Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Falcon 9 Blasts Off From California

Posted by samzenpus on from the to-the-stars dept.

An anonymous reader writes "SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket completed a successful first launch today, taking off from California and putting a Canadian science satellite in orbit. 'The beefed-up Falcon 9 that blasted off on its maiden flight from Southern California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, carrying a small Canadian government communication and research satellite, went through a seemingly picture-perfect countdown and performed on ascent as engineers hoped. The changes to the rocket are aimed at improving capacity and reliability, while simultaneously speeding up manufacturing. Historically, the initial launch of a new rocket has as much as a one-in-two chance of failure. Early this month, Elon Musk, the company's founder, chief executive and chief designer, seemingly tried to play down expectations by sending out a Twitter message emphasizing that the revamped rocket 'has a lot of new technology, so the probability of failure is significant.''"

34 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Wall Street Journal by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who the heck posted this here? An employee of the Wall Street Journal? Get this crap off here or at least provide links you don't have to pay to access. There's only a hundred or so other news sites carrying the same story. Ridiculous.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Wall Street Journal by harperska · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a good one:
      http://www.space.com/22996-spacex-launches-falcon-9-rocket-test-flight.html

    2. Re:Wall Street Journal by rasmusbr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And here's a detailed write-up with lots of background and pictures: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/09/spacex-debut-falcon-9-v1-1-cassiope-launch/

    3. Re:Wall Street Journal by multimediavt · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24326413

  2. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I take it you are not an inventor.

  3. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by harperska · · Score: 4, Informative

    The MO of SpaceX is to under promise and over deliver. But adding new technology on top of more new technology increases the probability of failure rather than decreasing it, until that technology has been tested and the bugs are ironed out. Today's launch was one of those tests. They were testing new technology that will let them relight the first stage after separation and bring it back for a controlled landing. That new technology adds additional complexity that had a nonzero chance of making the rest of the rocket fail due to untested redesigns.

  4. Re:Obama is a nigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You wouldn't know what gay was if Poison, Motley Crue, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard and the Quire Boys jumped out of your wardrobe whistling the Archers theme tune, shouted "rodeo" and gave it to you up the bum all night so that you could never sit down ever again.

  5. Reusable first stage? by photonic · · Score: 2

    I watched the webcast live. The qualification of the upgraded Falcon 9 seemed to have gone very well, with payloads deployed in nominal orbits. They were also supposed to do some first tests for recovering the first stage. The only thing that I could find was that the second of two burns after separation sent it into a spin, after which it crash-landed in the ocean. Anyone has some more news about that?

    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    1. Re:Reusable first stage? by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Elon Musk @elonmusk

      Rocket booster relit twice (supersonic retro & landing), but spun up due to aero torque, so fuel centrifuged & we flamed out

      Elon Musk @elonmusk

      Between this flight & Grasshopper tests, I think we now have all the pieces of the puzzle to bring the rocket back home.

      --
      wot no sig
    2. Re:Reusable first stage? by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 2

      This should have been the story. The launch itself is not as technically interesting, even though it is a new version of Falcon 9. Waiting for the video and timeline of the descent of the first stage. A cheer for reusable rocketry!

  6. Ah, small overlooked fact by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    Historically, the initial launch of a new rocket has as much as a one-in-two chance of failure.

    Historically, new rockets have been of an untested design, without much in the way of previously-tested designs to use as a reference. The SpaceX Falcon 9 is built largely around previously-tested designs, on top of solid engineering. One would suppose this would give it a better than 50/50 chance of success. In fact, the space shuttle program, viewed over its total life, had something like 93% success rate for its engines. Much of the SpaceX projects' development is based on the results of those tests, designs, and engineering expertise.

    It would be highly suspect of their rockets had a failure rate much higher than that -- one would expect a higher success rate due to incremental improvement, not worse.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Ah, small overlooked fact by Teancum · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Falcon 1 rocket had two successful launches out of five attempts. Still, in the case of this particular version of the Falcon 9, so much had been changed that it was essentially a whole new rocket.

