SpaceX Dragon Set To Launch

SpaceX's first regular launch to the International Space Station is set to go off at 8:35 (Eastern time) Sunday evening; the first SpaceX launch to successfully reach the ISS was more of a test, though it did bring some goodies to the crew. Wired has a live video feed in place. Slashdot reader Lee Sheridan is in Florida for the launch; if you're one of the billion Facebook users, his photos of the mission briefing and Falcon 9 lift vehicle being lifted to vertical are public. The SpaceX twitter feed might be fun to watch, too. Update: 10/08 00:09 GMT by T : Bonus points for intelligent parsing of the acronym-laden communications on the live feed.

Comments

/. timing always sucks

[evilviper]

Slashdot... It's the website I watch like a hawk, so that I can find out about live events, 5 minutes before they happen (if I'm really, really lucky).

Re:/. timing always sucks

[SomePgmr]

Yeah they got this one in with some time to spare. T-21m as I'm writing this.

And it looks like wired's embedded ustream feed isn't working... so there's this:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Re:/. timing always sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I get that there's plenty of room to play with the phrase, "commerical space flight", and SpaceX is certainly doing that. And I won't be the one to kick off the typical slashdot thread o' pedantry, as I suspect you're just being passive-aggresive about it. We both know the score.

What I will say is that I'm excited about it all. I think spacex in particular is ambitious and capable enough to do exciting things. I like that NASA is doing increasingly impressive exploratory work instead of spending all their time and money on shuttling food and clothing. And I agree that a lot of this stuff should have been done a long time ago... but it wasn't, and now it is. That's something.

Re:/. timing always sucks

[Teancum]

One huge problem SpaceX is facing for commercial crew vehicles is that there is no formal standard or licensing system in place for orbital spacecraft made by commercial entities, at least regulations defined by the FAA Office of Commercial Spaceflight. NASA has some regulations in place... regulations that none of their vehicles have ever met (including the Orion spacecraft) and they are also very arbitrary and political regulations as well. SpaceX is trying hard to hit a moving target as the regulations for commercial crew flights to the ISS also keep changing based upon political winds at the time.

One thing that SpaceX (and Elon Musk in particular) has mentioned is needed for the Dragon is the launch escape system of some sort that can haul the capsule away from the Falcon 9 in an emergency. That still needs to be developed. Furthermore, the current edition of the Falcon 9 (currently called the "version 1.0") also lacks the payload capacity to send astronauts to the ISS. At the moment and with this launch, all it can do is send up about 500 kg of cargo inside of the Dragon, which isn't enough for a proper crew + life support. The "upgraded version" of the Falcon 9 ("version 1.1") on the other hand is expected to provide that sort of lift capacity.

SpaceX is close, but not quite ready to send somebody up yet.

Re:/. timing always sucks

[Teancum]

Details about the Dragon "version 1.1" can be found here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A8039e573-151a-434a-808d-bb5a8a3ad59b

Re:/. timing always sucks

[Teancum]

And if the boot sequence itself still doesn't impress you, at least you can say you were alive to see the dawn of commercial computers.

While it was before my time, the dawn of commercial computers was a big deal. There also was a time that only government agencies like the U.S. Army (who helped pay for the ENIAC and in part the COLOSSUS as well) even owned computers. A rather infamous declaration by an early computer pioneer declared that the worldwide demand for computers was exactly five.

Even so, I remember a field trip in kindergarten where I took a trip to a computer and walked inside ('look but don't touch"). It seems funny to talk about such things today or that a field trip to see a computer would even be remarkable, but I do find this stuff to be incredibly fascinating.

I can only hope that multi-ton launches to orbital space stations will some day be as remarkable as seeing a jet aircraft take off from an airport. Perhaps inspiring sights, but common and every day experiences too.

Simplicity

[Dan East]

One thing that strikes me is how modern technology has simplified so many things. Mission control is so much simpler and streamlined - just flat screen monitors on tables. Much cleaner. Even the launch system, using a static support tower angled away from the rocket, appears (at least to my untrained eye) much simpler these days than the mechanized support systems that had to release or pull away from the rockets.

Launch looks perfect so far. Second stage just ignited.

Re:Simplicity

[Teancum]

The internal rocket systems have also improved considerably, since the Falcon rockets use TCP/IP for internal commands along with the dozens of cameras mounted inside of the vehicle. I loved the live dual views of the 1st stage separation event from both the 1st and 2nd stages at the same time... together with 2nd stage ignition. That simply wasn't even possible in the Apollo days.

I love this photo though in terms of putting things into perspective: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/255106389683343360/photo/1

Re:Simplicity

[thrich81]

Don't know if this contradicts your statement much, but the first US space launches (uncrewed and crewed) were pretty simple affairs. Both (Explorer 1 and Mercury -Redstone 3) used the Redstone IRBM as the basis of the launch vehicle. Since the Redstone was a field deployable ballistic missile its launch support was minimal, not much more than a launch ring to sit on according to a bio of Von Braun I just read. The first Saturns (Saturn I) didn't have much either. Check out the picture of the first one launched (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_I). The two stage Saturn I's had nearly the same payload capability as the Falcon 9. The later Saturns and the Shuttle had a lot of ground support, I'll admit.

