Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Eyeing June 4 Window For Falcon 9 Launch
PeterBrett writes "SpaceX has finally announced the window for its first much-awaited Falcon 9 launch from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral. Subject to good weather, the company plans to launch either on Friday, June 4, or Saturday, June 5, with the window opening at 12:00 UTC on each day. As usual, SpaceX will be broadcasting the launch live from its website."
According to SpaceX, the launch windows will open at 11:00 EDT (10 CDT for those of us in NOLA), which is 1500 UTC.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yes, the Brits see a corporation as a collection of individuals, and Americans see it as a wholly new entity. Insert snarky joke about recent US Supreme Court decisions here....
There was no ship called Odyssey in 2001. That's the name of the movie. The ship was Discovery.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Parent is a complete idiot. Elon no longer has any involvement in PayPal. SpaceX's technology is completely covered by ITAR; I should know, because I considered applying for a job there and was told that, as a non-US citizen, I shouldn't even bother. The Falcon 9 is very much an American rocket built by Americans. There are indeed "no foreign nationals, no outsourced jobs."
It's unusual to hear someone praising ITAR. ITAR is the reason that non-US organisations generally don't use US launchers for their payloads -- they can't work closely with the launch provider, particularly with respect to the sort of detailed technical information that's often very important in ensuring payload-launcher compatibility. People I've spoken to in the space industry while at conferences in the US frequently bemoan the fact that ITAR heavily restricts their hiring practices, meaning that they often miss out on being able to employ top people.
ITAR is what's holding the US space programme back.
Pirate Party UK
The journey to the moon happened in a rocket built jointly by Boeing, Douglas, and North American, in a spacecraft built by Boeing, and the landing on the moon happened in a spacecraft built by Grumman. Even those spacesuits with the NASA patches were manufactured by International Latex Corp.
If NASA is paying the bills for a Mars mission and providing the Astronauts, everything will still have NASA patches on it, regardless of who builds the rocket.
If you compare the Falcon 9 to other rockets you can't fail to see that this thing is quire cleverly designed in a very straight way.
It has only two stages and uses Kerosine/LOX in both stages. Kerosine is much denser than LH and makes for smaller tanks and easier handling. Both stages are essentially identical, with the second stage much shorter but using the same diametre tanks and domes and the same tools for fabrication. Both stages use the very same engines, too. 9 on the first stage, one in the second stage. This allows them to be build assembly-line style, much cheaper than to build several differently sized engines in small numbers.
The Falcon 9 Heavy will add to this two boosters consisting of just two first stages strapped to the center one. This thing will still use the same tools and the same tanks and domes and engines (28 of them) for all stages and for the boosters. Compare this to other similar launchers which often use two (or even three) different engines and tanks for their stages plus solid boosters, all expensively build in small numbers.
Note, for reference, that the Falcon 9 can put 4500+ kg into GEO, and the Falcon 9 Heavy can put 19500 kg into GEO.
Note further that the total deltaV required to put something into GEO (the insertion into the transfer orbit, plus the final burn to circularize the orbit) is slightly greater than escape speed.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Certainly not true. ITAR is export controlled only.
Which, if you take the time to read the ITAR documentation, you would know also includes any and all spacecraft systems. I used to help on a small, local satellite project at the university where I went to school. We designed and built 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm cubesats that were primarily constructed from commercial off the shelf components. Even our cubesat systems were subject to ITAR control and all of our projects, developed entirely for civilian, educational purposes, were inspected by national security officials regularly to ensure we met ITAR compliance. I guarantee you that Falcon 9, and all of SpaceX's systems are also ITAR restricted and, probably, even more heavily scrutinized. Furthermore, SpaceX does all of its development in-house which is precisely why they have managed to keep their production costs so low. They don't rely on subcontractors (and thus, outsourcing). So your original point is moot. ITAR applies to every space system developed within American borders. Circumventing such heavy restrictions costs millions of dollars in legal wrangling and an indescribably painful court battle (that will probably earn you a lot of enemies in the government).
In short, you, sir, are a terribly misinformed fool.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
It's unusual to hear someone praising ITAR. ITAR is the reason that non-US organisations generally don't use US launchers for their payloads -- they can't work closely with the launch provider, particularly with respect to the sort of detailed technical information that's often very important in ensuring payload-launcher compatibility. People I've spoken to in the space industry while at conferences in the US frequently bemoan the fact that ITAR heavily restricts their hiring practices, meaning that they often miss out on being able to employ top people. ITAR is what's holding the US space programme back.
Completely agreed. It's particularly silly when one notes that the US would have almost certainly lost the 1960s space race if it weren't for Von Braun and his team of rocket engineers from Germay, and the Canadian and British engineers from Avro.
It also makes it considerably more difficult when a launch provider like SpaceX wants to sell launch services, which is a large part of why Russian and European launch providers are currently creaming US launch providers on the international market. For example, the following difficulty occurred when SpaceX's Falcon 1 was launching a Malaysian satellite:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=13078
Technicians discovered the satellite and the Falcon 1 upper stage rocket share a nearly identical vibrational mode, which could set up a damaging resonance. SpaceX is bound by ITAR restrictions from assisting with any technical problems on the foreign-owned payload, so the company delayed the launch to add some vibration isolation equipment between the rocket's upper stage and the payload adapter.
"The easiest thing would actually be to make some adjustment to the satellite . . . but that's not allowed," Musk says.