[Update 2: SpaceFlightNow reports that Elon Musk, head of Space X, is calling the launch a success. Yay!]
[Update: they are in an indefinite hold, waiting for weather. They are hoping to launch at 03:35 GMT.]
Sorry for the late posting, but I’ve been traveling today back from TAM, and I’m exhausted.
But I just learned that Space-X is launching their Falcon 1 rocket at 21:00 Mountain time (03:00 GMT) which is in about 25 minutes as I write this! They are webcasting the launch live, and I’ll tweet it if I can. The mission is to launch a Malaysian RazakSAT satellite.
Hurry and click that link to watch it live!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I’ve been following the webcast, and it looks like they are having weather issues, and are now scheduled to go at 8:33 Pacific Time.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
They are now doing commentary on the webcast with 15 minutes left to go. Keep your fingers crossed. This is an important launch for SpaceX.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Aaaargh! The weather is spoiling the fun! Sigh. Mother Nature has a grim sense of humor.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
So does anyone know if Space X is farther along than NASA when it comes to use of technologically advanced methods? Will Constellation be better than what Space X has to offer?
July 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Looks like the countdown is back on.
Turn off helium bubble?
Crikey that is awesome… go Falcon go.
Love the fact there are Aussie voices in the launch crew.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
MECO and Staging !!!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I caught the launch with a few minutes to go. Glad you posted that! The coolest part was after liftoff itself, watching the Earth recede in the distance.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Wow, those are some pretty good special effects.
:p
July 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
And it is still receding. Geekgasm.
[neil]Prop![/neil]
Aww, video stop now.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Is it normal for the engine nozzle to glow that brightly? :O
And still good telemetry at SECO! Cool! And then it shut down.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
That was awesome.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Awesome! Everything to expected loss-of signal looked good.
I never get tired of watching that!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Yup, Hawesome! I loved the glowing exhaust nozzle!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
that was cool… does anyone know who was doing the stream commentary?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
It was pretty awesome, but I wish they had a camera on the ground pointing up.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Aaargh! I missed it, since I am currently at work (our lunchbreak as I write this). Still, it’s good that you’re back. I thought you had abandoned us for good. I mean, after winning the million-dollar jackpot, who wouldn’t?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I followed the launch on the mission status centre at Spaceflight now.
While not as visual as the webcast, and definitely nowhere near as good as being there, it was fun to follow the launch.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I just found this on Youtube:
July 13th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Er .. nothing here on NASA’s shuttle endeavour launch postponement BA?
See :
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=836717
Did you just forget with all the TAM-ing Phil?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
spaceflightnow.com is reporting that Space X has (finally, where’s instant gratification when you need it?) announced that the 2nd burn of the second stage was successful and the satellite has separated.
Comparison of Dragon vs. Orion. Dragon is only designed to re-enter from LEO (18,000 mph) whereas Orion is designed for re-entry at escape velocity (25,000 mph). Since E ~ v^2, this means the heat shield has to dissipate twice as much energy. Dragon seems to be quite a bit lighter (~9000Kg vs 12200Kg + 8300Kg fuel for Orion), even though it can hold 7 astronauts vs. 6 for Orion. I think this is because it carries minimal supplies and fuel; just enough to get to the ISS (for an ISS supply flight) and maintain altitude and re-enter. Orion has to carry enough fuel to get itself out of lunar orbit and back to earth, and supplies (food, water, oxygen) for several weeks.
The Falcon 9 (LV for Dragon) isn’t powerful enough to launch Orion, though the Falcon 9 Heavy (basically 3 Falcon 9’s strapped together) might be able to do it.
Neither the Falcon 9 nor the Aries I have flown yet, though they are both supposed to do so later this year (Aries I-X is kind of cheating, since it’s really a shuttle booster reconfigured to act like a real Aries I.) On the other hand, a real Orion won’t fly until 2013 at the earliest (unmanned), whereas the first Dragon is supposed to fly later this year (also unmanned.) On the third hand, Orion will have an escape system, also to be tested this year, whereas I don’t think Space X has progresses beyond the “It goes here on the top” stage of design. So Dragon can’t be launched with people in it much earlier than Orion, if at all. On the fourth hand (now approaching cephalopod territory (why doesn’t Firefox’s spell checker like cephelopod?) a Dragon could probably be used as an emergency escape vehicle for the ISS, once a few of them have been launched and recovered successfully, since it could be launched empty and docked automatically to the ISS. The first (cargo-only) ISS supply flights are scheduled for next year, and the plan is to use the Dragon’s re-entry/recovery capability to return stuff to Earth. Right now, the only way to return anything from the ISS is in the shuttle; there is barely room for 3 people in a Soyuz, no significant cargo. The Progress supply ships, the European ATV (Jules Verne, etc.) and the Japanese HTV (set for launch Sept 10), are all one-way, and burn up on re-entry.
