SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon Make It To Orbit

jnaujok writes "This morning the Falcon 9 rocket carrying the Dragon capsule lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 10:43 Eastern time, after an earlier launch had been scrubbed because of a bad telemetry feed. A little over 9 minutes later, the Dragon capsule separated from the second stage into its intended orbit. Part of the COTS (Commercial access To Space) program, this is the first test of the Dragon capsule by SpaceX to prove it can be used to ferry supplies to the ISS. The Dragon capsule will make two or three orbits before returning to Earth about four hours after launch."

Comments

Fucking sweet!

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

It's about time the private sector took to the stars.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[stoolpigeon]

It was a pretty day for it. Cool - clear sky.

Looked very normal, which was very encouraging. I look forward to seeing more of them.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I always wanted businesses to track my movements by satellite to target ads to me...

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know they already do something kinda like that, right? They just use the internet for that.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time the private sector took to the stars.

For a second I thought I was reading the George Lucas zombie Hollywood story...

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Infiniti2000]

There didn't seem to be anywhere near as much visible smoke (exhaust) from the SpaceX Falcon 9 as there normally is from shuttles.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Ihmhi]

Weyland-Yutani - Building Better Worlds

Re:Fucking sweet!

[SETIGuy]

The smoke is primarily from the SRBs. The shuttle main engines, fueled by hydrogen and oxygen don't make smoke, they make water vapor, which is invisible unless it condenses. The SRBs are ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, and iron oxide fueled. The combustion products include aluminum oxide, iron oxide, aluminum chloride, aluminum nitride, water vapor, and nitrogen gas. The first four of those are solid up temperatures to well above the boiling point of water, so they condense out as soon as they get out of the motor. The output of a solid rocket motor is like a very hot sandblasting. Even at ranges where the temperatures are survivable, the aluminum oxide blast would rip your flesh off very quickly. Which make it a pain when you need to design something that needs to survive behind the ignition of a third stage PAM at close range.

The Falcon 9 uses what is essentially expensive kerosene (RP-1) and oxygen, so it will make some smoke due to incomplete combustion. Significantly more than a pure hydrogen-oxygen rocket will make.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[John Hasler]

The Falcon uses liquid fuel. The Shuttle SRBs are solid fuel rockets using APCP. The aluminum in the APCP produces lots of white smoke.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

A liquid fuel rocket is the only thing that people have any business riding on, dagburnit

Re:Fucking sweet!

[CodeBuster]

A liquid fueled rocket can easily be throttled so as to vary the rate and amount of acceleration, but this is very difficult to achieve in a solid rocket motor. If what you are launching can survive 20+ gforce, like an object made out of silicon and metal, then it's not a big deal. Humans, on the other hand, are squishy bags of water that don't handle g forces nearly as well which means liquid fuel, as the parent said, is really the only way to go.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[camperdave]

Actually, they have throttleable solids (they are actually hybrids). Essentially they have a solid fuel and a liquid or gaseous oxidizer. They spray the oxidizer on the solid fuel and it reacts. Stop pumping in the oxidizer and the reaction stops.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[CodeBuster]

I didn't say that throttling solids was impossible, but compared to the mature and well understood liquid fuel technology it doesn't offer any serious advantages in this category. Solid fuel rockets have generally been selected where high specific impulse and long term storage capability, their two biggest strengths, were desirable (i.e. missiles with warheads and the like). The Space Shuttle was unusual in the history of launch vehicles in that it was a hybrid of both liquid and solid fuel technologies. In space applications the well-known, less complicated and above all reliable solutions tend to work out best. In fact, the Space Shuttle program is really the canonical example of a overly complex launch vehicle that tried to do too many different things in one package and ended up being, at best, a mixed bag: some great successes combined with huge cost overruns and some equally spectacular failures.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[ppanon]

On the plus side, while the specific impulse of RP-1/LOX is lower than that of LOX/LH, kerosene is nowhere near as corrosive as LH.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Teancum]

Just trying to play devil's advocate here, but one of the reasons why solid rockets are considered so superior to liquid fueled rockets is based upon the fact that generally there are fewer if any moving parts that can suffer from mechanical failure, while a liquid rocket requires some massive pumps to keep feeding the fuel into the combustion chamber... pumps which can and do suffer failures due to the environment of where they are most efficiently placed in order to function. As a general rule it is true that the more moving parts you have in a mechanical system, the more prone that it will be to mechanical failure as one or more of the parts jam up or wear out. Turbo pump failures do happen on liquid fueled rockets and can lead to catastrophic failure of the rocket as a whole too. Good engineering can mitigate some of that issue, but not all of it.

This as told to me by an ATK employee who worked on the Ares I program (roughly paraphrasing).

I'll also admit that even SpaceX has had problems with turbopump failures including at least one spectacular failure on one of the Falcon 1 launches. The source of that was galvanic corrosion which should have been caught during a design review, but it is an example of the kind of problems facing liquid engines.

Still, I don't buy that argument myself as a major reason for a preference to solid rockets. The best example I can give is more empirical: Every manned space launcher in the history of mankind with the exception of the Shuttle program, as made by any country including those currently being proposed, have all used liquid fueled rockets for propulsion. The Constellation program was therefore a rare exception even in the realm of human spaceflight and the use of solid rockets in that perspective should have been viewed as a highly experimental and untried proposition. I don't know if ATK was able to solve the scaling issues with even putting one more segment on top of the SRB to make the Ares I work, and they certainly had to come up with some rather ingenious solutions to some of those issues including making strong shock absorbers to keep the teeth in the astronauts as the vehicle was launched.

From what I understand on even the Shuttle system, once the SRBs separate the astronauts notice a huge drop in noise and vibrations, where the SSMEs provide a very smooth and pleasant ride into orbit. There are also many other abort modes available to the Shuttle once the SRBs separate too, where even a failure of a turbo pump isn't necessarily a fatal experience.

Re:Fucking sweet!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'll take a turbopump failure over a particularly nasty solid rocket failure.

Violent combustion forces inside can rip chunks of material from the propellant mass and jam it down into the nozzel. If the chunk is small, it just increases the chamber pressure a bit. Or maybe lowers is. If the chunk is big, the whole damn thing stops up and bursts within milliseconds.

This is pretty big.

[eobanb]

This is pretty amazing, although as I write this it remains to be seen if the capsule re-enters correctly. If so, SpaceX will probably combine its next two missions into one. The first upcoming mission is to perform an ISS flyby, followed by a docking. If all goes well with today's mission (and I expect it will!) then the mission in spring 2011 will be an unmanned resupply mission to the ISS. It's worth noting, though, that the Falcon 9 / Dragon platform is probably not going to be the one taking us to the moon or elsewhere outside of Earth orbit; it was designed to be cheap and fast to develop, which is exactly why SpaceX was able to fly this mission whilst Orion got cancelled. It would take some really heavy modification to even do a lunar flyby. For now, though, it seems like exactly what we need. If these flights prove to be reliable and inexpensive, then the supply and personnel lines to the ISS are secured, and it'll probably pave the way for Bigelow's space station to launch in a couple years.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Shivetya]

What impresses me most about their rocket is that multiple restarts are allowed for the second stage, allowing the possibility of correcting errors or changing mission orbits slightly. Truly an impressive effort considering they designed the engines themselves.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Monkeedude1212]

This excites me. At first I was all like "Wait, so whats going on. Who's doing this? US? Europe? Japan? Whos launching stuff now? But then a bit of further reading of the summary, the mention of COTS, put it into perspective. I had not heard of SpaceX before now. The only commercial endeavours into space I had previously heard of were Virgin with its probable Touristy trips up into LEO for a bit, with possible plans to do very expensive trips to the ISS in the future.

Seeing more companies take up the struggle that is space flight makes me glad, for a number of reasons. For all the reasons capitalism is fraught with problems, its nice if and when competition DOES happen, it'd be nice to know that in maybe 10 years, while space station trips would probably be too expensive, its possible that just getting in orbit might be something one might afford in their lifetime. You know, how right now getting into space is kind of like being a rock star, you have to be severely lucky. Right now, owning a brand new corvette is difficult but if thats what you really want its not impossible for someone with a regular paying job to save up for one. That's what I'd like to see, trips to space, while obviously are always going to be relatively expensive, I want to know that those people who dream of being up there not only have the possibility to - but there will also be jobs related to that field.

It used to be that if you wanted to work on space technology (in North America), you had to work at NASA. Well it seems I could now apply at a few different companies to work on that kind of stuff. And that's exciting. More jobs in the field means more research, more activity, more growth. And Space exploration is one field that is exciting for Growth. I mean it kind of sucks when NASA's budget gets cut, but if Taxpayer money can go towards other things while Corporate America foots the bill for Space travel, well I have no problems with that.

So yes. This is good news. Obviously its not quite at the stages that I describe, but we're getting there. Baby steps.

As a side note, I know some people don't see the idea in space travel, that we should be trying to fix this planet before going and ruining another one. My thoughts on that are like cleaning viruses off of a Hard Drive. It's a lot easier when I'm not on it. If saving Earth requires a massive reduction in human population, then either a nomadic or far away colony is an optimal solution.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Anonymous Coward]

> supply and personnel lines to the ISS are secured

You do know that other nations have been supplying the ISS for a long time now? This is about the US being able to match their capabilities, not about "securing supply to the ISS".

