A HotFire for Falcon 9

8705 says to test like you fly. I see that ISS is coming over about the time of this firing test. Are they trying to fire during the 5 min. window? Did the fueling test and shut off come at the right time to get to ISS?

I hope it works!

Keep up the good work SpaceX!

I see no mention of the results of the tanking test. How did that go?

Editor's note: read my post again. The test was delayed until tomorrow.

Hotfire was delayed, but they had a tanking test scheduled as well.

That went perfectly, apart from some liberation of the first stage's corking (used for re-entry of the recoverable stage).

Nah, crash test dummies don't pay the bills. They are sending cargo! It's been a looong time since anyone did a hold down test at the Cape. Go SpaceX! Good luck!

Your outlandish hatred for SpaceX is only surpassed by your ignorance.

Humans will not be flying on Dragon anytime soon. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows this is test flight one of the Falcon 9 rocket with a test article... only Falcon doesn't cost as much and isn't an "X".

Is it a death trap because the unholy messiah that is NASA did not develop Falcon 9 and Dragon? Is it because NASA STILL hasn't officially published yet? I mean, NASA sets HARD safety standards and only modifies them when their rockets they designed in-house cannot meat those standards ie Ares I.

The truth of the matter is commercial space is coming. You can either be part of commercial space and the solution or part of the "old guard" and problem. If you are part of the problem you can kick, scream, and shout... from the sidelines as you and your ideology are relegated to the annals of "histwa".

These new companies are hiring NASA engineers and NASA astronauts. These companies are learning what NASA learned in the late 50s and 60s at an accelerated pace. They are able to do things they could only DREAM about at NASA because of senior management ideology and bureaucracy.

NASA will always hold a place in history for trailblazing technology and leadership in space exploration and aeronautics. However, recent history shows us that NASA cannot do very little right at the moment. NASA cannot project its message to the public. As of late, they cannot inspire the American people.

I long for the day when NASA gets back to something close to what it had. I just do not thing it will ever happen. The government cannot run "Cash for Clunkers", a program that spanned ONE year. How can we expect our government, EITHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, to manage a multi-year, 100 billion dollar program? You can't.

NASA falls prey to rogue senators and congress critters. Some centers do really well, others are financial black holes.

Commercial Space doesn't have the same constraints imposed by politicians. Commercial Space doesn't have to succumb to the fictitious whims of politicians (IE Global Warming). They can just execute and not have to drop billions in budget line items for political crap no one really cares about.

In conclusion, I would fly Dragon. Sign me up. I bet there are a lot of people who would strap on a Dragon once SpaceX works out the kinks in F9 and Crewed Dragon.

VR
RS327

Agreed losing 25% of the cork isn't a huge deal. But not anticipating that loading 75,000 gallons of fuel and cryo's might cause some issues if the contraction joints aren't right does ask the question. If they can't get that right....... I pray for great success with SpaceX as well as the rest of "Commercial Space" Commercial Space is not doing things that NASA could only dream of. That is a ridiculous statement. Also they do have the some constraints imposed by politicians. Do you honestly think that SpaceX or and other Commercial Provider could be where they are without government funding as well as existing NASA technology (fastrac engines, etc..)? As far as safety......we will just have to wait and see. After all this will be the first test flight of the F9. Its a little early to be talking about flying in a Dragon capsule. IMHO Commercial Space will play a very important role in the future of LEO. I just don't think that it will be on the timeline that most fanboys are laying out. Godspeed SpaceX!

It's always nice to know you're keeping an open mind. It'll be nice to see an actual future launch vehicle fly rather than a mocked up publicity stunt.

Someone remind me again... SpaceX has ddeveloped Falcon 1 and 9 for less than $500M haven't they? That includes the engines, avionics, structures, software and ground support. How much has NASA spent on the mythical CxP so far? Hmmmmmm....

Ignore "akear". He's proven time and time again that he's nothing but a troll. You have to give him credit, though, he sure tries.

In conclusion, I would fly Dragon. Sign me up. (RocketScientist327 in reply to comment from akear March 8, 2010 11:04 PM)
And there you have it, the Newspace crew rating requirement: if someone is willing to volunteer...

Since human rating is generally a movable feast of requlations and no system can be 100% safe, I would suggest a number of flawless launches. Thirteen springs to mind.

As an afterthought, a pad abort and LAS would be nice.

Best of luck for the test to Elon and the Austringers!
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-aus1.htm

"not anticipating that loading 75,000 gallons of fuel and cryo's might cause some issues if the contraction joints aren't right does ask the question"

This has happened to legacy rockets in the past. I think Delta had problems a few years ago.

All this talk of cork, even if all the cork comes off it will not cause loss of vehicle.

There have been plenty of cork issues at the cape with traditional space co's.

If we bring up insulation falling off how can we forget Columbia?

Shuttle demonstrated reliability is no better than
1:65 This would be a death trap by any normal transportation standard.

Yes thats the point. This is a well known problem and still Space X either didn' t address it(because they don't think it's important) or didn't have the knowledge that others do to successfully deal with it. What other safety, operational, or technical knowledge that the rest of the HSF knows and applies does Space X not posess.

Folks:

Let's not forget that the Shuttle had no test flights at all. Not one. Not the first time it flew and not after Challenger and Columbia.

Let's also not forget that the shuttle doesn't have a "launch escape system". It was expected that the orbiter could ditch the rest of the stack if they noticed trouble on time and then land. This was never tested. Too dangerous.

Let's talk death trap here. Proven death trap.

Any launch escape system they put on Falcon/Dragon system will be safer then the Shuttle. It'll be testable too.

Much as I've loved what the Shuttle can do over the past quarter century I've had no illusions about the serious compromises NASA made to safety.

To keep with the thread here, Spacex has shown a lot of flexibility in their system design. Being able to raise and lower their rocket at will, pre-test their first and second stages to full flight length firings and then launch those same stages into space, to design the Falcon 9 to launch with a Dragon capsule or with a satellite under a fairing and yes, do so for the cost of a single Shuttle mission.