It’s good to have more than one way to get up to the space station, but it’s even better to have more than one way to get home!
July 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am
So does anyone know if Space X is farther along than NASA when it comes to use of technologically advanced methods? Will Constellation be better than what Space X has to offer?
Technologically advanced methods? What does that even mean specifically? First off, the main difference is that Space X doesn’t have a launcher capable of Trans Lunar Injection.
Meaning Space X isn’t even to be considered a replacement for going beyond LEO. Secondly, I don’t know about “technologically advance methods” but Space X is a company that has barely proved that it can do anything. Getting up is the easy part (relatively), throw in rendezvous with ISS and you have a whole different ball game.
Which is about all Space X will be capable of doing even if the Falcon 9 test flight and Dragon capsule are successful.
Constellation is the best solution when you look at the “alternatives’. Firstly we already have an Ares-IX test flight coming up in August, along with a bunch of other critical tests. So the idea that anyone is going to build anything faster, and have it done faster is dreaming.
Plan B: No, crew safety is compromised.
Delta/Atlas manrate: I believe I read that that’ll take up to seven years. Not sure if that’s true or not, but in any case its easier, safer, and ultimately is the better solution because you get the rocket you need not work around a rocket that was designed to lift something different.
Space X: No, like I said, they aren’t a replacement currently for beyond LEO.
Constellation weather you like it or not is the best solution at the moment. Ares V provides the lift, the rendezvous isn’t ridiculously complex like with DIRECT and it does everything its suppose to do.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Dude — quick — we need you to give the good ol’ BA treatment to the atrocious “Meteor” miniseries NBC ran last night. That thing can be ripped fifteen ways from sideways. Don’t disappoint us.
And, yeah, this launch — total geekgasm. Thanks for that.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Good for SpaceX, it must have been a crucial bottleneck?! First successful commercial launch, and gaining substantial trust by sequential successful launches. Liberating resources to continue with the Falcon-9 program. And I now see that the next Falcon-1 will be a “1e” upgrade with more than twice the LEO load. (Closing a commercial gap created by abstaining from developing Falcon-5, I imagine.)
@ Buzz Parsec:
As long as we make comparisons with available spacecrafts capable of getting home, if US is willing to partner up as with ESA on science probes, perhaps they will now allow discussing with China as selling services to (or even cooperate on) ISS? Shenzhou docking mechanism is apparently compatible (with APAS, the mechanism STS uses AFAIU).
If Soyuz can reach ISS launching close to China, I assume Shenzhou can too. And China has an ambitious space station program in the works, so it could save resources and worries all around.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Thanks a bunch Stone Age, I got home too late to watch it live, and your link saved me a bunch of time in tracking that down.
Truly spectacular sight. I always enjoy these launches, and this one was a good “Birthday Candle” for me. (I had to check with Mom, but the launch occurred just a few minutes after my actual birth time, minus *cough mumble *cough years, of course). That view also gave me an interesting idea for a rendering. I’ll post it here if I like it.
@Buzz: interesting info, I’ll have to do more looking into that.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:50 am
@Jon B
Phil is on the latest SGU podcast chatting about that mini-series. Sounds very ordinary – the mini-series not Phil.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
July 14th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Gotta love stinger missiles taking out a meteor and vaporizing all of its mass.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:30 am
@Shane
That podcast you point to is about the movie Impact… Not Meteor.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Buzz Parsec
Nice write up.
One more thing to add. Dragon does not require any docking equipment or docking fuel. It comes close to the ISS and then is grappled with the arm.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:32 am
My wife watched True Blood rather than Meteor. I told her True Blood would be more realistic.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:58 am
I missed this! Nice that you’re back, though.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I caught the Falcon 1 launch live. Boy they sure did a nice job of faking that…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Kids, take note of this story. Think about everything that we now launch into space. When you are ready to start your science fair projects consider developing a project around how extraterrestrial items are managed and guided so that they do not collide into one another.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Ben says: “First off, the main difference is that Space X doesn’t have a launcher capable of Trans Lunar Injection.”