Re:This is pretty big.

[joh]

> supply and personnel lines to the ISS are secured

You do know that other nations have been supplying the ISS for a long time now? This is about the US being able to match their capabilities, not about "securing supply to the ISS".

Another thing is that there is *no* serious downmass capacity without the Shuttle. Soyuz can only return very little cargo and ATV just burns up in the atmosphere. Dragon can return tons. This is important for returning experiments and also defective equipment (to analyse why it actually failed).

Anyway, SpaceX is one of the very few good news with spaceflight lately.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Nyeerrmm]

I think the most exciting thing is using Dragon as part of a beyond-LEO mission, but not necessarily sending it there. The idea of what Buzz calls 'real spaceships' -- large vehicles assembled on orbit or launched on large non-man-rated vehicles that can be refueled on orbit. Dragon et. al. would be the taxis to get you to LEO.

The fuel costs to this approach would be higher -- Apollo didn't have to burn its engines to get back into Earth orbit, it dropped all its energy during its direct re-entry. However, a large, comfortable refuel-able lunar ferry that astronauts reach in a cheap capsule like Dragon could be much cheaper and more sustainable in the long run, particularly if concepts like orbiting fuel depots get off the ground. Fuel could be launched separately and cheaply by those crazy space gun concepts that subject the payload to 100s of Gs.

While it all sounds a little farfetched, it seems more likely to happen than getting congress to fund an Apollo class effort. This is how we go other places to stay.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Anonymous Coward]

Orion isn't cancelled. Re-named and changed maybe, but not out right cancelled.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Re:This is pretty big.

[Kjella]

It used to be that if you wanted to work on space technology (in North America), you had to work at NASA.

Or Boeing or Lockheed Martin or any of the other huge subcontractors NASA has had. It might have been a government contract and not a commercial one, but it's not like NASA has been the only place to work.

Re:This is pretty big.

[FleaPlus]

It used to be that if you wanted to work on space technology (in North America), you had to work at NASA. Well it seems I could now apply at a few different companies to work on that kind of stuff. And that's exciting. More jobs in the field means more research, more activity, more growth. And Space exploration is one field that is exciting for Growth.

On that note, it's worth mentioning that SpaceX is actively hiring. It's not just aerospace/electrical/materials engineering jobs they're recruiting for, either, but also IT staff, technical writers, embedded systems programmers, and so forth.

Clark Lindsay's (really awesome) site has a list of several other private space companies which are hiring.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Nyeerrmm]

I'm curious what the good and bad news is. While I will say that I am biased in thinking that Constellation was never going to work and we were better off canceling it to fund things that could work, I see a lot of good things happening:

- The elimination of the 'giggle factor' for commercial, fixed-cost space transportation in NASA's realm
- Development of multiple US based resupply vehicles
- Enthusiastic development of private manned capsules by Boeing/Bigelow, SpaceX, and SpaceDev/Sierra Nevada
- Opening of new spaceports across the US
- Diversification of NASA centers capable of interplanetary missions (Ames and Goddard encroaching on JPL territory)
- Sheer tenacity overcoming inexperience at JAXA
- India taking big steps in real exploration
- Abundance of new ideas of what could be done with a set of cheap space taxis
- Beginning to actually utilize the ISS as a national lab
- People looking at doing real technology development again at NASA
- Governmental and private support of a suborbital launch industry as an alternative to expensive sounding rockets
- Sufficient interest to make 'space tourism' not a joke

Yes, the politics surrounding the debate are disheartening, but things are moving in a direction that the politics will no longer hold our basic access to space hostage.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Kjella]

It's worth noting, though, that the Falcon 9 / Dragon platform is probably not going to be the one taking us to the moon or elsewhere outside of Earth orbit; it was designed to be cheap and fast to develop, which is exactly why SpaceX was able to fly this mission whilst Orion got cancelled. It would take some really heavy modification to even do a lunar flyby.

Why not? If it can reach GTO, it's 90% of the way to escape velocity and with another 10% on top of that again it can go pretty much anywhere. That's enough for the moon and if you have lots of time even Mars - I think the slowest and most fuel-efficient orbit takes two years. For a manned mission you need something a lot stronger, but then NASA doesn't have that either.

Re:This is pretty big.

[dpilot]

If you hadn't heard of SpaceX until this story, you probably haven't heard of Bigelow, either. (Bigelow is mentioned once higher up on this topic, but no details.)

There was once a module for the ISS called the TransHab - an inflatable living module. It has piles of space compared to what's in the ISS right now. For some reason that probably had to do with what gets built in what congressional districts, powerful parties took an extreme dislike to TransHab, to the point of writing NASA funding legislation that explicitly forbade any money for it. The alternative turned out to be a big tin can, almost as big. Though "inflatable" sounds scary, the assessments I heard suggested that it was actually safer than the rigid can. Of course later on the rigid can got killed too, we that now we can see the mission commander give us a tour of his broom closet.

Bigelow is a hotel company. They bought the TransHab (and the rights) and plan to put a hotel in Space. They already have either 1 or 2 unmanned test articles in orbit. I know that 1 is 1/3 scale, and I'm not sure if there is a second or if it's full-size. They have a business relationship with SpaceX for launch capacity.

Re:This is pretty big.

[camperdave]

This is important for returning experiments and also defective equipment (to analyse why it actually failed).

The AE-35 unit. It's always the AE-35 unit.

Re:This is pretty big.

[camperdave]

It's not just about velocity. You also have to be able to carry enough supplies to keep the crew alive. Also - and this is the kicker - you need to have big enough heat shields to come back down. See, lunar missions do not carry enough fuel to settle into an Earth orbit before re-entry. It's basically a nice three day drop from the moon into the Pacific. You need a massive heat shield to do that. Dragon doesn't have one massive enough.

Re:This is pretty big.

[khallow]

Why not? If it can reach GTO, it's 90% of the way to escape velocity and with another 10% on top of that again it can go pretty much anywhere. That's enough for the moon and if you have lots of time even Mars - I think the slowest and most fuel-efficient orbit takes two years. For a manned mission you need something a lot stronger, but then NASA doesn't have that either.

There's two problems with that, both coming from the Dragon vehicle. First, the Dragon vehicle isn't designed for long trips. Second, the near Earth environment is different from deep space. Due to the magnetic field of Earth, it experiences lower radiation than deep space. Also, thermally, it's warmer due to heating from the Earth than deep space at the same distance from the Sun. The Falcon 9 with it's alleged low price per kg should work out well for deep space missions with a bit of orbital assembly.

Re:This is pretty big.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Hey, thanks for the hobby space link. I've been compiling a major list of commercial space startups and one metric on that list is companies that are seeking employees. Until now I hadn't heard of either TGV or Tethers.

Re:This is pretty big.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Incidentally, on-orbit fuel depots is one of the fundamental technologies that Obama and Bolden's proposed NASA budget called for the development of. Say what you will about Obama, but I really think he got the space budget thing right, or, at least, righter than most politicians tend to.

Re:This is pretty big.

[FleaPlus]

Sure thing. The list might be a bit dated, though -- I'm not sure how active TGV currently is. I"m fairly certain all the other companies on the list are quite active, though.

Re:This is pretty big.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

If you're excited about competition in the commercial space industry, here are some other companies you might want to Google in your spare time:

Bigelow Aerospace
Orbital Sciences Corporation
Armadillo Aerospace
Masten Aerospace
Blue Origin
SpaceDev
ExcaliburAlmaz
Interorbital Systems
XCor
Scorpious


Ah hell, like usual, Wikipedia can do a better job than I can. In short, now is a very exciting time to be in the space industry. =)

Re:This is pretty big.

[FleaPlus]

It's not just about velocity. You also have to be able to carry enough supplies to keep the crew alive. Also - and this is the kicker - you need to have big enough heat shields to come back down. See, lunar missions do not carry enough fuel to settle into an Earth orbit before re-entry. It's basically a nice three day drop from the moon into the Pacific. You need a massive heat shield to do that. Dragon doesn't have one massive enough.

Actually, the Dragon's heat shield is pretty massively over-engineered, to the extent that it can survive reentry from both lunar and Martian return velocities:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/100716firststage/

The Dragon's heat shield will also be put to the test during re-entry. The capsule's blunt end is coated with phenolic impregnated carbon ablator, a resistant insulator used by NASA's Stardust mission that returned comet samples to Earth.

The ablator, called PICA-X for short, was tested inside an arc jet laboratory at NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif.

"It's actually the most powerful stuff known to man. Dragon is capable of re-entering from a lunar velocity, or even a Mars velocity with the heat shield that it has," Musk said.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Shadowlore]

Actually, it was designed with the intention of taking humans up. The big hurdle in humans is the vibration and "physical displacement of occupants" for launch to space. The engines were designed and built with that in mind, and Musk intends to strap the engines onto larger rockets configurations (Falcon X and Falcon X Heavy IIRC). Musk's goal is Mars and he asserts that the Falcon 9H could, if assembled and launched from LEO, take us there. Last I ran the numbers base don estimated lift tonnage, it could do with a multiple launch mission profile and be launched from Earth. A few years ago when I was running the numbers on an orbital "assembly" mission profile, it would certainly work just fine for taking us to Mars. And while it does take more to go to the Moon than Mars (you actually need a bigger rocket to go to the Moon), the Falcon 9 heavy could probably do the same for going to the Moon.

