At Long Last, a Private Cargo Spaceship Takes Off (Video)

Popping sound by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

After watching both this and Copenhagen Suborbital's launch, I noticed that the rockets seem to "pop" at a few Hz. I don't recall hearing this on NASA launches, does anyone know why this is?

Re:Popping sound by medcalf · 2012-05-22 11:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Well they can't rap, silly!

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Popping sound by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:17 · Score: 0

Because NASA wanted to protect your sensitive ears and make sure that you heard their BS PR statement, not the launch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehNdHndyUDo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL2B72F35CE512D431
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsRuJ37kyZg
Re:Popping sound by amicusNYCL · 2012-05-22 11:18 · Score: 3, Informative

I haven't watched the video yet, but when I was present for one of the shuttle launches a few years ago there was a point when it was pretty high when the sound definitely started "popping". It was fairly high by that point, so the sound was traveling quite a distance and was mostly the low frequencies by the time it got to us, but the popping was clearly noticeable.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Popping sound by poity · 2012-05-22 11:25 · Score: 1

It happens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzuWmno-X8 (1:35 mark)
Don't know why though, but since it's the same sound at low speed as well as high speed it's probably from the engines.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:Popping sound by ThreeKelvin · 2012-05-22 11:31 · Score: 5, Informative

If you mean the "popping noise" the TM65 engine that Copenhagen Suborbitals testet made at startup, then it was a bit of engine oscilations. It's most likely caused by the engine being run at a low fuel pressure. The fuel will ignite in the ignition chamber, causing the pressure to rise, giving a higher exhaust flow, causing the pressure to drop, giving less exhaust flow, resulting in more fuel in the ignition chamber, that ignites, ...
At higher fuel pressures the oscilations are dampened. (But they do sound awsome!)
I don't know if that's the case with SpaceX's Falcon, but I'm pretty sure that if they have engine oscilations it's nothing they can't handle.
Re:Popping sound by longacre · 2012-05-22 11:36 · Score: 4, Funny

NASA probably used special $3 billion taxpayer-funded microphones for their launches, whereas cost-conscious SpaceX bought theirs at Best Buy.

--
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Re:Popping sound by slew · 2012-05-22 12:26 · Score: 2

After watching both this and Copenhagen Suborbital's launch, I noticed that the rockets seem to "pop" at a few Hz. I don't recall hearing this on NASA launches, does anyone know why this is?
I'm not sure, but I've heard antecdotally from some people that are more knowledgable that these frequencies result from some collision/mixing of the hypersonic exhaust with the surrounding still air. If it were actually something in the rocket, say like low frequency combustion instability in the rocket engine itself (aka chugging), I'm guessing that would shake the rocket to bits. AFAIK, chugging tends to be more in the 20-200Hz range, not really low frequency like a few Hz...
Maybe on NASA launches they put down more water under the launch pad (which might tend to dampen these frequencies when the rocket is near the ground and when you can hear them the most).
Re:Popping sound by KPU · 2012-05-22 12:54 · Score: 5, Funny

So SpaceX paid more?
Re:Popping sound by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-05-22 14:30 · Score: 5, Funny

This is aerospace engineering, not kid stuff. You have to buy the optional Monster Cables and add the extended warranty.
Re:Popping sound by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 15:50 · Score: 2, Informative

FWIW, the space shots of the 60's, as I remember them, used to "pop". Back then I just thought it was a limitation of the audio hardware in use at the time.
Re:Popping sound by camperdave · 2012-05-22 16:04 · Score: 2

Well, one possibility is that the sound waves are cancelling each other out. At the speed the rocket is travelling, the source of the sound is travelling at rates near equivalent to the wavelength of the sound. For example, at 20 hz, the sound waves are 17ish metres long. Travelling at 612 km/h, in 1/20th of a second, the rocket could have travelled half a wavelength away. Essentially, the popping you hear could be extreme Doppler shifting.

Of course, it could also be that burning over a thousand of kilos of kerosene and oxygen per second is not a smooth process, and there may be sonic side effects.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Popping sound by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 02:16 · Score: 0

+1 The last launch I saw was like a bomb going off several times a second.
Re:Popping sound by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 03:53 · Score: 0

Don't forget the Professional installation. And haul away of the old microphone.
Re:Popping sound by kryliss · 2012-05-23 05:31 · Score: 1

Of course they did. The Best Buy employee made sure that they sold the gold plated monster cables for optimum sound.

--
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.

It will all be fine by bobstreo · 2012-05-22 11:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Scotty is on board.

Re:It will all be fine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 12:09 · Score: 0

Insightful? Interesting?
It's Funny FFS
Re:It will all be fine by bledri · 2012-05-22 13:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Insightful? Interesting? It's Funny FFS
It may be funny, but it's also true.

--
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Re:It will all be fine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 13:01 · Score: 0

Insightful? Interesting?
It's Funny FFS
No, it's true. COTS Demo Flight 2 has some of James Doohan's ashes on board.
Re:It will all be fine by twocows · 2012-05-22 14:08 · Score: 1

Funny doesn't get you karma.
Re:It will all be fine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 14:51 · Score: 0

+1 ironical
Re:It will all be fine by Megane · 2012-05-22 23:39 · Score: 1

And Gordon Cooper is riding shotgun, too.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

Way Cool by busyqth · 2012-05-22 11:04 · Score: 2

One Rocket, TWO takeoffs!

And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:08 · Score: -1, Troll

After all, private enterprise can do everything better, faster and cheaper than the evil horrible fascist government which only steals money from people in the form of taxes!

Therefore, we must cut off all space funding. This will stop the siphoning away of wealth that occurs to the bloated and incompetent NASA!

---From the Desk of the Unholy Melding of William Proxmire and Ron Paul.

Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:16 · Score: 0, Funny

Shut the fuck up, dufus.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by mug+funky · 2012-05-22 12:13 · Score: 1

sarcasm meter seems to be suffering some sort of malfunction there.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by jcr · 2012-05-22 13:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know you think you'e being clever, but the fact is that NASA worked very hard to prevent any private development of space flight capabilities for several decades.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by vuke69 · 2012-05-22 13:49 · Score: 1

My kingdom for a mod point...
+6 Truth

--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 14:48 · Score: 0

Source material to back up this claim?
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by BasilBrush · 2012-05-22 14:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

If it had been left to the private sector, we'd wouldn't have got to the moon, mars, the heliosheath. And despite the fact that earth orbit is profitable, probably no private sector project would have made the investment or taken the risk to go to space at all.
Space X can only do what it's doing now because it's standing on the shoulders of previous public sector projects. And heck this very project is being paid for by the public sector.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 15:02 · Score: 0

I understand that one-sentence refutes and counters without evidence are commonplace on slashdot, so while I am intrigued, I will be somewhat apprehensive until you support that statement.
You're probably right, so would it really hurt to provide a few supporting links and some more information to help the rest of us out here that don't know what you know?
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 16:16 · Score: 0

And private industry worked very hard to prevent any meaningful development of NASA's space flight capabilities.
Ok, so they were really working for as much of they could of the money from the government, it had the same effect.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 16:23 · Score: 0

+5 Interesting? If I said the previous Pope worked very hard to prevent any private development of space flight capabilities for several decades, and provided as much evidence as he did, would I be modded up too?
Now that I think about it, I'd be modded up by fundamentalist Christians, just like he was modded up by fundamentalist Libertarians. The only thing I like about the first is the funny hats, so could you guys get Ron Paul to wear one?
One last thing: private companies have been developing space stuff for decades. Or you think Boeing wouldn't be interested in the contracts?
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by rtb61 · 2012-05-22 17:22 · Score: 1

No but we are realist. If we can get the privatised military industrial complex to focus on privatised space exploration instead, millions of people wont have to pointlessly die in fabricated wars. So although the privatisation of space exploration will inevitably be chaotic and many people will die in space and on the ground (privatisation doing it on the cheap and falling to the ground all over the place) overall we will all still be far better off. All they need is lotteries for a space trip so the cheetos crowd can get in on it, as well as most of the rest of us and we are set. A bit of space exploration competition wouldn't go astray either as least three competing groups would be great.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by khallow · 2012-05-22 18:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Prior to the Challenger disaster in 1986, NASA had grabbed the entire space market in the US. Private companies couldn't launch payloads on rockets other than the Shuttle. And there's a long history of NASA (and US Congress) acting to protect businesses that had long been contractors for NASA. For example, consider the oligopoly of space launch providers, including the Shuttle, that had existed after Challenger through to the DoD's EELV (Evolutionary Expendable Launch Vehicle) program which encouraged competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin's launch vehicles and creation of new launch vehicles just below the Shuttle's range.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 18:45 · Score: 1

You have that right. This goes back to fight between Howard Hughes and LBJ during the space race. While it doesn't get much mention anymore. Before Apollo, there was the Surveyor missions from 1966 to 1968. Hughes put soft landing probes on moon at a tenth of the cost of Apollo. He had designs for putting a pressurized capsule in the same launch mechanism and even a plan for commerical sponsorship. LBJ and his cronies stopped it turning Apollow and the Space Shuttle into a jobs project. Hughes was a very bright cookie and immedate saw the pork and overdesign in the Apollo and Space Shuttle making it not commercially viable. Why is this happening now? You can blame Bush. ;)
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by khallow · 2012-05-22 19:05 · Score: 1

If it had been left to the private sector, we'd wouldn't have got to the moon, mars, the heliosheath. And despite the fact that earth orbit is profitable, probably no private sector project would have made the investment or taken the risk to go to space at all.
Perhaps not though such things weren't left to the private sector so we won't know for a while. But what we can say is that public sector projects make up in inefficient, graft, and sheer incompetence, what they gain in resources. Hence, we've been to the Moon, but haven't returned in almost four decades. And we've never been to anywhere else outside of Earth orbit (when are you sending people?).

Meanwhile private projects while generally far smaller than public projects are greatly more effective with the money they spend. Perhaps it wouldn't be the case that in the absence of public investment that we'd have a space presence as advanced as present. But it's worth noting that even despite the presence of NASA and other large government space programs that there has been a healthy amateur rocketry groups and such. My view is that development of the technology necessary for space development would occur anyway.

A possible rebuttal here is that NASA and such inspire these amateur groups. But it's worth noting in reply that the amateur groups precede NASA's creation by about a couple of decades. The same culture that hacks cars, planes, boats, and so on also hacks rockets.

Moving on, there has been a remarkable lack of utility from the vast amount of money that has been spent on space activities by the civilian parts of the governments of the world. The stuff we associate with human society such as people and economies, just aren't present in quantity in space despite more than half a century of government activity.

It's just not that big a hurdle for a purely private effort to overcome.

Space X can only do what it's doing now because it's standing on the shoulders of previous public sector projects. And heck this very project is being paid for by the public sector.
And the question here is how high are those shoulders? And what have those shoulders done for us lately? Currently, it appears that the only thing the government is good for in developing space, is the role of check writer. That's not much of a role.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by khallow · 2012-05-22 19:19 · Score: 1

Of course, they did. That's typical rent-seeker behavior whether public or private. It serves both to protect their captive revenue stream and avoid actual work which costs money.

But you can't rent seek (at least for half a century or more) without a government or other really stable and powerful entity to provide the noncompetitive revenue stream.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by pmontra · 2012-05-22 19:46 · Score: 2

Actually even successful private companies can become inefficient and incompetent, usually when they start operating almost in monopoly. Then other leaner and more focused companies appear and start killing them. I believe it's not public vs private, it's about competition and also the inefficiencies due to the size of the company. Public often is big and has no competition by default, so the problem is aggravated.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by mosb1000 · 2012-05-23 01:11 · Score: 2

It's wrong to think so much of the public vs. private thing. Ultimately corporations and individuals act at the request of the government and have a role in influencing it. And large corporations like Boeing or Lockheed Martin act as administrative units in themselves, establishing rules and regulations for their workforce, holding elections among their shareholders, sending lobbiests to congress and so fourth.
The main difference here is the way NASA and SpaceX are working together. Rather than issuing a cost plus contract and heavily overseeing and micro-managing the development of this rocket, they've issued a fixed price contract and left most of the details up to SpaceX. The reason it works is SpaceX is ultimately responsible for the financial results of the endeavor. If they come in under the bid amount (which is their intention) they make money. The more they save, the more they make. If they come in over budget they either lose money or they have to go back to NASA and ask for more (at which time the whole project would be in question). But you can only do this with well developed technologies, so that you know the costs well enough to bid a reasonable amount. If you try it with cutting edge technology, it would almost certainly fail.
Hopefully someday NASA will be able to simply buy newly developed rockets "off the shelf" where companies and individuals bear the risks of development on their own, but that'll only happen if SpaceX is secessfull in bringing the costs down by another order of magnitude or so (which is their intention).
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Hillgiant · 2012-05-23 01:26 · Score: 1

Which is why NASA sank $300m into SpaceX am-I-right?

