SpaceX Successful Static Fire 122
ron_ivi writes "SpaceX's website is announced that they had a "
great static fire today" where their Falcon rocket successfully had 3 seconds of thrust. Nice pictures and video of the test; and if analysis shows all was well, they'll be launching Thursday."
WOHO!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:WOHO!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WOHO!!! (Score:2)
Re:WOHO!!! (Score:4, Funny)
You insensitive clod (Score:3, Funny)
But it is only 45 more years until we get to see 100 year old I Love Lucy re-runs!
In fifty years? Try twenty. (Score:4, Interesting)
On a more practical note, with the number of competing vendors and the number of technologies in play [hobbyspace.com], it's not a question of if but of how. Will the laser drives [lightcraft...logies.com] beat the chemical boosters but lose out to the space elevator?
Unless the dimwits with the guns and bombs manage to foobar our entire world, somebody's getting systems running in the next fifteen years or so. As an old L5 member I say, it's about damn time!
-Rustin
Re:WOHO!!! (Score:2)
Re:WOHO!!! (Score:1)
It used to be... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It used to be... (Score:2)
It used to be...Slow Burn. (Score:3, Funny)
Now he breaks out the cigarettes and asks, "was it good for you too"?
Re:It used to be... (Score:1)
ESD (Score:4, Funny)
hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure way to burn bandwidth (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sure way to burn bandwidth (Score:2, Informative)
I watched it, and I'm using Fedora Core 3. I'm using MPlayer with win32 binary codecs. Check it out here. [mplayerhq.hu]
Re:Sure way to burn bandwidth (Score:1)
If NASA designed cars (Score:1, Funny)
- They would only drive in clear weather
- They would take millions of gallons of gas and burn it all at once and then coast the rest of the way
- The rubber tires would be prone to blowout on cold days
- The undercarriage would be made up of tissue paper
- It would cost billions of dollars to maintain, even when it just sits in the garage
- You would have to schedule your drives and be prepared to have them cancelled at the last minute
- There would only be a handful of cars in the entire w
Re:You're right (Score:2)
And you say you do bad analogies.
Re:If NASA designed cars (Score:5, Funny)
Sad (Score:3, Funny)
Ah well, at least they are both fellow geeks.
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:1)
Re:Sad (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sad (Score:1)
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:1)
It does? How?
Rocket science = Material science, chemistry, combustion, structures, fluid dynamics, hydraulics, electronics, machining, and some programing.
3D game engine = programing heavy on geometry.
One of things that programmers have hard time with when going into robotics or anything involving machining is learning that the world isn't digital. When you order a hundred 5 cm long rods not one is going to be 5 cm long an
Re:Sad (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean, it's a whole different ballpark, aerospace. Whereas Carmack can change a few lines of code and recompile while at ID, it takes only a few minutes and is basically free. At Armidillo, if he tests his rocket and it doesn't perform right, then he has to rebuild the thing, it can take months and cost hundreds of thousan
Re:Sad (Score:2)
Also, a lot of the 3D math is related to the rocket control stuff. Carmack was the first person *ever* to demonstrate a fully computer-controlled stationary rocket-powered hovering vehicle -- that sort of flight control software is definitely related.
The real reaso
Re:Sad (Score:1)
> Because he knows how to optimize 3D rotation matrices to make
> a 3D first-person game?
No. Because he doesn't bring his head-up-butt style of groupthink that "many" (not all) aerospace engineers seem to adopt. The "not invented here" or "we don't think it will work, so it won't work" thinking that has left the space industry behind where it should be for the last few decades.
What John Carmack brings is an willingness to learn an
Re:Sad (Score:2)
John and Elon are doing two **different** things (Score:4, Insightful)
John is not. He is funding it by selling off his collection of cars. His development team is a group of friends. His idea is a little different - a VTVL with a hovering tail setdown, not a splashdown. He's working on four throttled throatless engines on his stage - a radically different beast. Control law between multiple engines is a pain. Quite frankly it hasn't been done yet - Apollo used 1 single gimbleable engine, and even that was in reduced gravity! Much easier since your closing velocities will be slower. Etc.
Long story short, Elon is repeating history but trying to cut costs and make it manageable. John is trying to do things a new way.
Re:John and Elon are doing two **different** thing (Score:2)
I could easily keep going. It's a hobby rocket club. Nothing of any sort of use will ever come out of it. And I say this as someone who grew up admiring John.
Re:John and Elon are doing two **different** thing (Score:2)
He switched to LOX in April of last year. That was LOX/Methanol. He's using Ethanol now and according to my email archive that's been since July. Methanol and Ethanol are pretty similar though, the issue was film cooling with the Methanol, IIRC.
