Possibility of adapting CEV to other launch vehicles, including Ariane
Yup. NASA already has access to great launch vehicles like the Ariane, Atlas V, and Delta IV. Adapting these already-existing vehicles to support human flight would be far cheaper than trying to spend several billion dollars building the (rather dubious and potentially unworkable) Ares I. Also, if one vehicle has a problem and is grounded, you can then potentially use another vehicle, instead of having to ground the entire national manned space program.
Also, this hasn't been mentioned much, but it's probably the most exciting quote from the article:
The transition team also wants information from NASA about accelerating plans for using the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to fund demonstrations of vehicles capable of carrying crews to the international space station, a proposal Obama supported during his campaign. NASA is not asked what it could save by canceling COTS.
For those unfamiliar with it, COTS is the program for helping to develop commercial launch vehicles capable of delivering crew and cargo to the International Space Station. Currently SpaceX and Orbital are competing for the contracts, which are based on reaching project milestones and fixed-cost, instead of the exuberant cost-plus contracts often used in aerospace.
Right now the COTS program is just getting $100-$200 million a year, which is tiny compared to the multi-billion dollar Ares I. Despite the lower program costs, SpaceX's is showing better progress than the Ares I, and it's looking quite possible that SpaceX will have their new manned orbital vehicle up and running before NASA's in-house one. Giving a funding boost to the COTS program could be the best thing to happen to the US space program and industry in decades, and go a long way towards lowering the long-term cost of spaceflight.
Actually, when I first skimmed the article I thought they may have been referring to the work of Graham Cairns-Smith (I saw him speak at my university a few years ago), an organic chemist who's postulated that certain types of clay formations actually -can- evolve in the "usual" sense of the word. It's certainly a minority view though, and he's further postulated that these clays may have been critical in the origin of life.
Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith (born 1931) is an organic chemist and molecular biologist at the University of Glasgow, most famous for his controversial 1985 book, Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. The book popularized a theory he had developed since the mid-1960s, that a simple intermediate step between dormant matter and organic life might be provided by the self-replication of clay crystals in solution. He was disenchanted with the other ideas about chemical evolution including the Miller-Urey experiment and the RNA World....
In simplified form, clay theory runs as follows: Clays form naturally from silicates in solution. Clay crystals, as other crystals, preserve their external formal arrangement as they grow, snap and grow further. Masses of clay crystals of a particular external form may happen to affect their environment in ways which affect their chances of further replication â" for example, a 'stickier' clay crystal is more likely to silt a stream bed, creating an environment conducive to further sedimentation. It is conceivable that such effects could extend to the creation of flat areas likely to be exposed to air, dry and turn to wind-borne dust, which could fall at random in other streams. Thus by simple, inorganic, physical processes, a selection environment might exist for the reproduction of clay crystals of the 'stickier' shape. There follows a process of natural selection for clay crystals which trap certain forms of molecules to their surfaces (those which enhance their replication potential). Quite complex proto-organic molecules can be catalysed by the surface properties of silicates. The final step occurs when these complex molecules perform a 'Genetic Takeover' from their clay 'vehicle', becoming an independent locus of replication - an evolutionary moment that might be understood as the first exaptation. Despite its frequent citation as a useful model of the kind of process that might have been involved in the prehistory of DNA, the 'clay theory' of abiogenesis has not been widely accepted. Richard Dawkins uses it as an example in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker -- it was current and fashionable at that time.
His report drew on a 2006 survey by the surgeon general of the Army, which found that fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect, and 17 percent said all civilians should be treated as insurgents. More than one-third said torture was acceptable under some conditions, and fewer than half said they would report a colleague for unethical battlefield behavior.