Re:This is pretty big.

[camperdave]

Okay... Did not know that. I stand corrected.

Re:This is pretty big.

[fifedrum]

we  will never reduce our population enough to satisfy people that say "saving Earth requires a massive reduction in the human population." It'll never happen.  Let alone by shipping humans off to some other planet.

First off, there will never be too few humans for those people to be happy. You could reduce the worldwide population to a few million, and those people would say that's too many.

Second off,  there's no way that we could ever ship enough people off planet to alleviate the pressure here at home. The remaining people will simply fill in the gaps left by the people leaving.

Can you imagine shipping tens and hundreds of millions off every year, and it having almost no impact on population growth here on Earth?

There would be mass rocket launches on a daily basis and you would only scratch the surface. Hell, even a 747 sized payload of people into orbit every hour of every day, and it would be an insignificant loss of population. Worse, it would be brain drain like never experienced before.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Teancum]

It's worth noting, though, that the Falcon 9 / Dragon platform is probably not going to be the one taking us to the moon or elsewhere outside of Earth orbit; it was designed to be cheap and fast to develop, which is exactly why SpaceX was able to fly this mission whilst Orion got cancelled. It would take some really heavy modification to even do a lunar flyby.

For now, though, it seems like exactly what we need. If these flights prove to be reliable and inexpensive, then the supply and personnel lines to the ISS are secured, and it'll probably pave the way for Bigelow's space station to launch in a couple years.

The big thing that Robert Bigelow is hoping for is that he can have a "second source" of transportation to his space stations. Reliance upon just one possible source of supply is always a bad thing. That is one of the reasons why Bigelow is working with Boeing on the CST-100.

As for the Orion, it is still technically under development and in fact there are other options being thrown around to get it flying, including throwing it on top of either an Atlas V or a Delta IV rocket. United Space Alliance has been working out options to be the prime contractor for getting the Orion flying with private or government funds. At the moment, I think the Orion capsule is the only thing getting continued funding in the future for the Constellation project. Ares I is dead as a project and the Ares V is now just a dream, but the Orion capsule is certainly still under development.

As for if the Dragon capsule is better or worse than the Orion, Elon Musk was ask that very question today at the press conference. I'll have to defer to Elon Musk on the technicalities, but he claims that the Dragon is going to have more capabilities than the Orion and perform a wider number of mission. While it is true that the Falcon 9 doesn't have the delta-v necessary to get the Moon and back, that is a criticism of the rocket and not the capsule. As an example, the heat shield of the Dragon capsule is designed to take the velocity of a free return trajectory from Mars and successfully re-enter the Earth's atmosphere without burning up. That is certainly a capability which the Orion capsule doesn't have. In that sense going to the Moon would be trivial in comparison and the Dragon could certainly do an Apollo-8 style circum-lunar orbit then return to the Earth, presuming that some future launcher of a Saturn V class could be put together to get the thing up there in the first place.

The "Dragon Lab" project is designed to keep a Dragon capsule in orbit, pressurized, for up to a full year. In theory it might even serve as a better emergency escape capsule for the ISS than the Soyuz, and in fact is part of its design goal too. As to if NASA will use it in that capacity is irrelevant. By comparison, the Space Shuttle can only stay in orbit for about a month before the systems start to fall apart and it would be incapable of returning back to the Earth. Some extra "precautions" could be taken by astronauts if a Shuttle docked to the ISS, but it still wouldn't last a year even with some very optimistic planning, at least being in a condition to conduct a landing.

I don't think the Dragon capsule is nearly as cheap & dirty as you are making it out to be here.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus they have nowhere to go. You'd be shipping them to an expensive death.

Re:This is pretty big.

[wronski]

Well, the USAF X-47B just returned from 270+ days in (constantly changing) orbit, doing god knows what. And it also has some downmass capability. From the space enthusiast point of view, I would call that good news too. Also, the X-43 is out of storage. For god knows what, but possibly to be fitted with a Merlin engine and flown underneath VG's White Knight II. Fun things are happening in space flight. They are just not happening (mainly) at NASA any more.

Re:This is pretty big.

[WindBourne]

You got that right.
But, we also need a tug. I would love to see NASA do X-Prizes or COTs for both fuel depot and tugs . Of course, it would require CONgress to agree to that. I suspect that would be the real issue. Sad. For .5 to 1 billion, I think that we could get 2 or more fuel depot AND tug designed by different companies. Imagine if SPaceX decided to enter it and created a fuel depot/tug using RP1/LOX. Much easier to design since RPI does not have the temp extreme required for H2.
Space could come up with 2 different tugs, one using Kestrel and the other Merlins.

Likewise, perhaps ULA or another company would win a contract/prize. Having the tugs/fuel depot would enable us to deal with all of the sat issues that we have. In addition, garbage is becoming an issue. So plenty of needs for a variety of tugs/fuel depot.

Re:This is pretty big.

[WindBourne]

And they can do it multiple times with the same heat shield.

Re:This is pretty big.

[FatLittleMonkey]

'real spaceships' [...] The fuel costs to this approach would be higher -- Apollo didn't have to burn its engines to get back into Earth orbit, it dropped all its energy during its direct re-entry

We're better at aero-braking into orbit now than we were during Apollo. And that would result in "real spaceships" that look a little more like SF spaceships. :)

Re:This is pretty big.

[Idiomatick]

SpaceX is the only one doing launches and not based on military contracting or ICBMs. They are also making progress at an insane rate. And doing this while profitable ... because the whole program costs less than a couple shuttle launches and I'm talking nothing->today.

Re:This is pretty big.

[Idiomatick]

I think most politicians treat NASA like a nice big juice pig. The only thing many care about is that things get done in their state.

Re:This is pretty big.

[stiggle]

Virgin is NOT doing LEO, or even anything orbital. They're heading to 110km and then heading back down again with all the publicity that Branson can manage (and he can manage a whole lot of publicity).

Re:This is pretty big.

[Teancum]

Bigelow Aerospace was going to put up a full-sized demo version into space, but they got enough data off of the other two vehicles (still up in orbit BTW) that they don't see the necessity of bothering with another test before putting something up which can be used for human habitation. That the next module going up will undergo some major tests is true, but they want to make is something they can start to make some money from.

Bigelow is betting huge that they will be able to get it all to work, as they are currently doing a major expansion on their manufacturing facility including a huge water facility where they will be testing equipment and EVA procedures for their own in-house astronaut corps. The water tank is simply enormous, where they plan on putting the BA-330 into that tank fully inflated.

The BA-2100 is the module that I think is going to be genuinely groundbreaking, as by itself will offer more interior volume than the entire International Space Station.

As for SpaceX, Bigelow has already purchased at least one Falcon 9 flight, scheduled for some time in either 2014 or 2015. There isn't any hint as to what Bigelow plans on putting on top of that rocket, however.

Cost per pound

[MyLongNickName]

First, I find this very exciting. As a child, I thought it would be just a matter of time before I could buy a plane ticket to the moon. That is how space was advertised to us in the early 70's... It has not turned out that way, but I am excited to see some progress.

What I would love to see is total cost per pound of payload. It seems like NASA hasn't done much to lower than number over the past three decades, and am curious to know what efficiencies Space X has attained. Anyone know where to find this info?

Re:Cost per pound

[peacefinder]

Pricing

SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases. A half bay flight of Falcon 9 is available to accommodate customers with payloads in between Falcon 1 and 9.
Mission Type Price*
LEO (s/c80% capacity to the customer orbit) $56M
GTO (s/c3,000 kg)** $49.9M
GTO (s/c up to 4,680 kg) $56M

*Standard Launch Services Pricing through 12/31/10.

Standard prices assumes standard services (see User Guide) and payment in full within the noted calendar period.

Payments made over time subject to LIBOR +2.5% financing rate. Contact SpaceX for standard payment plan.

Standard price includes a SpaceX-developed and produced payload adapter and tension-band separation system. Other systems can be accommodated or provided — contact SpaceX for more information.

Reflight insurance offered at 8.0% of Standard Launch Services Price.

**SpaceX reserves the right to seek a non-interference co-passenger

Rebates to Standard Launch Services Pricing are considered on a case-by case basis to address (i) inaugural launches, (ii) short turn around opportunities and (iii) multiple launch service procurements.

Performance
Launch Site: Cape Canaveral AFS Kwajalein

Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO): 10,450 kg (23,050 lb) 8,560 kg (18,870 lb)
Inclination: 28.5 degree 90 degree (polar orbit)

Mass to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO): 4,540 kg (10,000 lb) 4,680 kg (10,320 lb)
Inclination: 28.5 degree 9.1 degree

For further information, contact us at FalconGuide@spacex.com.

Re:Cost per pound

[Amorymeltzer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launcher_versions

Re:Cost per pound

[holmstar]

IIRC, the cost to launch mass to LEO using the Space Shuttle is $10k per pound. With falcon, it would be closer to $2.5k per pound.

