is unlike most engines previous to it. RD-180 is a staged combustion engine of a type which was never manufactured outside of CIS.
4. Re:More importantly by Nutria · 2010-02-24 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Falcon 9 is 100% new.
  Neh, I don't thing so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)
  
  The pintle injector at the heart of Merlin was first used in the Apollo Program for the lunar module landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.
  It is true, though, that they aren't just rehashed Saturn engines.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
One last thing by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 04:57 · Score: 1

Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings. The others were not. In fact, Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:One last thing by FleaPlus · 2010-02-23 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Falcon 9 was developed with Human Ratings. The others were not. In fact, Falcon 9 may actually be the first LV designed with human launch being the biggest part of it in nearly 40 years.
  Actually, when you consider that the Space Shuttle and Soyuz don't meet NASA's human-rating standards, one could potentially argue that the Falcon 9 will be the first human-rated rocket in the history of mankind. ;)
2. Re:One last thing by WindBourne · 2010-02-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I believe that they met them of the time. That was why I did not say the first one. But, you may have a good point. My guess is that SpaceX will likely be found guilty of some issue no matter how much they work at it. Sad, but the safety council will probably want to hold something (politics and all). Funny thing, is that Constellation was already headed towards KNOWN compromises.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
False Hopes. by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-23 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative

To be clear, while the summary does say that Falcon 9 could launch as early as next month (March 22 to be exact) neither SpaceX, nor NASA have that date reserved as a planned launch date. This Spaceflightnow article summarizes both Elon Musk's and the chief launch supervisor's remarks regarding expectations of an early launch date. They discuss the fact that it is very likely that Falcon 9 will not be prepped for launch until April or May this year. If that indeed does prove to be the case, it would not be a slip or a launch date failure, it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan. Quite frankly, it takes a LOT of groundwork and very precise timing to launch something the size of the Falcon 9 successfully. That said, SpaceX's launch crews want to get in all the practice they can to get the rhythm and motions of a successful launch op down.

To finalize this primary point with a quote from the spaceflightnow article:

"People should not think that the rocket is going to launch on whatever the first countdown day is," Musk said in an interview last month. "They shouldn't think of any day that we have planned as launch day, but it is simply an aspiration for the first day that we will try to do a countdown."
That said, this is, indeed, a very exciting launch for the space industry. The spaceflightnow article has some good techie info on the connections made between the rocket and the transport vehicle, as well as some info regarding the anchoring mechanisms for the rocket when it is hoisted.

Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:

However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site. Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future. Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket. The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market. If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program. So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
1. Re:False Hopes. by Nyeerrmm · 2010-02-23 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This can't be said enough. Falcon 9 Flight 1 is in no way a single point failure for the administration's budget proposal. Whether its a success or failure it demonstrates why the new plan is in fact the right way to go.
  First, SpaceX has judged that at this point its cheaper to fly the rocket than to suffer from the 'failure is not an option' mentality. Yes, an explosion looks bad, but quite frankly, after a certain point its cheaper to just launch the thing than to waste engineer hours trying to find more failure modes. Thats why you try them out first without people or expensive payloads on board -- the fact that the first shuttle launched was manned showed an incredible amount of hubris as far as I'm concerned. This method of testing makes things cheaper and better in the long run.
  Second, even if SpaceX were to completely fall apart (not that they will,) they are not the only hope for US spaceflight, despite what some opponents of the new plan claim. Under the COTS program, Orbital Sciences is also preparing vehicles for ISS resupply. With CCDev, which will be followed with far more money under the new budget, old and new companies, from Boeing and the LM/Boeing hybrid ULA, to Blue Origin and Bigelow will be developing vehicles for manned flight. Falcon 9, Atlas V and Delta IV are all being prepped for use as manned launchers, and Dragon, Dream Chaser, and a cut-down version of Orion are being prepped as manned orbital vehicles. If one doesn't work, it just means more business for the other two.
  The whole point of the new proposed way of doing human spaceflight is to create redundancy and encourage efficiency. Don't let those who are afraid of change spread the FUD that is sure to arise from this flight, no matter what happens.
2. Re:False Hopes. by DerekLyons · 2010-02-23 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  If that indeed does prove to be the case, it would not be a slip or a launch date failure, it would be part of the overall Falcon 9 launch plan.
  That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert. "We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".
  
  Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:
  
  However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
  ...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site.
  A bit sensationalist for the overall program, less so for SpaceX and the Falcon 9. SpaceX doesn't have unlimited funding or unqualified political support. A failure could indeed have significant repercussions, a string of failures (as the Falcon I had) could spell the end of SpaceX's NASA contract of not of SpaceX itself.
3. Re:False Hopes. by FleaPlus · 2010-02-23 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  ...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site. Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future. Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket. The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market. If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program. So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.
  I totally agree. I'm a huge fan of SpaceX and have a lot of hope for them, but even if they suddenly disappeared into the ubiquitous ether the new NASA plan would still be going strong. As you mentioned, there's quite a few other companies getting fixed-price milestone-based funding from NASA to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft for crew. A quick summary:
  Launch vehicles:
  * SpaceX Falcon 9 (vehicle mentioned in summary): medium development risk, low-cost
  * Lockheed/ULA Atlas V: low-risk (development risk, that is), high cost, but still drastically lower cost than Space Shuttle or Constellation (has been operating for a number of years now, with all 20 launches so far successful)
  * Boeing/ULA Delta IV Heavy: low-risk, high cost (could potentially lift Orion spacecraft)
  * Orbital Taurus II: medium-risk, medium-cost, although probably better suited for cargo than crew
  Spacecraft (potentially launched on a variety of different launch vehicles):
  * SpaceX Dragon: capsule is pretty much ready, with a number of test articles, but the development "long pole" is a to-be-developed launch escape system
  * Boeing/Bigelow capsule: sometimes termed the "Orion Lite", Bigelow's also interested in this as a way to get to his private space station modules
  * Blue Origin: composite capsule, also designing a novel push-based (instead of the traditional tractor-based) escape system adaptable to other capsules
  * Sierra Nevada/SpaceDev Dream Chaser: more novel design, using a lifting-body based on the well-tested HL-20; this sort of design provides a gentler reentry from LEO (and potentially upgrades well to lunar/Lagrangian return); the company has already spent at least $10M of its own funds developing the design and building test articles
  * Orbital Cygnus: optimized for cargo deliveries to ISS, but can potentially be extended to crew
  It's also worth noting that Blue Origin, ULA, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are all being funded on CCDev contracts (in addition to a certain amount of private funding, which they're all required to have). With these contracts, they only get the full payment if they meet all of their pre-determined milestones (building test articles, performing tests, etc.) by September of 2010. IMHO, this September is when we'll get a better idea of which companies will be competing for crew/cargo delivery in the future, and
4. Re:False Hopes. by zerospeaks · 2010-02-23 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Furthermore, I do feel it necessary to point out that this:
  
  However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9.
  
  ...is a friggin' sensationalist claim that has no place in science reporting, either on a primary site or on a news aggregation site. Should the first Falcon 9 fail, they will learn from it and launch better designs in the future. Orbital still is working on its Taurus rocket. The EELV program (Atlas and Delta) are still pushing strong in the commercial market. If the first Falcon 9 flight fails, it will not be the end all be all of either Obama's current NASA vision, nor America's role in the space program. So please, keep the hyperbole out of the damned summaries guys.
  I would like to add an addendum to that. If the Falcon 9 blows up it will not slow the company down at all. These are launches that are paid for. The company is not risking it's own money. This is part of the Demo contract, and several launches have already been paid for and planned.
  
  --
  http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
5. Re:False Hopes. by Nyeerrmm · 2010-02-23 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's still sensationalist even for SpaceX alone. Musk is still funding SpaceX largely from himself and private investors; the COTS money was supposedly helpful but not absolutely necessary. He has said that they can afford four F9 failures before a successful flight, and since its still largely privately funded development, the political risks are minimized -- congress can only cancel COTS, not Falcon 9 development.
  Musk understands that at a certain point its cheaper to risk blowing up a rocket with a dummy payload than it is to spin your engineer's wheels trying to find more flaws. The biggest risk in a failed first launch, by far, is a (misplaced) swing in public opinion away from the FY2011 NASA budget proposal -- one that would largely be based on FUD.
6. Re:False Hopes. by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-23 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  That's pretty Orwellian, or like something out of Dilbert. "We're planning on a launch potentially as early as March or April, but if plans change and launch date slips it won't really be a slip because we'll be right on schedule according to the revised schedule".
  I work in the rocket launch industry. I have supported launch operations. A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY."
  
  SpaceX has not claimed the former. Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010." They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010. We should launch sometime within that period."
  
  That is a completely different matter altogether. The point of my posting was not to make excuses for Spacex, but to inform people that, currently, they have a launch window, NOT a launch date.
  
