Update (Saturday Aug 2): They are going to try for launch today! Go here for info.
Space X, a private launch company, is go for their third attempt to get their Falcon 1 rocket to orbit. The launch window is from August 1 – 5 — it’ll be webcast live, too! I’ll post that link and a more specific date/time when I hear it.
Their first attempt to launch the Falcon into orbit blew up shortly after launch, and their second launch last year just barely didn’t make it. These two problems have been fixed, so the launch team is hopeful they’ll get to orbit this time. If they do, it’ll be history: the first time a private company has designed, built, and launched a rocket into orbit.
I’ve written about Space X many times in the past, so you can catch up on them before this weekend’s launch. You can read also more about this at Kimbal’s Blog. He’s Space X CEO Elon Musk’s brother.
I really hope they do it this time!
July 30th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Isn’t it more correct to say that it is the first time a private company has *funded* the design, construction and launch of a rocket into orbit?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Oh no! Space X, way to close to Planet X! Maybe they will be using the gravity from Planet X to help get their spaceship up!
Okay, all snarkiness and bad attempt at humour aside, I wish them the best of luck! The more folks get into this business, the better chance we have at someone coming up with something truly innovative to get this supposedly intelligent ape out of the cradle.
GO FALCON! GO!
July 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I hope it launches, because if successful, we will be witnessing a major historical moment, the opening of space to private initiative and enterprise, likely the future of space. Let’s face it, the development of resources in space, the building of stations, and bases on other worlds will be mostly commercial driven, especially as it becomes more economically feasible to put rockets, reusable shuttles into space or launch from low orbit.
I am also sure any space elevators will likely be privately financed as well, or a mix of government and private financing.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Does “just barely didn’t make it” mean they made it and then immediately exploded? or does it mean they “nearly made it”? Sorry to be pedantic, but I am genuinely curious (and probably not really that sorry about being pedantic- let’s face reality, I’m a scientist after all). Your phrase makes me think of “near miss”.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
What is so difficult about this that it has required so many tries? Have the various governments of the world kept missile technology so secret that people are inventing these things from scratch?
Putting something into space is 50 year old technology. How is it that it seems such a challenge?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
PG, here is some info for you: http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0107-0707#demoflight_2_prelim_review_2
And for Evolving Squid; it’s partially that; and partially IT’S ROCKET SCIENCE! Even though we were doing it a long time ago, it’s just not that easy. Couple that with a much lower acceptance of risk for each launch (ZERO FAILURE tolerances) and it gets harder. Then, you get to the worst part of it, COST! Yeah, so while the technique is there, the devil is in the details.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Evolving Squid, good question. I don’t know the answer, but if I were a government with ICBM technology, I would not give that to private industry.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Have they tried using actual falcons? You know… a few falcons and some string. There you go.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@Evolving Squid & Pieter Kok: Probably a multitude of things. Some of the tech may be classified, parts most likely have to be custom-built, engineering and maintenance staff need to be trained, procedures need to be developed, and they may be trying to improve on the 50-year-old technology as they go. Any of these things could lead to a problem.
(And if you think the procedures thing is bogus, take a look at a military airplane while it’s on the ground. Lots of things that say, “don’t step here”, “don’t get in the plane here”, and lots of bright red things that say “TAKE ME THE HECK OFF THE PLANE BEFORE YOU START IT.” I have a hunch that not all of those things were placed proactively. The first couple launches probably taught them a lot more about what NOT to do than what TO do.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Third time’s a charm!
July 30th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
so far we’ve launched over 300 Boeing Delta II rockets with the only failure being the explosion of one of the strap-on solid boosters. Space X claims they can build there Falcons cheaper but that remains to be seen. Their Falcon is also supposed to be re-useable, I can’t wait to see that.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
PG: The last flight did not explode. The upper stage encountered unexpected sloshing of the LOX, which ended up producing a roll that ultimately pulled the propellants away from the engine via centrifugal force, resulting in the engine going out. As a result, there was not enough momentum for the vehicle to achieve orbit, and the payload burned up on reeentry shortly thereafter. That’s one of those things that you just can’t simulate very well on the ground, because it depends on the complex interaction of the many parts of the rocket, the Earth, the atmosphere, etc. As I understand it, the fix was to put baffles in the LOX tank so that it doesn’t slosh so much.
Regarding why rockets are so touchy despite being “50 year old technology”, the main problem is that going into orbit is a very *energetic* thing. That means that the margin for error is extremely slim. Even slight errors or unexpected problems can destroy a vehicle. Absolutely anything is going to have design problems; no design is ever perfect. In a computer, this can lead to having to reboot your PC an awful lot. In a rocket, this can lead to a violent explosion. This is part of why rockets are so darned expensive; in an attempt to mitigate the mind-bogglingly large inherent risk, they test the hell out of the design before they let it fly. It’s also what keeps most companies from trying in the first place.
Now, they *could* just use a military design. This is what Lockheed and Boeing do. But SpaceX isn’t interested in rehashing an old ICBM design. They want to start over from the ground up, and for what they’re trying to achieve, that actually makes good sense.
Even in modern government-funded designs, it’s not uncommon to blow a few up, and this is why it is extremely rare for the first flight to carry a real payload, apart from perhaps a small test satellite that exists mainly to verify that it was placed into the target orbit properly.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“It could be carried by an African Falcon. ”
“Oh yeah, an African Falcon, maybe, but not a European Falcon. That’s my point”
“But then the African falcon’s not migratory… ”
to paraphrase a bit.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I’m excited. Private industry for the advancement of mankind! Here’s to hoping!
July 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Kroman, you are overstating numbers (grasping at straws?). Since May 1997, there have been 75 consecutive successful launches, and only a total of 135 launches of the Delta II. Both Boeing and Wikipedia agree on those numbers.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Here’s hoping the third time’s the charm!
We need someone to pick up the slack when the shuttles are retired. Hopefully it will be SpaceX (NASA has been considering using their Falcon and capsule as substitues for the shuttle until their next generation space vehicle is ready to fly.)
July 30th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Is the Falcon big enough for manned flights?
About all the shuttle is being used for now is completing the ISS, along with a service mission to Hubble.
Falcon, it seems, it really meant for commerical sattilites.
If it works, then it might save NASA some money on facilities. Maybe even govt agencies like NOAA that use sattilites might employ them.
This would allow more of NASA’s budget to go toward the new space vehicles meant for getting back to the moon.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Good luck to them. This would have more impact than anything Branson might do.
Reminder: Innovation in the air industry has alway come from government-funded efforts. We should expect the same in the private space arena. SpaceX is following a path laid down by early aeronautical entrepreneurs. I.e., the profitable exploitation of technology whose development was subsidized by the taxpayers.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
>Is the Falcon big enough for manned flights?
Well the payload is about the same.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Just plain wonderful. Good luck SpaceX!
July 31st, 2008 at 6:39 am
The Falcon would never be used for manned flight. The cost of man-rating the vehicle (meaning ensuring every single part is ultra-reliable and wouldn’t lead to a catastrophic failure resulting in a loss of life) would be too prohibitive for a private company.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:37 am
>Is the Falcon big enough for manned flights?
This version (Falcon 1) no, but SpaceX works on different, bigger version (called Falcon 9) that will be capable to take human payload in capsule named Dragon.
And for question about faliure rates… doing something completely from scrath IS bound to have growing pains.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I hope they make it too!
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
[...] X has announced that they will attempt to launch a Falcon 1 rocket into orbit today. The launch window starts at 4:00 Pacific time (23:00 UT). Read more about [...]