SpaceX's Falcon 9 Successfully Reaches Orbit 282
terrymaster69 writes "After an aborted launch attempt last week, SpaceX successfully launched its Falcon9 rocket Tuesday at 3:44 am EST. SpaceX's founder Elon Musk tweeted: 'Falcon flew perfectly!! Dragon in orbit, comm locked and solar arrays active!! Feels like a giant weight just came off my back :)' The Dragon capsule is scheduled to dock with the ISS on May 25th."
Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More info and video (Score:4, Interesting)
If SpaceX delivers successfully on its manned spaceflight capability, I don't think anyone who actually cares about US manned spaceflight will be disappointed.
The fact that spaceflight has matured to the point that a private enterprise like SpaceX can now conduct this level of mission is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't obviate the need for government-supported and -operated space capabilities. The private sector isn't the only solution. They can apply what we've learned but do not have the same motivations of government space programs, which have resulted in nearly immeasurable advances and payoffs much closer to home.
The government acquisition and contracting system is far from perfect, but NASA, United Space Alliance [unitedspacealliance.com], and United Launch Alliance [ulalaunch.com] are no slouches. ULA has success after success [youtube.com] and knows how to reliably get research and military payloads to space. The fact that SpaceX is now in the mix is only a good thing. During this morning's press conference everyone involved from NASA to SpaceX was all smiles.
Man rating of Dragon and Falcon (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be possible to certify the man rating of the Dragon spacecraft before the Falcon launch rocket. So the Dragon may be able to return astronaughts to earth FROM the ISS before it is used to bring them up there (since no ride on the rocket would be required if the Dragon is sent up empty).
Re:USA rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who don't know, Elon Musk was born in South Africa, and left to avoid Military Service in the 80's (which propped up the Apartheid government). He came over here, built paypal into a powerhouse (thorugh a merger, he didn't found it), founded Tesla motors, and he built a rocketship. Hell yeah.
Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a positive thing? Privatization will only provide an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more. And NASA is already outsourced to the gills as it is. And it could set the stage for the government bailing on space research and exploration altogether (and no private company is going to pick up the slack on projects with no profit behind them).
So it could be a "turning point" in the space age alright. It could be the end of it.
Re:Video of the launch (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice to hear they are all metric.
Re:RSA rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
> Thanks to a South African entrepreneur
No, thanks to an AMERICAN. He immigrated here, accepted citizenship and is now an American. I welcome people like him. If he ever shows up at my doorstep, I'm grilling burgers for him -- anyway he likes. :)
SpaceX could get us to mars. (Score:4, Interesting)
A mars ship could be launched as modules that are connected in space. and Space X already has a heavy lift plan to do just that.
That's one way to look at it (Score:5, Interesting)
Another way to look at it is that once manned space flight is a reality for private firms, the resulting complications that arise from conflicting interests will result in NASA being re-engineered at least in part as a law enforcement agency. And, once that happens, they will be in a veritable arms race with private concerns. That will drive all sorts of new research and development.
Immigration rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is just fine by us. We're supposed to be a melting pot. It only makes the case stronger with immigrants succeed so well in the U.S.
The US should vastly increase legal immigration. The anti-immigrant attitude is based largely on the idea that "immigrants take our jobs" which, in my arrogant opinion, is outrageously idiotic. Each immigrant does take a job, but he also creates wealth and spends money on the American economy, thus creating additional jobs. And if immigrants did increase unemployment, then additional Americans (USA-born) would increase unemployment by the same logic. Therefore the greater the population the bigger would be unemployment. Therefore tiny island countries would be unemployment-free worker paradises, which AFAIK does not happen.
And even if the immigrant sends money to his family overseas, those dollars will eventually be used to buy American goods, thus increasing exports.
Increasing legal immigration, would reduce ethic tension, illegal immigration, crime and tax evasion, thus benefiting the USA. It would also benefit immigrants, who just want a nice honest job.
Can anyone explain to me how immigration harms America?
Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)
However design by committee to do too many other things poorly means the Shuttle and the Space Station have cost orders of magnitude more than they should have.
The Space Shuttle's problems were not "design by committee" problems. If I had to pick the single biggest cause, it was having their budget radically slashed due to waning public interest in space post-Apollo and the increasing funding demands of the Vietnam War. This caused all sorts of compromises that either directly (aluminum frame instead of titanium, mandating a more complex thermal protection system) or indirectly (meeting Air Force design requirements to try to get Air Force funding) caused operations costs tradeoffs. Probably the next biggest fault was overambition. So little was known about reusables in space, and it was totally unreasonable to expect the first reusable orbital rocket to be a workhorse rather than a testbed. Heck, some of the problems were due to a lack of understanding of some aspects of rocketry in general, let alone reusables - for example, from the shuttle we had reinforced tough lessons like the famous one about the danger of debris against side-mounted rockets, but also less well known things like how because the side mount design puts most of your structural strength on the underside of your craft, you get a higher vibrational load from your main engines, which aren't linearly aligned with said structural support.
You *want* committees involved in design. No person is a god. Everyone has oversights, and it's *always* good to have multiple people there to point out when you've screwed up.
Re:More info and video (Score:5, Interesting)
The SLS is estimated to cost $41 billion for R&D and four launches, and is expected to have a cost-to-leo of $8500 per pound. SpaceX is claiming that the R&D on their Falcon Heavy will be ~$2.5 billion, and they'll have a cost-to-leo of $500-1000 (with the lower figure depending on them getting stage recovery working).
Why does the SLS need to exist? It won't be able to do anything that projected private sector products won't be able to do for a fraction of the cost.
Let me put it in perspective: the Falcon Heavy is projected to put cargo into orbit for 3% of the cost of the shuttle (~1/30th the cost).
Re:More info and video (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether they'd get a return on their investment is a tough question, since I'm not sure whether FoxConn will set up slave labor camps on Mars to make iPads or not.
Re:Congratulations (Score:4, Interesting)
Not the same thing as Space X. These companies were created directly by European governments, often out of the remains of European government owned defense companies, many of them nationalized. Saying these companies are corporations is like saying that the US Postal Service is a corporation; technically true, but missing the forest for the trees. They were created specifically to serve their governments. Any private sector business is the cherry on top of the ice cream. Space X, on the other hand, was a private company from the ground up, specifically created for a perceived private space transportation market, the aim being to make a profit off of it for private investors. Government contracts will be part of that, but the aim of this company is to be the premier provider of space launch to private companies. NASA, for all the good it has done over the years, has been suppressing that private market. A company like Space X is long overdue.
With these defense/aerospace companies it is often difficult to tell how much of it was founded by governments and how much was private enterprise. If you trace back their histories you often find that they are formed from multiple mergers between private companies and privatised former-government setups, some or all of which are partially owned by the government. Its very confusing. However, EADS currently has almost 50% of its shares on the open market, which to me is the hallmark of a private company. Also, I understand that most of their business is with private companies; telecommunications and whatnot. For example, if you look at the launch history of Ariane 5 [wikipedia.org], you see a very large number of communications satellites and only a few government contracts such as the ATV "Jules Verne" and science platforms like Herschel and Planck.
Re:Congratulations (Score:4, Interesting)