VTVL is big. He's no Elon (I said that in my original post) but his head is in the right place. Elon is replicating, John is inno
Re:John and Elon are doing two **different** thing (Score:3, Insightful)
John is not "innovating". He's repeating the mistakes of the past. Remember his doomed experiments wit
Re:John and Elon are doing two **different** thing (Score:2)
He's a tinkerer. He isn't in a race with anyone. He's said that before. He puts 1% of Id's revenue into it (not much) and then his own personal money. This is a diversion for him. He's not trying to be Elon. He's trying to do something different (I've said it the third time now, sunk in yet?)
And on the p
Re:John and Elon are doing two **different** thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the little fact that I just pointed out that he hasn't been able to get engines with nozzles and any sort of reasonable thrust behind them not to damage/destroy themselves, which is why he's working without a nozzle in the first place.
He's a tinkerer. He isn't in a race with anyone. He's said that
Failure is the best way to learn (Score:1)
since he doesn't have an aerospace engineering degree(or any degree, for that mater. book learnin' ain't for everybody), I think he is doing pretty well for himself.
Mistakes of the past (Score:2)
He's repeating the mistakes of the past.
I'm not saying this as a rocket scientist (because I'm not), or even as someone who knows anything at all about the details or pros&cons of the rocket technologies that you guys are talking about (because I don't -- well, a little, but not enough to contribute much to the discussion at that level). But I often like to point out that, to the scientific/inquisitive mindset, sometimes there can be value in "repeating the mistakes of the past".
For one thing, i
Rockets and Explosives (Score:5, Interesting)
It's hard to tell distances in the picture -- there could be a mile separating the two. But having these in the foreground just struck me a little bit odd.
--Lance
Re:Rockets and Explosives (Score:3, Interesting)
They still go boom (Score:4, Informative)
The recent (October 2002) photon M2 launch failure is a good example (there's a truly spectacular video of it floating around, but I'm not gonna subject the only host I know of to
Or the zenit launch failure in the '90s that left a big smoking hole where the launch pad was. Both these involved the rocket failing shortly after liftoff, basically falling out of the sky fully fueled. When the tanks break up, you get many thousands of pounds of fuel and oxidizer nicely mixed. What happens after that is usually "Boom!"
Most US, European and Japanese launchers have range safety (aka self destruct) systems, which help if the vehicle is actually flying, but they aren't likely to make difference if the failure happens very near the pad.
I suspect the tanks that the OP asked about are actually quite far away, and just look close due to the
foreshortening effect of a long lense.
Re:Rockets and Explosives (Score:2)
Island evacuated before fueling (Score:3, Informative)
The launch is taking place on a 7 acre island near Kwajalein Atoll. The island is evacuated before the rocket is fueled. You can read about it here [spaceflightnow.com]. I wish these guys luck. There're going to need it.
Re:Rockets and Explosives (Score:2)
FIRE! (Score:5, Funny)
Bad plot line... (Score:2)
(this was the main plot line of a cheezoid TV series in the early 80's).
Re:Bad plot line... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad plot line... (Score:2)
Re:Bad plot line... (Score:3, Informative)
Somehow... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Somehow... (Score:2)
Not sure, but it does prove that the Falcon blows (for at least 3 seconds.)
Re:Somehow... (Score:2)
It's funny because it's true. (Score:1)
Real-time launch info; SpaceX Dragon (Score:5, Informative)
* Mission Status Center - Falcon Launch Report - Justin Ray [spaceflightnow.com]
* Out of the Cradle [outofthecradle.net]
* NASASpaceflight.com - LIVE: SpaceX/Falcon 1 - 23rd March: launch coverage thread [nasaspaceflight.com]
Also, it was recently revealed that SpaceX has been secretly developing their SpaceX Dragon [spaceref.com] orbital capsule, which will be able to carry up to 7 people to and from orbit. A full-size prototype of the capsule has already been constructed, and the capsule is expected to enter service by 2009 (several years before NASA's CEV).
Re:Real-time launch info; SpaceX Dragon (Score:4, Informative)
Oops, never mind... looks like there's going to be a day's delay:
No major issues were discovered following the static fire, but, as a cautionary measure, we are going to take one more day to review data and verify system functionality. Launch is now scheduled for Friday at 1 p.m. California time.
Nice, but we did that in the 1950s. (Score:4, Insightful)
The proposed bigger model, the Falcon 9-S5, is comparable to the modern Atlas V [astronautix.com]. 6 launches to date, 100% success rate. About 2x the price the new guys claim, but then, the Atlas is a proven product.
But the commercial launch market has collapsed. Iridium is done, and nobody wants to launch that many sats again. The geosync comsat market is saturated; everybody is going fibre optic. There's just not that much going up.
Parent does not appear to be flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice, but we did that in the 1950s. (Score:4, Interesting)
With three primary differences:
1. The 9-S is intended to carry up to 23% more cargo to LEO.
2. The 9-S will be man-rated with full "engine-out" features.
3. The 9-S is intended to be somewhat reusable, thus helping keep the costs down.
These sorts of features are a BIG DEAL in the rocket industry.
