Other

Falcon 9 and commercial space policy

Later today SpaceX is scheduled to launch its first Falcon 9 rocket, technical issues and weather conditions permitting, from Cape Canaveral. The last hurdle to the launch, certification by the Air Force of a flight termination system for the rocket, was overcome Thursday. Successfully launching a new rocket is a challenge in and of itself, but SpaceX has an additional burden now as well: they have become, as Alan Stern described it in an essay in The Space Review this week, “a proxy for the success of the commercial space flight industry” thanks to the new focus on commercial spaceflight in the White House’s new plan for NASA.

Musk acknowledged that additional attention in a teleconference with reporters on Thursday. “I feel like sort of a political punching bag, a whipping boy, I suppose,” he said. To some critics of the new plan, SpaceX has become synonymous with commercial space transportation, a comparison Musk said wasn’t fair. “The opponents of the commercial approach have taken a very calculated strategy of attacking SpaceX” while ignoring the record of success by United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets, he said.

The Falcon 9 launch, he continued, “should not be a verdict on commercial space. Commercial space is the only way forward” because of the unsustainably high costs of government programs. He later said that “if some company like SpaceX doesn’t succeed, then the future of space is not a bright one.”

Despite Musk’s comments, it’s likely that the Falcon 9 launch will be watched closely in policy circles. A successful launch—the odds of which Musk estimated yesterday at 70-80 percent—might deflect some of the criticism, but a failure, especially a spectacular one, would probably heighten the rhetoric against the commercial aspects of the new plan (one imagines that at least one senator has a press release ready to go in the event of such a failure.) That might not be fair to SpaceX or the commercial space industry, but it is predictable.

117 comments to Falcon 9 and commercial space policy

  • amightywind

    “I feel like sort of a political punching bag, a whipping boy, I suppose,”

    You ain’t seen nothin’ yet, if you fail… But you will be a hero if you succeed.

    “That might not be fair to SpaceX or the commercial space industry, but it is predictable.”

    I predicted this on this forum 2 months ago. It’s game day. If Musk succeeds I will congratulate him. It is quite a leap from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9. If he fails I will gleefully join the pig pile. Musk and his backers made this political situation. Today they get to live it.

  • Elon Musk has been described as a modern day Howard Hughes, who attracted quite a bit of criticism in his time.

    Elon and SpaceX will weather this storm and do fine.

    History is on their side.

  • babboxy

    Elon will be flying to Mars pretty soon, no doubt.

  • Ferris Valyn

    a breaking wind – yea, its all dependent on Musk. Never mind that Atlas V has proven itself MULTIPLE times, as have Delta IV. Yea, we can’t trust something with TRIPLE (and arguably even quadrupedal, since we have Taurus 2) redundancy – we have to have only a single redundant system with Ares I

    YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Here’s the link to the SpaceX webcast starting at 10:40 AM EDT:

    http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

    The weather is rather iffy. The prediction on Weather.com shows thunderstorms developing in the early afternoon. It’s overcast here right now.

  • amightywind

    “Never mind that Atlas V has proven itself MULTIPLE times, as have Delta IV. Yea, we can’t trust…”

    You forget that Ares I is developed from the ground up to be ‘man rated’. As opposed to the other systems that are cobbled together ad hoc and resemble ‘Mr. Potatohead’.

  • Vladislaw

    It must really grind your gears that the Ares I is never going to fly. At a billion dollars a pop, or 250 fifty million a seat, the Russians must have been laughing all the way to the bank hoping against hope America kept funding that pig as the launch dates kept get pushing back. President Obama’s move to domestic launch providers is the only way America is going to LEO in the future.

  • Derrick

    “The opponents of the commercial approach have taken a very calculated strategy of attacking SpaceX” while ignoring the record of success by United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets…

    Yup.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/asia/04china.html

    some entertaining news from China…

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Comrade Vladislaw wrote:

    “Russians must have been laughing all the way to the bank”

    No doubt they are laughing. The jester is Obama. You throw cost numbers around indiscriminately. It has taken 40 years to achieve the efficiencies they have. This nation has an attention span of 4. Soyuz is cheap because Russia has a weak currency. They have a weak currency because they are a gangster state that on one will invest in. America needs a spacecraft that an astronaut will be proud to ride in. We need a Humvee not a Trabant.

    “President Obama’s move to domestic launch providers is the only way America is going to LEO in the future.”

    This is true! For the next 2.5 years at least. The hope is, with the help of bipartisan support in congress, Constellation can hold out until we have a new President in 2012.

  • Oh, amightywind hasn’t been banned from this site yet? I’ll go elsewhere.

  • Bennett

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Yikes!

    He also says that the pressure from the infrasound resonance during takeoff was excruciating.

    “All of my organs seemed to break into pieces,” he wrote.

    Not exactly a race to the moon, is it?

  • amightywind

    Trent Waddington:

    On what basis would I be banned? My viewpoints are the same as a bipartisan majority in congress. The site isn’t called ‘Leftwing Space Politics’. My posts are substantial, and colorfully stated.

  • amightywind, Cx is dead. Get over it.

  • Major Tom

    “You forget that Ares I is developed from the ground up to be ‘man rated’.”

    And failed. NASA had to change requirements like dual redundancy and mass margin because Ares I/Orion couldn’t meet them.

    “As opposed to the other systems that are cobbled together ad hoc and resemble ‘Mr. Potatohead’.”

    Falcon 9/Dragon have also been “developed from the ground up” to meet NASA human space flight safety requirements; NASA avionics, propulsion, and structures requirements; milspec requirements; FAA requirements; and industry production/test/certification and quality management standards; and additional internal SpaceX standards. The list includes:

    NPR 8705.2B: Human-Rating Requirements for SpaceSystems

    NASA Std 3000:Man-Systems Integration Standards

    SSP 50005: ISS Flight Crew Integration Standard

    SSP 50808:ISS-COTS Interface Requirements Document

    SSP 50809:ISS to COTS Interface Control Document

    NASA STD 5001:Structural Design and Test Factors of safetyfor Spaceflight Hardware

    SSP 30559:ISS Structural Design and Verification Requirements (ISS document which is oftenmore strict than human-rating documents)

    AFSPCMAN 91-710:Range Safety User Requirements (tailored)