Re:Cost per pound

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually isn't informative. The question was "how much does it cost" not "how much are they asking to send a payload up."

I took it as a much more technical question of how efficent their craft is over NASA's options.

Re:Cost per pound

[jgtg32a]

How much they are asking is how much it costs

Re:Cost per pound

[Monkeedude1212]

Is it? There's no markup?

(I think thats what the AC was getting at)

Re:Cost per pound

[mangu]

The question was "how much does it cost" not "how much are they asking to send a payload up."

What they are asking is pretty much determined by the market, Ariane charges about the same prices.

How much does it cost, that's a question that their accountants could answer and I don't think they are available for comments on this subject. Presumably, however, it costs less than the price, otherwise how could they turn a profit?

Re:Cost per pound

[Call Me Black Cloud]

That's full retail price...only suckers pay that. I found a few sweet coupon codes online

10% off to new customers: GAGARIN
Free upgrade to first class: IKNOWELON
Kids fly free!: WESLEY

Be smart shoppers, people!

Re:Cost per pound

[psydeshow]

Who says they are turning a profit? The kind of people that would invest in SpaceX probably don't care if they see a return on their initial investments for 10 years, if ever. The point is to prove that commercial spaceflight is possible and desirable, not to make money out of the gate. That comes later if all goes well.

The first flight "costs" much much more than the 300th flight. If they play their cards right, the break-even point will be at around the 30th flight so that they can start to make the investors' money back with each subsequent haul.

Re:Cost per pound

[FleaPlus]

Who says they are turning a profit? The kind of people that would invest in SpaceX probably don't care if they see a return on their initial investments for 10 years, if ever. The point is to prove that commercial spaceflight is possible and desirable, not to make money out of the gate. That comes later if all goes well.

FYI, SpaceX is already profitable. Their total expenditures so far during their ~7 years of operation have been around half a billion, and they've already made a fair bit more than that. Granted, a lot of the money they've "made" is for contracts which they haven't launched the payloads for yet, although development (the phase which they've just now completed) is typically the most cost-intensive part of a rocket's lifecycle.

Re:Cost per pound

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling at cost? A poor business model. While they may be rocket scientists I'm guessing they're not very good accountants.

Re:Cost per pound

[peacefinder]

Wow, some people are hard to please! :-)

Technically you are correct. That said, the public pricing is a useful bit of data for taking a guess at the actual costs. Given the assumption that SpaceX is meant to at least break even on each launch, this pricing data puts an upper bound on the actual launch costs. (At $5,359/kg to LEO.)

(Of course that assumption is a bit dicey, given that Elon Musk is a rich industrial idealist who is not apparently afraid to sink his personal fortune into radical projects. Still, he didn't get rich by being stupid with money, so it's not completely unreasonable as assumptions go.)

Another data point is the ISS resupply contract, which for SpaceX includes at least 12 flights for US$1.6 billion. That works out to US$133 million per flight, but includes not only Falcon 9 launchers and operations but also Dragon capsules and their operations. The stated Falcon 9 launch price of $56 million is about 42% of the contracted per-flight costs. It's easy for me (as an amateur observer) to believe that capsule procurement and operations would soak up around half of a per-flight budget.

The actual costs for SpaceX, however, do remain obscure. Given that SpaceX is a privately-held corporation, it's no surprise that actual launch cost data is held privately.

As for NASA's other options... what other options? The Falcon/Dragon stack Orbital Sciences also has a resupply contract, at US$1.9 billion for eight flights of its Taurus/Cygnus stack. The simple assumption is that SpaceX is cheaper than OSC, but that's without taking into account the per-flight payload mass delivered by each system.

Re:Cost per pound

[hardburn]

. . . Ariane charges about the same prices

Per launch, yes, but the Falcon 9 can carry a lot more up for the same price.

Re:Cost per pound

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I find this very exciting. As a child, I thought it would be just a matter of time before I could buy a plane ticket to the moon. That is how space was advertised to us in the early 70's... It has not turned out that way, but I am excited to see some progress.

MEH. I don't want to deal with TSA lines. If we need 3 hour lead time for International flights it will probably 9 hours for Space Flight.

Re:Cost per pound

[John Hasler]

How much it costs is how much you have to pay for it.

Re:Cost per pound

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, Space Nuttery is all about images, delusions and high degrees of removal from reality. Sorry to break it to you, but the reason we don't have Moon bases etc. is simply that there's no reason for any of it. The Moon is a desolate, empty harsh place. Simply getting there is so expensive and dangerous, it's a stunt. That's all it ever was, and that's all it'll ever be.

I mean, why not just go on a nuclear submarine for months on end? You'll have the same cramped quarters, death just a few inches of metal away, eating canned food in a 100% artificial environment. If that's not attractive, what's so attractive about the Moon? Because it's the Moon? Well then, it's just a stunt, isn't it? Just to say you've done it? Pathetic.

I garantee you you'd be bored about 30 minutes in once on the Moon. "Uh, this is the fifth identical rock I'm looking at now, oh look, there's another rock over there. The air I'm breathing is in a can and if a single one of the complex systems keeping me alive fails, I'm dead, and there's nothing and no one that can do anything about it."

Thanks, I'll take Antartica in my underwear over that.

I was also sold a dream in the '70s: the leisure society. We have more than enough technology and resources for everyone to have a ten hour work week, yet we choose not to. Why?

Re:Cost per pound

[John Hasler]

Return on investment is part of the cost.

Re:Cost per pound

[Idiomatick]

As peacefinder pointed out, SpaceX is so badass they post the prices on their site. But I'd like to point out that Musk has said: "Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound or less is very achievable."

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=10

So who knows what we'll be seeing in the next few years.

Re:Cost per pound

[Idiomatick]

Since that was from 2004 and still talking about the Falcon 5...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/11/29/AW_11_29_2010_p28-271784.xml&headline=NASA%20Studies%20Scaled-Up%20Falcon,%20Merlin

From another post about super-heavy rockets. Musk said that he'd personally guarantee he could go under 1000$/lb (At the very end of the article). This could happen in only a few short years. So he does seem like he's moving towards the 500$/lb price point.

Re:Cost per pound

[Lanteran]

Low earth orbit is at about 5,360$/Kg on a Falcon 9 standard, 3,273$/Kg on a heavy.

COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[AJWM]

COTS is cheap (or commercial) off the shelf, not as the summary has it cheap access to space, which would be CATS.

Huge congrats to SpaceX on their achievements in both, though.

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[MozeeToby]

Generally you're right, COTS is Commercial Off The Shelf, but in this case it is referring to the NASA program - "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services".

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[Loadmaster]

COTS = Commercial Orbital Transportation Services

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[Anonymous Coward]

Low Orbital Load Cheap Access To Space?

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[AJWM]

You're right, of course, I just knew the summary had it wrong. I should have said COTS != cheap access to space, except that commercial-off-the-shelf will hopefully lead to cheap access to space.

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were CATS, they'd stand to lose their base.

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[Keick]

Except this is Commerical Access To Space, so shouldn't it be CATS?

I for one am all for exporting CATS into space.

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[JWW]

I think NASA did some acronym wrangling here to make sure the acronym stayed the same as what they use for purchasing other commercial services, but was still fitting for indicating it was a rocket launch. Well done on their part IMHO.

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[Anonymous Coward]

CATS: All your base are belong to us!

Re:COTS = Cheap/Commercial Off the Shelf

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there was an earlier CATS contest back in the 90's that got killed by the neo-cons. So, NASA renamed it when they brought it back. Keep in mind that COTS idea was developed and pushed in the 90's, along with ideas like Transhab (inflatable space station), mining using laser drill, and even new engines such as VASIMR. 2000 CONgress made NASA stop all of this. Thankfully, while Clinton was opposed to what CONgress was doing, he allowed NASA to sell it off or give to those that had vested intrerest in it. OTH, when we had X-33 nearly done, W/admin killed it and then prevented the DOD or L-Mart from getting it. Literally, Cheney signed an order having it dismantled.

CNN has video up

[FleaPlus]

The official SpaceX video (which includes things like a view from the rocket itself) hasn't been released yet, but CNN has posted NASA's video here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/08/space.flight/

Ongoing updates will be posted to SpaceX's twitter account. The Dragon capsule is expected to orbit the Earth a few times and then land off the California coast about three hours after the launch, and SpaceX has announced that they're doing a press conference an hour or two after the landing.

Re:CNN has video up

[BJ_Covert_Action]

To be specific, if all goes according to plan (here's hoping) then the reentry burn should start about 1:15 PM EST. The press conference is supposed to take place somewhere between 3:02 and 4:02 PM EST. All in all, this launch is damn exciting.

Re:CNN has video up

[FleaPlus]

Also, it looks like a rip of SpaceX's camera stream has been posted on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ci9xIgNZM

This one includes both a ground camera and cameras streaming from a couple points on the rocket itself. Besides the launch at T-0 (one minute after video start), other highlights are stage separation at T+3 minutes and Dragon deployment at T+9:30.

Re:CNN has video up

[Hegsa]

Anyone have idea what happens around 1:06 on the video? Looks like small explosion happens next to rocket on the liftoff.