      Typically most aerospace engineers try to do incremental changes rather than having so many like is being done here today. If anything, the historical trend is to use very old designs and just do very minor tweaks a little at a time. Examples including the Atlas rocket, which first flew in December 1957 and is still flying today (with admittedly a bunch of revisions over the years that make the current rocket bear almost no resemblance to the original rocket). The same could be said about the Soyuz spacecraft, which also has had numerous revisions over the years but rarely very many changes on any particular flight. Most of even the American rockets are using very old Russian engines (like the RD-180) instead of newer engine designs.

      It is far more unusual for a new clean-sheet design, especially a brand new engine design like SpaceX did with the Merlin engine. Most of the time when new designs like this are made, it is mostly an academic exercise and the rocket almost never actually flies. Frequently companies who come up with new designs simply go bankrupt before the hardware leaves the ground, assuming that any sort of hardware testing was ever done in the first place. In other words, for actual flying hardware, it is mostly very well tested and very old designs with at best very minor tweaks.

      This particular flight is especially unique not just because of the larger rocket, but most especially the new Merlin 1-D engine where this was the first time that particular engine design had ever been used. From a study done by the Aerospace Corporation around the year 2000, there were several critical areas where rockets would most likely fail, and the #1 cause was a failure with the engine design itself. As a matter of fact, even with this particular flight that was no exception as the Merlin 1-D engine on the 2nd stage apparently did fail. Luckily for SpaceX, if failed after all of the payloads had been deployed so it won't impact their bottom line.... but there was a spectacular test they were going to do (it was rumored they were going to try to fly the raw 2nd stage past the Moon with the remaining propellant). Instead, this stage is going to crash into the Earth eventually as just another piece of random space junk.

      There were also new avionics that had never been used before, a new faring design (also a common failure point for many rockets), and a brand new launch site that had never been done along with an orbital profile that this particular rocket had never been proven with doing either. The only other rocket that I'm aware of that did this many firsts all at once was the Saturn V, and that was done simply because the NASA officials involved didn't want to waste several launches proving new technologies and decided to do everything at once. The "space race" was also a major factor with the Saturn V as NASA was under some extreme time pressure to perform and get people to the Moon.

  7. Production version by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Space-X has four more Falcon 9 launches on their launch manifest for 2013, and ten scheduled for 2014. This is the first launch of the volume production version. Now they start cranking them out. With 9 engines per rocket, Space-X has to build over a hundred engines a year, which means they can set up an assembly line and get economies of scale.

    Next year is the first flight of the Falcon Heavy, with 27 engines. Biggest rocket since the Saturn V.

    Here's the Space-X price list. Pricing is about half of other launchers.

    1. Re:Production version by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's the Space-X price list. Pricing is about half of other launchers.

      Given that I don't have a few hundred million to drop on some satellite projects, I'm more interested in Space-X careers
       
      And you have gotta love a company that advertises a position as:
       
        SOFTWARE DEVELOPER (BORG)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Production version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're at more than 30,000 a year already.

      http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/27/a-guide-to-determining-production-numbers-for-tesl.aspx

    3. Re:Production version by beltsbear · · Score: 2

      Ring Ring. Tesla is rolling cars off the line at that rate now though just barely as of this month. The model S (unlike the roadster) is produced on an assembly line fully qualifying for the term 'mass production'.

  8. Video of the launch by Ivan+Stepaniuk · · Score: 3, Informative

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFefasS6bhc

    --
    My other signature is a car
  9. Re:The Manifold Hinderings of Mind by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the risk of enraging automatic supporters of bloated government programs like the old Space Shuttle, it doesn't surprise me that lean, privately funded space-exploitation outfits do so well.

    I'm impressed by Elon Musk and his organizational and marketing abilities. That said, to give all credit to the success of the program to privatization is a little silly. The company is significantly funded by goverment funds albeit through progress payments on contracts.

    Privatization didn't work that well with the Apollo lander. That was contracted to Grumman (simlar to the SpaceX contracts). Original LEM contract $350 million, final cost $2.2B

    More reasonably, what you're seeing is a maturing of the technology. Submarines, once the unique province of governments, are now widely available from private vendors. Computers likewise.

    Someone has to put in the "bloat" of basic research and it's rare for a private organization to invest in technology that will only yield results in 15+ years, if ever.

  10. OK by joh · · Score: 2

    Here's a much better link: SpaceX successfully launches debut Falcon 9 v1.1.