    MIL-STD-1540:Test Requirements for Space Vehicles
    Space Exploration

    NASA Standard 3000

    NASA Standard 5007

    NASA Standard 5017

    SSP 30233

    SSP 30550, Rev C

    SSP 30560, Rev A

    SSP 30558, Fracture Control Requirements for Space Station

    SSP 41000

    SSP 41004, Rev H and J (Parts 1 and 2)

    SSP 41167, Rev G

    SSP 42004, Rev H

    MIL-HDBK-5

    MIL-HDBK-7

    MIL-STD-1246

    MIL-STD-1522

    NSTS 08307

    NSTS 21000-IDD-ISS

    JSC 28918

    NASA PRC-6506

    AMS-QQ-A250/30

    AMS 2772D

    FAA Guide to Verifying Safety Critical Structures for Reusable Launch Vehicles

    JANNAF LPS Test Guide

    MIL-STD-1522 -Standard General Requirements for Safe Design and Operation of Pressurized Missile and Space Systems

    MIL-PRF-25508 -Propellant, Oxygen, Liquid

    MIL-DTL-25576 -Propellant, RP-1, Liquid

    MIL-PRF-25567 -Leak Detection Compound, Oxygen Systems

    MIL-PRF-26539 -Propellants, DinitrogenTetroxide

    MIL-PRF-27404 -Propellant, MonomethylHydrazine

    MIL-PRF-27407 -Propellant Pressurizing Agent, Helium

    MIL-C-38999 -Connectors, Electrical, Plug, Circular, Straight, Removal Crimp Contacts, Series III

    MSFC-STD-3029 -Selection of Metallic materials for Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance in Sodium Chloride Environments

    NASA STD-5012 -Strength and Life Assessment Requirements for Liquid Fueled Space Propulsion System Engines

    AS478 -Identification and marking Methods

    IEST-STD-CC1246 -Product Cleanliness Levels and Contamination Control Program

    TT-I-735A -Isopropyl Alcohol

    AWS D17.1 -Specification for Fusion Welding for Aerospace Applications

    JPL-D-8545 Rev. D (EEE DeratingStandard)

    NASA-STD-8739 (harnesses, soldering, staking etc.)

    IPC-2221 (Printed circuits)

    IPC-2222 (Printed circuits)

    IPC-6011 (Printed circuits)

    IPC-6012 (Printed circuits)

    IPC-A-610 Class III (Printed circuits)

    IPC-CC-830 (Printed circuits)

    GSFC Supplement S-312-P003 (Printed circuits)

    ISO 9001:2000 QMS Standard

    ISO 10011-1, 2, 3 Guidelines for QMS Auditing

    ISO 10012 Measurement management systems

    AS9100B QMS Aerospace Standard

    AS9101 QMS Assessment

    AS9102 First Article Inspection Requirements –Guidance document

    ANSI / ISO 1007 Guidance on Configuration Mgt

    ISO17025 Calibration and Testing Labs –Guidance document

    ASTM Standards, Specifications, Test Methods and guidance documents

    AIA/NAS Standards and Specifications

    AMS Material Specifications for raw materials

    SAE Aerospace Quality Standards and Material Specifications

    AWS –American Welding Society Standards –some examples below

    AWS D17.1 Specification for Fusion Welding for Aerospace Applications

    AWS B2.1 Standard for Welding Procedure and Performance Qualification

    AWS D1.1 / D1.2 Structural Steel Welding code

    AWS QC1, standard for Certification of Welding Inspectors

    AMS 2681B Welding Electron Beam

    AMS 2700 Passivationof Corrosion Resistant Materials

    ASME Boiler Codes B31.1 and section IX

    ASNT-TC1A Qualification and Certification of NDT Personnel

    MIL-STD 410 / NAS 410 Qualification and Certification of NDT Personnel

    ASTM E 164 Standard Practice for Ultra Sonic Inspection

    ASTM 1742 Standard Practice for Radiography Inspection

    ASTM E 1417 Standard Practice for PenetrantInspection

    ASTM E 1444 Standard Practice for Magnetic Particle

    IEST-STD-CC1246 Contamination Control –Guidance document

    AS478 Identification Marking Methods

    SpaceX Human Rating Plan

    SpaceX System Safety and Mission Assurance Plan

    SpaceX COTS Environments Document

    00002720 -Fastener Installation Torque Specification

    00005453 -Procedure for Orbital GTAW of Stainless Steeland Titanium Tubing

    00006876 -Component Cleaning Process

    See nasa.gov/pdf/361838main_11%20-%20SpaceX%20Augustine%20Briefing%20-%20Public%20Session.pdf.

    Stop making stupid statements out of ignorance and stop making things up.

    Ugh…

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 9:45 am

    You forget that Ares I is developed from the ground up to be ‘man rated’….

    human rated is the word but in the end the reality is that the rocket is just to expensive.

    Robert G. Oler

  • red

    amightywind, This is just 1 test launch of 1 rocket from 1 company, and rockets are just 1 part of commercial space. Get over it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 10:34 am

    My posts are substantial, and colorfully stated….

    not so much Robert G. Oler

  • J201

    Logical or not, should falcon 9 fail today there will be a flood of criticism coming from the anti-commercial spacers, cries of “it’s not fair” from ObamaSpacers, and general chaos in Congress, as per usual.

    Should Falcon 9 succeed, then the fight will go on as it has for the past 4 months: everyone will go back to beating dead horses, with little progress towards a compromise.

    A compromise that must satisfy both sides, and one we need very desperately.

    In the meantime, Godspeed Falcon 9

  • Vladislaw

    The Constellation huggers idea of compromise is … give us everything we want, deorbit the ISS and slash anything related to research and development and earth science and defund commercial space.

  • red

    Vladislaw: You forgot about slashing aeronautics, robotic precursor missions, and planetary science … and giving them another couple decades without actually doing any missions …. and giving them a big budget boost.

  • J201

    I’m sorry you feel that way.

    But it seems to me that both sides have the “give us everything we want” attitude, not just your “Constellation huggers”.

  • If Constellation huggers get their way, there’s no money left for anything else. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in.

  • amightywind

    Well, not as bad as the ‘pop the cork’ Mercury test, but pretty bad. Ares I solids are easy to start!

  • Major Tom

    “A compromise that must satisfy both sides, and one we need very desperately…

    But it seems to me that both sides have the ‘give us everything we want’ attitude, not just your “Constellation huggers.”