Re:CNN has video up

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Update, it looks like NASA is planning a press conference around 3:30 PM EST, or 12:30 PST, or 20:30 GMT, for anyone interested in tuning in. The conference is supposed to broadcast on NASA's public and media channels on NASA TV. I think you can tune in here, but am not certain how it works since I can't access video from work.

Also, the Dragon capsule seems to have splashdowned on target in the pacific ocean. Recovery teams are currently working on snagging the capsule as well as recovering the first stage engine over in the Atlantic.

Re:CNN has video up

[rsun]

IANARS, but if I had to guess, I would say that when the fueling probe disconnected, the fuel that was in the arm poured out and was ignited by the rocket as it went by. When the arm disconnects, there's a plume of white that spews out and it appears to be that which ignites a second or two later.

Neal Asher - Polity Series

[The Living Fractal]

I just finished book #4 last night. One left. Great series. And when I woke up this morning and read that Dragon was in orbit... I daydreamed a little.

Oh cmon, nobody else has read Neal Asher? :(

Re:Neal Asher - Polity Series

[geegel]

You're the reason for which I love /.

Took a quick look over the Wikipedia page, then googled "Neal Asher t" and followed the suggestion. Heavy lecture is about to happen

Re:Neal Asher - Polity Series

[The Living Fractal]

If you like Asher then I highly suggest Iain M Banks' "Culture" books. He is the master. Asher is good, but Banks is practically sublime.

Heard it on the radio

[Spy Handler]

while driving to work this morning. I was like, Fuck Yeah!

This was accomplished by Elon Musk using only a few hundred million$ of Paypal money. Now imagine what Bill Gates could be doing with the billions he's supposed to be giving away.

Re:Heard it on the radio

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Correction, this was accomplished by an extraordinarily talented team of engineers and technicians hired and paid by by Musk. let us not forget the worker bees that prop up the queen of the hive. That said, yes, if it wasn't for Musk's vision, this bird wouldn't be flying.

Re:Heard it on the radio

[camperdave]

This was accomplished by Elon Musk using only a few hundred million$ of Paypal money.

To be fair, the government kicked in a huge portion as well, as part of their Commercial Orbital Transport System (COTS) initiative.

Re:Heard it on the radio

[east coast]

What do you mean "supposed to be"?

It seems that a lot of his wealth is already flowing and the guy is probably a couple decades from his death and he intends this funding to last 50 years after his death.

And while I agree that what SpaceX is doing is of great importance, I think that Bill's contributions to education is a much more worthy cause to invest in. Let SpaceX make their money, let Bill focus on the human element.

Re:Heard it on the radio

[Nyeerrmm]

Hopefully I'm not being too pedantic, but thats a bit of mischaracterization -- its more like NASA purchasing some flights and putting up some of the money in advance.

While the advance funding did make it possible to accomplish this, I think its important to frame it this way as it creates different expectations from the legacy cost-plus contracting methods.

How about a link to the actual article?

[diskofish]

how about it boys?

Re:How about a link to the actual article?

[Anonymous Coward]

This link not good enough for you?

Re:I Am ( +1, Incendiary )

[Spy Handler]

did you and Bubba have a nice breakfast?

Maybe someday we'll be able to go to the moon

[elrous0]

It's a helluva lot farther than LEO, but some day man may actually walk there.

supply lines to ISS already secure

[fantomas]

Personnel and supply lines to the ISS are already secure with Soyuz and Ariane, but perhaps you meant "secured by US owned and launched missions"?

Soyuz definitely has proven to be reliable over the last 40 years, and Ariane missions have a good track record. Probably reliable as long as you keep paying. But I understand the USA wants US flight capability. Not sure how much cheaper Falcon/SpaceX will be though. I'd be interested to see figures.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[ceejayoz]

The Shuttle has a higher payload to LEO than Ariane and Soyuz - IIRC, it's the only current launch system that can take some satellites up. The Falcon 9 Heavy has a higher payload than all three.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[John Hasler]

The Dragon will carry up to seven passengers. Soyuz is good for only three. It's also good to have at least two different kinds of passenger craft. The freight model Dragon also has a much larger capacity than the Progress (though smaller than that of the ATV). It has both pressurized and unpressurized compartments, and I believe it can handle larger (though not heavier) objects than the ATV can. It can also return cargo to Earth. Thus it does not merely duplicate existing capabilities (once the shuttles retire).

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[LWATCDR]

Well since Slashdot is a site hosted in the US and the posts are in English the answer is yes we mean secured.
The Ariane isn't manned and Russia isn't hasn't always been friendly. Dragon will give the US back manned transport to the ISS after the Shuttle is retired.
It seems really odd to me to not expect any US bias on a website based in the US and in English. It is sort of like bitching the the BBCs TopGear doesn't have any many US cars on it or a site in France and in French is biased to the French view point.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[FleaPlus]

In case it's helpful, the other day I came across a really cool infographic which shows the relative sizes and capabilities of the SpaceX Dragon, the Soyuz-launched Progress, China's Shenzhou, Orbital's upcoming Cygnus, Europe's ATV, and the in-progress Orion capsule.

Each Dragon capsule can deliver more payload to the ISS than Progress, but not as much as the ATV. Unlike the other two disposable craft, however, Dragon is designed to reenter the atmosphere, which will make it the only way to get significant amounts of equipment/material/samples back from the ISS after the Shuttle's last flight.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not sure how much cheaper Falcon/SpaceX will be though. I'd be interested to see figures.

SpaceX sets the price for a Falcon 9 launch to LEO at about $50 million for 10000 Kg or so payload.

They've also said that once Dragon is manrated, they'll be able to put astronauts to the ISS for about $20 million per man.

Ariane 5 puts a bit less than twice the payload to LEO, at $120 million (rather more than twice the cost).

Best numbers I can get for Soyuz costs are in the $30-40 million per astronaut range. A Progress supply shipment will cost about the same as a Dragon supply mission, but a Progress can carry considerably less than a Dragon (1.8 tons pressurized vs 6 tons pressurized, and Progress can only carry 1.6 tons away, where Dragon can carry 3 tons away).

In other words, if SpaceX can keep with their expected launch costs, they'll be considerably cheaper than the alternatives.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[u17]

IIRC, it's the only current launch system that can take some satellites up

It's the only current launch system that can take some satellites down.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Mercano]

An Atlas V HLV can, in theory, put 29,420 kg in LEO, which puts it between the Shuttle's 24,400kg and Falcon 9 Heavy's stated 32,000kg. However, no one's needed a Atlas Heavy yet, so it has yet to be flown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[DwySteve]

It's the only current launch system that can take some satellites down.

Actually I believe the Air Force's X-43 is slated to have some capacity in this regard.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[BuR4N]

x-43 is a hypersonic plane , x-34 is a test bed. Both programs are terminated. Do you refer to x-37 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-34

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Teancum]

Keep in mind that what SpaceX is quoting is not cost but rather price with profit margins put into place. I haven't see anywhere what SpaceX is making for a profit on those suggested prices, but it isn't being given away at a loss and in spite of only flying a few missions SpaceX is already in the black as a company by most accounting methods which can be used. This flight today only helps in that regard.

While Ariane is trying to make money for their respective partner countries in the ESA, I would guess that prices are pretty close to costs. Not so much for the Russians with the Soyuz spacecraft as they seem to have discovered capitalism. Dennis Tito was able to fly on a Soyuz spacecraft for about $20 million before inflation and other factors drove the price up.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Vulch]

Just to clarify, a Progress can carry that much away from the station, but you don't get it back in useable condition. The Dragon can (in theory at least) not only carry it away, but bring it back down safely.

Small re-entry capsules have been flown on Progress, but the capacity is limited to a few 10s of kg.

Also bear in mind that price for a seat on a Soyuz is what is advertised, not what is necessarily paid. NASA doesn't seem to be very good at negotiating prices and I'm not aware of any of the "Tourists" saying exactly how much it cost them. Informed speculation ranges between "One seat sold pays for the whole flight" to "There's a healthy profit margin built in".

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[WindBourne]

The Shuttle, at 25,000 KG is #2 payload behind Atlas's 28,000 KG, so that is a non-issue. In addition, Delta IV's 24,000 KG is #3 payload size, just behind the shuttle.
And yes, F9H's 32,000 KG will have the largest, at some 10% more than Atlas and almost 33% more than the shuttle. Of course, somebody has to pay for this.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Idiomatick]

But to be fair the F9heavy doesn't exist yet. And likely won't for 3-5 years.

They have the Falcon 1e to build test and improve. And they will likely be producing a F9e as well. In addition they are going to be working on recovery of the 1st stage, and looking into 2nd stage recovery. Plus they will be working on getting man rated and the upgrades to the Dragon required to do that. So they do have a lot on their plates at this time. That said, I hope to see a Falcon super-heavy by 2020!

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[stiggle]

Atlas V has a comparable, although a little lower, lift capacity to a Falcon 9 Heavy.
Titan IV are a little larger than an Ariane 5 ES (which launches the ATV to the ISS).
Delta IV Heavy is a little less than an Ariane 5 ES.
Proton are a little less than the Ariane 5 Heavy.