The cork issue on the Falcon first stage is another area where Spacex is showing flexibility. They applied the cork at the launch site and even though they did their calculations they were just a little bit off. They'll fix that the same way they've fixed other problems, fast, with a minimum of fuss and without a bunch of managers and politicians breathing down their necks. Remember, they plan to recover that first stage in the hope they can reuse all or part of it. They plan to recover their seconds stages as well some time in the future which would make the Falcon a truly reusable space launch system.

"Put your old ladies back into bed
Put your old men into their graves
Cover their ears so they can't hear us sing
Cover their eyes so they can't see us play
Get out of the way
Let the people play
We're gonna get down on you
Come alive all over you
Dancin' down into your town"

(Mau Mau (Amerikon) from the album "Blows Against The Empire" by Paul Kantner)

tinker

Anhybody who would agree to ride in Dragon right now clearly doesn't understand about managing risk or what risk is reasonably acceptable. As a former test pilot I can tell you we went through a very strict, detailed process of incremental tests and evaluation before deciding that first flight of vehicle entailed an acceptable amount of risk. I am sure Space X has a similar plan in place and whoever does do the first flight will hopefully have the experience to be able to properly assess the maturity of the vehicle and the associated risk for the first flight.

ex_navy

Tell me where the "incremental tests and evaluation before deciding that first flight of vehicle" was in the Shuttle program.

tinker

The cork is really a non-issue. It has no safety of flight impact and is likely a simple matter of adhesive not holding up as it should. It's certainly not a sign that they don't know what they're doing. Anyone trying to throw stones over this should take a long hard look at the Shuttle program.

I forgot to comment on AeroMac's post about SpaceX, government funding and NASA technology. Do I honestly think that SpaceX would be where they are without government funding? I certainly do. Musk has put his money where his mouth is with SpaceX. I won't discount that the Falcon 9 timeline might have been slower without COTS funding but SpaceX was already developing the vehicle before that and would have done so regardless of whether they received COTS contracts or not. With regard to "fastrac engines with existing NASA technology", that's just bunk. The Merlin and Kestrel engines do use pintle injector technology (originally developed by Grumman for the LEM) but they're both all-new engines. Accusing them of standing on NASA's back is like accusing every jet engine maker of simply taking Frank Whittle's idea rather than being original.

tinker "Tell me where the "incremental tests and evaluation before deciding that first flight of vehicle" was in the Shuttle program."

How about all the Enterprise glide tests, engine tests, static tests of engines and srbs, wind tunnel, arcjet facility...the list goes on and on.

Folks:

Looks like a successful test fire for the Falcon 9!

tinker

Latest news that I have heard is that the computers aborted the hotfire during the Merlin start-up sequence. There was a brief flash of flame as the gas generators discharged before shutting down but the engines themselves did not light.

I have no doubt that Ares-I huggers and SpaceX bashers will draw all sorts of completely unjustified conclusions from this. However, just consider this: The computers detected an anomaly in the engines and shut them down in a way that has left the vehicle in a good condition for another attempt. The abort system worked. In a live launch attempt, it would have been a 100% crew survival scenario. This is greatly preferable to the alternative, especially if there was a potentially explosive instability building up.

I have no doubt that, once they have recycled the range and vehicle, they will try again. I assume that this will be in two days as this is what I understand is the minimum time between operations on the Eastern Range.

Folks:

Looks like I was premature. The engines only fire for a short time.

kelvin:

Yes, there was incremental testing for the landing phase with Enterprise and lots of engine testing too. But when they actually flew the first time they risked two lives with an untested re-entry phase. Even the Russians didn't take that kind of chance with Buran.

tinker

"I forgot to comment on AeroMac's post about SpaceX, government funding and NASA technology. Do I honestly think that SpaceX would be where they are without government funding? I certainly do."

Does your statement also refer to the numerical programs that NASA and DoD have developed and verified? This includes CFD, FEA, trajectories, etc. If it wasn't for these codes and the enormous amount of time DoD and NASA has put into verifying these codes, SpaceX would not be where they are. For example, wind tunnel testing is very expensive and often the schedules do not go according to ones wishes. Which adds even more cost since resources may be sitting idle awaiting results. This is one of the reasons Orbital did not do any wind tunnel testing for the standard Pegasus. The aerodynamics were all numerical. (The WT tests came after) And this is true of other types of tests too. And, another example is PICA. I don't see why SpaceX would not use technology that NASA or DoD has developed or not leveraged research they have done. They would be idiots not to. And anyone who thinks they have not, or could even get where they want to without it, can not be in the rocket business. This body of preexisting work is exactly why Musk can afford to do this.

I do recall John Young saying, at the 25th Anniversary of Shuttle, a couple years ago, that knowing, once STS-1 left the ground, how much they did not know about the dynamics associated with the ignition overpressure, which moved the body flap and aerodynamic controls way out of position, he would not have done that first launch until they looked into this and corrected the issue.

"I have no doubt that, once they have recycled the range and vehicle, they will try again. I assume that this will be in two days as this is what I understand is the minimum time between operations on the Eastern Range."

Why are you making this assumption? You may be right, and probably are. But, this is assuming the abort system "worked." However, a false anomaly may have been detected or a software/hardware error may have occurred in the abort system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to a successful SpaceX launch. However, everyone knows that to make assumptions about schedules is asking for trouble.

I think Kevin partially answered your question and since I wasn't personally involved in the shuttle development program I can't speak to the specifics. But I think you are missing my point which is not that Space X doesn't have reasonable approach to their first manned flight ( I don't know for sure but I have confidence in the engineers and Mr. Bowersox that they will take a reasoned approach to their first flight) but it is too early in their program for any knowledgable person exercising reasonable judgement to say they would fly on Dragon.

I'm an optimist. Sue me. :P

I guess I don't want to face up to the possibility that the thing may have shaken loose a bushel of turbine blades and the engines will need to be changed out.

"Trolling is a art form that I take very seriously. Actually, it is quite a creative process."