    White House and NASA leadership have already “compromised” by bringing back Orion in the form of an emergency crew return vehicle for ISS. That development is going to cost the American taxpayer at least $4.5 billion for a relatively simple function that should cost only a billion or so, at most, to field. As has already been pointed out, NASA’s other programs can’t afford to pay for such egregiously expensive “compromises”, from Constellation or otherwise.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Ares I solids are easy to start!”

    And impossible to shutdown.

    This is one of the safety features of Falcon 9 — the ability to perform a holddown test while the engines spin up to ensure nominal engine operation before the vehicle and its cargo or crew leave the pad (or shutdown and keep everything safely on the pad if the engines are off-nominal).

    For the umpteenth time, stop making stupid statements out of ignorance. Learn something, anything, before you post again.

    Lawdy…

  • amightywind

    Minor Tom wrote:

    “But it seems to me that both sides have the ‘give us everything we want’ attitude, not just your “Constellation huggers.””

    Two men enter, one man leaves…

  • Major Tom

    “Minor Tom wrote:”

    “But it seems to me that both sides have the ‘give us everything we want’ attitude, not just your ‘Constellation huggers.’”

    Two men enter, one man leaves…”

    I didn’t write that, genius.

    Please take an ESL course before you post again.

    Cripes…

  • amightywind

    Minor Tom wrote:

    “This is one of the safety features of Falcon 9 — the ability to perform a holddown test while the engines spin up to ensure nominal engine”

    I have often wondered about this absurd logic as if shutting down liquid engines in low atltutde flight is an option. It is like committing suicide to keep from getting killed. Liquid fuel motors wait on the pad because they have to. A clean start does not mitigate subsequent hazards. A solid motor combined with a robust abort capability is as good or better than any other option.

  • More flatulence from “abreakingwind.”

    I have often wondered about this absurd logic as if shutting down liquid engines in low atltutde flight is an option.

    Of course it’s an option. You shut down, and then abort, and you don’t have to worry about the first stage chasing you. If you “wondered about that absurd logic” it’s only because you’re incapable of exercising logic, as you demonstrate on a daily basis.

    It is like committing suicide to keep from getting killed.

    No, like all ejections, it’s *attempted* suicide to avoid being killed. It’s better than the alternative.

    Liquid fuel motors wait on the pad because they have to. A clean start does not mitigate subsequent hazards. A solid motor combined with a robust abort capability is as good or better than any other option.

    No. One of the reasons that the LAS abort motor on the Orion was so heavy and high thrust is that it had to be able to get away from a first stage that could not be shut down.

    Please stop flaunting your ignorance.

  • Ferris Valyn

    j201 – the problem with a compromise is 2 fold

    1. To compromise on the big issues requires a much larger NASA budget increase than is practical.

    People like Armstrong & Cernan have talked about pulling the money from CCrew, and then doing Consellation. The problem is, that is not enough to really make Constellation work, or enough money for a compromise.

    And, its worth noting, we’ve had at least one attempt at a compromise, in the form of retaining the Orion capsule.

    2. The mood is not one of compromise.

  • Major Tom

    “People like Armstrong & Cernan have talked about pulling the money from CCrew, and then doing Consellation. The problem is, that is not enough to really make Constellation work, or enough money for a compromise.”

    It’s not enough by a factor of five to eight. CCDev is a $6 billion development program. Ares I/Orion total development is somewhere between $35 billion (estimates from various Constellation managers in the press) and $50 billion (GAO estimate). About $10 billion has been spent on Ares I/Orion so far, so $25-40 billion to go, or five to eight times more than the CCDev budget. We could kill CCDev many times over and still not have enough money to finish Ares I/Orion development.

    FWIW…

  • amightywind

    Rand Simberg:

    “No. One of the reasons that the LAS abort motor on the Orion was so heavy and high thrust is that it had to be able to get away from a first stage that could not be shut down.”

    You are not thinking clearly. You cannot reduce the acceleration requirements of a crew escape system and gleefully that the booster stage has been calmy and quietly shutdown in controlled flight. You must design for the worst case assume that it has exploded and you are being chased by a fireball and debris. You are not an engineer, are you?

  • OK, “abreakingwind.” A first stage that can’t be shut down, and will continue to chase you after separation is safer than one that can. Got it.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Rand – its kinda like the Wile E Coyote

  • Major Tom

    “You must design for the worst case assume that it has exploded and you are being chased by a fireball and debris.”

    Unlike a working SRB, fireballs and debris don’t sustain acceleration.

    Duh…

  • J201

    Major Tom wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    No offense, but I hardly call downgrading a BEO spacecraft to a crew-less lifeboat a compromise. That political bone was thrown at Constellation supporters in hopes that they would stop criticizing and fall in line. Clearly, it hasn’t worked, else we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Both sides tend to view it as an expensive waste of time and resources.

  • Well, so much for the “hobby rocket,” and “toy rocket.” They just had a successful stage separation, and they’re heading to orbit.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 8:04 am

    ” If Musk succeeds I will congratulate him”

    I’m sure he’s awaiting your call… ;-)

  • Vladislaw

    Congradulations Mr. Musk, for an excellent launch to orbit on your first flight.

  • Bennett

    YeeeeHa! Congrats to Elon Musk and the entire SpaceX Team.

    What a beautiful launch.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Congratulations to SPACEX on going to orbit…

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Minor Tom wrote:

    “Unlike a working SRB, fireballs and debris don’t sustain acceleration.”

    But at the moment it explodes a tank can lurch forward with very high acceleration, like the ET in the Challenger disaster when the LH2 tank exploded. That is precisely the case I am referring to.

    Looks like F9 is struggling. Were the software engineers high when they developed this thing? They got through the first stage though.

  • Robert G. Oler

    that sound you heard was the wind going out of the Ares movement…what little was left. 1/2 billion and all I got was this bottle rocket
    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    To all the Constellation fanboys – see the difference between Ares I-X and Commercial Spaceflight rockets – we actually put stuff in orbit

  • Derrick

    Who’s your daddy, wind?

  • Christopher

    haha, take that, doubters

  • Bennett

    SpaceX delivers a big fat STFU to all the haters. Damn that feels good.

  • amightywind

    Guys. I hate to piss on your parade, but the second stage was corkscrewing badly when the feed stopped. There is no way it reached orbit. There have been no announcements.

  • Coastal Ron

    J201 wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    “I hardly call downgrading a BEO spacecraft to a crew-less lifeboat a compromise.”