If you look at the actual study PDF, though, it seems that the New York Times took some liberties in their paraphrasing. Here's the actual questions:
article: "fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect"
study: "all non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect"
article: "all civilians should be treated as insurgents"
study: "all non-combatants should be treated as insurgents" (not sure about this one, but my guess is that the minority who answered positive on this one were thinking along the lines of being on guard at all times, just in case someone who seems innocent is actually planning on harming you)
article: "More than one-third said torture was acceptable under some conditions"
study: "torture should be allowed if it will save the life of a soldier/marine" and "torture should be allowed in order to gather important information about insurgents"
Why should noncombatants be treated with dignity and respect by default (and hence, as a whole)?
What's also interesting is that if you look at the original PDF of the report, the question is actually whether "all non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect." I can certainly imagine a few circumstances where you might want to take the kid-gloves off, especially if you want to be taken seriously in a middle-eastern culture.
Unfortunately, due to some poor decisions by current NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, NASA's present lunar architecture is pretty much deliberately designed so that it can't take advantage of low-cost vehicles like SpaceX's. Instead, NASA has to use the Ares I and Ares V vehicles it's developing, which are continuously slipping in schedule and (in the case of the Ares I) have some fundamental design problems which may prevent them from flying at all.
The website says the top of the BFTS ("Big Falcon Test Stand") is 235 feet high.... Also, while I love the company, I woudl say that they did just buy the site, including the test stand from another company that I can't remember the name of off the top of my head.
The test stand originally belonged to Beal Aerospace a private spaceflight startup which went defunct back in the dot-com days.
One thing that's pretty cool is that SpaceX is also developing a rocket (the "BFR") that will be too big for the BFTS. Also, I think one can assume from the names that Elon Musk is probably a Doom fan.
The development of Merlin 2 begs the question: what is SpaceX planning that requires such a powerful engine? In past talks Musk has hinted at the development of something called the "BFR" (where B stands for "big" and R for "rocket"), a heavy-lift vehicle far larger than the Falcon family of vehicles. At SpaceVision2005 Musk disclosed that the BFR, in its current iteration, would use "multiple" Merlin 2 engines. The BFR would be able to place 100 tons in low Earth orbit, putting it in competition with NASA's planned shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher. The BFR is so big, Musk said, that it's too large for the BFTS at their Texas test site: even if they beefed up the stand, he said, the overpressure from the engine tests would break windows in a nearby town. Musk said they would have to test the vehicle either at the launch site or, perhaps, at NASAâ(TM)s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) forced the controversial legislation commonly known as the "RAVE" Act through both houses of Congress as an attachment to an unrelated child abduction bill. The "RAVE" Act, also referred to as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, was introduced as an addition to the Child Abduction Protect Act of 2003, widely recognized as the AMBER Alert bill (S151). The "RAVE" Act had not passed a single committee before being attached to the AMBER Alert bill. In addition, it was so controversial when it was introduced during the 107th Congress that two Senators withdrew their sponsorship.
The "RAVE" Act makes it easier for the federal government to prosecute innocent business owners for the drug offenses of their customers - even if they take steps to stop such activity. This is a threat to free speech and musical expression while placing at risk any hotel/motel owner, concert promoter, event organizer, nightclub owner or arena/stadium owner for the drug violations of third parties - real or alleged - regardless of whether or not the promoter and/or property owner made a good-faith effort to keep their event drug-free. It applies not only to electronic music parties, but any type of public gathering: theatrical productions, rock concerts, DJ nights at your local club or tavern, and political rallies. Moreover, it gives heightened powers and discretion to prosecutors who may use it to target events they personally donâ(TM)t like, such as Hip-Hop events and gay and lesbian fundraisers.
The "RAVE" Act was passed despite the fact it did not have a public hearing, debate or vote in Congress. It is important to note that because of overwhelming opposition to the "RAVE" Act, legislators were forced to remove some of the most egregious language before it passed. For example, the word "rave" was removed from the version of the bill attached to the AMBER Alert. Eliminating such blatant discrimination is a victory for our continued freedom of speech. Also, the original bill suggested that prosecutors should view the sale of water and the presence of glowsticks or massage oil as evidence of drug use. These ludicrous "findings" were completely removed due in large part to activists who sent nearly 30,000 faxes in 2003 alone to their Senators urging them not to support the dangerous legislation.