It's good to see akear being honest about something for once.

The biggest constraint that commercial space sheds is national pride. If the Falcon 9 turns out to be a bad rocket, it will die a swift death. The pride of the nation does not depend on it.

The second constraint commercial space sheds is job security. If the VPE of SpaceX comes to Elon Musk and tells him he can meet the same goals with half the crew and 25% the budget, he'll get a fat bonus and a promotion. If NASA's administrator comes up with the same kind of plan and presents it to the house committee on science and technology, his butt will hit the pavement before he can say "Houston I've got a problem" - witness the current reaction to commercialization.

So there - the engineers may be no better or no worse, but if good engineers could make the ill-conceived shuttle fly, imagine what they can do if given a free reign.

John Young's first flight of the STS is probably in a tie with Neil's landing of the "Eagle" for the riskiest thing ever done in a space craft.

Please don't underestimate the pride of a CEO or the effort a marketing team will go through to minimize design changes. This is a general comment and is not directed at anyone or company in particular.

Apollo 8 also was pretty darn risky, as these things go.

touché Les!

tinker

Les,
You gave me an idea for a suggestion of an article.

Someone (and I am only qualified to make comments after the article has been publish, the coward that I am, grin) should list the top 10 riskiest events in manned space flight. STS-1 and the Eagle do need to be on that list at maybe 1 and 2. Yuri’s and Alan Shepard might be on it. The crew that salvaged Skylab might be candidates. Of course Apollo 13 should be considered, but then again they did not know that the flight was going to be infamous. The X flight pilots say X-15 pilot Neil Armstrong. OK the X flight were not space flights, but the Spaceship 1 was if only sub-orbital. Do we include the Chinese? Are they taking less/more/same risks? Any other ideas for the list?

"Anhybody who would agree to ride in Dragon right now clearly doesn't understand about managing risk or what risk is reasonably acceptable."

Right now? Er I said 13 flawless flights! Surely some mistake here.

"As a former test pilot I can tell you we went through a very strict, detailed process of incremental tests and evaluation before deciding that first flight of vehicle entailed an acceptable amount of risk."

Kudos! But surely there is only so much testing one can do on the ground before you HAVE to take to the air. Only to find that all the modelling doesn't account for say an over pressure wave...

As for the first flight. What are the odds that their Astronaut Corps will be beating a path to Elon's door well BEFORE the fourteenth flawless flight? Unless NASA insists on an unnecessary level of Wrong Stuff.

"but it is too early in their program for any knowledgable person exercising reasonable judgement to say they would fly on Dragon."

Despite the creeping caveats any "knowledgable person exercising reasonable judgement" would refuse to get in the Shuttle. Or even a Soyuz! It takes someone with moxie, derring do, a stiff upper lip,... and dare I say it: The Right Stuff!
(As an aside: perhaps that is why your GOP are so fond of a socialist space program and, as a corollary, so dead set against a commercial equivalent. If only Tom Wolfe had called it: "The Left Stuff" then perhaps Chairman Obama and his Politburo wouldn't be destroying America's pre-eminence in Space :)

And Les (March 9, 2010 5:14 PM) Yuri Gagarin? For goodness sakes Les it's his birthday today! How quickly they forget... He would have been 76.

That data is available to all U.S. A&D companies. Lockheed Martin. Boeing, Orbital, ATK, etc. all draw on that previous work. There are no favorites so it's pointless to try and call out SpaceX for using it.

I think some of you misunderstand our concerns. I'm sure with enough time, effort and money the Falcon 9 can be made to work well as a cargo carrier, and eventually be man rated to take people to LEO. I just don't believe they can feed the multitudes they claim with the basket of loaves and fishes they have. I have yet to see any business model that makes this operation profitable in the face of all the potential adversity that could happen. All I see is a transfer of money from one set of vendors to another. And all the money will be from one customer, the government, and maybe a few billionaires. All it would take this for one of those billionaires to go up like a Roman candle, and have an irritable relative. A good friend of mine is a lawyer, and he told me you can litigate a rainy day. He said that with the biggest Cheshire grin you've ever seen. You think rocket science costs money, wait till your business's lawyers start laying on billable hours. You'll find out about cost! The potential liability risk alone would make your eyes cross. Governments to some extent have Sovereign immunity, and can absorb the enormous risk and loss; and move on if it is in the national interest. I'm a capitalist and I live in an entrepreneurial society, but not everything can be solved by the marketplace. I believe space exploration, at this stage in its development, is one of those things. For what you guys want, the government would have to cover all the development cost beyond the best case scenario, supply all the work at a guaranteed margin, and make the companies bulletproof for any indemnity issues.
If I had the political power, and was ambivalent towards human space exploration, I would do largely what has been done. I would give a very small initial increase in funding, while back loading most the real increases to the out years. I’d cancel (at great cost I might add)any program that was making substantive steps towards real exploration, while taking the nation's flag & prestige off the project. So, that downstream it would just be a funding issue, and could be easily lined out of the budget. I know many of you have seen that done. I would fund pilot research and development projects for new technologies that were so far over the event horizon that they may or may not have ever come to pass (the please sleep with me now, and I'll marry you later approach). That is a far cry from what was done during the 60's when significant R&D was being accomplished for follow on technology while real exploration and science was being conducted. Finally, I would let what’s left of a the manned program limp along to and from the ISS until an opportune time presented itself for the coup de grace.
I love launches. I saw most of the Gemini/Titan’s, and thanks to my dad military connections, all of the Saturn V launches. We even went to Apollo IV's launch. We were WAY TO CLOSE!!! Those launches really did a number on my head, and made me forever a space cadet. And I'm going to love the launch of Falcon 9. I sincerely hope it goes well, but I believe this whole process is the "dead canary in the coal mine" for human space exploration, and is a retreat of sorts for this country. I know one thing, whether Democrat or Republican, when politicians really want to do something they always find a money. Whether we like this current plan or not, we're paying the price for completely turning our government over to lawyers and accounts. With a budget as large as ours, a through and multifaceted exploration of intersolar space is certainly worth $26 billion a year. Does anyone who comes to this website really think the United States of America couldn't use a 188 metric ton to LEO and 71 metric tons to Cis Lunar spacevehicle? What a waste.