    Orion was only a BEO spacecraft within the context of Constellation and Lockheed Martin PR. In reality, why would you live for expended periods of time in a cramped capsule? The astronauts would not be able to exercise enough to be in shape for the descent to Earth, and they would not have ANY privacy. Orion is optimized for launch and landing, and anything else it does is non-optimized.

    We have to change our point of view regarding spacecraft, and realize that the vessel that takes you off the planet does not need to be the same craft you explore it with. Park Orion (or Soyuz, or Dragon) in orbit, and transfer to a dedicated exploration vehicle that is optimized for the mission. Hauling a heat shield around where you don’t need it is a waste of fuel.

  • Ferris Valyn

    a breaking wind – you agree that the Ares I-X wasn’t even close to flawless, or actually testing anything relevant, and then we’ll talk about the corkscrew.

  • amightywind, it reached orbit, it had no guidance systems after the second stage burn completed, it wasn’t going to be nice pretty behavior. You are making stuff up.

    This is why SpaceX controlled the whole thing, people making stuff up.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    I dont mind pissing on yours…but EVEN if the final vehicle did not make orbit (and I suspect it did) the fixes for that roll are trivial. it is an amazing accomplishment

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    “There is no way it reached orbit. There have been no announcements.”

    They announced that they reached orbit, and the 2nd stage engine shutdown.

    Mr. Musk awaits your call with baited breath… or your mighty blow of congratulations… or you can “break” it to him that he’s not as bad as you had been hallucinating… ;-)

    Don’t you love it when a plan comes together!

  • CI

    Even if the SpaceX launch turns out to be successful that doesn’t change much for Ares.

    As Bolden stated, commercial will not go beyond LEO, NASA will handle that.

    So, Ares isn’t competing with SpaceX, they are competing with Obama’s “plan to nowhere” with “no vehicle”. Doing a bunch of studies and no real launches.

    So, regardless Ares will still survive in Congress for beyond LEO as well as the commercial side but that is to LEO only.

  • amightywind

    Ferris Valyn wrote:

    “To all the Constellation fanboys – see the difference between Ares I-X and Commercial Spaceflight rockets – we actually put stuff in orbit”

    Dragon will impact about 1/2 way across the Atlantic. The second stage was clearly out of control about half way through the burn. That means it attained less than 1/2 orbital velocity. This is an epic failure being papered over by a company with the public relations acumen of North Korea.

  • Vladislaw

    J201 wrote:

    “I’m sorry you feel that way.

    But it seems to me that both sides have the “give us everything we want” attitude, not just your “Constellation huggers”.”

    I don’t want everything:

    Don’t give me an Ares I let’s save the rest of the 25 – 40 billion dollars to develop it and spend it on other space infrastructure.

    Don’t give me an Ares V or any other heavy lift until we absolutely need it, let’s save that 50 billion for other space infrastructure.

    Don’t give me a one time use EDS that has to be launched fully fueled.

    Don’t give me the Altair lander or lunar base for now, let’s save that development money and spend it on other in space, reusable systems.

    See, I am not greedy, I dont want everything.

  • Derrick

    …or in other words, if it’s a successful launch I’ll just keep repeating a lie about it failing that I pulled out of my ass and and tie it in with N. Korea…

  • amightywind, would you like to make a wager about their orbit insertion?

  • Coastal Ron

    CI wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    “commercial will not go beyond LEO, NASA will handle that.”

    Yes, and Ares I was only designed to lift astronauts to LEO, where they would dock with a spacecraft assembly previously lifted by an Ares V.

    Ares I duplicates the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy, which has already flown, the Atlas V Heavy, of which the core vehicle has already flown, and the future Falcon 9 Heavy, which has just test flown the first core section. Commercial companies already have these capabilities, and Delta/Atlas existed when Ares I was proposed.

    Ares I costs more to build and operate, and it is still in development. Why is the NASA competing with the commercial sector?

  • amightywind

    Derrick wrote:

    “…or in other words, if it’s a successful launch I’ll just keep repeating a lie about it failing that I pulled out of my ass and and tie it in with N. Korea…”

    The laws of Physics say if you miss 1/2 of you burn you don’t make it to orbit. My guess is SpaceX allowed the rocket to careen out of control so they could learn something about the upper stage dynamics, but the cut the feed because it is embarrassing. For all we know the rocket was flying backwards at cutoff. Can’t blame them. But is this the new world of Obama openness?

  • Major Tom

    “No offense, but I hardly call downgrading a BEO spacecraft to a crew-less lifeboat a compromise.”

    Regardless of what you or I call it, it’s costs way too much for the function and illustrates how expensive any further “compromise” with Constellation will be for NASA’s other programs.

    “That political bone was thrown at Constellation supporters in hopes that they would stop criticizing and fall in line.”

    It was more programmatic stupidity than political considerations that led to the Orion CRV. ISS has a real crew rescue or safing need, and NASA is on the hook for it. Even after CCDev delivers, NASA will still be stuck buying Soyuzes unless it finds a domestic solution for crew rescue or safing. But instead of holding an open competition for a cost-effective solution, or even just adequately costing the chosen solution, the agency saw all the contract termination costs for Orion, jumped the gun, and assumed it could get a CRV for not much more than those termination costs. LockMart has told them they’re wrong, that it’s a $4.5 billion ROM for an Orion CRV (and it will probably only go up from there).

    SpaceX has a Dragon lifeboat variant design and Boeing wants an open competition, so I suspect that’s where this will all end up, anyway.

    FWIW…

  • Derrick

    Ron-ask congress. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$

  • Christopher

    you are a very resolute troll.

  • common sense

    I am sorry for those on Constellation who were misguided by their leadership and the whole debacle. Some people in Congress ought to apologize to y’all. Especially those Alabama leaders.

  • Waste

    You guys are nuts. This was an awesome launch, and both sides are sitting here bickering.

    Great job SpaceX

    Almightywind & Ferris, show some class.

  • amightywind

    Ok. I admit it. Dragon is in orbit. An eccentric orbit that intersects the ground at the Azores. LOL! Face the facts. Half a second stage burn. A corkscrew attitude increasing in amplitude.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Yeah, while Ares-1X was such a flawless flight… At least there was no planned recontact with F9…

  • Coastal Ron

    Derrick wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    “Ron-ask congress. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$”

    In the case of Constellation, Griffith had to dream it up first, so I put the onus on him. All Congress did after that is make sure it contained the right amount of pork.