--
-
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 01:48 · Score: 0

Ah, there you go, thinking that Private industry isn't innovative enough to learn how to do that without the government.
Trust me, they're quite capable. Just look around at all the little ads you see from various people looking for work.
More of them are cheats than you will believe. They have a diffuse base which they con, it's not a singular entity at all.
People are the problem, for whatever reason.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by khallow · 2012-05-23 03:52 · Score: 1

Ah, there you go, thinking that Private industry isn't innovative enough to learn how to do that without the government.
No, not "innovative", private industry isn't powerful enough to do that. As to the comments about people, the reward system has to change. If businesses are rewarded for being scoundrel rather than useful members of society, then scoundrels will be what comes.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by khallow · 2012-05-23 03:54 · Score: 1

Public often is big and has no competition by default, so the problem is aggravated.
I spoke of symptoms, you speak here of causes. It is the same thing.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by amicusNYCL · 2012-05-23 04:18 · Score: 1

If it had been left to the private sector, we'd wouldn't have got to the moon, mars, the heliosheath.
How come? Because private individuals aren't explorers?

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Teancum · 2012-05-23 06:20 · Score: 1

What keeps companies lean and competent is the ability for new companies to come into the industry. If you and a bunch of your buddies can start up a new rocket company (assuming you have the skills necessary to make them), you should be able to start bending metal and put them into the air.
When new companies can form, it also allows for those bloated and inefficient companies to go bankrupt because they can't compete against these new start-up companies. For something like spaceflight, there are benefits for a well established company to continue doing what it has been doing for years as they have a safety record and can show the quality of what they've done in the past so it is an uphill climb to be recognized as a new start-up company even if you are good. Still, having new companies forming allows not only for growth of the industry, but also makes it so no single company is "too big to fail". THAT is where you get companies which should be shut down and get bloated.
As is happening now within the traditional launcher companies, they are really working hard on trying to stay relevant in terms of competing against the new start-up companies. For years they were inefficient and in fact the cost of spaceflight over the past couple of decades has been steadily going up. American companies have all but stopped performing private commercial launches (for things like communications satellites, photo survey sats, and other vehicles doing commercial activity in space right now). They've been living off of the gravy train coming from the federal government presuming that source of revenue would remain eternally theirs. Instead they are discovering they left an opening for new companies to form like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, and Scaled Composites to take away at least part of the business that formerly went to these traditional aerospace companies.
Scaled Composites is interesting as it was very successful at what it did, built "SpaceShip One" in terms of a suborbital vehicle, and then was purchased by Northrup-Grumman because they were doing things that Northrup-Grumman couldn't do at the time. More than a few offers have been made to Elon Musk to purchase SpaceX (he said so in a recent interview). If these companies are inefficient, they will lose market share and potentially be forced to leave the industry altogether.
BTW, the same thing unfortunately applies to government agencies, but the problem with a government agency is that they generally don't go bankrupt and almost never are shut down. Some agencies like NASA started out as really efficient little organizations with dedicated employees and a thirst to get something amazing done. They became over time bloated and inefficient, but unfortunately there is no way to kill an agency like that. It becomes a political football to even try to clean up any sort of waste, and most political attempts to clean up the corruption tend to inflate costs even more simply because it adds further regulations and layers of oversight. The only way to really reduce costs in a government bureaucracy is to shut it down completely. Because that offends some political constituency who do give campaign contributions to elected officials, that agency simply won't be shut down.
Private companies routinely do get shut down though. That is called bankruptcy. For myself, I think bankruptcy is a good thing because it forces resources allocated to failing companies to be put to better uses elsewhere. In an ideal world, it would be just the folks at the top who get into trouble for mismanaging the company. I can name some examples where this did happen, but often enough it doesn't happen... usually due to some sort of political cover those at the top of company leadership have received from elected officials and business laws that don't hold those running such lousy companies from personal responsibility for their actions.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:07 · Score: 0

Currently, it appears that the only thing the government is good for in developing space, is the role of check writer. That's not much of a role.
You're forgetting that this is capitalism we're talking about. The role of checkwriter is the most important role of all.
Re:And now we can cut off space funding. by Teancum · 2012-05-23 15:07 · Score: 1

It is made +5 interesting because it is true.
While there has been some private commercial space projects, most of those (especially Intelsat) had essentially a government granted monopoly on certain aspects of space development. It really had much more in common with... well 1930's Germany than a true form of capitalism and a free market. While technically "commercial" and "private companies", the distinction between what these companies were doing in space and a government agency is mostly semantics. For most of what Boeing has been doing in space is as a government contractor using "cost-plus" contracts where they aren't even risking their own money to make the vehicles they are building. The "cost" part of such contracts is that no matter how much it costs them to make whatever it is that they are making, that the government guarantees it will be paid, and the "plus" is the profit they will earn for doing the job. They are guaranteed a certain amount of money that they will earn regardless of the cost it takes to get the job done.
NASA has gone out of their way to make sure that only companies like Boeing could get into space, where until the past decade or so there wasn't even a government agency which could even authorize somebody to put their own rocket into space. We now have the FAA Office of Commercial Spaceflight (called FAA-AST due to being the "Administrator for Space Transportation") which has the authority to grant that permission and NASA was even explicitly cut out of the loop for deciding if those spacecraft are safe... unless they are being used by NASA personnel or for a NASA contract.
On top of that, at least for the 1970's and 1980's NASA published prices for commercial payloads on the Space Shuttle that were so heavily subsidized that it killed all efforts at commercial spaceflight. If you want specifics, look up the name Jim Benson and look at the companies he started where NASA personnel did repeated political moves to kill his companies and prevent him from getting a rocket into space. At least Jim Benson lived long enough to see SpaceShip One fly and validate his ideas for spaceflight. His company lives on as a subsidiary of the Sierra Nevada corporation.
I could name other examples (look up what Deke Slayton did after he left the NASA astronaut corps), but there certainly are many examples of how many very skilled and intelligent people tried in vain to get private commercial spaceflight to happen. The only reason private companies are more successful today is that the traditional launch builders got complacent thinking their system for building rockets would never be challenged.