"Do I honestly think that SpaceX would be where they are without government funding? I certainly do. ... I won't discount that the Falcon 9 timeline might have been slower without COTS funding but SpaceX was already developing the vehicle before that"

Yeah, using DARPA and AF money. You really are pretty amusing, I have to say.

"like accusing every jet engine maker of simply taking Frank Whittle's idea rather than being original."

Err, every jet turbine maker is standing on Frank Whittle's shoulders. (As they would be the first to admit - ever read Hooker's book?)

I have said it before, I wish Space X all the luck in the world with such a ambitious launch manifest. I still think Commercial space flight isn't a great investment but again I wish them no ill will. Lets see if they can make it profitable, that's the real trick.That is the plan for all commercial business ventures right? To make a profit?

Damn The Gravity

DARPA and AF money? Are you being serious? SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 solely with private funds. DARPA awarded SpaceX $8M in 2004 to demonstrate reduced processing time for the Falcon 1 as part of the rapid response program. SpaceX has received no funding from the U.S. Air Force. The only public money that SpaceX has received has been from NASA's milestone based COTS-D program.

You completely missed my point. Of course every jet engine maker is standing on Whittle's shoulders and there is nothing wrong with that. Just as there is nothing wrong (or unfair) about SpaceX (and every other A&D company) doing the same with their predecessors work.

LOL, of course I'm saying SpaceX is using the technology developed by NASA and DoD. Remember, it was you who was going against AeroMac's statement that SpaceX and other commercial providers could not be where they are without existing NASA technology. And, I do feel it is necessary to give credit to NASA and DoD for helping to provide the foundation and tools for what SpaceX and others are doing. Furthermore, I personally know for a fact that SpaceX and others are thankful for the existence of NASA and DoD technology and do give NASA credit. And I am thankful too. And giving credit to NASA and DoD does not in any way take away from what SpaceX and others have done and are doing.

You wrote that it is "pointless" to say that SpaceX is using this body of work. Are you implying that it is "pointless" to give NASA and DoD credit? And I hope you answer carefully, otherwise you are probably going to piss off a few people.

Another update: SpaceX have confirmed that the abort took place at T-2 seconds in the countdown during the helium spin-up of the turbines. They hope to try again in 3-4 days.

Spacex Rocket Test Flubs
Flames Erupt At Launch Pad When Computers Cut Off Engine

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. --
It was supposed to be the start of a new era in space travel, but a rocket test Tuesday was anything but impressive.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22794602/detail.html

"SpaceX has received no funding from the U.S. Air Force."

Gee, it's odd that you would claim that, because here is a press release from SpaceX's own site, entitled "SpaceX awarded $100 million dollar contract by U.S. Air Force for Falcon I".

Also, if you look at SpaceX's own page about the second demo flight, from 2006, it specifically calls out "sponsored by ... the US Air Force (USAF)".

You know, you might have taken a minute or two to research your claims before you spout off here (as I often try to do, as in this case), instead of demonstrating conclusively that you are confused.

Folks:

As a nation you folks sure have a way of shooting yourself in the foot. Nice way to dis an American company trying to lead the way into the future. If you want to pass the torch to some other nation, you're doing a bang up job. I don't blame Elon Musk for giving his middle finger to the press.

tinker

If this were an Orion\Ares failure we would have 5-6 articles about it here already...

Anyways, good luck to SpaceX on the future firings and launch!

I am not trying to play down the accomplishments of SpaceX. Im just stating that the Merlin engine based heavily on the Fastrac. Not built from "scratch" like many suggest. In fact I believe the turbomachinery is from the same vendor as the turbomachinery for the Fastrac. I commend the SpaceX team for taking an exsiting engine design and moving forward with it. It would only make sense.

Just serves to show...
Commercial will have to deal with setbacks, failures, busted budgets, delays, scrambling for funding, mid path changes, congressional scrutiny, etc etc etc.

Sound familiar?

Or is anyone arguing it would be cheaper, faster, better?

Sorry Martin and AeroMac. When I made the original comment I completely missed that AeroMac said "SpaceX or and other Commercial Provider". I focused in on "SpaceX" and missed the rest. My apologies! It sounds like all three of us are actually on the same page in that regard.

Noel, for someone accusing others of not doing research you might want to try some yourself. The Air Force $100M to SpaceX is a contract for launch services, not funding for development.

I FOR ONE!!!!

Look, I'm not stupid.. flying on the current vehicle that sits on the pad is not wise.. but then again.. that's not what it's for!! Be realistic.. But I can tell you one thing.. Once Elon and Co have finished their work, and certified it as being ready to carry human cargo (mind you it will be after several successful cargo flights to the ISS) Bet money!!! If I was given the chance to go.. I'd be there in a second, and the only thing I'd take other than a change of clothes, would be my cameras!!!

L8

The Gray Wizard
(aka: Matthew Romero)

^ I'm real with my opinions.. not afraid to say who I am.. How about you!!!

I have been keeping up with SPACEX news from the start and a flaw is becoming apparent. From their first major failure where the fittings were made of the wrong material resulting in a flight failure. From the flight failure when the first stage hit the second stage due to an inaccurate timer estimate. From the engine burn test failure at the pad due to an untested valve.

The flaw is in testing. There is a cost associated with performing testing. There is a cost associated with launch failures. Commercial companies are trying their best to trim cost and limiting testing is showing up in their results.

I do not know how they are going to do it, but they need to expand their testing long before it gets to the pad. They need to perform repeated unit testing on all hardware components. They need to perform repeated testing on all software components. They need to perform repeated integrated testing on all systems. Data logging should be saved and gone over by a separate independent group to validate the testing. Document all testing anomalies and have multiple teams validate the solutions. There should never be a single item (from the smallest sensor to the largest component) that has not been completely vetted. All these test should be completed and validated before it gets to the pad. Then final integration test should occur.

