SpaceX set to launch

[D'kian]

In case anyone's interested, SpaceX is set to launch flight 3 of the Falcon 1 rocket any minute now (August 2nd, 7:50 PM central time). For the webcast go here:

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

I hope it works this time.

[D'kian]

Launch is now scheduled for 10 pm Eastern time

[TheEgoist]

As far as I know this is a government funded project. Eck...

[D'kian]

As far as I know this is a government funded project. Eck...

It is not. The company is funded by private capital. It does have government contracts, split more or less between the military and NASA, but it also has contracts with other private companies, including Bigelow Aerospace.

The countdown is proceeding at T-44 minutes

[EC]

Where are they launching from? It's still daylight there, obviously not Cape Canaveral.

[D'kian]

Omelek Island, Kwajalein atoll in the Pacific.

[TheEgoist]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/03/1125227

[Thales]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/03/1125227

I watched that last night. It started out beautifully and then went black when the second stage ignited. I was sorry to see that.

But this sentence in the slashdot article:

this certainly raises some questions about the likelihood of successful privatization of the Space industry."

is ridiculous. It's indicative of people who don't know how free markets work. The free market can easily deal with space transportation. Enterprises fail all of the time in a free market. The successful franchises are the ones that stick around and grow. And it's not as if there are not endless examples of what a free market can produce when left truly free.

[Thales]

Update:

Apparently the ashes of "Scotty" of Star Trek fame were on that rocket, along with real astronaut Gordon Cooper.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...d-a-rocket.html

[aequalsa]

is ridiculous. It's indicative of people who don't know how free markets work. The free market can easily deal with space transportation. Enterprises fail all of the time in a free market. The successful franchises are the ones that stick around and grow. And it's not as if there are not endless examples of what a free market can produce when left truly free.

"Likelihood" my ass....because government sponsored space flight went off without a hitch, right?

http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/disasters.html

[D'kian]

I watched that last night. It started out beautifully and then went black when the second stage ignited. I was sorry to see that.

Apparently the first stage failed to separate from the second stage. I've no more details, save that SapceX's CEO, Elon Musk, vows to keep on trying.

But this sentence in the slashdot article:

[..]

is ridiculous. It's indicative of people who don't know how free markets work. The free market can easily deal with space transportation.

Quite ridiculous. All the more so since government does not build any of the hardware used for space travel. It's always been developed and built by private enterprise with government financing.

However, I'm beginning to have doubts as to whether SpaceX can successfully launch a satellite into orbit. three consecutive failures are pretty abd. Of course, it's a new system designed and built from scratch, the company is barely 7 years old, the CEO has no previous aerospace experience (he made his fortune in PayPal), etc, etc. But at the end of the day I keep seeing three launch failures.

The good news is there are several other private launch companies. SpaceDev, T-Space, Scaled Composites (Ruttan's firm), Orbital Sciences Corp, Spaceplane, and others. Robert Bigelow, he of Budget Suites, has plans to operate a manned orbital habitat. Sooner or later one will succeed.

The big advantage of private companies is that they care very much about cost. SpaceX's goal isn't so much to orbit satellites, and eventually people, as it is to do it cheaper than it currently is. NASA cares about cost only when it goes past its budget. NASA budgets are tight no, but they havent always been, For instance, I can't conceive a private company developing a boondoggle like the Space Shuttle on purpose, or abandoning a project after spending billions on it merely because it's no longer popular.

[D'kian]

There's a flight 3 summary ins SpaceX's website: http://www.spacex.com

If I unserstand correctly, the first stage's residual trhust kept it from separating from the second stage, thus launch failure. In any case the problem was with residual thrust on the first stage using the new Merlin type engine.

Elon Musk, CEO, vows to persevere. I sure hope so. But I don't feel as optimistic as I did last week.

[Tenure]

This just reminds me of October Sky. Those kids never lost hope, and as long as these guys can keep on funding this, they shouldn't either.

[goldstandard]

This just in, SpaceX has finally achieved its first successful launch!

