Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX's Falcon 9 Appears As UFO In Australia
RobHart writes "ABC (the Australian Broadcasting Commission) has reported extensively on a bright spiraling light that was seen in Eastern Australia just before dawn. It has just broadcast a report from an Australian astronomer who has suggested that the light was probably the successful Falcon 9 launch, which would have been over Australia at that time on its launch trajectory."
Update: 06/05 22:20 GMT by T : Setting aside the literal exhaust fumes, reader FleaPlus says, It's "interesting to look at the reactions from those in Congress who control the purse-strings for NASA (one of SpaceX's biggest customers). The successful launch was congratulated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL and former astronaut) and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), both praised and criticized by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) due to the successful launch being a year later than previously predicted, and blasted by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) for merely replicating what 'NASA accomplished in 1964,' who added that the company's success 'must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight program.'"
FWIW, I have a substantial blog post with details, including a rant against the ABC story. :) This was definitely the Falcon 9 second stage, despite the UFO guy's protestations: the timing, position, and appearance all match.
*** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
Everyone who watched knows the Falcon 9 was launched in the upwards direction, not the downwards direction needed to reach Australia.
Also, Australian UFOs spiral in the opposite direction to The Vistors who arrive in the northern hemisphere.
Presumably "EST" refers to Australian east coast time and not American EDT given it was 2:45pm EDT when the launch occurred.
No, that was boost time.
It will be falling for the next year or so, until the orbit finally decays.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think it's oddly ironic and evidence of how off base Republicans are with science that they can decry this as being unimpressive. Normally they'd be touting this as evidence that NASA needs to be canceled so that the private sector can do it without federal funds.
Because ultimately this is a big deal, private businesses haven't been able to do this sort of thing nor really was the US government able to without a massive amount of money.
Gotta love the quotes from the wonderfully progressive Republican party folks including this gem from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): "[Shelby congratulated SpaceX on what] 'NASA accomplished in 1964,' [and] added that the company's success 'must not be confused with progress for our nation's human spaceflight."
That's really rich seeing that NASA can't even do what SpaceX has done. Welcome back to 1964, maybe, we SpaceX is now years ahead of the now hopefully defunct Aries I program, despite NASA's extensive experience, which SpaceX is benefiting from. Even more ironic that a Republican senator is unhappy that private enterprise is doing something that a government agency is apparently unable to do. Oh how the Republican party has fallen. They're now caught by their own positions. I mean are they for private enterprise and the free market or not?
Oz has every right to be worried when pieces of spacecraft come flying over them.
Eventually we will put all the pieces together and have our own space program.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Keith's note: This is hilarious. Ares 1-X was a suborbital mission with a fake second stage, a first stage motor different than the final one, and used borrowed avionics. Falcon 9 flew an operational vehicle first time out of the hanagr and put a payload into orbit at a small fraction of the cost that an Ares would require. Falcon 9 has a better chance of closing the gap than Ares 1 will. Apparently the good senator (her staff that is) are utterly unaware of the fact that Ares 1 will not achieve any of its milestones until after Falcon 9 has already done so. Yet we never hear anything from her about that, do we?
As for Sen Shelby's comments, It would seem that SpaceX is better equipped to do what "NASA accomplished in 1964" than the NASA of 2010 can accomplish - and do so faster - and more cheaply. Ares 1 would cost much more and be ready later than Falcon 9.
There is always a final burn after 1/2 orbit to circularize the orbit. Which is probably what the OP was babbling about. There was no intention to put the Falcon 9 into an escape orbit.
On the other hand, Falcon 9 is capable of putting a payload into GEO. It requires more deltaV to achieve a circular orbit at GEO than it does to reach escape speed (if the fuel needed to circularize the orbit at GEO were spent during the initial boost, Falcon 9 would be about 150 m/s shy of a Mars transfer orbit.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
SpaceX started years before the Aries program, used 30 year old technology
I guess you forgot that the Constellation system was supposed to take us back to Luna and then on to Mars and not just the ISS which is the primary target of the Falcon 9 system.
You are misinformed. The Ares I rocket is just a LEO launcher. It is an extended space shuttle solid rocket booster with an upper stage powered by a single Saturn V motor. The technology in it dates to the mid-1970s or even earlier.
The Ares V is a heavy-lift booster that outclasses anything built. Or it would if they'd actually try building one. It is a STS External Tank with five motors off the Delta IV under it and two STS SRBs attached to it. The upper stage is powered by the same Saturn V derivative motor used on the Ares I.
Both programs started development circa 2005 (SpaceX was only founded in 2002). SpaceX has delivered a working launch vehicle. NASA has launched what was literally a slightly modified SRB out of the Space Shuttle inventory as the Ares I-X, and is unlikely to launch the real thing until 2017. The Ares V hasn't even begun to leave the drawing board.
SpaceX has a working satellite launcher that can be made man-rated. The Constellation program has nothing.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Normally I'm all for Republican-bashing, but in this case I think it goes to something more primal than Republican luddism.
Whether a congressman approves or disapproves of Space-X has nothing to do with his/her party, beliefs, or political position, and everything to do with, "Do I have a NASA manned spaceflight center in my district?"
Space-X has gotten jeers from Florida, Alabama, and Texas; cheers from just about everywhere else. At least Florida and Texas have a role to play in a privatized spaceflight arena. Alabama, on the other hand, is watching the Marshall Space Flight Center evaporate like a puddle of liquid oxygen, and is going to fight like hell to keep ol' Werner von Braun's playground alive.