About 2x the price the new guys claim, but then, the Atlas is a proven product.
Tis' true. That's why we're all holding our breath to see if Musk delivers.
But the commercial launch market has collapsed. Iridium is done, and nobody wants to launch that many sats again.
I don't know where you get this idea. There have been healthy numbers of sats going up in recent years to support all kinds of network infratructures. Here's a list of past and planned launches. [skyrocket.de] Looks pretty healthy to me.
You may be thinking of the slowdown in the market caused by the loss of the Challenger. With the Shuttle out of commission, the market suddenly realized that it had no other way to get to space. Thus the commercial launch business was forced to retool to build rockets like the Delta and Atlas. Russian rockets also became popular, especially after Boeing and Lockheed started buying them up.
In any case, Musk is aiming for manned space travel. The commercial launches are a side business to help support that goal. He wants to go to Mars.
Re:Nice, but we did that in the 1950s. (Score:2)
> and nobody wants to launch that many sats again.
Um, what about the Gallileo GPS system? [wikipedia.org].
30 satellites to launch in the next few years.
Re:Nice, but we did that in the 1950s. (Score:2)
It's a classic chicken-and-egg problem: There is much being launched, because launch costs are so high, and there isn't much of a motivation to improve launch economics, because there's so little demand. Hopefully SpaceX can break the shell.
That said, between the SpaceX Dragon manned capsu
A tour of SpaceX; Sea Launch pres joining SpaceX (Score:5, Informative)
*Part 1 [thespacereview.com]
*Part 2 [thespacereview.com]
*Part 3 [thespacereview.com]
*Part 4 [thespacereview.com]
Also, an interesting bit of recent news: Apparently the President of Sea Launch [wikipedia.org], which is "arguably the world's most successful commercial launch company," has left Sea Launch to join SpaceX [aero-news.net]. Anybody care to speculate about why he would leave such a cushy position for a start-up?
Re:A tour of SpaceX; Sea Launch pres joining Space (Score:2)
I would send in my resume just in case, but I loathe the thought of living in southern california. I don't know what is wrong with aerospace companies that they have to set up shop in places that are clicking hot like LA, Ne
The other space related success (Score:2)
3 seconds of thrust? (Score:1)
BBH
Re:3 seconds of thrust? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:3 seconds of thrust? (Score:1)
Close. Newton Seconds is actually a measure of "Total" Impulse.
Re:3 seconds of thrust? (Score:2)
Re:3 seconds of thrust? (Score:1)
Total Impulse is measured in Newton Seconds - it is the thrust force integrated over the time of burn.
There is also Specific Impulse (measured in Seconds) which is the Total Impulse per unit weight of propellant.
Date Change - From the website (Score:1)
How do they make it static? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How do they make it static? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How do they make it static? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How do they make it static? (Score:2)
You can find some information on NASA engine testing here. [nasa.gov]
Re:How do they make it static? (Score:1)
Re:How do they make it static? (Score:1)
This [nasaspaceflight.com] is the kind that I'm used to. Just the rocket, not the whole assembly.
One thing I wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
One problem - pretty much every other rocket out there has dual or triple redundant avionics too.
Also, SpaceX doesn't state whether they do things Boeing style (External interfaces and functionality of the flight avionics boxes are specified, and then each of the three units comes from a different manufacturing and design team, resulting in them not only having different software but different hardware), or Ariane style
From the photo... (Score:1)
Re:From the photo... (Score:2)
Re:From the photo... (Score:2)
Official: rocket scientists have no common sense! (Score:1)
Anybody else think that all that hot fire of death was a little close to the fuel tankers and trees?
Re:Official: rocket scientists have no common sens (Score:1, Insightful)
Anybody else think that the average geek, wanna be rocket scientist, is full of crap?
Points to ponder:
+ This island is tiny. Even a geek like yourself could throw a ball from one side of the island to the other.
+ You actually want your propellant tanks, particularly the LOX tank, close to the launch vehicle, as handling propellant is troublesome, particularly on a hot, humid, tropical island.
Man
Re:Official: rocket scientists have no common sens (Score:2)
3 Seconds (Score:2)
Re:3 Seconds (Score:3, Informative)
This was a final systems check of the whole rocket. This is (as far as I know?) a unique ability that they have in being able to clamp down the rocket and test it in a completely ready to launch condition. If nothing wrong shows up in the data from this test then they have a good indication that they are really ready to launch.
The real launch -- how'd it go after +5 seconds? (Score:2)
And I got to see it up to about +1 second (hadn't cleared the tower yet) and hear it up to around +6 seconds (counting up, and going up).
Then the web stream stopped. I haven't been able to reconnect. No news yet on the website.
Wha' Hoppening????
Re:The real launch -- go boom. Aw. (Score:2)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/