Sputtering bunsen burner by janimal · 2012-05-22 11:11 · Score: 1

I'm assuming the noise is more due to the mic cutting out than actual sound that the rocket made. Are there mics that can capture the roar, so it can be played back in DTS? :)

Re:Sputtering bunsen burner by electron+sponge · 2012-05-22 11:34 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm assuming the noise is more due to the mic cutting out than actual sound that the rocket made. Are there mics that can capture the roar, so it can be played back in DTS? :)
They should have used Monster Cables.
Re:Sputtering bunsen burner by Lumpy · 2012-05-22 12:09 · Score: 2

Yes. using real microphones that use 48Volt phantom power it would have done a great job at it. Problem is Slashdot's budget is $12.50 and they cant hire anyone that is experienced or skilled in video, so they have to learn as they go.
Buy a real field mixer, some real microphones (like a shotgun on a boom with an audio person) and record to a audio recorder and not to the $200.00 camcorder.
they really need to spend about $3500.00 on some real gear (if your video camera does not have XLR mic inputs, it's not good enough) and hire a second intern. Although I am assuming it's just him and a tripod. I am certain their budget for video is even lower than I am guessing.
Honestly they should not be even trying to do HD. SD is just fine for web video like this, a old Canon XL1 would be high end for their use and would record audio better, a used Senheiser ME66 on a mic stand next to the tripod powered from the Camera's XLR inputs and they would be better equipped than 90% of the other websites out there.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Sputtering bunsen burner by Roblimo · 2012-05-22 16:55 · Score: 2

Reality = the $800 Panasonic camcorder and Azden shotgun mic + Audio-Technica wireless lav & handhelds that are the Slashdot standard video gear are at least as good as a Canon XH A1, which was the high-def successor to the XL1.
XLR mic inputs are only really necessary if you're dealing with music and need big audio bandwidth. And nowadays, you might as well use a Zoom H4 for sound, and it will provide phantom power and give you two channels of directional sound through external mics plus 2 channels of ambient. This assumes you either own a copy of pluraleyes or know how to synch audio manually.
Re:Sputtering bunsen burner by Lumpy · 2012-05-23 00:04 · Score: 1

The issue is that you NEED a high voltage swing to record a very loud noise. Be it a rock concert or a rocket launch. the Azden shotgun you guys use probably runs off of a single AA battery, so it will never record high dynamic range audio like a rocket launch. I agree the Zoom H4 is a perfect direction, add a clapper board for every scene and audio sync will be effortless. Although you could add a AG-MYA30G from Panasonic to fix the camera and power the microphones with more "oomph"... The XL1's successor the XL1HD. The glass makes all the difference. I have used a ton of video cameras, and the Panny has a sub par IS system and has more achromatic distortion than the Canon, all because of the lens.
And I am impressed you guys have that high of a budget and gear. I did not expect that some real money is being spent on the video side of things so that you are at least using prosumer gear. A lot of sites are trying to get away with a $200.00 palmcorder and a $29.00 wired lav. I personally think the video is good enough, although you need a switchable ND filer to cover more rocket launches, it would have looked better if you had a ND on there to pull in more detail instead of being a bright blob.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Sputtering bunsen burner by amicusNYCL · 2012-05-23 04:20 · Score: 1

The engine popping sound is audible when you're present for a launch, that microphone was actually pretty good quality. That's generally what it sounded like when I saw a shuttle go up.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black

Oy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:13 · Score: 0

Someone get Timothy a proper lavaliere rig and nice in-ear monitors (if he really needs it).

Audio-Technica and Etymotic... call it maybe $500 and you'll be gtg for years.

From the legal department by skids · 2012-05-22 11:19 · Score: 1

But don't stop holding your breath quite yet

...the lawyers wanted us to pass on that they advise against issuing this command to your online minions.

--
Someone had to do it.

Re:From the legal department by SomeJoel · 2012-05-22 11:31 · Score: 1

Wheel... Of Money!

--
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>

An accounting marvel by linuxwrangler · 2012-05-22 11:21 · Score: 5, Informative

A commenter on NPR today made an interesting point. There is a lot of talk about "first private..." but NASA has relied heavily on private industry since the beginning. Lockheed Martin, Morton Thaikol, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Rockwell Colllins, Teledyne, Honeywell, Kodak, Perkin-Elmer.........

And Falcon launched from a government built/owned/maintained launch-site.

What *is* different is the accounting. Instead of a bevy of cost-plus contracts there is now a single-point fixed-cost provider which, surprise surprise, seems to be able to deliver at a much lower cost/kg.

And no, this does not detract from their accomplishment. Getting to space is still difficult and risky. Congratulations to everyone involved regardless of who writes their paychecks.

--

~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis

Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:30 · Score: 0

Now if only going to the hospital meant going to a single-point fixed-cost provider.. Last time I was in one I got bills from over 20 different entities!! Just plain stupid if you ask me.
Re:An accounting marvel by im_thatoneguy · 2012-05-22 11:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think the other difference is that the company built the vehicle without providing the design spec. A private company built a product as best as it could instead of delivering a product 'to-spec'. Which admittedly to-spec has created some great vehicles like the Delta-IV. And a Delta-IV isn't *that* much more expensive to launch. We just didn't pay for its design and testing this time.
Re:An accounting marvel by PopeRatzo · 2012-05-22 11:38 · Score: 2

There is a lot of talk about "first private..." but NASA has relied heavily on private industry since the beginning. Lockheed Martin, Morton Thaikol, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Rockwell Colllins
Who relies on whom?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:An accounting marvel by Lumpy · 2012-05-22 12:02 · Score: 2

Yeah, nothing NASA launched was built by NASA. All of it was built by private companies and sold to them for use.
It's all PR. I'll call it Commercial when they launch from their facility and have a paypal for me to pay for each KG of payload I want to send up in LEO.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:An accounting marvel by MightyYar · 2012-05-22 12:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Delta-IV is about 3x as expensive to launch as the Falcon 9. Delta-IV is pretty much the most expensive way to put things in orbit now that the shuttle is gone.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:An accounting marvel by Martin+Blank · 2012-05-22 12:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the past, the vehicles have been turned over to NASA (or other relevant space agency) whereas here, SpaceX has maintained ownership of the launch vehicle and capsule. It's one of the reasons that NASA has been so paranoid over the launch is because it has less direct control of it.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 13:40 · Score: 0

Delta-IV clocks in at 1.6 million pounds. Falcon 9? Half that.
That's just one figure, but still, I think it shows why a more detailed examination might be in order.
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 13:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, you could call Lockheed Martin, Morton Thaikol, Boeing,, et al "private companies", but I think the difference is that none of them would suck a deep breath without a government contract signed, sealed and delivered.
SpaceX designed, built and tested their Falcon rocket and Dragon spacecraft on their own dime.
Yes, I know NASA provided some funding, but that was extra funding. You can bet Elon Musk would have funded the whole thing himself if he had to.
Re:An accounting marvel by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-05-22 14:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

AC gets it right.
Also, add in that SpaceX is willing to eat any cost overruns. The other "private companies" (government contractors are no such thing) continue to demand additional funds if there are cost overruns.
When SpaceX is allowed to have their own spaceport, and they're launching a new rocket every day of the week for five years straight to meet demand for a $500,000 trip to Mars, NASA won't even be in the picture.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:An accounting marvel by BasilBrush · 2012-05-22 14:43 · Score: 1

What *is* different is the accounting. Instead of a bevy of cost-plus contracts there is now a single-point fixed-cost provider which, surprise surprise, seems to be able to deliver at a much lower cost/kg.
Than what? Apollo? The Space Shuttle? Soyuz?2010s technology is more efficient than 1960s and 1970s technology. Who da thunk it?
Re:An accounting marvel by cheesybagel · 2012-05-22 16:16 · Score: 1