I know there is time and cost associated with complete testing. SPACEX is schedule motivated to produce income. This is a direct conflict with being safety motivated. This is why NASA costs are always going to be much higher than commercial. Testing needs to be at least 90% and execution needs to be 10%.

The fittings that failed should have failed in testing. The exact time for engine burnout and residual thrust should have been determined in static testing so the first stage hitting the second would not have happened. The valve should have been tested repeatedly and its failure rate documented.

Someone will eventually pay the cost, for minimal testing, in life and treasure. Only then will Congress and NASA mandate testing guidelines for commercial rocket companies.

cav*a*lier [Low Latin caballarius: horseman] adj. showing a lack of proper concern

Congress and the American people would be well-served by a demonstration of this necessity to fully performance test, providing that no one is put at risk. Some people have started to tune out the 50-year-olds who have observed this discipline from the cradle, calling them risk-averse or wasteful. When a younger engineer goes to Washington and announces, "I cut corners, and you saw the results on the Nightly News," we'll start listening again.

I don't disagree and obviously SpaceX is showing some inexperience. But, I do know that SpaceX has consulted with experts in the field. It's not like they are doing everything in house and alone. And, I hope people don't think new military systems are any different. And NASA has shown inexperience too. So, are they worse than others? No.

Even then things go wrong. All it needs is a moment of inattention at any stage of component manufacture from raw material to final inspection sign-off and its CATO time for an LV. What bothers me about SpaceX - and they now have enough experience to KNOW - is the silly little mistakes that should have been picked up beforehand. This one wasn't too serious, but a similar mistake missed during actual flight conditions...I really do think that SPACE X output is going to be as expensive in reality as that of their bigger rivals. Or they're going out of business when the government money dries up - Garver notwithstanding. It's noticeable on their website that the Commercial launch manifest has already dried up.

@akear
It's better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I haven't seen you post a single intelligent comment on a single subject on this forum with any factual information or indication that you have any experience in the subject matter which you so frequently blabber about. SpaceX will repeat this test within a week and launch within a month. They may fail, but at least they are building, testing, and flying rockets. You think only the government is competent enough to send humans into space for billions of dollars per year? I am positive that given $9 billion over 5 years like was given to CxP, SpaceX, Lockheed and Boeing could have all 3 of their vehicles in the final test flight phase for accessing LEO with crew. CxP, on the other hand, is only now conducting a PDR. That's a Preliminary Design Review which represents a 30% level of design completion. That program is a decade away from a test flight with a full-up operational vehicle, regardless of what their phony schedule claims.

Fortunately, no one listens to people like you and we will proceed to revolutionize space flight as it should have been done after Apollo. Of course, Congress may derail our efforts and foist that miserable excuse of a program on us to get voted back into office. The only saving grace is that people like Elon Musk will succeed, eventually, in spite of NASA and your children will someday fly in space. If left to NASA and the opinion of people like you, citizens would not fly in space on a regular basis until the 22nd century.

Les,
I agree with you regarding the shell game that is being played by SpaceX to capture a market from existing providers. There is no magic business case that will make Space X profitable without encroaching on cargo (previously Boeing/NASA/USA/Space Shuttle) to the station, and commercial communication and imaging satellite birds. There are not enough billionaires in the world to defray the cost of developing a human delivery infrastructure, especially if one includes a commercial destination in the cost of the business. If you don't believe me, read the ever entertaining predictions of the development of the orbital space tourist market.

I also agree that the eventual role for NASA is very, very small in Human Space Flight. Once the program is killed, the talent will drain from the tank and we will be left with sandbox technologists. And then, their budget can be cut, because after all, we aren't giving up any destinations by cutting.

So NASA ends up with only Space Station Operations, Outstanding science and robotic exploration missions, and astronauts who fly on vehicles NASA knows little about. Those vehicles will either be Russian, where the number of successful launches provides some comfort to make up for the lack of insight; or on Falcon, where Marketing bluster tries to provide similar comfort. Any guess where NASA will turn for safe crew transport? Anyone remember the Mulville criteria for safe science mission launch ... 13 in a row?

So, NASA gets smaller. JSC, KSC, and MSFC get smaller. The cold war is finally over, and we can get on with the business of outsourcing, and thinking up the next big thing. As goes Pittsburgh Steel, Detroit Auto, so goes Houston Spaceflight. Alas.

Folks:

The Russians have managed to build and fly Soyuz rockets and capsules even when their workforce was under dire pressure like low wages, collapsing governments and crippled supply lines. Pretty good track record considering.

Any of you out there saying Americans can't do better? As in build a Soyuz like rocket on a relative shoestring budget (compared to NASA) while maintaining high standards of manufacture and safety?

When did America lose it's confidence in itself?

When did it lose it's will to persevere in times of adversity?

When did it lose it's [DELETED]

Is it going to take a native South African to show you how to be Americans again?

While your squabbling, the world is moving on...

tinker

Look for the spaceshipX engineers to be gradually merged into the Ares/Constellation team.

Yep, Just what I have in mind.
The CxP workforce will be selling flip flops at Ron Jons with SpaceX logos. Then NASA will turn KSC into a wildlife federal park and merge it with merit island.

Then Kodiac Alaska will be launching SpaceX rockets with scientific experiments from the USA as part of the western range operation managed from New Mexico.

Tinker, your comment "Is it going to take a native South African to show you how to be Americans again" disgusts me. What, immigrants are not Americans?

Martin:

Yes, America is a country of immigrants where people comes to fulfill there dreams. That's why Elon Musk came there in the first place.

How many of your lawmakers are first generation immigrants? They are the people who are giving Musk trouble, calling his company outright names and demeaning his achievements.

It seems to me that he is a fine example of everything that once made America great. Admittedly, he had a big head start over most immigrants to America but look what he did with it in such a short time. He certainly didn't do it single handed. That's American ingenuity, know-how and sweat that's building his rockets (not to mention his cars).