  • CI

    common sense,

    finally someone states the obvious about the ares 1x flight…
    that there was a planned recontact upon separation
    it’s kind of unavoidable without a second stage to fire and move it away from the first stage.
    so many haters tried to say it was an error in the test flight.
    but as you point out it was planned and therefore not a problem with the vehicle.

  • SpaceMan

    I suspect that the corkscrewing was a planned maneuver to stress the flight software. Elon stated that he would be happy if they launched and reaching orbit would be icing on the cake.

    Looks to me that they demonstrated solid guidance capability. Now on to the next launch to demonstrate capability to launch in a narrow window and reach the ISS.

    New situation now and time to move on to more success. Congratulations to all involved.

  • amightywind

    Info is slowly leaking out. The second stage burn was several minutes short. The corkscrewing induced accelerations that would eventually confuse the fuel sensors in the upper stage tanks. My earlier prediction stands. Dragon is not in orbit. As for not knowing the orbital parameters, those are calculated continuously from the ground and the flight control system. NASA, Boeing, and Lockmart routinely provide them on their feeds. SpaceX knows very well where Dragon ended up.

  • “abreakingwind” leads a rich fantasy life.

  • amightywind, I believe you’ve neglected to account for the fact that they lost a lot of fuel during the earlier abort sequence and delay. Falcon 9 flew exactly as it should have, and it did reach orbit.

  • Coastal Ron

    To summarize who has done what so far with crew-capable launchers:

    Ares I – For $750M, a leftover Shuttle SRB had a dummy payload tacked on top of it, it was called “Ares 1-X”, and it launched successfully. The 2nd stage was a dummy, so it just slowly rotated after stage separation. Another dummy launch had been planned for 2014 (TBD).

    Falcon 9 – The published price for a Falcon 9 launch is $51.5M, and entire amount of money that SpaceX has received from investors and customer payments is far below $750M. The first test launch accomplished lift-off of an actual 1st stage, stage separation and ignition of an actual 2nd stage, and orbital insertion of a Dragon test-article capsule. The next launch, with a full-up Dragon capsule is planned within two months.

    To be fair, Ares I is comparable to Falcon 9 Heavy, which does not yet have a planned launch date. However the -Heavy version is three -9 cores, which the test flight today was validating.

  • […] ISS in den Orbit brachte – lasteten ungeheure Erwartungen, wie auch den letzten Vorberichten hier, hier, hier, hier, hier und hier zu entnehmen ist. Vielleicht hat jetzt eine neue Ära der […]

  • Bennett

    As Rand noted on his blog, having a few things go wrong is a good thing. The broken roll control is one, the other is how the vehicle pivots 90 degrees as it’s released from the pad. I expect we’ll see those issues resolved before Summer’s end.

    I was glad to see they got plenty of “data collection” from this maiden flight, and the off-mic enthusiasm as Falcon 9 hit MECO/stage sep was a joyous thing.

  • J201

    @ Major Tom:

    Maybe I wasn’t clear: I don’t like the idea of using Orion as a lifeboat. It’s a useless waste of resources and effort to gain a capability we already have in Soyuz. My point was that it was a horribly half-hearted attempt by the administration to win over some of his opponents. It hasn’t worked, and it has clearly irritatated those who supported his plan in the first place.

    If we agree, why are we fighting?

    @ Vladislaw:

    I never said you were greedy. I said both sides have the attitude that their way is the best way forward, and anything else won’t work no matter what.

  • amightywind

    Josh Cryer wrote:

    “amightywind, I believe you’ve neglected to account for the fact that they lost a lot of fuel during the earlier abort sequence and delay.”

    I don’t know why I bother. LOX lost to boil off is continuously replenished. They launched with a full load of fuel, or at least the fuel they planned on carrying, to the gallon.

    ” Falcon 9 flew exactly as it should have, and it did reach orbit.”

    WWII Japanese army officers had a saying that a soldier was ready for war if he was told ‘the snow is black’ and believed it. You are ready for combat.

  • You are ready for combat.

    And you are ready for the loony bin.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    “Info is slowly leaking out.” I think what you’re hearing is your mighty wind leaking out of your arguments.

    Orbital, sub-orbital – big diff. Their biggest concern was the 1st stage performance, then whether they could do a stage separation and ignite the 2nd stage. That gets them to 98% of the To-Do list for the first launch. Even with the dummy payload inserted into orbit perfectly, it was not the goal of the test today. The goal was to test the engines, software and structures.

    As Oler has pointed out, the 2nd stage roll is likely a software issue, and can be fixed for the next launch. Remember the payload was a dummy, so there were no attitude control that the Dragon could help with.

  • amightywind, the launch was flawless, perfect. NASA could not have achieved the great success that was Falcon 9 today. KSC workers, contractors, heed SpaceX.

  • amightywind

    “Orbital, sub-orbital – big diff. Their biggest concern was the 1st stage performance, then whether they could do a stage separation and ignite the 2nd stage”

    Great for SpaceX. It is a fine achievement for a new start company to build a semi-viable rocket. How you all make the jump to betting the future of HSF on them I’ll never understand. It just isn’t rational. Its nutty. Put a crew on todays flight and they are dead meat. Let SpaceX perform on their contract and we can talk in 10 years. In the meantime onward with Constellation.

    “As Oler has pointed out, the 2nd stage roll is likely a software issue, and can be fixed for the next launch.”

    Wow! That’s a stretch by Captain Obvious.

    The final verdict is SpaceX survives to fight another day, but it was a pretty raw performance.

  • Waste

    This place is just disgusting. This just shows that this place will never be able to have adult debates. Its time I stop reading this place.

    Josh Cryer you have no class. Besides, KSC sent men into orbit just weeks ago.

    I’m glad SpaceX had an awesome launch, but seriously at least show some class. Rooting against NASA makes no sense, without them and their history today would not have happened.

  • Major Tom

    “If we agree, why are we fighting?”

    I’m not “fighting” you, at least not on Orion CRV. I’m just using Orion CRV to point out how incredibly hard, if not impossible, it is to “compromise” on Constellation due to the enormous costs of its components. Using just one, shrunken and simplified Constellation element (Orion) as the basis for developing a CRV capability costs nearly as much ($4.5 billion) as the entire CCDev program ($6.0 billion). You can’t get there from here.

    Forget Orion CRV. Finishing Ares I/Orion development for ISS transport is another $25-40 billion, per Constellation managers in the press and GAO. If finishing Ares I/Orion to support ISS transport was our “compromise position”, where is the money going to come from? We could kill CCDev four times over and still not have enough funding to finish Ares I/Orion.