The Shuttle - that does 24,000kg. Slightly more than the Ariane 5 ES (21,000kg), but less than the Falcon 9 Heavy (32,000kg).

The Shuttles main benefit is the volume of the stuff being lifted, like the ISS modules, and the benefit of it being a dockable cargo ship which can be unloaded externally.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[stiggle]

Orion's design spec is for travel beyond orbit. They're also working on an Orion-lite to deal with the orbital stuff, which can carry more people due to not needing the extra equipment for travelling outside of Earth orbit.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Teancum]

None of those hold a candle to the 119,000 kg to LEO capacity of the Saturn V. A Saturn IB could put 20,800 kg into LEO. Why the Shuttle was considered a "replacement" for those vehicles I will never know.

Isn't 20/20 hindsight grand!

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Teancum]

The current plan is to make a high power version of the Merlin engine (Merlin II) that essentially replaces the current cluster of 9 Merlin engines on the Falcon 9 and replaces it with but a single engine producing slightly more thrust (from the current design goals). This would have roughly the same thrust capacity as one of the F1 engines that were used on the Saturn V.

The Falcon 1e is mainly a second generation Merlin engine (having more thrust capacity) with some of the tank structure reworked and extended making it essentially a new rocket with slightly more payload capacity than a stock Falcon 1 as flown earlier.

It is that "Merlin II" engine that is to me far more interesting, where one design is for a "Falcon XX" rocket that would have twice the payload capacity as a Saturn V. I can only presume that is the "Mars rocket" which Elon Musk is hoping to build eventually. Launching something the size of Skylab with a 3rd stage engine capable of pushing something with that mass to escape velocity would certainly be a neat thing to see. That SpaceX claims to be able to launch one of those things for the current cost of a typical shuttle mission really puts things into perspective too.

In term of man rating a vehicle, it will be very interesting to see what the FAA-AST has to say about that issue. So far they generally do deference to NASA on the issue of manned spaceflight, although NASA doesn't have regulatory authority over non-government astronauts or manned spaceflight missions. If NASA decides to be a jerk about manned spaceflight requirements, Elon Musk could simply say "screw 'em" and simply sell flights to Robert Bigelow instead or to Space Adventures. There will be other customers for the Dragon capsule than just NASA... something I don't think at least some within NASA have quite figured out yet.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Teancum]

Orion's design spec is for travel beyond orbit.>

Ditto for the Dragon capsule, at least in terms of long-term sustainability in space. It certainly is designed for much longer missions than the Apollo Command capsule was capable of doing and the engineers designing the Dragon capsule essentially took the published specifications for Orion and used them to design the Dragon... improving where necessary or possible.

In both cases the issue isn't that the vehicles can travel beyond LEO, but rather how they will get there if that is the goal. I openly admit that a Falcon 9 is not capable of providing enough thrust to get out of LEO. The Ares V doesn't have enough thrust to get out of committee in Washington DC.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[WindBourne]

Of course, just yesterday, Musk has offered to build a craft that will take 150,000 KG to LEO for 2.5 B in under 5 years. And it would only cost less than 300 million to light that candle.

Yet, others will be fighting it.

Re:supply lines to ISS already secure

[Idiomatick]

Nothing is set in stone yet. In the last couple days Musk was talking about a variety of possible avenues forwards. Those are indeed the plans floating around now though. But it would be premature to say anything is remotely decided.

I don't think SpaceX is even remotely near a position where they can tell NASA to take a hike. They are in very many ways in a partnership. Things would be a lot harder without NASA there. AND NASA is a huge source of money. Just recently there was talk of SpaceX making its super-heavy instead of NASA for the US government. That contract would represent another 2.5Billion just to go where they wanted/intended to anyways! Plus they would get continual flight purchases from NASA after that.

Also they already have a 2014 flight sold to Bigelow, I'm sure that number will increase as they prove themselves. And I'm unconvinced that SA would be worth that much to them since their goal seems to be mainly sub-orbital... there aren't many people with 10~20million to visit the space station... Though with a heavy lifter and a large enough group they may be able to cut that below 5million/person (if all of musk's optimism comes to pass)

SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[FleaPlus]

I didn't get around to making this a separate submission, but I figure folks might be interested in another SpaceX-related news item from an interview with Elon Musk. As some of you know, Congress has mandated that NASA construct a super-heavy lift rocket (at least 75mt payload) by 2016. This is expected to use cost-plus contracts, utilize as many Shuttle components/workers as possible, and is expected to cost at least $10B.

SpaceX has another (IMHO much better) proposal, though, which would be to build a 150mt rocket that's essentially an upgrade of the rocket which was launched today. This rocket would be able to lift heavier payloads than the Saturn V. SpaceX proposed to do this with a $2.5B fixed-price contract, where SpaceX eats any cost above this amount. Some remarks from Musk on this:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/06/5600599-spacex-gets-set-for-next-giant-leap

He's even starting to think ahead to the next giant leap -- the development of a super-heavy-lift rocket, more powerful than the Apollo era's Saturn 5, which could put 150 metric tons of payload into Earth orbit. Musk said facilities in Utah, Alabama, Ohio, Florida and other places around the country could be involved in the project, and he's willing to build the rocket for $2.5 billion. "Anything above that, SpaceX will pay for," he promised. ...
Musk said his $2.5 billion figure for a super-heavy-lift rocket was based in part on the concept that 80 percent of the money Congress is expected to devote to heavy-lift development would go toward the standard cost-plus method for funding spacecraft development, with 20 percent going to the kind of fixed-price, milestone-based approach that is being used for the NASA program that's funding SpaceX's effort. "I find myself in this bizarre position where people are saying, 'You couldn't possibly do it for such a low amount as $2.5 billion,'" he said. "And actually, I have trouble trying to figure out how we'd spend so much money. In order to get to $2.5 billion, I'd have to assume that a whole bunch of things go horribly wrong during the development process."

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[Shadmere]

Talk like that make me all tingly inside.

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[BJ_Covert_Action]

And, just to round off the fleet, SpaceX has already drafted up plans for a Heavy Lift launcher (see here) that could compete directly with ULA's Delta IV Heavy, the Arianne V, and whatever the Russians will be using for a heavy launcher in the next few years.

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[mosb1000]

Yes, but that requirement is designed specifically to benefit congressional districts where shuttle parts are made. They would never accept this 2.5B fixed price contract because they want the government to spend 10B in their districts.

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[jimmydigital]

"And actually, I have trouble trying to figure out how we'd spend so much money. In order to get to $2.5 billion, I'd have to assume that a whole bunch of things go horribly wrong during the development process."

First rule in government spending.. why build one when you can build two for twice the price? The second one can be kept secret...

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[pavon]

Every time I see the Falcon 9 Heavy concept, I can just see Elon saying "Fuck everything were doing 27 engines" :)

I get the R&D cost savings in reusing what you already have, but it seems like if you are building something that is that much bigger than a Falcon 1, the production costs would make it worth designing a larger engine.

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[BJ_Covert_Action]

On the plus side. 27 engines gives the Flacon 9 heavy a retarded amount of redundancy and engine-out capability...

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[Idiomatick]

There is a down side to having so many moving parts mind you.

Re:SpaceX's Super-Heavy Proposal to NASA

[ShooterNeo]

Not if failures are independent events isolated to individual engines. As long as each individual engine has a reasonable number of moving parts, and a failure in one engine cannot usually cause a failure in a different engine, then having 27 times as many moving parts is not a bad thing at all.

Technically, the human body uses many trillions of quite unreliable moving parts and yet it still achieves excellent reliability compared to current technology..

Especially since NASA...

[voss]

Couldnt launch the shuttle at that temperature. Cocoa Beach was in the low 50s they wont launch the shuttle under 53 degrees.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[MachDelta]

IANARS (rocket scientist), but why won't they launch under 53 degrees when the thing is going to freaking space? I hear that hurtling through the upper atmosphere and into space tends to be quite a bit colder than 53F.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[akgunkel]

Remember a little thing called the Challenger Disaster?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

"Thiokol engineers argued that if the O-rings were colder than 53 F (12 C), they did not have enough data to determine whether the joint would seal properly. This was an important consideration, since the SRB O-rings had been designated as a "Criticality 1" component—meaning that there was no backup if both the primary and secondary O-rings failed, and their failure would destroy the Orbiter and its crew."

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the seals in the solid rocket boosters don't do well at low temperatures, and by the time they reach low temperatures, most of the fuel is burned in them and it's a non-issue. They never make it to "space"

IANARS but I did spend time at Holiday Inn Express last night.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[BrettJB]

O-rings.

I may be wrong, but I believe the only data point we have on a space shuttle launch colder than 53 degrees Fahrenheit was a shuttle by the name of Challenger, and it didn't fare so well.

I do know that 53 degrees was the coldest launch data they had prior to Challenger...

Re:Especially since NASA...

[MachDelta]

Thanks. Here's the money quote that explains it (to me at least):

...the amount of damage to the O-rings was directly related to the time it took for extrusion [sealing] to occur, and that cold weather, by causing the O-rings to harden, lengthened the time of extrusion.