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

I knew they could do it.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Thanks to my post-grad education (Space Operations) I have some idea here what they actually accomplished. Getting something into orbit is in many ways harder than a manned suborbital flight (like SpaceShipOne); basically where SpaceShipOne reached its maximum elevation--at which point it was no longer moving much; there is that split second of zero velocity as the ascent turns into a descent--is far too low. To go into a good, stable orbit, you must get to where the atmosphere is far thinner and still be moving at about five miles per second, and in the proper direction, when you get there. Quite a bit more rocket power involved. You need automated guidance and control systems, and multi-stage involves another level of complication, as SpaceX's previous launch demonstrated.

In spite of all of that they prevailed. Congratulations to them all!

(And government, get the f*** out of the way!)

[D'kian]

Thanks to my post-grad education (Space Operations) I have some idea here what they actually accomplished. Getting something into orbit is in many ways harder than a manned suborbital flight (like SpaceShipOne);

I think Spaceship One stays well under Mach 4 throughout its flight profile. While low Earth orbit (LEO) requires a veocity of 8 km/s (that's about 5 miles per second), or 28,800 km/h, which approaches Mach 25. That's what makes spaceflight so expensive.

In spite of all of that they prevailed. Congratulations to them all!

I haven't tooted SpaceX's horn too much because for one they already knew how to make an orbital rocket. Something NASA and its contractors (and the Army and Navy before NASA) dind't know and had to develop back in the 40s and 50s.

SpaceX ahs broken new ground in developing a cheaper system that reduces the cost of sending cargo, and alter on epople, into LEO, operating mostly with private capital. That's a huge breakthrough.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

We are close to the point of single stage to orbit--not having to throw away the majority of your spacecraft every time you use it. Imagine a spacecraft with a turnaround much like an airliner.

When that happens, step back and watch the space industry take off like a rocket (so to speak). Such a thing would also be useful for rapid point-to-point transportation from anywhere on earth to anywhere on earth; imagine the ad: when it absolutely, positively has to get there in 3 hours.... (45 minutes flight time plus time to load and unload.)

[Thales]

This just in, SpaceX has finally achieved its first successful launch!

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

I knew they could do it.

Awesome! So much for the doubters, eh?

Yes, I saw the video last night. Great stuff.

[D'kian]

We are close to the point of single stage to orbit--not having to throw away the majority of your spacecraft every time you use it. Imagine a spacecraft with a turnaround much like an airliner.

You do recall those were all selling points for the Space Shuttle, right? It turned out to be the most expensive way of getting people and cargo into orbit. Of course it was a government program.

The issue of reusability is a complex one. Yes, all parts of a rocket are very sophisticated, and very expensive to make. But it can be even more expensive to build them for reusability, and to drag them from wherever they dropped to a processing facility. SpaceX's Falcon rockets are supposed to ahve some reusable components, but I've heard little about them.

The Shuttle, BTW, suffered many design compromises, development problems, and was never seen for what it was: an experimental system. Imagine sinking your budget for a primary launch system that's overly complex and unproven. The sensible approach would ahve been to build one or two Shuttles, test-fly them, then refine the design or scrap it and try something else. At the very least there should have been some alternative system in place or within easy reach.

But that's what government programs are like. They're not made to solve or address a problem, but to please varous constituencies.

When that happens, step back and watch the space industry take off like a rocket (so to speak).

Between Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX and a few others, and those that are yet to come, we'll see real progress very soon. IN fact, commercial space travel and cargo will be the next big bubble.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Part of the issue with the shuttle, of course, is that it launches from one place, lands in another, and (if I recall corectly) gets refurbished in a third. The heat tiles have to be gone over every single time. That's the "reusable" part. Like getting your engine overhauled every time you go to a gas station.

If the shuttle were truly reusable it would have been cheaper. It may yet actually be cheaper than a throwaway booster; I don't know.

I am thinking reusable like an airliner.

[D'kian]

Part of the issue with the shuttle, of course, is that it launches from one place, lands in another, and (if I recall corectly) gets refurbished in a third.