    I’m just arguing the budget realities and practicalities. The enormously high costs of Constellation elements prevent a rational middle ground from even being proposed, nevertheless reached. It’s probably a major (but not the only) factor in why Congress hasn’t put forward a unified or even coherent alternative to NASA’s FY11 budget.

    FWIW…

  • Waste, apparently you haven’t seen the comments by amightywind for the past day. My comments were not serious to him. If he can get away with blatant trolling, why can’t I?

  • Waste, btw, you should’ve been at the SpaceFlightNow live chat for the flight. I counted well over a hundred SpaceX bashers on there, using very vulgar language and asinine rhetoric.

  • Best Effort

    Rooting against NASA makes no sense, without them and their history today would not have happened.

    Actually, rooting for or against NASA has no ‘effect’ at all, that’s one of the first thing you’ll learn when you start seriously studying science and physics.

  • [i]It’s official. SpaceX founder Elon Musk says the Falcon 9 rocket achieved a nearly perfect orbit during today’s dramatic blastoff.

    GPS telemetry showed the rocket’s second stage and dummy Dragon capsule hit “essentially a bullseye,” according to Musk

    The apogee, or high point, was about 1 percent higher than planned and the perigee, or low point, was 0.2 percent off the target. The second stage shutdown was nominal, Musk told Spaceflight Now.

    The Falcon 9 was shooting for a circular orbit 250 kilometers, or 155 miles, high and an inclination of 34.5 degrees.[/i]

    How about them apples?

    From SpaceFlightNow. BTW, one should congratulate those moderators from SFN during the feed. At times it was just a complete spamfest of hatred toward SpaceX. And congrats SpaceX. Looking forward to the demo flights (and if you can’t get better webcast servers, please get NTV to host it!).

  • Michael Kent

    amightywind wrote:

    Info is slowly leaking out. The second stage burn was several minutes short. The corkscrewing induced accelerations that would eventually confuse the fuel sensors in the upper stage tanks. My earlier prediction stands. Dragon is not in orbit.

    From Spacefight Now:

    It’s official. SpaceX founder Elon Musk says the Falcon 9 rocket achieved a nearly perfect orbit during today’s dramatic blastoff.
    GPS telemetry showed the rocket’s second stage and dummy Dragon capsule hit “essentially a bullseye,” according to Musk

    The apogee, or high point, was about 1 percent higher than planned and the perigee, or low point, was 0.2 percent off the target. The second stage shutdown was nominal, Musk told Spaceflight Now.

    I know you’re posting under a pseudonym to protect yourself, but still, don’t you get embarrassed being wrong so many times?

    Mike

  • Since I am not posting under a pseudonym, I should apologize to those at KSC. I was just making a jab at an above poster who has been making irrational statement after irrational statement, and having to endure hundreds of spammers speaking all sorts of ill toward SpaceX throughout the launch, I’m just not in the mood to put up with the BS. SpaceX accomplished something good today, and it was a good day.

  • Major Tom

    “But at the moment it explodes a tank can lurch forward with very high acceleration, like the ET in the Challenger disaster when the LH2 tank exploded.”

    But per my earlier post, unlike a firing SRB, it’s not a _sustained_ acceleration. It’s that inability to shutdown a firing Ares I SRB and prevent it from chasing Orion over a sustained period of time that drives the cost, complexity, and size of Orion’s LAS.

    “Looks like F9 is struggling. Were the software engineers high when they developed this thing?”

    “Guys. I hate to piss on your parade, but the second stage was corkscrewing badly when the feed stopped. There is no way it reached orbit.”

    “The laws of Physics say if you miss 1/2 of you burn you don’t make it to orbit. My guess is SpaceX allowed the rocket to careen out of control so they could learn something about the upper stage dynamics, but the cut the feed because it is embarrassing. For all we know the rocket was flying backwards at cutoff.”

    “Dragon is in orbit. An eccentric orbit that intersects the ground at the Azores. LOL! Face the facts. Half a second stage burn. A corkscrew attitude increasing in amplitude.”

    “Info is slowly leaking out. The second stage burn was several minutes short. The corkscrewing induced accelerations that would eventually confuse the fuel sensors in the upper stage tanks. My earlier prediction stands. Dragon is not in orbit.”

    The boilerplate Dragon is in orbit, genius.

    “2012 GMT (4:12 p.m. EDT)

    It’s official. SpaceX founder Elon Musk says the Falcon 9 rocket achieved a nearly perfect orbit during today’s dramatic blastoff.
    GPS telemetry showed the rocket’s second stage and dummy Dragon capsule hit “essentially a bullseye,” according to Musk

    The apogee, or high point, was about 1 percent higher than planned and the perigee, or low point, was 0.2 percent off the target. The second stage shutdown was nominal, Musk told Spaceflight Now.

    The Falcon 9 was shooting for a circular orbit 250 kilometers, or 155 miles, high and an inclination of 34.5 degrees.”

    spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/status.html

    “Nine minutes and 38 seconds after launch, the Falcon 9’s payload — a mockup of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule — was in orbit.”

    aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/06/04/awx_06_04_2010_p0-232127.xml&headline=Falcon%209%20Soars%20On%20Debut%20Flight&channel=space

    For the zillionth time, stop making stupid statements out of assinine ignorance.

    And for the gazillionth time, stop making up and spreading lies.

    “Great for SpaceX. It is a fine achievement for a new start company to build a semi-viable rocket.”

    Yeah, it makes so much sense to take a half-billion taxpayer dollar suborbital Ares I-X test flight without a properly sized first-stage with parachute failures due to thrust oscillation, a non-working upper stage that yawed 180 degrees, and ballast representing the crew capsule over an orbital Falcon 9 test flight with successful first and second stages that actually represent the real vehicle and a boilerplate crew capsule that hit the bullseye and cost the taxpayer nothing.

    Are you serious or are you trolling?

    “Put a crew on todays flight and they are dead meat.”

    You havn’t got a clue what you’re talking about. There were manned Gemini missions with much worse roll than today’s Falcon 9 test.

    Oy vey…

  • Bennett

    Hey Josh, I’m sure the pro-HSF folks at KSC understand. I left Spaceflight Now because of the intense ugliness, and when I dropped back by I went to full screen so I wouldn’t have to see the “chat box”.