Your lawmakers and other Spacex detractors seem to have lost sight of the American Dream even when it's staring them in the face.

tinker

Folks:

Just a heads up. Looks like Spacex will try a hot fire test again today (Sat. March 13) at 12:30 P.M. (Eastern time). Hopefully Spaceflight Now will have live video like they did last time.

Just click on the "Falcon 9 Engine Test Update" link at the top of the page.

tinker

Folks:

YES! Live video on Spaceflight Now!

No audio feed though. The thing to watch for is when the liquid oxygen stops venting from the side of the rocket. That means they are pressurizing the tanks for the hot fire. Ignition happens a few seconds later.

Do you say godspeed for a hold down test?

tinker

It Woiked! Interesting they've chosen 12th April for the Inaugaral Dragon flight: 49th Anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's 1-orbit flight: world's first HSF. A brave volunteer perhaps?! Musk himself;putting his butt where his mouth is? Nah!

Well... They seem to have got something this time and I'm willing to be they had full ignition. As well as the initial smoke plume, I also saw a low, horizontal plume indicative (IMHO) of the sustained firing of the engines into the flame trench.

No doubt SpaceX will tell us something before the end of today. I consider the fact that the LV didn't just blow up to be a positive development.

Folks (12:38 P.M.):

That looked better!

I counted 5 seconds that the engines lit. If it went that long my guess (this time) is that things went better for Spacex.

Spacex is claiming that their first launch opportunity is... April 12.

Hmmmm. I guess the game of politics can be played both ways.

tinker

Why the secrecy ?

@tinker

"an expression of one's good wishes for a person's success and safety"
[from God spede may God prosper (you)]
So "godspeed Elon and the Austringers" would be right but "god spede Falcon 9" wouldn't.

Meanwhile the silence from the detractors is deafening... onwards to the 12th!

Why the secrecy and blocked camera views ?

1810 GMT (1:10 p.m. EST)
This will conclude our live stream of today's test. Unfortunately, suitable camera angles were blocked from the public's view during this critical milestone for the Falcon 9 rocket.

What was the point of blocking the public view?

To perhaps avoid anyone seeing another failure or fire who knows? That doesn't seem very " open" to me :|

Damn The Gravity!

Great on F9 ignition!

Meanwhile, it seems He2 isol valve problems are in season. This time, NASA has the problem with Discovery (but a worse variant):

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts131/100313omspod/

Though this one is a hardware failure on the S/C-side, and not a software error on the groundside.

pity they can't pick up more before they take the birds to the pad, but STS is a complex system.

The astronauts I've spoke with and heard from are less than impressed with Soyuz... ...like cramming 3 fully suited astrounauts into the back seat of a Volkswagen. We already do better and need to continue Orion and Constellation!

Folks:

From spaceflightnow.com:

2029 GMT (3:29 p.m. EST)
SpaceX released the following statement this afternoon:

"Today, SpaceX successfully completed a test firing of the inaugural Falcon 9 launch vehicle at Space Launch Complex 40 located at Cape Canaveral. Following a nominal terminal countdown, the launch sequencer commanded ignition of all 9 Merlin first stage engines for a period of 3.5 seconds.

"Just prior to engine ignition, the pad water deluge system was activated providing acoustic suppression to keep vibration levels within acceptable limits. The test validated the launch pad propellant and pneumatic systems as well as the ground and flight control software that controls pad and launch vehicle configurations. The completion of a successful static fire is the latest milestone on the path to first flight of the Falcon 9 which will carry a Dragon spacecraft qualification unit to orbit."

Great news. Now lets go fly.

tinker

Here's a video clip, not the greatest quality, of the firing for those who blinked or otherwise missed it. Hopefully SpaceX will release video clips later today or tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWrZmPaArvw

Personally, I think it's great the the test fire finally took place and sets them up for launch in the next few weeks or so. Even if you hate the fact that NASA wants to cancel Constellation, this is still good news. ESPECIALLY in light of the current circumstances. I hear so many people around here sounding like they want SpaceX to fail (as a sort of way to get back at Bolden, Garver and Obama). I don't understand that. It's not SpaceX's fault NASA is in disarray or the President is making the decisions he's making. In fact, if Constellation is cancelled, the success of SpaceX will be even more important, especially here on the Space Coast. So I wish them nothing but the best. I also wish they'd provide better (read: ANY) media access to their activities, but I understand why they don't do that yet.

I'd say Musk is learning to keep his mouth shut! About time. Now lets see if he can stop raising prices too!

Funny isn't it, how all the attention is on Space X when there's another company moving smoothly forward in the COTS program - and OSC started much later in the program. Nothing like good media control is there?!

Krispace... Maybe because they just did a test firing? They're earning their paychecks right now.

The problem with enforcing such tight control on media access is that in an attempt to control the message, you end up hurting both the supportive as well as more negative messengers. There are a lot of us who really want to tell the story to the public and give good press to SpaceX, but we're given almost nothing to work with except for a few photos and video clips here and there. What we're left with is what we can see from a distance and having to rely on guessing, speculation and hearsay just to meet our publication deadlines. It's impossible to do a real news story on live events like today. For example, our ALL-NEWS station here on the SPACE COAST had NOTHING today about the test. This is the station that has/does devote 15 minutes or more to commercial expendable launches. We want to give good press, but when the message is so tightly controlled... for WHATEVER reason... it makes it impossible. There are world-class "famous" reporters whose names we all are familiar with who still have no idea how to get accredited for the launch or who to contact. Anytime they/we try to reach the PA at SpaceX, we hear nothing back. Emails aren't answered, phone calls go straight to voicemail and also aren't answered. What the heck? How are WE supposed to do our job, which is covering them doing their job... on a U.S. GOVERNMENT RANGE? It's been frustrating, to say the least. SpaceX may be doing a lot of things better than NASA, but public relations, as yet, sure isn't one of them. I will, however, still write up a positive story on today's well-earned success. I am, after all, a supporter too.