I'm not sure about refurbishing, but the Shuttle can and does often land at Kennedy. The first few flights landed at Edwards AFB in California because 1) it's a large empty space (a dry lake bed in the desert) with plenty of room to handle emergencies and 2) the runway at Kennedy wasn't built yet.

Once the runway was built, the Shuttle began to land there. Of course, why was the runway so long in coming? Runways are very simple structures.

The heat tiles have to be gone over every single time. That's the "reusable" part. Like getting your engine overhauled every time you go to a gas station.

That's part of what I meant when I said the Shuttle was an experimental craft, not a reliable launch system.

If the shuttle were truly reusable it would have been cheaper.

Maybe. Let's say it always lands at Kennedy and gets refurbished there. There's still the matter of locating the external boosters and dragnig them with barges back to KSC. The heat tiles can't be done away with quite yet. Given the heat of re-entry (see what happened to Columbia) some sort of heat shield is necessary (Spaceship One doesn't need one because it doesn't re-enter that fast). You can have an ablative shield (one that burns off in a controlled manner, like the had in the capsule programs like Apollo), or an insullating one (that prevents heat from reaching the main body of the craft, like the heat tiles). Either choice is easier to implement in a capsule than in a glider.

It may yet actually be cheaper than a throwaway booster; I don't know.

There are lots of factors involved. For instance, rocket engines operate at very high pressures and temperatures. An engine designed to operate only once is cheaper to build and run than one designed to operate, say, twenty times. The latter needs to be sturdier (which also means more massive, which means more fuel) and needs to be refurbished after every use. Issues of the craft body, tankage, avionics, etc are also involved.

I am thinking reusable like an airliner.

That would be great. I expect we can get there eventually. There are a number of designs for SSTO systems and air breathing engines for atmospheric flight out there (Spaceship One is close to that). It might pay to review some of the rejected designs for the Shuttle, too, not to mention linear accelerators. I think as the private companies mature, they'll experiment more. But of course it helps if it's their money they're putting on the line.

Then again, it may all be unnecessary. I'm very partial to the idea of a space elevator or orbital tower myself. That would be much cheaper in the long term, absent some form of anti-gravity or something even more exotic like Cavorite™

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The space elevator is the ultimate solution--but we'd probably need SSTO in order to not go bankrupt building it. And that's assuming the materials science exists to build such a gigantic structure.

It'll happen someday, but not soon. Probably not in my lifetime. (PLEASE prove me wrong and make a fool out of me.)

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The space elevator is the ultimate solution--but we'd probably need SSTO in order to not go bankrupt building it. And that's assuming the materials science exists to build such a gigantic structure.

It'll happen someday, but not soon. Probably not in my lifetime. (PLEASE prove me wrong and make a fool out of me.)

Ask and I shall receive (well, maybe):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/02...ator/index.html

[D'kian]

Ask and I shall receive (well, maybe):

I was going to say that scientists and engineers are looking at the idea seriously, plus we have all these space enthusiasts with oodles money to invest (Bezos, Musk, Bigelow and others), and there are materials like carbon nanotubes which could conceivably carry the laod. So how long are you planning to stay alive?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

This will be a tremendous undertaking even once we have the materials to do it. A *lot* of tonnage must be lifted to geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO), and the elevator tower built outwards from there (both up and down, the center of gravity of this thing must always remain at GEO). I seriously doubt that this will be financially possible without Single Stage to Orbit first.

And SSTO will be useful even after it's completed for getting into low earth orbit (LEO). Remember that if you climb up this tower to an altitude of 150 miles, you are NOT in low earth orbit, you will have weight, and if you step off the tower you will fall to the ground. You could conceivably jump off the tower and light off a rocket to give you the 7 km per second you need to stay in orbit, but that won't save you much off of boosting from the ground. What this tower will be useful will be leaving earth entirely; go to the top somewhere way above GEO, and you only need a little extra thrust to break free of the earth. (It will depend on how tall the portion of the tower above GEO is.)