    Where do people keep all this hatred when they’re not on line? It’s really not good for your health to let yourself go that direction. At the very least, it gives you gas…

  • At the very least, it gives you gas…

    Actually, maybe it relieves the gas. Or at least the bile.

  • Bennett, yeah, I kept having problems with the feed and kept reloading the page, and every time it was a horror show and I’d get more and more upset. And like a horror show, it’s hard to avert ones eyes from the nastiness. I feel the hatred for SpaceX is almost entirely one sided though, but it could be because SpaceX has, by and large, flown under the radar, up until very recently. Cx has had years to be gradually torn down. Perhaps the overwhelming hate is just them being able to find an outlet.

  • Bennett

    Josh, agreed. I hope the Cx folks can just move on and get to work on the very cool projects assigned to JSC by NASA Admin. They have a lot to accomplish, and the years pass fast.

    Cheers!

  • eh

    A great day for SpaceX and American spaceflight.

  • Coastal Ron

    I count myself amongst those that want a continuing and robust space program, but have been concerned about the cost and direction of the Constellation program.

    Whenever the conversation focuses on SpaceX, it hides the obvious error that Mike Griffith made when he released the design for Constellation – that we already Atlas V & Delta IV available for future manned flights. Ares V could not be defended in the budget without a predecessor to absorb part of the development costs, and so was born Ares I, which duplicated existing commercial capabilities.

    Unfortunately, Ares I meant relying on a technology that had never been used for manned flight (SRB-only engines). Whether they would be safe, or could do the job was still to be determined, and the many changes made to the design demonstrated how immature the design was.

    If we had proceeded to man-rate Delta IV Heavy, it would be ready to take over crew flights to the ISS, and we could be avoiding this whole “fly the Shuttle more so our astronauts don’t fly on non-U.S. launchers” angst.

    Notice Congress was not interested in extending the Shuttle two years ago when the production lines started shutting down. The rhetoric today is just political gamesmanship, and the politicians could mostly care less about the goals of NASA – they only care about the money in their district, or the next election cycle.

    Arguments can be made about the need for an HLV, and whether Ares V was the right design. Besides the supposed “SRB’s are safer for manned flight” argument, which needs to be proved before it’s believed, no one has been able to provide an economic reason we should be pursuing Ares I of any flavor.

    It’s not Ares I vs Falcon 9 – it never has been. It’s was Ares I against Atlas V & Delta IV five years ago, and now that Ares I schedule has slipped so much, Falcon 9 is also becoming an alternative. I actually like Delta IV, and would be happy to proceed with man-rating it, and then follow up with more choices (Ares I = No Alternatives).

    That’s my rant for the day…

  • red

    J201: “No offense, but I hardly call downgrading a BEO spacecraft to a crew-less lifeboat a compromise.”

    Major Tom: “Regardless of what you or I call it, it’s costs way too much for the function and illustrates how expensive any further “compromise” with Constellation will be for NASA’s other programs.”

    I agree with Major Tom. The Orion-derived CRV is probably about the least expensive productive thing we could do with Orion, and it’s still turning into a budget buster.

    There have also been discussions on this site about ways to compromise on the HLV side. I’ve yet to see one that includes enough of what the Shuttle-derived side wants that doesn’t more or less wipe out most of the commercial/technology demonstrator/robotic precursor/science approach. Even what seems like a minimalist approach on that side – cargo-only block I side-mount with minimal Shuttle infrastructure maintenance (i.e. no Shuttle launches) during the sidemount development phase, followed by a minimal sidemount operational phase, is expensive.

    Major Tom: “But instead of holding an open competition for a cost-effective solution, or even just adequately costing the chosen solution, the agency saw all the contract termination costs for Orion, jumped the gun, and assumed it could get a CRV for not much more than those termination costs. LockMart has told them they’re wrong, that it’s a $4.5 billion ROM for an Orion CRV (and it will probably only go up from there).

    SpaceX has a Dragon lifeboat variant design and Boeing wants an open competition, so I suspect that’s where this will all end up, anyway.”

    The $4.5B figure, and talk of $5B to $7B, for the CRV is really out of hand. Were they putting everything but the kitchen sink in their estimates? It sounds to me like it’s time to do what you said – abandon ship on Orion and hold an open competition. Maybe the COTS model will work for this market, too. There might be interesting commercial variants of a CRV. Maybe a crew launch spacecraft could serve this purpose. Maybe a commercial CRV could find cargo return markets or commercial space station markets, too. etc …

    I wonder what LM would estimate if they knew the result of such a high price (i.e. cancellation), and they were given the option of owning the vehicle.

    Here’s an interesting article on the CRV subject (and I don’t know what it’s talking about with the HLV – I would think the HLV R&D work would simply have to fit in its budget – the HLV isn’t needed yet anyway):

    http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2010/06/news-from-press.html

    “Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that the proposed Precursor Mission budget might be raided to pay for other manned spaceflight missions. … In a subscription-only article, AWST reports that NASA is revising its FY11 manned spaceflight budget. A Congressional analysis has concluded that the Administration’s new program, AWST reports, is as underfunded as the previous Administration’s program. As a result, ” Administrator Charles Bolden conceded [at a Congressional hearing] what many critics have been charging for months — that the open-ended exploration-technology program in the new budget will be raided to pay for other work, including the space station crew return vehicle (CRV)… and the heavy-lift launcher.”

  • red

    Cl: “Even if the SpaceX launch turns out to be successful that doesn’t change much for Ares.”

    I agree, but probably not the way you intend. Ares would have been doomed whether or not this launch worked. Setting aside all the other problems, Ares was way too expensive and slow to develop. It wasn’t even close to being viable.

    Cl: “As Bolden stated, commercial will not go beyond LEO, NASA will handle that.”

    I don’t think there are any limitations on commercial companies going beyond LEO. They already go beyond LEO for comsats. NASA has interest in beyond-LEO commercial participation in areas like telecommunications, small robotic landers, habitation modules, fuel depots and depot supply, and so on. It seems to me that there will be a strong role for both NASA and commercial space beyond LEO, unless Constellation survives, in which case neither will have any role beyond LEO (at least for NASA missions).

    All of this is beside the point for Ares, though. Ares I and Ares V don’t go beyond LEO. LEO access will and should be handled by commercial vehicles at this point.

    Cl: “So, Ares isn’t competing with SpaceX, they are competing with Obama’s “plan to nowhere” with “no vehicle”. Doing a bunch of studies and no real launches.”