She's going to run against a Republican incumbent? That should be entertaining.
That's how she got her current job. Coincidentally, in the gubernatorial race she ran against Frank Murkowski, the father of Lisa Murkowski, who she'd be running against for the Senate seat. The charge of the nepotism of Murkowski picking Murkowski for the Senate was one of the things Palin ran on in her gubernatorial race.
I totally agree. As I mentioned, I was just making a minor nitpick.;) It seems almost a certainty that the Falcon 9 will be flying humans to orbit before the Ares I.
What happened to this organisation that managed to put people on the moon, that managed to build a huge telescope in orbit around the earth, that even built a permanently manned space station? How is it possible they can't even design a rocket to take us to the moon?
IMHO a lot of the problems can be traced back to bad management by current NASA administrator Michael Griffin. Back in 2005, prior to Griffin's arrival, NASA's original plan for a new manned launch vehicle, two competing teams of companies would have been selected, and they would be running unpiloted test launches this year. Based on those test launches and what was learned about their designs, the best vehicle design would have been selected. My suspicion is that at least one of the rockets would have been a modified version of an already-proven design, such as the Boeing Delta IV or Lockheed Martin Atlas V.
Then midway through 2005 Mike Griffin came in. He had his own pet design from a paper he had written, and had the requirements for the US's new manned launcher redone. Coincidentally, under the new requirements Griffin's design was the only one which satisfied. The engineers at NASA have been doing what they can, but it seems that Griffin's design has some pretty severe inherent flaws. The engineers have been trying to issue their concerns, but ignored or silenced by management.
I think this farewell message by one of the engineers working on Ares sums things up well:
At the highest levels, there seems to be a belief that you can mandate reality, followed by a refusal to accept any information that runs counter to that mandate. I'm sure you can all think of multiple examples (having nothing to do with CAD) without trying very hard. This reminds me of Clark's law: "Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice". I've heard others use terms like "arrogance combined with ignorance".... Then between us workers and the highest levels of management another problem exists. As one person put it: "Where does the bad news stop going up?" Again, I'm sure you all know of situations where people are trying to raise red flags, but somehow they never get addressed.
Another alternative: Falcon 9 Heavy [spacex.com] This is being deliberately built with the goal in mind to become man-rated eventually, and will be making trips to the ISS on unmanned resupply missions. The first flight of this rocket (not the heavy variant but at least the Falcon 9) is going to be later on this year.
Q4 2008 is actually the date for delivery of the vehicle to the launch site. I imagine they'll probably do some on-site testing, hold-down firings, etc., and I'd predict an actual launch date of Q1 2009.
We desperately need an amendment to the US Constitution that spells out privacy, and that WE own information about ourselves, and only through specific opt-in, do we relinquish that right.
You want a constitutional amendment that dictates how people choose to transmit information to each other and what types of data they can collect? Hm... I don't see how that could end badly at all, end sarcasm tag. The way you worded it right now, it would be illegal for me to even take a photo in public without getting the explicit opt-in permission of every person in front of my camera.
You need to understand respect for those that desire privacy. Just because you're an exhibitionist doesn't mean that we are. We can be private in our thoughts, deeds, and actions. Anonymity also insulates you against the whims of government, and organizations that don't have your best interests in mind.
The thesis of books like Brin's "Transparenty Society" is more of a matter that with increasing technological progress the erosion of privacy is inevitable. It reminds me a little bit of cultures that eschew photography, because they're afraid that cameras steal their soul or something. That's all fine and dandy, but since we seem to be going towards a society where almost everyone is going to be carrying tiny little cameraphones with them in their pockets and using them for a variety of purposes, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep your soul from getting stolen.
If they were the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit, then who was the first privately developed ANY fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit?
Yup, and apparently they also tested a restart of the second stage after coasting for a while, so the final velocity is quite likely higher.