Are you talking about Delta IV Heavy? Falcon 9 Heavy will also have more payload.
Re:An accounting marvel by camperdave · 2012-05-22 16:23 · Score: 2

You're living in the wrong country. Around here, going to the hospital is a completely bill free experience.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 17:44 · Score: 0

It's not that private industry is inherently more efficient than government. It is that private interests corrupt government and cause it to shovel taxpayer money to them. It's not quite so easy to do when the money you are in control of is your own money. But they still corrupt government legislation and enforcement and regulations to favor them, it's just not quite so easy to see in $ terms.
Blame the corrupt systems in place. There is nothing inherent about private vs public in terms of efficiency. A corporations is run as a far more strict command economy than the likes of the soviet union had ever seen. That does not make it inherently inefficient.
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 18:05 · Score: 0

Any evidence for that? Or are you just being an irrational space cadet?
Re:An accounting marvel by DerekLyons · 2012-05-22 18:48 · Score: 2

In the past, the vehicles have been turned over to NASA (or other relevant space agency)
Only if they were purchased by NASA (or other relevant space agency). Otherwise, they (or their launch capacity) went to the whoever was writing the checks. NASA isn't the only game in town, and hasn't been for decades. Private vehicles carrying private payloads have been taking off for decades.
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 18:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

A corporations is run as a far more strict command economy than the likes of the soviet union had ever seen. That does not make it inherently inefficient.
Actually, yes it does. The calculation argument Ludwig von Mises leveled aganst the Soviet Union can also be used to explain the bloated inefficiency of major corporations, as Kevin Carson has demonstrated. The bigger a company gets, the further its command structure is removed from inputs, and so it grows more irrational until it cannot function capably under its own power. Such entities require outside assistance and defence from competition to survive at all.
You hear lots about economies of scale, but most people don't realize that there are diseconomies of scale, too; and without massive outside support in the form of regulations, licensing barriers, and outright bailouts, these diseconomies are insurmountable.
Re:An accounting marvel by wvmarle · 2012-05-22 18:58 · Score: 1

Of course NASA relies on the expertise from those industries. Why not? Why re-invent the wheel? On the other hand NASA had the funds, and could take the huge risks, of developing space technology without any known benefits - without even knowing whether it'd be possible.
Also those private companies have the means to actually build stuff. They have the know-how and the tools to put stuff together, so when NASA develops a design, they hire someone to build it for them.
On the other hand, companies like SpaceX can only become a success because of the enormous research effort done by NASA over the past decades. They can learn from what NASA has done: things that work, things that don't. And use that as a starting point for their own rocketry. Also it's their first flight, so naturally they will use an existing launch pad instead of building their own.
It's just like an ecosystem, everyone relies on everyone else. For finance, knowledge, development, construction, etc. And it's not just space flight, almost all technology and engineering is developed by a combination of private and public research - but most publicly funded research is not done by a high-profile agency like NASA but by institutes like universities.
And to come back on the launch pad: it's generally considered a task of the government to provide infrastructure, including roads, railways, airports, power lines, water lines, sewage, etc. So why not launch pads? Mind I'm not saying they should provide them for free: let the user pay, but the large upfront investment in such things, the general economical benefits and the prevention of double work is what makes it a typical government task.
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 20:01 · Score: 0

Exactly. Huge corporations are by no means inherently efficient.
Neither are small businesses in fact, exactly due to economies of scale (and duplication of effort etc).
So any moron who parrots "private is more efficient than public" just has no idea what the real underlying issues are.
Re:An accounting marvel by MightyYar · 2012-05-23 00:50 · Score: 1

I was comparing the medium Delta-IV launch costs. That rocket is similar to the Falcon 9 in terms of payload weight.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:An accounting marvel by amliebsch · 2012-05-23 03:49 · Score: 1

It's worth noting, too, that while they launched off of government property, SpaceX did in fact construct all of the pad infrastructure at their own expense. (They did get some help, from, e.g., the Air Force agreeing to sell them a scrapped 110,000 gallon LOX sphere for $1.)

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:An accounting marvel by Martin+Blank · 2012-05-23 06:55 · Score: 1

But none have docked with another vehicle (or at least a station) in orbit. That's the first here: a government agency is allowing a completely private craft to dock with a space station. Such docking may--and hopefully will--become commonplace with at least SpaceX and Orbital Sciences providing cargo runs (the first ISS mission for Orbital Sciences is scheduled for the fall).

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:An accounting marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-23 07:24 · Score: 0

It really depends on the company. Many large corporations allow bottom-up control of their organization, which dramatically reduces command-and-control style diseconomies of scale. Furthermore, in industries like, say, the semiconductor industry, economies of scale totally trump any diseconomies they've met thus far with little regulatory hurdles, and will likely continue to do so for at least another decade or so.
Re:An accounting marvel by Teancum · 2012-05-23 08:23 · Score: 1

In spite of the cost of the Delta IV, it is still cheaper than the Space Shuttle, and arguably similar in price if not cheaper than the Saturn vehicles were in inflation-adjusted prices from the 1970's.
On the whole, I really like the EELV program, and it was something not only necessary for the national security of America but remarkably well managed as well. Notable too is that NASA wasn't even involved (at least directly) with the program as it was paid for through the USAF budget. The fact that we can even have a discussion in terms of a price difference between the Delta IV, Atlas V, and the Falcon 9 rockets should be remarkable by itself, where the same rockets have been used for both commercial and military payloads (classified and non-classified). Some of the previous launch vehicles used by the military and by NASA were exclusively dedicated to just government payloads. For example, no private company could have purchased a Saturn I flight even if they wanted one. Even Shuttle space was prohibited for commercial customers except in the early days of the Shuttle program (for a good reason too).
I happen to agree with you about the price of the Falcon 9. One of the interesting things about SpaceX is that they have the "cash and carry" price of the Falcon 9 listed on their website, something that neither Boeing nor Lockheed-Martin have done. I think ATK did announce a basic price for their Liberty rocket, but that is the only traditional launcher company doing something like that. Lockheed-Martin in particular, when asked at a press conference about the price they charge the government much less commercial customers, they refuse to comment saying that information is "proprietary".
Re:An accounting marvel by Teancum · 2012-05-23 08:44 · Score: 1

