Up, up, and away: The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral on Friday, June 4. The rocket’s maiden test flight is considered a boon for the commercial space industry.
AP Photo/John Raoux
A successful launch moves commercial space companies toward human spaceflight.
The Falcon 9, a new launch vehicle developed by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), made its successful debut Friday in a launch that has implications not just for the company but also for the U.S.'s commercial space industry and national space policy.
SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 in part with $278 million from NASA as part of the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to develop commercial vehicles that can ferry cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). Friday's test launch was separate from the COTS program; the first Falcon 9 launch under COTS is planned for later this summer. Elon Musk, the CEO and CTO of SpaceX, said he hopes to be able to deliver cargo to the ISS on the second of three flights under the COTS program, in the spring of 2011.
Musk also hopes the successful launch will attract the business of commercial satellite operators. One potential customer is Iridium, who last week signed a contract for the construction of 81 spacecraft to replace its existing fleet of communications satellites in low Earth orbit. SpaceX also has ambitions to use the Falcon 9, as well as the Dragon capsule SpaceX is developing to ferry cargo to the International Space Station, to carry astronauts to the ISS.
Musk said last week that SpaceX would be ready to perform crewed flights within three years of receiving a NASA contract to do so. The key factor in that schedule is the development of a launch escape system to allow a Dragon capsule to safely distance itself from the rocket in the event of a launch failure.
However, SpaceX's long-running interest in launching astronauts, and its limited track record, have put the company in the middle of an ongoing debate in Washington about the future direction of NASA. The 2011 NASA budget proposal released earlier this year includes a new commercial crew initiative that includes $6 billion over the next five years for developing commercial systems to transport astronauts to the ISS, in much the same way that COTS is developing commercial cargo systems. Many in Congress have expressed skepticism about the commercial sector's capabilities--SpaceX's in particular--to transport people, arguing that this should be left to NASA.
Such a rocket would dramatically reduce the costs of spaceflight—a promise NASA's space shuttle failed to deliver on.
The Dream Chaser will go into orbit on the nose of a rocket, then land gently on airport runways.
I suspect the "skeptical representatives" are all from districts with big aerospace companies. It is debatable that we need to send humans into space, especially to the White Elepha... er, the ISS (great training place for space janitors), but if we really do, why not use commercial companies? So what if they're new? NASA had to start somewhere, too, and a successful launch is a major achievement. This IS rocket science, after all...
you are probably right about the reps, but that does not mean that some of their doubts are not well-founded. dependence on commercial companies (truth of the matter is we already do this - NASA no longer has the in-house expertise to develop very much) is likely to lock us into LEO for an extended period of time. I am a huge fan of commercial space, but the government side should be looking farther out and trying to get us where there is as yet no profit. that's how it all started, and that is what we need to get back to. President Obama's plan does not get us there.
smithsomian said:
"the government side should be looking farther out and trying to get us where there is as yet no profit. that's how it all started, and that is what we need to get back to. President Obama's plan does not get us there."
The Constellation program had NASA focused on hardware on Earth. It was consumed with building the Ares I and Orion. In order to fund continued work on the rest of CxP (Ares V, EDS & Altair), they needed to defund, deorbit or stop using the ISS. This entire plan only looked at two places in space - the Earth and the Moon, and nothing in-between.
The Obama/Bolden plan is changing NASA's focus so they start every "program" in LEO or beyond. This means they can assume the transportation needed for crew and cargo will be in place to get them to LEO, as well as some of the technology and systems they'll need for their mission.
The planning horizon for going to the Moon, NEO or any place in space would now become much shorter, and NASA's budget for each "program" smaller and more specific. I think this will help with funding in Congress, because they will be able to see the goals accomplished quicker.
Between COTS/CRS (Bush/Griffith), CCDev, COTS-D and the Flagship Technology Demonstrations (FTD), NASA is building up the basic infrastructure to support LEO, BEO, lunar, Lagrange or NEO "programs". No more 15 year planning horizons like Constellation...
Unable to recover the first stage
great job SpaceX
However SpaceX was unable to recover the first stage. If it's more than a parashoot problem the cost will be much higher per launch than expected. The New York Times made is sound like it broke up on the way down.