The second burn of the second stage was probably to circularize (God, that's a clumsy word!) the orbit. Even so, to put the payload into orbit would've required almost a five minute burn, and that second burn would have had to be within a very few minutes of the end of the first burn.
Otherwise, the Falcon's trajectory would've looked like an ICBM's trajectory - hitting atmosphere within about fifteen minutes of the end of that first burn.
The rocket initially reached an orbit stretching from a low point of 205 miles to a high point of 404 miles. The orbital inclination was 9.3 degrees.
SpaceX released information before the launch indicating that the rocket would target an orbit with an apogee, or high point, of 426 miles. But Musk said the rocket hit an orbit very close to prelaunch predictions.
After coasting through space for several minutes, the second stage engine restarted for a brief firing to circularize the orbit at an altitude just shy of 400 miles, according to U.S. military tracking data.
"Restarting rocket upper stages is not a trivial matter, so there was definitely a big icing on the cake there," Musk said. "I would have been happy if we just made it to orbit, but the restart was definitely great."
Orbital speed is over 7000 m/s and 5200 is simply not enough.
After the second stage shut off at 5200 m/s they apparently coasted for a while and then tested a restart of the second stage until they got to their final velocity.
the mismanaged, overpriced, overpoliticised, goverment monopoly
What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.
Slashdot Mirror
Possibility of adapting CEV to other launch vehicles, including Ariane
Yup. NASA already has access to great launch vehicles like the Ariane, Atlas V, and Delta IV. Adapting these already-existing vehicles to support human flight would be far cheaper than trying to spend several billion dollars building the (rather dubious and potentially unworkable) Ares I. Also, if one vehicle has a problem and is grounded, you can then potentially use another vehicle, instead of having to ground the entire national manned space program.
Also, this hasn't been mentioned much, but it's probably the most exciting quote from the article:
The transition team also wants information from NASA about accelerating plans for using the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to fund demonstrations of vehicles capable of carrying crews to the international space station, a proposal Obama supported during his campaign. NASA is not asked what it could save by canceling COTS.
For those unfamiliar with it, COTS is the program for helping to develop commercial launch vehicles capable of delivering crew and cargo to the International Space Station. Currently SpaceX and Orbital are competing for the contracts, which are based on reaching project milestones and fixed-cost, instead of the exuberant cost-plus contracts often used in aerospace.
Right now the COTS program is just getting $100-$200 million a year, which is tiny compared to the multi-billion dollar Ares I. Despite the lower program costs, SpaceX's is showing better progress than the Ares I, and it's looking quite possible that SpaceX will have their new manned orbital vehicle up and running before NASA's in-house one. Giving a funding boost to the COTS program could be the best thing to happen to the US space program and industry in decades, and go a long way towards lowering the long-term cost of spaceflight.
If and when the day comes, then we'll have to answer the question of what happens when numbers increase but resources decrease?
Or maybe people will finally start realizing that (especially with ever-increasing technology) economics isn't a zero-sum game.
Actually, when I first skimmed the article I thought they may have been referring to the work of Graham Cairns-Smith (I saw him speak at my university a few years ago), an organic chemist who's postulated that certain types of clay formations actually -can- evolve in the "usual" sense of the word. It's certainly a minority view though, and he's further postulated that these clays may have been critical in the origin of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith
Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith (born 1931) is an organic chemist and molecular biologist at the University of Glasgow, most famous for his controversial 1985 book, Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. The book popularized a theory he had developed since the mid-1960s, that a simple intermediate step between dormant matter and organic life might be provided by the self-replication of clay crystals in solution. He was disenchanted with the other ideas about chemical evolution including the Miller-Urey experiment and the RNA World. ...
In simplified form, clay theory runs as follows: Clays form naturally from silicates in solution. Clay crystals, as other crystals, preserve their external formal arrangement as they grow, snap and grow further. Masses of clay crystals of a particular external form may happen to affect their environment in ways which affect their chances of further replication â" for example, a 'stickier' clay crystal is more likely to silt a stream bed, creating an environment conducive to further sedimentation. It is conceivable that such effects could extend to the creation of flat areas likely to be exposed to air, dry and turn to wind-borne dust, which could fall at random in other streams. Thus by simple, inorganic, physical processes, a selection environment might exist for the reproduction of clay crystals of the 'stickier' shape.
