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.

33 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Falcon Punch by psergiu · · 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 Geoffrey.landis · · 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
    2. Re:Falcon Punch by Whalou · · 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...
  2. Re:Cape. Which Cape? by mcgrew · · 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.

  3. I don't get it... by geegel · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 geegel · · 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...
    4. Re:I don't get it... by confused+one · · 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.

  4. Ha ha! by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Funny

    What about Falcon 7?

  5. dilemma by jbeaupre · · 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 ZankerH · · 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.

    2. Re:dilemma by Kjella · · 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
    3. Re:dilemma by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too.

    4. Re:dilemma by BJ_Covert_Action · · 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.

    5. Re:dilemma by element-o.p. · · 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?
  6. How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:How is this more private than before? by ZankerH · · 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.

    4. Re:How is this more private than before? by vlm · · 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
    5. Re:How is this more private than before? by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    6. Re:How is this more private than before? by compro01 · · 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
    7. Re:How is this more private than before? by Powys · · 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

  7. Latin phrases don't make you sound smart by fandingo · · 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 Chris+Burke · · 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
  8. So if I understand this... by FlyByPC · · 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 confused+one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm... It's an Air Force facility located adjacent to the NASA facility.

  9. Re:Cape. Which Cape? by mcd7756 · · 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
  10. False Hopes. by BJ_Covert_Action · · 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.

    1. Re:False Hopes. by Nyeerrmm · · 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 · · 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".

  11. Cheap, Reliable, Right Now: Pick Any Two by cmholm · · 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.