  That's pretty Orwellian
  To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation. It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
7. Re:False Hopes. by DerekLyons · 2010-02-23 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I work in the rocket launch industry. I have supported launch operations. A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY."
  Something precisely nobody has debated.
  
  SpaceX has not claimed the former. Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010." They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010. We should launch sometime within that period."
  Which means we won't know if they slip or not - no matter what they can claim to be on schedule and adhering to their plan. It doesn't mean they aren't slipping.
  
  That's pretty Orwellian
  To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation. It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.
  Actually, it has a broad range of meaning and connotations - to wit: "It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past".
8. Re:False Hopes. by DragonWriter · 2010-02-23 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  This can't be said enough. Falcon 9 Flight 1 is in no way a single point failure for the administration's budget proposal.
  
  Well, it rationally shouldn't be, but, politics being politics, if enough people believe it is, and then it does fail, it will be, whether or not there is any sense to it.
  Which may be part of the motivation for it being painted as such.
9. Re:False Hopes. by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-02-24 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  "It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past".
  Okay, so please explain to me which of these attitudes is being displayed by a company that has negotiated a launch window and has been unable to commit to a particular launch date precisely because they are uncertain of what technical hurdles remain to be overcome. I could, maybe, see that fitting into the definition of propaganda:
  
  the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
  (courtesy of Merriam Webster)
  
  So, if we assume that Musk, and SpaceX in general, is making statements like those I quoted above because there is an intention to help the company, sure, I guess that fits an attitude of propaganda. Of course, you could equally, and validly, make an assumption that both Musk, and SpaceX's respective engineers, are aware of what sensationalist sharks make up various reporting agencies and, thus, simply want to take preemptive steps to keep their company from being destroyed (or at least damaged) by extraordinarily broad claims.
  
  However, we should probably take into account the entire description of Orwellian that you posted which included this:
  
  It connotes an attitude and a policy of control
  Emphasis mine. What I fail to see is how SpaceX, being blatantly honest about where they are in the launch planning and operations stage, is, in any way, trying to implement some policy of control. I suppose you could stretch and say that they are mincing words to control the thoughts and minds and hearts of the public at large, but I fail to see any evidence of that.
  
  When it comes to planning a launch operation, the first step is to decide on the appropriate facility (The Cape, VAFB, Baikonur, etc etc). Once you have done this, you contact said facility and explain to them the target orbit you want to reach and when your best guess is to when you will be ready to do so. The facility (usually, each one is a bit unique) then works with you and your mission Conops team to determine a time period in which you can use their pads. That is to say, they give you some leeway because launches are prone to extraordinary circumstances that can affect a launch (weather, unexpected solar activity, if Bob in the structures group forgot to tighten a screw to the appropriate torque, etc.) Thus, the facility recognizes that you cannot say, with any reasonable certainty, "We will launch on date XX/XX/XXX," until a few weeks (at best) before that date. As such, you keep the launch period fluid, but restrained. That way, if you don't launch exactly when you thought you would, there isn't a breach of contract and you don't screw other companies trying to launch around the same time.
  
  Then, when both your company, and the launch facility, feel that both teams are prepared enough, and have enough information, you commit to some date with some certainty: "We are 70% sure we will launch on this date." At that point, if you miss that date, your launch has slipped. That doesn't denote a failure. That doesn't mean that there are, "tough times ahead," for a company to get, "back on track," despite the recurrence of such headlines being posted by various space reporting agencies. All it means is that something unexpected popped up, or something went unaccounted for and needs to be fixed. So you slip the launch date a bit further into your given launch period, and you try to get things ready by the new date. However, if you fail to do so, and you miss your launch period altogether, then problems do occur. Budgets run over. Contracts need to be renegotiated. And, since most launches preplan their launch period by at least a year, it means that you may not be able to even try launching again for another year. This means to have to refuel tanks, replace batteries, and so on. It i
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Theme music by RevWaldo · 2010-02-23 05:26 · Score: 1

We will be fine (we will be fine)
Falcon 9* (Falcon 9)
Even though NASA say
"Way out of line" (out of line)
We will be fine (we will be fine)
Falcon 9 (Falcon 9)
Even though NASA say
"Way out of line" (out of line)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3130681292715811054&hl=en#

You're welcome, NASA TV!

*post would make way more sense if del tags were allowed. Harumph!