There follows a process of natural selection for clay crystals which trap certain forms of molecules to their surfaces (those which enhance their replication potential). Quite complex proto-organic molecules can be catalysed by the surface properties of silicates. The final step occurs when these complex molecules perform a 'Genetic Takeover' from their clay 'vehicle', becoming an independent locus of replication - an evolutionary moment that might be understood as the first exaptation.
Despite its frequent citation as a useful model of the kind of process that might have been involved in the prehistory of DNA, the 'clay theory' of abiogenesis has not been widely accepted. Richard Dawkins uses it as an example in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker -- it was current and fashionable at that time.
From the article:
His report drew on a 2006 survey by the surgeon general of the Army, which found that fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect, and 17 percent said all civilians should be treated as insurgents. More than one-third said torture was acceptable under some conditions, and fewer than half said they would report a colleague for unethical battlefield behavior.
If you look at the actual study PDF, though, it seems that the New York Times took some liberties in their paraphrasing. Here's the actual questions:
article: "fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect"
study: "all non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect"
article: "all civilians should be treated as insurgents"
study: "all non-combatants should be treated as insurgents" (not sure about this one, but my guess is that the minority who answered positive on this one were thinking along the lines of being on guard at all times, just in case someone who seems innocent is actually planning on harming you)
article: "More than one-third said torture was acceptable under some conditions"
study: "torture should be allowed if it will save the life of a soldier/marine" and "torture should be allowed in order to gather important information about insurgents"
Why should noncombatants be treated with dignity and respect by default (and hence, as a whole)?
What's also interesting is that if you look at the original PDF of the report, the question is actually whether "all non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect." I can certainly imagine a few circumstances where you might want to take the kid-gloves off, especially if you want to be taken seriously in a middle-eastern culture.
Unfortunately, due to some poor decisions by current NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, NASA's present lunar architecture is pretty much deliberately designed so that it can't take advantage of low-cost vehicles like SpaceX's. Instead, NASA has to use the Ares I and Ares V vehicles it's developing, which are continuously slipping in schedule and (in the case of the Ares I) have some fundamental design problems which may prevent them from flying at all.
As noted elsewhere, the amount of fuel used is roughly equivalent to half that of a typical 747 flight.
The website says the top of the BFTS ("Big Falcon Test Stand") is 235 feet high. ... Also, while I love the company, I woudl say that they did just buy the site, including the test stand from another company that I can't remember the name of off the top of my head.
The test stand originally belonged to Beal Aerospace a private spaceflight startup which went defunct back in the dot-com days.
One thing that's pretty cool is that SpaceX is also developing a rocket (the "BFR") that will be too big for the BFTS. Also, I think one can assume from the names that Elon Musk is probably a Doom fan.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1
The development of Merlin 2 begs the question: what is SpaceX planning that requires such a powerful engine? In past talks Musk has hinted at the development of something called the "BFR" (where B stands for "big" and R for "rocket"), a heavy-lift vehicle far larger than the Falcon family of vehicles. At SpaceVision2005 Musk disclosed that the BFR, in its current iteration, would use "multiple" Merlin 2 engines. The BFR would be able to place 100 tons in low Earth orbit, putting it in competition with NASA's planned shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher. The BFR is so big, Musk said, that it's too large for the BFTS at their Texas test site: even if they beefed up the stand, he said, the overpressure from the engine tests would break windows in a nearby town. Musk said they would have to test the vehicle either at the launch site or, perhaps, at NASAâ(TM)s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
Ah, so it's like Google Spreadsheets, but applied to documents?