    No, the Program of Record was the one with no real launches. All it did was take funds away from a bunch of other existing NASA areas that did real launches, cause the ISS to lose funding and thus be deorbited (otherwise Ares I/Orion could not be funded), start Ares I/Orion ISS ability around 2018 well after ISS is gone (in other words, there would be no reason for real Ares I/Orion launches), get Ares V ready by 2028 but with no funds for Ares V payloads (in other words, there would be no reason for real Ares V launches) … and if you suspend disbelief hard enough, maybe you could be convinced that there would finally be real launches by 2035 or so.

    The new plan includes lots of real launches. There are lots of ISS cargo missions, ISS crew missions, CRV missions, ISS augmentation missions, flagship technology demonstration missions, robotic precursor missions, Earth observation missions, general space technology demonstration missions for areas like smallsats, and so on. All of these missions require real launches.”

    Cl: “So, regardless Ares will still survive in Congress”

    That may or may not happen. It won’t happen for the reasons you mentioned, though.

  • Since Musk is now on the record regarding talking with NASA about Super Heavy Lift, I think we’re on track for a very very powerful rocket by 2020. Earlier than the best estimates for Ares V, might I add (best, overly optimistic estimates, if Cx was continued, is 2023; SpaceX should be able to build it in 5-6 years from program start, that puts it at 2021 at the latest).

  • Silence Dogood

    All this energy coulda been used to launch Ares.
    Wonder what Doug Cooke thinks of all this….

  • Gary Church

    “I actually like Delta IV, and would be happy to proceed with man-rating it, and then follow up with more choices (Ares I = No Alternatives).”

    Delta IV heavy is a pretty hot bird. RS-68′ and common boosters; it is the perfect example of the expendable philosophy. It uses the most powerful propellants and engines made as cheaply as possible for one flight. But understand the engines might not be accurately described as cheap, even though they are expendable- they are expensive with an excellent throttle range. They have a lower ISP than SSME’s but then the SSME’s qualify as uniquely engineered and very expensive. I am not a Musk supporter because of the whole cheaper is better line. You know- my line is “there is no cheap.” So a Delta IV heavy is the best machine around but it is still a design concept that I personally think space flight needs to leave behind by making everything reusable or usable as a wet workshop. But I do not want American tax dollars going to Russians so I would say finish Orion and LAS development and put it on top and GO!

  • Gary Church

    “A great day for SpaceX and American spaceflight.”

    Great for SpaceX, some disagreement on the second part, but it got going 18,000 miles an hour and that means I cannot throw rotten tomatoes anymore. Congrats.

  • “amightywind” is just another troll getting his kicks out of being a disgrace to the human race so please stop feeding him (maybe he’ll kill himself or go piss off the wrong person –good riddance). Enough said.

  • Major Tom

    ” It sounds to me like it’s time to do what you said – abandon ship on Orion and hold an open competition. Maybe the COTS model will work for this market, too. There might be interesting commercial variants of a CRV. Maybe a crew launch spacecraft could serve this purpose. Maybe a commercial CRV could find cargo return markets or commercial space station markets, too. etc …”

    There may be some very low-cost solutions if the trade space is opened up enough. As Mr. Simberg pointed out on this forum earlier, crew safing on orbit may be simpler, safer, and more cost-effective than crew return. I don’t know if a module that can rapidly undock from the ISS and maintain its attitude and life support for weeks until a Soyuz, Dragon, etc. retrieves the crew would be less expensive than a simple capsule CRV. I suspect NASA would rule it out because injured crew would potentially suffer for weeks and/or die on orbit in an extended public drama. But that and other potential solutions should at least be looked at, if not competed.

    “The $4.5B figure, and talk of $5B to $7B, for the CRV is really out of hand. Were they putting everything but the kitchen sink in their estimates?… I wonder what LM would estimate if they knew the result of such a high price (i.e. cancellation), and they were given the option of owning the vehicle.”

    I have a hard time reconciling a $4.5 billion Orion CRV with LockMart/Bigelow’s earlier studies on a commercial Orion-Lite. Maybe the studies showed that Orion-lite is also too expensive. It’s hard to see Bigelow swallowing a $5 billion-plus capsule.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Excellent. It seems fairly clear from all sides that Ares was a poor decision given the LV already available.

  • DCSCA

    “Well, so much for the “hobby rocket,” and “toy rocket.” They just had a successful stage separation, and they’re heading to orbit.” Yes they can take pride in replicating a launch in mid-2010 made routine by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration back in the early 1960’s. Next they have to get one up, around and down. Maybe three orbits, just like Johnny Glenn in ’62, except w/o a ‘Glenn’ aboard. Or just a dog like Laika.

  • Vladislaw

    You are wrong AMERICA can take pride in the ability of the NATION’s aerospace engineers and workers. The Republic will be held in good stead as long as this entreprenuarial spirit continues to grow as we reach out of space.

  • Rhyolite

    Congratulations to SpaceX, its leaders, its investors, and most of all the its fine engineers and technicians who made this possible.

    This is a good day. Not only for one company but also for the American aerospace industry and space flight in general.

  • MaDeR

    I find it strange that anyone can read “root for SpaceX” as “root against NASA”. I can imagine only one reason: someone’s job loss.

  • […] as Dr. Plait has, is, well, weird to me. First to do what? The rocket can’t carry as much as existing ULA rockets, although it was funded and designed by a single entity instead of through NASA, and it’s also a fully reusable two-stage rocket. These are great accomplishments, but I agree with Elon Musk: […]

  • vulture4

    ” So a Delta IV heavy is the best machine around but it is still a design concept that I personally think space flight needs to leave behind by making everything reusable or usable as a wet workshop.”

    The Delta IV is well engineered, and is entirely US built unlike the Atlas; I’ve seen most of the processing line personally. But at the present time ULA is simply not cost-competitive even for satelite launch, as its lack of commercial orders makes clear. As a sole-source supplier for government launches it has been lured into the cost-plus mode of operation.

    For practical human spaceflight the cargo requirements are greater and the value per kilo is less, so much lower cost is needed. Even SpaceX cannot achieve this without a fully reusable launch vehicle. The demand for seats to orbit at $20M each is a handful at most.

  • Jason O'Leary

    I believe that the USA can take pride in the ability of our great nations’s aerospace engineers and workers. The Republic will be held in good stead as long as this entreprenuarial spirit continues to grow as we reach out of space.

    Cheers

    Jason

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>