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Cheap, Reliable, Right Now: Pick Any Two by cmholm · 2010-02-23 05:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Delta and Atlas are reliable because the time/money have been put into anal retentive engineering. The 1950's/60's customer was in enough of a hurry that they were willing to push the schedule with money and man hours. They also realized that pushing the schedule on developing flaming tubes of fuel was a recipe for BOOM!, and gritted their teeth through the mistakes.
Hopefully, SpaceX has learned enough from Falcon 1 that they can minimize the boom factor on Falcon 9, but given the size of their engineering staff (CAD/CAM or no), I wouldn't count on it.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
1. Re:Cheap, Reliable, Right Now: Pick Any Two by Criton · 2010-02-23 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Atlas and Delta are also being funded for commercial crew transport. Dream Chaser is being developed by SNC to ride Atlas V and Boeing is making a capsule very similar to Orion for the Delta IV.
2. Re:Cheap, Reliable, Right Now: Pick Any Two by Idiomatick · 2010-02-23 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Like how cars had to pick between cheap, fast and reliable since their inception? Oh wait, they got cheaper, faster and more reliable.
  
  Who is to say the same won't happen in space travel? Really if you look at it space travel is way way more expensive than it could be. And reliability increases with experience. In fact one of the falcon 9's main feature for reliability is using the same Merlin rocket a bunch of times. Guess what, that will reduce cost as well, win win.
What's really at stake by Baldrson · 2010-02-23 05:46 · Score: 1

If the Federal government makes a strategic decision based on the outcome of one rocket launch, the only thing it demonstrates is that the Federal government should be cancelled.

--
Seastead this.
To clear up confusion... by zerospeaks · 2010-02-23 06:51 · Score: 0

The Falcon 9 launch should be a complete success. It is built on the same tech as the Falcon 1. The Falcon 1 of course is the "staging area" to test the design and iron out kinks before the Falcon 9 launches. Well, they have done that. Now to clear up misunderstandings. The Falcon 9 and dragon from day one has been built to exceed human ratings. Everything about it from top to bottom is rated to carry people. Only one thing left to do. Built an escape system. They have already started designing and plan to be done with it in 2 years. Oh and... get a couple of successful launches. Should be one heck of a show.

--
http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
Miscalculation of Scale by camperdave · 2010-02-23 08:02 · Score: 1

I thought the summary was saying that the Constellation program had been canceled in Dorothy's little dog. Which makes sense to me; I never saw how a heavy-lift rocket could possibly fit inside a little terrier.

Neither did the Vl'hurgs:

For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across---which happened to be Earth---where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 31.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
F9 and Dragon also are to be reusable. by Criton · 2010-02-23 08:33 · Score: 1

This is not just a new ELV but actually a new TSTO RLV as the system will be mostly reusable.
Re:Frosty piss by ooshna · 2010-02-23 09:05 · Score: 1

Falcon 9 Prepares for High Steaks Lunch!
Fixed that for ya. Mmmmm, high steaks
Fixed that for you
Commercial suborbital science payloads by FleaPlus · 2010-02-23 09:28 · Score: 1

Reader FleaPlus contributes related news about NASA's proposed funding for scientific payloads on commercial space flights, which would be a huge boon to researchers.
Well, to be more precise, it's actually the commercial suborbital flights. For the curious, here's the text of my submission the summary is referring to:

Suborbital Science Gets Boost From NASA
This past week NASA announced that it would provide $15M/year for 5 years (pending Congressional approval) for launching science payloads on commercial suborbital spacecraft, which provide a more cost-effective and productive way to perform many types of research. The announcement was made at the first Next-Generation Suborbital Researchers Conference, where a few hundred scientists and rocket builders gathered to get a better understanding of each others' needs and capabilities. In addition to space tourism flights, several companies, like John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace, Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, Masten Space Systems, XCOR, and Virgin Galactic, are competing for the lucrative scientific market to fly payloads for fields like microgravity biology/chemistry, atmospheric science, astrophysics, and space technology tests.
Spectrum Holobyte?! by BigSes · 2010-02-23 11:16 · Score: 1

I glanced at this, and thought "Damn, they're upto Falcon 9.0 already!", then I realized that the article isn't about the high stakes launch of a new game at all. Time for me to go home and take a nap!
No pressure by amightywind · 2010-02-23 13:43 · Score: 1

No pressure SpaceX. Obama gutted Constellation and Ares after a successful flight and is showering you with funding you do not merit. America will not be satisfied if you shower the Atlantic with debris. I predict a 75% chance of failure and reinstatement of Constellation by congress. Another bad decision by BHO.

--
an ill wind that blows no good