Also consider that Obama's Vice President was the primary sponsor of the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) forced the controversial legislation commonly known as the "RAVE" Act through both houses of Congress as an attachment to an unrelated child abduction bill. The "RAVE" Act, also referred to as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, was introduced as an addition to the Child Abduction Protect Act of 2003, widely recognized as the AMBER Alert bill (S151). The "RAVE" Act had not passed a single committee before being attached to the AMBER Alert bill. In addition, it was so controversial when it was introduced during the 107th Congress that two Senators withdrew their sponsorship.
The "RAVE" Act makes it easier for the federal government to prosecute innocent business owners for the drug offenses of their customers - even if they take steps to stop such activity. This is a threat to free speech and musical expression while placing at risk any hotel/motel owner, concert promoter, event organizer, nightclub owner or arena/stadium owner for the drug violations of third parties - real or alleged - regardless of whether or not the promoter and/or property owner made a good-faith effort to keep their event drug-free. It applies not only to electronic music parties, but any type of public gathering: theatrical productions, rock concerts, DJ nights at your local club or tavern, and political rallies. Moreover, it gives heightened powers and discretion to prosecutors who may use it to target events they personally donâ(TM)t like, such as Hip-Hop events and gay and lesbian fundraisers.
The "RAVE" Act was passed despite the fact it did not have a public hearing, debate or vote in Congress. It is important to note that because of overwhelming opposition to the "RAVE" Act, legislators were forced to remove some of the most egregious language before it passed. For example, the word "rave" was removed from the version of the bill attached to the AMBER Alert. Eliminating such blatant discrimination is a victory for our continued freedom of speech. Also, the original bill suggested that prosecutors should view the sale of water and the presence of glowsticks or massage oil as evidence of drug use. These ludicrous "findings" were completely removed due in large part to activists who sent nearly 30,000 faxes in 2003 alone to their Senators urging them not to support the dangerous legislation.
She's going to run against a Republican incumbent? That should be entertaining.
That's how she got her current job. Coincidentally, in the gubernatorial race she ran against Frank Murkowski, the father of Lisa Murkowski, who she'd be running against for the Senate seat. The charge of the nepotism of Murkowski picking Murkowski for the Senate was one of the things Palin ran on in her gubernatorial race.
But designing and building for space is hard. And it costs a lot. Them's the facts.
In that case, why is it that SpaceX is able to do things so much more cost-effectively than NASA and its prime contractors?
Granted, a moth costume is more difficult to make for Halloween.
You have to admit though, dressing up as Arthur from the Tick would be pretty awesome. Especially Arthur with vampire teeth.
I totally agree. As I mentioned, I was just making a minor nitpick. ;) It seems almost a certainty that the Falcon 9 will be flying humans to orbit before the Ares I.
What happened to this organisation that managed to put people on the moon, that managed to build a huge telescope in orbit around the earth, that even built a permanently manned space station? How is it possible they can't even design a rocket to take us to the moon?
IMHO a lot of the problems can be traced back to bad management by current NASA administrator Michael Griffin. Back in 2005, prior to Griffin's arrival, NASA's original plan for a new manned launch vehicle, two competing teams of companies would have been selected, and they would be running unpiloted test launches this year. Based on those test launches and what was learned about their designs, the best vehicle design would have been selected. My suspicion is that at least one of the rockets would have been a modified version of an already-proven design, such as the Boeing Delta IV or Lockheed Martin Atlas V.
Then midway through 2005 Mike Griffin came in. He had his own pet design from a paper he had written, and had the requirements for the US's new manned launcher redone. Coincidentally, under the new requirements Griffin's design was the only one which satisfied. The engineers at NASA have been doing what they can, but it seems that Griffin's design has some pretty severe inherent flaws. The engineers have been trying to issue their concerns, but ignored or silenced by management.