Now it makes sense why ground temperature is important. The boosters have to re-seal themselves after the stress of ignition, and colder temperatures lengthen this process. Too long (too cold) and catastrophic damage occurs. Nifty.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Challenger

Some of the parts on the shuttle's solid rocket boosters are not designed for launch at certain temperatures.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Lifyre]

Poor construction, quality control, and design flaws that are made worse in the cold don't help either.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[IrquiM]

50? That's Sauna temperature! It's 1 or 2 degrees here!

Re:Especially since NASA...

[element-o.p.]

I'm assuming you mean centigrade rather than farenheight. If so, I don't feel sorry for you. It's -11C here right now :)

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Hylandr]

Not to mention, made by the cheapest bidder...

- Dan.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Teancum]

As if Alliant Techsystems (ATK) is really all that cheap. For the price of simply refurbishing a single SRB, SpaceX can put a satellite up into orbit on a Falcon 9 rocket. For just a little bit more money, you can even put people into space on that same rocket.

The only reason why ATK is "cheap" is because nobody else would bother with fitting the specifications as required for the SRB contract. See also "Cost-plus contract" for further details.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Smask]

Saw a documentay, about an engineer, that went thru the documents about the Challenger disaster. He pointed out a video that the Rogers Comission had overlooked, showing the leaking coming out in puffs i.e. the booster sections were rocking. This was caused by wind shear. Extreme wind shear were mentioned in the report, but they didnt investigate it further.

The shuttle would be able to launch in temperatures lower than 53 F, but only if the weather were calm. NASA had one or two launches where they noticed that the seals failed in similar temperature conditions, but the slag (aluminium oxide) build up caulked the seals shut.

Re:Especially since NASA...

[slew]

The only reason why ATK is "cheap" is because nobody else would bother with fitting the specifications as required for the SRB contract. See also "Cost-plus contract" for further details.

Even if some other enterprising company might attempt it, they would get squashed in the contract and appropriations phase. Let's face it the SRB was/is an earmark for Sen. Oren Hatch. The reason nobody else would bother is because they know that even to succeed would be to fail politically...

Re:Especially since NASA...

[Teancum]

Orrin Hatch was a freshman junior senator when the SRB was originally proposed. While I'll admit that he has been instrumental at making sure the SRB program remained in Utah (there was an attempt to move the facility to Mississippi in the mid-1990's) and is certainly one of those who pulled strings to get the SRB "technology" put onto the Ares vehicles with the Constellation architecture, I don't think he had anywhere near that kind of pull during the Carter administration or the Nixon administration when he wasn't even a senator at all and the decisions for the shuttle architecture were being developed.

As for the role that Orrin Hatch's predecessor played in getting the SRB program to Utah may be another issue. It would be fun to dig through the newspaper articles on the issue because I'm pretty sure that Orrin Hatch likely used the SRB program as an example of government pork and waste to defeat his predecessor.

-blink-

[shadowfaxcrx]

Who the hell is writing the live launch blog?

"One day I will go back to space. Like, without using pills."

Re:-blink-

[tgd]

Who the hell is writing the live launch blog?

"One day I will go back to space. Like, without using pills."

Mom!?

Re:-blink-

[capo_dei_capi]

Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo

I think I speak for all of us

[Toze]

I think I speak for all of us when I say "EEEEEEEEE!" and do a little dance.

Re:I think I speak for all of us

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for all of us when I say "EEEEEEEEE!" and do a little dance.

Except for those of us working at competitors. We're just polishing up resumes.

This is huge.

[Shadmere]

Space is becoming something accessible through private channels. Not that there's anything wrong with governmental space programs, but those are best when they're cutting edge, when they're doing things that no private company could hope to do. When the private sector takes over the everyday, to-and-fro, supply and shuttling capabilities, perhaps NASA will be driven to explore more advanced technologies.

This is a big step towards space travel being an everyday thing. Once initiatives like this become more common, there will be a huge foundation upon which to build even greater missions.

Piggyback Payload

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Hmmm, here's an interesting little bit of info. Apparently the NRO bolted a few cubesats to the side of this rocket as well. They deployed successfully according to Spaceflightnow's live blog update. I can't find much information on the little guys (and probably won't since they are NRO) but wikipedia confirms that there was a secondary payload on this test. Apparently some government offices already feel that the Falcon 9 is worthy enough to carry their goods.

Also, pretty pictures of the launch.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[Toze]

There's a thought. Cubesat with a broadcast antenna + Wikileaks = deny access to this, suckers.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[butalearner]

Actually many cubesats are just made by universities that beg everybody for launches. I know we made one as a grad student/senior project, though it was a more "risky" one since it had a deployable panel. They are perfect for demo launches like this because there is no primary payload that might be affected by it, and the launcher guys don't care as long as it acts like ballast.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's more detail on the CubeSats:

http://www.nro.gov/spacesentinel/Unclassified_SS_-_Weather_Colony_-_single.pdf
http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/SMDC-One.pdf

Re:Piggyback Payload

[Vulch]

SpaceX bought a 10% stake in Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd back in 2005, SSTL being a spin out from the University of Surrey that started out building Amateur Radio Satellites and specialises in small satellites.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Cubesats don't usually have a very long life due to their lack of station keeping abilities. They don't have the room for fuel for thrusters to keep them orbiting for very long. But, if some private entity could lease NASA's new solar sail tech. that is being demoed on Microsat-D, well then, that might work for a few months or so. At least, it would be long enough for the current hubub to blow over.

I should note, however, that most cubesats use a piece of a metallic measuring tape for a cheap, low power antenna. This doesn't exactly lend itself to high bandwidth uses.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Which university/cubesat team did you work on? I'd like to dig up some info. on that satellite if it actually had a successful on-orbit deployable panel. I worked on a micro-sat concept myself at university that intended to use deployable panels. They were the primary risk factor to the mission as proposed.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[butalearner]

Sorry I should have specified that it didn't and probably won't ever launch. It was part of an Air Force competition and we lost, so we didn't get funding to build the final version.

Re:Piggyback Payload

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Oh, damn. It would have been fun to see your deployment mechanisms and such.

Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[jimwelch]

Boy, am I confused! We used to talk about Cape Canaveral, then it was the KSC, now we are back to the Cape. So Cape Canaveral belongs to the Air Force, and KSC belongs to NASA, but ALL? of the launch pads are AF? Including the Shuttle, i.e., 39A and 39B?

Re:Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[robot256]

As far as I know, the equipment on the pads is owned and operated by NASA but the land itself is owned and secured by the Air Force. All the shuttle pilots are Air Force too, only the specialist astronauts are NASA employees. It's really not that surprising when you think about it.

Re:Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[slew]

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (the airforce base just north of Cocoa Beach on the east coast of florida on a strip of land which is ultimatly called Cape Canaveral).

Kennedy Space Center (the nasa facility just to the north west of Cape Canaveral Air force station on nearby Merritt Island).

Here's a helpful map from the wikipedia...

As you can see, Launch Complex 39 (located about 1/2 way between the two) and is technically part of the Kennedy Space Center.

The common confusion is that in 1963, Congress, in their infinite wisdom, renamed Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy. However, as it turned out, they didn't have the full authority to do that. Apparently the Cape's official name on international maps was under the juristiction of some international maritime treaty (UN, IHO?), so it could only be named Cape Kennedy on US-specific maps. Of course most of the US govt went along including the US Board on Geographic names (which means it got into some US official maps), but eventually everyone conceded and changed the name back in 1973 due to local pressure (there's actually a town called Cape Canaveral on the southern part of Cape Canaveral) and to avoid general confusion.

If you think naming of a place is just a silly argument, tell that to the people who live in New Amsterdam (aka New York), or are visiting Danali national park and looking at the "big-one" Mt Denali (or Mt McKinley to Ohio-ans), or maybe google Sea of Japan naming dispute to witness a naming dispute of international consequences...

When you see all those reporters at a morning launch, they often get a closer view and may actually be on the cape, rather than on KSC, so that may only add to the confusion.

Re:Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[John Hasler]

Cape Canaveral is a geographic feature. It is the site of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Adjacent is Merritt Island, the site of NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Spacecraft are launched from both the station and the center.

Re:Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[Strider-]

The actual geographic feature is named Cape Canaveral. It was temporarily changed to Cape Kennedy, but eventually reverted to Canaveral. The NASA installation there is named "Kennedy Space Center" while the US Air Force launch complex is Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and is immediately adjacent to KSC.

The western counterpart to CCAFS is Vandenberg Air Force Base. Due to geography, polar orbiting spacecraft can't be launched from Florida without either overflying land at low altitude (risky) or by doing a dog-leg flight (incurring a huge payload penalty). Vandenberg, on the other hand, allows for polar launches without overflying land.

Re:Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[Darth_brooks]

Not all pilots are AF. In the first ten missions, the shuttle was been piloted by Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps officers.

Re:Cape Canaveral AFS vs Kennedy Space Center

[jimwelch]

Ouch!
The USA does not have the authority to rename property in the USA!

Good news!

[mweather]

If they keep this up, in another 10 or 20 years, America will be a spacefaring nation.

To me the biggest thing about this is

[hsmith]

Could it possible change intercontinental flying times? Instead of 20 hours to get to Australia from Washington DC, could you jump on a "Space Craft" - get into low orbit and get across in an hour or two.