Re:Simplicity

[Anonymous Coward]

The early Saturns, which contrary to popular belief were developed before Kennedy was elected in 1960, had a 1st stage that consisted of a cluster of stretched Redstone and Jupiter missile tanks and a cluster of eight H-1 engines derived from those programs

There are many reasons why the later Saturns and the Shuttle had so many people and so much ground support equipment, but here's a brief explanation:

1. The systems are more complex than most keyboard-jockeys understand. There are fuel systems and oxidizer systems, but then there are also systems to pressurize the tanks (usually with helium) as fuel is sucked out of them (do they don't implode during ascent) and there are are systems to control the temperatures of systems like the onboard guidance electronics (so it performs properly) and systems to gimbal the engines (to steer) and systems to monitor the engines and all the other systems (in order to trigger an abort if needed) etc. Those 1st Saturns had only a live 1st stage initially and then later carried a live, moderate-performance, second stage. The later Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets were more complex systems (requiring more support and monitoring) and also carried precious human cargo whose families and nation would be unhappy to lose.

2. There were no modern computers back then... so instead of a PC watching a thousand sensors and alert if something failed, we used to use hundreds of well-trained people who each monitored a very limited number of things and used the best complex fuzzy logic systems available then (human brains) to make moment-by-moment judgements

3. Shuttle systems were designed in the late Apollo years... shuttles at the time they started flying were the most complex machines ever designed and built by man and for the whole thing to work you needed the most high-performance and complex engines ever built. When they started flying, the shuttle engines used turbopumps, for example, that were the fastest rotating devices man had ever made... the whole system was really pushing the limits of what was humanly possible to an extent that most people never appreciated. And that first flight happened years before the first 4.77MHz 8088-powered PC was sold. As a result, you had very complex ground support systems and lots of people on the ground keeping an eye on things... and remember that things needed to be perfect because there was no real escape for the crew if something went wrong (yes, I know, Columbia had ejection seats for the two-man crews of the first couple test flights, but nobody seriously liked the odds of ejecting in the vicinity of those burning SRBs and three SSMEs...)

Re:Simplicity

[Teancum]

SpaceX is one of the first to use TCP/IP for internal component control on rockets, but the protocol is pretty solid and "off the shelf" components can be easily had. Since they are starting with literally a clean sheet, they could have used almost anything.... and Elon Musk was very comfortable with TCP/IP as a protocol.

There are other bus protocols that are made available to payloads... as required by the customer and the mission. External interfaces for those buses can be made available to ground support teams just prior to launch as well and is a part of the Falcon design. The Dragon capsule in particular meets not just the physical docking standards for the ISS, but also has the necessary power and data bus connectors as well for compatibility with the ISS module standards.

A nice side effect of the TCP/IP protocol is that they can use fiber optic connectors to isolate controllers electrically... which also cuts down on the weight of the vehicle as well. There certainly is no thick bus cable full of copper going the full length of the rocket, which is the case for legacy rockets.

In Orbit

[runeghost]

It's in orbit. No apparent problems so far.

Re:In Orbit

[Altanar]

Except... *ahem*.. The catestrophic failure of engine one at T+1:20. Shielding and control systems easily compensated, though.

Those are my pics...

[Leebert]

Thanks for the link Timothy, but I'm pretty sure my crappy iPhone pictures are far superseded by those done by the official photographers. :)

But yeah, this was a BEAUTIFUL launch.

SpaceX stream

[Altanar]

If you missed it, you can watch the recording at http://www.spacex.com/webcast/, which in my opinion, was the best way of viewing it live.

pop

[strack]

i watched the launch, and on the closeup view of the engines from spacex, one of those engines definitely went pop at 1:20 into the flight. you can see the debris coming off. its unmistakable. i guess its a testament to the value of having the ability to sustain a engine failure and still get into orbit.

Re:Space Shuttle was better

[timeOday]

Wikipedia says Falcon 9's payload to LEO (low earth orbit) is 29,000 pounds (not 2000 lbs). LEO is up to 1,200 miles, whereas the ISS orbits at 205 to 255 miles. (The 10,700 lb capacity mentioned by the other reply is for geosynchronous orbit which is FAR higher and not where the ISS lives.)

This turns your calculations on their head; both vehicles have more capacity than NASA wants for servicing the ISS, and the Falcon 9 is (already) only 1/4 the cost of the (very mature) shuttle per launch.

I am wondering what Falcon 9's success rate will be though. They've only had a few launches. Surely one will blow up sooner or later.

Re:Space Shuttle was better

[vlm]

The Space Shuttle carried 28,000lbs to the International Space Station for about $400 million per launch.

LOL you wish it was that cheap. You took total contract cost divided by number of missions for spaceX, why not for space shuttle? Because the numbers don't match your axe to grind. Here I'll do the data gathering and division for you:

From wikipedia "The actual total cost of the shuttle program through 2011, adjusted for inflation, is $196 billion." (this is pure BS, to "do it all over again" would easily cost over 300B, but I'll use the artificially low PR/marketing BS number for the sake of this argument) divided by 135 missions (unsure how to account for disasters) yields 1.452 billion dollars per 28K lb mission absolute minimum, real world is going to be much more.

So you're looking at 1.6B vs 1.5B, not much of a difference given "nasa accounting" thats a rounding error.

There are serious issues why the shuttle program had to end which began in the 80s, so its pointless to debate what if we continued it. For example we lost about 1 shuttle per 50 flights, and the production lines shut down permanently in the 80s. So if we launch until they're all destroyed, we soon would have no launch capability at all, and merely have to farm out to spaceX later, and the only thing waiting does is make stuff more expensive. I suppose we could R+D and reopen the production lines to build more 1970 era space shuttle orbiters, but that will absolutely explode program cost above the "cheap" 1.5B per launch. Or we could R+D even more and build new 2010 era space shuttle orbiters, that would probably be overall a bit cheaper but still boost program cost above 1.5B.

If you wanted to continue the shuttle program, that decision had to be made in the 80s when the last orbiter rolled off the assembly line and the clock started ticking on the program shutdown. Sunday Oct 07 2012 is a bit late to the party to decide the orbiter production line should have been kept open back in April of 1985. First, build a time machine and go back more than a quarter century...