Just thought I’d throw this reality check in for you: neither does NASA.
In fact, the path NASA chose – with the Ares I/V concept is at the verge of being dumped as the situation appears to be unfolding rapidly. That’s right, after billions of taxpayer dollars and several years with nothing to show for, the time has come to do what should have been done from the start – developing something NASA can actually *afford*, not another Saturn V, only this time accompanied by an anemic launcher. Why buy one when you can get 1.5 for the price of 1.5?
July 14th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Gordan Says: Just thought I’d throw this reality check in for you: neither does NASA.
Ben says: Not yet. At least they have something planned towards that goal whether its on the brink of being axed or not.
Gordan Says: In fact, the path NASA chose – with the Ares I/V concept is at the verge of being dumped as the situation appears to be unfolding rapidly.
Ben says: I’m aware of that. I think it’ll be a mistake but that’s just me.
Gordan Says: That’s right, after billions of taxpayer dollars and several years with nothing to show for
Ben says: To be fair, its hard to start up a new program when your spending 160 million per launch on the space shuttle and that’s just the launches. If Ares I/Ares V have nothing to show for it, its not because a lack of capability but a lack of commitment to the program and its funding ultimately. Not to mention you can only move so fast when the 39B has to be used by STS-125’s potential rescue.
Also, can you honestly tell me how much has been spent on the Constellation program as of right this moment? I dislike your throwing out of the word billions as if it was an excuse. Yes Constellation is suppose cost billions, but how much has been spent so far? Can you answer that? Since your argument against Constellation is that we’ve been wasting money.
Gordan Says: The time has come to do what should have been done from the start – developing something NASA can actually *afford*, not another Saturn V, only this time accompanied by an anemic launcher. Why buy one when you can get 1.5 for the price of 1.5?
Ben says: That depends, what are you proposing being the goal of NASA? At 18 billion a year, it certainly isn’t going to be beyond LEO. Your a little vague on what exactly should be what NASA can afford so I’ve just assumed the baseline of the current budget. You also mention nothing about a suitable replacement, what is this cheaper/better spacecraft/launcher you speak of?
The point is to go back to the moon, and to go back to stay and eventually use the moon as a technological testing ground and astronaut training ground with the goal of Mars in our sights.
You may disagree with that, but to lift things beyond LEO you need a heavy lifting rocket. Ares V will do that in spades (If it ever gets built).
If you have a suitable alternative lets hear it, I disagree with the other ones I’ve mentioned though. BTW: I goofed on my previous post when it came to the Delta/Atlas launcher being man rated. Anyway as I was saying, Atlas/Delta man rated would be less safe and less capable. Easier and better to build an entirely new rocket.
Anyway, what it comes down to is this. Its my opinion and NASA shares this opinion, that there isn’t a safer/cheaper alternative if your plan is to go beyond LEO. Nor one as capable.
Is it expensive, I wont lie, of course it is but you get more bang for your buck and with not having to worry about the launches and landings (Well, there will always be risks but at least Ares minimizes those risks). Thus you can focus on the science and exploration that NASA has lacked for so long in its manned missions.
Not that relatively NASA is expensive even when you properly fund NASA and throw in a manned mission to Mars. Certainly cheaper hen the 1.89 trillion in Mandatory spending which is just on the rise and once Social Security stops paying for it self you have even more problems (Yes Mr. President, more social spending is exactly what we need! >.> It doesn’t matter that we can’t afford the social spending we already have)!
Anyway, that being said, it all depends on what your after. If you want cheaper, scrap manned spaceflight all-together. Though other nations are going to move forward anyway, and I’d prefer that we stayed the leader in all things space rather then having to pay someone else down the line.
That viewpoint does not include paying the Russians during a five year gap (If that long at all). 50 million per flight is fine considering its cheaper and leaves you with enough money to develop a new space vehicle (Not to mention the Apollo/Shuttle gap was longer).
Also, there seems to be two Ben’s here after reviewing the comments. Post 21 is me, post 15 not so much.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
10) The 2nd stage engine (Kestrel) has radiatively cooled nozzle. There is no cooling except radiating out to space. So yes, it is supposed to glow red hot. The first stage engine pumps the fuel through channels in the nozzle before injecting into the combustion area. That cools the first stage engine which is why that engine doesn’t glow.
