Slashdot Mirror
Falcon 9 Prepares For High Stakes Launch
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.