Re: Unable to recover the first stage
penzor said:
"However SpaceX was unable to recover the first stage. If it's more than a parashoot problem the cost will be much higher per launch than expected. The New York Times made is sound like it broke up on the way down."
Elon Musk has addressed this question many times over the years. He has said that reusability is their goal, but that their prices reflect new launchers without used parts.
He sees recovery & reuse as an essential part of lowering the costs to space, and they will continue to pursue recovery of their 1st stage sections. However, this was not one of the goals of this first launch.
Now that they know their launcher design is capable of reaching orbit, I'll suspect they'll focus some dollars on perfecting their recovery system. It makes sense that recovery of an unknown design was not a high priority, especially when their pricing model (without recovery) already allows them to under-bid their competition.
With Elon being a successful software guy, you could almost say that he is following the software model of product development by creating a Minimum Viable Product or MVP.
From Wikipedia:
"A Minimum Viable Product has just those features (and no more) that allows the product to be deployed."
A parachute system, though a bonus, was not needed to "deploy" their product, only to lower their future costs.
Re: Unable to recover the first stage
For the record:
SpaceX chose Airborne Systems proven 'Ringsail' system for Falcon 9/Dragon back in 2007, and drop tests commenced soon after.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
This document is part of the “How-To Guide for Most Common Measurements” centralized resource portal. This tutorial provides a detailed guide for measurement and device considerations to take temperature measurements using thermocouples. Get an introduction to thermocouples, which are inexpensive sensing devices widely used with PC-based data acquisition systems. Also review some specific thermocouple examples and learn how thermocouples work and ways to integrate them into a data acquisition measurement system.
View full PDF >
Listen to story > 
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
.
.
it's ONLY a (small) rocket...
a (small) rocket that can't "save" NASA from it's decline...
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/062nasadecline.html
nor help NASA to save money...
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/061comparison.html
but, IF the Falcon 9 will accomplish 1800+ successful launches...
it could become (someday in the far future) the "American Soyuz"...
.
.
Reply
DocM
5 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
NASA's immediate problem is getting crews to the ISS, and paying Russia $60million a seat to fly them is a political nightmare, especially if an American company can do it far cheaper.
Paying $1+ billion for a shuttle flight to carry 7 astronauts that the F9/Dragon stack could do for a small fraction of that cost is wasteful of NASA's scarce funding.
Cargo for the shuttle is also wasteful: who in their right mind would launch a 100 tonne spacecraft just to get 25 tonnes of cargo up when disposable rockets can do it at a fraction of the cost? If SpaceX has their way the Falcon 9 Heavy (3 F9 cores + a standard 2nd stage) could do that mission with several tonnes of capacity to spare at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Time to move on, doing things smarter and cheaper. How much cheaper? The Falcon 9, Dragon spacecraft and 3 launch sites were done for less the cost of the launch tower for the Ares I-X. Not the rocket and the tower, just the tower.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/06/falcon-9-develo.html
Let's fund COTS-D and get a crewed Dragon operational, and while we're at it fund development of the Orion Lite for use as a crew lifeboat and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser spaceplane, a NASA project (HL-20) that was stupidly canceled because shuttle supporters saw it as a threat (it + a good medium lifter would have been).
Private projects like these cost a pittance to develop compared to the bloated process at NASA and its labs, and often end up being done by NASA engineers who have moved on, as is the case at SpaceX. Lots of greybeards there, and each heads up a team of top notch young engineers.
The money saved can be used to fund what should be NASA's primary mission: beyond low earth orbit, and developing the infrastructure to get there: VASIMR and MPD plasma rockets, expandable habitats and other advanced projects.
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
.
good luck
.
Reply
DocM
5 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
Luck has nothing to do with it, common sense does - though that is in scarce supply in DC these days. Hopefully more success in the COTS flights this and next year will change that.
EDIT: NasaSpaceFlight.com is reporting that Lockheed Martin has removed 600 engineers from the Orion spaceship project. If so then NewSpace companies are about the only game in town.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/orion-liability-lockheed-pull-600-engineers-off-contract/
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
.