I think this farewell message by one of the engineers working on Ares sums things up well:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
At the highest levels, there seems to be a belief that you can mandate reality, followed by a refusal to accept any information that runs counter to that mandate. I'm sure you can all think of multiple examples (having nothing to do with CAD) without trying very hard. This reminds me of Clark's law: "Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice". I've heard others use terms like "arrogance combined with ignorance". ... Then between us workers and the highest levels of management another problem exists. As one person put it: "Where does the bad news stop going up?" Again, I'm sure you all know of situations where people are trying to raise red flags, but somehow they never get addressed.
Excellent post overall, but one quick nitpick:
Another alternative: Falcon 9 Heavy [spacex.com] This is being deliberately built with the goal in mind to become man-rated eventually, and will be making trips to the ISS on unmanned resupply missions. The first flight of this rocket (not the heavy variant but at least the Falcon 9) is going to be later on this year.
Q4 2008 is actually the date for delivery of the vehicle to the launch site. I imagine they'll probably do some on-site testing, hold-down firings, etc., and I'd predict an actual launch date of Q1 2009.
We desperately need an amendment to the US Constitution that spells out privacy, and that WE own information about ourselves, and only through specific opt-in, do we relinquish that right.
You want a constitutional amendment that dictates how people choose to transmit information to each other and what types of data they can collect? Hm... I don't see how that could end badly at all, end sarcasm tag. The way you worded it right now, it would be illegal for me to even take a photo in public without getting the explicit opt-in permission of every person in front of my camera.
You need to understand respect for those that desire privacy. Just because you're an exhibitionist doesn't mean that we are. We can be private in our thoughts, deeds, and actions. Anonymity also insulates you against the whims of government, and organizations that don't have your best interests in mind.
The thesis of books like Brin's "Transparenty Society" is more of a matter that with increasing technological progress the erosion of privacy is inevitable. It reminds me a little bit of cultures that eschew photography, because they're afraid that cameras steal their soul or something. That's all fine and dandy, but since we seem to be going towards a society where almost everyone is going to be carrying tiny little cameraphones with them in their pockets and using them for a variety of purposes, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep your soul from getting stolen.
If they were the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit, then who was the first privately developed ANY fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_rocket
The Pegasus, built by Orbital, used a solid rocket motor developed by the company which is now known as ATK (the company doing NASA's Ares I and V).
The second burn of the second stage was probably to circularize (God, that's a clumsy word!) the orbit. Even so, to put the payload into orbit would've required almost a five minute burn, and that second burn would have had to be within a very few minutes of the end of the first burn.
Otherwise, the Falcon's trajectory would've looked like an ICBM's trajectory - hitting atmosphere within about fifteen minutes of the end of that first burn.
Yup. A story just came out with the full details:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/004/index.html
The rocket initially reached an orbit stretching from a low point of 205 miles to a high point of 404 miles. The orbital inclination was 9.3 degrees.
SpaceX released information before the launch indicating that the rocket would target an orbit with an apogee, or high point, of 426 miles. But Musk said the rocket hit an orbit very close to prelaunch predictions.
After coasting through space for several minutes, the second stage engine restarted for a brief firing to circularize the orbit at an altitude just shy of 400 miles, according to U.S. military tracking data.
"Restarting rocket upper stages is not a trivial matter, so there was definitely a big icing on the cake there," Musk said. "I would have been happy if we just made it to orbit, but the restart was definitely great."
Orbital speed is over 7000 m/s and 5200 is simply not enough.
After the second stage shut off at 5200 m/s they apparently coasted for a while and then tested a restart of the second stage until they got to their final velocity.
There was more telemetry after the 5200m/s report, they just haven't posted it yet.
Yup, and apparently they also tested a restart of the second stage after coasting for a while, so the final velocity is quite likely higher.
The Falcon 1 rocket was unmanned.
any chance anyone posted some video of the launch somewhere? spacex hasnt got it up on their site yet, and i missed the fing webcast...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ
What monopoly? The U.S. government didn't do anything to prevent these guys from their commercial enterprise...they didn't do anything anti-competitive.
Not yet, but they're certainly working on trying to be anti-competitive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I
Fortunately the government isn't doing a particularly good job of it (although they're certainly eating several billion dollars in the process).