It's all PR. I'll call it Commercial when they launch from their facility and have a paypal for me to pay for each KG of payload I want to send up in LEO.
Ask, and ye shall receive
Seriously, this has been happening already. I'm sure Nanoracks will accept most major credit cards and PayPal if you insist. They charge about $25,000 for a "1 unit" or "1 U" rack mount system with a few variables depending on the mass of the system and a few other factors that you can negotiate on the website. At the moment their customers are all going to the International Space Station, and included in the contract allows you to have an astronaut perform in-orbit servicing of your device if necessary. Telemetry is a part of the package and you can have the racks returned to you after being in space for awhile (for an additional cost).
Several of these racks have gone up to the International Space Station already, and a few of them are even on this particular flight of the Falcon 9 with the COTS 2+ mission. If you want to open up your bank account and send them some money, I'm sure they'll take it. I just hope you have something useful to do with that space.
SpaceX also has a program called "Dragon Lab" which offers a similar kind of service where a Dragon capsule can stay up for nearly a year with pressurized cargo in the interior. SpaceX has two schedule flights at the moment on their manifest, and is currently selling space on them to anybody who wants to put something into that vehicle. If you want to put something on there (even just a single kilogram package) I'm sure that Gwynne Shotwell will take your e-mail (gwynne at spacex dot com) and offer you a price to put a package on there. PayPal payments for this service are certainly accepted as well.
Just look at who founded PayPal BTW.... you would hope that Elon would take payments from that company :)
Re:An accounting marvel by DerekLyons · 2012-05-23 10:55 · Score: 1

The government has worked with private agencies pretty much since it's founding. Heck, a private company handle assembling and dissembling nuclear weapons for the government.

Private? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:23 · Score: 1

"At Long Last, a Private Cargo Spaceship..."

Uhh, didn't all the money come from NASA???

Re:Private? by PopeRatzo · 2012-05-22 11:39 · Score: 2

"At Long Last, a Private Cargo Spaceship..."
Uhh, didn't all the money come from NASA???
Shhh. You're going to soft-boil all the free market hard-ons.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Private? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:53 · Score: 0

And pop all the Space Nutter delusions.
Re:Private? by arose · 2012-05-22 12:25 · Score: 1

No, silly. The private sector is perfectly willing to put their record profits in line to further a high risk venture with uncertain returns since the tech is well understood. Why the only reason that it was not the private sector that launched Sputnik is because the Soviets didn't have a private sector!

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Private? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 13:17 · Score: 1

No, Elon Musk has put in about $100M of his own money, with another odd $100M from other private investors. They've gotten some money from DARPA, deposits on future launches. NASA has kicked in $400M or so, but that has been based entirely on milestones successfully achieved
Re:Private? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-05-22 13:44 · Score: 2

Private, public, who cares?
What matters is that we keep it going.
Re:Private? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-05-22 14:28 · Score: 1

"At Long Last, a Private Cargo Spaceship..."
Uhh, didn't all the money come from NASA???
No, actually it didn't.
NASA ponied up some money when they did the COTS idea (and will pony up more when SPaceX starts regular cargo flights to the ISS next year), but SpaceX had been developing Falcon 1 & 9 and Dragon before NASA got involved.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Private? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 18:19 · Score: 0

In other words, the vast majority of the money has come from NASA. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re:Private? by Hadlock · 2012-05-22 21:32 · Score: 1

Sputnik was a hollowed out ICBM warhead. I can only guess the political reasoning behind doing what they did, besides national pride/one-upsmanship.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Private? by Teancum · 2012-05-23 09:26 · Score: 1

Sputnik was a hollowed out ICBM warhead. I can only guess the political reasoning behind doing what they did, besides national pride/one-upsmanship.
I don't think people in 1957 (especially members of the United States Congress at the time or the Eisenhower administration) missed the political message of what Sputnik meant, including the fact that it was a nuclear warhead casing. In fact you can get congressional hearing transcripts which will tell you exactly what they thought that message implied. Those senators and representatives weren't shy about expressing their opinions on the matter.
Re:Private? by Teancum · 2012-05-23 15:21 · Score: 1

No, the vast majority of the money SpaceX is using right now has come from deposits on future flights they will be making. If a whole bunch of those companies try to back out of those contracts, SpaceX would be in a world of hurt, but the money has been flowing in their direction from that. It represents most of the current revenue stream that SpaceX has been running on so far. SpaceX needs to actually launch some rockets to complete those contracts, so there is some concern there, but then again they are building up the company and expanding to provide those rockets.
Oh, and SpaceX has also been successful at sending up a Falcon 1 rocket too, even though I'll admit that one flight (a genuine revenue flight) is relatively insignificant. There have also been some minor secondary payloads on both this flight (such as the Celestia capsule on the Falcon 9 2nd stage that has been getting press recently) as well as some other minor cube sats sent up by some customers.
All told, the majority of the funding that SpaceX has received has come from private individuals and companies, not government agencies... and of government agencies NASA's money is not even a "vast majority of the funding". SpaceX does see the COTS program as a priority, but not the only one.
It is also important to note that the COTS program has multiple competing companies (currently six companies are "qualified" for receiving funds or services from NASA) and it is all very competitive. If SpaceX starts to miss deadlines or fails to deliver, future funding will be transferred to other companies. BTW, this already happened where Rocketplane Kistler had their funding cut and the money transferred over to Orbital Science for the Taurus II rocket they are developing. ATK is already chomping at the bit hoping for a SpaceX failure, which is why they've really been pushing the development of the Liberty rocket. The success of SpaceX so far doesn't seem to imply that ATK will be successful though.

Docking on Friday? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:23 · Score: 0

From a layman's perspective, I'm confused as to why it takes so long to get to LEO? How fast does this compare with the space shuttle? Why does it take so long to dock?

Re:Docking on Friday? by ColdWetDog · 2012-05-22 11:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

From a layman's perspective, I'm confused as to why it takes so long to get to LEO? How fast does this compare with the space shuttle? Why does it take so long to dock?
It's not McDonald's. You don't just drive up to it. Like a beautiful woman, you have to chase it... No, I didn't really say that.
Basically, they're taking their time checking systems out. They are doing a close approach pass to ensure that the communications and control links work before taking it in close. A Soyuz capsule has already crash-parked into the ISS with much consternation and concern. They're just being really, really careful.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Docking on Friday? by MightyYar · 2012-05-22 11:38 · Score: 1

10 minutes to go 100 miles vertical seems pretty fast to me...
Especially when you consider that they don't just fly straight up, and they end up flying at 7km/s.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Docking on Friday? by MightyYar · 2012-05-22 11:39 · Score: 1

Dumb me - it's 200 miles.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Docking on Friday? by Lumpy · 2012-05-22 11:59 · Score: 2

Takes so long? If your car could drive straight up as fast as it could go, it would take 2 hours to get there. 10 minutes is insanely fast for 200 miles.
Call me when your renault can do 0.33 miles per second.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Docking on Friday? by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-05-22 12:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, getting 100+ miles high is the easy part - getting that high with 17,000 MPH of sideways velocity is where it gets tricky. Without that much sideways velocity, you just fall back down.
Re:Docking on Friday? by fgodfrey · 2012-05-22 12:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

It only takes about 10 minutes to get to orbit. I believe the Shuttle and the Progress & Soyuz spacecraft all took about 2 days to dock with ISS. I believe most of that time is spent matching the orbits perfectly and "catching up" with it in orbit (you don't want to approach too fast and slowing down requires fuel, and fuel is weight so you want to use as little as feasible).
Dragon is taking awhile longer because this is only the second time that the Dragon has flown and the first time docking. So, they're going to run a whole bunch of tests to ensure that they can control the spacecraft from the ground and then a bunch more to make sure the astronauts on the ISS can control it. Then, finally, they'll let it get close enough to dock. I suspect (though I have no actual information on this) that once they get past the "test flight" phase, it will take a similar amount to time to Soyuz/Progress/Shuttle to get there.