DIRECTspaceflight.lobby ??? it still exists...??? :)
.
Reply
CoastalRon
52 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
Oh Gaetano, I've missed your interesting perspectives on the various forums. Been traveling?
In regards to your comments, NASA does not need saving from any single launcher, so it's a weird comment.
NASA already has two proven & capable launchers that they are using for commercial work - the ULA Delta IV and Atlas V. These launchers have had 40+ straight successful launches, and they will be putting our nations most valuable DOD & NASA cargo into space for years to come. ULA has identified that it would take $1.3B to upgrade Delta IV Heavy to launch Orion crew capsules, and they would charge $300M/launch. For commercial flights, it would take $400M to upgrade Atlas V, and they would charge $130M/launch. These are serious proposals, and I personally think NASA should proceed with man-rating the Delta IV Heavy as the first of many U.S. systems for crew.
What NASA needs saving from is overblown programs like Constellation. Ares I, which duplicated the capabilities of the existing Atlas V and Delta IV launchers, was going to cost at least $16B just for development, and in the end we would have ended up with a government run launcher that was more expensive, and less capable, than Atlas & Delta. The Obama/Bolden plan saves us from that bad spending.
SpaceX has developed a crew capable launch system for less than the price of one test launch of a dummy Ares I (the Ares I-X). To man-rate the Falcon 9, all they need to add is upgraded launch pad systems, and a pusher or tractor escape motor to the Dragon capsule. The price for adding these should be far less than what they've already spent for the last eight years (>$500M), and Elon Musk is already quoting $20M/seat to LEO.
With their COTS contract to prove out their Falcon 9 launcher, and the once-used Dragon capsules that they will have after each COTS ISS delivery (NASA stipulates new capsules for each delivery), they will be in a good position to lower the cost to access LEO for commercial or government passengers.
SpaceX is not the only answer to lowering the cost to space, but one of many potential providers that NASA should be supporting in order to diversify our space capabilities.
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
.
the fact that the Constellation's hardware was "stellar expensive" doesn't mean that the "commercial space" is cheap nor that SpaceX might (really) launch (safely) the NASA astronauts "just adding a launch escape system"... things are a bit more complex...
.
Reply
CoastalRon
52 Comments
Re: >>> it's ONLY a (small) rocket >>>
Gaetano said:
"the fact that the Constellation's hardware was "stellar expensive" doesn't mean that the "commercial space" is cheap..."
True, but I think it's a safe assumption to say that government built, contracted, or operated systems are typically far more expensive than commercial equivalents. Having worked for a number of large DOD product manufacturers, I can attest to that.
"...nor that SpaceX might (really) launch (safely) the NASA astronauts "just adding a launch escape system"... things are a bit more complex..."
The best LAS is one that is never used. I've stated numerous times that I think we should take ULA up on their offer to man-rate the Delta IV Heavy for Orion ($1.3B non-recurring + $300M/launch recurring). Deltas IV has already demonstrated it's reliability, and it has enough payload margin to take the large Orion LAS.
SpaceX is off to a good start for Falcon 9, but they would be the first to tell you that they have a lot of launches to go before people will feel they are dependable. Nothing is perfect however, so SpaceX will need an LAS for their Dragon, and the biggest question will be what standard is used to define what it should do.
The Orion LAS was designed for an SRB that continues to thrust until split open, and the fragmented & burning fuel continues to be a melting hazard for parachutes. The claims of Ares I being the safest launcher have yet to be proved in actual tests, and the 16+G's that the crew will experience from the LAS could kill some of the crew.
Liquid fueled launchers, like Delta IV and Falcon 9 (and their -Heavy versions), typically have more benign failure modes than SRB's. With proper sensors, the EDS can turn off the main engines and give an LAS the chance to pull or push the crew capsule away from the exploding launcher. Burning liquid fuel is less likely to last long enough to be a melting issue for the capsule parachutes, and the g-force from the LAS will be more tolerable than the Ares I/Orion one.
Being a commercial company, SpaceX is focused on reliability (no delivery = no payment), and time will tell if their technical choices are successful or not. But that's also why we need more than one crew system.
Reply