Editor's note: It is somewhat difficult for me to take your claims seriously when you seem to post everything anonymously.

Wow. Has it been six months already?

SpaceflightNow reports
"The company has released detailed updates on the cause of Tuesday's aborted engine test and other progress, but SpaceX was unable to announce when it would make static fire attempts. Officials did not give reports on the status of the Falcon 9 countdown, despite multiple requests for information."

Also, they have not published much regarding any test schedules, for instance are they performing any parachute drops before the Dragon's first flight? Seems they aren't very open.

Folks:

During this first flight of the Falcon 9 the main task is to test the first and second stage of the rocket. The Dragon capsule is the one they used for engineering test on the ground. Since those tests are finished they chose to dispose of it by giving it one last test as a aerodynamic mock up. It will stay attached to the second stage once it reaches orbit.

The Dragon capsule is a completely self contained spacecraft. All the reaction control thrusters, fuel tanks are other major systems are on the Dragon. The "trunk" behind the Dragon capsule is actually the inter-stage between the second stage and the capsule. It will contain a minimal amount of support hardware, mainly the solar panels for on orbit power and radiators to dissipate heat.

Spacex fully intends to reuse the Dragon capsule so it makes sense to design it this way. They also intend to carry unpressurized cargo in the trunk much like Japans HTV. Keeping the inter-stage on the dragon also exposed the upper dome of the second stage which leaves them the option in the future of developing a recovery system for that stage too. They would cover the dome with a heat shield and use flip out areobrakes to guide it in for re-entry.

So if they can achieve the recovery of the first stage, the second stage and the Dragon capsule then the only thing they would be throwing away is that inter-stage trunk just before re-entry.

Now that seems to me like a game changing strategy and a major advancement over existing launch vehicles and spacecraft.

I don't expect it to be easy.

tinker

"Also, they have not published much regarding any test schedules, for instance are they performing any parachute drops before the Dragon's first flight? Seems they aren't very open."

Seen much live coverage of Orbital's Taurus II/Cygnus development/test campaign on the other hand? Why single out SpaceX, I still feel we are treated with more updates and multimedia than from their CRS competitor.

Also, an honest question - did Boeing provide live minute-by-minute updates on the inaugural Delta IV's static test firing back in 2002?

"Let’s now hope the ship can actually fly."

No, let's hope you for a change stop spewing nonsense that's proven wrong the very next day, like now. You are clueless about CxP, about SpaceX, about what commercial crew means (i.e. SpaceX /= commercial crew) and certainly clueless about who put all the eggs in one basket. Thank Griffin for that latter predicament. Where were you all when shuttle retirement was announced 6 years ago? Shoving your heads into the sand? It's kind of too late to start crying about it now.

Akaer sounds like one of those morons who gets paid to go on forums and spread messages.

It sounds like the dumbest conspiracy theory ever, but people do it. It is done. In real life. I've seen it, usually trying to influence stock prices or push\bash a consumer product. I can't fathom it doing anything useful here, but that's just what he looks like.

Some of these space fans shouldn't feel so entitled.

Excellent stuff, SpaceX! Now, here's hoping for a nominal flight on April 12.

I don't think it's any surprise that SpaceX or Orbital aren't as open as you'd expect (but don't always get) from NASA. It's the nature of for profit companies. When Boeing, Northrop, or whatever other aircraft manufacturer is developing an aircraft, you often don't hear much. Companies have no responsibility for being open to anyone other than the stock holders. Burt Rutan wasn't very open before SpaceShipOne flew.

Also, I don't think the fact that Falcon is using a government facility for launch necessitates any openness from SpaceX. If a company rents a government wind tunnel, there is zero public announcement about any results.

"Why single out SpaceX"

Well for one thing, Garver has touted their claim of being able to have a manned capsule within 3 years or less of them starting. Another is SpaceX is looking to be launching their spacecraft before Orbital. Also, the SpaceX Dragon is a more challenging recoverable craft while the Orbital craft is not.

In short, Orbital has not, to my knowledge, been making as grandiose claims as SpaceX. As they say, talk is cheap.

Regarding the Delta IV, my recollection is that they did provide details of the tests as they progressed. One reason is that it was government funded. That's why the lack of information is so noticeable.

How is SpaceX recovering the second stage?

"I don't think the fact that Falcon is using a government facility for launch necessitates any openness from SpaceX"

I don't think SpaceX using a government facility requires any openness. However, they are competing for public contracts and are trying to provide crewed spaceflight capability for the US.

So the Constellation program, which is required to be open, gets raked over the coals for all of its problems. However, SpaceX does not provide any details of any difficult testing other than the final ones and so any measure of their progress or problems is not possible.

And then they want people to believe their predictions of their capabilities? Can't have it both ways. Why don't they play by the same rules as Constellation? Are they afraid of the adverse publicity that has hurt Constellation?

Keith you might want to append these links to your article and delete this comment.

http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=47
"Falcon 9 Flight 1 Static Firing, Wide"

http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=48
"Falcon 9 Flight 1 Static Firing, Close"

Spacenerd:

Spacex is not planning to recover the second stage on this first launch (or any time soon as far as I know). They have said they will try to recover the first stage on this mission but no details were given.

If you google the Kistler launch vehicle you will find that the design called for a recoverable second stage that also served as there payload carrier. It's my guess that Spacex will use a similar scheme on the Falcon 9. They don't have too many options there. It will have to re-enter nose first.

Recovery systems always have a weight penalty:

Parachutes (and apparently cork) for the first stage, parachutes, drag brakes and a heat shield for the second stage.

Balancing recovery costs versus payload capacity, there's the rub. It's expensive to maintain ships and crews for recovery operations. The more often they launch the more economical that will be.
To see whether the stages are completely or partially reusable, they'll just have to try it.

tinker

I looked at Orbital - it appears they are using what is essentially decommissioned ICBMs.

I hate to be blunt, (no I don't...), but the road to the future does not lie in cannibalizing old missile technology.

"Tried and True" is all good if you're ok with the status quo, but if you want to move forward, a fresh effort like Falcon is not a bad idea.