--
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Re:Docking on Friday? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 12:25 · Score: 0

It's not McDonald's. You don't just drive up to it. Like a beautiful woman, you have to chase it... No, I didn't really say that.
Yes you did, just there.
Re:Docking on Friday? by Fnord666 · 2012-05-22 12:49 · Score: 1

Like a beautiful woman, you have to chase it... No, I didn't really say that.
I believe the technical term is stalking.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:Docking on Friday? by Baloroth · 2012-05-22 14:20 · Score: 1

Yes, getting 100+ miles high is the easy part - getting that high with 17,000 MPH of sideways velocity is where it gets tricky. Without that much sideways velocity, you just fall back down.
I'm just gonna go ahead and say both are pretty tricky.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Docking on Friday? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 18:38 · Score: 0

What are these miles you speak of?
Re:Docking on Friday? by wvmarle · 2012-05-22 19:03 · Score: 1

I'm always impressed with such dockings, considering they happen while both craft travel at many kms per second, yet their speeds are to be virtually equal. So you have to speed up to a certain speed, and then make sure the speed is exactly the right speed, and the exact right direction, and that the craft is at the exact right position when reaching that speed and direction.
And I don't think that firing your thrusters is such a great idea when in close proximity to another space craft: I would expect that the matter thrown out by the thrusters could damage and push away the other craft if directed at it.
Re:Docking on Friday? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 20:14 · Score: 0

Even with that much sideways velocity, you still "fall back down" in some sense... it's just that you miss the ground, ending up beside the earth and having to redefine "down". The experience of "0 gravity" when in orbit is because you're actually in free fall.
Re:Docking on Friday? by Teancum · 2012-05-23 15:31 · Score: 1

And I don't think that firing your thrusters is such a great idea when in close proximity to another space craft: I would expect that the matter thrown out by the thrusters could damage and push away the other craft if directed at it.
That is sort of what Gemini 8 was all about. I will agree though in terms of being impressed with such a maneuver. If anything, I would consider in-orbit rendezvous to be as difficult if not more difficult to complete even assuming that you have the technology to get into orbit as simply building a rocket to get into orbit in the first place. It is that large of a technical challenge.
That SpaceX is only the fifth organization in the history of humanity to even attempt such a task should speak volumes about how difficult of a task it is. The other four organizations are all national space exploration bodies (with strong ties to the national military organizations of those countries) of permanent members of the UN security council... a rather elite group if I say so myself. That two of those national space organizations have only been able to reach that same goal in the past couple years should be all that more remarkable.
Re:Docking on Friday? by eriqk · 2012-05-26 03:18 · Score: 1

It's not McDonald's. You don't just drive up to it. Like a beautiful woman, you have to chase it... No, I didn't really say that.
Swiss Tony, is that you?

Not bad, Slashdot by Okian+Warrior · 2012-05-22 11:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Using video for action, text for info. Check.
Very little "talking heads". Check
Geek interest. Check
Short, and to the point. Check

Not bad. That's the way to do video.

Re:Not bad, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:57 · Score: 0

they could have tried not being completely wrong with the text though. "right on schedule" would have been during the first launch window.
Re:Not bad, Slashdot by game+kid · 2012-05-22 12:02 · Score: 2

It was right on the rescheduled schedule. :)

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:Not bad, Slashdot by ErZo · 2012-05-22 20:30 · Score: 1

All system checks cleared! Ready for takeoff!

Yeah, this video was a lot better than the previous ones! Only thing that I personally miss is a subtitle track/transcription, but that's a side order :-)

--
In the Soviet Union, signatures writes you!

Downloadable? by vanyel · 2012-05-22 11:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Tsk Tsk for slashdot of all places to embed video that's not at least compatible with downloadhelper so one can download the video and watch it on a decent screen without strbuffering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMu_x7zcTrs

Re:Downloadable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 13:10 · Score: 0

Plus, and I'm not trying to troll, I don't like Timothy in these /. videos.
He comes across as uninteresting, barely has any charisma, doesn't have anything interesting to so, basically is a waste of time to watch.
I think I've watched 2-3 /. videos before I stopped watching them altogether, simply because I didn't want to see and hear Timothy again.

Details by optimism · 2012-05-22 11:31 · Score: 5, Informative

For the minority of /. readers who care about the details, I highly recommend downloading the COTS 2 Press Kit from SpaceX.
It provides tons of details and graphics describing the mission objectives, schedule, cargo manifest, vehicle specs, and much more...

http://www.spacex.com/downloads/COTS-2-Press-Kit-5-14-12.pdf

(I am not affiliated with SpaceX, but I like what they are doing)

Re:Details by Fewchor · 2012-05-22 15:26 · Score: 1

I like the pictures /.

dupe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:38 · Score: -1

Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl

Dupe, Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of Earl
Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of Earl
Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of Earl
Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of Earl

As I-I walk through this world
Nothing can stop The Dupe of Earl
And-a you, you are my girl
And no one can hurt you, oh no

thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:45 · Score: 0

hey guys Nice Fucking Video!!!

Ahhh night launches by robi2106 · 2012-05-22 11:55 · Score: 1

Nothing is like watching a rocket launch at night. fantastic experience.

Re:Ahhh night launches by BasilBrush · 2012-05-22 14:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Trouble is it was too dark to see the milk-bottle they launched it from.

Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 11:56 · Score: 0

Slashdot needs to hire someone who knows how to edit video!

Wow, huge Flash! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 12:15 · Score: 0

"You need to have the Adobe Flash Player to view this content."
Still no HTML5 on /.? Ahhhhh...

Re:Wow, huge Flash! by HybridST · 2012-05-22 13:26 · Score: 1

Still no slashdot video on my ipod.