Granted, the price point and that kind of technology are a ways off. But one could dream...

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[CrimsonAvenger]

Instead of 20 hours to get to Australia from Washington DC, could you jump on a "Space Craft" - get into low orbit and get across in an hour or two.

It's certainly theoretically possible. Making it cost-effective is a whole 'nuther issue.

So, how long will it be before FedEx takes a serious look at the possibilities - "When it absolutely, positively has to be there in an hour"?

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[robot256]

Sure it will reduce the time of flight, but if you think the security lines for airplanes are long...

Actually, you could do this pretty easily by taking something like SpaceShipOne and sticking it on a Falcon rocket first stage. Rocket halfway up to orbit, then glide down semi-ballistically.

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[joh]

Could it possible change intercontinental flying times? Instead of 20 hours to get to Australia from Washington DC, could you jump on a "Space Craft" - get into low orbit and get across in an hour or two.

Granted, the price point and that kind of technology are a ways off. But one could dream...

Well, if you have a fully reusable craft and lots of flights it's basically just all the fuel you're burning through for that, although even this would be expensive enough.

And then you'd have a REALLY uncomfortable flight with a high-g launch, a bit of weightlessness just long enough to make you vomit and a rather uncomfortable and nerve-wrecking reentry and landing.

Surely fascinating but I can't really see the business case here.

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[InfiniteWisdom]

If all goes well with Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, SpaceShipThree is supposed to be a point-to-point suborbital system.

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[deadweight]

The shuttle could do this right this second. The tickets would cost a bit more than current first class though......................

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, if you have a fully reusable craft and lots of flights it's basically just all the fuel you're burning through for that, although even this would be expensive enough.

Actually, the fuel is pretty cheap. LOX/Kerosene will run maybe $1 per kg. Which gives the minimum price to launch a Falcon 9 (fuel costs only - doesn't get any cheaper) at around $600 thousand. That's still $60 per kg to LEO, but it's two orders of magnitude cheaper than the shuttle can do it.

Note, by the by, that that price ($60/kg) is comparable to a First Class flight from the USA to China.

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[Vectormatic]

i can see it now, call up fedex for a ultra-fast delivery, and within 15 minutes a fedex branded ICBM launcher shows up in front of your office, the parcel is loaded into the nosecone and launched on the spot

Re:To me the biggest thing about this is

[Anonymous Coward]

No reason to go to orbit for that, a ballistic flight should be enough, and much much cheaper.

It's All Politics

[camperdave]

NASA is seriously hampered by the fact that its purse strings are controlled by a senator who runs the state where the solid rocket boosters are made. Therefore, No SRBs - no money for NASA.

NASA has also been seriously hampered by internal politics, which has caused a whole bunch of things to go horribly wrong. *cough* Griffin's "Stick" *cough*

Re:It's All Politics

[FleaPlus]

NASA is seriously hampered by the fact that its purse strings are controlled by a senator who runs the state where the solid rocket boosters are made. Therefore, No SRBs - no money for NASA.

Yup, it's problematic. SpaceX can address the political issues a little bit by building their large tanks in Louisiana and involving Alabama's Marshall Spaceflight Center. Hopefully not -too- much involvement from the latter, considering MSFC's atrocious track-record of consistent failures for the past 30 years. There's no way they can incorporate Utah's SRBs without turning the rocket into costly mess, though.

Using SRBs would negate most of SpaceX's cost-effectiveness efforts. Besides the problems inherent to producing the SRBs and transporting them from Utah, there's a number of problems they'd pose for the rocket itself. For example, they wouldn't be able to just horizontally assemble the rocket, cart the rocket to the pad, turn it vertical and fuel it up, but they'd need to do what the Shuttle does, where it's vertically integrated in a special facility, where the heavy SRBs are attached and pose an explosion hazard to workers during the entire assembly process, and then transported on specially-made crawlers. They also wouldn't be able to conduct hold-down test firings, or resume an aborted launch as they've done several times in the past.

Re:It's All Politics

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I don't think we have to worry about Musk ever doing business with ATK, or any other company for that matter, for SRB's. None of the Falcon designs integrate SRB's into the design. When putting together a rocket, that kind of capability is something you design into the system from the ground up. You don't just slap solid rockets on the side of a booster that wasn't designed for them. Furthermore, it seems like SpaceX rather enjoys building their own rockets. They didn't subcontract the nozzles. They didn't subcontract the injection assembly. They didn't subcontract any of it. The Merlin engine is entirely the brainchild of SpaceX employees. They do their own work in-house, and I think that really helps them stand out as a company in the space industry. For now, I think SpaceX likes launching SpaceX rockets, and only SpaceX rockets.

Re:So can we kill NASA now?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Great idea! Let's kill off funding to the only United States organization doing research outside of low earth orbit! It's not like they've ever done, or are currently doing, anything interesting or useful!

Damn, stupid AC's.

so what's next...

[Creepy]

I'm guessing next will be the Commercially Underfunded Transportation to Space program, or as businessmen call it, CUTS.

Splashdown is Confirmed!

[ravenspear]

http://twitter.com/SpaceXer

"SpaceX is the first commercial company to reenter a spacecraft from space!"

Re:It's 2010

[BJ_Covert_Action]

No, we don't. Because those of us with a sense of context know that this 1950's technology is going to make spaceflight much cheaper for everyone involved. We also know that the CEO of the company that just achieved this milestone intends to retire on Mars. I would say that these types of tests, therefore, help him get one step closer to that dream and, therefore, they are newsworthy. Finally, it demonstrates the abilities of a company that, ostensibly, will be selling access to space independent of government funding and, therefore, gerrymandered and corrupt political decisions. This is very newsworthy, especially to us nerds.

Now go back to trolling on Reddit or something.

Dragon has landed!

[FleaPlus]

Update: The Dragon has successfully made a soft landing in the Pacific! This makes it the first-ever commercial spacecraft to return from orbit, and the first American capsule splash-down since 1975. A recovery vessel has already arrived at the capsule and is currently attaching floatation devices to it. NASA and SpaceX are doing a press conference as early as 3:30pm EST, which will presumably be broadcast both on NASA TV and SpaceX's website.

SpaceX has also released a video pointing out a window of the Dragon capsule while in orbit. They apparently also have video of the descent and presumably more video from inside the capsule which will soon be available.

For more updates:

http://twitter.com/SpaceXer
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html

Re:Dragon has landed!

[Anonymous Coward]

the first American capsule splash-down since 1975.

That's a narrow milestone, and only because the Russians do ground landings. But two Americans did a capsule landing *last week*.

Re:Dragon has landed!

[chispito]

Can someone who is more knowledgeable or better at Google explain the second stage nozzle to me? It was not only glowing red, but looked like it was blowing up like a balloon.

Re:Dragon has landed!

[slew]

AFAIK, the nozzle is actually pretty thin and designed to "glow" (some sort of niobium metal alloy) and as a result a little bit wobbly. Apparently, they have a stiffening ring "glued" to it, but that they burn it away after the second stage ignites.

That being said, the visual blowing up effect may however be a camera infrared light color bleeding artifact rather than any mechanical bellowing...

Congratulations!

[cuby]

I have high hopes on them. The best of luck!

video of the launch

[cuby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi9ljTW3GEQ

Re:So can we kill NASA now?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Hmmmm, "better, faster, cheaper," where have I heard that before? As a rule of thumb, faster, better, and cheaper doesn't always work out with respect to complicated technical endeavors...like pioneering unexplored areas of space. Now... applied to a practice which has been done well, consistently, for four+ decades, like LEO flight (SpaceX's current business), it has its merits. But when it comes to sending a probe out past the edges of the solar system, trying to do something fast and cheap is sure to create a new crater on Neptune.

But then, maybe you can explain to me what kind of profit a company in the private sector could generate from a mission like Voyager or Cassini?

It's okay, I'll wait....

In the meantime, I will sit and ponder the merits that NASA has going for it when it comes to deep space exploration vs. the merits SpaceX has going for it when it comes to LEO access

Re:So can we kill NASA now?

[Wyatt Earp]

You missed aviation, NASA doesn't just do space, they do R&D for aircraft and have since the 1920s.

They even had a B-52 and the last two SR-71s

Re:So can we kill NASA now?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

True. I'm just a space junkie, so that's what comes to mind first.

Not true at all

[WindBourne]

There are plenty of systems to take satellites down. Heck, CHina has several of these. It is just that the shuttle is the only one to take them down in one piece.

Re:So can we kill NASA now?

[Wyatt Earp]

I grew up at an airport (civil aviation, Cessna's, Piper Cubs, spray planes) that was directly under the SAC bomber and tanker routes out of Ellsworth.

I think of space first with NASA, but aviation and aerospace are close seconds, hell it's first in their name.

Aerospace and Space ;)

DIY, man..

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't RTFA, but as an empoyee of said company, I say, if you want something don, then do it yourself... Lot cheaper for the American taxpayer too..

Well, it's a start...

[LongearedBat]

Still have another 991 upgrades to go until we get the model Millenium Falcon.

(My sense of humour is so bad that I feel the need to apologise to you for reading it. ;)

SpaceX to orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or is this just about the best space news since the first shuttle launch?