14) Max Vozoff,SpaceX Mission Manager. You can find more of him on YouTube. Also Cassie Kloberdanz from SpaceX Media.
24) As Ben said, Dragon and Orion are designed for two different missions. They may eventually overlap in the area of crew transfer to ISS. Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, thinks that once both are up and running it makes more sense to do ISS missions with Dragon (cheaper) and use Orion for its main mission (getting us back to the Moon). That is why Elon sees Dragon as an enabler for Constellation. Let Dragon take care of the ‘mundane’ ISS mission while Constellation focuses on the big picture.
28) True, for the unmanned cargo missions Dragon will be grappled by the ISS robotic arm. For manned missions, I believe the plan is to actually dock using thrusters. See the COTS C (unmanned) and COTS D (manned) videos at Spacex.com
July 15th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Ben says: If you have a suitable alternative lets hear it, I disagree with the other ones I’ve mentioned though. BTW: I goofed on my previous post when it came to the Delta/Atlas launcher being man rated. Anyway as I was saying, Atlas/Delta man rated would be less safe and less capable. Easier and better to build an entirely new rocket.
1) Where did you get the idea Atlas/Delta would be less safe than a completely new rocket design (which, btw, would require a new type of vibration dampening mechanism on a scale never attempted before)? Atlas V and Delta IV have been flying for years and ULA actually has experienced rocket designers that designed those rockets. NASA is trying to relearn designing rockets and w/respect to experience they’re stuck with ideas of 40 years ago. Industry has moved on and produced much more advanced upper stages than what Saturn V had.
As for the comment about riding a solid booster that cannot be shut down and in event of abort you need to thus outrun it AND it can fail catastrophically is SAFER than a liquid fuel engine, to be honest I call that a load of bull. Show me the last time a liquid engine rocket literally blew up by itself (*not* structural collapse which is what happened to the recent SeaLaunch Zenit) and then I’ll remind you of the last two instances a SRB failure happened on U.S. launchers. I do not buy NASA’s “analysis” about safety, because frankly, that whole ESAS study was rigged to give Ares I/V as the best solution.
2) The more affordable heavy lift solution would be any of the REALLY shuttle-derived vehicles, be them in an inline configuration (a.k.a Direct) or sidemount (a.k.a. Shuttle-C). Ares I/V require 2 launches anyway and while Ares I struggles to loft even the Orion, it forces Ares V to be the sole heavy lifter for the entire mission so it ends up a bigger behemoth than Saturn V. And we know how sustainable Saturn V was.
Also, the idea of “manrating” (which by itself doesn’t mean anything – NASA chooses what it means and coincidentally, picks requirements that Ares I “can” meet and EELVs can’t) Atlas/Delta requiring billions and 5-7 years is ludicrous when the entire vehicle design AND infrastructure cost less.
By modifying the lunar architecture to have two launches (the “1.5 launch” term is crap, there’s no such thing as a half launch), on a common vehicle (and thus not requiring development money for TWO different vehicles). A vehicle maintaining ACTUAL shuttle heritage which has a 30 year flight history – 4 segment boosters, 8.4 m ET and not 5/5.5 segment SRB development and 10 meter ETs.
Noone’s arguing going beyond LEO wouldn’t be expensive. But there is a difference between affordable/sustainable and unaffordable/unsustainable. Constellation as it currently exists is of the former type. If you really want to see the entire, objective picture, you need to look beyond what NASA *wants* you to think. Look “under the hood”, which Michael Griffin fro some reason really doesn’t want anyone to do. As I said before, things are slowly revealing themselves about the true nature of what went on beyond the scenes in NASA’s Constellation high management for the past 4 years, and believe me, it’s quite frankly sickening.
Also, to be perfectly clear – my original comment about SpaceX’ capability does NOT imply that’s the way to go beyond LEO. I don’t consider SpaceX to be a threat to NASA (nor does SpaceX – they say it’s actually an enabler for NASA to move on beyond LEO, while leaving LEO/ISS “housekeeping” to commercial entities), but let’s be fair here – no one at the moment has a booster or spacecraft capable of going beyond LEO so bringing up that comment about SpaceX only is unfair.