--
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
Re:Wow, huge Flash! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 16:07 · Score: 0

Just watched on iPhone.
Re:Wow, huge Flash! by pmontra · 2012-05-22 19:50 · Score: 1

They're using the ooyala player which should support Apple devices http://www.ooyala.com/support/docs/tutorial_mobileoptions
Re:Wow, huge Flash! by Megane · 2012-05-22 23:50 · Score: 1

This is Slashdot. They still haven't got Unicode in comments working yet.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

Transcript by QuasiSteve · 2012-05-22 14:08 · Score: 2

Agreed - and also not much to transcribe as a result.

-----

Title: "Fourth Time's a Charm" - The SpaceX Falcon Finally Gets Off the Ground
Description: It's been a long time coming, but a private spaceship is finally heading for the International Space Station. Yay!

00:00 TITLE
A shot of Timothy Lord in front of the countdown clock at Cape Canaveral is shown.

00:00) Countdown voice guy
7 minutes

00:01) Timothy
As you can see from the countdown clock behind me, it's now just under 7 minutes until the historic SpaceX launch to the International Space Station is set to happen.
Hopefully, we won't have any engine glitches this time, and it will actually go off.

00:12) TITLE
The SlashdotTV title sequence fades into view. It reads:
Timothy Lord, reporting
from Cape Canaveral, Florida

00:18) TITLE
The view changes to that of the Falcon 9 rocket at its final countdown stages. The Video is credited as: (NASA video clip)

00:17) Countdown voice guy
5... 4... 3... 2.. 1... 0.
Aaand launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, as NASA turns to the private sector to resupply the International Spac Station.

00:33) TITLE
Various shots of the rocket's progression are shown from hereon without specific commentary outside of that of the control room with the background noise being the roaring rumble of the Falcon 9 rocket.

01:45) TITLE
The image mixes and changes to a view of the control room with personnel carefully watching the mission and congratulating each other on the successful launch, before the rocket's progression is shown once more.

02:47) TITLE
The view fades slowly back to that of Timothy Lord on the grounds at Cape Canaveral.

02:47) Timothy
The Falcon 9 lift vehicle has now done its job.
It's much more to the Dragon capsule's mission before it can deliver its half ton of supplies, and must go through an elaborate sequence of moves to approach, and then dock with, the ISS itself.

02:57) TITLE
The view changes back to the Falcon 9 rocket as it ascents further into space.

02:57) Timothy
That docking is slated for Friday.

03:13) TITLE
The view of the Falcon 9 rocket fades out as the SlashdotTV logo fades in.

-----

Although I think the editing is not in-sequence. A few shots of the 'close-up' of the engine with little plumage are shown spliced between shots where the rocket's exhaust is unmistakable. The live stream I watched showed the engine close-up fairly late into the launch.
I also do wish they had included, or were able to include (perhaps that's SpaceX's property, rather than government?) footage of the solar panel deployment. The control room crew were much, much more excited about that then they were about the successful launch - to the point of one of the control room people on audio breaking her calm demeanor in announcing telemetry data and practically giggled. It was really great hearing that, and the elation that followed, in the audio.
On the other hand, it's cool seeing the control room shots in this video - I don't remember seeing those in the stream I watched. Quite different from what one might expect.

The only downside / risk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-22 15:12 · Score: 1

I don't see SpaceX coughing up the $$$ to rebuild the ISS if they crash into it during the docking procedure.

Re:The only downside / risk by khallow · 2012-05-22 19:13 · Score: 0

Why should they? Most of the parties vastly overpaid for the ISS. If I spent a billion dollars for a beat up 1976 Chevy Impala, insurance isn't going to pay a billion to cover me.

And for NASA, if SpaceX or another private competitor can't dock, then there isn't much value in the ISS except as a funding vehicle for the Russian Space Agency.
Re:The only downside / risk by Teancum · 2012-05-23 09:09 · Score: 1

I don't see SpaceX coughing up the $$$ to rebuild the ISS if they crash into it during the docking procedure.
Actually, SpaceX was required to take out an insurance policy on their rocket to pay for any incidental damage that their vehicle might cause. I'm sure that damage to the International Space Station would be covered under this policy.
The financial incentive for SpaceX to avoid doing something like that is two fold though: first, their insurance rates would go through the roof and make subsequent flights uneconomical, and second, the rest of the COTS flights would likely be cancelled as well (with the bulk of the $1.6 billion that SpaceX is getting for these flights going to another contractor like Alliant Techsystems... who is just itching to take over the COTS contract from SpaceX if they screw up).
While I highly doubt that the SpaceX employees running the Dragon capsule are that incompetent to cause even damage to the docking mechanisms (much less take out the entire ISS), this potential is covered and something required by the Federal Aviation Administration prior to even getting a launch permit from the FAA-AST.
In order to take out the ISS, SpaceX would need to pretty much deliberately try to take it out with a retrograde orbit and powering the Dragon capsule with every last bit of thrust to maximize the kinetic to take it out. The ISS is quite huge and can absorb quite a bit of energy. Yes, I know that a Progress spacecraft crashed into MIR a couple of decades ago and caused a whole bunch of damage, but MIR was able to stay in orbit and was used for several years after that crash. It was bad and did cause a whole bunch of problems that took several teams of cosmonauts to repair the station, and there were a couple MIR modules that were made uninhabitable after the crash, but even that didn't take out that space station. It would be the same for the ISS.

Historic by thereitis · 2012-05-22 15:26 · Score: 1

SpaceX has come a long way. I believe this launch will go down in history. Great job!

Two launches today? by taj · 2012-05-22 17:23 · Score: 1

Wow, two launches in one day. That's amaz..

Nevermind.

God give Speed, John... Elon Musk by theNAM666 · 2012-05-22 19:21 · Score: 1

(You'd better get the reference :)

It isn't docking. by ZankerH · 2012-05-22 19:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Dragon isn't scheduled to dock at the ISS until Friday.

The Dragon isn't capable of docking, it has to be grappled by the station's robotic arm and berthed to a common berthing port. It is scheduled to receive an upgrade that enables it to use docking ports in the future, but on this flight, it's berthing, not docking.

Re:It isn't docking. by bulletman · 2012-05-23 01:51 · Score: 2

The dragon cargo isn't capable of docking. The crewed dragon will be capable of docking though.

Not so by IwantToKeepAnon · 2012-05-23 01:36 · Score: 1

The launch went off without a hitch.

Not so: There have been several launch date delays since the mission was announced, most recently on 19 May 2012, due to a launch abort during the last second before liftoff.

Maybe *this* launch went fine but that doesn't mean the mission launched on time and without a hitch.

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Slashdot Mirror

At Long Last, a Private Cargo Spaceship Takes Off (Video)

137 comments