    Then, this F9 "v1.1" was much more of a version 2.0. It had its engines uprated from 95,000 lbf (sea level) to 140,000 lbf (sea level). They also are arranged in different way (from a 3x3 grid to a circle of 8 with one engine in the center) which meant a new thrust structure. It also has its fuel tanks stretched by 60% making it much heavier. This is as far as you can go from the 1.0 and still keep the name. Succeeding with this in the first try is good.

    There's no news though on them recovering the first stage. It was meant to brake and reenter intact and try for a "landing" on water. Or maybe they just want to tow it home first (but its hard to imagine Musk not bragging about it).

    1. Re:OK by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Why does it sound like that Space X is using Kerbal Space Program as a simulator and to test ideas?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:OK by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      The basics of the first stage recovery were that it re-lit fine for re-entry, and re-lit for the deceleration burn, but developed a spin that exceeded the ability of the attitude control thrusters to counter, causing the fuel to be flung against the walls of the tank, starving the engine. It broke up on impact. SpaceX believes that the data gathered will be sufficient to solve the puzzle.

  11. Re:The Manifold Hinderings of Mind by notanalien_justgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thank you for pointing this out. People astound me with how ignorant they are of NASA contracts. Private industry has been involved in every NASA project, including the bloated ones that break the budget (LEM, JWST, etc.).

    Slashdotters love to drool over SpaceX successes, but just ignore all of Lockheed Martin's bloated contracts. The big step isn't private versus public, it's smart versus dumb.

  12. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rocketry is something that is sitting on such a fine line between success and failure that just a tiny mistake that would be ignored in most other human endeavors is likely to destroy the vehicle when trying to put something into orbit. For example, the first Falcon 1 rocket simply disintegrated because a simple three cent nut was made out of the wrong kind of metal and fell off at a most inappropriate moment. The salty air + moisture from sitting just a few hundred feet from the Pacific Ocean at the time didn't help either.

    Another problem is that to improve technology, you need to experiment and try new things. Far more often experiments tend to be failures rather than success as you try these new ideas... hence if you are using new technology, especially for the first time like SpaceX was doing today, the likelihood of failure would actually increase and not decrease. Only when it has been used many times and has been "proven" can you even remotely say that the likelihood of failure would drop.

    And no, in spite of nearly a century of rocketry and nearly a trillion dollars spent by everybody involved, we still are just beginning to understand the technology and what it can do. There still are some amazing ideas that have yet to be tried.

  13. Re:The Manifold Hinderings of Mind by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Slashdotters love to drool over SpaceX successes, but just ignore all of Lockheed Martin's bloated contracts. The big step isn't private versus public, it's smart versus dumb.

    That's a little simplistic. The government uses cost-plus contracts to develop new technology and craft that is being designed as they go, you can't buy an F35 off the shelf and it'd be a crazy risk for a private company to promise delivery of specific features and performance on a specific schedule at a specific price. Nobody would agree to that, so instead the government says here's a running tab to cover costs and a reasonable profit margin - if you fail to show good progress we might have to abort but the risk is all on us, you get your money anyway. Of course as a company that's a dream project, it can't fail and the normal rules of business doesn't apply so they're more like a heavily protected semi-government agency.

    SpaceX shows delivering payloads to orbit is no longer the kind of exotic experiment it was in the 60s, the technology and risks are sufficiently known that you can do it on normal commercial terms where NASA pays a fixed price for a service and SpaceX delivers, taking the risk of profit or loss. It's nice that we get there, but it's very hard to get there without these "bloated contracts" to pave the way. The alternative would be for NASA to do all the bleeding edge projects in-house, which would probably get just as many complaints of public inefficiency and become a monopolist without any choice. True there aren't many candidates for such government contracts either, but you can at least pick your poison.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  14. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by khallow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Eh, I say this as an enthusiastic supporter, but they've been quite short on their predicted launch frequency. That's a critical part of their business model.

  15. Re:The Manifold Hinderings of Mind by Teancum · · Score: 2

    It is also the difference between fixed price contracts where SpaceX says they will deliver a satellite to orbit for a given price and then SpaceX will eat any cost overruns themselves vs. stuff Lockheed Martin does with a cost-plus contract where their profit is guaranteed but the price that taxpayers will pay can vary if "problems" arise.