Ares is a shuttle booster. 5 segments, fine, but the one that just launched was 4. That's not progress, and it took as long to develop as Falcon 9 did. How does that compute?

SpaceX is delivering more than anyone else in the field in terms of how much they developed and brought to the pad.

Elon Musk is putting his wallet where his mouth is, and it shows.

My main question on how they plan on recovering the 2nd stage is it would be I would think near orbital velocity. So to recover it, you would need a re-entry system and a large one at that. That would also cause a weight penalty. Doesn't seem technically feasible.

"if you want to move forward, a fresh effort like Falcon is not a bad idea."

Falcon 9 is based on a O2/Kerosene technology so it sounds like it is also "Tried and True" and not that much of a fresh effort other than lower costs more.

I think you're correct. If I read a few things right the first stage is built in the same plant as the old (P-36)R-36/SS-18 Voevoda and the tank dims are pretty darn close. And the second stage is an old first stage from the old (MX)LGM-118/Peacekeeper. Wouldn't be a hoot if a stage built on the same tools as the old R-36 acted as a booster for it's counter in America's silo based arsenal? Man that would be another major irony of history you'd love to tell all the cold warriors in the 80's was going to happen 30 years later.

That launch pad is so simple if you showed me a picture of it 10 years ago I'd think its Russian/Soviet. Someone at space-x studied the orig Zenit booster system (Not the one offered by Sea Launch) built to launch Soviet recon birds in the post nuclear exchange fallout contaminated pad. Like Dragon it was prepared in a simple non clean environ, but unlike Dragon was automatically transported to the pad, raised, fueled and launched. The pad looked a lot like Dragon's. Now all we need is for an American company to finally offer a big heavy inefficient non-sophisticated rocket that's cheap(er) along Russian lines. We'll inch our way to the Russian way one system at a time.

While that is true for the Minotaur and partily true for the Taurus-XL that OSC are currently using, IIRC their new boosrters, Minotaur-IV/-V and Taurus-II are going to be clean-sheet, although they will use the same booster stages as some ICBMs.

I'll probably earn no thanks for this but, IMHO, for cargo launch, unless you absolutely have to, using off-the-shelf equipment is probably best. One of the reasons Falcon-9 is all-original is probably because they wanted it human-rated eventually and that would be harder using existing stuff which is used exclusively for cargo or weapons delivery.

True about the F9 not being revolutionary technology - but it is built "clean sheet" from the engines up to be a low-cost commercial man-rated launcher, and this counts for a lot.

If it works as advertised, it will be very competitive and will provide for cheaper launch.

I don't think there was a business case for developing a revolutionary launch vehicle (E.g. the legendary SSTO) so if anyone should have been developing the technology, it should have been NASA.

But once they have the technology down, the government should let the private market take over it and make the real commercial vehicle.

Regrettably, NASA chose to go the low-risk low-innovation way, resulting in Ares 1, which was late to the game, under-performing, and expensive.

Orbital is doing good work with the Taurus II but it's not an apples to apples comparison to the Falcon 9. Both vehicles use RP-1 first stage engines. However, unlike the new in-house designed Merlin engine used by SpaceX, the Taurus uses two 40+ year old refurbished Soviet N1 surplus NK-33 engines. There is a limited supply of the engines and I'm not sure what they're planning on doing when they run out.

In addition, the second stage uses a solid motor and is made by ATK. The pressured portion of their Cygnus cargo was developed (and will be manufactured) by Alenia in Italy. The first stage propellant tanks are make in Ukraine.

"Tell me where the "incremental tests and evaluation before deciding that first flight of vehicle" was in the Shuttle program.
tinker"

Actually, They tested everything on the component level extensively before sts-1. Green tested all the engines, Tested the boosters, even dropped a prototype orbiter from a plane. To suggest that they were cowboys and just built the thing then launched it is crazytalk. Granted there was a big just from the component tests to the actual test flight (sts-1)and those astronauts had to have some gonads.

Another thing to consider is that the shuttle was designed and built in the late 60's early 70s, it didn't have the capability to launch and return unmanned at that time, so unmanned test flights were out of the question. Also, it has solids, so a test such as the one space-x is doing was not possible.

The guys that designed shuttle were very people (some of them are still floating around huntsville) but even they will tell you that they'd do things a little differently had they had the technology that we have... They designed the thing using slide rules.

Space-x is having these problems because these are tests. no need to be overly critical

Mike, Aerojet purchased a license to produce the NK-33 rocket engines under the name AJ26-58 designation. They will be manufacturing the new engines here in the US. These rocket engines still have the highest thrust to weight ratio in the space launch industry.

BTW, per Emily Shanklin over at SpaceX, the material coming off of Falcon 9 halfway up was in fact ice.

Odd on Craig Ferguson Astronuat Mike Massimino mentioned nothing about commercial all he mentioned was Soyuz and didn't exactly seem to pleased with the idea about us depending on the Russians. I sent the link for the video to the editors at NASA watch because I thought maybe some of the people that blog her may have missed it. It seemed very coached on the astronaut's part like " don't criticize the fact we don't have a way to get into space and don't make us look bad". Here's the interview you make up your mind for yourself. To me the astronaut seemed very uncomfortable talking about HSF which to me seemed odd for someone who has been into space twice.

Here's the interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AU2nzy9Hx4

Just a thought OH bold print editor man..

This matters to people ;)

Damn the Gravity!

It always comes back to the shuttle.
No, only *you* always come back to the shuttle. Extending STS solves nothing and wastes valuable resources. The only STS extension that makes sense is flying out the current manifest in the fullness of time, vs. pressing to finish everything this year.

Folks:

http://www.ventureloop.com/ventureloop/startup_news_article.php?natId=1119&p=1

Spacex scores a satellite launch from Loral.

tinker

This is awful informatics, brittle and clear. I anticipate that Everything has been declared in analytical address so that clairvoyant could get best advice and apprentice abounding things. This is one of the best blogs I accept read.led flashlight