    Just try, if you will, to find out how much money was spent on the last Atlas V rocket. Reportedly the Canadian government paid $10 million dollars for this particular launch. Yeah, that is a bit less than what even SpaceX will typically charge for a Falcon 9 flight, but they certainly didn't screw over the Canadian taxpayers or expect Canada to pay for any cost overruns.

    Yeah, I'd say there are a bunch of people very ignorant of these NASA contracts you are talking about. Those Grumman contracts in the previous post certainly had no similarity to the government contracts that SpaceX has been using.

  16. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Teancum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Next year is going to be the year for SpaceX to put up or shut up. Their manifest is absolutely huge, and Elon Musk made some rather bold predictions at the after-launch press conference today. He made the bold claim that he will actually launch a used Falcon 9 1st stage by the end of next year. I'd like to see him try.... seriously!

    The video tour of the SpaceX plant in California (given just before the launch on the webcast) showed the plant being extremely busy and practically at capacity with a half dozen Dragon capsules already under construction, a whole row of completed Merline 1D engines, and a whole bunch of rockets all lined up at various stages of completion. Whatever problems SpaceX has with their rockets right now, it isn't a supply problem at the moment. All of that hardware certainly costs a whole bunch of money, so they've definitely dumped some serious cash on trying to meet that huge manifest.

  17. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't quite believe that we do not have the ability to build kerosene powered Saturn Vs all over again, it would just be a very expensive proposition. Nor is the ability lost to build something new with the same thrust and duration that is perhaps less expensive (inflation adjusted of course).

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
  18. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The really compelling thing about the reusable concept SpaceX are going for is that observation that rocket fuel is only 3% of the cost of a launch. That's utterly crazy - even if you wouldn't want to use them for manned launches right away, the savings when you can put up 10 or 20x the number of satellites for the cost of a launch is going to lead to some big changes if they can pull it off.

  19. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Nutria · · Score: 2

    We've lost the ability to build Iowa-class battleships (no more monster foundries, anywhere, and experienced super-heavy metalworkers; the torpedo belts in those ships made the hulls *much* thicker than those of Nimitz supercarriers) and small thermonuclear warheads (various components were so top secret that the the final designs weren't written down, or have been lost, and the designers are long retired/dead).

    Whether that's good or bad is not the point: we'd have to embark upon many, many years of reinvention.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  20. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Megane · · Score: 2

    Part of the problem is that (as far as I can tell) they've switched completely to the new v1.1 for mass production. (I guess the v1.0 just wasn't designed for mass production.) Today's launch is important because now this new version of the rocket has had a successful launch, and that opens up a lot of future launches. In particular, there is one launch of a communications satellite in the next couple of months that was contingent on having a successful launch first.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  21. Re:Economies of scale. by ron_ivi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    For a rocket, economies of scale kick in after you have *a* successfull one.

    Suddenly your costs go from "damn, we need to figure out something new, build it, and test it" to "cool, let's do it again".

    And the latter is far cheaper.

  22. Re:so the probability of failure is significant by Skythe · · Score: 2

    In relation to your 'I'd like to see him try' comment - Elon Musk named the Dragon spacecraft after "puff the magic dragon".. because of all of his critics who said his projects couldn't succeed.. http://www.space.com/15799-spacex-dragon-capsule-fun-facts.html

  23. Re: The Manifold Hinderings of Mind by khallow · · Score: 2
    And 3) a more sensible contract structure with stable requirements. Cost plus is rather impressive in its ability to drive up cost without getting much for it. And when you change requirements on the fly, you pay out the nose. There's also 4) projects are a dumping ground for ideas. NASA couldn't just build a Shuttle replacement, for example, the prototype also had to test a dozen new ideas on top of it.

    However it just pisses me off when people rail against NASA for expensive tech when they fail to realize that cutting edge stuff is going to be expensive even when it involves private industry (hence the cost plus contracts you refer to)

    Hence, why SpaceX spent a factor of ten less than NASA would for the same rocket development. It's not more expensive when you focus on the main goals of your project, not just add expensive tech willy nilly.